Fibre cost.

B. T. /Openreach are currently installing fibre in our area, can anyone give me a ballpark extra cost for fibre? For what we use the internet for fibre would be a 'nice to have'.

Thanks

Pete

Pete Gl wrote in post #18813409
B. T. /Openreach are currently installing fibre in our area, can anyone give me a ballpark extra cost for fibre? For what we use the internet for fibre would be a 'nice to have'.

Thanks

Pete

That depends on the ISP that you use and which of their packages you subscribe to.

In the States, you generally can go to the provider website, input zip code (Postal code I thin you call it) and then all the various packages available. The downside here is there can be taxes and fees that can add another 15% to 20%.

Why I'm asking here is, if I go to B. T. 's website, they ask if I'm a new or existing customer, so I enter existing, it just comes back telling me that' fibre is not yet available in your area'.

I understand that there are various packages, and a large part of it is even down to negotiation, I was just hoping any one who has made this upgrade could help in what I can roughly pay over my current 'copper' broadband.

Thanks again,

Pete

Fiber sounds good but for most folks not much use of its band width. Typical 1G connection here in US starts from $100 per month. Most ISPs here have data caps.

From an article released about a year ago...

BT ULTRAFAST 1 (up to 152Mbps)
PRICE: £54.99 per month

BT ULTRAFAST 2 (up to 314Mbps)
PRICE: £59.99 per month

Both of which I believe, include line rental

In my opinion, it's typically annoying of BT and no doubt other ISP's who make it as difficult and confusing as they can to find prices on their offerings.

Kev

Bandwidth isn't that big a deal as a marketing point. Most users, including photographers, don't need much bandwidth--30 or 40 Mbps is fully sufficient...if you can be sure to get it.

What matters more is the reliability of the ISP. I think we tend to pay for higher bandwidth in the hope of getting better reliability along with it. But in reality, ISPs are reliable or not reliable across the board of their offerings. A lousy ISP is just a lousy ISP, regardless how much money you give them.

For a long time, I've been a fan of Verizon's fiber system more because the way it's implemented her in the States provides a higher potential bandwidth during higher demand periods. And also because it's newer.

After the local Verizon network was bought by Frontier, service began to go downhill, first in customer service and then in system service. When we moved to a new house a few miles away, I spent a two full months trying to get my service moved and restarted, and Frontier simply lied to me over and over again--promising service dates and installers never even showed up. Eventually I said, "Screw this," called Spectrum, bought my own modem and router, and I was online again that same day. (I learned that Frontier outsources their fiber cable installation to different companies, so that the person on the phone can't actually determine when the cable will actually be laid anywhere--they just schedule an installation date "out there" in the hopes the cable will have been laid by then.)

And, frankly, Spectrum's copper system hasn't shown any problems.

In the US, it's a mess in that without "Net Neutrality," ISPs can charge you for potential bandwidth, then throttle your bandwidth in whatever way they find most profitable.

My bottom line: It's all about the ISP, not about the technology.

Many thanks for your replies Kev and RDKirk.

Pete

RDKirk wrote in post #18815756
Bandwidth isn't that big a deal as a marketing point. Most users, including photographers, don't need much bandwidth--30 or 40 Mbps is fully sufficient...if you can be sure to get it.

What matters more is the reliability of the ISP. I think we tend to pay for higher bandwidth in the hope of getting better reliability along with it. But in reality, ISPs are reliable or not reliable across the board of their offerings. A lousy ISP is just a lousy ISP, regardless how much money you give them.

For a long time, I've been a fan of Verizon's fiber system more because the way it's implemented her in the States provides a higher potential bandwidth during higher demand periods. And also because it's newer.

After the local Verizon network was bought by Frontier, service began to go downhill, first in customer service and then in system service. When we moved to a new house a few miles away, I spent a two full months trying to get my service moved and restarted, and Frontier simply lied to me over and over again--promising service dates and installers never even showed up. Eventually I said, "Screw this," called Spectrum, bought my own modem and router, and I was online again that same day. (I learned that Frontier outsources their fiber cable installation to different companies, so that the person on the phone can't actually determine when the cable will actually be laid anywhere--they just schedule an installation date "out there" in the hopes the cable will have been laid by then.)

And, frankly, Spectrum's copper system hasn't shown any problems.

In the US, it's a mess in that without "Net Neutrality," ISPs can charge you for potential bandwidth, then throttle your bandwidth in whatever way they find most profitable.

My bottom line: It's all about the ISP, not about the technology.

30-40 MPS is sufficient, but I sure noticed the difference going to 300 MPS. POTN, for example, loads much faster. Other sites may not have much improvement (for a variety of reasons). I agree the reliability is the most important aspect an ISP can provide.

bobbyz wrote in post #18813857
Typical 1G connection here in US starts from $100 per month. Most ISPs here have data caps.

You just made me feel lucky. My (dedicated 1G) line here in Switzerland is less then US$70 with no cap. The cheapest competition advertise a 10G (but not dedicated) offer for US$55. Both include TV service with 200 stations.

KeBul wrote in post #18815668
From an article released about a year ago...

BT ULTRAFAST 1 (up to 152Mbps)
PRICE: £54.99 per month

BT ULTRAFAST 2 (up to 314Mbps)
PRICE: £59.99 per month

Both of which I believe, include line rental

In my opinion, it's typically annoying of BT and no doubt other ISP's who make it as difficult and confusing as they can to find prices on their offerings.

Kev

These services are now available in the area where I live, so I can confirm in March 2019 those prices as current and correct. Whether you'll be able to get any discount on them I've no idea, as they are their new premium speed offerings I suspect not.

Both are plus £9.99 delivery cost for the fibre modem/router/hub

Kev

Thanks Kev,

Pete.

bobbyz wrote in post #18813857
Typical 1G connection here in US starts from $100 per month. Most ISPs here have data caps.

Maybe time for you to change! My Verizon Fios is $40/month for 100/100 Mbps. The package I actually have is Cable TV, telephone and internet for slightly less than $100/month.

John from PA wrote in post #18828228
Maybe time for you to change! My Verizon Fios is $40/month for 100/100 Mbps. The package I actually have is Cable TV, telephone and internet for slightly less than $100/month.

I would if I had the option and gladly pay $100/month for 1GbE link. Also depends on where you live. Problem here in US is ISPs are big monopolies and consumer doesn't have much options. At least in bigger areas you can get something. Good luck if you live in smaller places.

I recently got AT&T symmetric unlimited gigabit service for $80/month, which was cheaper than my much slower and 1TB/month capped Comcast. The call to cancel Comcast was one of the most enjoyable calls I have ever had.