mhhf1ve 5/26/2015 | 9:18:53 PM
Geography matters... It looks like G.fast isn't coming to low population density areas anytime.. ever. So is there a population density map that might show where the likely places to adopt this tech might be? Copper is everywhere, sure, but it really won't make sense to make that copper faster if the costs to do so are un-economical.
melao2 5/11/2015 | 2:13:50 PM
Re: Example slides from BT and Swisscom You are completely right.

For residential complexes to it makes certain sense to use the G.Fast and share the bandwidth. But i wonder how many of those exists, and how many already have fiber near them, which then render the G.Fast useless.

And your analysis on the wireless site bandwidth (cell badwidth) is spot on. 

But I still don't see in the near term (3 years or so), TV over xDSL, or Video Streaming, replacing the current cable/satelite TV . it is hard to find a compeling case for home users to have such a bandiwidth.

Maybe that's because I don't live in the USA, and things develop faster in the USA than here in Brazil. 

In my overall view, we are in a position where 1Mbps to 10Mbps availability everywhere is more important than 1Gbps at home. 

Mobility over Ultra-Bandwidth.

Untill we have a killer app, such as IPTV and so on.

brooks7 5/11/2015 | 1:41:19 PM
Re: Example slides from BT and Swisscom melao2,

I think streaming high performance video is always going to be a problem for wireless.  If you go into a neighborhood with say 500 homes, you might have 1,000 video streams (or more) active.  If they are broadcast, not as big a problem with 10 or 20 channels (call it 100Mb/s).  With Unicast HD, then you end up with bandwidth per stream (so call it 10 Gb/s in a cell).  

Which is where wireed infrastructure will have an advantage forever as each wire/coax/fiber connection creates the equivalent of a set of spectrum that each user can have.  

The way this will be solved is smaller and smaller cell sizes, but that has the problem of logistics (hey there are now 10 cells in that neighborhood not 1) and the problem of backhaul.

To me the bigger problem with G.Fast is the notion that it is going to save lots of money.  In certain circumstances (apartment complexes), it might.  The problem is that to get the extreme bandwidths that are being quoted the loops have to be very short.  That means that G.fast DSLAMs will be very small.  The cost of commons will rise dramatically per port (what are we going to have 8 or 16 port units?).  This means you are trading off some portion of CAPEX spend on construction by spending it on equipment. You don't get rid of all the construction costs (you still have to get the fiber really close).

Would be really interested in how much cost people are going to actually save.


melao2 5/11/2015 | 1:11:51 PM
Re: Example slides from BT and Swisscom For this to get traction it has to be deployed fast.

I think we are reaching a point where mobile broadband has almost caught with fixed broadband in terms of speed.

I do understand that fixed broadband can be more reliable, and it is more suitable for many applications.  But when I have a good 4G connection, I really don't feel the difference between 4G and my cable connection (at home I dont use xDSL).

Maybe the current uses for high bandwidth usage, which I would guess is video streaming, can be satisfied with 10Mbps, be it from fixed or mobile.

Maybe we need a killer app for the speed bump for end user. 

Please exclude small/medium businesses from my comment. For those it is obvious the advantages in G.Fast. 
[email protected] 5/11/2015 | 9:34:37 AM
Example slides from BT and Swisscom Just to note that the slides included from BT and Swisscom are representative of these operators' commitment to te technology -- too see the slides in detail more clearly and to see all of the slides that BT and Swisscom recently presented in the Light Reading webinar, go to


G.fast: Turning Copper Into Gold

Sign In