DS Forums

 
 

BT HomeHub 6?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19-02-2016, 21:56
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
I love how the usual people have come out of the woodwork to criticise me. As I say, you're free to avoid my posts or put me in your ignore lists if you only wish to see glowing pro-BT posts. I would suggest that it goes both ways - if you choose to engage me in conversation or throw some bait, you can hardly complain when I choose to reply

For FTTP you still have to have engineers running fibre from dp to the home and then organise appointments and suffer missed appointments, unlike with G.FAST. And BT have said recently that G.FAST self-install will hopefully be doable. FTTP will cost more to roll out and will therefore be slower to roll out.
... it costs just as much to get fibre to a DP, whether you plonk a G.FAST DSLAM on it or a splitter. That is the bulk of the rollout cost, and G.FAST won't avoid it. After that, it's considering whether installing expensive G.FAST equipment and maintain it, or a not-so-expensive (but will cost a bit more in labour) set of fibre optic cables with much lower maintenance and an unlimited upgrade path.

If G.FAST actually turns out to need a professional install, then the gap between the technologies closes further - and you'll get all the issues you raise. No difference.

I don't think BT is worried about rollout speed - this is the company that *still* has people on ancient DSL equipment (that BT admits is end of life) that can't even do ADSL2+, and only follows in the path of others in terms of innovation

You seem to really enjoy drinking BT's koolaid. They'll say it'll clean the house and make tea if that's what's needed to make it sound like the best thing ever.

Makes no significant difference to the costs though because contractors don't come free. For any given annual budget, FTTP would take longer to roll out because it costs more to roll out.
... it takes just as long to get fibre to a DP, whether you plonk a G.FAST DSLAM on it or a splitter - this is the most time consuming and laborious bit. Rollout speed is not affected - in fact, if G.FAST equipment cannot be remote powered, then it'll take even longer to install (just as many VDSL cabinets are held up by power supply issues) - and instead of a few cabinets, you get to worry about powering almost every telegraph pole and underground DP

Installation speed might be decreased with FTTP, but this isn't an insurmountable obstacle - as every other telco with a substantial FTTP rollout is finding ways to speed it up and make it cheaper. Even BT themselves is in on the game, with the announcement of an FTTP trial in Swindon to see how costs could be brought down.

As for XG-FAST... will that need a whole new set of pole mounted DSLAMs? More e-waste for the landfills? The G.FAST DSLAMs will be a fixed configuration, not like the VDSL cabinets or exchange equipment where cards can be replaced to change technologies.

He sings the same song every time, very bitter towards BT. He overlooks the fact BT is a multinational, what they are more concerned about is the return on investment. Nothing he or anyone else says is going to change BT's plans in respect of rolling out G.Fast. Even if BT was to roll out true FTTP everywhere, that would likely result in a bill well over £10bn if you believe the optimistic estimates.
And this is why Ofcom and others are looking at the future of Openreach. If BT doesn't want to do it, and would prefer to invest in sports rights or mobile networks, then perhaps it's time it loses control of the local loop. Either way, something has to be done about Openreach profits being used to pay for non-Openreach activities. I don't like paying for free sports for BT customers.

The government, quite rightly, shouldn't hand £billions to a private firm to do what they can do, but choose not to (handing billions over for the VDSL dud was bad enough). If we ever got government-funded FTTP I'd hope it was state owned.

That said I do think moox is correct, it would cost less money over the longterm rolling out FTTP as opposed to FTTDP, BT won't stump up the money for that, I doubt the government will either.
The sad thing is that BT themselves know that G.FAST is a dud - and they've proposed that even when they do G.FAST, they'll be installing FTTP equipment alongside it, for people who want it as a "premium service". This makes even less sense than just doing FTTP for everyone.

I think I'm going to end my so-called "broken record" here, because the resident BT employees and shareholders don't seem to like it. It must be a capital offence to say anything other than VDSL and G.FAST are the best things ever.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-02-2016, 23:47
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,724
... it costs just as much to get fibre to a DP, whether you plonk a G.FAST DSLAM on it or a splitter. That is the bulk of the rollout cost, and G.FAST won't avoid it. After that, it's considering whether installing expensive G.FAST equipment and maintain it, or a not-so-expensive (but will cost a bit more in labour) set of fibre optic cables with much lower maintenance and an unlimited upgrade path.
I know and so does everyone else. That bit's going to be about the same and nobody's arguing otherwise so why you keep repeating it I have no idea.

It's the next bit where all the extra costs, and rollout slowdowns, would occur and claiming that the bulk of the cost is getting it to the dp doesn't alter that fact. FTTP is more expensive to roll out and would take longer to complete, fact. No private company is going to do that on the back of hard to determine maintenance costs 10 to 20 years into the future - that's a job for Government to fund or force and Government just ain't gonna do it because they don't plan 10 to 20 years into the future either except for a few National Security matters.

Sometimes, pragmatism is hard to accept but it's how the World goes round. G.Fast is what's going to happen, consumers don't care how they get their 300+ Mbps, and that's really all there is to it.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 00:17
Aye Up
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,881
I think I'm going to end my so-called "broken record" here, because the resident BT employees and shareholders don't seem to like it. It must be a capital offence to say anything other than VDSL and G.FAST are the best things ever.
I assure you I am neither of those. For although I disagree with much of what you say, I will give you credit you have been consistent in your criticism of BT and VDSL based broadband.

Even if Openreach is separated it still has the problem of meeting the costs of G.Fast and FTTP, on its own it wouldn't be able to sustain that either because it would be a small entity. Being part of BT Group PLC allows them access to the bigger balance sheetm thus in theory able to borrow to fund rollout.

I don't think the current situation is ideal nor do I think Openreach being hived off would make a difference either. Openreach is separated by a firewall from the rest of the group, they aren't allowed to trade directly. When an order is placed for any connection using Openreach equipment, it is done so blindly so any operator is unable to see who the ISP is. That has been the case for about 9 years or so now.

I don't think FTTP is going to arrived in the next 5 years universally. That said once G.Fast is pushed and rolled out I suspect true mass FTTP will be pushed from 2020. Even at the rate BT is going, come 2020 we will have amongst the fastest domestic broadband speends in Europe, only bettered by Belgium.

At the moment there isn't a pressing need faster broadband 80Mbps vis Openreach and 300/200Mbps via Virgin will sustain enough for now. I do think that will change in 12 months or so as 4K content becomes mainstream. I am disappointed Openreach aren't rolling out Vectoring, that would have been a nice short term boost till G.Fast availability.
Aye Up is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 13:21
victorslot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 532
All parties score points on this discussion but when it comes down to the basics it is cost. If the government won't pay the cost then it is down to the private companies. They will only invest in what they can see a relatively quick return on which will be based on what they see the private punter will be prepared to pay for a broadband service, so without government intervention the experts and purists will never be satisfied. The average consumer isn't interested in how they get their broadband only if it works.
victorslot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 14:01
The Sack
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S6 1SW WTID UTO FTB
Posts: 6,326
Can't comment, but bear in mind you aren't restricted to using the Home Hub. There are plenty of very capable routers out there, for not much money (IMO more capable and reliable than the HH)
I have bought a number of "better" routers to replace my HH5 over the last couple of years and always ended up sending them back, they have been no more reliable and in each case they had worse WiFi range and performance.

Clearly a 3rd party router is going to have vastly more features to mess and tweak with but the HH5 is a rock solid easy to use great performing bit of kit.
The Sack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 14:44
aurichie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,099
I have bought a number of "better" routers to replace my HH5 over the last couple of years and always ended up sending them back, they have been no more reliable and in each case they had worse WiFi range and performance.

Clearly a 3rd party router is going to have vastly more features to mess and tweak with but the HH5 is a rock solid easy to use great performing bit of kit.
In my experience, the Airport Extreme from Apple is the best. 2.4 GHz WiFi on a Home Hub 5 could only manage 11mb whereas I get 44-50mb from the Airport Extreme. Both on the same wireless channel positioned identically for the test.

5.0 Ghz both Home Hub 5 and Airport Extreme basically max out the speed available to me.

Sky's routers also outperform Home Hub 5 on 2.4 Ghz with at least twice the speed. The Sky router also maxes out on 5.0 Ghz.
aurichie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 16:33
daveh75
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 280
In my experience, the Airport Extreme from Apple is the best. 2.4 GHz WiFi on a Home Hub 5 could only manage 11mb whereas I get 44-50mb from the Airport Extreme. Both on the same wireless channel positioned identically for the test.

5.0 Ghz both Home Hub 5 and Airport Extreme basically max out the speed available to me.

Sky's routers also outperform Home Hub 5 on 2.4 Ghz with at least twice the speed. The Sky router also maxes out on 5.0 Ghz.
So what Sky router do you have that does 5GHz?

Neither of the Sky Hubs (SR101 or 102) are dual band. Not to mention, they're utter junk.
daveh75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 16:46
aurichie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,099
So what Sky router do you have that does 5GHz?

Neither of the Sky Hubs (SR101 or 102) are dual band. Not to mention, they're utter junk.
Sky Q Hub
aurichie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 16:50
daveh75
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 280
And you've been able to extensively test it against a HH5 and AE in the 5 minutes you must of had it. Wow.
daveh75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 18:35
aurichie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,099
And you've been able to extensively test it against a HH5 and AE in the 5 minutes you must of had it. Wow.
Where did I say I tested it extensively? You seem to have invented that criteria because your lousy Home Hub didn't match up in my tests.
aurichie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 20:11
daveh75
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 280
Where did I say I tested it extensively? You seem to have invented that criteria because your lousy Home Hub didn't match up in my tests.
Sorry to dissapoint, but i don't use a HH. I don't have your typical home network or use ISP supplied tat.

But I can spot BS a mile off.
daveh75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-02-2016, 21:24
aurichie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,099
Sorry to dissapoint, but i don't use a HH. I don't have your typical home network or use ISP supplied tat.

But I can spot BS a mile off.
Forget it.

I see you're an Android user.

That explains everything.
aurichie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-02-2016, 13:29
The Sack
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S6 1SW WTID UTO FTB
Posts: 6,326
In my experience, the Airport Extreme from Apple is the best. 2.4 GHz WiFi on a Home Hub 5 could only manage 11mb whereas I get 44-50mb from the Airport Extreme. Both on the same wireless channel positioned identically for the test.

5.0 Ghz both Home Hub 5 and Airport Extreme basically max out the speed available to me.

Sky's routers also outperform Home Hub 5 on 2.4 Ghz with at least twice the speed. The Sky router also maxes out on 5.0 Ghz.
My HH5 is in the living room against the back wall, my PC is in the kitchen against the outside wall and there is a brick wall between them.

This is my HH5 on 2.4GHz http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5113270098

this is my HH5 on 5GHz http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5113275964
The Sack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2016, 19:29
DroolinFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 176
FYI - I realise this thread has died but I thought it would be worth mentioning for anyone reading it.

There's a slight inaccuracy here - that is if you have BT Vision or BT Youview the HH must remain plugged in with the Vision/Youview box connected directly to it.

I've yet to find a 3rd party router which will allow the Vision/Youview box's "internet channels" to function.
DroolinFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2016, 20:02
ba_baracus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,091
FYI - I realise this thread has died but I thought it would be worth mentioning for anyone reading it.

There's a slight inaccuracy here - that is if you have BT Vision or BT Youview the HH must remain plugged in with the Vision/Youview box connected directly to it.

I've yet to find a 3rd party router which will allow the Vision/Youview box's "internet channels" to function.
Nonsense, there's plenty that work.
ba_baracus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2016, 14:02
victorslot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 532
I have replaced my HH5 with the TP-Link Archer VR 900. It works straight out of the box with my BT Youview box and all the internet channels. I am on Infinity 1 and it gives me an increase in speed from 28 to 38 Mbps over the HH5. Wifi coverage is better throughout the house. It has been rock solid and is yet to drop the Internet connection something which happened fairly often at peak times with the HH5. All wifi devices, and they are numerous, connect without any problem.
victorslot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2016, 10:57
The Sack
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S6 1SW WTID UTO FTB
Posts: 6,326
FYI - I realise this thread has died but I thought it would be worth mentioning for anyone reading it.

There's a slight inaccuracy here - that is if you have BT Vision or BT Youview the HH must remain plugged in with the Vision/Youview box connected directly to it.

I've yet to find a 3rd party router which will allow the Vision/Youview box's "internet channels" to function.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...ilpage_o09_s00 works fine with the BT TV YouView internet channels, i have tried it personally
The Sack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2016, 15:17
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
I would truly have been disappointed if Moox hadn't used yet another thread to bang the FTTP drum he brings out at every opportunity.

The thing he fails to realise is there simply isn't the demand for super super fast speeds to warrant such a huge investment.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-2016, 14:15
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
In my experience, the Airport Extreme from Apple is the best. 2.4 GHz WiFi on a Home Hub 5 could only manage 11mb whereas I get 44-50mb from the Airport Extreme. Both on the same wireless channel positioned identically for the test.

5.0 Ghz both Home Hub 5 and Airport Extreme basically max out the speed available to me.

Sky's routers also outperform Home Hub 5 on 2.4 Ghz with at least twice the speed. The Sky router also maxes out on 5.0 Ghz.
Conversely I get the opposite result and I have now retired my 'new shape' Airport Time Capsule to become a 'dumb TM back up device' in favour of my HH5. Just shows that while it may be best for you it isn't for everyone.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2016, 08:08
Ragnarok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: too close to Hell, Londonistan
Posts: 4,566
Most Asus Routers work great with as an IGMP proxy AKA, BT vision, youview. My home hub 5 is at the opposite end of the house as an access point/ethernet hub, HH5's are soo cheap on ebay I can't think of a cheaper better way to extend your wifi.

If BT ever get past VDSL, their might be the need for a PFsense router and religating a BT home hub 5 or other decent wifi router to access point duty. Hopefully by that time they'll be somthing powerful enough you can put a powerful enough computer inside a tiny box without turning it into a mini toaster to actually be able to have a fully fledged firewall at full gigabit speeds.
Ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 14:42
ThePerfectOne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Wales
Posts: 9,884
had this in a email today ....

Get priority access to our brand new, best ever Hub: Packed full of intelligent features, it gives a super-powerful wi-fi signal. Jump the queue and be one of the first to get it when you register before 2 June 2016.
ThePerfectOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 17:17
aurichie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,099
had this in a email today ....

Get priority access to our brand new, best ever Hub: Packed full of intelligent features, it gives a super-powerful wi-fi signal. Jump the queue and be one of the first to get it when you register before 2 June 2016.
I still think a HG 612 paired with a proper wireless router is a better bet than the BT junk. Maybe the new one will be much better, but so far Hub 3, Hub 4 and Hub 5 have been utter rubbish in my experience.

I put an airport extreme at my parents and it has maintained a connection for over 60 days with the HG 612. Apple aren't exactly renowned for their networking and especially not networking gear, but it is doing a supremely better job than the Hub 5 that was dropping connections every 8 days (and no power saving options, etc. were enabled on the Hub 5). I think it says everything about rubbish the Home Hub truly is.

From what I've seen on all Hubs they are prone to locking up and that causes the broadband connection to drop as the CPU maxes out for no good reason. I doubt the Airport has anything particular brilliant inside it, but I bet the software that powers it is the key difference to the BT junk.
aurichie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 18:27
brianeccleston
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 597
Never had a problem with my BT Hub, never dropped connection, always been solid and the wifi signal been grest all round the house.
brianeccleston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 18:59
aurichie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,099
Never had a problem with my BT Hub, never dropped connection, always been solid and the wifi signal been grest all round the house.
That's clearly nonsense because all connections drop when there are outages and much of the routine maintenance by Openreach will also trigger it. The Home Hubs generally get terrible reviews, but it is possible you've either got lucky or haven't noticed the problems.
aurichie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 19:36
cgk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 232
I got the email for the HH6 - I'm be interested to know what it actually is - although I doubt I would swap out my ASUS RT68u.
cgk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42.