From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

https://www.lishawa.com/FTTH%20Conference%202026%20-%20UK%20European%20Fibre%20Pricing.pdf

The above as some interesting statistics about UK broadband pricing and compares it to other countries.
TLDR: donrCOt expect your -u25/month price to remain.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

https://www.lishawa.com/FTTH%20Conference%202026%20-%20UK%20European%20Fibre%20Pricing.pdf
TLDR: donrCOt expect your -u25/month price to remain.

Over the years, it's been pretty straightforward to stick with plusnet,
and keep paying a "new user" price by re-contracting, you just miss out
on the -u30 vouchers that true new users seem to get.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 05/05/2026 09:23, Andy Burns wrote:

Tweed wrote:

https://www.lishawa.com/FTTH%20Conference%202026%20-%20UK%20European%20Fibre%20Pricing.pdf
TLDR: donrCOt expect your -u25/month price to remain.

Over the years, it's been pretty straightforward to stick with plusnet,
and keep paying a "new user" price by re-contracting, you just miss out
on the -u30 vouchers that true new users seem to get.

We've been doing the same, and until recently paid about -u25/month, just
gone up to -u29-50. Our current Plusnet contract ends in Oct but they
are about to break it (penalty-free for them I suspect) by forcing us to switch to EE or else abandon the landline. A rather odd decision by
their BT overlords.

Since City Fibre have fibres in the road I think it's time to switch to
FTTP, which means no more Plusnet, because OpenReach haven't reached
here yet. Pity, Plusnet were ok while they lasted. And there seem to
be at least a few ISPs which don't put their prices up every year.
--
Clive Page

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:

On 05/05/2026 09:23, Andy Burns wrote:

Tweed wrote:

https://www.lishawa.com/FTTH%20Conference%202026%20-%20UK%20European%20Fibre%20Pricing.pdf
TLDR: donrCOt expect your -u25/month price to remain.

Over the years, it's been pretty straightforward to stick with plusnet,
and keep paying a "new user" price by re-contracting, you just miss out
on the -u30 vouchers that true new users seem to get.

We've been doing the same, and until recently paid about -u25/month, just gone up to -u29-50. Our current Plusnet contract ends in Oct but they
are about to break it (penalty-free for them I suspect) by forcing us to switch to EE or else abandon the landline. A rather odd decision by
their BT overlords.

Since City Fibre have fibres in the road I think it's time to switch to FTTP, which means no more Plusnet, because OpenReach haven't reached
here yet. Pity, Plusnet were ok while they lasted. And there seem to
be at least a few ISPs which don't put their prices up every year.

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to
price walk customers up to at least -u35/month. (Plus minus a few quid depending on the speed you select) Unless you are willing to expend effort combating this itrCOs perhaps simpler to use one of the smaller long established ISPs that donrCOt price walk.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to
price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

To stay in business, yes.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to
price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

To cover the cost of all the cost savings from getting rid of copper
wires.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to >>> price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

To stay in business, yes.

When Openreach's price to ISPs for FTTP starts at under -u17/month for
115 Mbps?

<https://www.openreach.com/content/dam/openreach/openreach-dam-files/documents/Equinox-Pricing-01-FEB-26-V03-online.pdf>

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to >>> price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

To cover the cost of all the cost savings from getting rid of copper
wires.

None of the Altnets are seeing any savings from the decommissioning of
copper. They are the ones in the most financial trouble.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Tweed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers need to >>>> price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

To stay in business, yes.

When Openreach's price to ISPs for FTTP starts at under -u17/month for
115 Mbps?

<https://www.openreach.com/content/dam/openreach/openreach-dam-files/documents/Equinox-Pricing-01-FEB-26-V03-online.pdf>

Ex-VAT price. ISP has to pay for their transit to the Internet and customer service and VAT. OpenReach price is just for the fibre local loop.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

Tweed wrote:

You can see from the article in the original post that suppliers
need to price walk customers up to at least -u35/month.

Need?

To cover the cost of all the cost savings from getting rid of copper
wires.

None of the Altnets are seeing any savings from the decommissioning of copper. They are the ones in the most financial trouble.

This confirms my suspicions then. It's only BT Openreach which stands to
gain from the big switch-off, others are footing the bill. And because I
quit BT 20 years ago and never went back, that's why it looks more
expensive to me.

And the responsibility does lie with the government, as they are the
ones who created the phoney market in the first place.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Can anyone tell my why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed differential? It was understandable when most
people did very much more downloading than up, but nowadays large file
uploads are becoming much more common - think of the size of raw
photographs let alone jpg! I think in those days uploading being slower occupied more time, but now with reciprocity that same small upload will
take a tiny fraction of the time it used to take.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Can anyone tell my why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed differential? It was understandable when most
people did very much more downloading than up, but nowadays large file uploads are becoming much more common - think of the size of raw
photographs let alone jpg! I think in those days uploading being slower occupied more time, but now with reciprocity that same small upload will take a tiny fraction of the time it used to take.

There doesnrCOt need to be a differential. Most Altnets provide a symmetrical service. OpenReach do not. There are rumours that they will change. Technically, OR are deploying an older version of fibre technology, but
there isnrCOt really any technical reason why they persist with this. The equipment in the ground, ie the fibre and passive optical splitters, will support either technology.

My CityFibre connection is symmetrical.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Woody wrote:

Can anyone tell my why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed differential?

That's just the way the GPON standard was implemented ... 2.5 Gbps
downstream (with every ONT ob the same shared fibre seeing all packets
and filtering out everyone else's) and 1.25 Gbps upstream at a different wavelength (time division multiplexed so each ONT has its own
transmission slots).

The newer XGSPON that Openreach are/will be trialling does implement
10Gbps symmetric speeds.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

OR are deploying an older version of fibre technology, but
there isnrCOt really any technical reason why they persist with this. The equipment in the ground, ie the fibre and passive optical splitters, will support either technology.

Indeed the fibres and splitters support GPON and XGSPON simultaneously
as the standards each use two wavelengths (one up, one down) that do not overlap. So in due course Openreach can do a phased changeover of kit
in the fibre exchanges, and ONTs in homes without needing a big bang change. --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Woody wrote:

why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed differential?

It makes sense to use a more expensive class laser at the headend (OLT)
to get better downstream speed for everyone, and use cheaper class
lasers at every subscriber's end (ONT) for slower individual upstream
speed ...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Woody wrote:

why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed
differential?

It makes sense to use a more expensive class laser at the headend (OLT)
to get better downstream speed for everyone, and use cheaper class
lasers at every subscriber's end (ONT) for slower individual upstream
speed ...

Low cost lasers are just fine. The AltnetsrCO ONTs manage a symmetrical service.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Woody wrote:

why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed
differential?

It makes sense to use a more expensive class laser at the headend (OLT)
to get better downstream speed for everyone, and use cheaper class
lasers at every subscriber's end (ONT) for slower individual upstream
speed ...

Low cost lasers are just fine. The AltnetsrCO ONTs manage a symmetrical service.

Depends on fan-out and distance, also if the altnets use 10Gb PON that
is symmetric anyway.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On Tue, 05 May 2026 22:39:44 +0100, Woody wrote:

Can anyone tell my why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a download/upload speed differential? It was understandable when most
people did very much more downloading than up, but nowadays large file uploads are becoming much more common - think of the size of raw
photographs let alone jpg! I think in those days uploading being slower occupied more time, but now with reciprocity that same small upload will
take a tiny fraction of the time it used to take.

At one time this was to discourage users from running servers at home for commercial services. Allegedly.

I suspect this may no longer be a valid reason.

Cheers



Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

David <wibble@btinternet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 05 May 2026 22:39:44 +0100, Woody wrote:

Can anyone tell my why, when we have FTTP, there is or needs to be a
download/upload speed differential? It was understandable when most
people did very much more downloading than up, but nowadays large file
uploads are becoming much more common - think of the size of raw
photographs let alone jpg! I think in those days uploading being slower
occupied more time, but now with reciprocity that same small upload will
take a tiny fraction of the time it used to take.

At one time this was to discourage users from running servers at home for commercial services. Allegedly.

I suspect this may no longer be a valid reason.

Cheers

Dave R

With any form of DSL you have to divide up the available capacity of the
copper pair between up and down. It was felt that most domestic users would prefer more down than up. The early implementations of Passive Optical
Network based FTTP also had less up capacity than down. BT/OR has stuck
with this implementation longer than it really needs to. The newer implementations donrCOt have this restriction, well not at least for the
speeds that domestic users are ever likely to need. My CityFibre FTTP connection is a symmetric 1 Gbit/sec.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2