G.fast is an ''obfuscation plan' of the largest order.
Force anyone that works for Ofcom and MPs/BT's senior Management to eat their own dog food, if they think the fudged max 10Mbps 'voluntary' universal service obligation is acceptable for the masses, going forward, let's see 'these people of influence', have this as their only Broadband option, and even better halve it. Force them onto packages with a max 5Mbps till 2020, or until they change their spots.
Mobile networks should be banned from charging for 2G/Edge Data, between the base station and consumer mobiles too, this should become free, 2G is completely useless for consumer mobiles in 2016.
BT astroturfing types on here, keep sprouting how wonderful G.fast will be, but fail to mention the vast amount of G.fast equipment locations, power requirements and compatibility issues (firmware issues, crap, damp, windy, poor aka. aluminium cabling issues that need to be resolved etc) needed to give blanket ultrafast coverage. It not a cheap solution, its a bloody expensive one and a potential can of worms to fix. It completely favours BT's current legacy copper.
G.fast is an 'obfuscation plan' of the largest order.
It will set Britain back for a decade, because (I'm already seeing it) apathy sets in, as its impossible for consumers to work out what level of actual service (once live) will be achieved with FTTC/G.fast from (the above) technical issues + Network management, local and regional bottlenecks, crosstalk.
Worse, its a completely manufactured situation by BT/(acceptable too, to Ofcom, as it reinforces their role) to make Broadband seem like a 'finite resource' and charge tiered banded rates for usage + per MB prices for mobile, where, actual laid fibres to the premises would mean most of the regulatory infrastructure in place , Ofcom etc, wouldn't be needed (well certainly not the same scale), because in effect, copper speed/bandwidth limiting factors on the final mile, no longer apply to the same extent.
So much politics involved in what should really just come down to what is the best technical implementation going forward for the UK as a whole, irrespective of the incumbent BT operator's legacy copper network. Instead, technical solutions (garnered from BT 'expertise') have clearly been favoured towards BT's current infrastructure.
Its seen worst in remote rural locations ('notspots' forming a two tier Britain) because FTTC is an inferior solution for these types of locations-small hamlets of 5-10 houses and certainly not as cost effective as BT make it appear, compared to a true optical fibre based rollout of FTTP for all properties at least 500m from the exchange.
FTTC/G.fast costs rise exponentially for properties at least 500m, to get blanket ultrafast rollout.