BT is to provide super-fast broadband to up to 90% of homes in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, in the firm's biggest fibre optic roll-out in the UK to date.
The project, due for completion in 2014, could provide a blueprint for future rural broadband projects.
The £132m funding pot is being shared between BT and the European Union.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11435640
QuoteBT has decided to use a 50:50 mix of fibre-to-the-home technology (FTTH) and the slower fibre-to-the-cabinet technology (FTTC) in Cornwall.
I've often fancied moving to Cornwall... ;D
Quote from: Glenn on Sep 30, 2010, 13:04:34
BT is to [attempt] super-[hyperbole] broadband to [no more than] 90% (or one in ten by actual figures) of [capable phone lines] in [The most profitable places] and the Isles of Scilly (where the Chief Executives Tax haven holiday home is), in the firm's biggest (that makes it 2 homes!) fibre optic roll-out in the UK to date.
The project, due for completion in [the next thousand years], could provide a blueprint [to avoid] for future rural broadband projects.
The £132m funding pot is being shared between BT and the European Union [executive's golf fund].
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11435640
:whistle:
I've hit the nail on the head. "Up to" should be banned, in all advertisement and business reporting. It should be replaced by "no more than". Well, I can see thet being unfair in certain circumstances. Perhaps we should only apply it to ISPs, I mean "no more than" ISPs.
I agree, Ben, "up to" has always been the perfect get out clause.
FTTC also has a 'from' as I understand it, if your line can't support 15mb then you don't get it.
It does, but I believe the 15Mbps is based on what they think you will be able to get, ie it's based on their estimates relating to distance from cabinet etc.
As their estimate for mine was 19Mbps and I'm getting a profile of nearly 39Mbps, a lot of people who probably could get it, won't.
Sounds like a backhaul saving scheme to me >:(