Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Black Sheep on April 18, 2017, 12:43:18 PM
-
One of the most ambitious housing developments in the UK and we’re making it Ultrafast
We’ve secured an amazing opportunity as part of our commitment to deliver Ultrafast speeds to 12 million premises by 2020.
Barking Riverside, on the northern banks of the Thames, is a new development and is the biggest contract Openreach has secured since launching our commitment to deliver Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) technology to 99% of New Sites (with 30+ premises).
Working in partnership with the Home Builders Federation and government, Openreach will provide Ultrafast broadband to 10,500 new properties, which includes a mix of family housing, apartments, schools, retail, community and leisure facilities. This site is the largest of 9,877 new housing developments totalling more than 240,000 new premises across the UK which benefit from FTTP.
Infrastructure Delivery MD, Kim Mears said: 'We’re really pleased to be involved in what is one of the most ambitious and important developments in the UK. This major investment in Ultrafast broadband reflects our commitment to ensuring the UK has a first class network.'
-
Thats good news, hopefully more builders will get their act together and get Openreach on board early enough so fttp can be rolled out to new build estates.
-
Infrastructure Delivery MD, Kim Mears said: 'We’re really pleased to be involved in what is one of the most ambitious and important developments in the UK. This major investment in Ultrafast broadband reflects our commitment to ensuring the UK has a first class network.'
Oh please. It's new build and FTTP is cost-neutral or even cheaper than copper.
-
It is good news that FTTP is being put in to more new build properites.
I wonder what is the evidence that fttp in new build properties encourage a higher uptake of FTTP services. I'm assuming that the people in the new builds will still have to order broadband like everyone else.
I'm just trying to figure out how OR (or any other company pushing FTTP) come to conclusions about demand when it comes to broadband services.
When OR pick the areas to deploy pilot schemes how do they access that one area is a better potential uptake than another? Is Demand a factor, if so, how is it measured?
These questions arent only aimed at OR. They are aimed at any company deploying FTTP services. How are they accessing that new build demand is higher? Is there any evidence we can see?
-
Oh please. It's new build and FTTP is cost-neutral or even cheaper than copper.
Is your glass permanently half-empty Ignitionnet ?? How would you expect a company Director to otherwise deliver this news ??
#fightyourinnerurgeforflippancy
-
I wonder what is the evidence that fttp in new build properties encourage a higher uptake of FTTP services. I'm assuming that the people in the new builds will still have to order broadband like everyone else.
It's got nothing to do with take up, if they're going to build a new housing estate then it may as well be built with fttp, but OR need to be consulted early enough in the planning stage.
-
I wonder what happens in estates like that if you only want a phone and no internet? Also will the che4aper options be available like ADSL etc. Will copper have to be installed as well?
Stuart
-
wired phone services are on the way out, the vast majority of people with landlines only have them as a requirement for broadband or tv.
aside's from pensioners who are not technical savvy I dont see the reason for people to want wired phone services, they technically inferior and now also inferior in terms of value for money compared to mobile devices.
regarding cheap broadband services, there is no reason a low priced low speed FTTP product cannot be made available, I guess such a decision is based on projected demand tho.
-
Is your glass permanently half-empty Ignitionnet ?? How would you expect a company Director to otherwise deliver this news ??
#fightyourinnerurgeforflippancy
I don't expect them to at all. Delivering something that isn't copper to a new build shouldn't be a big deal for an incumbent that passes close to thirty million premises.
-
It is good news that FTTP is being put in to more new build properites.
I wonder what is the evidence that fttp in new build properties encourage a higher uptake of FTTP services. I'm assuming that the people in the new builds will still have to order broadband like everyone else.
I'm just trying to figure out how OR (or any other company pushing FTTP) come to conclusions about demand when it comes to broadband services.
When OR pick the areas to deploy pilot schemes how do they access that one area is a better potential uptake than another? Is Demand a factor, if so, how is it measured?
These questions arent only aimed at OR. They are aimed at any company deploying FTTP services. How are they accessing that new build demand is higher? Is there any evidence we can see?
New build is cheaper as the developer builds the ducts and chambers using Openreach provided materials. No need to spend £500 per premises digging up existing pavements and roads.
The sums are the same everywhere. Balancing cost of deployment versus expected takeup.
They are different for OR as the costs of deployment are way lower, however generally there will be copper revenues to offset against the expected increase in income so they work on incremental income and do not seem to be interested in trying to replace copper with fibre.
In addition OR can deploy FTTC very cheaply indeed so that also reduces the attractiveness of FTTP, and G.fast, despite its range restrictions, can also be deployed very cheaply so will buy OR some time before FTTP becomes required.
The maths for OR are very different from those of others. They are balancing the cost of FTTP now versus how much it costs them to delay it and build later, and as you can see with the G.fast from cabinets deployment, basically taking an FTTdp technology and changing its direction to FTTC, they are very good at delaying at minimal cost.
-
I wonder what happens in estates like that if you only want a phone and no internet? Also will the che4aper options be available like ADSL etc. Will copper have to be installed as well?
Stuart
Copper will not be installed as well unless the developer pays for it. Openreach actually want rid of ADSL by the end of the decade if feasible.
-
wired phone services are on the way out, the vast majority of people with landlines only have them as a requirement for broadband or tv.
aside's from pensioners who are not technical savvy I dont see the reason for people to want wired phone services, they technically inferior and now also inferior in terms of value for money compared to mobile devices.
I think you need to go and visit some rural areas!
I'm 6 miles from a city and I have a functional 2G service inside but a barely functional 3G one and it only "works" outside. The landline has a far superior call quality at all times.
On Sunday I was in a home counties village - 2G is only functional for texts - you cannot really have a conversation - it simply does not work. As for 3G let alone 4G -wot's that.....
Today I was in another village 2 miles from a M way (population c1500). Here 2G voice is usually OK inside -provided you are in the right part of the house you understand - ie it is sh*t.
I have relations in Wales in a large village (c2000 inhabitants). In a significant part of the village (including their house) there no mobile reception whatsoever from any provider - your phone goes to "no signal" as you enter the village - and this is confirmed by the various coverage maps. Yes there have been umpteen complaints - is anything done - no.
-
The solution to that is to push for more mobile masts, not to keep copper on life support. Mobile is the future for voice communications.
For reference I have been to villages and other rural areas and 2G always functions fine for me, but I am on EE the best UK network.
The gov simply needs to make mobile networks have an obligation the same as BT for voice and these issues would be fixed. But they obsessed with only regulating BT.
-
I fail to understand why pushing mobile is the answer, I live in an area with 4g (on EE) but it is far from perfect. Mobile phones are a real PITA, you only have to see how many people still use them while driving, in my view anyone caught using one driving should be banned from driving for 5 years. Then there are the idiots who walk round not looking where they are going - no I refuse to get out of their way and I dont care if I knock them flying. Even round here in Kent there are huge numbers of not spots for mobile coverage. More mobile masts simply despoils the country side, we have some near me which are supposed to look like trees, what a joke they look really stupid.
As for no copper fine but make allowances for those who only want a land line and no broadband, no one should have to take broadband just to get a working phone.
Roll on Virgin here in Thanet and as soon as I can I'll ditch copper for fibre, but that's me and I dont see why others should have no choice.
Stuart
-
its the answer as its forward thinking. copper is obsolete. I am amazed people are so backward thinking.
you seriously trying to suggest having a landline that you can only use at one fixed location is better than having a phone you can use anywhere in the uk? and on top of that mobiles are now more cost effective, as standard voicemail, caller display and more that are premium extras on landlines. No connection fee's like landlines have as well.
You are saying even if you had no signal issues you would prefer a landline? seems madness.
To deploy copper on a new build is insanity, it has no future proofing and just needless extra cost. With that said I think to keep people like you happy its possible to do voice over ip services on a FTTP cable, similar to how over voLTE works.
Now to look for a dialup service just so I have the choice. :)
-
As for no copper fine but make allowances for those who only want a land line and no broadband, no one should have to take broadband just to get a working phone.
They don't.
https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/super-fastfibreaccess/fibrevoiceaccess/fibrevoiceaccess.do
-
What I read there was that you can have a normal analogue phone connected to fibre, but you have to have fibre. Now can you order only the phone service without having the internet connected as well and is it cost effective without the internet? Nothing there suggests you can have this fibre ONLY for a phone connection.
Stuart
-
I'm not sure I understand.
In new build areas where it's FTTP everywhere it's not about whether someone has FTTP for a phone connection, all units have FTTP anyway. The FTTP is fulfilling the telco USO so there's no more of a requirement to order broadband than there is on copper.
Financial viability is irrelevant as it's a greenfield install.
-
Nothing there suggests you can have this fibre ONLY for a phone connection.
You certainly can. If you live on a new estate with fibre only, no copper at all, the ordering process is just the same. Instead of an OpenReach engineer coming and installing an NTE5 they will install an ONT. A standard home phone connects to the ONT.
-
Afraid the point of FTTP is lost on me.
It's nice to have a few 10's of Mbps to watch iTunes movies or Netflix but, anytime in the foreseeable future, why would a typical user need 100's of Mbps or Gbps?
If we don't need it, then FTTP is over-engineering, imho. And over-engineering always carries a financial cost of added expense for problems that don't need solving.
Also, consider the safety issues. You are supposed to be able to dial 999 to report your house is on fire, even if that fire has already cut the power, using a line-powered phone. How, exactly, would a phone be powered over fibre?
-
Also, consider the safety issues. You are supposed to be able to dial 999 to report your house is on fire, even if that fire has already cut the power, using a line-powered phone. How, exactly, would a phone be powered over fibre?
The ONT is fitted with a battery back-up and that is deemed sufficient, by Ofcom.
-
Afraid the point of FTTP is lost on me.
It's nice to have a few 10's of Mbps to watch iTunes movies or Netflix but, anytime in the foreseeable future, why would a typical user need 100's of Mbps or Gbps?
If we don't need it, then FTTP is over-engineering, imho. And over-engineering always carries a financial cost of added expense for problems that don't need solving.
Also, consider the safety issues. You are supposed to be able to dial 999 to report your house is on fire, even if that fire has already cut the power, using a line-powered phone. How, exactly, would a phone be powered over fibre?
I suppose it comes under the banner 'Future-proofing', 7LM. It certainly makes sense to cable all new-sites in fibre knowing what we do now, about the capabilities of copper/ali metallic cable.
-
Trouble with future-proofing is, it involves second-guessing the future. And guesses are often wrong.
My own house, 90s built, was 'future-proofed' by having phone sockets in every room, including the hall, landing and kitchen. Somebody spent money doing that, what a waste it has turned out to be.
If I were to make a guess as to best way to future-proof a new build, it would be copious lan cabling. It'd be interesting to know if these FTTP new builds are getting that too?
-
fttp = over engineering?
-
If I were to make a guess as to best way to future-proof a new build, it would be copious lan cabling. It'd be interesting to know if these FTTP new builds are getting that too?
Oh I've seen a house (it was a rebuild job) all cabled up with LAN cabling in a Gigaclear FTTP area
I'd had a quick glance in the basement where it all ended up
Yup - much as I thought it would be to make it as cheap and as shoddy as possible - all CCA rather than proper Copper LAN cable
I said absolutely nothing - I thought it wiser to keep my mouth shut.
The house has lots of steel and also aluminum foiled insulation in it so I'd guess the wifi reach is dire as well.
Round here rebuilds are all the rage. Take an old house ,multiply extended and mucked around over the decades.
Unsuitable in many ways to modern living and with dire insulation properties, microscopic kitchens etc
Importantly 'new' builds do not have to pay any VAT on them.
This also applies when the original house is totally demolished including the foundations.
So it becomes cheaper to knock 'em down and rebuild from scratch rather than trying to renovate/improve.
-
Afraid the point of FTTP is lost on me.
It's nice to have a few 10's of Mbps to watch iTunes movies or Netflix but, anytime in the foreseeable future, why would a typical user need 100's of Mbps or Gbps?
If we don't need it, then FTTP is over-engineering, imho. And over-engineering always carries a financial cost of added expense for problems that don't need solving.
Also, consider the safety issues. You are supposed to be able to dial 999 to report your house is on fire, even if that fire has already cut the power, using a line-powered phone. How, exactly, would a phone be powered over fibre?
The amount of time you've spent on these forums I'm very surprised by what you've said above, it's so backwards looking.
FTTP does not suffer from distance, corrosion, line quality, rein, crosstalk etc. So therefore if Fred Bloggs orders an 80/20 service that's what he gets, not 47/6 like I do. Here at work we orderd 40/10, but we get 38/6, on FTTP we'd get what we ordered.
You may not require more than 30Mbps connection, but many families, or businesses do, including those who work from home.
Finally copper lines (or aluminum) are struggling at the moment with all their problems, so why would it make sense to install an inferior copper system compared to a fibre system which will do a 21st Century job for many years to come? Which will be able to keep up with 4K TV streaming, or even 8K in a few years time, and the numerous other things all sorts of different people use their connections for???
-
Those of us in the 80's and 90s starting off on the slowest modems have seen a major increase in resources needed as more powerful technology comes out. It seems to be a natural step that people make big resource intense games or media before having second thoughts about compression later. So the data requirement will always be increasing.
I suspect that eventually we'll have a "cable" system like the US when it comes to television services. This will need a high and consistant data streaming system, especially if people are already eyeing up 4K technology. The network will have to be able to feed a 4K tv signal to anyone who wants it. This can only be achieved by fibre.
On the mobile situation. A lot of people in europe and the US already don't use their landline for calls. Unless they have dsl services then some don't have any landline.
https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/06/landlines-one-quarter-of-europeans-go-without/ (https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/06/landlines-one-quarter-of-europeans-go-without/)
According to a broad study released by the European Union today, Europeans are hanging up on landlines in favor of mobile phones and VoIP.
The EU spoke with over 26,000 people across 27 countries in the EU during November and December last year to find that 24 percent of European households have canceled their landline phone service in favor of mobile phones. According to the study, 22 percent of European households are using PC software like Skype for making calls over the Internet, with citizens in Latvia (58 percent), Lithuania (51), the Czech Republic (50), Poland (49), and Bulgaria (46) leading the pack.
That was from 2008, 9 years ago. Imagine how that figure would have increased.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/more-than-half-of-american-homes-dont-use-a-landline/266675/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/more-than-half-of-american-homes-dont-use-a-landline/266675/)
We all knew this day was coming: According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control (which tracks these sorts of things for its phone surveys), more than half of American households (51.7 percent) don't regularly use a landline phone. The majority of those (35.8 percent) don't have a land line at all and another 15.9 percent have the line, but say they don't use them very often if ever.
That's from 2012. The US already more than HALF don't use a landline. It'll be well over that now.
Openreach and others need to position themselves to building broadband and broadcasting services. That will be the future.
-
ronski put it well its copper serving broadband thats over engineered as dsl is very complex technology to make analogue audio cables work for data
-
I'm not denying that existing FTTC needs to be improved. Many people, self included, struggle to reach any more than 20s of Mbps, and that's not enough. These are the people I think BT should be trying to help.
But this (subject of this thread) is about a new, ground-up, development. Surely all it would take would be careful positioning of cabinets, to ensure everybody there gets perfectly good FTTC?
I wonder if the real issue might be, for ground-up new developments (whole new towns), Fibre might a actually be as cheap, or cheaper than copper. Leaving the consumer to foot the bill for additional costs of terminal equipment with backup batteries and I think (may stand corrected) increased energy costs vs FTTC modems?
-
fibre for data is decades old tech
-
I'm not denying that existing FTTC needs to be improved. Many people, self included, struggle to reach any more than 20s of Mbps, and that's not enough. These are the people I think BT should be trying to help.
There you go, if you had FTTP you would have the speeds you'd ordered presuming no congestion elsewhere.
But this (subject of this thread) is about a new, ground-up, development. Surely all it would take would be careful positioning of cabinets, to ensure everybody there gets perfectly good FTTC?
I wonder if the real issue might be, for ground-up new developments (whole new towns), Fibre might a actually be as cheap, or cheaper than copper.
Exactly, laying fibre to you or me is very expensive because the roads have to be dug up in a lot of cases, and peoples drives and gardens, unless of course you're fed by poles - we're not. On a new estate it is built fully ducted right into the house. So which is cheaper - installing FTTC cabs, power to them etc, or simply pulling fibre through those ducts straight into the properties. By using fibre you don't get all the ongoing maintenance issues you get with copper either, so cheaper long term as well.
Leaving the consumer to foot the bill for additional costs of terminal equipment with backup batteries and I think (may stand corrected) increased energy costs vs FTTC modems?
You only need back up batteries for the ONT (http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/36953/~/fibre-home-phone-service%3A-questions-about-the-battery-back-up-unit) to enable a land line phone to work, the large majority of people won't have back batteries for the broadband equipment, and a lot won't even have a land line, we only have dect phones (very rarely used) and no battery backup for the base station even though I have a UPS for all the network gear. We 4 mobiles in the house on two different networks. I doubt the ONT is any more expensive to run than a modem for FTTC, although you'll need a two box solution like many of us have anyway.
If it was a choice between FTTC and FTTP I know what the large majority of us would choose :-)
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/63912/bt_group_plc.pdf
Edited to add battery backup links
-
fibre for data is decades old tech
Good point, in fact I worked on FDDI development for a while. In early 90s, FDDI was seen as the bee's knees, lightning fast 100Mbps, future proofing fast corporate lans. It didn't last, it was rendered obsolete by fast ethernet, yes... copper.
-
Good point, in fact I worked on FDDI development for a while. In early 90s, FDDI was seen as the bee's knees, lightning fast 100Mbps, future proofing fast corporate lans. It didn't last, it was rendered obsolete by fast ethernet, yes... copper.
It ended up moving to core and transport networks, and indeed anywhere where a run longer than 100m was required. It certainly wasn't obsoleted. Much as copper has allowed BT to delay FTTP copper supplies services that are 'good enough' for LANs. There are some really good, practical reasons for this. The only practical reason to use copper now is exclusive to Openreach and is because they don't want to invest.
Can't really compare having G.fast standards modified to accommodate BT not wanting to build fibre deeper into their network to a corporate LAN.