Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: waltergmw on June 03, 2017, 11:11:48 AM
-
Gentlefolk,
I'm delighted to report on the magnificent progress on Broadband for the Rural North's spectacular symmetric 1 Gbps broadband services for only £30.00 (Inc VAT) per month.
The original 8 parishes had become 22 before they started burying their blown fibre tube.
That figure has now "exploded" to over 60 parishes already with well over 3,000 live services and many more underway.
Although far from total coverage, particularly in larger villages and towns, their area stretches from Kendal down to the hinterland behind Preston and from Morecambe bay at Storth and Silverdale all the way across to Austwick near Settle.
The latest recruit is Sedbergh which will provide a dual diverse routed link to Garsdale and Dent (The former FibreGarDen project area).
However and VERY sadly B4RN (and BT) are NOT immune from the senseless acts of vandalism by a tiny number of idiots.
Yesterday at around 16:30 they excavated a twin 16 mm tube and sheared through two 192 f cables before filling the hole in.
That caused all those already connected in Ingleton and a couple of Leck properties to lose connection (as Ingleton's diverse route is incomplete at present).
Luckily with an OTDR it is simplicity itself to locate the break.
The emergency response team awoke to a glorious dawn having restored all services by 04:38 this morning.
The picture below is the damaged tube and more pictures can be see for a short time at:-
https://b4rn.org.uk/b4rn-service/network-status/
Kind regards,
Walter
-
Deliberate vandalism? Or more like a wilful accident?
We had one at work a few years back, and I happened to be watching out of the window. A JCB driver on an adjacent building site pulled a cable up out of the ground. After stopping and looking, he continued to pull until the cable snapped ... and we lost connection to the outside world immediately. An accident, but a tad more thought would have prevented any negative outcome.
I have to say, though, that your photo doesn't look like ducting for blowing fibre cables down. It looks more like a pre-made twin cable, directly-buried. Is that right?
The photos in the link look like B4RN added an impromptu chamber to house the repair. And a really fast repair, too.
-
@ WWWombat,
Thanks for your compliment.
There is no question that this was quite deliberate vandalism.
We also observed BT in the vicinity so they had probably been treated in the same way but could also have had copper stolen.
That really is twin sheathed 16 mm Emtelle Fibreflow™ fibre duct which, in this instance, contained 2 * 192 f cables.
Here's further detail:-
http://www.emtelle.com/experience/b4rn-community-projects-emtelle-fibreflow/
You can see the tube has a rifle-type bore to maintain an air vortex to float the cable.
Two new lengths of 192 f cable were inserted.
Indeed B4RN had to add another chamber to accommodate one pair of the new joint bullets.
The other pair were remade in an existing chamber.
__________________________________________
More generally I should have mentioned B4RN's significant systems enhancements.
They now have complete dual diversity routes to Internet exchanges down to Manchester / London and up to Edinburgh / Glasgow.
I am no expert in these matters but I suspect B4RN's network is one of the most robust in the UK, once fully completed.
There will be dual diverse routed services to every distribution cabinet all the way back to the two Internet exchanges.
Every property has two individual and separate fibres back to the distribution cabinet, although that part is a single link.
Gigaclear follow a similar design but another major provider seems to put more complicated monopolistic requirements (by sharing a single fibre with up to 32 properties with asymmetric services) over a far simpler design. As a single fibre within a cable only costs £4 per km there can be no financial reason to share the fibre and it must surely complicate any fault-finding operations.
Kind regards,
Walter
-
. . . but another major provide[r] seems to put more complicated monopolistic requirements (by sharing a single fibre with up to 32 properties with asymmetric services) over a far simpler design. As a single fibre within a cable only costs £4 per km there can be no financial reason to share the fibre and it must surely complicate any fault-finding operations.
Now I wonder who that could be? :hmm: :-\ :-X :angel:
-
Interesting addition about BT ... it suggests that this wasn't targeted at B4RN, but was indeed an attempt at copper theft.
You can see the tube has a rifle-type bore to maintain an air vortex to float the cable.
Right. It looked to me that the "rifling" was actually the shape of the cable jacket to hold the 192 fibres in place. Using rifling to reduce friction and improve the airflow on blown ducting looks like an interesting idea.
More generally I should have mentioned B4RN's significant systems enhancements.
I'll come back and comment on those other matters later. Enough, for now, that B4RN dealt with this problem very efficiently.
-
@wwwombat,
There are two theories on the vandalism. One that they were ignorant of what might be within the cable and that they were looking at copper theft.
The other, more ingenious, notion that they were trying to disable all comms within that area to silence all alarm systems from the outside world.
I should perhaps emphasise that there is no suggestion that this was the work of any remotely associated BT Supporter.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes re the tube construction. Multiple ducts are encased in sheathing but every 16 mm duct has rifling on the inside to aid the blowing operation. Everyone talks of blowing but most of the pushing force comes from the cable gripping belts in the blowing unit with the compressed air mainly causing the cable to float clear of the tube walls.
Kind regards,
Walter
-
Gigaclear follow a similar design but another major provider seems to put more complicated monopolistic requirements (by sharing a single fibre with up to 32 properties with asymmetric services) over a far simpler design. As a single fibre within a cable only costs £4 per km there can be no financial reason to share the fibre and it must surely complicate any fault-finding operations.
Kind regards,
Walter
Hi Walter. Kudos to the team on the fast repair.
PON doesn't complicate fault finding. Indeed, BT can see a fault that takes down a split before it's reported as a group of ONTs in the customer premises would drop off the OLT at the exchange / head end.
The primary cost saver isn't fibre, that's cheap, it's port density at the exchange or head end along with duct space. You folks need a port on a switch for every home while BT, Verizon, even Google Fiber need a single port on an OLT per 32 premises passed.
You also need to bear in mind that the current solution BT use is asymmetrical but symmetrical capacity can be delivered simply through replacement of modules in kit either side of the fibre, and can be done while running asymmetrical services simultaneously on that same fibre.
-
Does the point to point system not make it easy(ier) to work a system where each subscriber is/might be/can be on a different speed packages?
Or additionally have it such that there can be a business subscriber as well as a domestic subscriber each having different 'priorities' in respect of any speed guarantees?
I suppose also that port failures only affect the single subscriber rather than a block.
I know GC were (when we were connected) using Milegate units from Keymile as the ports in their subscriber cabinets giving around 400+ or so residences that could be connected to a single cabinet.
-
Does the point to point system not make it easy(ier) to work a system where each subscriber is/might be/can be on a different speed packages?
Or additionally have it such that there can be a business subscriber as well as a domestic subscriber each having different 'priorities' in respect of any speed guarantees?
No on both counts.
-
@6cem,
Although I don't know of any examples B4RN are able to provide 5 and 10 Gbps services via their distribution cabinets.
B4RN now have a footprint (but not complete coverage) in around 30 exchange areas but without a connection to any.
It is interesting to note that Gigaclear have adopted the higher reliability dual diverse-routed underground solution again offering different packages without any requirement to route facilities via any exchanges.
If BT can provide domestic symmetric services why are they not offered as it seems they are making themselves less agile / competitive ?
Furthermore why, in Devon and Somerset, are they still taking so long to complete their overhead-serviced contract supposedly terminated in 2016 and why are some properties unable to get FTTH when others close-by can ?
I wonder if there is a distance or economic-case limitation between their splitters and premises ?
-
Not sure I get you here, Walter. BT route via exchanges because they've big, powered buildings with backup batteries and generators to put kit in. When you've a place like that to install kit you're unlikely to build large cabinets and supply them with mains and backup power if you don't have to.
The BT solution can be diverse once it gets to the head end but is single point of failure before that, much as the B4RN solution is single point of failure between customer and the nodal cabinet where the optics are lit. The Gigaclear and VM FTTP solutions both use powered cabinets to light the fibre and are also not resilient between customer and cabinet, they only have a redundant feed from that point on.
BT aren't providing symmetrical services because they've no need. What are they competing against in most places that requires symmetrical services? Most people on FTTP are on the 40Mb product, only 5% actually take a product higher than the 80Mb/20Mb product. There's hardly an abundant market of people craving the higher speeds. They'd be competing against their own EADs which would be crazy from their point of view.
CDS, I'm sure there is an economic case limitation. BT were contracted to pass a certain amount of properties. If the economic case didn't add up for some and they required too much subsidy I've no doubt they weren't covered. There is no distance limitation, BT's solution has longer range than the 10 or 20 km 1000Base-BX optics B4RN are using. No BDUK contract targeted ubiquitous coverage in its first wave.
-
That's interesting reading Ignitionet ............. not at all savvy when it comes to this side of the fence and it's good to see it put into words I can (almost) understand. Cheers.
-
You are very welcome, Sir. If I can clarify anything else please let me know.
I've worked on most things broadband and networking at one level or another so hopefully can be of some use occasionally.
-
This is quite timely on PON.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/06/bt-openreach-uk-demo-100gbps-hyperfast-fttp-consumer-broadband.html
Fair to say that for the foreseeable PON isn't going to be a problem for either capacity or troubleshooting. That split would serve the entire B4RN customer base just fine :)
-
I was going to pop back and make some comments, but it looks like @Ignition got most of my points in.
It did look like BT were going to be able to offer symmetric gigabit package based on "just" multiplexing GPON, XGPON and NGPON2 (2.5 + 10 + 40 down, 1+4+10 up). Having a 100/40 variant just adds more icing.
I also saw that Nokia had been doing a 10/10 XGS-PON variant. ie symmetric.
-
Indeed. NG-PON 2 can be delivered at 40Gb symmetrical per split, 10Gb/s to an individual ONT, there's a symmetrical 10Gb/s variant of EPON and this 100G/40G EPON variant here.
Incidentally WWW the primary concern for BT with regards to the higher speeds is ensuring that the prioritised rates are guaranteed, so depending on how many subscribers are connected to a split the 1Gb service is deployed over either GPON or XGPON. If only ECI equipment is available there's no XGPON so the 500Mb and 1Gb services may not be available at all.
-
I have observed the BT sympathising japery waxing lyrical for some time so perhaps it is now time to respond.
For those not acquainted, any discussion of PON designs on dual diverse point-to-point infrastructure is a spurious diversion. In blunt terms any such sympathisers who think B4RN are to festoon the moors, fells and dales with more complicated splitters had better think again. Who would be so stupid as to add an overhead fibre cable to a twisted pair one so when it’s blown down you need two teams possibly in MBORC conditions to mend the infrastructure eventually ?
If Symmetric PON were a practical solution why hasn’t BT implemented it ? All we can see are a minute number of partial asymmetric over-builds of the B4RN ever-expanding network entirely independent of old fashioned exchanges. Dolphinholme off the Forton Exchange, Tunstall off Kirkby Lonsdale, and a tiny part of Silverdale where the FTTC distances are too far as all the lines were EO until two FTTCs were placed just outside the exchange. Similarly at Ingleton where many are too far from the exchange with only PCP 1 at Westfield actually in a remote area. Forton is another splendid example where PCP 1 in Cockerham has helped a few achieve a slightly better asymmetric service but many others are left with sub 2 Mbps speeds on EO lines from Galgate. There might be a few other FTTH deployments but perhaps Black Sheep might be kind enough to add them for me.
B4RN is only a tiny minnow as Prof Barry Forde calls it; only approaching 4,000 subscribers but nobody objects when they have a symmetric 1,000 Mbps service for just £30.00 (inc VAT) per month. Perhaps that’s why there are some roads with 100% take-up ?
A more significant player is Gigaclear who, surprise surprise, have also opted for a dual diverse routed symmetric service design. That’s what allowed them react immediately to satisfy the urgent request from BBC Two’s Springwatch from The Sherborne Park Estate in Gloucestershire for a symmetric service:-
https://www.gigaclear.com/springwatch-gets-an-ultrafast-boost/
I am most impressed with the tenacity of the Openreach stalwarts but it is such a shame that the “Proud Guardians of the Nation’s local access network” seem to be floundering with quite unacceptable installation delays as evidenced by this Devon & Somerset resident:-
“So, finally, after nearly 4 months from order BT have managed to complete my FTTP installation. I can honestly say that a solid Internet connection it is a game changer, and 50/10 mbs is OK... for now. Tbh 10mbs is still a tad sluggish when uploading 2 - 3 GB videos to YouTube and backing up several 100's of GBs to the cloud!!! I can also say that BTs management are, as we all know, utterly shambolic. It's a wonder that they are capable of posting profits... I shan't be a customer for long! Roll on Gigaclear!!!”
-
You seem to be answering a whole bunch of remarks no-one actually made.
Neither B4RN or Gigaclear are 'dual diverse point-to point infrastructure', I would recommend you read up on the B4RN network design. The diversity is between hubs/nodes, not to individual premises, and no-one actually suggested B4RN should use PON. Point-to-point is the optimal solution, PON is a perfectly acceptable solution with no bottlenecks for the foreseeable future. Who would be so stupid as to add an overhead fibre cable to a twisted pair one? That'd be every company in the world that deals with existing overhead plant.
Take up of FTTC here on a 625 premises passed cabinet, not a single street, is over 75%. So what? B4RN is cheap due to community involvement and take up is high in no small part due to that community involvement. Were it to have been deployed on a purely commercial basis, paying wayleaves and not being able to enlist people to build the network in return for shares it wouldn't be as cost effective. Comparing it to fully commercial enterprises for either cost or take up is silly.
Regarding the 'need for speed' Hyperoptic have 1Gb symmetrical services available. Less than 10% of subscribers to their services purchase it.
BT don't deploy symmetrical PON because they don't have to, for commercial reasons. It is a perfectly practical solution, there are tens of millions of premises passed by PON sold at symmetrical rates.
I have no idea what you were drinking that made you decide to post that but apart perhaps from the ultra-local stuff relating to B4RN deployment areas that I can't comment on the rest of it doesn't make a lot sense. Being realistic about BT isn't an insult to B4RN or anyone else, it's just stating facts. Sorry if you consider this 'BT sympathising japery waxing lyrical'.
-
I am "calling time" on this thread. It was started as an item of news (note its location: "Announcements > News Articles") and for that purpose, it has done its job. I was hoping that there might have been a subsequent post from someone who could have provided us with some details about the co-incident attack on the BT Group's infrastructure at the same location.
The subsequent meander of this thread, into discussions on other infrastructure deployments, would have been appropriate elsewhere but not under the Announcements > News Articles" category.