Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/04/openreach-start-removing-lr-vdsl-broadband-from-uk-trial-areas.html

Openreach (BT) has confirmed that they will imminently begin withdrawing their Long Reach VDSL (LR-VDSL) broadband technology trial from several deployments across the UK, which at one point had been touted as way of helping to deliver on the government’s 10Mbps broadband USO.

The Proof of Concept (PoC) LR-VDSL trial was essentially a modified version of the same VDSL2 technology that already exists in the current ‘up to’ 80Mbps capable Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC) network, albeit harnessing higher signal power, vectoring, G.INP and wider frequency ranges in order to deliver faster speeds over longer copper lines from your local street cabinet.

At one point it was even indicated that Openreach could have used LR-VDSL to support the government’s proposed 10Mbps Universal Service Obligation (USO) by pushing hybrid “fibre based” broadband out to 99% of the UK by 2020 or 2022. The PoC itself took place in Isfield (East Sussex), North Tolsta and Barvas (Isle of Lewis) but there were some tentative plans to expand it.

Unfortunately an update posted by BT to ISPs last October 2017 noted that the technology “hasn’t proved as much as expected, especially for the sub 10Mb lines”. On top of that LR-VDSL worked best when older ADSL connections were first disabled, which could have complicated the roll-out because ISPs needed to be convinced to play ball (a particularly thorny issue for unbundled ISPs, not to mention some differences in pricing).

I think the future of lines now is a combination of full fibre and g.fast (as g.fast was originally intended). Anything else is a waste of time imho.

[Chrysalis]

I consider the use of ADSL frequencies a key part of LR VDSL working, if BT cannot do that clearly it was going to be difficult to get success from it.

[kitz]

I consider the use of ADSL frequencies a key part of LR VDSL working, if BT cannot do that clearly it was going to be difficult to get success from it.

This^

Whilst ADSL is still in the loop then on long lines VDSL can quite easily give poorer performance.  Obvious really!   Whilst we still have LLU then Openreach's hands are tied

[Bowdon]

I noticed in the videos in thread: http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,21328.0.html specifically the CEO panel (last video) Greg Mesch of CityFibre made a good point about how OR won't get rid of the copper network because it makes them money. I suspect a similar situation with ADSL technology.

[kitz]

Greg Mesch of CityFibre made a good point about how OR won't get rid of the copper network because it makes them money. I suspect a similar situation with ADSL technology.

Where on earth did he say that?    These were some of the key phrases

"Because we have no legacy infrastructure or legacy assets" "Without any fear of the copper revenue migrations". "The framework is for up to 20% of the UK... across 12 cities... so we can actually give a better economic value to Vodafone"

Again he repeats

"Because we have no legacy infrastructure and no legacy systems, we are not trapped behind the copper revenue dilemma..  and we can do it at a better economic value than anyone else"

The "copper revenue dilemma" is that Openreach can't rip out the copper because the LLU providers would scream blue murder.  It's well known that BT/Openreach wanted to go full Fibre years ago, but unlike any of the other Telco's they have the likes of the gov and OFCOM holding them back...  and unlike others, they can't just cherry pick the profitable exchanges and are one of the few left to tackle the hard to reach areas.   Even VM who has a massive penetration in the UK arent made to open up their network or come under the restrictions that Openreach have.

Whilst I honestly don't have any axe to grind with City Fibre - in fact every bone in my body hopes they win the ASA challenge on Fibre -  and whilst Openreach arent perfect the one area that I do have some sympathy for them on is that OFCOM cripples what they can and can't do for fear of upsetting certain SP's who just want to piggy back. IMHO it would be great if Openreach were allowed to rip out the copper and lay more fibre, instead of having to pander to LLU providers who have adsl2+ equipment in a large portion of their exchanges.   An awful lot of techies will agree that later-day LLU is actually a hinderance.   In the beginning when you had pioneers such as BE and UKO it was good, but now those SP's have been bought out by larger SP's who really were in it for the money and who don't want to risk their own funds but instead piggy back on others investments, and who are far from whiter than white themselves.

/rant

---
Disclaimer.   Because this is one area that I feel strongly about, people often misinterpret it as being pro Openreach.   When the reality is I will (and have in the past taken on BT/Openreach when I felt they were wrong).   My interest in this particular area is what I feel is the regulators actually holding back progression of true fibre.   Instead Openreach have to spend millions pandering to and being restricted by certain sectors.

[burakkucat]

[b*cat purrs with menaces]
In less than a years time, Europe will be "gone". We shall then see whether the Government will readily abolish Ofcom or will need to be persuaded to do so.

Once Ofcom is "gone", BT and the company that it owns, Openreach, should be free to do what is technologically best.
[/b*cat purrs with menaces]

[Chrysalis]

This^

Whilst ADSL is still in the loop then on long lines VDSL can quite easily give poorer performance.  Obvious really!   Whilst we still have LLU then Openreach's hands are tied

Get rid of ofcom and we can progress, seems rather simple doesnt it.

1 - Merge openreach back to BT, its an artificial company which in turn adds duplicate overheads to costs as well.
2 - Allow BT/openreach the local loop owner to sell direct to customers for line rental.  No more the likes of sky and talktalk adding their own (massive) margin on top just for the sake of it with no added value.
3 - Remove wholesale price controls.
4 - Treat large infrastructure owners equally, if openreach is forced to wholesale then so should VM, you enforce both or neither.
5 - No more ADSL unbundled exchange based services in FTTC areas.  Make it so if the likes of sky and talktalk really want to carry on selling these services, then they can pay for a street cabinet and backhaul it to the exchange, perhaps over openreach fibre links already in place.    Note they can still use their exchange backhaul like they do now over GEA FTTC links, its just the xDSL termination points to be scrapped.
6 - Remove ADSL based services in FTTC areas as soon as is viable, either give these people a VDSL service (capped at ADSL speeds), or deploy cabinet based ADSL services.  Removes the need for power masking on FTTC services.

Without wholesale price controls we would likely see a much more FTTP friendly BT/openreach as then they can make a better business case if they can charge more for the service, in addition if they allowed to disband ADSL, they can sell E-side copper for cash as well and save money on E-side copper maintenance.

We also know BT want to remove exchanges, as they seen as a waste of cash, I expect holding them back on this as well is also LLU.

[Bowdon]

I was looking for the quotes but I thought I'd transcript the video part that I found most interesting;

1:05:20 Greg Mesch: "Now the copper switch over is a fantastic thing. We're putting £40 millon in to Milton Keynes right now doing 80,000 premises. If there is a copper switch over I'd like to see all that copper and all that revenue go on to my fibre network... And all 12 cities that we're building right now putting half a billion pounds of commitment to them, I'd like all the revenues that is in there to also to be switched over to my network. So as long as the copper switch over is fair then lets switch it all off. But then lets don't switch it off for the benefit of one [points to Mike McTighe - OR], lets switch it off for the benefit of all. So I just don't see it happening. I think that's the problem with the incumbent right now, and I don't think its going away... And here is the problem. He's going to run two networks for a long time. Hence he needs an incrimental return on that investment, hence the price for the consumer is twice what we can deliver it for.. and thats just not going away."

He then talks about why Vodafone signed with them, to 1. because CityFibre are selling fibre lines at half the price of OR, and 2. that Vodafone doesn't like OR having a monopoly on fibre.

A question from the audience came from GigaClear representative, Adrian Wooster, asking: "I'd be really interested to hear Mikes response to Gregs copper switch off comments actually, just to see if we can come to an accomodation on an even handed switch off"

1:08:35 Mike McTighe "So my answer is that that decision, I actually don't own those customers, that decision will be for Sky, TalkTalk and all the other CP's that we work with. My job is to give them products and services at a wholesale level that they want to continue to consume, and I will work very hard for them to stay on my wholesale network. But ultimately it will be for my communication providers to make that decision"

While I agree that Ofcom should be disbanded as its become a problem. It is also interesting that Ofcom isn't mentioned in these conversation exchanges. It starts me wondering is Ofcom a convenient excuse sometimes, and when speaking to other companies they know that excuse doesn't wash?

I always thought Ofcom was the reason OR gets bogged down keeping older technologies. So I would have expected Mike to mention that being one reason why they make the decisions they do. Infact in this exchange not only was Ofcom or reference to legislation absent from the exchange, Mike said it was really down to the CP's on if they wanted a copper switch over/off. So in theory if CP's wanted that then Mike is saying it can be done. Then it would run in to the situation Greg was talking about i.e. it would probably end up being unfair.

I'm not sure where Greg originates from but the switching over of whole sections of a network happens a lot in the US. They will build the fibre network then on a specific day they will switch off the copper network for that area and switch everything to the fibre network. This happened to someone I know in the US who hadn't been informed and suddenly found his ADSL modem wasn't connecting anymore. So they upgraded him free of charge to a fibre package with new modem etc.

[j0hn]

Chrysalis most points you made there would be a mistake.

Particularly

2. Seriously? Don't you think BT do this also? You really think they would suddenly drop line rental to £10/mo.
That ship has sailed.

5.
Would mean BT would be only the choice for most FTTC customers. It's not viable to have different cabinets for every ISP.
Openreach had to use BDUK funding for large parts of the country. It's not commercially viable to put in a cabinet to be shared between everyone, but you think it's financially viable to each ISP to install their own DSLAM. That's just crazy.

6.
It's also not viable to shut off ADSL at the exchange and replace with street cabinets.
Have you seen the amount of DSLAM's in some exchanges? Can you imagine how many street cabinets would be needed. On top of that you want 1 for every ISP.
That would never work, the suggestion is crazy.

I'm all for closing ADSL, but not for VDSL from street cabinets.

[Chrysalis]

#2 They probably would not drop it £10 month, but the difference is the extra margin would be going to the company that owns the local loop, so would be factored into ROI investment decisions for new local loop investments.  Ignition has mentioned another country allows their local loop owner to sell the basic rental to consumer (think was japan?).

#5 So on BT wholesale we only have the choice of one isp? that is news to me.  Even with BT owned DSLAMS isp's can still use their backhaul as is proven with FTTC, both sky and talktalk customers still go over sky LLU backhaul. I dont know how BDUK comes into this.  If you talking about BDUK funded FTTC rollouts, well yes but you forget two things.  (a) many of the BDUK areas were areas that had a poor economical case for "any" investment. (b) it includes the expensive laying down fibre which absolutely drawfs the cost of buying some dslam cards.  Adsl dslam cards can be brought for a few houndred pounds of ebay, and not to mention they already own dslams, they would need to be relocated yes but they could use exisitng openreach fibre as backhaul back to the exchange.  If isnt viable at all tho then yes scrap LLU adsl and piggy back on BT dslams.  Exchange based ADSL is holding things back.

#6 Not crazy at all.  Old copper from E side sold off, no more E side maintenance, and we already know BT want to move things away from exchanges, so even themselves want to do it.    Do you really think free of regulation BT would be voluntarily paying for the upkeep of duplicated infrastructure, and one that has an inflated upkeep cost at that?  Also I didnt say I want one for every isp, I just said the option would be there, knowing however that talktalk and co would refuse to spend, the reality is they would all piggy back on BT dslams, so wouldnbt be dedicated dslams to every isp.  Also I see it as intermediate solution, I dont see cabinet based ADSL or VDSL as long term solutions, but I see it as a means of progress.  Exchange based ADSL and especially wholesale regulated pricing is holding back BT the means to progress. 

If I was the CEO of BT I honestly think I would refuse to rollout FTTP if I had a regulator telling me I have to sell it at X price to my main competitor and my ROI was capped at a level they are free to change on a whim.  Even if ofcom agreed to something nice, they have a history of changing after a few months of whinging from talktalk.

If you think about it for a moment, one of the prime business cases for FTTP is to free one self of having to maintain legacy copper, yet if you are obligated by the regulator to keep that copper in place, that business case is down the drain, surely you can understand that. What ofcom seem to want from BT is for them to rollout fibre to the premises, sell it a cut price to sky and talktalk that gives them about 100 year payback on breaking even, and on top of that keep all their exchanges open, on top of that maintain the long E side copper runs.  I think they in lala land.