Print

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

[Chrysalis]

Commercial probably means where no BDUK funding was used.  So BT funded 100% of the costs.

[Black Sheep]

Ah right. Uou live and learn. Cheers.

[Chrysalis]

Basically what he said is vectoring will come in BDUK areas, because those areas wont get g.fast.

g.fast of course beats vectored vdsl.  So eventually the commercial areas will be better off.

[Terranova667]

What about those areas that are mixed where i live there are some cabs that were BT invested and some that were BDUK so is it classed as an BT area or a BDUK one,  funnily enough all the BT cabs are ECI and the BDUk ones are Huawei, i'm stuck on a BT one so ECI, still waiting for the G.INP mess and what is going to happen for us ECI cab users to get sorted out never mind what is coming next.   

[terrencem]

Does this mean that the vectoring trials will end?
When vectoring was enabled on my line my downstream speed went up from about 30mbs to 40 mbs (I'm on a 40/10 product - my max obtainable is about 48 mbs).

[Chrysalis]

no idea, I find it all odd.  They have gone to the expense of modifying hauwei cabinets and the trials, so it would be odd to at least not do a hauwei rollout.

[Black Sheep]

Basically what he said is vectoring will come in BDUK areas, because those areas wont get g.fast.

g.fast of course beats vectored vdsl.  So eventually the commercial areas will be better off.

I can concur with what I can see, that BDUK were and still are to receive vectoring on 'Vector capable DSLAMS', first. I can't see anything regarding the suspension of a further roll-out, to what is being called 'Commercial FTTC' within this thread.

I'm not saying it isn't so, and we (All Openreach) have been invited to the now-annual roadshow (mid-June for myself) whereby all our big-wigs are available to ask questions to and of. That includes members of the Chief Engineers team. I shall be hounding them guys given chance !! 

If I get anything further before then that is not deemed commercially sensitive, then I shall post it here. Until then, I suppose we have to take Ignitionet at his word ?? I don't visit other sites, but if Chrys says he's in the know, then that'll do for me.

[Chrysalis]

I am just passing on what I read from ignition what he posted on the plusnet forum, ignition has contacts in the isp industry and has worked for at least 2 different isp's that I know off.

[Ronski]

Didn't he also lead a very successful campaign to get his cabinet upgraded as it was initially left out of the roll out, so successful that it was filled in a very short time and they installed another. If my memory is correct then he made quite a few contacts within BT/Openreach.

Myself I'd take g fast any day, especially as I'm on an ECI cab. There's a footway box just across from my house, they can slot it in there.
 From what's I've seen all the recent BDUK cabs around here are Huawei, all previous ones are eci.

[niemand]

Didn't he also lead a very successful campaign to get his cabinet upgraded as it was initially left out of the roll out, so successful that it was filled in a very short time and they installed another. If my memory is correct then he made quite a few contacts within BT/Openreach.

He did! The other is also stuck for capacity - there are now so many FTTC subs that a stand off shell is needed for the PCP, no room for more blocks for jumpers to/from the 2nd Huawei.

He didn't use his contacts for this though. What he said is published information.

Sorry to be bearer of bad news.

EDIT: Incidentally you know those hopes of getting higher speeds through vectoring? As of right now: uh-uh.

[niemand]

no idea, I find it all odd.  They have gone to the expense of modifying hauwei cabinets and the trials, so it would be odd to at least not do a hauwei rollout.

There is an awful lot of difference between testing it on a handful of cabinets and installing vectoring engines in tens of thousands of them.

The modifications done to the Huawei kit, replacing line cards, were to fix a problem with Openreach's telemetry / line testing, not to facilitate vectoring. The Huawei 96s and 288s / 5603T and 5616T are good to go for vectoring beyond the need for a vectoring engine board.

There are 100 DSLAMs in the field as part of the trial with vectoring engines in them. No more as of right now.

[Dray]

He didn't use his contacts for this though. What he said is published information.

Sorry to be bearer of bad news.

EDIT: Incidentally you know those hopes of getting higher speeds through vectoring? As of right now: uh-uh.

So what's the news about vectoring?

[Black Sheep]

Hi Ignitionnet

I have to say, Chrys making the announcement about vectoring being halted on 'Commercial FTTC', (as mentioned initially by yourself) ....... had me visit the PN forum, which is something I just don't usually do.

I noticed my name mentioned by yourself in the 'Vectoring' thread, and thought it best to try and clear something up ?? I don't know the poster in the same thread who mentioned about 'Talking to engineers', but your subsequent comments intended or not (and I don't think they were), may be construed that I simply amble along 'Cutting & Pasting' slightly relevant information.

The issue is the vast wealth of information available to OR engineers, and I do mean vast,  is covered by 'Annexe 2 undertakings' and the always-prevalent 'Commercially sensitive information' headings. Ergo, making it unfit for public consumption. So, although I don't possess a key to the FTTC Cabs (although I've been in a good few hundred with ECI engineers on VTUC MK2 card retro-fits ) ....... I do have a bit of an insight as to what is going on in my industry.

Now for the humble-pie bit. I will admit that our leaders are slow to push info down to we lowly engineers, and agree that you ISP's need to be made aware first of any changes to the delivery of xDSL. I'm also thankful that we have people like yourself willing to share the info you get ahead of us. I just wanted to put that out there. 

[Dray]

https://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,114211.msg1228452.html#msg1228452
So, vectoring.

No deployments are planned in the commercial footprint.

Some deployments are planned in 'vector ready' BDUK sites where vectoring cabinets will see improvements in coverage at the current speed levels.

No plans to use vectoring to offer new tiers on FTTC.

Any widespread vectoring previously considered dropped in favour of G.fast, VM having begun to aggressively pursue ultrafast alongside expanding their coverage rendering the relatively small uplift from vectoring worthless.

I hate to say I told you so, but... I did tell you so.

[niemand]

I noticed my name mentioned by yourself in the 'Vectoring' thread, and thought it best to try and clear something up ?? I don't know the poster in the same thread who mentioned about 'Talking to engineers', but your subsequent comments intended or not (and I don't think they were), may be construed that I simply amble along 'Cutting & Pasting' slightly relevant information.

The issue is the vast wealth of information available to OR engineers, and I do mean vast,  is covered by 'Annexe 2 undertakings' and the always-prevalent 'Commercially sensitive information' headings. Ergo, making it unfit for public consumption. So, although I don't possess a key to the FTTC Cabs (although I've been in a good few hundred with ECI engineers on VTUC MK2 card retro-fits ) ....... I do have a bit of an insight as to what is going on in my industry.

Now for the humble-pie bit. I will admit that our leaders are slow to push info down to we lowly engineers, and agree that you ISP's need to be made aware first of any changes to the delivery of xDSL. I'm also thankful that we have people like yourself willing to share the info you get ahead of us. I just wanted to put that out there. 

I don't disagree. You don't, however, appear to have access to the NGA or NGA 2 working group information, hence with things like this your information is incomplete.

I didn't for a moment want to give the impression you have no idea, however people are taking what you write here and running with it way beyond what you actually said, alongside thinking that you have access to NGA information that CPs don't which, obviously, apart from some operational information is definitely not the case. Were Openreach to keep such things to themselves CPs would have them strung up.

You are going to have a PM in the near future not entirely unrelated to another matter you raised in here. That is not for public consumption.