Print

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

[WWWombat]

Well what we do know is that openreach are prepared to extend fibre to street distribution points without any guarantee of orders, they already consider that viable.

That is not what BT or Openreach have actually said. They have been very careful to say any rollout is 'subject to xxxx small print' and neither have they actually said that G.Fast will go to the distribution point-in fact most now expect it to be offered from existing FTTC cabinet locations first.

I'd make this same point: BT can likely reach their 2020 target of 10m homes without taking fibre any deeper at all; just by placing a G.fast node alongside the FTTC cabinet.

And even when they want to go deeper, the Huntingdon and Gosforth trials are meant to help determine where (between PCP and DP) they will choose to site the DPU's.

BT haven't committed to where they will plant the DPU's yet - but they have said that putting 4 million of them out there (which is what would be needed to site them at every DP) is too expensive, so we can expect them closer to the PCP. Their work at "persuading" chipset firms work on extended range options for G.fast suggest they may be looking at copper distances of over 200m - perhaps 300m or 400m.

If fibre is pushed out that far, the extra cost of FTTP on top of that is not that significant, All openreach would need to do is push out fibre the same amount as is supposedly planned for g.fast and then only do the rest when an order comes in, so there is no rolling out FTTP without orders, in effect similar to the FTTPoD, but the main difference been the product is actually marketed and priced at a point takeup will occur.

If fibre is pushed out to the DP, then yes, rolling out FTTP is cheaper than it would otherwise be but you are wrong in thinking the costs are not that significant. The costs of converting homes to fibre are more than connecting a DP to a fibre node - and doing it on demand also more than doing an entire area at once.

Again, I'd make roughly the same point. However, even if BT chose to site the DPU at the DP, it would be a case of deploying 4 million DPU's, along with an average of 350m of fibre for each one, running the fibre mostly through ducted access. That's a maximum of 1.4 million km - but likely to be a lot less, as routes from PCP to DP can be shared/daisy-chained.

Rolling out FTTP would need to be to 28 million premises - a large factor more than 4 million - and an extra 50m to each: which turns out to be another 1.4 million km - but this time unlikely to be shared. All with the extra admin of needing appointments.

IIRC, the calculations done in the study on Amsterdam suggested that deployment of G.fast would be less than half that of FTTP.

And, IIRC again, the Nesta calculation of deploying G.fast vs FTTP, and factoring the eventual reuse of deeper fibre, was that deploying G.fast *now* followed by FTTP in 2023 cost the same as deploying FTTP now. Their deciding factor thus becomes: If G.fast gives you all the speeds you need until 2023, or later, you might as well deploy G.fast. If it needs replacing before 2023, then you should go for FTTP.

Meanwhile, the BSG base calculations (IIRC, again) suggested that average home would be fine with 19Mbps in 2023 (ie 19Mbps isn't enough for 50%); that 38Mbps was needed to keep the top 1% of homes happy apart from the busiest minute, and that 50Mbps was needed to keep that top 1% happy at all times.

BT themselves were estimating that, in 2025, "Many homes, most days, and some of the time" would be using 50Mbps.

If BT believe any of those figures even vaguely, G.fast looks economically worthwhile. Especially if they can pass on the costs of FTTP to subscribers who demand more than a G.fast speed, and will pay a semi-reasonable on-demand charge.

Also back to the topic at hand, I wonder how many of EE customers (now owned by BT) will move to BT retail broadband/tv products when they get bundling offers thrown at them.

 

But I don't think the change will be as great as you expect given that EE already offer EE TV, line rental and broadband to their customers. The main opportunities come from BT being able to offer better mobile contracts to its own customer base.

BT already do a quasi-bundle for their mobile offers, by knocking £5 off each SIM per month, if you have a BT broadband contract. But I agree that the short-term opportunity comes in improving that deal.

I also wonder whether they'll follow DT's lead, and market a home broadband service that can combine 4G and "fibre" connectivity for backhaul, giving faster speeds than available purely through the fixed network. It might even allow them to reach more of their USC target properties at 2Mbps, or the USO target of 10Mbps ... possibly in combination with the rollout of the emergency services hardware.

But I think the ultimate target is in a fully converged network. Ubiquitous coverage. Where your device (and your family's devices) connect over a BT connection, whether that is your home fixed-line connection, a work fixed-line connection, a BT WiFi connection (via someone else's home/work connection), or their 4G LTE network. Or even a combination of these simultaneously.

[WWWombat]

BT have been in control of openreach for about a decade, not sure why people think they capable or even willing to improve it.  The desire isnt there from BT.

That decade seems to have been long enough to
a) fit in a honeymoon period, adapting processes to the new relationship
b) a first attempt at cutting costs to make themselves viable, with very different engineer working patterns
c) discovering that this first effort went too far, or the wrong direction, and left a bad service record
d) having Ofcom come in with a list of targets
e) hiring a new CEO, with a revised focus, plus new set of engineers to attempt to meet Ofcom's new targets
f) start showing some improved results
... but not long enough to show the continuation of the improved results, nor any phases later to make new batches of improvements.

All this is going on at the same time as
g) the biggest overhaul of the access network since the sixties, and
h) a big increase in demand for engineer installations of FTTC

Steps (c) and (e) are the ones that show willingness and desire to improve things. Making changes, and agreeing them with both customers and regulators, is a long-winded process. Then putting them into action is another long-winded process.

Is a decade long enough to expect them to have gone through this process any more times?

It would certainly be better if this process could be more nimble - but new ownership wouldn't, by itself, achieve this. An entirely different approach to regulation might help achieve it, but I'm not sure that would bring the stability that Openreach (in either guise) would need.

[Chrysalis]

They most likely have taken note of the new EU telecoms commissioner's statements a while back.
These were in effect that "competition" has resulted in lowering of prices to consumers (who seem to care about nothing else than lowest price 'now') at the expense of capital investment.

So the EU has signaled that we can see larger mergers being allowed that might have been the case and some forms of exclusivity being permitted to give the supplier guarantees on future income stream.
All designed to give a push to invest.  In short consumers the days of choice being endlessly chasing the cheapest deal will go - you want a decent service for the 22nd century - start paying for it.

So I hazard a guess that OFCOM would rather these two merge than something far less palatable which the EU might then approve over the heads of any UK/OFCOM objection.

Interesting except prices have been rising pretty fast the last few years when you take compulsory line rental into account.
I am predicting non bundled prices will go up whilst bundled prices will plummet.
Regarding investment I have already said what I think will happen

[Chrysalis]

BT have been in control of openreach for about a decade, not sure why people think they capable or even willing to improve it.  The desire isnt there from BT.

That decade seems to have been long enough to
a) fit in a honeymoon period, adapting processes to the new relationship
b) a first attempt at cutting costs to make themselves viable, with very different engineer working patterns
c) discovering that this first effort went too far, or the wrong direction, and left a bad service record
d) having Ofcom come in with a list of targets
e) hiring a new CEO, with a revised focus, plus new set of engineers to attempt to meet Ofcom's new targets
f) start showing some improved results
... but not long enough to show the continuation of the improved results, nor any phases later to make new batches of improvements.

All this is going on at the same time as
g) the biggest overhaul of the access network since the sixties, and
h) a big increase in demand for engineer installations of FTTC

Steps (c) and (e) are the ones that show willingness and desire to improve things. Making changes, and agreeing them with both customers and regulators, is a long-winded process. Then putting them into action is another long-winded process.

Is a decade long enough to expect them to have gone through this process any more times?

It would certainly be better if this process could be more nimble - but new ownership wouldn't, by itself, achieve this. An entirely different approach to regulation might help achieve it, but I'm not sure that would bring the stability that Openreach (in either guise) would need.

e) was forced on them.

Interesting comments regarding DP's in the last few posts.

When I posted on TBB and plusnet suggesting that BT will do g.fast cheap and only deploy from cabinets, you and some others were telling me because the trials are done with deeper fibre thats how the rollout will be, so which way is it?

Are BT going to do g.fast on the cheap with next to no investment and only deploy from cabinets (or next to cabinets), in which case it would prove my point about been allergic to spending money, or are they going to deploy from nearer to the property in which case my point about FTTP not been a significant cost is valid.  The £1000 per property by the way was from pre FTTC, so that estimate is already out of date and was based on no FTTC been done to cabinets already.

Also my own experience and reading revk's blog only shows openreach getting worse not better.  e.g. They have steadily over the years implemented policies that discourage fault reporting and also make it harder to classify a service faulty, aaisp 10 years ago didnt have to tell their customers to hide their router's to stop an engineer blaming it for a fault.

[Weaver]

Openreach clearly needs to get more money in, and probably putting up the prices for repairs and such would be a good way doing it. The government needs to be putting in more investment to cure extremely slow rural fibre, and the profits from some if the this should be going straight to OR?

[roseway]

I think this discussion has run its course, and most of it has nothing to do with the original subject...

[Weaver]

Apologise most humbly for my previous offtopic posts.

[kitz]

Interesting except prices have been rising pretty fast the last few years when you take compulsory line rental into account.

Im not sure how many times I have to say this...  but that is not the doing of Openreach.   The wholesale costs charged to the ISPs has fallen.   Did you see the document I posted the other day?  Line rental is cheaper.   Its the ISPs who have been inflating the prices... it started off with the offsetting of broadband costs purely so that certain ISPs could advertise cheap broadband for the first 'x' months.   Blame the likes of TT and Sky who started that ball rolling.  The others followed because the ads showing free broadband worked and too many people were sucked into cheap broadband not looking at the total cost.

I am predicting non bundled prices will go up whilst bundled prices will plummet.

Again thats up to the SPs who resell it us..  what they pay Openreach/wholesale is set.   Of course they will try sell triple/quad play services.   They are all at it.  Nowt to do with Openreach.   Its the SPs who want a slice of each pie, so of course they will sell bundles cheaper.  TalkTalk and Sky started it.  [/broken record]  

Interesting comments regarding DP's in the last few posts.

When I posted on TBB and plusnet suggesting that BT will do g.fast cheap and only deploy from cabinets, you and some others were telling me because the trials are done with deeper fibre thats how the rollout will be, so which way is it?

I dont do TBB so no idea what was said.  I dont think even BT themselves know yet as surely it will entirely depend upon a review of the local area?

Ive seen documentation which shows both, but the vast majority of the diagrams are as an extension from the cab.  To me it would make most sense to do it this way as there will be a node near to it.. and its how FFTPod is currently provisioned.  Does it matter how it is provisioned as long as the bandwidth is there?  All the nodes usually hook up to an aggregation node at some point anyhow.

Are BT going to do g.fast on the cheap with next to no investment and only deploy from cabinets (or next to cabinets), in which case it would prove my point about been allergic to spending money, or are they going to deploy from nearer to the property in which case my point about FTTP not been a significant cost is valid. 

Sorry that paragraph does not make sense to me. Fttdp is just that... to the DP... not the cab!  The locations of the DPs are already there.. some are on poles, some are UG.   

There's at least 4.2 million DPs in the UK compared to circa 90k PCPs. 
The most expensive part of provisioning FTTH is the final stretch ie from the DP to the home as this is where ROI is least effective.   We are not just saying this.. it is a world-wide fact. 

[kitz]

I think this discussion has run its course, and most of it has nothing to do with the original subject...

Ooops sorry sir, I had already started my post before yours.
You are correct in that BT's deployment of FTTH/FTTDP nor the splitting off of Openreach is nothing to do with the acquisition of EE

[gt94sss2]

There's at least 4.2 million DPs in the UK compared to circa 90k PCPs.

Roughly 4.7 million DP's and 98,000 PCPs according to the latest BT Annual report (P71)

But to bring this back somewhat to topic and BT buying EE:

But I think the ultimate target is in a fully converged network. Ubiquitous coverage. Where your device (and your family's devices) connect over a BT connection, whether that is your home fixed-line connection, a work fixed-line connection, a BT WiFi connection (via someone else's home/work connection), or their 4G LTE network. Or even a combination of these simultaneously

I agree - BT's interest has always been in trying to have as much traffic as possible carried over its network.

In fact, I fully expect the Home Hub 6 or 7 to include a femtocell - and I suspect if the technology had been more advanced/ready for market, BT might even have opted to launch BT Mobile using femtocell's and its broadband network - and opting against buying a mobile firm at all.

[jelv]

The others followed because the ads showing free broadband worked and too many people were sucked into cheap broadband not looking at the total cost.

I posted this on the Plusnet Community forums the other day:

If an ISP advertised FREE Unlimited 80/20 fibre with £100 cashback (plus £75 per month line rental) some idiots would buy it!

[kitz]

I can believe it Jelv..  and then they would still point the finger at Openreach!   The practice of cross subsidisation has got out of hand to the point of ridiculous.  Too many of the SPs are now insisting that you must have line rental with them or charge a premium.  IMHO OFCOM should be investigating this and it would be far more beneficial to the EU.

[Chrysalis]

kitz please dont speak to me like I am simple, check the post I Replied to

"has resulted in lowering of prices to consumers"

since when are wholesale customers consumers?

My comment regarding bundled prices is in reference to EE.  Not to BTw/openreach or whatever.

So to repeat I predict EE prices will go up for those who dont take other BT services, and plummet for those who take other BT services.

Also regarding FTTP cost who is the "we" you refer to?  You and BT?

The most expensive part of FTTP is already done, it depends if you looking at a per premises cost or an overall cost.  e.g. in my case my copper line was over 4km to the exchange, now its just circa 400m to the cabinet, post g.fast it could be down to just 100m or so of copper, are you trying to imply its more expensive for BT to replace 100m of copper from a pole than it is 4km via ducts? sorry that doesnt compute here

Players in the industry (who have rolled out FTTP) dont state the last part is the most expensive, its only moderately expensive if its a first order.  e.g. if I order FTTP, then my neighbour orders it, the work needed for my neighbour would be minimal.

[gt94sss2]

So to repeat I predict EE prices will go up for those who dont take other BT services, and plummet for those who take other BT services.

BT/EE will still need to compete with the other mobile operators for those who are not interested in bundle.

The most expensive part of FTTP is already done, it depends if you looking at a per premises cost or an overall cost.  e.g. in my case my copper line was over 4km to the exchange, now its just circa 400m to the cabinet, post g.fast it could be down to just 100m or so of copper, are you trying to imply its more expensive for BT to replace 100m of copper from a pole than it is 4km via ducts? sorry that doesnt compute here

No, the most expensive part of FTTP has not been done - that is the final connection to the customer as several here keep trying to tell you.

And while you can't take your example as representative of the whole country, its quite possible that installing the last 400/100 meters of fibre is more expensive than the other 3.6/3.9km Km for BT.

For one thing, they would actually need to deal with end customers and make appointments etc. adding to the cost/time taken, for another: the cost of the earlier fibre would be divided among many different customers - the last 100 meters from a DP would effectively just be for you.

Players in the industry (who have rolled out FTTP) dont state the last part is the most expensive, its only moderately expensive if its a first order.  e.g. if I order FTTP, then my neighbour orders it, the work needed for my neighbour would be minimal.

Which players are these? If they are building a proper network, it will be true unless its a greenfield development etc. or there are some other special circumstances in play (i.e. they stop at the property boundary)

Just think, if you order G.Fast, then your neighbour orders it, the work needed for the neighbour would be close to zero.

FTTP on the other hand would need an appointment, a fibre dropwire (possibly drilling through walls and/or a joist) and whatever NTE/ONT they are fitting.

[Chrysalis]

International players.

The appointments and so forth are costs but they not necessarily that different from costs VM have when they cable up a new customer. Or when BT have to install a new line to a property where there is no existing line.  Certainly wont be the costs quoted earlier in the thread (providing fibre is extended to DP points on poles etc.).  BT are good at inflating costs when they are either trying to get government money or justifying a way of not investing into something, that's why I am not using BT as a source of my information.

On a new development fibre is cheaper than copper full stop.

On existing developments in the areas where g.fast is likely to be rolled out (short distances between cabinets and end users), providing BT used common sense the cost wouldnt be prohibitive as I said.  You also seem to be completely ignoring the post roll out savings I pointed out as well.

To requote ignition probably the 5th time now I done it "openreach act like they running on payday loans" in that they always do the cheapest short term cost option.

g.fast will be like how FTTC was the first few years, engineer installs.

A fibre dropwire is hardly big work (might be for openreach I suppose), but thats a pretty minor job.

Also to avoid confusion when I refer to DP I mean a g.fast node, so the end point of the copper.