Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => FTTP Rollout => Topic started by: Chrysalis on November 28, 2022, 01:19:36 PM
-
I have a vested interest here as my city has almost no planned Openreach FTTP coverage, this new announcement where they will prioritise areas they have started over breaking into new areas, I see as a "potential" start of a winding down process and my theory is the announcement of new areas will now significantly slow down if it hasnt already done so?
So CF looks like they may end up with a monopoly here up until VM do their overbuild?
-
Which announcement are you citing, here?
-
There is only one?
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2022/11/focus-on-cost-savings-impacts-openreachs-uk-full-fibre-build.html
They still have the same target coverage,
-
Oh, that one, fair enough.
I am in the other boat... a fair chunk of the area I live in is OR FTTP so I guess I might see that sooner rather than later then.
-
Yep should be good news for areas they already started, might also make them do some in filling where parts of streets got done etc.
-
I wouldn't be too depressed. The CF stuff may be XGSPON, the VM stuff will be, hopefully by then Openreach will have joined them and either be using XGSPON alone or using combo optics where a single module sends and receives GPON and XGSPON with the co-existence element built into the OLT pluggable.
-
Ultimately I want the AltNet I work for to build in my town, but even then there's a wait :)
-
Just a thought. Isn't this issue down to Openreach building too fast, and connecting too slow? ie they are passing more properties than they are connecting. The article suggests passing 62k properties per week, going up to 75k. Connecting 20k per week? As a business surely they need the revenue from the connections to fund the build, and the current take up of FTTP products is not enough to fund the build with the increased costs.
EDIT: Following link suggests 20k connections per week (page 20)
https://www.openreach.com/content/dam/openreach/openreach-dam-files/new-dam-(not-in-use-yet)/documents/regulatory-compliance/Annual%20Report%202022-DIGITAL-online.pdf
-
I think there is more of a problem of demand than anything else in many areas where they are choosing to build, rather than a lack of ability to connect. Look at where I am in the City Centre in Norwich. Most houses round here already get close to 80mbit VDSL (some have GFAST). There is an incumbent ultrafast provider (Virgin), we have Cityfibre starting works.
Most of the CBTs around here are above ground, and you're lucky to see one in 20 ports being used. On 5 or 6 streets around here I don't think I've seen more than 10 connections.
Obviously it's much easier to run fibre to places where there is already FTTC as the cabs are already running fibre back to the exchange, and I'm grateful for the fibre having reached me (even if I don't always sound it!) but I can't help but feel they're picking low hanging fruit that gets them passed numbers of houses to boost that statistic - and they're building it regardless of whether it is particularly demanded in an area. They'd get many more folk signing up for service if they picked areas that had poor ADSL services.
-
Obviously it's much easier to run fibre to places where there is already FTTC as the cabs are already running fibre back to the exchange, and I'm grateful for the fibre having reached me (even if I don't always sound it!) but I can't help but feel they're picking low hanging fruit that gets them passed numbers of houses to boost that statistic - and they're building it regardless of whether it is particularly demanded in an area. They'd get many more folk signing up for service if they picked areas that had poor ADSL services.
in FTTP your connection doesn't go back to the cabinet though, it's all the way back to the exchange - so having FTTC doesn't really have a bearing other than the fact that it means your exchange at least has fibre in it.
-
in FTTP your connection doesn't go back to the cabinet though, it's all the way back to the exchange - so having FTTC doesn't really have a bearing other than the fact that it means your exchange at least has fibre in it.
I'm aware, though I think there is a significant logistical benefit as there is always a recent route for fibre in the vicinity. It means they don't have to run a new route back to the exchange, and it will have been clear in recent times. They pulled the fibre for this area back to the exchange over a couple of evenings.
-
And that's what I said :P Well, kinda.
-
So, this might seem a dumb question, but I'd always assumed that FTTP just meant exactly that, you had fibre into your premises.
BUT it doesn't (presumably) mean your own personal fibre runs all the way to the exchange, just to the local cabinet, where it will be multiplexed with other local users down a single (maybe with some backup) fibre to the exchange (or even another cabinet/concentrator en route)?
-
... but I can't help but feel they're picking low hanging fruit that gets them passed numbers of houses to boost that statistic - and they're building it regardless of whether it is particularly demanded in an area. They'd get many more folk signing up for service if they picked areas that had poor ADSL services.
There are a number of factors that will go into deciding where a build will take place ..... there are also multiple FTTP programmes in play, too.
Try telling the rural build teams that they're working in very demanding conditions just to hit a statistic, try telling the high-level escalation teams, the USO teams, the FVR teams, the LFFN teams that same sentiment !!
These guys are pulling in tens of miles of cable, to sometimes feed as little as a couple of premises per PON.
The only FTTP programmes that are classed as quick wins are new-sites and retro new sites, where the duct should (for the most part), be intact and easy to cable.
Then we have Fibre Cities that although they deliver big numbers per PON, come with their own problems. Usually, traffic management and Council demands around it.
But ... it doesn't work like that .... OR don't have the liberty of just picking 'low hanging fruit', as you call it. They have to deliver set targets across ALL the FTTP programmes.
-
So, this might seem a dumb question, but I'd always assumed that FTTP just meant exactly that, you had fibre into your premises.
BUT it doesn't (presumably) mean your own personal fibre runs all the way to the exchange, just to the local cabinet, where it will be multiplexed with other local users down a single (maybe with some backup) fibre to the exchange (or even another cabinet/concentrator en route)?
With OR's roll out - the multiplexing (splitting) of the fibre, is done local to the customers premises .... usually within 350mtrs.
These are called SASA's (Google it) and have the capability of 'splitting' the fibre into 32 different customers. A 'Splitter node' will generally consist of up to 4 SASA's maximum.
From the SASA back to the Exchange it is one single fibre. Forget the Cabinet, it will not go there unless you are on a sub-tended head end (Google it).
-
Seems to me what they're saying is due to energy costs it makes no sense to be installing so many headends all at the same time, serving few customers (relatively speaking). When instead if they focus on finishing one headend before starting another, they will start covering the cost of running the kit in the exchange much sooner.
What's curious is how this scales for alt-nets where they have active hardware in the street and presumably higher costs as its a more complicated infrastructure than running everything back to a bigger exchange.
I've often wondered just how expensive it must be to have active hardware at the street level rather than aggregated all back in a single location.
-
With OR's roll out - the multiplexing (splitting) of the fibre, is done local to the customers premises .... usually within 350mtrs.
These are called SASA's
Thanks BS. :thumbs: No FTTP anywhere near me so "cabinets" is all I see. :baby:
My "Googling" suggests that SASA's are not powered.....
-
My "Googling" suggests that SASA's are not powered.....
PON : passive optical network. ;)
In almost all cases, the cabinets of an area connect back to an aggregation node. The SASA's for the PON will also connect back to the aggregation node. So there is a slight tenuous logical link between FTTC cabinets and PONs . . . the aggregation node.
-
PON : passive optical network. ;)
In almost all cases, the cabinets of an area connect back to an aggregation node. The SASA's for the PON will also connect back to the aggregation node. So there is a slight tenuous logical link between FTTC cabinets and PONs . . . the aggregation node.
Yeah its somewhat confusing given FTTPoD as I understand it would use a spare fibre at the node, whereas a full rollout may need more fibre to be laid?
-
The only FTTP programmes that are classed as quick wins are new-sites and retro new sites, where the duct should (for the most part), be intact and easy to cable.
I would also assume many of the public funded projects eg Gigabit Voucher Scheme could be classed as 'quick wins', in terms of financial reward vs effort?
-
There are a number of factors that will go into deciding where a build will take place ..... there are also multiple FTTP programmes in play, too.
Try telling the rural build teams that they're working in very demanding conditions just to hit a statistic, try telling the high-level escalation teams, the USO teams, the FVR teams, the LFFN teams that same sentiment !!
These guys are pulling in tens of miles of cable, to sometimes feed as little as a couple of premises per PON.
The only FTTP programmes that are classed as quick wins are new-sites and retro new sites, where the duct should (for the most part), be intact and easy to cable.
Then we have Fibre Cities that although they deliver big numbers per PON, come with their own problems. Usually, traffic management and Council demands around it.
But ... it doesn't work like that .... OR don't have the liberty of just picking 'low hanging fruit', as you call it. They have to deliver set targets across ALL the FTTP programmes.
Sorry if I touched a nerve, but clearly what I meant was places like where I am where it just seems to be adding to the numbers en-mass without much demand (evidenced by slow takeup). Those teams that were here for quite a period between all the various stages could have been on some of the other much more deserving projects you mention. I shouldn't complain too loud - lest the fibre fairies take mine away!
There obviously is some kind of prioritisation going on to hit some gigabit target, as you say with targets across all the FTTP programmes, they do love putting out press releases with big numbers in them and they can't do that without the urban builds that are so often overbuilding capacity that is for many (most?) sufficient for now. Of course, things don't stay still, they do need to be building for the future, and Openreach need to try and remain competitive and not lose more market share to altnets and Virgin, so maybe there is no right answer, but the 1% below USO still is something we can't be proud of as a country.
-
I suspect part of Openreach's thinking is that the more exchanges that reach 75% coverage can also be added to the stop sell list.
-
I wouldn't be too depressed. The CF stuff may be XGSPON, the VM stuff will be, hopefully by then Openreach will have joined them and either be using XGSPON alone or using combo optics where a single module sends and receives GPON and XGSPON with the co-existence element built into the OLT pluggable.
Its fine, just thought I would post my thoughts, this action actually does make sense, it always seemed odd to me rollouts were been done scattered all over the place partially done etc.
-
Just a thought. Isn't this issue down to Openreach building too fast, and connecting too slow? ie they are passing more properties than they are connecting. The article suggests passing 62k properties per week, going up to 75k. Connecting 20k per week? As a business surely they need the revenue from the connections to fund the build, and the current take up of FTTP products is not enough to fund the build with the increased costs.
EDIT: Following link suggests 20k connections per week (page 20)
https://www.openreach.com/content/dam/openreach/openreach-dam-files/new-dam-(not-in-use-yet)/documents/regulatory-compliance/Annual%20Report%202022-DIGITAL-online.pdf
They can only connect people who want to be connected. The take up is actually above expectations. Even if take up were 100% it wouldn't pay for the build for years: they've a longer term approach.
-
What the man above said ^^^ :thumbs:
-
The take up is fierce, far better than expected ... the problem this initially threw up, was the amount of waiting times on 'Step 1's' (or stage 1's - both the same). So much so, this landed on Mr Selley's lap.
I've mentioned it on other posts here, the immediate response to this was probably one of the more dramatic efforts I've seen in my near 4 decades in the business.
Literally every single bit of available resource has been thrown at this, on a national basis. Usually, it would be left at a local/regional level to resolve. It might be hard to grasp the scale of what I'm talking about, if you're an outsider looking in .... just take my word for it, due to take-up this sea change is huge.
-
I do get it, openreach is building flat out, and getting more efficient. Its massive. I get its a long term investment. I get connections are only made when they are ordered.
You both say take up is better than expected. But, to me, as an ignorant outsider looking in (wearing a pair of 'business/bean counter' sunglasses), it appears that there is more product being made than being sold, and that difference is growing daily. That's my observation from the outside, but if its better than expected, there must be a plan, so all good.
-
I do get it, openreach is building flat out, and getting more efficient. Its massive. I get its a long term investment. I get connections are only made when they are ordered.
You both say take up is better than expected. But, to me, as an ignorant outsider looking in (wearing a pair of 'business/bean counter' sunglasses), it appears that there is more product being made than being sold, and that difference is growing daily. That's my observation from the outside, but if its better than expected, there must be a plan, so all good.
I'm not sure what you expect here ??
The remit is to lay a brand new infrastructure with access for 25 million customers, by the year 2026. Your own 'business/bean counter' analogy appears to operate on providing access, only on confirmed orders.
Of course there is more 'product being made than being sold', that was always going to be the case. What we are both saying is, that forecasted take-up at this point is way better than originally expected.
-
Not really expecting anything in particular, just a discussion. I was just reading between the lines on the original link, and rightly or wrongly assumed that openreach was building too fast and connecting too slow:
so it makes sense for us to put more resources into upgrading customers and fulfilling orders as quickly and smoothly as possible
As a result, we’re going to pause starting some new jobs – like surveying work in other locations – for the rest of this year and we’re going to focus on completing work that’s already started.
If the uptake is ahead of plan, then that's good. From the above it seem the build is ahead of plan, also good. It's not in anyway a criticism, just observation for discussion.
-
Fair do's.
-
I just assumed Openreach were doing the 'easy bit' too fast and the 'hard bit' wasn't catching up and that it was just to allow the catch up to happen.
-
I can tell you from the AltNet perspective our build plans are just as aggressive - just obviously we aren’t anywhere near the size of OR, yet we’re still trying to do as much as we can with what we’ve got :)
-
Here in Wales, we have had the fit out in my street. But my flats haven't been done, we are off a side chute. OR checker says no plans. Netomnia are now in the area and it's looking the same so far, poles have been adorned with junction boxes. Even though their checker says they are coming, I am getting less hopeful! :(
-
Here in Wales, we have had the fit out in my street. But my flats haven't been done, we are off a side chute. OR checker says no plans. Netomnia are now in the area and it's looking the same so far, poles have been adorned with junction boxes. Even though their checker says they are coming, I am getting less hopeful! :(
If they say they are coming, that at least confirms they have at least concluded the planning for your area. I don't even have that!
-
Here in Wales, we have had the fit out in my street. But my flats haven't been done, we are off a side chute. OR checker says no plans. Netomnia are now in the area and it's looking the same so far, poles have been adorned with junction boxes. Even though their checker says they are coming, I am getting less hopeful! :(
'Flats' are a different kettle of fish when it comes to FTTP, Dwight. At least with Opernreach, that is.
They fall under MDU (Multi Dwelling Unit), as opposed to SDU (Single Dwelling Unit) and come with their own problems, mainly wayleaves/permission to work.
However, as part of the PON build, capacity for these MDU's will be left at the closest underground junction box to the premises, or indeed in the premises basement box itself, if access is given.
Up until about 10-12 months ago, these MDU's were wholly contracted out for the remedial work to be done. But, OR now have their own in-house teams that also pick up some of that work.
-
Black Sheep do Openreach do the same as Cityfibre in that they dont look for wayleave on rented houses? But do on any address with flat in the name?
-
Black Sheep do Openreach do the same as Cityfibre in that they dont look for wayleave on rented houses? But do on any address with flat in the name?
Aha - you've got me there, I'm afraid Chrys ??. I'm not sure of the process post build mate, as like I say ... MDU's are majority contracted out.
-
Black Sheep do Openreach do the same as Cityfibre in that they dont look for wayleave on rented houses? But do on any address with flat in the name?
Openreach don't know if a property is owned or rented by whoever orders a service.
If there's no obvious wayleave required then they won't seek any additional permission forms.
Generally a wayleave is only required if a provider is installing hardware for which they may need future access, or infrastructure (including ducting) that will be used to serve others.
A drop cable tends not to need this if only serving the person who ordered, unless it's crossing someone else's property.
MDU's are treated different because there's almost always different legal responsibility/ownership than the person who ordered involved somewhere.
A single dwelling unit that can be from from the DP without crossing another property will go ahead without issue in almost all cases, regardless of the owner/tenant status.
It's cheaper to remove your CSP and drop cable if an owner/landlord complains than it is to check ownership of every property.
-
I wonder if this will speed up installation on our our estate, which is void of OR FTTP, whilst all around has it.
Our industrial estate at work now has fibre, but bizarrely our address can not get it, whilst out immediate neighbours can - something I need to look into at some point.
-
If I recall you've no duct on your estate, direct buried cable, so who knows?
Seen quite a few streets locally where Openreach have installed new duct and tobies for FTTP but presume the budget is per premises passed across a project so if the rest of the area was expensive there's no excess to do the really nasty stuff while if it rolls in within range they'll take the rough with the smooth.
-
If I recall you've no duct on your estate, direct buried cable, so who knows?
Seen quite a few streets locally where Openreach have installed new duct and tobies for FTTP but presume the budget is per premises passed across a project so if the rest of the area was expensive there's no excess to do the really nasty stuff while if it rolls in within range they'll take the rough with the smooth.
This is a can of worms, believe me. The rules around 'Full DiG' and 'Partial DiG' PON builds, has changed at least four times in the last couple of months that I know of.
With finances as they are at the minute as well ... my own personal opinion is, that ronski's residential estate won't be planned in at this time.
However, one thing I've learnt with this new UK FTTP infrastructure roll-out is, next week might see a new policy document released saying build everything !! It really is a forever changing landscape ... as the sheer size of the engineering works/costs was always going to dictate.