Post by: Black Sheep on April 02, 2015, 07:29:14 PM
Basically, this summer BT plan to trial G.FAST on approx. 4,000 homes from Gosforth and Huntingdon. If successful, a limited roll-out will start in 2016, with a large-scale roll out in 2017. :)
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 08:01:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast)
Post by: boost on April 02, 2015, 08:05:11 PM
Post by: Ronski on April 02, 2015, 08:11:41 PM
That rules me out as my loop length is greater than 500 meters ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast)
I don't think it does, I think G.Fast basically puts smaller boxes further out into the network, so one will almost certainly be closer to you.
Read the page you linked to, specifically deployment scenarios!
PS. Great news, but why couldn't it be my area.
Post by: Black Sheep on April 02, 2015, 08:14:01 PM
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 09:23:54 PM
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 09:27:43 PM
I don't think it does, I think G.Fast basically puts smaller boxes further out into the network, so one will almost certainly be closer to you.
Read the page you linked to, specifically deployment scenarios!
I'll let you know in 2 years time (2017) :fingers:
Post by: Bald_Eagle1 on April 02, 2015, 09:36:24 PM
I don't think it does, I think G.Fast basically puts smaller boxes further out into the network, so one will almost certainly be closer to you.
There's a very nice pole around 40m from my house where one could be sited :fingers:
Post by: Black Sheep on April 02, 2015, 09:41:40 PM
Essentially FTTDP (fibre to the distribution point)? :-\
Yup. ;D
Post by: renluop on April 02, 2015, 09:48:24 PM
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 09:52:46 PM
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 10:03:18 PM
. . . as there was an article not long ago suggesting they will do it on the cheap by deploying it from cabinets.
Wasn't that something Saffy wrote about on TBB? If yes, then I wouldn't take it as a definite fact, in any shape or form. :-X
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 10:28:42 PM
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 10:38:13 PM
was on ispreview site a quote from someone in BT. Also was some discussion on tbb as well tho I think.
Ah ha! Ideas and plans change all the time. Personally, I only believe what I can see with my own eyes. ;)
Post by: NewtronStar on April 02, 2015, 10:40:29 PM
[1] This spectrum overlaps with the FM broadcast band between 87.5 and 108 MHz, as well as various military and government radio services. To limit interference to those radio services, the ITU-T G.9700 recommendation, also called G.fast-psd, specifies a set of tools to shape the power spectral density of the transmit signal;[8] G.9701, codenamed G.fast-phy, is the G.fast physical layer specification.[6][15] To enable co-existence with ADSL2 and the various VDSL2 profiles, the start frequency can be set to 2.2, 8.5, 17.664, or 30 MHz, respectively.[1]
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 10:47:18 PM
was on ispreview site a quote from someone in BT. Also was some discussion on tbb as well tho I think.
Ah ha! Ideas and plans change all the time. Personally, I only believe what I can see with my own eyes. ;)
so you seen them deploying new boxes and pulling new fibre then? :)
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 10:48:48 PM
Post by: Ronski on April 02, 2015, 10:49:14 PM
There's a very nice pole around 40m from my house where one could be sited :fingers:
Ours are underground and there's a chamber just across from my house which serves our street.
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 10:52:30 PM
so you seen them deploying new boxes and pulling new fibre then? :)
No, not yet. But I will keep a close "look out" for any such interesting happenings. And, needless to say, I will share any sightings with fellow Kitizens.
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 10:54:33 PM
Who knows exactly how Beattie will perform the tests / experiments / trials? Perhaps she will be her usual cautious self and begin testing FTTDP with the current FTTC profile (i.e. up to 17 MHz). At a later date, once the initial results have been analysed, she may then decide to trial profile 30 (i.e. up to 30 MHz). :-\
hence my question to BS to see if he knows,
I would like to think (and hope) that vectoring would be rolled out before working on g.fast.
Post by: burakkucat on April 02, 2015, 11:07:40 PM
I would like to think (and hope) that vectoring would be rolled out before working on g.fast.
Indeed. As we know, there have been a couple of rounds of tests with Huawei equipped cabinets. Tests with ECI equipped cabinets are due to start -- or have already started. My feeling (knowing the cautious way that Openreach / the BT Group operates, which goes right back to the original GPO Telephone Service days) is that a couple of rounds of tests with the ECI equipped cabinets will take place and only then will begin the roll-out of vectoring.
I can see no problem, as BT has many research groups -- one working on vectoring and another working on G.Fast, etc.
Post by: Chrysalis on April 02, 2015, 11:37:30 PM
Post by: WWWombat on April 03, 2015, 12:49:43 AM
I too read the comments elsewhere indicating that they'll be looking at deploying G.fast from existing cabinets - but I'd think that was an important aspect to try out in the trial, while you are only targeting a couple of hundred Mbps. I suspect (heavily) that the first generations of G.fast silicon won't be able to hit the top speeds, so any rollout will be for interim hardware. I wonder if Supervectoring might get something of a call too.
There's also a little said about vectoring in this document (https://www.btwholesale.com/assets/documents/Previous_Events/ISP_Forum/ISP_Forum_3_February_2015_Slides.pdf); unfortunately, it still doesn't give us a date, but it does put the words "vectoring" and "rollout" next to each other.
One snippet: With 80Mbps caps still in place, vectoring raised the average speed from 54Mbps to 64Mbps. On first glance, that doesn't look too great, but I think the fact the speeds were capped to 80Mbps limits the average upside.
Post by: burakkucat on April 03, 2015, 01:57:44 AM
you know why they didnt test ECI and hauwei at same time?
No, sorry. :no:
Post by: Chrysalis on April 03, 2015, 10:52:56 AM
I agree that with g.fast the long term aim will be to deploy boxes nearer the premises, my query was more about how they doing it at the start in 2016.
Post by: sorc on April 03, 2015, 10:11:45 PM
FTTP will have higher per-user install costs since you've got to run new cable, but surely a ton of new DSLAMs for each DP + powering + maintenance + replacement once the weather cooks or freezes them will bump costs up for G.FAST too - plus you've still got the distance/speed issue, and ultimately it's not as futureproof as FTTP is. Being able to dump copper entirely at some point in the future must be enticing. FTTP and FTTdp will still need BT to run fibre all the way to the pole, which I am presuming is the most expensive part of any rollout
I guess at least that FTTP on demand will hopefully become affordably cheap if they do decide to go for it.
Maybe I'm just jaded from seeing the BT shareholders' constant of "FTTP is too slow, too expensive, too hard" while seeing BT deploy FTTP to some seriously rural places (some of which with no potential customers), other rural users being told to get satellite, and VDSL to areas where many users will be on hellishly long lines, as if it's a total lottery
G.FAST from the FTTC cabinets however might be another story if they can get reasonable speeds out of it
Post by: NewtronStar on April 03, 2015, 10:36:33 PM
I'm sort of hoping that they don't go for FTTdp + G.FAST. It seems like yet another short-sighted bodge until they finally decide to FTTP on a wide scale.
Most of what OpenReach does it to make it affordable for all users if i went down the path of FTTP for a 1000m/1km line it would cost me £2500 so you need to be realistic on what you want and what you can afford. ;)
Post by: Bowdon on April 03, 2015, 11:41:49 PM
I bet we'd be up to japanese speeds if that happened ;D
Post by: boost on April 03, 2015, 11:46:22 PM
200 quid install?
What's the monthly rental on FTTP I wonder!
Post by: boost on April 03, 2015, 11:51:29 PM
Post by: Dray on April 04, 2015, 12:15:44 AM
Post by: NewtronStar on April 04, 2015, 12:20:52 AM
Does an FTTC cab count as an aggregation node? If so, I'm currently band A for sure.
200 quid install?
What's the monthly rental on FTTP I wonder!
I'll let you work it out for yourself ;) but it will cost you £500 + your distance £200 = £700
compare that with your average non LLU monthly bill of 18.00 + line rental 15.00 = £33 a month * 12 = £396 per annum.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/03/bt-confirm-final-uk-isp-prices-and-launch-of-330mbps-fttp-on-demand.html (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/03/bt-confirm-final-uk-isp-prices-and-launch-of-330mbps-fttp-on-demand.html)
Post by: loonylion on April 04, 2015, 12:26:17 AM
Some years back, Bill Gates said "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need"
the actual quote was '640k ought to be enough for anyone'. Ironically it was him that ensured it wouldn't be by writing increasingly bloated and inefficient operating systems.
Post by: Dray on April 04, 2015, 12:43:07 AM
Post by: Ronski on April 04, 2015, 08:45:26 AM
What's the monthly rental on FTTP I wonder!
The real killer is the requirement of a 3 yr contract for 330/30 package which costs at least £1188+vat a year, and that is wholesale cost. So whilst some home users could possibly afford the installation costs the ongoing costs would be far to expensive. The people that would be most interested in FTTPod are probably those getting poorer speeds, and so further from the cab and in all likelihood further from an aggregation node, thus making it even more expensive.
See costs here. (https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLO%0AGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D)
Post by: Bowdon on April 04, 2015, 11:02:11 AM
They seemed to price themselves out of it. I did think the ISP would have taken the rental charge hit, but if its the end user then wow.. how did BT ever think that was going to be popular!?
I know someone indirectly who has the 330/30 product.. but im not sure if they pay that much rental for the line. I think it was installed in their newly built apartment flat.
Post by: sorc on April 04, 2015, 11:19:40 AM
I'm sort of hoping that they don't go for FTTdp + G.FAST. It seems like yet another short-sighted bodge until they finally decide to FTTP on a wide scale.
Most of what OpenReach does it to make it affordable for all users if i went down the path of FTTP for a 1000m/1km line it would cost me £2500 so you need to be realistic on what you want and what you can afford. ;)
Is that FTTP on demand or some sort of leased line? That'll change the numbers - and let's not forget that what BT charges you is not necessarily in line with their costs (the cynic would suggest that FoD won't be cheap because it could take away leased line business).
Besides, if BT did embark on some sort of mass FTTP scheme they'd be able to bring costs down through economies of scale - instead of planning and building just for your premises they'll be able to do loads at once. And as I said - if they've got to run 1 or 2km of fibre to give you G.FAST, why not continue for the extra 10 or 20 metres into the home? Not to mention the lower maintenance costs and reduced hassles from being able to reduce or stop using copper.
I guess the key difference will be how much a G.FAST DSLAM on the pole would cost to install and maintain compared to an equivalent number of FTTP installs
(and as I said, I find it hard to accept the "FTTP is too expensive" argument when BT has been deploying FTTP to a lot of very rural and definitely very unprofitable or low-ROI poles/DPs around here. I wonder how much money BT expect to make on FTTP to a pole that has 1 customer who doesn't actually have it installed or indeed no copper users at all, let alone fibre)
I also know someone with 330/30, but they live in an area that has won the "BT technology lottery" (and isn't a new build estate) where BT decided to do FTTP off their own back, so the prices are very reasonable and of course there's no expensive 3-year contract
Post by: Bowdon on April 04, 2015, 11:33:11 AM
My gf lives off and on in Wisconsin, a relatively small town. Its so low priority there is only one ISP. But that ISP is now deploying FTTP to her town. So she's going to go from about 2mb currently, up to 1gb download speeds. I'll no longer be able to gloat about my speeds to her :(
In theory we should be in a much better position than the US as we already have a network nationally.
Post by: sorc on April 04, 2015, 11:42:05 AM
And of course there's B4RN up t'north where BT are attempting to compete by overbuilding their own FTTP network. I wonder if they would have even got FTTC if they never showed BT what's what?
Post by: Chrysalis on April 04, 2015, 11:52:02 AM
I don't understand why its such a high rental charge for the line. It's not like they are doing anything with it constantly. Infact they should have less problems with it than a copper line.
They seemed to price themselves out of it. I did think the ISP would have taken the rental charge hit, but if its the end user then wow.. how did BT ever think that was going to be popular!?
I know someone indirectly who has the 330/30 product.. but im not sure if they pay that much rental for the line. I think it was installed in their newly built apartment flat.
the price is based on what you get rather than just their own costs, I suspect it can be a few reasons.
1 - to make it unattractive, BT dont want to rollout FTTP, its expensive and cumbersome for them to do so, but they get stick for not putting it on the market so their solution they put it on at an unattractive price point.
2 -to protect leased line revenue's, FTTP will likely be way more reliable than FTTC, so some people would consider ti a viable alternative for business use.
3 - subsidise install fee's, as high as they are its still possible the install fees are still loss making and higher monthly fees are required to cover the cost.
Note FTTP is much cheaper than FTTPoD from BT.
Post by: renluop on April 04, 2015, 12:18:29 PM
Post by: c6em on April 04, 2015, 12:25:30 PM
And as I said - if they've got to run 1 or 2km of fibre to give you G.FAST, why not continue for the extra 10 or 20 metres into the home? Not to mention the lower maintenance costs and reduced hassles from being able to reduce or stop using copper.
The last 20 yards from the DP is full of aggro'
Note that full FTTP company Gigaclear only do the network connection as far as the front property boundary on the road.
The costs, aggro, time, and arguments over getting the fibre from there across the front garden, though the house walls and on to wherever the end user wants it is entirely at the cost of the end user.
They know those last few yards is just a pile of grief and have off loaded it onto the customer.
Sure, they do offer/recommend the services of a professional fibre installation company as an installation partner to do it - but you go and get a fully commercial type bespoke quote from them for the work.
In fact I'd reckon that a lot of people would favour G.Fast over FTTP precisely because they are not going have all the disruption FTTP entails.
Post by: sorc on April 04, 2015, 12:30:47 PM
The last 20 yards from the DP is full of aggro'
Note that full FTTP company Gigaclear only do the network connection as far as the front property boundary on the road.
The costs, aggro, time, and arguments over getting the fibre from there across the front garden, though the house walls and on to wherever the end user wants it is entirely at the cost of the end user.
They know those last few yards is just a pile of grief and have off loaded it onto the customer.
Sure, they do offer/recommend the services of a professional fibre installation company as an installation partner to do it - but you go and get a fully commercial type bespoke quote from them for the work.
In fact I'd reckon that a lot of people would favour G.Fast over FTTP precisely because they are not going have all the disruption FTTP entails.
Difficulty depends on location and how the network is currently built of course, but around here everything is overhead, so copper or fibre are both lower effort (no digging needed) so your argument wouldn't apply to me and people in a similar situation (the general theme for my area seems to be that the older houses have overhead wiring, newer builds are underground and nicely ducted - and indeed BT has done FTTP to those homes)
Virgin seem to manage fine with having to dig people's gardens up to get their coax installed. BT has plenty of experience of same. Perhaps Gigaclear are taking the easy route because they just can't be bothered?
Personally I would hope that long term infrastructure decisions are not made on a one-size-fits-all basis by using limited edge cases - even if it means FTTP for most and G.FAST for the most difficult
Post by: kitz on April 05, 2015, 01:11:42 AM
FTTPoD isnt the same as FTTH because that too uses fibre from the cab.. but as far as the customer is concerned and if he can get the speeds then does he really care?
I suppose in a weird way it does actually make good business sense. The cost to roll out FTTP nationally is hugely expensive and would take an awfully long time, so in the meantime install FTTC so there is some improvement for now... and then in future utilise a good chunk of that fibre to upgrade... as long as they provision enough capacity.
Post by: Ronski on April 05, 2015, 08:19:08 AM
Post by: Chrysalis on April 05, 2015, 11:27:53 AM
I've thought for a long time they are building a full fibre network, just spreading that build over many decades.Gradually the fibres will get closer to everyone's homes.
That is how I see it also.
Post by: sorc on April 05, 2015, 01:31:32 PM
I've thought for a long time they are building a full fibre network, just spreading that build over many decades.Gradually the fibres will get closer to everyone's homes.
That is how I see it also.
I wonder how much more this is going to cost compared to going straight to FTTP, though - all those FTTC cabinets that get obsoleted, all those pole-mounted G.FAST DSLAMs (if that ever happens). BT is more than capable of doing FTTP when it wants to, and even in areas where they'll never make the money back. In the meantime there's still a "digital divide"
Post by: Chrysalis on April 05, 2015, 01:47:25 PM
Although I can understand why they took this approach as FTTx at the time of the decision they made was an unknown to them.
In areas of FTTP there is stories of install times overunning by many weeks suggesting openreach are struggling with FTTP.
Post by: boost on April 05, 2015, 02:15:57 PM
operating like they reliant on payday loans
:D :D :D
Post by: Ronski on April 05, 2015, 02:17:22 PM
Whilst I'd rather have FTTP, I also rather have FTTC now than be waiting another few years for the FTTP roll out to get there.
Think of what BT is doing is a bit like taking out a mortgage or loan, which costs a lot more in the long run but means we can afford to buy things we otherwise couldn't.
Post by: renluop on April 05, 2015, 02:26:46 PM
Post by: AArdvark on April 05, 2015, 03:12:24 PM
Must be BT's new Tag lineoperating like they reliant on payday loans
:D :D :D
Send from LG G3 via Tapatalk (Typos & bad formatting are free)
Post by: sorc on April 05, 2015, 03:17:18 PM
It may cost more in the long run, but therefore be affordable in the short term, and far quicker to roll out, meaning they also get a return on investment coming in sooner. Our estate doesn't have any ducts, some bright accountant thought they'd save some money and just bury the cables when it was built in the 1970's. All sorts of problems like this greatly prolong the roll out of FTTP - we've all seen how delayed FTTP is. With G Fast they will probably just need to run ducting along the main road through our estate, no need to do the side roads.
But equally there are areas where FTTP or FTTdp should be more straightforward, but which aren't getting it, while seemingly more expensive/more difficult areas are getting FTTP. Everyone's situation is different. Down here they seem able to get FTTP done relatively quickly - from town centres and busy roads to rural farmhouses in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps I live in some alternate universe?
And of course areas like the B4RN footprint where BT is scrambling to deploy its own FTTP network. I wonder why they can't make do with FTTC?
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that BT could never do FTTP everywhere, but they could be doing a much better job of it than they currently choose to (and have made some effort in some counties, such as Cornwall's 20 or 25% FTTP compared to barely anything for the rest of the country).
Whilst I'd rather have FTTP, I also rather have FTTC now than be waiting another few years for the FTTP roll out to get there.
Think of what BT is doing is a bit like taking out a mortgage or loan, which costs a lot more in the long run but means we can afford to buy things we otherwise couldn't.
Would you say the same if you were 1km+ from the FTTC cabinet, struggling to get ADSL2+ type speeds (or are indeed unable to get any new service) with no plans for BT to do any further improvements? Especially when there are people even more out-of-the-way than you that can enjoy 330Mbps today. Because that's how things are for some people. I have a pretty good FTTC connection, but I'd be livid if I was one of those fobbed off onto satellite while others in similar situations are on FTTP
There's also the question of whether the taxpayer is getting the best VFM by getting a technology that is already pretty dead end, except for the small percentage that have been deemed worthy of rolls-royce FTTP. Presumably G.FAST or FTTP will mean BT getting the begging bowl out again and/or rural areas getting the shaft (as I'd speculate that areas that can receive Virgin or another alternative provider that can beat FTTC will be first on the list)
The whole thing is a bit like the Highways Agency building a single carriageway road even though future traffic predictions suggest dual-carriageway or a motorway is necessary, and then acting surprised when a few years down the line it's in need of an upgrade again, when they could have done it properly from day one
Post by: Ronski on April 05, 2015, 07:22:14 PM
I guess we'll never really know why BT's gone about it the way the have, perhaps being such a vast organisation they can't react quickly, bit like a super tanker, whereas B4RN being a small company can react or alter plans quickly.
Post by: Bowdon on April 05, 2015, 08:12:16 PM
I'm not having a go at BT really as they are in a unique situation. That the network was laid down with government money many years before it was privatised and now though they are a private company are expected to carry on running the network. So they are probably being overly financially cautious.
Post by: kitz on April 05, 2015, 11:42:14 PM
in the long term it may cost more but openreach are sort of operating like they reliant on payday loans doing whats cheapest at the time.
:lol:
Quote from: Renluop
The attachment I post below seems to show how much more efficient the .png format is file size wise over .jpg. N'star is first and mine is second in my attachment.
Thanks for that.. I think it was also mentioned in another thread recently about .pngs efficiency compared to other formats.
Post by: kitz on April 05, 2015, 11:51:37 PM
Quote
I wonder why they can't make do with FTTC?
A large part could be due to the fact that they dont own any copper, so it would complicate things to have to access the existing Openreach network? The way they operate on the basis where its more of a barter system of time for shares and relying on as much as possible for free. Their business model is unlike anything else we have seen.
Quote
Would you say the same if you were 1km+ from the FTTC cabinet, struggling to get ADSL2+ type speeds
Unfortunately it will always be that the more urban districts get the newer technology first. The more users there are in an area then the more cost effective it will be. Those further out are less profitable and BT appear to be using 'proper' FTTC only where its more cost effective to do so... or theres no other alternative :/
BT have never been a forerunner in technology and have a cautious approach.. although they seem to have dropped a clanger with the ECI's :/
Post by: NewtronStar on April 06, 2015, 12:38:26 AM
Quote from: RenluopThe attachment I post below seems to show how much more efficient the .png format is file size wise over .jpg. N'star is first and mine is second in my attachment.
Thanks for that.. I think it was also mentioned in another thread recently about .pngs efficiency compared to other formats.
Normally I do use .png but if i have to use Photoshop to edit stuff then .Jpeg gives me a better compression ratio to fit the screenshot into Kitz's limit of 200K :phew:
Post by: AArdvark on April 06, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
Post by: renluop on April 06, 2015, 07:14:04 AM
Normally I do use .png but if i have to use Photoshop to edit stuff then .Jpeg gives me a better compression ratio to fit the screenshot into Kitz's limit of 200K :phew:My comment was not meant as a criticism. I was surprised myself. I use PhotoPlus and the export default is png in my version.
Post by: c6em on April 06, 2015, 08:58:36 AM
And of course areas like the B4RN footprint where BT is scrambling to deploy its own FTTP network. I wonder why they can't make do with FTTC?
The B4RN FTTP project is quite quite different from any commercial company.
It is @Kitz has said a total community run project where the community do ALL the work.
It only works due to the curious coincidental availability of physically active semi or fully retired locals in the area with the fibre/networking experience and industry contacts to be able to do it coupled with easy access to backhaul. Then there is the easy availability of farmers with the mechanised kit to do the digging/cable laying. Plus it's an area so spread out that FTTC is not really an option coupled with the incentive of existing appalling speeds to get people to help. Finally farmers have spaces and yards to store cable drums and supplies.
You can see why B4RN works but also you can see why it is unlikely to be re-duplicated elsewhere in the UK.
I notice with some amusement how people ask if B4RN can come and do their area - the concept that rather than someone doing it for them - they might actually have to get out and do it themselves is clearly not what they were thinking.
B4RN don't have to 'pay' for labour, and most importantly all wayleaves across land are free.
Were some commercial company to come along then that same farmer granting B4RN access across the land would be on to their land agents and solicitors seeing how much money they could grub out of the commercial firm for letting the cables run across the field.
In fact so money grubbing are these types that I know of an altnet who was 'forced' to go alternative ways along public roads thanks to the obstructiveness of land owners....and its not just telecoms they seem to hate. The local electric distribution company actually moved their equipment due to the bloody mindedness of the land owner. Clearly none of these people give a monkeys about the local community.
Post by: Black Sheep on April 06, 2015, 10:19:25 AM
There's a reason they do what they do ….. money. They are a business, not your best friend. If anyone thinks they have a cunning master-plan that would see FTTP installed into our houses, then apply for a position at BT and lets get it on. Obviously, the incredible well-paid board of directors, the financial advisors, corporate solicitors etc, are missing the very simple method that you guys are aware of ?.
Post by: kitz on April 06, 2015, 01:46:41 PM
Quote
During his career at Lancaster University he was head of networking, head of technical services and Deputy Director of Information Systems Services. In these roles he was responsible for the University’s networking and IT systems as well as overseeing the regional academic network C&NLMAN. He was a member of the JISC Joint Committee on Networking which oversees the JANET academic network which provides links to thousands of college and University sites.
If I'm gauging the time-scale right, Barry would have been very heavily involved in getting broadband to outlying educational faculties colleges and high schools where standard technology at the time was impossible. Lancaster had microwaved links and I know that in the mid 90's they really were considered about the best in the UK at what they did technology wise when it came to providing an academic network in hard to reach areas and won many awards for it.
Not only are they lucky enough to have Barry, but just about all of their management team have links with Lancaster Uni, networking, ICT or broadband backgrounds. Its not often a community would be so lucky enough to have so many knowledgeable people living in the area who are willing to dedicate their time and expertise for their own community.
Lancaster University is surrounded by many rural areas which is likely were a high proportion of their professors and lecturers also live. Come just one mile outside of the city centre and its all rural... no major towns for miles and miles and hardly the type of area that BT would normally touch. Even Lancaster Uni is out on a limb practically in the middle of nowhere.
Post by: jelv on April 06, 2015, 11:10:04 PM
I wonder how much it would cost if the government set aside some billions to convert all copper lines to fibre!
Probably less than HS2!
Post by: AArdvark on April 07, 2015, 12:34:35 AM
I wonder how much it would cost if the government set aside some billions to convert all copper lines to fibre!
Probably less than HS2!
Regardless of cost, a full fibre network would be of greater value to more people and communities than HS2.
The end result of HS2 will NOT be businesses moving out of the south and London, fostering growth in the regions, BUT it will give the perfect reason to STAY where they are as the rest of the country can now get to London so much quicker. :D ;D
Just wait and see.
Post by: renluop on April 07, 2015, 07:35:55 AM
Post by: jelv on April 07, 2015, 08:14:07 AM
Absolutely spot on. Get the technology and the infrastructure right and all these people who think meetings have to be face to face will be doing that via the next generation of video conferencing where all are sat round the same virtual table and can look around the room to watch other people' expressions. Unless HS2 can boost train speeds up to approaching the speed of light it will never be as quick as is possible with a good network.
Post by: AArdvark on April 07, 2015, 01:56:59 PM
Unless HS2 can boost train speeds up to approaching the speed of light it will never be as quick as is possible with a good network.:D :D :D :D :D
That would be HS(infinity-1), it will still arrive late & be x2.5 over cost.
I think I will be long gone by then. :D :D
Post by: sorc on April 07, 2015, 02:12:21 PM
A large part could be due to the fact that they dont own any copper, so it would complicate things to have to access the existing Openreach network? The way they operate on the basis where its more of a barter system of time for shares and relying on as much as possible for free. Their business model is unlike anything else we have seen.
B4RN stuff
I was referring to Openreach's FTTP rollout in the area. I believe the B4RN villages weren't going to get anything from them, hence B4RN itself, but since there's now credible FTTP competition in the area the usual excuses of "too expensive, too hard" die away and BT gets the fibre splicers out, rather than going for the cheap half-baked fix that they're deploying to everyone else. What other reason would there be for Openreach to not deploy FTTC there?
Unfortunately it will always be that the more urban districts get the newer technology first. The more users there are in an area then the more cost effective it will be. Those further out are less profitable and BT appear to be using 'proper' FTTC only where its more cost effective to do so... or theres no other alternative :/
BT have never been a forerunner in technology and have a cautious approach.. although they seem to have dropped a clanger with the ECI's :/
That's the thing though, Cornwall is not urban at all and BT seems able to do a hell of a lot of rural FTTP here (but really could be a lot more than even that) - but apparently rural (or indeed urban) areas elsewhere in the UK can't do it. Maybe the EU and Cornwall Council are better negotiators? (Cornwall is not being done under BDUK, it has its own thing)
The only consolation for me is that my FTTC cabinet is Huawei :)
Great post c6em. The usual anti-BT brigade don't know the half of what goes on behind the scenes, and would probably whinge even if they had FTTP.
There's a reason they do what they do ….. money. They are a business, not your best friend. If anyone thinks they have a cunning master-plan that would see FTTP installed into our houses, then apply for a position at BT and lets get it on. Obviously, the incredible well-paid board of directors, the financial advisors, corporate solicitors etc, are missing the very simple method that you guys are aware of ?.
Or indeed what are they missing that the well-paid board of directors, the financial advisors, corporate solicitors etc missing that their adjuncts at other telcos across the world have found to justify going for FTTP vs copper bodging? Or, what ROI/benefits is BT seeing in deploying FTTP to single rural farmhouses and the odd street in Cornwall that somehow doesn't exist in the rest of the UK
Given how late to the party BT was on unmetred dialup, ADSL, faster ADSL, ADSL2+, VDSL and indeed what little FTTP they have, and having to be dragged into it by regulatory and competitive pressures, I'm not sure they should be held up as wise decision makers
If BT was doing this 100% with its own money they could do anything they want, but it's not unreasonable to question the decisions being made with taxpayer funds.
Post by: kitz on April 07, 2015, 02:36:01 PM
Quote
If BT was doing this 100% with its own money they could do anything they want, but it's not unreasonable to question the decisions being made with taxpayer funds.
I see that argument brandished around quite a lot. BT have to put at least half of their own funds to it as well and they arent getting a total free ride. What is is doing is ensuring that BT are enabling cabinets now, that under normal circumstances they would be the type of cabs very last to be done.
As regards to 'taxpayers' money, the councils wont fork out for FTTH if someone comes along and offers a much cheaper solution for FTTC.
Quote
Cornwall is not being done under BDUK, it has its own thing
Exactly. Ive said before that BDUK wasn't necessarily the best way of doing things. Its cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money, much of will have also gone into pockets of R&D and admin workers. Its pretty obvious at the start that BT would win most of the contracts. There's a good reason for that too - security. ie they aren't going to hit and run / go bust and then things be abandoned in a few years time. It takes a long time to recoup installation costs.
Look how many £100's of millions of public funding was lost with Digital Region. The end result is there are people on lines in the city centre of Sheffield who cant get any type of fibre. Ask UB how he feels coping on about 2Mb knowing that BT couldn't go in because of DR.
Post by: Black Sheep on April 07, 2015, 02:46:24 PM
Only the smaller percentage BDUK jobs are part-funded by taxpayers money, the rest of the FTTC/P rollout is funded by the companies share-holders. People like myself for example.
You'll get no argument from me about FTTP being the 'Mutts Nuts', this is more than obvious. However, I am not a FTSE100 CEO with a team of advisors around me as to what is the most practicable solution for the company, and its shareholders as a whole ? Rightly or wrongly, that's what Thatcher brought upon us.
Of course, we all have an opinion and yours is as salient as mine is. But, for every web-hit saying the UK is going to be left behind with regard to future-proofing their broadband technology, there's another that says we're ahead of the game compared to most countries !! The usual stance of N.Korea having the best speeds doesn't bother me, I'd rather have 56k speeds and be a free man. Jersey, or is it Guernsey's fibre infrastructure ..... I forget ?? Means nothing when land mass is compared.
We are where we are, and that is continually improving broadband speed. There is lots going on with regard to G.VECTORING and G.FAST technologies to further improve upon these speeds.
There's an old saying that everyone's a football manager when watching a game played out, I think everyone's also a FTSE100 CEO when chatting about the future of broadband ..... myself included. :).
Comparing the likes of B4RN to BT is nonsensical ..... they're not in the same hemisphere when it boils down to how they have to operate. I've always wished them well though, and it's a great success story.
In closing, I see all sorts of wild comments about 'we' will need at least 330Meg, or 150Meg ..... or even 1Gig by 2020. I doubt that very much for the average family, and if the obscure family DO feel it's needed ..... it's going to have to be paid for. I've a feeling that will be the next big, major gripe on forums .................. 'We want FTTP ... but we want it for free'. ::)
Not from BT you wont, or any other profit-making business. :)
Post by: loonylion on April 07, 2015, 03:05:46 PM
The usual stance of N.Korea having the best speeds doesn't bother me, I'd rather have 56k speeds and be a free man.
It's SOUTH Korea with gigabit to every home. Most people in North Korea don't even have access to a working computer, much less the internet (which is restricted to a few members of the elite anyway). South Korea is a democratic country (allegedly, just as the UK allegedly is). So you can have gigabit and be a free man at the same time :D
Post by: Black Sheep on April 07, 2015, 03:30:34 PM
The usual stance of N.Korea having the best speeds doesn't bother me, I'd rather have 56k speeds and be a free man.
It's SOUTH Korea with gigabit to every home. Most people in North Korea don't even have access to a working computer, much less the internet (which is restricted to a few members of the elite anyway). South Korea is a democratic country (allegedly, just as the UK allegedly is). So you can have gigabit and be a free man at the same time :D
Apologies, I was led to believe the infrastructure was better in N.Korea, even with the limitations put upon their people. I quickly GOOGLED this http://blog.m2fx.com/is-fttc-enough-for-the-uks-future-superfast-broadband-needs (First paragraph) which is why I commented as I did.
Post by: c6em on April 07, 2015, 04:22:30 PM
Because in South Korea every single hospital and doctors surgery is in private hands and privately run.
Post by: Bowdon on April 07, 2015, 06:24:22 PM
One of the situations I've noticed is how older cabinets are serving roads quite away from the cabinet location. So these nodes would be a good thing, even just in cutting the distance to the house down.
I do think that eventually we'll have one of the most capable networks to get high speeds. But like most of Britains history we tend to have to build around things i.e. look at our road system.. we seem to drive in loops! :D
Post by: loonylion on April 07, 2015, 07:12:01 PM
I do think that eventually we'll have one of the most capable networks to get high speeds. But like most of Britains history we tend to have to build around things i.e. look at our road system.. we seem to drive in loops! :D
but at least we drive on the right side of the road (except when avoiding potholes :P) as opposed to some countries which drive on the wrong side of the road :P >:D
Post by: Black Sheep on April 07, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
Post by: c6em on April 08, 2015, 08:49:11 AM
I was referring to Openreach's FTTP rollout in the area. I believe the B4RN villages weren't going to get anything from them, hence B4RN itself, but since there's now credible FTTP competition in the area the usual excuses of "too expensive, too hard" die away and BT gets the fibre splicers out, rather than going for the cheap half-baked fix that they're deploying to everyone else. What other reason would there be for Openreach to not deploy FTTC there?
Well in Oxfordshire where Gigaclear's(GC) FTTP services are becoming a significant presence the opposite is happening.
No BT FTTP is being rolled out in response and moreover those villages with GC are seemingly being almost abandoned by BT. So places are ending up with the option of GC FTTP or alternatively BT ADSL2 or even in some places still just BT ADSLmax.
So the end result of more competition has actually had the ironic result of fewer options for the consumer as
BTOR/BTW type triple play type services are not available though people do have access to super/hyperfast internet connectivity through FTTP with GC as the ISP. Its almost as if a semi-monopoly (BTOR plus all the ISP's) has been replaced by a total one.
Post by: phi2008 on April 08, 2015, 01:25:42 PM
I wonder how much it would cost if the government set aside some billions to convert all copper lines to fibre!
I bet we'd be up to japanese speeds if that happened ;D
Figures are often quoted of around £25-30 billion for a nationwide fibre rollout. So over 10 years around £3 billion a year if the government decided to bankroll it, quite doable when you consider they arbitrarily spend £12 billion per year on overseas aid alone.
Post by: boost on April 08, 2015, 01:30:58 PM
Post by: c6em on April 08, 2015, 02:27:03 PM
What the "FTTP for all group" never want to discuss is how long it would take before Little Snoring on the Wolds gets their FTTP.
Meanwhile under the current BDUK roll out Little Snoring is getting FTTC this year.
So while it is not the best technical solution, FTTC does provide the best overall pragmatic solution possible for the greatest BB speed uplift for the most people in the quickest time for the least cost.
Yes some loose out - such is life - most villages don't have a gas supply.
I'm sure that going to explain to the inhabitants of these small villages that they cannot have FTTC because we want the 'best' for you - but the best is not going to arrive for at least another decade and in the meantime you will have to manage on 2Mpbs is not going to be popular!
Post by: WWWombat on April 08, 2015, 02:35:22 PM
So the end result of more competition has actually had the ironic result of fewer options for the consumer as
BTOR/BTW type triple play type services are not available though people do have access to super/hyperfast internet connectivity through FTTP with GC as the ISP. Its almost as if a semi-monopoly (BTOR plus all the ISP's) has been replaced by a total one.
Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?
This same contradiction is noted within the North Yorkshire SFNY/BDUK team. People want better speeds, but they also want to retain the choice of ISP that comes with a BTOR/BTW wholesale supply. It seems they'd rather have "just enough" higher speed combined with choice (even if it is only retail choice), rather than supreme future-proof speed.
I'm watching the BDUK trials for fixed wireless here carefully - it'll be interesting to see what happens to the concepts of choice and wholesale with Airwave.
Post by: guest on April 08, 2015, 04:30:34 PM
Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?
Other way around. They got tired of waiting for BT & paid for FTTP themselves - & I think it was somewhere in Rutland ("new money").
Rural Leics is owned by "old money", generally rich (not as mega-rich as Rutland) and very "connected" so they know which buttons to push at various govt levels to make things happen. Most of its been Tory for generations, same as Leicester itself has been Labour for what seems like forever.
G.Fast is ideal for rural deployment (small cluster of houses rather than villages) as the customer kit can be used to power the G.Fast port which is probably up a pole. Currently you can't power the whole node from customer kit, just the G.Fast ports but that's one of the aims (it will happen in the next 2 years).
I've seen 300Mbps across a 150m copper loop (and 800Mbps aggregated across two copper loops) so G.Fast is a decent solution for very rural areas where vectoring will deliver close to optimal results. Disclaimer - I worked for Alcatel-Lucent on G.Fast so I've seen some of the trial data for places like Austria.
The cost (and none of the profit) of FTTP is almost entirely when it hits the property boundary - insurance/wayleaves/remedial work/whatever. In urban areas that might change in the next 10 years - in small rural areas it won't. Anything which pushes fibre closer to the property has to be viewed as progress.
Post by: sorc on April 08, 2015, 05:09:12 PM
Ah....but that is the problem - the time -like over 10 years.
What the "FTTP for all group" never want to discuss is how long it would take before Little Snoring on the Wolds gets their FTTP.
Meanwhile under the current BDUK roll out Little Snoring is getting FTTC this year.
BT has certainly been able to crank out rural FTTP at some speed when it suits them, down here, urban (well, small town or city) or rural.
So while it is not the best technical solution, FTTC does provide the best overall pragmatic solution possible for the greatest BB speed uplift for the most people in the quickest time for the least cost.
Except of course for those who don't get anywhere close to the current maximum because they're already too far away from the FTTC cabinet, and those who may not get any upgrade from what they have until BT decides to do something substantial (vectoring, pair bonding, FTTdp, FTTP)
Yes some loose out - such is life - most villages don't have a gas supply.
The difference being of course that a gas tank or gas bottles can do everything mains gas can do. There's no need for mains gas since the alternative is just as good, the only minor inconvenience in needing the bottles replaced or tank refilled. Not so with FTTC vs FTTP.
The cost (and none of the profit) of FTTP is almost entirely when it hits the property boundary - insurance/wayleaves/remedial work/whatever. In urban areas that might change in the next 10 years - in small rural areas it won't. Anything which pushes fibre closer to the property has to be viewed as progress.
Everyone's situation is different, but around here everyone is either on overhead wiring or it's a new build with underground wiring, neat ducting and whatever. The latter already is FTTP. and so is some of the former
What difference is there for any of these issues in BT stringing fibre to my home from the nearby pole as opposed to doing so for copper? Why is BT somehow able to do it to some premises but not others that are in a practically identical situation? They had no problem doing a fairly hefty re-organisation of the local network to accomodate a new housing development (new copper, lots of pole moves, re-stringing everyone's phone line to the new poles -and notably, that particular new build did not get FTTP), but they can't do that with bits of glass instead of copper?
If I wanted a few new phone lines installed they'd have them done in a jiffy, including with new overhead cable from the pole
There will of course be situations where G.FAST is almost as good and doesn't have the same hassles as FTTP for certain areas with local infrastructure issues, I just hope it isn't picked as the one-size-fits-all solution like FTTC seems to have been
Post by: guest on April 08, 2015, 05:36:30 PM
The profit for the work isn't worth it for potential liabilities - as things stand in the UK - for rural properties. Edit - G.Fast will help a lot in getting fibre close but as long as one company owns the "last mile" there is little incentive for others to do that.
Post by: sorc on April 08, 2015, 05:56:32 PM
The large rural/urban difference in effort and cost is really going to be in getting the fibre from the headend to the pole, surely (which you'll be doing for G.FAST or FTTP anyway, and where a large percentage of the distance has likely already been covered with the FTTC build) - the additional few metres from pole to home is largely the same if it's overhead wiring in central London or overhead wiring in the Highlands, no? (if both houses were near their respective poles). And that's forgetting that Openreach is not expected to do the final installation for free.
The only G.FAST consolation is that hopefully FTTP on demand from that point should be very reasonably priced. I'd happily pay a couple of hundred £ in installation fees for that.
Post by: c6em on April 08, 2015, 06:09:04 PM
Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?
Correct:
Ashley village in Northamptonshire
See
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/bt-wrong-foots-gigaclear-ashley-village-raises-15k-fibre-broadband.html (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/bt-wrong-foots-gigaclear-ashley-village-raises-15k-fibre-broadband.html)
Post by: WWWombat on April 09, 2015, 05:01:53 PM
Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?
Correct:
Ashley village in Northamptonshire
See
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/bt-wrong-foots-gigaclear-ashley-village-raises-15k-fibre-broadband.html (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/bt-wrong-foots-gigaclear-ashley-village-raises-15k-fibre-broadband.html)
That was the one I was thinking about.
It is interesting to see some of the comments from residents on there, and the fact that arguments still appear to be raging.
However, following the link to the village website, it looks like both options are going ahead right now.
Post by: WWWombat on April 09, 2015, 05:10:46 PM
G.Fast is ideal for rural deployment (small cluster of houses rather than villages) as the customer kit can be used to power the G.Fast port which is probably up a pole. Currently you can't power the whole node from customer kit, just the G.Fast ports but that's one of the aims (it will happen in the next 2 years).
That matches my thinking. We just need BT to agree with us, and start the rollout in those areas...
Talking to my local BDUK people, it seems that there might be a little less trust in the ability for rural copper to be able to supply reverse power in a properly safe manner. Presumably, they're worried about farmers managing to dig through copper, or bodge the wiring a little more easily than is common in urban areas.
Quote
I've seen 300Mbps across a 150m copper loop (and 800Mbps aggregated across two copper loops) so G.Fast is a decent solution for very rural areas where vectoring will deliver close to optimal results. Disclaimer - I worked for Alcatel-Lucent on G.Fast so I've seen some of the trial data for places like Austria.
Do you have any feel for whether Sckipio's recent announcement of faster G.fast, with longer range, stands up?
Post by: WWWombat on April 09, 2015, 05:17:13 PM
It seems that, now G.fast has been standardised, the original project (4GBB Celtic) has now formed a "Celtic Plus" to develop G.fast v2, or GOLD.
A few links:
http://www.sckipio.com/sckipios-g-fast-helps-celtic-plus-go-farther/
https://www.celticplus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Celtic-Plus-Press-Release-2015-03-23-GOLD-Project.pdf
http://gfastnews.com/index.php/90-r/157-suddenly-g-fast-is-400-500-meters-not-100-200-meters
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=489458
Post by: WWWombat on April 09, 2015, 08:41:22 PM
Except of course for those who don't get anywhere close to the current maximum because they're already too far away from the FTTC cabinet, and those who may not get any upgrade from what they have until BT decides to do something substantial (vectoring, pair bonding, FTTdp, FTTP)
Using your "gas supply" analogy, those "substantial" solutions are the exact equivalent of using tanks or bottles for gas. In both cases, it is about adjusting the business case - the finances - until a solution fits in well enough.
In the gas-supply case, pipes are used when the economics allow for it, but tanks and bottles are used when the economics don't pan out. They certainly can't do *everything* that mains gas can - the safety equation is very, very different, and the risk of supply failure is different. In the end, "gas supply" is the same - a pared-down, "just about good enough" bodge.
Quote
Everyone's situation is different, but around here everyone is either on overhead wiring or it's a new build with underground wiring, neat ducting and whatever. The latter already is FTTP. and so is some of the former
I guess you picked out the easiest, cheapest, two cases there.
Differences appear when the full cable is distributed overhead, rather than just the drop wire. The load on the poles needs to be considered - so fibre cannot just be added where a pole is already fully-loaded. Other utilities play a part too; it appears that current regulations means no more shared poles, and increased spacing from overhead electrical wiring too: what used to be done can no longer be done.
For underground, the issue comes back to ducting, and the question about whether there is spare capacity, and whether there has been any collapse - or even if ducting exists at all.
Then we feed into the next point: scale. And scale is a thing that doesn't enter most people's thinking.
Every argument you make is about your house, your line, your pole, and what amount of "imperfection" you are willing to put up with to get gigabit (by which I mean, you will accept extra cables outside, holes in walls, untidy skirting boards, the extra battery backup unit etc).
BT have to think at a scale way beyond just you: They have to consider a solution for everyone in an area; they have to cope with some streets having poles, some using poles shared with electricity, some being ducted, and some being direct-burial. They have to figure the total works required, and factor in things like main roads with traffic measures. Whatever solution is picked has to balance over everyone - because some will be cheap to do, and some will be expensive.
Within this environment, they have to consider all the routes out from a cabinet, and all the junctions. Is there room in every single path to add fibre? Are the chambers large enough to add the extra underground equipment, or can enough space be found in the pathway to put a new chamber without disturbing other utilities?
Once you've factored the above considerations for individual routes, and individual homes, you have to add some coherency. If half of the cabinet area could get FTTP economically, and half could not ... which options do you go for? Do FTTP for half, and leave the others out? Or upgrade the cabinet to FTTC for everyone ... a decision which then destroys the economics for FTTP where it would have been viable?
Eventually, it leads to a decision: Cabinet for the whole area, or FTTP for the whole area.
There's an interesting Analysys Mason document on "Sample Survey of Ducts and Poles in the UK Access Network", linked on this Ofcom page (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/wla/). It gives a feel for the picture seen from a higher vantage point.
Beyond the technical and financial issues, there will be some emotional problems. Most people do not like having their prize garden dug, or their driveway dug; The likes of you and me, frequenting broadband forums, may be perfectly willing to compromise so we get fibre ... but most won't. Such issues either add to the cost, or add a barrier to take-up (making payback longer).
Quote
There will of course be situations where G.FAST is almost as good and doesn't have the same hassles as FTTP for certain areas with local infrastructure issues, I just hope it isn't picked as the one-size-fits-all solution like FTTC seems to have been
I think the nature of the current FTTC deployment makes it look like a one-size-fits-all solution, but it isn't. It is a one-size-fits-almost-everyone solution, combined with the current target levels (67% commercial, 90% subsidised superfast) that haven't yet required anything other than this one size. Even the next target level (95% subsidised superfast) can likely be achieved (on average, nationally) with just this one size solution too. But if you start setting 95% as standalone targets in each of the sparse counties, you are going to have to see the other solutions come out.
The nature of this "one-size" rollout is that it leaves the fringes of upgraded cabinets under-served. Around 4% suffer from this, judging by TBB stats, but that will be worse for some of the cabinets yet to be rolled out (the harder, rural ones).
It seems that FTTRN works for this 4%, in a technical sense, but suffers from the cost of power. We haven't seen what solution BT have for this, if anything.
Reverse power, for FTTdp, seems to offer a solution, but is probably a couple of years away. If they can get it working well, I can see it being rolled out in the way that FTTRN was trialled (Ulshaw, North Yorkshire).
FTTB also seems to be in the list for trials this year.
Right, but they do this for copper every day. An Openreach employee (appropriately insured) visited my house to install the FTTC modem. If I had line issues, someone would enter my house and twiddle with BT-owned internal wiring (which will have to be insured against the risk of it causing damage to my property). If I wanted more copper lines, again, more internal work, running new cable from the pole, drilling holes in an exterior wall, etc, all of which would be done with no trouble.
For most people, isn't the second line there already, in the existing cable? There is little extra cost that way, but not many homes use a second line nowadays - with the prevalence of mobiles and VoIP.
Quote
The large rural/urban difference in effort and cost is really going to be in getting the fibre from the headend to the pole, surely (which you'll be doing for G.FAST or FTTP anyway, and where a large percentage of the distance has likely already been covered with the FTTC build)
It depends. Overall, I think the total cost of getting to the pole (from the cabinet) about balances the cost of going from pole to home; actual amounts depend on the takeup. Obviously that means the cheapest home-pole cases will be worth doing as FTTP (providing that *every* home in the area can be done that way cheaply); the expensive home-pole cases will be worth doing as FTTdp.
The reason that the balance of cost is not as you think comes down, simply, to the opportunity for sharing the cost between homes.
- On average, the exchange-cabinet distance was about 2.8km, but the cost gets shared amongst 300 homes; that amounts to 9m of fibre per home; less if the fibre spines are shared significantly, which I suspect they are. They are also mostly ducted, helping costs.
- On average, the cabinet-DP distance is around 400m, and the cost gets shared amongst 8 homes; that amounts to 50m of fibre per home; less if the fibre sub-spines are shared significantly, which I suspect they are. They are also mostly ducted, helping costs.
- On average, drop wires are about 35m, and by definition, not shared.
Quote
- the additional few metres from pole to home is largely the same if it's overhead wiring in central London or overhead wiring in the Highlands, no? (if both houses were near their respective poles).
It really depends on how much overhead wiring there is in a location. I think that AM documents gives the national proportion of DP types, but how they are distributed is key.
I think, however, you are missing one or two elements that lie in G.fast's favour: The ability to roll out much faster, and the ability to do it without needing appointments with subscribers.
Post by: Black Sheep on April 09, 2015, 08:55:41 PM
You are absolutely correct about JUP's (Joint User Poles) not being an option on new provides. The Electric boards appear to honour existing wiring as being acceptable, but no new additions !! Then there's places of outstanding natural beauty, places of scientific interest, conservation areas, islands (Submarine cables) that have to be specifically planned around. I'm not a 'Planner' but I bet there's a thousand and one different scenario's that differ to providing service to a bog-standard dwelling ??
Post by: niemand on April 09, 2015, 10:28:55 PM
- On average, the cabinet-DP distance is around 400m, and the cost gets shared amongst 8 homes; that amounts to 50m of fibre per home; less if the fibre sub-spines are shared significantly, which I suspect they are.
G.fast will likely be backhauled via XGPON going forward, which does indeed provide creative options for reducing fibre count of backhaul.
Post by: sorc on April 10, 2015, 09:44:54 AM
Using your "gas supply" analogy, those "substantial" solutions are the exact equivalent of using tanks or bottles for gas. In both cases, it is about adjusting the business case - the finances - until a solution fits in well enough.
In the gas-supply case, pipes are used when the economics allow for it, but tanks and bottles are used when the economics don't pan out. They certainly can't do *everything* that mains gas can - the safety equation is very, very different, and the risk of supply failure is different. In the end, "gas supply" is the same - a pared-down, "just about good enough" bodge.
Except that there are two differences here - the first being that the taxpayer hasn't paid billions for me to get a gas tank after promising mains gas (the home owner does this entirely out of their own pocket) - the local gas DNO is not involved, and the second being that there is no functional difference at all. I can have a gas cooker, gas fires, gas central heating. It works precisely the same as someone on mains gas, with the exception of having to find LPG appliances or ones that can be converted. Something that works 100% as well is not really a bodge.
That is not true for FTTC vs FTTP - both in attainable speed (most people on FTTC won't get 80Mbit, everyone on FTTP can) and in the future where that gap gets even worse.
I guess you picked out the easiest, cheapest, two cases there.
Differences appear when the full cable is distributed overhead, rather than just the drop wire. The load on the poles needs to be considered - so fibre cannot just be added where a pole is already fully-loaded. Other utilities play a part too; it appears that current regulations means no more shared poles, and increased spacing from overhead electrical wiring too: what used to be done can no longer be done.
For underground, the issue comes back to ducting, and the question about whether there is spare capacity, and whether there has been any collapse - or even if ducting exists at all.
Then we feed into the next point: scale. And scale is a thing that doesn't enter most people's thinking.
Every argument you make is about your house, your line, your pole, and what amount of "imperfection" you are willing to put up with to get gigabit (by which I mean, you will accept extra cables outside, holes in walls, untidy skirting boards, the extra battery backup unit etc).
BT have to think at a scale way beyond just you: They have to consider a solution for everyone in an area; they have to cope with some streets having poles, some using poles shared with electricity, some being ducted, and some being direct-burial. They have to figure the total works required, and factor in things like main roads with traffic measures. Whatever solution is picked has to balance over everyone - because some will be cheap to do, and some will be expensive.
I picked it out because it isn't just the pole outside my house, it's pretty much how the entire local area is done.
I'm not sure if you appreciate how much FTTP is in places like Cornwall, and exactly where BT has decided to do it. The work to bury several km of fibre to serve an individual home in the middle of nowhere, for example - are you going to say that this is cheaper and easier than running an additional couple hundred metres of fibre from the aggregation node to the home in a more built up area and where costs can be split between more users? And as far as I can tell there is no real method or science to the type of technology they choose to deploy in these very rural areas. Hence some very rural premises getting FTTP and others getting told to go to satellite.
Within this environment, they have to consider all the routes out from a cabinet, and all the junctions. Is there room in every single path to add fibre? Are the chambers large enough to add the extra underground equipment, or can enough space be found in the pathway to put a new chamber without disturbing other utilities?
Once you've factored the above considerations for individual routes, and individual homes, you have to add some coherency. If half of the cabinet area could get FTTP economically, and half could not ... which options do you go for? Do FTTP for half, and leave the others out? Or upgrade the cabinet to FTTC for everyone ... a decision which then destroys the economics for FTTP where it would have been viable?
Eventually, it leads to a decision: Cabinet for the whole area, or FTTP for the whole area.
Most of your objections are going to largely apply for G.FAST - so it's a problem BT will need to tackle either now, or in the near future once it is realised that FTTC isn't cutting it. Especially where Virgin or some other higher-speed competitor exists.
Your argument also seems to omit the rollout costs of G.FAST - how much will the thousands of pole/pit mounted DSLAMs cost to install/maintain/replace per-user? Will it be cheaper than an equivalent FTTP install? (where it only really needs to be done once, and that's it). The upgrade path/futureproofability should have been considered too, not just how much it costs today.
So it's really a tossup between doing the work now, or doing it later - but after you've spent money on doing FTTC first.
Beyond the technical and financial issues, there will be some emotional problems. Most people do not like having their prize garden dug, or their driveway dug; The likes of you and me, frequenting broadband forums, may be perfectly willing to compromise so we get fibre ... but most won't. Such issues either add to the cost, or add a barrier to take-up (making payback longer).
I've already said that G.FAST might be more useful in certain situations - but I don't believe that applies to almost everyone - and notice that I have concentrated on overhead wiring where no such digging is needed.
I think the nature of the current FTTC deployment makes it look like a one-size-fits-all solution, but it isn't. It is a one-size-fits-almost-everyone solution, combined with the current target levels (67% commercial, 90% subsidised superfast) that haven't yet required anything other than this one size. Even the next target level (95% subsidised superfast) can likely be achieved (on average, nationally) with just this one size solution too. But if you start setting 95% as standalone targets in each of the sparse counties, you are going to have to see the other solutions come out.
Except that "superfast" in many cases seems to be speeds that were pedestrian 10 years ago, let alone 5 or 10 years into the future. As long as you can squeeze something out of the FTTC cabinet, that's "covered". Hence BT's decision to do ADSL2+ from FTTC in the hopes of getting a few more users for the precious "homes covered" statistic, even if the attainable speeds are utter pants.
For most people, isn't the second line there already, in the existing cable? There is little extra cost that way, but not many homes use a second line nowadays - with the prevalence of mobiles and VoIP.
I was referring to a situation where I'd want more phone lines than my existing dropwire can handle. BT would get that done with no problem (provided that there is suitable facilities to do it)
- On average, the exchange-cabinet distance was about 2.8km, but the cost gets shared amongst 300 homes; that amounts to 9m of fibre per home; less if the fibre spines are shared significantly, which I suspect they are. They are also mostly ducted, helping costs.
- On average, the cabinet-DP distance is around 400m, and the cost gets shared amongst 8 homes; that amounts to 50m of fibre per home; less if the fibre sub-spines are shared significantly, which I suspect they are. They are also mostly ducted, helping costs.
This is additionally a G.FAST problem too, is it not? You're going to need to get fibre to the pole/pit somehow - and then you plonk a G.FAST DSLAM on the end or a splitter and keep going into the home.
It really depends on how much overhead wiring there is in a location. I think that AM documents gives the national proportion of DP types, but how they are distributed is key.
I think, however, you are missing one or two elements that lie in G.fast's favour: The ability to roll out much faster, and the ability to do it without needing appointments with subscribers.
And you appear to be missing the actual cost of G.FAST here - DSLAMs and modems for what will be a brand new technology won't be cheap too (and it remains to be seen if G.FAST won't require a proper installation to get the best possible speed, since every metre seems to count, I doubt BT will want people plugging the things in at the end of 30 metres of B&Q special non-twisted pair extension cable)
And as for rollout speed - if FTTP rollout is allegedly slow (given what's happened locally I don't totally believe that), G.FAST is going to be the same. It might be easy for someone to come and nail a DSLAM to the pole, but it's still going to take a lot of time and expense to put that fibre backhaul in
At least the years of stagnation (8Mbit ADSL to most unless TalkTalk were in the exchange) on BT's part meant that VDSL2 was relatively mature and established before they decided to deploy it
A well constructed post (again) W3. The sticky-out salient point being BT/OR have to factor in every single hurdle that may confront them, before deciding on a business plan. That is why I continually try to get folk to see beyond their own little piece of the UK, which is usually a bog-standard dwelling.
But BT doesn't make these decisions at national level - there's already an element of choosing different technologies for a local/cabinet level. Hence some people having FTTP, most on FTTC, some having FTTrn, some being fobbed off onto satellite. So talking about a person's local area (in my case I was thinking more about parts of a county) is highly relevant.
Post by: guest on April 10, 2015, 10:16:49 PM
Do you have any feel for whether Sckipio's recent announcement of faster G.fast, with longer range, stands up?
If it's the links you provided then in theory its possible. Its very unlikely in the field. 300Mbps over 300-400m - no problem, likewise 100Mbps over 1km isn't startling. What they're claiming is do-able but its unlikely to be the median result IMHO.
When they talk about bonding its important to understand that bonding two copper pairs with vectoring will produce an aggregate speed of more than double that of each pair. This is called "phantom mode" (google it). Essentially it means you have 3 DSL channels - one between the A/B wires on the first pair, one between A/B on the second pair and a third virtual channel between the pairs themselves. https://gigaom.com/2010/04/20/dsl-speed-300-mbps/ used to have a nice clickable graphic which showed this.
Edit - this expands beyond two pairs. Provided the pairs are in close physical proximity (which is likely for g.fast) then its basically the number of actual channels (N) plus N-1 virtual channels. So if you had 4 pairs then you'd have 4 actual + 3 virtual DSL channels. The maths on vectoring (with phantom modes) is horrendous & all sorts of analogue shortcuts are currently taken as the vectoring resources on the cheap as chips SoC aren't enough . Suffice it to say if you're a decent RF analogue engineer (rare as rocking horse **** in the UK now :( ) then you can more or less write your own ticket - if its contract & you're accepting under £100/hour then you need to find another agent ;)
tl;dr yes it probably stands up under limited conditions, the devil (as always) is in the detail.