Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => FTTP Rollout => Topic started by: Reformed on January 25, 2022, 11:11:05 AM
-
May be found at https://www.openreach.com/content/dam/openreach/openreach-dam-files/documents/Ultrafast_Full_Fibre_broadband_Build_Programme_January_2022.pdf
Many changes are either exchanges being added to this year's programme, presumably largely in response to altnet builds, and exchanges completing deployment.
-
It does not show FTTP deployment related to BDUK, new sites/retro new-sites and other smaller scale
programmes or infill.
Does anyone know the reason that BDUK enabled exchanges are not listed in these documents?
-
Does anyone know the reason that BDUK enabled exchanges are not listed in these documents?
What do you mean by BDUK enabled exchanges? Most if not all exchanges have some degree of BDUK deployments in them.
-
I mean if an exchange is enabled for FTTP via a Community/BDUK funded project with Openreach, why would it no be listed in the above document? It seems it only lists the commercial projects? page 85 says "It does not show FTTP deployment related to BDUK"
-
It deals with exchanges where a significant proportion of premises either have or will be enabled. BDUK has both rarely covered a large proportion of the premises an exchange has passed so far and isn't part of the commercial deployment so shouldn't be on here.
-
What about if a community/BDUK project covered all properties on exchange?
-
The winning suppliers for any BDUK Gigabit contracts have not yet been announced/awarded and may not be Openreach..
I also don't believe any Community Projects have upgraded an entire exchange to FTTP.
-
Good to see my local exchange has now been added at last. I wonder if the recent announcement by an altnet looking to cover 30,000 properties in our town has anything to do with it 🤔 :P
-
Kinda: it has everything to do with it.
-
If I go to thinkbroadband site, and search for my local exchange it says "FTTP Available". What is interesting is all the properties connected via copper to the local exchange have been enabled for FTTP, but the fibre actually goes to a different exchange.
When I discussed with Openreach survey team, they said all properties connected to exchange were going to be cabled for FTTP, I believe most have been enabled for order, and many are already live with FTTP service including mine.
However, the exchange has never appeared on any public roll out documents of FTTP, so I was just wondering why the public funded BDUK/Community projects do not appear in these type documents, there must be a reason, as it specifically says they are excluded page 85.
It would be nice to see a similar type document of BDUK Openreach enabled exchanges so we could see where 'our' money is being spent.
-
Parsons Green is an interesting one as they were a pilot area for G.Fast as far as I recall. That must confirm that it is dead.
-
May be found at https://www.openreach.com/content/dam/openreach/openreach-dam-files/documents/Ultrafast_Full_Fibre_broadband_Build_Programme_January_2022.pdf
Many changes are either exchanges being added to this year's programme, presumably largely in response to altnet builds, and exchanges completing deployment.
Responding to altnet seems a factor, three exchanges finally picked in Leicester, guess what, they all in the early activated cityfibre areas, who would have guessed. :)
-
Love a good bit of capitalism, I does.
It works well for all concerned (especially financially), and TBH I'm rather glad OR have ramped up their FTTP programmes as the Ofcom mandated PIA scheme, (in my personal opinion), sees the alt-nets cherry-picking the high-density quick win areas, often leaving OR with no capacity in their own infrastructure to pull their own fibre cables in.
This is of course, the cut and thrust of business .... and long may it continue ;) :) :)
-
Love a good bit of capitalism, I does.
It works well for all concerned (especially financially), and TBH I'm rather glad OR have ramped up their FTTP programmes as the Ofcom mandated PIA scheme, (in my personal opinion), sees the alt-nets cherry-picking the high-density quick win areas, often leaving OR with no capacity in their own infrastructure to pull their own fibre cables in.
This is of course, the cut and thrust of business .... and long may it continue ;) :) :)
The question how have openreach got this far into this program to have these cherry-picked areas not even in their own plans, only as recent as 6 months ago openreach informed me the area was not financially viable. :p
-
Parsons Green is an interesting one as they were a pilot area for G.Fast as far as I recall. That must confirm that it is dead.
Not sure we need confirmation, its only logical to get rid of copper services wherever possible as its much more labour intensive to maintain. The catch has always been the obligation to provide LLU.
-
Tons of G.fast has been overbuilt with FTTP now. The big evidence it's not being pursued might well be that 9 months ago Openreach passed 2.831 million premises with G.fast and as of this month passed 2.831 million premises.
The pods seem to be finding far better use as extra VDSL capacity.
-
I attach the coverage stats OR released this week
Looks like just over 10% of properties passed by G.Fast have installed - and the figure is increasing.
Surprised it's so high tbh
-
Tons of G.fast has been overbuilt with FTTP now. The big evidence it's not being pursued might well be that 9 months ago Openreach passed 2.831 million premises with G.fast and as of this month passed 2.831 million premises.
The pods seem to be finding far better use as extra VDSL capacity.
Uninteresting fact: At one point in the past, if a full PON (up to 120 premises) was captured within the G.fast elipse zone (200/250mtrs from memory ??), then we wouldn't provide FTTP for that particular PON.
It would still be surveyed for blockages, poling, CBT/Joint locations, amount of stores required, costings, etc ... plus capacity will be left at the splitter. So, if and when an increase from 330Mbps is necessary/mandatory, the uplift would be quite quick to put in place.
-
Uninteresting fact: At one point in the past, if a full PON (up to 120 premises) was captured within the G.fast elipse zone (200/250mtrs from memory ??), then we wouldn't provide FTTP for that particular PON.
It would still be surveyed for blockages, poling, CBT/Joint locations, amount of stores required, costings, etc ... plus capacity will be left at the splitter. So, if and when an increase from 330Mbps is necessary/mandatory, the uplift would be quite quick to put in place.
One thing has been bothering me, what is it Openreach refer to as a "PON" if the actual PON only covers 32 properties max?
-
It's an affectionate term - PON by its true definition is a helluva lot larger, but it's easier for us to quickly chat about PON's as opposed to Splitter Nodes ... especially when you are mentioning them hundreds of times a day ::) :).
For info - a PON (Splitter Node) is provisioned for 120 premises (not 32), maximum. Yes, there are grey area's where we can up this, but as a rule, it is 120 THP (Total Homes Passed).
I think you are referring to the SASA (Splitter Array Sub Assembly), which splits the one fibre light into 32 separate lights. A PON will have a maximum of 4 x SASA's in the large joint in which it is housed. Out of the 32 potential light sources, only 30 will be used - ergo 4 x 30 = 120THP.
-
So are all 120 on the same signal? Would seem a bit high a contention ratio if so vs 30 which actually seems somewhat low.
Mind you nothing like CityFibre where if they are using GPON a single customer uploading could eat all or almost all the bandwidth (though I presume TDMA actually guarantees everyone gets a fair share in this scenario?).
-
An Openreach splitter node contains up to 4 GPON splitters (SASA's as BS says).
A maximum of 30 lines per SASA, making a total of 120.
120 is fed by 4 fibres.
BS is using Openreach speak for PON.
In GPON terms it's a 32 way split, but 2 must be kept spare.
-
What’s the two spare about?
-
What’s the two spare about?
Simply put - future proofing. That is why we have to request permission from way up high, to use these spares.
-
BS is using Openreach speak for PON.
In GPON terms it's a 32 way split, but 2 must be kept spare.
What threw me was:
PON by its true definition is a helluva lot larger
-
Pleased to see my exchange on the list, but sadly in the third column.
That vague timeline is annoying, basically somewhere between 22 and December 26.
Maybe time to dust off the FTTPoD quotes.
-
Maybe time to dust off the FTTPoD quotes.
Aren't they refusing FTTPoD when your area is "in scope" of a commercial rollout though?
Its somewhat annoying as you would think they would let you pay to jump the queue.
-
Aren't they refusing FTTPoD when your area is "in scope" of a commercial rollout though?
Its somewhat annoying as you would think they would let you pay to jump the queue.
Really?
Doesn’t that mean everyone now then? Practically all areas are in scope up to 2026?
At this point I’m happy to pay up
-
Interestingly, it was just brought up in the commons how the urban FTTP rollout from Openreach is not up to what was expected but of course their rollout in rural areas is one of the best in the world. The government of course ignored the former comment.