Print

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

[waltergmw]

Gentlefolk,

Assuming I am correctly interpreting the changed wording associated with FTTCs that have run out of capacity due to the lack of duct space and / or the lack of additional tie  cables, it seems a rather concerning policy change has been implemented.

It covers at least those FTTCs installed under BDUK contracts, but I have yet to discover whether it applies to BT's commercial FTTC deployments too.

The BT wholesale words for an unavailable FTTCabinet now show in its availability column as "Waiting List" and the accompanying text now reads :-

"This PCP has a waiters list for FTTC services. You may place an order which will be dealt with in turn.

FTTC is currently not available on this cabinet due to following reasons:- Sorry your cabinet is temporarily unavailable, capacity will be restored as soon as possible.

For all ADSL and WBC Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC or WBC SOGEA) services, the stable line rate will be determined during the first 10 days of service usage.

This line does not have left in jumpers."

etc. etc.

Perhaps of more concern is that the BT Openreach "Where & When" web site has been changed from the euphemistic "High Demand" to "Exploring Solutions".

I suspect the best interpretation (but cannot prove) is that the cabinet upgrades are now being prioritised by the number of those waiting.

There can be little doubt that there are plenty more unavailable cabinets across the UK. My known list is Shere Surrey 5 (Since 12 December 2014), Ottery St Mary 1, Ingleton 3, Skipton 16, Abinger 1 and Bramley Surrey 1.

If anybody else is affected, I'd like to add them to my list.

Kind regards,
Walter

[Black Sheep]

In my day-to-day experience, I would suggest an average turn around for increased tie-pairs is approx. 3 months. My very own Cab has recently undergone the same process.
The comments are based on what I would call 'High-demand' Cabs, ie: those that are a great distance from the Exchange, thus having historically slow ADSL speeds.

As an engineer, with these Cabs you can see the capacity draining quite quickly, knowing full well that expansion will be required imminently. As I say, it would appear the average time from full to available would be around 3 months, but like your good-self being unable to quantify the wording, Walter, I only have my own personal findings to go off.

Before the debate begins around, 'Why don't they provide 2 x 96 ports on these Cabs, instead of just the one', I kinda understand that train of thought as a local engineer listening to the EU's demands as the build up to their Cab going 'Live' approaches.
However, these Cabs are planned from all over the country. The one I reference to above (in Lancashire) may have been planned by someone down in Cornwall. He/She will have no idea of local demand. That said, OR can NOT work to if's, but's and maybe's ........ there's plenty of folk who don't put their money where their mouth is when it comes down to it. So, it will usually be found to be a 1 x 96 ports feed* at the initial stage.

*This is based on my on findings, and there have been a few instances when a brand new Cab has had more capacity supplied at the initial stage.

[licquorice]

I can understand not providing more equipment than is necessary, but I would have thought the cost of providing a 200 pair tie cable at day1 is virtually the same as providing a 100 pair cable. The cabinet in our village was exhausted within a very few weeks of going live. The extra tie cable required a trench and new duct to be provided, madness!!! If the original tie cable had been a 200 pair it would have (presumably) fitted in the existing duct that was used as I can't imagine it would have been much larger in diameter than a 100 pair cable. Yet another case of Openreach spending a £100 to save a fiver!!

[renluop]

Probably this is tangential, aka irrelevant, to this discussion! But I looked at my ISP's fibre pages in relation to my cabinet. There it baldly says that fibre is not available; no mention of a waiting list!

BT's making a waiting list for their customers does not imho appear to give other suppliers equal treatment with itself. That goes even for its own subsidiary.

[Black Sheep]

I can understand not providing more equipment than is necessary, but I would have thought the cost of providing a 200 pair tie cable at day1 is virtually the same as providing a 100 pair cable. The cabinet in our village was exhausted within a very few weeks of going live. The extra tie cable required a trench and new duct to be provided, madness!!! If the original tie cable had been a 200 pair it would have (presumably) fitted in the existing duct that was used as I can't imagine it would have been much larger in diameter than a 100 pair cable. Yet another case of Openreach spending a £100 to save a fiver!!

In your opinion.

Yet again, forum users using just one Cab by way of an example. Please, please, please ..... try to see the bigger picture. Try and picture you are the chief bean-counter at BT and there are 38,000 Cabs that need upgrading to FTTC. These Cabs are usually sited within 50mts of the existing Cabs, but there are varying lengths between them dependant on local Council approvals.

So each upgrade will require 2 cables running between the two Cabs, do you as chief bean-counter state that a) All those thousands of Cabs should be provisioned with a 200pr cable, knowing the price of copper is through the roof and with no indication as to what the total take-up will be......... or b) Do you opt for the 100pr cable route and see if take-up of the product requires further work at a later date ??

If your answer is 'a' ....... that is why you are not employed by BT  . It is in no way financially viable. Add in to the mix G.fast technologies, which will have been discussed during initial FTTC scopes, then your solution is way off the mark for a profit-making business.

I reiterate ...... think 'BIG' ....... as in your decision will follow throughout the UK, not just Cab1 in Pleasant Village, Nowheresville. 

[Chrysalis]

thinking big would be thinking past the next financial year, spending big bucks on obsolete copper I agree is bad spending, instead the spending in that situation should be on fibre which will save money in the long term.

[guest]

knowing the price of copper is through the roof

I really do have to pull you up on this as its total nonsense

Copper costs 40% of what it did 5 years ago and is more or less the same price as it was in 2006, just prior to a massive increase in usage by the Chinese in 2007/2008. Australian mining companies can't give the damn stuff away these days.

http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/copper_historical_large.html#5years

The rest of your argument may well hold true but this part is well off the mark & has been for a long time.

[licquorice]

I can understand not providing more equipment than is necessary, but I would have thought the cost of providing a 200 pair tie cable at day1 is virtually the same as providing a 100 pair cable. The cabinet in our village was exhausted within a very few weeks of going live. The extra tie cable required a trench and new duct to be provided, madness!!! If the original tie cable had been a 200 pair it would have (presumably) fitted in the existing duct that was used as I can't imagine it would have been much larger in diameter than a 100 pair cable. Yet another case of Openreach spending a £100 to save a fiver!!

In your opinion.

Yet again, forum users using just one Cab by way of an example. Please, please, please ..... try to see the bigger picture. Try and picture you are the chief bean-counter at BT and there are 38,000 Cabs that need upgrading to FTTC. These Cabs are usually sited within 50mts of the existing Cabs, but there are varying lengths between them dependant on local Council approvals.

So each upgrade will require 2 cables running between the two Cabs, do you as chief bean-counter state that a) All those thousands of Cabs should be provisioned with a 200pr cable, knowing the price of copper is through the roof and with no indication as to what the total take-up will be......... or b) Do you opt for the 100pr cable route and see if take-up of the product requires further work at a later date ??

If your answer is 'a' ....... that is why you are not employed by BT  . It is in no way financially viable. Add in to the mix G.fast technologies, which will have been discussed during initial FTTC scopes, then your solution is way off the mark for a profit-making business.

I reiterate ...... think 'BIG' ....... as in your decision will follow throughout the UK, not just Cab1 in Pleasant Village, Nowheresville. 

I really can't believe the difference in cost between 50metres of 100 pair cable and 50metres of 200 pair is anything other than miniscule. I am convinced that the minute extra cost of providing every tie cable as a 200 pair is still cheaper than the vastly expensive amount of rework required to  add extra cables to the hundreds (thousands) of cabs over the country. Happy to be proved wrong with real figures.

PS The answer was (a) and was employed by BT for over 40 years. 

[c6em]

From the USA
50 pr $1.97 per foot
100 pr $3.73 per foot
http://www.discount-low-voltage.com/Cable/Direct-Burial-Telephone-Cable/BC18910024BKGN
http://www.discount-low-voltage.com/Cable/Direct-Burial-Telephone-Cable/BC18920024BKGN
So 100 pr is 1.89 times the price of 50pr

[ejs]

FTTC "Capacity Waiters" are mentioned in R2800 and R3000 Openreach EIP communications (External Information Points).

R3000 does say the capacity waiters list will allow "them" to be prioritised for capacity, although I'm not sure if the "them" refers to the users or the cabinets.

I didn't consider an order in a waiting status, or a waiting list concerning, I would have thought it's an improvement on rejecting the order and making people try again later.

[Black Sheep]

From the USA
50 pr $1.97 per foot
100 pr $3.73 per foot
http://www.discount-low-voltage.com/Cable/Direct-Burial-Telephone-Cable/BC18910024BKGN
http://www.discount-low-voltage.com/Cable/Direct-Burial-Telephone-Cable/BC18920024BKGN
So 100 pr is 1.89 times the price of 50pr

Thank you for the price-guide c6em ……. as we can see, there is a significant difference between 50-100pr ….. I wonder if a similar percentage rise would apply between 100-200 pr ??

However, just based on those figures shown, one can imagine the bean-counter quite rightly dismissing out of hand a blanket FTTC Cab infrastructure of 2x100pr cables !!! Big picture, lads ….. big picture. 

[Black Sheep]

I can understand not providing more equipment than is necessary, but I would have thought the cost of providing a 200 pair tie cable at day1 is virtually the same as providing a 100 pair cable. The cabinet in our village was exhausted within a very few weeks of going live. The extra tie cable required a trench and new duct to be provided, madness!!! If the original tie cable had been a 200 pair it would have (presumably) fitted in the existing duct that was used as I can't imagine it would have been much larger in diameter than a 100 pair cable. Yet another case of Openreach spending a £100 to save a fiver!!

In your opinion.

Yet again, forum users using just one Cab by way of an example. Please, please, please ..... try to see the bigger picture. Try and picture you are the chief bean-counter at BT and there are 38,000 Cabs that need upgrading to FTTC. These Cabs are usually sited within 50mts of the existing Cabs, but there are varying lengths between them dependant on local Council approvals.

So each upgrade will require 2 cables running between the two Cabs, do you as chief bean-counter state that a) All those thousands of Cabs should be provisioned with a 200pr cable, knowing the price of copper is through the roof and with no indication as to what the total take-up will be......... or b) Do you opt for the 100pr cable route and see if take-up of the product requires further work at a later date ??

If your answer is 'a' ....... that is why you are not employed by BT  . It is in no way financially viable. Add in to the mix G.fast technologies, which will have been discussed during initial FTTC scopes, then your solution is way off the mark for a profit-making business.

I reiterate ...... think 'BIG' ....... as in your decision will follow throughout the UK, not just Cab1 in Pleasant Village, Nowheresville. 

I really can't believe the difference in cost between 50metres of 100 pair cable and 50metres of 200 pair is anything other than miniscule. I am convinced that the minute extra cost of providing every tie cable as a 200 pair is still cheaper than the vastly expensive amount of rework required to  add extra cables to the hundreds (thousands) of cabs over the country. Happy to be proved wrong with real figures.

PS The answer was (a) and was employed by BT for over 40 years.

As we can see from c6em's posting, almost twice the cost if OR were to run with 2x100pr cables. Pure madness to run with that.

With regard to your 40yr service, and your post about the cable capacity ….. my money is that you were a low-level boss. All the gear and no idea.  <only jesting icon>

[Moderator edited in an attempt to fix the broken quotation.]

[licquorice]

I really don't think that the price of American retail cables has any relevance to the cost of cables to Openreach. Still remain to be convinced, there's a whole lot of Pleasant Village Nowheresvilles out there. Even a very simple algorithm such as 'if cabx ADSL customers currently recieve < 3Mbps due to distance from exchange, then takeup will be massive' would be step in the right direction. Its not black and white and one size doesn't fit all.

[licquorice]

With regard to your 40yr service, and your post about the cable capacity ….. my money is that you were a low-level boss. All the gear and no idea.  <only jesting icon>

You'd lose your bet, a little more senior than that. 

[Moderator edited in an attempt to fix the broken quotation.]

[Black Sheep]

knowing the price of copper is through the roof

I really do have to pull you up on this as its total nonsense

Copper costs 40% of what it did 5 years ago and is more or less the same price as it was in 2006, just prior to a massive increase in usage by the Chinese in 2007/2008. Australian mining companies can't give the damn stuff away these days.

http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/copper_historical_large.html#5years

The rest of your argument may well hold true but this part is well off the mark & has been for a long time.

I haven't got time to go looking for the price of copper then and now, nor the wherewithal to be honest. The point is, regardless of price, it does not nor never will be, GOOD business acumen to over-compensate on the provision of 'If's, but's and maybe's'.

Just a heads up for all concerned. It's something and nothing to shove extra cable down the newly installed duct between Cabs. Probably take me 60mins on my own from setting up the SLG's to packing up. The making off and terminating of both ends might take a full day, or possibly a day and a half, dependant on space in the existing copper Cab. All in all, I reckon I could have the whole cable in and terminated on my Jack Jones in 2 days …… hardly earth-shattering news to our shareholders !!