Print

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

[Black Sheep]

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. 

A cleaner

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

[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. 

A cleaner

Well spotted!! 

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

[licquorice]

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 !!

Now you're not looking at the big picture. Shoving the cable is a very minor part of the whole job. 

[Black Sheep]

There's not much more to it that comes under the heading 'Costly' ….. as is what is being portrayed on here.

The 'Big Picture' is …….. it is not cost-effective to install 2x100pr cables on initial uplift. I know I'm right, because that is what happens. It doesn't take too much grey-matter to come to the conclusion that this very same conversation probably took place at the original 'FTTC roll-out' meetings.
But hey, what do they know eh ?? Luckily they've got folk like us on internet forums that they can ring for advice, when it all goes Pete Tong on them. 

[licquorice]

We've always done it this way so it must be right!! 

You won't convince me, I won't convince you.

[Black Sheep]

We've always done it this way so it must be right!! 

You won't convince me, I won't convince you.

The first thing you've said that I agree with, sir. Well, the last 4 words that is. 

[licquorice]

He he, have a good evening and keep saving all that money to pay my pension! 

[waltergmw]

Gentlefolk,

I can understand the logic that BS postulates and given all the other variables such as line lengths and quality it's probable that a few cabinets will never be fully consumed even though they only cover between approximately 1/3 and 1/2 of the old green cabinets' line count. One day some bright spark might just realise the true symmetric FTTH is the way forward.

However, given the significantly higher civil works costs - probably at a minimum of £3,000 per 3 day mobilisation with traffic lights and temporary road furniture etc. etc., I cannot understand why BT's senior planning engineers gave their accountants such free rein. They had actually designed their commercially deployed Huawei 288 cabinets that way, INCLUDING the installation of two sets of 100 pair cables. Why could they not shout loudly enough to include a second 90 mm grey duct probably costing less than £1.25 per metre at BT's bulk purchase costs? Even the PR value of not causing such quite unnecessary public mayhem for a second time must surely be worth it when you observe BT's TV marketing budget too.

Also note this only concerns the ECI 128 / 256 and the Huawei 288 cabinets, both of which require 300 pairs for full capacity (4 * 70 and 6 * 50 respectively). The smaller Huawei 96 cabinets only require a maximum of 150 pairs, allowing for the 32 to 40 pairs wastage (I.e. 3 * 40 pairs = 120).

Note that all cabinets also require a minimum of a CW1803 4-tube blown fibre "cable" and a very small 5 pair telemetry cable BUT these additions give Murphy plenty of scope for tangles. I watched with great sympathy a BT team pulling even the first two (go and return) 100 pair cables through around a 57 m duct with two small bends and NO additional pulling chamber. The older man was VERY grateful for the younger mountaineer hobbyist who was straining every sinew in his body to eventually pull the cables through the ducts, after trying to do so both ways.

Kind regards,
Walter

[Black Sheep]

lol ....... will do .... and you enjoy that full 'Final salary' pension, whilst the rest of us current employees have to now put up with the 'Average earnings' tat, our Union managed to bring in.  ........... 

[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.

I haven't got time to go looking for the price of copper then and now, nor the wherewithal to be honest.

Then its probably best not to use phrases like "through the roof" unless you actually know the cost?

I appreciate you feel "under attack" a lot of the time. You are not Openreach so stop defending every stupid decision mmm? You are starting to sound distinctly "jobsworth" & I know you're not that.

Putting the (usually <25m) cables in at the same time is common sense and is a trivial amount when labour/civils costs are taken into account. When you're awash with taxpayer cash/BDUK contracts & don't have the cabling for it all? That sounds more like what happened to me.

[Black Sheep]

'I appreciate you feel "under attack" a lot of the time. You are not Openreach so stop defending every stupid decision mmm? You are starting to sound distinctly "jobsworth" & I know you're not that.'

A good attempt at 'Baiting' or 'Trolling', Rizla. I can only assume your unemployed/retired and with nothing better to do than stir the sh1t-pot

I am an Openreach engineer and see, and read, and hear a lot of what is going on. That's by talking face-to-face with people who ACTUALLY do the job, not a web-page chaser with time on his hands.

The 'stupid decision' you allude to I'm guessing is the proposal to pit in 2x100pr cables at initial build ?? I've gone over the reasons why that is not acceptable (IMHO) at a business level.

Now here's a thing, the upper-echelon of my company also think the same thing !! How weird that leaders from a FTSE100 company, and their advisors (such as accountants, way-leave lawyers etc), have decided to run with the usual 1x100pr cable, when they've got somebody like you they could have turned to for better advice !! It's pure madness.
I'll be sure to drop Joe Garner and Kim Mears an e-mail tomorrow informing them how badly wrong they've got it, because some geezer who's ok at referencing web-sites said so.

I'm not expecting a terrific response, I've got to tell you.

Now please ...... if you've got an issue with me, block my posts, ignore me or PM me ........... don't turn threads into your own personal play thing.   

[Chrysalis]

with all due respect BS, accountants only care about the short term ££, they often make silly decisions at an engineering level.

Rizla is right that the civil expense is far greater than that of the copper so e.g. doing 1x100 pr twice will cost way more than 2x100 pr once.  So why do accountants make those decisions? because they going for short term profit over long term profit.  The CEO of BT e.g. will probably be not in that position in 5 years time, so he doesnt care of the impact in 5 years time.

I think I remember saying it in a previous post, BT is run like its running on payday loans, its decision making is always about keeping the short term costs down.

[Black Sheep]

with all due respect BS, accountants only care about the short term ££, they often make silly decisions at an engineering level.

Rizla is right that the civil expense is far greater than that of the copper so e.g. doing 1x100 pr twice will cost way more than 2x100 pr once.  So why do accountants make those decisions? because they going for short term profit over long term profit.  The CEO of BT e.g. will probably be not in that position in 5 years time, so he doesnt care of the impact in 5 years time.

I think I remember saying it in a previous post, BT is run like its running on payday loans, its decision making is always about keeping the short term costs down.

With the same respect back at you, Chrys ............ the analogy is total rubbish.

I'm not arguing the point that installing 2x100pr cables or 4x100pr cables at the same time, isn't going to be more cost-effective than doing them separately at a later date !!
My point is, and always has been for those who can't see it, that due to having no way at all to gauge what the contractual take-up will be of the FTTC services, it would be far more frugal in a business-sense to provide just the 2x100pr cables and take it from there.

as Mr Google (Rizla) has gone to great pains to point out, I don't know the price of Copper cable. But whatever it's value, it will cost a damned site more to install the FTTC Cabs the way some on here would want to, using purely guess-work on take-up, as their measuring stick !! Thank the lord almighty that none of those are in a position of power in any boardroom.

[burakkucat]

b*cat is feeling a little sad with the way this thread is deteriorating.   

I appreciate that there can be a number of different views on a subject. And a forum is a place for discussion.

But as Kitz would say: "Please play nicely".

[Chrysalis]

we will agree to disagree BS.

To me over provisioning is common sense as its inevitable at some point it will be likely needed, whether its 1 month or 10 years in the future.

As to BT exec's knowing what they doing, they have made dozens of gaff's in the past decade in terms of "under" estimating user take up of services.  As I said their interest is only in the "current" balance sheet, for that 100pr is cheaper than 200pr so 100pr wins.  Ultimately its cheaper in the long term to over provision than it is to under provision, if the under provisioning prevents new business.