Print

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

[gt94sss2]

They wouldn't have to replace millions of drop wires all at once, I was thinking it would be more based on demand, assuming that 99% of people would be satisfied with G.Fast speeds in 2020.

That's what FTTPoD version 2 will be for.

But for Openreach to remove copper from the network, they need a mass market solution for everyone (and also to compete with Virgin etc). As such, if Openreach decide not to go to full FTTP, I imagine they will go to XG.Fast or similar in 2025 or so.. after G.Fast.

[gt94sss2]

Ah right, I think I've got this all wrong. I thought that the two pairs to be bonded were required all the way from the Cab, through to the premises ??

I think with XG.Fast with/without bonding you would be looking at fibre to the DP/node and then copper to the premises

If this is correct, I still can't see any financial gain to be made for the masses using this method, when its competitor G.Fast finally rolls out ??

Its more of a potential successor to G.Fast if a telco didn't want to go to FTTP..

[Ronski]

BS Your thinking of a traditional FTTC  cab, think along the lines of g.fast which will eventually be installed further out nearer the EU. Take that another  step and that equipment could be installed at each DP. I think xg.fast is basically g.fast and phantom combined.

[Black Sheep]

Got it now, thank you.  Technology is a pain in the assss 

[Weaver]

@kitz is right, I'll sign up for a dose of phantom technology :-)

[aesmith]

I think with XG.Fast with/without bonding you would be looking at fibre to the DP/node and then copper to the premises.

Fibre and power to the DP, and active equipment at the DP.   Not sure how practical that is, since I'm not sure how a DP is defined - is it the point from which a given cable connects to only a single subscriber?

[kitz]

But what I was getting at was from DP to EU, the cab to DP plays no part in the broadband side of things if using remote nodes at the DP 

Only just seen this..  I think ron was thinking the same way I was, when I asked what % of lines had 2 pair going to the premises.    I too was thinking it could be of benefit with FTTdP.  This also could well have been what the other website I found which said it could be of benefit with fibre?   

[gt94sss2]

Fibre and power to the DP, and active equipment at the DP.   Not sure how practical that is, since I'm not sure how a DP is defined - is it the point from which a given cable connects to only a single subscriber?

I imagine Openreach will have a solution before they roll it out. They are already testing forward power for use with G.Fast (i.e. via copper lines if they can't connect it to the grid directly) and I imagine will consider 'reverse power' at some stage..

The telegraph pole is how I usually define the DP though some technologies may have a longer range..

[Black Sheep]

I think with XG.Fast with/without bonding you would be looking at fibre to the DP/node and then copper to the premises.

Fibre and power to the DP, and active equipment at the DP.   Not sure how practical that is, since I'm not sure how a DP is defined - is it the point from which a given cable connects to only a single subscriber?

There's too many variants to give a definitive answer as to what defines a DP ......... there's overhead, underground, internal and external wall-blocks.

I would say in approx 80-90% of cases, the actual DP (Distribution Point) feeding the EU will be located within 50-80mtrs of the premises. Conversely, it can also be miles away. 
That is why I feel G.fast will be a major success for the majority of EU's actually interested in paying for ultra-fast speeds. Of course, there will always be losers ....... that's life as they say. 

[gt94sss2]

FWIW this article touches on the prospects of bonded G.Fast. Seems Broadcom already has the relevant silicon shipping.

[S.Stephenson]

Can the cables that feed DPs from the cabinet be intercepted and a G.Fast node be placed as I have shown in my crudely MS Painted diagram?

My diagram isnt 100% accurate in terms of number of DP in that area, but it illustrates my point.

[Ronski]

The nodes will have to placed at a suitable location where the lines all pass through for the area they want to cover, thats my understanding anyway.

[WWWombat]

Can the cables that feed DPs from the cabinet be intercepted and a G.Fast node be placed as I have shown in my crudely MS Painted diagram?

My diagram isnt 100% accurate in terms of number of DP in that area, but it illustrates my point.

As I understand it, Yes, it is possible. Essentially, it just needs a joint in the copper that could lie anywhere between the PCP and the DP, inclusive.

There are trade-offs, in speed vs money. The closer nodes are placed to the DP, the higher speeds you could get, but the highest number of nodes is needed, and the most effort/cost is needed to get fibre and power to the sites. The closer nodes are placed to the PCP, the lower speeds could be, but the fewest number of nodes is needed, with least cost. Each node would itself need to support more users - which adds to the complexity of supporting vectoring.

Most of the reports about BT's commitment to G.Fast suggest that they find the cost of putting nodes at the DP to be too high, and want to put them at some consolidated location slightly higher in the network, slightly further away from the user. To this end, they are encouraging chipset manufacturers to make nodes for more than the 4, 8 or 16 ports they are focussing on now, and they are taking part in the extension of G.Fast in way that increase the range from the current target of 100-150m.

The current trials seem to be, partially at least, trying to figure out the best target range to use when planning deployment.

[Black Sheep]

As mooted above, there's no real guarantee of where the G.fast nodes will be sited ...... it's down to the 'Planners' at the end of the day. I think the key word when planning a DP location/G.Fast DPU is ..... flexibility. It has to capture the maximum amount of EU's on a costing basis.

[Ronski]

They're certainly not going to be installing 4 million nodes