Print

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

[WWWombat]

Do we know what vectoring friendly mode OR use?

Isn't it more a matter of what compatibility the modem firmware has?

From OR's perspective, the DSLAM ought to be able to cope with CPE of any flavour.

[WWWombat]

I was under the impression that vectoring on FTTC was shelved by OR

BT shelved the idea of a general rollout of vectoring nationwide, and went for G.Fast instead. But...

I thought they were using it on selected BDUK cabinets to meet targets.

Yes, @IgnitionNet reported that BT intended to make use of vectoring in specific cabs, where it will increase the number of properties that can achieve the "superfast" threshold. That obviously would help reach their BDUK commitments. My previous calculations were that vectoring would increase range for the 25Mbps threshold from 1200m to 1400-1500m (of 0.5mm copper).

However, the latest trials by BT *also* make use of vectoring.

As described in STIN 522 (the link will likely stop working when BT publish a new version), the trial of "Long Range VDSL" makes use of vectoring for all lines on a cabinet. Only certain cabinets are taking part in the trial, and even a full live deployment will likely be restricted to a small percentage of cabinets (because of LLU compatibility issues).

It could well be that, in the long run, the use of vectoring that @Ignition reported is precisely the same as we are now seeing in LR-VDSL trials.

[NewtronStar]

the trial of "Long Range VDSL" makes use of vectoring for all lines on a cabinet. Only certain cabinets are taking part in the trial, and even a full live deployment will likely be restricted to a small percentage of cabinets (because of LLU compatibility issues).

Well I'm your man for this cabinet trial 1000 meters and no LLU 
edit not under BDUK bugger that then 

[S.Stephenson]

Can they meet BDUK targets by upgrading cabinets not built specifically for BDUK?

I've given up completely on me ever getting vectoring at this point, I just hope I don't get the 'ECI' of G.Fast.

I can't see them rolling out much LRVDSL until they have to meet a 10mbps USO, I don't know how they're going to do this with the ECI cabs though.

[Chrysalis]

I expect the LRVDSL areas will be hauwei only like they done with BDUK.

[WWWombat]

I expect the LRVDSL areas will be hauwei only like they done with BDUK.

I thought the BT rollout started Huawei-heavy, then became ECI-heavy in the middle, but the later portions (particularly BDUK-funded) have been all Huawei. That should allow LR-VDSL to be a workable solution in BDUK areas

Can they meet BDUK targets by upgrading cabinets not built specifically for BDUK?

Excellent question!

I think the answer is ... it depends.

BDUK phase 1 projects seem to have been uniformly bad at giving themselves flexibility in the definition of the intervention area. Once defined, it could not be changed. Phase 2 seems better, with areas able to change status.

On top of that, some projects look to have defined their areas in terms of whole postcode, and possibly whole cabinet areas. Certainly my county (North Yorkshire) had a definition that included a number of properties as both "commercial" and "sub-25Mbps"; such definitions, with an inflexible contract/project means the answer is no: upgrading commercial cabinets would not help meet the target.

However, projects seem to be adding both flexibility in the definition of the intervention area - moving parts in/out as necessary and flexibility in the rules. Some projects are taking areas down to individual premises. In these cases, premises outside the range of superfast speed on a commercial cabinet would be valid targets for BDUK, so an improvement could well include them.

On the other hand, BDUK demands a "step change" improvement to qualify, as well as meeting the superfast threshold ... so an upgrade from 23Mbps to 28Mbps might not qualify.

I can't see them rolling out much LRVDSL until they have to meet a 10mbps USO, I don't know how they're going to do this with the ECI cabs though.

Conversely, BT are saying their USO plans could be self-funded, while BDUK upgrades are subsidised. BT might be incentivised to make these changes as part of BDUK, rather than waiting for the USO. Less outlay that way...

[GigabitEthernet]

I'm either banded, or something strange is going on with Vectoring and SNRM.

On the DS, whenever I sync my SNRM seems to be around 7dB. It never, ever is at 6dB anymore.

This 1dB of room is good I'm sure but it seems strange. Unless I'm banded but really hard to say?

[GigabitEthernet]

Hmm, just put on the Zyxel VMG8324 and Vectoring isn't working with it

Still, looks I'm not banded.

Edit: put the latest firmware on it and Vectoring is now working

[GigabitEthernet]

Vectoring is a very curious technology.

Every few weeks, my line seems to have its SNRM increase and so the maximum speed increases. I've gone from actual sync speeds of 58Mbps, to 62Mbps, to 64Mbps and now my maximum speed is up to almost 68Mbps.

What is happening here?

[ejs]

Totally guessing, but I suppose it's plausible that people using modems that won't support vectoring are replacing their equipment, or any devices that somehow aren't doing vectoring very well are being fixed with firmware updates.

[GigabitEthernet]

I wonder if it will ever stop. Imagine 70Mbps on a 750m line!

[digitalis]

Hmm, just put on the Zyxel VMG8324 and Vectoring isn't working with it

Still, looks I'm not banded.

Edit: put the latest firmware on it and Vectoring is now working

Where do you see on a Zyxel that Vectoring is active?

[skyeci]

hope this helps...

[digitalis]

Ah cool, now that youve shown it I remember seeing G.Vector Enable on one of our customer routers

[niemand]

Can they meet BDUK targets by upgrading cabinets not built specifically for BDUK?

Yes. I don't think they can claim gap funding for obvious reasons, although I could well be wrong, but BDUK targets coverage at x Mbps across the local authority as a whole, not just the intervention areas.