Announcements > News Articles

Brilliant B4RN and cretinous buffoons

<< < (2/4) > >>

waltergmw:
@wwwombat,

There are two theories  on the vandalism. One that they were ignorant of what might be within the cable and that they were looking at copper theft.
The other, more ingenious, notion that they were trying to disable all comms within that area to silence all alarm systems from the outside world.

I should perhaps emphasise that there is no suggestion that this was the work of any remotely associated BT Supporter.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes re the tube construction. Multiple ducts are encased in sheathing but every 16 mm duct has rifling on the inside to aid the blowing operation. Everyone talks of blowing but most of the pushing force comes from the cable gripping belts in the blowing unit with the compressed air mainly causing the cable to float clear of the tube walls.

Kind regards,
Walter

niemand:

--- Quote from: waltergmw on June 03, 2017, 03:57:58 PM ---Gigaclear follow a similar design but another major provider seems to put more complicated monopolistic requirements (by sharing a single fibre with up to 32 properties with asymmetric services) over a far simpler design. As a single fibre within a cable only costs £4 per km there can be no financial reason to share the fibre and it must surely complicate any fault-finding operations.

Kind regards,
Walter

--- End quote ---

Hi Walter. Kudos to the team on the fast repair.

PON doesn't complicate fault finding. Indeed, BT can see a fault that takes down a split before it's reported as a group of ONTs in the customer premises would drop off the OLT at the exchange / head end.

The primary cost saver isn't fibre, that's cheap, it's port density at the exchange or head end along with duct space. You folks need a port on a switch for every home while BT, Verizon, even Google Fiber need a single port on an OLT per 32 premises passed.

You also need to bear in mind that the current solution BT use is asymmetrical but symmetrical capacity can be delivered simply through replacement of modules in kit either side of the fibre, and can be done while running asymmetrical services simultaneously on that same fibre.

c6em:
Does the point to point system not make it easy(ier) to work a system where each subscriber is/might be/can be on a different speed packages?
Or additionally have it such that there can be a business subscriber as well as a domestic subscriber each having different 'priorities' in respect of any speed guarantees?
I suppose also that port failures only affect the single subscriber rather than a block.
I know GC were (when we were connected) using Milegate units from Keymile as the ports in their subscriber cabinets giving around 400+ or so residences that could be connected to a single cabinet.

niemand:

--- Quote from: c6em on June 05, 2017, 01:16:19 PM ---Does the point to point system not make it easy(ier) to work a system where each subscriber is/might be/can be on a different speed packages?
Or additionally have it such that there can be a business subscriber as well as a domestic subscriber each having different 'priorities' in respect of any speed guarantees?
--- End quote ---

No on both counts.

waltergmw:
@6cem,

Although I don't know of any examples B4RN are able to provide 5 and 10 Gbps services via their distribution cabinets.
B4RN now have a footprint (but not complete coverage) in around 30 exchange areas but without a connection to any.

It is interesting to note that Gigaclear have adopted the higher reliability dual diverse-routed underground solution again offering different packages without any requirement to route facilities via any exchanges.

If BT can provide domestic symmetric services why are they not offered as it seems they are making themselves less agile / competitive ?
Furthermore why, in Devon and Somerset, are they still taking so long to complete their overhead-serviced contract supposedly terminated in 2016 and why are some properties unable to get FTTH when others close-by can ?
I wonder if there is a distance or economic-case limitation between their splitters and premises ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page