Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Poll

Which one would you prefer openreach to do next for the customers?

Stay with FTTC VDSL with 40/10 & 80/20 with Profile 17a
- 5 (62.5%)
Upgraded Profile 35b on all VDSL2 cabinets and set at 100Mbps
- 1 (12.5%)
Upgraded all ECI cabinets to become Huawei cabinets then upgraded to G.Fast
- 0 (0%)
Upgraded all ECI cabinets to become Huawei cabinets then upgraded to VDSL2 35b
- 2 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 8

Voting closed: September 07, 2018, 10:50:57 PM


Author Topic: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast  (Read 628 times)

adslmax

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« on: August 10, 2018, 10:50:57 PM »

I choose option 4
Logged

re0

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2018, 02:34:21 PM »

I think the poll is perhaps a bit flawed for the following reasons:
  • Option 1 does not include other available products, which include 55/10, 40/2 and 18/2 (small availability). Perhaps I am nitpicking here though, and should assume it was implied.
  • For option 2, it would be a huge waste of spectrum to upgrade to 35b on cabinets and limit at 100 Mbps when vectored 17a can happily do that. Unless it was considered to be utilised later down the line. CPE may need to upgraded to support 35b anyway, so why invest if there is no benefit to using 35b?
  • What would be different in option 4 compared to option 2, other than it being Huawei? Will the speeds still be limited to 100 Mbps for some reason?
I understand it is a poll, but I won't vote since there are fundemental things here which I can't see logic behind.
Logged

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2018, 05:46:58 PM »

I didn't vote for similar reasons as you.

Re 35b

Whilst the MA5603T's are upgradable, I have no idea what they would do with the MA5616's.
Also BT/Openreach tend to always go with more than one manufacturer so unsure if they would go all Huawei, perhaps look at Alcatel?     
Could they even do something if they upgraded to V41's.. or would ECI look at manufacturing a different DSLAM.  The line cards in the ECI's supposedly able to support vectoring, but same as with the MA5603T Ive no idea what part requires upgrading.

Finally if they did go for 35b what about compatibility with g.fast.  There are too many variables to say Openreach should do option 'x' and they may even do a mix of various technologies.

Personally I think they should be looking towards pushing fibre deeper into the first mile and take it to the DP's for those areas without FTTH, but at the end of the day it's going to be down to cost. 
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2018, 06:09:32 PM »

I voted for option 1 because I get the distinct impression that it's the people with the fastest speeds who complain the most, therefore the faster the speeds get, the more they'll complain.  :P
Logged

burakkucat

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 23944
  • Over the Rainbow Bridge
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2018, 07:01:17 PM »

Profile 17b, in choice one?  :-\  ???
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

re0

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2018, 07:12:35 PM »

Profile 17b, in choice one?  :-\  ???
:lol:

I think ignored it and just pretended I didn't see it. Though in my earlier response I ensured that I put 17a. :graduate:
Logged

re0

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2018, 07:26:15 PM »

Whilst the MA5603T's are upgradable, I have no idea what they would do with the MA5616's.
http://support.huawei.com/enterprise/en/doc/EDOC1000137144, under 2.4.4  SuperVector Hardware it does have MA5616 in the table.

Also BT/Openreach tend to always go with more than one manufacturer so unsure if they would go all Huawei, perhaps look at Alcatel?     
I am pretty sure Alcatel uses "VPLUS" which is still 35b. Or maybe thats Alcatel AND/OR Nokia.

Could they even do something if they upgraded to V41's.. or would ECI look at manufacturing a different DSLAM.  The line cards in the ECI's supposedly able to support vectoring, but same as with the MA5603T Ive no idea what part requires upgrading.
Pass. :shrug2:

Finally if they did go for 35b what about compatibility with g.fast.  There are too many variables to say Openreach should do option 'x' and they may even do a mix of various technologies.

Personally I think they should be looking towards pushing fibre deeper into the first mile and take it to the DP's for those areas without FTTH, but at the end of the day it's going to be down to cost. 
This would fundementally mean that G.fast would yet again require some alterations to work with existing technologies. Currently it is 19-106 MHz, but with 35b in place it would need to be something like 37-106 MHz which would even more reduce coverage and make it limited to probably maximum ~100 meters for 330/50 Mbps DS/US. It would HAVE to be installed at DPs in this scenario as the distance would be far too limited to even think about putting it as a pod on a cabinet.
Logged

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 31601
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2018, 08:59:17 PM »

I am pretty sure Alcatel uses "VPLUS" which is still 35b. Or maybe thats Alcatel AND/OR Nokia.
Thats the way I'm taking it right now.  whatever the vendors call the technology, it appears to more or less achieve the same aim.
I think this happens with quite a lot of emerging technologies.   Heck even G.INP is known under several names.
I just used Alcatel as an example to Max, to say that Openreach aren't just limited to using Huawei.

Quote
Pass. :shrug2:
Me neither.   It does however seem odd that when ECI really were at the forefront (first) at manufacturing system based vectored DSLAMs that all is quiet when it comes to 35b.   
Since their website has gone all elastic [not sure if I like that term, but supposedly they use it because it means expandable and adaptable to change] it's much harder to find resource pages. :(

ECI appeared to favour Lantiq, but I'm not sure where that leaves them on older equipment since the buy out by Intel.   
Intel is also jumping in on VDSL2 35b chips, but their blurb calls it VDSL2 AnnexQ (35b)

Quote
This would fundementally mean that G.fast would yet again require some alterations to work with existing technologies. Currently it is 19-106 MHz, but with 35b in place it would need to be something like 37-106 MHz which would even more reduce coverage and make it limited to probably maximum ~100 meters for 330/50 Mbps DS/US. It would HAVE to be installed at DPs in this scenario as the distance would be far too limited to even think about putting it as a pod on a cabinet.

Yup exactly.  As it stands they arent compatible because of the 'shared' frequencies.  Rolling out 35b in a g.fast area is going to be detremental..  not only would/could it reduce distance, but also the attainable speeds of properties that already have g.fast. 

This is why until FTTP is available nationwide, I said they may have to do a mix of technologies depending upon what is judged best for a particular locale.

Sorry too weary to go searching for something what I read ages ago -  so the following may not be accurate, but some countries (Austria?) were going 35b, some g.fast.. and some (Australia?) considering mixed.

We don't have a crystal ball so who knows what Openreach are going to do, but the fact that just this week they announced change in plans for g.fast makes me think something is afoot.    They said they plan to install more FTTP, but that still leaves quite a large shortfall of iirc a few million homes without speed improvements when compared to the original plans. 

In the past few years, the newer emerging technologies such as 35b and TVWS* may have made them have a rethink.....  or maybe not :/


---
*They did say that they would consider WIFI for harder to reach areas.  Since TVWS uses lower frequencies and has more penetration, then that could be an option too. Who knows :/
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

adslmax

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2018, 09:11:20 PM »

Hope my local area (G.Fast as Planned via dsl checker has been removed off) might see sense on openreach to bring in FTTP instead. But until for now, I just hoping those 6 millions (reduced from 10 millions) won't be G.Fast in my area cos I don't want this service. I prefer FTTP than G.Fast in a better option (no more dreaded DLM)
Logged

ejs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2018, 09:53:55 PM »

The ND1520 report considers numerous ways to overlap G.fast and VDSL2. Considering we don't have much VDSL2 vectoring anyway, it probably won't hurt much if it's done so the impact on VDSL2 from G.fast is the same as the impact from other VDSL2 lines.

Logged

re0

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2018, 11:12:31 AM »

The ND1520 report considers numerous ways to overlap G.fast and VDSL2. Considering we don't have much VDSL2 vectoring anyway, it probably won't hurt much if it's done so the impact on VDSL2 from G.fast is the same as the impact from other VDSL2 lines.
Considering that, for G.fast, the current maximum ports is said to be 48 (so 2x line cards with 24 ports) and in the future 96 (4x line cards) that could be right. And take up may not even be to full capacity, so the impact could be quite little if it's done right.
Logged

j0hn

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1878
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2018, 03:08:24 PM »

Whilst the MA5603T's are upgradable, I have no idea what they would do with the MA5616's.

I was aware that both Huawei DSLAM's OpenReach use could be upgraded to profile 35b.

The link re0 posted shows this on point 2.4.4

http://support.huawei.com/view/documentOnline?contentId=EDOC1000137144&sendFrom=mobile&currentPartNo=j004&togo=content#feature_fttx_06s

Looks like they now support the larger 64 port (MA5603) and 48 (MA5616) port line cards with SuperVectoring.
When I last looked the port densities were smaller.

I'm not familiar with the exact models of control board in use by OpenReach.
Do the MA5603's already use SCUN boards?
The MA5616 looks like it needs a new DC power board to which a VP board is attached.

The introduction of G.Fast put the nail in any possible profile 35b rollout.
Making the fastest go faster and ignore the rest is a very odd strategy. Rolling out av technology with less reach without going deeper in to the network is baffling.

Hopefully it makes FTTP more likely and they will skip xDSL completely.
I now feel sorry for those with G.Fast pods as it probably makes an FTTP deployment to them much less likely in the near future.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2018, 03:12:05 PM by j0hn »
Logged
BT FTTC 55/10 ECI now Huawei cab
Zyxel VMG1312-B10A bridge mode with 1508 MTU + Asus RT-AC68U running Asuswrt-Merlin

re0

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
Re: VDSL2 17a v VDSL2 35b v G.Fast
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2018, 04:54:44 PM »

Looks like they now support the larger 64 port (MA5603) and 48 (MA5616) port line cards with SuperVectoring.
When I last looked the port densities were smaller.
But what is the maximum ports per cabinet with SuperVectoring? Perhaps there is an obvious answer to this question, but I certainly do not know it. I was under the impression that it would be lesser with SuperVectoring or a similar "technology" using 35b. It is a challenge enough to cancel out crosstalk on G.fast for example with 96 ports (although the bandwidth is a lot greater).

The introduction of G.Fast put the nail in any possible profile 35b rollout.
Perhaps so. If there is a faint chance they would roll it out, if existing places had G.fast then there is potential for overlapping, semi-static and dynamic allocation. But this would certainly be more of a challenge with 35b. It was more of just a thought exercise than a reality because they wouldn't overlap technologies that are more or less doing the same thing.

Making the fastest go faster and ignore the rest is a very odd strategy. Rolling out av technology with less reach without going deeper in to the network is baffling.
Spot on. It could be made to cater for more, but it's just not deep enough.
Logged
 

anything