I've wondered why they hadn't planned on using this as an obvious way of helping them meet their USC targets.
However, there is a major fly in the ointment...
VDSL2 has to implement deliberate power backoff over the ADSL and 2+ frequencies, to ensure that FTTC subscribers don't swamp the signal of ADSL subscribers coming from the exchange. This deliberate power reduction of VDSL2 is one reason why FTTC coverage peters out at 2km, while ADSL2+ extends way beyond that.
Using the same thinking, ADSL (incl ADSL2+) transmitted from the cabinet would have to be restricted in an identical way, to ensure that it didn't swamp the ADSL (incl 2+) signals being transmitted from the exchange.
And if it has to be restricted in the same way, doesn't it suffer identical range problems to VDSL2?
The only way around this, and to allow transmission at proper power levels to keep the range, would be to force every subscriber whose lines pass through the same cable bundle to swap to cabinet-based DSL service. This method is used in new Zealand, where they started the ball rolling with ADSL2+ cabinets. The downside to competition is that it effectively forces LLU to be banned (per cabinet) once the VDSL2 cabinet is in place.
At 1.6km, you would probably be borderline, depending very much on the gauge of your copper cable. FTTRN would offer you a solution, as would vectoring.
Edited by WWWombat (Sun 05-Oct-14 02:01:54)