Is there a logical pattern

The title says it all. Is there any sort of pattern to the FTTC rollout. I understand the different Markets and how they relate to the number of different IPs with their equipment in the exchange, but are BT targeting a particular market or is it a little more subtle than that? Hoping for a rollout for Market 3 Leyland Exchange in the next phase but not holding my breath

In reply to a post by Embraer:

The title says it all. Is there any sort of pattern to the FTTC rollout.

No. Or at least no-one has spotted one yet.

Maybe the logic is 'make sure every cabinet is emitting a loud buzzing noise before we bother connecting any of them'.

the whole rollout is based on a business model so its not random in the slightest

I got the impression they were targetting areas which have other suppliers.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/f/3884837-f...

That was my theory anyway.

Could you elaborate on your ideas?

like i said there is a business model in place governing it all.

unfortunately i am totally unaware of any particular details

sorry folks

I think you can be fairly confident it will ultimately concern making money.

No doubt there will be numerous factors that have different degrees of influence over where will be preferable to deliver and in what order, so the 'quick hits' or more profitable locations are built earlier during the rollout.

Costs of deployment will be a major factor, but may not necessarily be a block if the percieved returns are sufficient.
Locations where there is competition from cable may well have some influence, but I doubt it would be a sole driver.
Number of premises passed will have some impact, so busy cabs that serve a high number of sites would be preferred over those that serve fewer.

In short, I don't think there's a simple "we will go here because of this reason", but rather a combination of different reasons will create the commercially sensible case for doing so.

So you think the assumption is that they look for areas with no competition or a lot?

I think competition is not a high up factor on this.

I have seen market 1,2,3 exchanges all picked, and there is certianly market 3 exchanges (which have VM cable) not on their list.

The factors I have noticed are.

How affluent the area is.
How much properties in the area are commercial.
How close cabinet is to exchange,

Viability seems to be measured per cabinet rather than per exchange, and my guess is a exchange needs X amount of cabinets to be viable to be considered.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 08-Jan-11 23:04:34)

I don't think there's a simple answer to that.

Competition (or lack of) an any area is likely to be another consideration into the mix, rather than specifically targetted.

i.e. What would be the commercial benefits of rolling out into an area where competition exists compared to the costs?
Costs may be lower as cable - perhaps less so LLU - is generally confined to urban areas where concentrations are higher, but takeup may be lower due to the competitve environment.

Conversely, takeup may be higher in a location where competition is less or non-existant, but provision costs may also be higher.
From a business perspective, there would be no point in spending considerable amounts of money in any location without some confidence that the return would ultimately be greater than the investment.

It's likely the difference between total costs and benefits, as well as practicalities such as available resource that are likely to drive the rollout, rather than a single consideration.

All IMHO of course.

yea, they are investing where they will get the most bang for thier buck. In otherwords


To stop people swapping to competitors (LLU and Cable) from BT wholesale adsl/2+
Where they will get the most people on to FTTC so reduce costs per user and increase profits per user.

those are just to name a few

I agree that it is likely to be a commercial decision, and that there will be a number of reasons behind this - some of which may well just be a "feel" for a place.

I never understood why our exchange was in the first set of ADSL trials in 2000, but it was, and I was the first person connected on it. Mind you, it has never come out quickly for any subsequent technology upgrade. We're still not on ADSL2+, and will have fibre before 21CN arrives!

One plausible (external) reason behind FTTC decision-making might be: "If we can force someone else to pay, then leave it off the list."

The thinking behind this is that some places, if not on the fibre-list, will divert some spending to make sure they get added. Most councils will have some involvement in this - including my local one, Surrey.

They have a plan targetting "superfast broadband" in the whole county by 2013, and do an analysis on which bits they think will be OK if left to "the market", and which bits they need to make proactive effort where there will be "market failure".

The Surrey plan has 3 map appendices which show the areas that are in the fibre rollout plans so far, which ones they think will make it, and a final one with the market 1-2-3 areas.

It isn't a surprise that the 2nd and 3rd maps correlate well, even if the current rollout plans have some obvious gaps.

But obviously... if councils are working out plans for where they should be spending money to help their residents, surely BT are doing the same plans to work out how to get councils to part with their cash...

interesting in surrey there is a relation between market type and exchanges picked by openreach.

but surrey seems to have had a lot of exchanges picked tho, half the area covered? affluency

Is the councils/government more likely to bridge funding when there is a lack of affluency, history suggests yes.
Is the councils/government more likely to bridge funding when the area is in a poor state aka no or slow spot.

In alot cases profit might be the overiding factor, however N I, has one of the lowest take up of internet and yet FTTC enabled exchanges are huge compared to mainland UK. There could be some other financial factors to explain this. However there needs to be more co operation between various industry, such water companys and power industry for ways of supplying cable to the end user. Of course this would need the intervention of goverment (LOL). It is embarrising to know you able to get broadband on the top Mt Everest yet parts of the Uk barley achieve dial up connection if that.

As the traffic reports around here can attest, the areas that are likely to get fibre (while probably affluent) are also denser, and a good commuter source. A good chunk of those areas are within the M25 or bordering it and other trunk routes. Population-wise, it isn't much different to the suburbs of most cities, except that there isn't a notable centre.

There is probably a good chunk of high-tech business, especially in the north-west areas.

So not simply affluency, but volume of business, and relative profitability.

And the whole purpose of the document is to push super-fast broadband on all parts of the county, including the non-affluent notspots, so your last 2 points are spot-on. Of course, the plan hasn't happened yet

The OpenReach rollout document at http://www.openreach.co.uk/exchange_plan has an explanatory clause about NI on every page:

Under the DETI Next Generation Broadband project defined cabinets within certain
exchange areas continue to be enabled across Northern Ireland, please visit
www.fasterbroadbandni.com for further updates. This project is also supported by BT, ERDF,
DARD and EAFRD.

RE WWWombat The OpenReach rollout document at http://www.openreach.co.uk/exchange_plan has an explanatory clause about NI on every page.

Indeed there is the other financial incentive and co operation between Communication Industry and Government that is needed which was eluded too by anonymous poster, although other industries would be required for the whole UK. Which is lacking in mainland UK, just read the Bournemouth fibre and water company debacle. Which reflects on the co operation needed and I cannot see happening country wide, it really is not a British attitude. This roll out will be purely profit driven

My view is the boat has now gone for most with regards to this method of broadband delivery, as the recent deal with BT and Avanti suggest and Satellite appears the prefer method of the rural area, slightly slimmer and premium cost, dare I suggest only for now, as with all tech over time should become cheaper and more friendeler for end user. Indeed in Wales you can obtain a grant for the initial setup. Why only Wales is not for this forum boundaries. Also consideration has to be given to 4g broadband when avaiable, speeds quoted from 100 Mps to 1Gps also fully intergrated IP based system although coverage would have to be greater for a reasonable solution compared to its younger sibling 3g.