Cabinet just outside-what chance I can get fttp?

Cabinet is literally on my boundary, soon to be upgraded it seems - fingers crossed.

So can I give them a fibre connection to plug in?

If only it was that simple ...

but seriously does the cabinet need additional cards in it to provide fttp functionality or is this part of the standard connectivity
ie is it the case that fttp is not generally available with fttc unless BT do a specific fttp rollout for that area

FTTP doesn't use the connections in the FTTC cabinet.

Nothing happens to your existing cabinet except it gets a new set of incoming copper cables from the FTTC cabinet. The existing ones from the exchange stay in place.

The FTTC cabinet contains a DSLAM that puts out the VDSL2 signal. FTTP is a different ball game altogether.

I have a fuller description here.

so what does fttp use then?

Surely you're not telling me they pull a fibre from the exchange?

I would have thought the dslam cabinets would have a rack with vdsl2 cards for Cu (fttc) connections and option to add "fttp" cards for fibre connections.

ie is it the case that fttp is not generally available with fttc unless BT do a specific fttp rollout for that area

Thats right. BT FTTP uses a different network topology (GPON) to their FTTC network (point to point fibre)
Initiall plans were for areas to be either FTTC or FTTP but they are now looking into mixed FTTC/P, the so called mixed economy. What it will mean iin those area is that either FTTC or FTTP will be available to indvidual properties/streets, but not likely to be both as each type of service will run over a seperate local access fibre network

Edited by deleted (Sun 13-Mar-11 20:16:05)

so what does fttp use then?

FTTP=GPON.
FTTC=Point to Point fibre

it gets a new set of incoming copper cables from the FTTC cabinet.

Incoming and outgoing, to be technically correct, and I know you always want to be correct, don't you Bob !

thanks Ribble, Have to admit to being totally bemused by this.

I cannot for the life of me understand why fttc would be rolled out without apparent consideration for fttp which for high demand users, businesses and in general "the future" is the way things need to go.

Surely the fibre or fbres is just a high bandwidth medium onto which one (or more) tranport layers are placed.

The real cost here is pulling the extra cables and installing the cabinets not the electronics.

Let's hope the "mixed" solution establishes itself and quickly too as fttc speeds will be archaic within 3-5 years.

In reply to a post by gruffle:

Let's hope the "mixed" solution establishes itself and quickly too as fttc speeds will be archaic within 3-5 years.

At least 1/3rd of the country wont have a fibre solution by 2015 so doubt it will be archaic by any means.

was referring to international standards not UK pathetic provincial standards.

Currently both of my offices are on major industrial estates.
One gets 4Mb adsl which only works for about 80% of the time, the other gets a full 5Mb.

10 YEARS AGO I went to Korea on business and got a FREE 10MB FULL ETHERNET connection at the hotel, thinking this was pretty special I asked around and guess what they all had the same at home too, went to another area - exactly the same. Trying to explain we were on ISDN dialup at the time just left them shaking their head in disbelief.

I keep in touch with one of the guys out there and he now has 100MB full ethernet - at home - $15 per month.

The reason this is important to me? - Well I have to run a vpn between the offices which behaves so poorly that I am having to consider closing one of the offices and making c15 people redundant. That's the real cost.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

it gets a new set of incoming copper cables from the FTTC cabinet.

Incoming and outgoing, to be technically correct, and I know you always want to be correct, don't you Bob !

Nah!

Semantics. Pure semantics. A cable cannot technically be incoming or outgoing, only the signals on it. It could even be argued that as the volume of traffic on the cable will be vastly greater into the existing cabinet from the FTTC one than the traffic out of it to the FTTC cabinet ....

Similarly it could be argued that the installation of the cable may be from the outside via an existing duct, or from the inside down that same duct in the opposite direction ....

The point being made was that the existing cabinet does not get a fibre feed terminating within it. It gets a new copper connection to the FTTC one. That do?

A bit more complicated than needed though [cough].

get a dedicated ethernet link from bt between the buildings?

Edited by deleted (Sun 13-Mar-11 23:22:11)

gruffle

you havent given much info, but you cant be really thinking about laying off 15 workers if its profitable? You may already have tried or do this but surely with 15 employees/users you have several adsl lines into each building for redundancy, these could be from BT and an LLU supplier to spread risk and different isps or the same isp for bonding together. which would have to improve reliabilty.
Get Totalcare on one line as well (which is 4hr response), as PSTN faults are usually the main reason for adsl failure, for the time someone is over eager with a digger or lightening strikes etc. Cover on one line is usaully enough as it triggers response, chances are they repair one line they repair the others at same time. Thats the cheap mans solution.

Or perhaps moving office closer to the exchange than it is now, got to be cheaper than making 15 staff redundant and then regrowing the business

others have given the business solution.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:
it gets a new set of incoming copper cables from the FTTC cabinet.

Incoming and outgoing, to be technically correct, and I know you always want to be correct, don't you Bob !

I think "cores" or "conductors" would be the technically correct terminology!

@Zarjaz - purely out of interest why incoming and outgoing cores? Are the signals separated in the fibre cabinet first? In other words, is the existing cabinet permanently relegated to second place, i.e. even incoming calls reach the fibre cabinet first for separation?

Thanks.

In other words the linkage is Exchange >> Old >> DSLAM in New >> Old >> Premises. (Traffic in both directions of course!)

@ Zarjaz - Sorry! Scrap that question. Found the answer. Thanks Bob!

In reply to a post by gruffle:

The reason this is important to me? - Well I have to run a vpn between the offices which behaves so poorly that I am having to consider closing one of the offices and making c15 people redundant. That's the real cost.

If it's so important to you, stop being a cheapskate trying to run a business on an ADSL line. Pay for a proper leased line between the two sites.

that's a totally ignorant and offensive comment from an clueless individual who is completely unaware of the detail of the circumstances.

Frankly it typifies some of the head inserted into own rear orifice attitude of some of the incognisants in this country who have no idea what it is to run a business

This forum deserves better than that.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In other words the linkage is Exchange >> Old >> DSLAM in New >> Old >> Premises. (Traffic in both directions of course!)

@ Zarjaz - Sorry! Scrap that question. Found the answer. Thanks Bob!

I think maybe I need to add a bit to the page there.

To the effect that on normal ADSLx, the line from the user to the exchange is jumpered to the DSLAM/MSAN. The PSTN service at the exchange is also jumpered onto the DSLAM/MSAN in order to get onto (and off) the line.

All that has happened with FTTC is that the DSLAM has been moved to the (new) street cabinet, which has a direct fibre link to an exchange. Possibly not even the exchange the phone line is linked to.

In reply to a post by gruffle:

that's a totally ignorant and offensive comment from an clueless individual who is completely unaware of the detail of the circumstances.

Frankly it typifies some of the head inserted into own rear orifice attitude of some of the incognisants in this country who have no idea what it is to run a business

This forum deserves better than that.

Don't feed the trolls

Would the fibre used for fttc be of any use at all if an area was upgraded to fttp in the future?

Most certainly not an ignorant comment and I can only base my knowledge on what you tell me in your post, which was you have a business on two sites, one site employing ~15 people and you would have to close the site because the performance of a two bob ADSL line was not sufficient.

As I said, if network performance between the two sites is that important then there are solutions available now, they are just not going to cost you £7.50 a month. Here is one for example

http://www.zen.co.uk/business/leased-lines-and-ipvpn...

As for whether I know how to run a business or not that is not something you know nothing about at all.

What the forum needs is people to stop moaning about what they have in Korea - if that is so important move to Korea, many other businesses already are moving overseas.

In reply to a post by gruffle:

I cannot for the life of me understand why fttc would be rolled out without apparent consideration for fttp which for high demand users, businesses and in general "the future" is the way things need to go.

The answer, of course, is in the economics of the business case - a topic you demonstrate (later) that you do have a grasp of.

FTTC, as a technology, is one that allows for the fastest & most widespread rollout that also takes advantage of BT's biggest asset - the "last-mile" copper network. And an often-unstated advantage is that it also keeps the voice-over-copper service intact.

For BT, the economics of overlaying their entire copper network with a new fibre network aren't obvious - Korea's $15pm isn't going to fund that. It might be "the future", but "the present" needs to fund it. And as a business owner, you've exhibited the exact reticence about paying for the service that hinders its deployment.

The key question right now is - should BT delay rolling out FTTC in order for a simultaneous rollout of FTTP to also be economically viable?

BT have to make their own judgement on that question.

From FTTP trials so far, I'd judge that BT are still trying to learn just how they'd physically go about installing such an overlay network, and how much it costs in reality. I'd rather they continued to rollout the FTTC solution for now, while they continue to work through that.

In reply to a post by gruffle:

Surely the fibre or fibres is just a high bandwidth medium onto which one (or more) tranport layers are placed.

LOL. A telephone did exactly that, using 1880's technology & terminology (contrast the bandwidth jump over morse code, that used to employ the wires previously).

However, to have a telephone service, you need the exchange concentrator equipment, the end-user equipment, the local access network, and the national distribution network.

A data service is no different - having an FTTP access network is no good unless the rest of the network matches. BT are upgrading the national distribution network and the exchange equipment using the 21CN programme, yet we still have exchange congestion. Pouring FTTP data speeds into the same equipment isn't going to work.

So no, it isn't just about the medium.

In reply to a post by gruffle:

The real cost here is pulling the extra cables and installing the cabinets not the electronics.

Aside from the fact that you need an exchange & national network that is fit for purpose, I think you're misplacing a couple of orders of magnitude in the local network.

My exchange apparently covers 11,000 premises, and I estimate it to have about 50 cabinets - 220 premises per cabinet. Does that sound about right?

The economics behind pulling 50 fibres to the cabinets is one thing - and the ducting may well already exist for that volume.

However, the economics behind pulling 11,000 fibres is something else. This amount will dwarf any ducting capacity, requiring massive digging.

BTW - there are a couple of good pictures over at Trefor to show the difference between FTTC and FTTP access networks.

In reply to a post by gruffle:

Currently both of my offices are on major industrial estates.
One gets 4Mb adsl which only works for about 80% of the time, the other gets a full 5Mb.

The reason this is important to me? - Well I have to run a vpn between the offices which behaves so poorly that I am having to consider closing one of the offices and making c15 people redundant. That's the real cost.

ADSL isn't a good tool for both ends of a VPN: The VPN speed is limited by the UPLINK speed of the two connections, not the downlink - so probably 400kbps.

When you get FTTC, you'll still have the same problem, though the speed limit will then be 2Mbps (on the cheapest products) or 10Mbps on the higher priced options.

As you're obviously not in the market for a full-price leased line, you may want to consider a bonded ADSL solution, where you have 2 lines into each premises. That may also help the unreliability issue too, depending on the cause of that.

Post deleted by billford

Filter evasion.

Edited by billford (Thu 17-Mar-11 09:50:07)

In reply to a post by Squirrel:

Here is one for example

http://www.zen.co.uk/business/leased-lines-and-ipvpn...

What the forum needs is people to stop moaning about what they have in Korea - if that is so important move to Korea, many other businesses already are moving overseas.

What makes forums work is intelligent comment, missing entirely from the post quoted.

Anybody who suggests that a 1MB Leased line service at £450pm the cost of an 4MB/1MB ADSL business grade service at £39pm over the same flaky Cu lines clearly hasn't got a clue. So called "Low cost" leased lines were trampled by adsl technology a while back in case you hadn't noticed. Never mind the incremental £4,800 annual cost to a business PER LINE.

As for moving to Korea - grow up :yawn:

Post deleted by billford


Quote included filter evasion- collateral damage, so to speak.

Edited by billford (Thu 17-Mar-11 09:51:44)

In reply to a post by gruffle:

Anybody who suggests that a 1MB Leased line service at £450pm the cost of an 4MB/1MB ADSL business grade service at £39pm over the same flaky Cu lines clearly hasn't got a clue. So called "Low cost" leased lines were trampled by adsl technology a while back in case you hadn't noticed. Never mind the incremental £4,800 annual cost to a business PER LINE.

ADSL still isn't quite an equivalent to leased-lines, even at business-grade pricing. I don't get the impression that support is anywhere near as good, and there's little that gets done if congestion is encountered. It is good for an internet connection, and heaven-sent for individual home-working, but isn't quite there for point-to-point VPN.

But the price differential is so huge, that a lot of businesses quite willingly accept the degraded service (and probably don't see much of it at first). The problem comes a few years later when you realise that the service *is* actually degraded, and outside their control.

One of the aspects that businesses will pay extra for, and consumers don't really perceive, is dependability.

thanks WWWombat.