General Discussion
  >> Fibre Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | [5] | 6 | 7 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:42:40
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: billford] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by billford:
I'm sure you're aware in reality that BT don't seem to have followed that methodology...

Absolutely.

Obviously when they changed the plans to cover 67%, they could also change the order within the plans too. And it probably makes sense to (or sense to *someone*, anyway).

And, as I said, it made no reference to exchange locations or service areas/sizes

And there is another good point on Vonga...
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 21:49:13
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by bookey:
Just to add that the backhaul for 21CN is separate to that of the FTTC backhaul.
21CN is BT Wholesale controlled.
FTTx is BT Openreach controlled.


There is a exchange near me which has FTTC deployed but no 21CN each cab backhauls to another exchange near by not the serving exchange.

BT Openreach are going to do this more with rural exchanges with cabs as this will allow them to decommission rural exchanges when VoNGA becomes mainstream.
The rural properties that were served from the exchange will either be moved to a new road side cab or have FTTP installed.

That's a couple of good points. But where does FTTC handover to BTW?

VoNGA is another interesting issue - as that presumably also has to handover back to BTW - but as part of 21CN voice, rather than broadband.

21CN was all about improving costs... and you'd imagine that VoNGA + cabinet-based DSLAMs (or MSANs) would be a great way to reduce the cost of a lot of those exchanges. Obviously it would require 100% conversion of cabinets... so is this a sign that rural areas might get drawn into *better* FTTC coverage? Hmmm.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:01:38
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
On an entirely different front, just looking at urban population statistics:

I found a report on the UK's largest urban areas from the 2001 census.

Nottingham is the 8th largest urban area in the UK. Leicester is 15th.

The top 25 urban areas account for 25 Million people - or about 43% of the country. The 25th place, incidentally, was Swansea with a size of 270,000.

It is probably fair to say that BT's *original* plan, to cover 40% of the UK by 2012, would have mainly focussed on exactly these areas (except, presumably, they can't do Kingston upon Hull).

I then wondered what BT's new plan, to cover 67% of the UK by 2015, would focus on if it only went for the top N urban areas... that needed a bit more digging.

I found this page, which has statistics from the 2001 census on population in urban areas - which it took down to sizes of 1,500. This was for England & Wales only, so we have to ignore Scotland & NI from the figures, which may skew the results some.

This spreadsheet had 1,950 places, of size >= 1500.

I fiddled with the data in the spreadsheet, and found that it defined 46.8 Million people in these "urban areas of 1,500", from a total population of 52 Million - It was exactly 90%.

(I wonder how much the non-urban 10% correlates to the 10% that are served by market 1 exchanges, or to the "hard to reach 10%"?)

Anyway, I then applied the "two-thirds" criteria to the total E+W population, and got a value of 34.8 Million.

I then fiddled with the spreadsheet again, ordering towns by population, and found that the cutoff size for 34.8 Million people was for an urban area to be bigger than 41,000. There are 150 such places in England & Wales.

That is: The 150 largest urban areas make up 67% of England & Wales, and are sized at 41,000 or above. In terms of "premises" that is about 17,000 premises (2.35 people per house, on average).

Just missing out would be:
- Kings Lynn
- Grantham
- Kirkby
- Dover

Noticeable because it was just announced, but is on the "just missing out" size:
- Aberdare, of size 36,000

Obviously my list is just population-based, and takes no account of where exchanges are, or how many people are served by an exchange. But it certainly lets you know the scale!

The other conclusion is that the "next" part to cover - the part that presumably is to be subsidised (from 67% to 90%) - is made up of 1,800 different locations, with populations from 1,500 to 41,000.


leics is above 15th now they are barely behind nottingham in size, but thanks for digging this up.

If I understand your theorry right. You are suggesting the increased rollout has effectively set some city areas back that would have got it earlier under the 40% rollout. I dont know when the rollout changed from 40% to 67% but it was the general election month that BT told me my exchange(s) (I never gave them my exchange just the city) was not viable.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 16-Jun-11 22:10:49)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:04:21
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Anonymous] [link to this post]
 
Thats entirely possible yes.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:05:13
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
openreach control is only up to the exchange. It still has to get from the exchange to the isp.
Standard User WWWombat
(committed) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:37:42
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
leics is above 15th now they are barely behind nottingham in size, but thanks for digging this up.

Ah - the cities are very close in size when you compare the populations within the council areas. Something just under 300k, right? However, that census report was based on urban areas that were a single identifiable place.

So for example, the Nottingham urban area includes Beeston, Long Eaton, Gedling & Carlton because they grown together into a single urban area, even though they got a few different council areas within them. In fact, they include Nottingham as one of the case studies, to show how it now includes Ilkeston because of growing developments.

That means they size Nottingham at 666k and Leicester at 440k.

I thought that was also a fair way to consider how BT would want to deploy FTTC. They just want to go for the largest, densest urban area; they don't really care where the councils draw the lines either.

If Leicester were to move up, it would have to overtake Portsmouth, Edinburgh, Brighton, Belfast, Bristol and Sheffield.

Al the same, it shows that the 2 cities are big players, and ought not to be left out of the deployment.
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 22:53:23
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
Of course it still has to go via a ISP but it does not have to go via BT Wholesale.

A provider such as TalkTalk who has a MSAN in a FTTx node exchange can take a in-span handover connection from BT Openreach directly.

ISPs such as Zen, AAISP need to take a feed from BT Wholesale because that is what meets the needs of the smaller and mid range ISPs.

(sorry its late i cant recall the exact name of the interconnect)

Paul
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:01:15
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
ok understood on the sizes.

although with the 15th from your report leics should still be within the original 40% and easily in the 67% if BT were to do on population size.

yeah time will tell if its just a slow rollout for these cities or if they are going to be missed out.
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:02:10
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: bookey] [link to this post]
 
correct but the live isp's are using BTw, the LLU players arent in the market yet.
Standard User bookey
(experienced) Thu 16-Jun-11 23:03:35
Print Post

Re: will there be cities in the final "hard to reach" 10%


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
That's a couple of good points. But where does FTTC handover to BTW?

VoNGA is another interesting issue - as that presumably also has to handover back to BTW - but as part of 21CN voice, rather than broadband.

21CN was all about improving costs... and you'd imagine that VoNGA + cabinet-based DSLAMs (or MSANs) would be a great way to reduce the cost of a lot of those exchanges. Obviously it would require 100% conversion of cabinets... so is this a sign that rural areas might get drawn into *better* FTTC coverage? Hmmm.


FTTC to BTW is at the serving node for the FTTC connections, most of the large exchange it will be it's self but some of the smaller exchange it will be another 'local' large exchange, even some exchange in London have different backhaul exchanges to the serving exchange area.
IIRC Fibre from the cabs in Putney is being terminated at the Parsons Green exchange.

Rural areas will get great coverage i would expect in 2013-2015 but the bulk of this will be EU or Govt money paying for BT to enable those areas with FTTx, BT get the money, they get to scale down the network overheads.

Penrith in Cumbria is on the list to get FTTC, only 1 or 2 exchanges around Penrith have cabs most are exchange only lines, but also very rural.
BT gets paid to upgrade the network in the ground and you see the exchange replaced with roadside cabinets and fibre ran back to Penrith exchange as the core node for the fibre connections for FTTC in the outlaying villages.

BT wont want to do this fully until they have played more with VoNGA

Paul
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | [5] | 6 | 7 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to