Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
Long practice, to see if a cabinet has power, has been to listen for the "hum" from the fans inside the cabinet.
In a planning application on a post today, for a Huawei 96 cabinet, it includes the following information on the fans:
The cooling fans are rated at 40dB during daytime and 35dB at night time. The fans will only function during periods of hot weather...
So... silence might only indicate that it is cold 
|
|
|
|
I would think the active equipment would overheat with out fans even in cold weather. Without forced air circulation it will heat up beyond its safe design level. I assume the lower db level at night is to reduce noise polution but I would be supprised if it affected any homes the cabinet would have tobe aloost outside the window do that. You could probably safely slow down the fans at night as the load on the cabinet would be less. In fact I would have though the fanns would be teperature controlled and would speed up and slow down as required
|
|
|
|
That information comes from the planning request, and already suggests that:
- The fans do slow down at night
- That the fans are only needed in hot weather
in turn implying that the active equipment won't overheat in cold weather.
You might think otherwise, but I guess that means you are suggesting that BT would lie in a planning application.
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
Without forced air circulation it will heat up beyond its safe design level.
Do you have a link for your incorrect statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
Incidentally, I happened to come across this page about the company who installs FTTC cabinets on behalf of Huawei & BT.
Greenwoods and Huawei developed a best working practices guide for the installation of the FTTC cabinet. By providing onsite NRSWA supervision on all sites, quality standards are achieved whilst ensuring full NRSWA compliance. The NRSWA supervisor is responsible for the completion of the final quality audit.
After the local electricity contractor has made the power connection to the cabinet Greenwoods Commissioning Engineers return to site to undertake the commissioning and integration activities.
If anyone knows what the procedure is for booking power installation, I guess it is within these "best working practices".
|
|
|
Incidentally, I happened to come across this page about the company who installs FTTC cabinets on behalf of Huawei & BT.
Greenwoods and Huawei developed a best working practices guide for the installation of the FTTC cabinet. By providing onsite NRSWA supervision on all sites, quality standards are achieved whilst ensuring full NRSWA compliance. The NRSWA supervisor is responsible for the completion of the final quality audit.
After the local electricity contractor has made the power connection to the cabinet Greenwoods Commissioning Engineers return to site to undertake the commissioning and integration activities.
If anyone knows what the procedure is for booking power installation, I guess it is within these "best working practices". That's representative of how that company works, but not how all the other companies that are installing FFTC cabs on behalf of openreach work,some like Telent/carillion also can &do connect the power supply as part of the install ,so no need to involve the utility company at all
As for the noise from fans ect ,the LA must be a moaning one, no such info given to the L.A around here to install cabs within a conservation area , only where they proposed to site them and the physical size, colour just basic details really , The fans inside the bigger 288 line cabs run continuously even with outside temps of
-6c they make very little noise,the background noise levels mean that you have to be next to the cab to hear them
Edited by tommy45 (Mon 08-Oct-12 17:26:06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure that is totaly correct. As far as I know only the utility companies can make the connection to the cables and if a meter is required a meter. Those companies though may be able to terminate the power to the cabinmet from the tails provided by the utility company
|
|
|
Not sure that is totaly correct. As far as I know only the utility companies can make the connection to the cables and if a meter is required a meter. Those companies though may be able to terminate the power to the cabinmet from the tails provided by the utility company
Correct, the DNO has to terminate their power network in the cab with a meter and from there on it is the responsibility of Carrillion (et al) to connect to their kit.
|
|
|
Not sure that is totaly correct. As far as I know only the utility companies can make the connection to the cables and if a meter is required a meter. Those companies though may be able to terminate the power to the cabinmet from the tails provided by the utility company The huawei 288 FFTC cabs are shipped to the site with all the hardware and electricity meter ,isolation switch and company 100amp fuse(the same as a domestic supply) And I'm 100% sure that the 204v mains supply was connected whilst they bolted the FFTC cab to the plinth /base then all trenches made for the ducting where back filled and the tarmac surface was re instated and then they moved on to the next FTTC site , So unless some one without digging any holes left any way of telent /carillion connecting up they ,connected on the same day, because apart from Openreach cable engineers installing the cable link between PCP and FTTC cabs no other work by anyone has taken place since,no new holes dug /backfilled ect , and info from openreach regarding my cab , suggests the cabs just needs it's fibre link ,then they will be able to provide me FTTC services
Oh and i nearly forgot to add I have since been told by an engineer that they are infact sorting the power out ,so are not reliant on the power companies Probably something to do with deregulation so 3rd parties who have the necessary training ect are also able to make new connections to the power supplies that are installed to power street furniture, come to think of it when they put in new colums (lights,the power company didn't get involved with that either,) several where re located
Edited by tommy45 (Mon 08-Oct-12 18:21:20)
|
|
|
For sale on a famous auction website are cooling fan modules (search term: "H83E1FCBA") for the Huawei MA56xx series DSLAM. Not a lot of use without the DSLAM though. The asking price for the module (£65) is more than it costs in China to buy a brand new Huawei DSLAM, complete with fans, control board, powerboard, backplane and enclosure!
However, from the photos [1] the cooling module has three 80mm fans, similar to those used for cooling a PC case. There is also a small PCB with logic for speed control and module identification.
When first booted, the DSLAM controller goes through a fan test procedure. The fans are spun-up to an ear-piercing speed. Presumably if that test fails, the DSLAM shuts down immediately to prevent the CPU (Freescale MPC8321) and the linecards from cooking. The movement of air (and the noise) during the spin-up is impressive! You can't help admire the (over) engineering 
cheers, a
[1] http://images.esellerpro.com/2131/I/673/49/SPImage%2...
|
|
|
'NRSWA' is just for compliance on roadworks, signing, lighting and guarding.
|
|
|
Not sure that is totaly correct. As far as I know only the utility companies can make the connection to the cables and if a meter is required a meter. Those companies though may be able to terminate the power to the cabinmet from the tails provided by the utility company The huawei 288 FFTC cabs are shipped to the site with all the hardware and electricity meter ,isolation switch and company 100amp fuse(the same as a domestic supply) And I'm 100% sure that the 204v mains supply was connected whilst they bolted the FFTC cab to the plinth /base then all trenches made for the ducting where back filled and the tarmac surface was re instated and then they moved on to the next FTTC site , So unless some one without digging any holes left any way of telent /carillion connecting up they ,connected on the same day, because apart from Openreach cable engineers installing the cable link between PCP and FTTC cabs no other work by anyone has taken place since,no new holes dug /backfilled ect , and info from openreach regarding my cab , suggests the cabs just needs it's fibre link ,then they will be able to provide me FTTC services
Oh and i nearly forgot to add I have since been told by an engineer that they are infact sorting the power out ,so are not reliant on the power companies Probably something to do with deregulation so 3rd parties who have the necessary training ect are also able to make new connections to the power supplies that are installed to power street furniture, come to think of it when they put in new colums (lights,the power company didn't get involved with that either,) several where re located
From the website of "UK Power Networks" (UPN) (the DNO for London & South East England), they indicate that an "independent connection provider" can create the power cabling to a standard that the network can then be owned/maintained by UPN. Or an "independent DNO" (IDNO) can create the cabling, and then own/maintain it themselves. However, *only* UPN can physically attach the cabling to the existing power network.
So certainly some of the work is de-regulated, but not all.
However, it is up to a (separate) supply company to attach a meter.
In the installation of a cabinet, and connecting the power, I see the following logical parts, but not necessarily in this time order:
- Civils: When building the base, empty ducting must be created, poking out of the ground in the right location for the cabinet to be built over
- Real DNO: Power cable must be attached to the existing network at one end
- ICP (or IDNO): Supply power cable, and feed power cable through ducting, and terminate at 100A cutout/fuse within cabinet.
- Electricity supplier: Supply meter. Connect from 100A cutout to meter, and possibly add an isolater before the power distribution board within the cabinet
I'm not sure what part Telent/Carilion are playing in this, but UPN seem to insist on the fact that they must perform the physical connection onto the existing power network - and I get the distinct impression they won't do this until there is something physical there for the 100A cutout/fuse to be connected to.
As we've seen, a DNO can have contractor companies performing the physical connection - so it is plausible that Telent/Carillion are acting as a sub-contractor to BT for some of the work, and as a sub-contractor to the DNO for other parts. So long as the people are sufficiently skilled...
But it certainly makes sense to connect it all in one dig, if at all possible.
|
|
|
Not sure that is totaly correct. As far as I know only the utility companies can make the connection to the cables and if a meter is required a meter. Those companies though may be able to terminate the power to the cabinmet from the tails provided by the utility company The huawei 288 FFTC cabs are shipped to the site with all the hardware and electricity meter ,isolation switch and company 100amp fuse(the same as a domestic supply) And I'm 100% sure that the 204v mains supply was connected whilst they bolted the FFTC cab to the plinth /base then all trenches made for the ducting where back filled and the tarmac surface was re instated and then they moved on to the next FTTC site , So unless some one without digging any holes left any way of telent /carillion connecting up they ,connected on the same day, because apart from Openreach cable engineers installing the cable link between PCP and FTTC cabs no other work by anyone has taken place since,no new holes dug /backfilled ect , and info from openreach regarding my cab , suggests the cabs just needs it's fibre link ,then they will be able to provide me FTTC services
Oh and i nearly forgot to add I have since been told by an engineer that they are infact sorting the power out ,so are not reliant on the power companies Probably something to do with deregulation so 3rd parties who have the necessary training ect are also able to make new connections to the power supplies that are installed to power street furniture, come to think of it when they put in new colums (lights,the power company didn't get involved with that either,) several where re located
From the website of "UK Power Networks" (UPN) (the DNO for London & South East England), they indicate that an "independent connection provider" can create the power cabling to a standard that the network can then be owned/maintained by UPN. Or an "independent DNO" (IDNO) can create the cabling, and then own/maintain it themselves. However, *only* UPN can physically attach the cabling to the existing power network.
So certainly some of the work is de-regulated, but not all.
However, it is up to a (separate) supply company to attach a meter.
In the installation of a cabinet, and connecting the power, I see the following logical parts, but not necessarily in this time order:
- Civils: When building the base, empty ducting must be created, poking out of the ground in the right location for the cabinet to be built over
- Real DNO: Power cable must be attached to the existing network at one end
- ICP (or IDNO): Supply power cable, and feed power cable through ducting, and terminate at 100A cutout/fuse within cabinet.
- Electricity supplier: Supply meter. Connect from 100A cutout to meter, and possibly add an isolater before the power distribution board within the cabinet
I'm not sure what part Telent/Carilion are playing in this, but UPN seem to insist on the fact that they must perform the physical connection onto the existing power network - and I get the distinct impression they won't do this until there is something physical there for the 100A cutout/fuse to be connected to.
As we've seen, a DNO can have contractor companies performing the physical connection - so it is plausible that Telent/Carillion are acting as a sub-contractor to BT for some of the work, and as a sub-contractor to the DNO for other parts. So long as the people are sufficiently skilled...
But it certainly makes sense to connect it all in one dig, if at all possible.
Also a meter is supplied &fitted to each cab, they do not fit another, so again no involvement from electricity supplier needed, and they are read remotely by BT or who ever monitors the alarms in the cabs for power loss ect
|
|
|
You've gone back to huge full nested quotes to reply to a tiny part  !
Please in future, or evn in this case as well, can you either delete most of the full quote and just leave what you are replying to, or just Reply and copy/paste the bit you want into a quote setup?
Just look at the post I'm replying to. Horrendous!
My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,website and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet Extra Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 56.0/13.9Mbps @ 600m. - BQM
"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
|
|
|
|
Dunno about you, Tommy, but every FTTC contract I have worked on has had the electric connected by the DNO.
In my experience of these contracts, cT or their subbies plant the cabinet, Openreach Direct Labour do the copper tails and most of the fibre node and tails, a contractor does the commissioning and the DNO via subbies connect the power.
|
|
|
Also a meter is supplied &fitted to each cab, they do not fit another, so again no involvement from electricity supplier needed, and they are read remotely by BT or who ever monitors the alarms in the cabs for power loss ect
Sorry - I did realise this, but I was trying to describe all the separate "logical" parts, and who, in "law", has the responsibility for those parts.
So, while it is "legally" the responsibility of an electricity supply company to supply & connect a meter (as distinct from the DNO that supplies & connects the fuse), they are allowing this work to be done partially in the factory/warehouse, and partially on-site.
It all makes sense for quick installation.
But in this country, we don't always do the sensible thing. Either jobsworths get in the way, or H&S.
It reminds me of the Flanders & Swann song - the Gasman Cometh. If they did that song nowadays, it would be bound to include broadband, BT and Sky.
|
|
|
Dunno about you, Tommy, but every FTTC contract I have worked on has had the electric connected by the DNO.
In my experience of these contracts, cT or their subbies plant the cabinet, Openreach Direct Labour do the copper tails and most of the fibre node and tails, a contractor does the commissioning and the DNO via subbies connect the power. Well in the area i live, This is not the case, The cabs all have power connected, and the copper tails in situ, & no one has dug holes in the foot ways since the cabs went in, there where a couple that took a week for someone to return and backfill the trenches,
I would presume that the person who is authorised to carry out the mains connection work was busy else where or of sick perhaps
And to add to this i have confirmation from openreach that my cab is awaiting the fiber link ,which is delayed due to blocked ducting at 2 locations,(work that had been previously booked to the L.A. back in June but obviously not done, no surprise there ) Who does what may vary from region to region
Here's some info on carillionplc
Edited by tommy45 (Mon 08-Oct-12 23:29:24)
|
|
|
In our area they have certainly come back and dug new trenches for the power, sometimes months after the cabinet was installed. Often seen uk power networks scheduled on roadworks. org to do the work.
|
|
|
|
A 96 line FTTC MSAN?
Is this getting outside funding?
|
|
|
|
No idea if it is a 96-line cab. But that is the model number quoted in the planning app.
It was Sussex, so I imagine there isn't outside funding yet.
|
|
|
No idea if it is a 96-line cab. But that is the model number quoted in the planning app.
It was Sussex, so I imagine there isn't outside funding yet.
The plans describe obsolete equipment. Although for planning purposes it has no relevance to the external appearance, nor the noise levels.
Huawei's smaller DSLAM, the SmartAX MA5616, has four slots for subscriber line cards. In the first generation of VDSL2 linecards for the MA5616, each card provided only 16 ports albeit with VDSL profiles up to 30MHz. Those linecards were the VDGE.
Then with new controller firmware, the port density increased to 24 VDSL2 ports per card. That was the VDSE card. With four slots for linecards that means 96 lines in total per DSLAM. (as described in the planning application).
Next generation - which is what BT is using at the moment, so far as I know, has 32 VDSL2 ports per card (up to 17MHz profiles). Two different 32-port cards are available at this density. Cards with and without integrated filters. These are the VDLE and the VDSH. BT uses the VDSH, sfaik. So the maximum line capacity of a DSLAM with four of those cards is 128 lines.
There's yet another generation of Huawei linecard with even higher port density. BT may be using them by now in more concentrated areas? However, those linecards requires a new generation of DSLAM Central Controller Unit - the CCUC revision instead of the earlier CCUB. This higher density VDSL linecard, codenamed the VDMM, supports 48 subscriber lines @ 17MHz.
So currently, in total up to 192 VDSL2 lines can be run out of a single Huawei MA5616 DSLAM, a device which is no bigger than a church bible!
The larger DSLAMs in the MA56xx family are basically two, four or more DSLAMs rolled into one, with four linecards being driven by separate CPUs, each with 32-bit e300 PPC cores.
All that said, maybe BT is using up its old kit in low population density areas?
cheers, a
|
|
|
All that said, maybe BT is using up its old kit in low population density areas?
cheers, a
Which in turn begs the question of why this area, with relatively low population density, is viable for FTTC construction while many more densely populated areas with more lines on the PCP are not.
I suspect it's something to do with the veritable mansions served by this cabinet and who lives in them.
http://goo.gl/maps/CMQ9L
I make approximately 160 premises passed by this PCP, BT assume a 20% uptake and Liv Garfield is quoted as saying that the top end of the take up so far is around the 30% mark. Accepting that there's a very small business park with some 'addresses' having multiple occupants I doubt there's more than ~200 lines on the cabinet, it's 2.11km from the exchange, line attenuation is implied at 55+dB going by the BT Wholesale checker implying a 4+km fibre spine route.
A purely commercial roll out, each cabinet assessed in isolation based purely on expected pay back. Hmm.
|
|
|
|
Back in the '90s, we lived in a rural village with no natural gas (although you could often smell it from all the leaks!)
According to British Gas (BG) it wasn't economically viable to extend the main to serve us. So for years we depended on OFCH (and the whim of the oil spot market).
Then one day BG had a sudden change of heart. They said if occupants bankrolled a new main, they would lay it. Every home was to cough up about £1000 to fund the roll-out. My parents and others eagerly paid, and BG duly laid the new main. At last we had gas! (bit of an aside and still a great bone of contention: it turned out that BG performed later connections in the street for free. In effect early adopters subsidised them!)
But what if BT was allowed to do the same? "If youse 'orrible smelly lot want FTTC, then you betta cough up and pay us to fit it!" Would there be many takers? I certainly would, so long as it was done fairly with every household contributing equally to the bill.
Someone's got to pay to roll it out, and if BDUK is going to take decades to prise open its purse (aka the taxpayers' purse), then we may as well cut out the middleman and pay BT directly!
cheers, a
|
|
|
Back in the '90s, we lived in a rural village with no natural gas (although you could often smell it from all the leaks!)
According to British Gas (BG) it wasn't economically viable to extend the main to serve us. So for years we depended on OFCH (and the whim of the oil spot market).
Then one day BG had a sudden change of heart. They said if occupants bankrolled a new main, they would lay it. Every home was to cough up about £1000 to fund the roll-out. My parents and others eagerly paid, and BG duly laid the new main. At last we had gas! (bit of an aside and still a great bone of contention: it turned out that BG performed later connections in the street for free. In effect early adopters subsidised them!)
But what if BT was allowed to do the same? "If youse 'orrible smelly lot want FTTC, then you betta cough up and pay us to fit it!" Would there be many takers? I certainly would, so long as it was done fairly with every household contributing equally to the bill.
Someone's got to pay to roll it out, and if BDUK is going to take decades to prise open its purse (aka the taxpayers' purse), then we may as well cut out the middleman and pay BT directly!
cheers, a I wouldn't contribute anything towards FTTC ,But i would for FTTH
|
|
|
But what if BT was allowed to do the same? "If youse 'orrible smelly lot want FTTC, then you betta cough up and pay us to fit it!" Would there be many takers? I certainly would, so long as it was done fairly with every household contributing equally to the bill.
Ironically, isn't this (effectively) what is going to happen with the FTTP-on-demand product.
The demand product will piggy-back on the FTTC installation without charging the willing household. OK so far. However, future households (some 10-15 years later) will be able to take advantage of the gradually-spreading network of fibre manifolds & splitters. At some point, in a decade or two, FTTP will stop being a "demand" product, and start being done by BT anyway.
Someone's got to pay to roll it out, and if BDUK is going to take decades to prise open its purse (aka the taxpayers' purse), then we may as well cut out the middleman and pay BT directly!
BDUK's purse has already been opened. North Yorkshire has already extracted funds (from both BDUK and the EU).
It won't be enough for FTTP though. Home will either have to pony up £1000 again (funny how it is similar to the BG number), or face paying at least £10pm extra for more than a decade.
|
|
|
If it was £500 I could well be tempted to get a consistent stable connection, but a £1000 or more would be too much for me to justify.
Be interesting how you get a price for FTTP on demand, free quote, or a deposit of intent deducted from installation cost if you go ahead.
Edited by R0NSKI (Thu 11-Oct-12 07:13:41)
|
|
|
If it was £500 I could well be tempted to get a consistent stable connection, but a £1000 or more would be too much for me to justify.
The 4-year-old figure was £29 billion to fibre everywhere. We've got 28 million lines - so that's £1,000 each, averaged over rural & urban.
A recent study of the final third estimates between £1,000 and £1,350 using BT ducts, or £1,350 to £2,100 using all-new ducting.
Those are costs. Presumably you'd need to add some extra money for the cost of financing (to give a return to investors), plus some amount of profit.
All that suggests that a £1,000 per home is a bare minimum, although that study was final-third, so urban ought to be cheaper.
The question then is how they choose to charge you that money. All up-front, or a hike in the per-month fees?
|
|
|
If it was £500 I could well be tempted to get a consistent stable connection, but a £1000 or more would be too much for me to justify.
The 4-year-old figure was £29 billion to fibre everywhere. We've got 28 million lines - so that's £1,000 each, averaged over rural & urban.
A recent study of the final third estimates between £1,000 and £1,350 using BT ducts, or £1,350 to £2,100 using all-new ducting.
Those are costs. Presumably you'd need to add some extra money for the cost of financing (to give a return to investors), plus some amount of profit.
All that suggests that a £1,000 per home is a bare minimum, although that study was final-third, so urban ought to be cheaper.
The question then is how they choose to charge you that money. All up-front, or a hike in the per-month fees?
They would charge the ISP.As we know only to well, Openreach don't deal direct with the public, So it would be upto the ISP providing FTTP on demand, The cost should be representative of the distance from cab to house too,not some dreamed up figure,
|
|
|
They would charge the ISP.As we know only to well, Openreach don't deal direct with the public, So it would be upto the ISP providing FTTP on demand,
Doh - we *do* get that, you know 
The point isn't about who you make the cheque out to. It's about the split between up-front, or on the "never-never" (as you'll now be a customer for the next 50 years). And the only place this matters is at the Openreach level, not the ISP.
Electricity connections used to be priced on the basis that you would stick for decades, so be spread over a long period, and shared amongst many people. Nowadays, the "open" competition rules mean that DNOs tend to charge it all up-front. And if *your* connection is the one that takes a transformer over-capacity, then *you* get the whole bill for the new transformer - and all up-front.
The cost should be representative of the distance from cab to house too,not some dreamed up figure,
It can be that, but still excessive - especially if BT follow the example from the electricity world.
If you are the first in an area, then you could be hit for the full charge of the manifolds, splitters, and ducting en-masse. The second person might just then pay for the differential costs on top of that - perhaps an extra 10 metres of ducting.
Whether they charge in this manner or not (and I certainly hope they won't), it doesn't change the question about whether they then choose to bill you up-front, or monthly over 2 decades.
While Openreach are managing an FTTP rollout without fear of a physical competitor, then they can afford to spread the charge over decades. If there is a possibility you take your business elsewhere in 6 months, they'll have to charge up-front.
I know some people don't like the idea of BT having a monopoly, but in this case - with £30 billion investment needed, and itchy investors - it might really be the only way we'll get to a national fibre access network, truly for everyone.
ISP's are different though. Ofcom have deliberately created a vibrant ISP retail market, so you *are* free to jump at will - and an ISP cannot count on you for decades of business. If Openreach passed on a full up-front bill to the ISP then you *are* going to get to pay the full lot up-front yourself.
|
|
|
That is the point - someone has to pay for the installation at sometime; whether it is BT/BT Shareholders, the taxpayers or the users - yes ultimately the users do pay but it is the initial capital.
BT cannot afford to do everyone at day one and by going for the areas of potential high uptake they will see an initial return on their capital investment and that allows them to fund the next block, and the returns from those the next more expensive block and so on. If BT did a very rural low uptake black first then there would be no returns and thus no money for the next block.
What about all of the other ISPs saying to BT - "here is £1m, 10m, £25m, please use it to invest in the FTTC infrastructure and give us a good return on the investment .." I don't see any of them wanting to invest but just jump on the back of BTs investments and reap the benefits - just like the late adopters of gas in your village.
As for individuals paying BT directly - it has happened on other technologies where companies have paid for the BT investment and then BT used the infrastructure for other customers whilst the first received service at very low cost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
I know some people don't like the idea of BT having a monopoly, but in this case - with £30 billion investment needed, and itchy investors - it might really be the only way we'll get to a national fibre access network, truly for everyone.
BT does not have a monopoly ... they might be the only company providing the service but there is nothing to stop another company setting itself up to provide a similar network.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M H C
taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
|
|
|
BT does not have a monopoly ... they might be the only company providing the service but there is nothing to stop another company setting itself up to provide a similar network.
I know BT doesn't have a monopoly in a legal sense.
Yet that aspect is one factor that stops investors from putting money into a full fibre project - the fact that a competitor can come along at any time, even if they haven't so far. It makes investing tremendously risky. In this case, the mere threat of competition makes it too expensive to start the service.
That's fine for a lot of the country, but it isn't fine for (at least) the final third. There we need some extra incentives to get investors to put money in, or some extra safeguards against risk. That third are saying "B$^^3r competition. If the choice is zero or one, we'd be happy to take *one* company."
A monopoly (of the access network) *might* actually be the thing that can make that happen.
It might happen if that monopoly was owned by all of the ISPs that buy services from it. Unfortunately, the current company that is closest to being such a monopoly (Openreach) is owned by only one of its customers.
|
|
|
BT does not have a monopoly ... they might be the only company providing the service but there is nothing to stop another company setting itself up to provide a similar network.
You completely contradicted yourself in the space of one line saying that BT does not have a monopoly but are the only company providing the service.
There are considerable barriers to stop another company setting itself up to provide a similar network.
Straight out of Wikipedia:
The first two entries:
Economic barriers: Economic barriers include economies of scale, capital requirements, cost advantages and technological superiority.
Economies of scale: Monopolies are characterised by decreasing costs for a relatively large range of production. Decreasing costs coupled with large initial costs give monopolies an advantage over would-be competitors. Monopolies are often in a position to reduce prices below a new entrant's operating costs and thereby prevent them from continuing to compete. Furthermore, the size of the industry relative to the minimum efficient scale may limit the number of companies that can effectively compete within the industry. If for example the industry is large enough to support one company of minimum efficient scale then other companies entering the industry will operate at a size that is less than MES, meaning that these companies cannot produce at an average cost that is competitive with the dominant company. Finally, if long-term average cost is constantly decreasing, the least cost method to provide a good or service is by a single company.
Capital requirements: Production processes that require large investments of capital, or large research and development costs or substantial sunk costs limit the number of companies in an industry. Large fixed costs also make it difficult for a small company to enter an industry and expand.
BT, or more specifically Openreach, is a natural monopoly.
A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single firm. In some cases, this gives the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity.
Which is why regulations have been brought in to ensure that BT group don't have a monopoly on wholesale and retail products, it's an attempt to ensure the monopoly Openreach have doesn't vertically integrate from supply to end user retail level.
|
|
|
" If Openreach passed on a full up-front bill to the ISP then you *are* going to get to pay the full lot up-front yourself. "
Why do you say that?
Pipex invented mass market DSL broadband a decade ago by doing exactly the reverse. Maybe someone needs to do the same for real fibre?
Pipex (RIP) got where they got in the early DSL market by *not* immediately passing on the full upfront cost of a (BTwholesale) DSL installation. Instead, courtesy of 12month contracts and customer inertia, they moved the up front costs into the line rental over the first year or so.
Then after the up front installation costs were paid off, there was double bubble for Pipex if the customer stayed with them, because the punter's rental didn't come down, but there was no longer a chunk of rental going towards paying back the installation costs.
Same goes for gas, too. There are "independent gas transportation companies" [1] who will connect an area, and then the end customer typically pays less up front as a connection fee but the transport company charges a supplement on the bill from the gas retailer so the up front connection cost is recovered over years rather than paid up front in full. See any parallels?
'Course it may be tricky doing anything like that for broadband these days, when the broadband market in general has turned into a race to see who can offer the worst service at the lowest headline price and perhaps still stay in business. And where "investment" is a dirty word for most UK businesses, broadband or otherwise.
[1] http://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/...
|
|
|
Similarly Plusnet charge for an FTTC installation or migration in, unless their phone service is also taken. BT charge £25 installation and inward migration for their 40GB FTTC product, though that is currently waived on a 2 Special offer.
My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,website and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet Extra Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 57.4/14.6Mbps @ 600m. - BQM
"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
|
|
|
I wouldn't contribute anything towards FTTC ,But i would for FTTH
FTTP/H is a better comparison to the British Gas scenario, in terms of the works involved. I got chatting about this and apparently back in the '90s, BG was initially demanding thousands(!) per home to connect an off-net street. They ran it like a Dutch auction returning with a new lower offer every time the householders rejected!
How much of the cost of installing a DSLAM is plant and how much is labour? The DSLAMs sell for next to nothing in China (sub £100), but BT is adding lots of extras to that price with the posh cabinet, power backup kit, sensoring, etc.
Is there a total average cost for installing a fibre cabinet + plant? I bet it's astronomical!
cheers, a
Edited by deleted (Fri 12-Oct-12 12:32:33)
|
|
|
The DSLAMs sell for next to nothing in China (sub £100) That's because they make their money from the hacking f/w in them  .
I haven't got a link at the moment, but wasn't there a news article on Radio 4 the other day about the US Government banning Huawei and some other company from tendering for US Gov contracts, because of the security implications?
My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,website and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet Extra Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 57.4/14.6Mbps @ 600m. - BQM
"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
|
|
|
I haven't got a link at the moment, but wasn't there a news article on Radio 4 the other day about the US Government banning Huawei and some other company from tendering for US Gov contracts, because of the security implications?
The British Government are also looking at Huawei's relationship with BT. Wouldn't it be "funny" if the Government ordered BT to rip out all the Huawei equipment they've installed?
Oliver.
|
|
|
You couldn't make it up! And we'd be left with a total monopoly of DSLAM kit supplied by ECI of... Israel! The ECI kit is considerably more expensive, which could only delay FTTC roll-out further.
Forget the spy stuff, it's just another case of 'follow the money'. The western telecom kit makers - Ericsson, Cisco, Juniper, etc - are watching their sales revenues plummet because of Oriental competition. So they've gone bawling to the US Congress, demanding help. And this is the response. The US kit makers never will compete with China, not on R&D costs nor manufacturing, most of which is done in Asia anyway (so where's the security in that?)
Huawei founder, Ren Zhengfei, was apparently in London on 9/11/2012 meeting David Cameron. If No 10's account is correct, Zhengfei has promised to bring 5,000 new high-tech jobs to the UK. Presumably with a proviso that Cameron doesn't side with the Americans and freeze out Huawei in contracts.
The Huawei DSLAMs are powered by Freescale CPUs (i.e. American, formerly Motorola). In the openreach street cab kit, the CPU is the Freescale MPC8321/8323. These have an e300a IBM PowerPC core (Big Blue being as Yank as it comes). Nothing there for Congress to moan about.
So it's really about the firmware. Huawei could just release the source code for its DSLAM 'program' software into the public domain, allowing it to be fully scrutinised. Though there don't need to be any 'backdoors' for monitoring our traffic. Means of interception are installed by design in the DSLAM. Every DSLAM can be logged into remotely, the upstream routing can be tweaked, traffic rerouted for a specific xDSL subscriber port maybe, or whatever.
Though, it's not clear why China would even want to snoop our traffic. Okay, maybe commercial sensitive stuff has some value (just as theirs is to us) but joe bloggs' internet traffic? All those dreadful youtube videos he keeps watching?! If there's any truth to this spy story, you've got to feel sorry for the Chinese secret police being ordered to watch all of our youtube garbage in the course of duty!
cheers, a
Edited by deleted (Fri 12-Oct-12 13:47:05)
|
|
|
The £100 is that just the chasis or including the line cards with the VDSL2 driver chips on them?
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Hi Andrew,
yeah, just the chassis, controller board, power board.. The linecards seem to be about £60-£70 each.. so a fully-loaded DSLAM ready to support ~200 subscribers would be about £300. [1] Subscriber cabling to add, battery backup, shiny cabinet, etc. Even so, doesn't seem much really..
cheers, a
[1] http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&...
(about 10 Chinese yuan to the British pound, and this one has ADSL2+ not VDSL2 linecards)
Edited by deleted (Fri 12-Oct-12 13:54:44)
|
|
|
It is this inability to vertically integrate that may be holding things back, where fibre is appearing in its full form, often in areas where operator is allowed a few years as a vertical before wholesale access forced on them in the case of the major operators.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
If anyone's got a spare year or two to reverse engineer and disassemble the firmware for the Huawei DSLAM, here's a starter..
It is the 13MB binary 'program' extracted from the Huawei SmartAX MA5616. This is where you would hide the spyware (if there was any!) It's the latest stable version of DSLAM firmware (V800R310 - March 2012).
When the binary is run through the Unix strings utility, it perhaps shows evidence of the file system, in the form of several zip files. The ASCII-encoded numbers following each filename are maybe offsets in the flash image where the file is actually stored, and the file length in blocks, octets, or whatever.
| Text | 1
23
45
67
8 | $ strings -n 20 MA5616_CCUB_V800R310_PROGRAM.BIN
MA5616V800R310C00B039?2:hw6:hw1:hw5:hw3:hw7:h
MA5616V800R310C00B039MA5616V800R310C00B039
program.lma,0,12348304,program.lma;db.zip,12348304,23680,db.zip;infochn.res,12371984,459777,infochn.res;infoeng.res,12831761,495579,infoeng.res;cmdtree.zip,1332
7340,531968,cmdtree_tmp.zip; |
cheers, a
EDIT: please contact if interested
Edited by deleted (Fri 12-Oct-12 21:20:10)
|
|
|
In reply to a post by Anonymous:
Did they? I had DSL fitted 12 years ago (with Demon), and I don't recall the charges needed at the time. probably none, as it was a trial.
Maybe someone needs to do the same for real fibre?
Pipex (RIP) got where they got in the early DSL market by *not* immediately passing on the full upfront cost of a (BTwholesale) DSL installation. Instead, courtesy of 12month contracts and customer inertia, they moved the up front costs into the line rental over the first year or so.
It works when the up-front cost is sufficiently low that, when spread out monthly, can be perceived as reasonable by the customer (or to SO the (s)he has to justify the cost to). But how many months? A lock-in of 12 months is fine - no judge will get shirty at that. A lock-in of 20 years might not be seen in the same way.
I reckon that to be perceived as OK monthly, a £1500 up-front cost would need to become £10pm or less. That would need a 12 year contract!
And even if you were happy to be locked-in for 20 years, for a telco there is still risk. The risk is that the government regulator (Ofcom) would come in after 3 years and anull the contracts anyway. That concept scares the investors away.
Same goes for gas, too. There are "independent gas transportation companies" [1] who will connect an area, and then the end customer typically pays less up front as a connection fee but the transport company charges a supplement on the bill from the gas retailer so the up front connection cost is recovered over years rather than paid up front in full. See any parallels?
Hehe - I hadn't looked at the gas market, but that's an interesting setup.
If I understand you correctly it is this: Essentially the wholesaler foots the full bill, and gets paid by adding a component to the money charged *for you specifically* onto the bill towards the retailer (who supplies your gas), and the retailer passes that component on to you to be paid. Then, even if you changed retail supplier every 12 months, the wholesale payback continues (via each new retailer) until the long term payback finishes.
It is certainly an improvement over the way the electricity market works at the moment.
The three problems that I perceive in this are:
- If you stop taking gas at all, from any retail supplier. Then there is no path to repay the wholesaler, who loses out. Same problem would exist with a telco
- When you move, your "debt" stays with the property, and the new owner would have to agree to continue payments
- This only works when there is no conceivable alternative wholesaler. In the case of gas, no-one is going to come down the street and install a new gas main - so the current wholesaler is guaranteed that *any* gas supplied is coming through that pipe.
While I can see parallels, that last one is *very* different for telecomms. There are already natural competitors with wireless point-to-point companies, Virgin (OK, not in the final third), mobile 3G and 4G, and other fibre companies. Once there are *any* competitors, then there is no guarantee that you'll stay with the 1st company that brought the fibre in (at wholesale), and so no guarantee that the investment will be repaid.
BT/Openreach *could* take a punt, and install anyway - and they'll *probably* get the customers. But before that can happen, the investors need to be persuaded - and I think the risk is just too high for them to allow anything to be built. Without the money, BT can't do a thing - except follow the current plan.
The essential difference is that, while there are many IGT's, there is only one for each home - and no choice. It *is* a monopoly as far as you, the customer, are concerned.
'Course it may be tricky doing anything like that for broadband these days, when the broadband market in general has turned into a race to see who can offer the worst service at the lowest headline price and perhaps still stay in business. And where "investment" is a dirty word for most UK businesses, broadband or otherwise.
Oh so true.
I'm doing my bit. By taking broadband via FTTC, I'm sending my message to the investors - "Yes we do want it. Please keep giving BT more money so they can get to more villages"
Everyone with a vested interest in getting fibre as widespread as possible, as fast as possible, as soon as possible, *ought* to have as little as possible to do with the companies who "race to the bottom." They *ought* to be supporting the companies who have more interest in expanding the network.
|
|
|
Though, it's not clear why China would even want to snoop our traffic. Okay, maybe commercial sensitive stuff has some value (just as theirs is to us) but joe bloggs' internet traffic? All those dreadful youtube videos he keeps watching?! If there's any truth to this spy story, you've got to feel sorry for the Chinese secret police being ordered to watch all of our youtube garbage in the course of duty!
They might not want to snoop - well, OK they probably want that *as well*.
But I suspect the bigger worry is just how much they could interfere with one of our strategic national assets in times of strife.
|
|
|
Forget the spy stuff, it's just another case of 'follow the money'. The western telecom kit makers - Ericsson, Cisco, Juniper, etc - are watching their sales revenues plummet because of Oriental competition.
It adds flavour to this aspect to know that Huawei are desperate to be "as like Ericsson" as possible.
|
|
|
The next question, is how much do they make BT actually pay?
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
It adds flavour to this aspect to know that Huawei are desperate to be "as like Ericsson" as possible.
Last month, the Wikipedia entry for Huawei said that it was the world's 2nd largest telco kit maker (after Ericsson). This month and, again according to Wikipedia, Huawei is now in 1st place.
The times they are a changing.
cheers, a
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huawei&dif...
|
|
|
Sure. Well into four figures, perhaps? Also it's not being fair on BT here, comparing its billion pound commercial contract for the supply of kit (and for its maintenance and support), with kit that is being flogged on the Chinese equivalent of ebay. Where terms such as "no returns allowed" are commonplace, and where provenance of the equipment is not necessarily guaranteed! At least by purchasing kit directly from Huawei, the firmware is assuredly up to date with no bugs in it, etc.
cheers, a
Edited by deleted (Fri 12-Oct-12 18:53:33)
|
|
|
It is this inability to vertically integrate that may be holding things back, where fibre is appearing in its full form, often in areas where operator is allowed a few years as a vertical before wholesale access forced on them in the case of the major operators.
Agreed - per Verizon FiOS, etc. Most FTTP networks that are deployed fully open have been done so with state aid.
|
|
|
|
Electricity has finally been run to the two cabinets nearest to me. And there is definite gentle whirring from the fans (at 7pm/about 11c!).
The other clue is that they now have a bright yellow 230V sticker on them!
|
|
|
Electricity has finally been run to the two cabinets nearest to me. And there is definite gentle whirring from the fans (at 7pm/about 11c!).
The other clue is that they now have a bright yellow 230V sticker on them! I think you will find that most of the FTTC cabs will be installed with the said sticker affixed to them,
|
|
|
|
Oh okay, these two cabinets didn't. They were added today.
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
