General Discussion
  >> Fibre Broadband


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


Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 03-Nov-12 19:33:27
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Question is whether if you asked the same question again you would get the next random answer on the crib sheet smile


I think I've done the entire crib sheet.

A highlight actually was when I received a response which changed font for one paragraph.

They could at least try and hide the copy/pasting smile
Standard User partial
(regular) Sat 03-Nov-12 22:29:19
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I can't comment on a cabinet in Leeds but I do know Haywards Heath 53. I was around when the contract to build 53 from being a pillar off of 1 was issued.

BTW. size of shell is no indication of spare capacity as it will depend on which verts have been deployed.

My view is that DIY planners have underestimated what 53 is serving. Understandable if you have no idea and are just guessing, Don't know the wayleave history and the overlay of Scaynes Hill 2.

Knowing the area, I would suggest major roadworks constructing a new roundabout at Haywards Heath 1 have put a spaniel in the works rendering any works prohibited for months anywhere near 1 or 53.

In my view 53 is viable. Based on contracts I have won in this locale and my knowledge of the location of the nearest fibre node and the major junction routes that pass. I have no idea about some other cabinet hundreds of miles away in Yorkshire. It's just not serious for anyone to be plucking stuff out of the air.

Luckily, unlike Haywards Heath, I hear Virgin are deployed in Leeds and really should be capitalising on this missed opportunity.

I'll let you know when FTTC53 gets planted as I drive by most days.

Edited by partial (Sat 03-Nov-12 22:48:26)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 04-Nov-12 10:19:48
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by partial:
My view is that DIY planners have underestimated what 53 is serving. Understandable if you have no idea and are just guessing,

Luckily, unlike Haywards Heath, I hear Virgin are deployed in Leeds and really should be capitalising on this missed opportunity.


Understood. How about the commercial modelling unit head, who I presume would not be considered a 'DIY planner' but said the cabinet doesn't pass enough properties and should've been excluded from deployment?

This cabinet was planned in for phase 5b and should, barring issues, have been completed a considerable time ago. For some reason the planning application didn't go in until earlier this year.

The question remains, if there's such a big underestimate why a Huawei 96 when uptake is predicted as being good and these are usually reserved for cabled areas?

While I appreciate your local knowledge I don't appreciate so much the 'DIY planners' thing, the 'DIY planners' have spoken extensively to the 'real planners' none of whom have been able to give any real answers nor contradicted anything the 'DIY planners' said. I'm not going to for a second pretend to know all the answers but I've given my moderately educated guesses to the people who should and they've not argued.

I know the fibre spine route around the Leeds cabinet and I also found out how out of kilter the BT records they made the original decision on were - they made the deployment decision in 2009, the cabinet has more than doubled in homes passed since.

Virgin Media have looked at the area and supplied full costings. Unfortunately their existing network is too far away to make the operation viable. They would, obviously have a massive amount more civils to do to serve the area which would take the costs over their limit per home.

EDIT: Here just FYI is the 'DIY Planners' estimate of what 53 passes. http://goo.gl/maps/SMld9

All corrections are welcome. If you can tell us what the various sections of Openreach themselves including the people who would've made the decision couldn't that'd be amazing, I can stop burning my time up on this and get on with other things.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Sun 04-Nov-12 10:28:03)


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

Standard User partial
(regular) Sun 04-Nov-12 20:34:48
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In my view this is DIY planning. You have picked up a planning application quoted in another thread on ADSLGuide and applied it to another cabinet several hundred miles away.

There is no heat or light going to be generated from this approach,

BTW, I would be surprised if anyone is going to be putting whoarewe 96 cabs in anywhere these days but I note that the ECIs have suspiciously similar measurements.

Edited by partial (Sun 04-Nov-12 20:37:49)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 04-Nov-12 23:24:23
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by partial:
In my view this is DIY planning. You have picked up a planning application quoted in another thread on ADSLGuide and applied it to another cabinet several hundred miles away.

There is no heat or light going to be generated from this approach,

BTW, I would be surprised if anyone is going to be putting whoarewe 96 cabs in anywhere these days but I note that the ECIs have suspiciously similar measurements.


Do you work directly for Openreach or have seen their rollout criteria for FTTC as applied to 53?

If you haven't we're both working on conjecture at some level.

Do you know how many lines are actually connected to 53? There must be a fair few customers with a lot of lines given it passes less than 165 premises.

All I have to go by is Openreach informing me that they judge each cabinet in total isolation, making that the fibre spine is going to cabinet 1 irrelevant, that their modelling unit head considers 53 unviable as it doesn't pass enough premises to reach the minimum standard for consideration for upgrade and that the planning application shows a bit of civils work is required too.

It could quite easily be a Huawei 96; the planning was done as part of phase 5b so would've been done some time ago, this could well be a replan from an earlier application but either way was due for deployment well before the works nearby earlier in the year.

If it's on the fibre spine directly and/or passes considerably more premises than the OR records suggest it's all good and I'm sure Openreach will inform me of this at some point rather than flip flopping, stone walling and denial.

All I have to go by is what they tell me, what you've mentioned is useful but contradicts the comments of the people who actually did the assessments.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Sun 04-Nov-12 23:27:21)

Standard User asbokid
(member) Mon 05-Nov-12 09:57:37
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Not directly related, but the "96" nomenclature is obsolete, i.e. it's an historic numbering.

The small Huawei SmartAX MA5616 MSAN which goes in the "96" cabinet has an enclosure of a fixed size: it's a standard 2U 19" rack unit. The same enclosure is used, regardless of the number of linecards fitted into the four slots of the MSAN, and regardless of the linecards' port density.

Once upon a time, the maximum port density per MA5616 VDSL2 linecard was just 24 or even 16. But now the density is up to 48 subscriber lines per slot, using the latest (CCUC) central control unit, and (VDMM) linecards.

In other words the Huawei "96" cabinet can today support up to 192 VDSL2 subscriber lines.

cheers, a
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 05-Nov-12 14:10:42
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: asbokid] [link to this post]
 
Hi Asbo smile

Yes, aware of that sir, just thought it noteworthy given how long ago this cabinet was planned.

The cabinet was planned as a phase 5a build when the maths was probably a bit different.

I appreciate that line cards get denser with considerable regularity sir, I remember well line card swap outs when working for an OLO, including swapping out the controller cards to cope with the additional traffic from doubling the line capacity.

Ahh happy days, or nights as those were.
Standard User omnius
(regular) Mon 05-Nov-12 18:50:48
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets *DELETED*


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Post deleted by omnius
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 11-Nov-12 19:34:55
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Replying to my own question somewhat here we're making progress with getting to understand what's going on here, thanks to a combination of statements from Openreach and site plans.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 17-Nov-12 23:54:46
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by partial:
I'm not surprised that Haywards Heath 53 is viable.

It is only a couple of hundred metres of good duct space away from 1 which it used to be a pillar of. It has plenty of space in the shell. It is close to power.

It feeds a lot of ground including an industrial estate.


Bumping this it seems after all that it isn't.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4165520-re-...

Viable in the initial plans, unviable according to commercial modelling guy, viable according to whomever ISPR spoke to, unviable according to most recent info, from before the ISPR thing was published.

Posterior, meet elbow.
Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to