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) Fri 02-Nov-12 20:21:22
Print Post

FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[link to this post]
 
Just wondering, has anyone else seen a similar scenario to this where their own cabinet isn't getting FTTC as it isn't 'viable' while another cabinet elsewhere is getting the upgrade despite apparently having less homes connected to it, requiring more work, or whatever?
Standard User Discus
(experienced) Fri 02-Nov-12 20:51:39
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
The cabinet at the other end of our road (Acre Road) is in the final stages of upgrade, ours has been put back 12 months. Same demographic, but the other end has the working mens club, pharmacy and doctors!

http://www.holidayalmeria.co.uk - Holiday apartment website
http://www.marksfish.me.uk - Personal fishkeeping website
Standard User Chrysalis
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 03-Nov-12 15:09:10
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Just wondering, has anyone else seen a similar scenario to this where their own cabinet isn't getting FTTC as it isn't 'viable' while another cabinet elsewhere is getting the upgrade despite apparently having less homes connected to it, requiring more work, or whatever?


yes and I have bitched about this a few times on here smile

in the cases I mentioned the pattern was the other areas were more affluent.

of course now my cabinet is getting FTTC, so my case is now out of date.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 03-Nov-12 15:09:46)


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

Standard User partial
(regular) Sat 03-Nov-12 17:29:34
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
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.

I suspect the delays on it are down to major roadworks that have been going on nearby for months that needed copper and fibre plant moving and prevented anyone else from putting up traffic lights a hundred yards away to put in a fibre cab for example.

In my view, plucking a cabinet in Yorkshire and trying to do some DIY planning comparing it with one plucked out of Sussex is unlikely to generate anything useful.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 03-Nov-12 18:49:48
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by partial:
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.
--
In my view, plucking a cabinet in Yorkshire and trying to do some DIY planning comparing it with one plucked out of Sussex is unlikely to generate anything useful.


Had Openreach said that the story wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately the Commercial Modelling Unit Head said this:

HAYWARDS HEATH (SDHYWRD)
- This exchange is part deployed,. There will potential be more coming in future phases.
- However Cab 53 is not in the footprint as has a low total homes passed and is not commercial.

In determining the most commercially viable cabs to deploy to we take into account the costs of deployment and the likely take-up. The likely take-up percentage figures are good for these cabs, but they are both quite small, so the costs of deployment are not being outweighed by sufficient revenue.


This would be confirmed by that the MSAN going in is the smallest in terms of capacity that Openreach have available.

Openreach informed me that each cabinet is required to be judged as an entirely separate entity, so the presence of a fibre enabled cabinet nearby is allegedly irrelevant.

It's a 35.8 metre run from PCP to DSLAM, it's a 22.8 metre run from cabinet to power.

It does indeed feed a lot of ground unfortunately that ground passes about 160 premises, residential and commercial.

The cabinet mentioned in Leeds passes more premises, has a clear duct run to the fibre spine via both a cabinet being enabled 300m to its south and a community centre which is served by BT fibre 200m to its north, and has access to power within 15 metres. It has plenty of space in its shell also. That the HH 53 has so much space in its shell despite being a physically smaller shell than the cabinet in Leeds kinda implies that it doesn't have many lines connected.

If it were as easy as you'd mentioned I'm sure that someone in Openreach would've been able to tell either me or one of the journalists that asked questions those pretty simple explanations both for its viability and for the cause of delays rather than saying that it doesn't pass enough premises.

EDIT: In the name of open disclosure I'm the Carl Thomas in the story. If it were really that simple I suspect I would've been shot down pretty rapidly rather than being greeted by initial panic, followed by confusion, followed by silence, followed by denial.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Sat 03-Nov-12 19:01:50)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 03-Nov-12 18:50:11
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
Leaves around 30998 to figure out to see if there is a real pattern of abuse in locating where FTTC is rolled out, and not rolled out

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 03-Nov-12 18:59:45
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Leaves around 30998 to figure out to see if there is a real pattern of abuse in locating where FTTC is rolled out, and not rolled out


If it weren't contrary to many other statements at various levels from people who work within Openreach directly I'd agree.

Sadly the Commercial Modelling Unit Head, the High Level Complaints team, NGA Enquiries agents, the GM of Complaints and Escalations, an NGA Planning and Design Manager, a Network Investment Customer Engagement Manager, and a regional Partnership Director were unable to give this evidently simple explanation.

EDIT: When you have a moment please do check out the story itself. No-one is suggesting a 'pattern of abuse' beyond an article which I had zero input into and for precisely that reason haven't referred to.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Sat 03-Nov-12 19:17:09)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 03-Nov-12 19:20:31
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
yes and I have bitched about this a few times on here smile

in the cases I mentioned the pattern was the other areas were more affluent.

of course now my cabinet is getting FTTC, so my case is now out of date.


I can fairly confidently assure you that affluence isn't generally an issue. BT have enabled some really nasty areas which are a very long way from affluent on the same exchange as the cabinet I'm referring to.

These cabinets were, however, directly on the fibre spine so their deployment costs would've been relatively low as far as backhaul goes, and being on a main road power wouldn't have been far away.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 03-Nov-12 19:22:50
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Discus] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Discus:
The cabinet at the other end of our road (Acre Road) is in the final stages of upgrade, ours has been put back 12 months. Same demographic, but the other end has the working mens club, pharmacy and doctors!


Not quite the same, yours was planned in but for some reason delayed. There are a ton of reasons why a cabinet can be delayed and it's work asking [email protected] if they can explain the cause of the delay.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 03-Nov-12 19:30:36
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


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

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
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)

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.
Standard User partial
(member) Sun 18-Nov-12 17:18:12
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
As I keep posting, obviously to myself, there has been major roadworks going on here for months. You simply could not work there.

The eagle eyed may have noticed one fttc cabinet being planted and then being removed when it got in the way of the roadworks.

The even more eagle eyed may have noticed copper and fibre tubes being rerouted around the roadworks in nice shiny new ducts.

Now the roadworks are coming to an end I would expect 53 and more importantly 1 to be deployed sooner or later.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 18-Nov-12 17:37:07
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by partial:
As I keep posting, obviously to myself, there has been major roadworks going on here for months. You simply could not work there.

The eagle eyed may have noticed one fttc cabinet being planted and then being removed when it got in the way of the roadworks.

The even more eagle eyed may have noticed copper and fibre tubes being rerouted around the roadworks in nice shiny new ducts.

Now the roadworks are coming to an end I would expect 53 and more importantly 1 to be deployed sooner or later.


Obviously the roadworks delayed things and may even have forced 53 to be moved too far from power except I didn't say any of that I just said that it had been taken off the list. Not the case for 1 which continues to have an RFS of 31st December. I can only apologise if it offends you that Openreach disagree with your view of their NGA rollout.
Standard User partial
(member) Mon 19-Nov-12 21:52:37
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Doesn't offend me. I don't care either way. Indeed my cabinet is not on the FTTC rollout list and my exchange is not even on the 21cn 24meg list. If it mattered to me, I'd simply move.

But if you are plucking cabinets out of the air 2 or 3 hundred miles away and it is one I know well, I'm gonna comment on it. Sorry if it offends or does not fit in the agenda.

Of course, I would be foolish to comment on one in Leeds, 2 or 3 hundreds miles away ....

Edited by partial (Mon 19-Nov-12 21:56:58)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Tue 20-Nov-12 09:37:21
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
Your comments and local knowledge were most appreciated, too, until the previous patronising post.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 26-Dec-12 17:51:00
Print Post

Comparison Cabinet Being Upgraded


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Just to update this the cabinet I was looking at in Leeds has been added to the Openreach rollout.

Openreach thought it passed 96 premises, obviously not enough in normal circumstances to justify an upgrade, it in fact passes 393, and counting, and is one of the largest cabinets on the exchange.

Thanks all for the advice and comments.
Standard User partial
(member) Thu 13-Jun-13 21:53:44
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Partial -
I'll let you know when FTTC53 gets planted


Ignition-
I can only apologise if it offends you that Openreach disagree with your view of their NGA rollout.



Just letting you know - it's been planted. wink

Edited by partial (Thu 13-Jun-13 22:06:37)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Thu 13-Jun-13 22:58:15
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: partial] [link to this post]
 
Evidently taken off the list, given Openreach themselves said it had been, and then put back onto it and built per original plan - a good thing for those on 53.

I did actually notice it had been built, saw the thread.

Kinda scary you felt the need to bump a 7 month old thread to say that, but whatever makes you happy. I'm far more interested in that the cabinet that allegedly was too small to be viable that I was looking at should be stood this summer.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Thu 13-Jun-13 22:59:23)

Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Thu 13-Jun-13 23:09:18
Print Post

Re: FTTC Upgrades of Unviable and Unplanned Street Cabinets


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Kinda scary you felt the need to bump a 7 month old thread to say that
Not really
I'll let you know when FTTC53 gets planted



__________________________________________________________________________The back pedalling starts here__________________
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to