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 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 20-Apr-13 03:15:34
Print Post

FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[link to this post]
 
With the recent article and discussion on Vectoring, it seems clear (if it works) that large tracts of the country - perhaps 60% - will have access to around 100Mbps, and another 30% will have access to 50 Mbps.

Clearly the final 10% is getting left even further behind. We need some technology that targets these locations.

When looking at just how "fancy" vectoring was considered to be, I have come across the technology that *is* a little more in the realms of fantasy: G.Fast (Copper speeds of 500Mbps), Phantom mode (adding extra ghost pairs on top of bonded pairs) and FTTdp.

The latter (Fibre to the distribution point) is a smaller equivalent of the FTTC cabinet - really aimed at being closer to properties to take advantage of shorter copper, and to then use G.fast speeds.

But FTTdp seems to be a small cabinet targetted at 8-20 end-users. It aims at having "reverse power", fed from those end-users (ie no mains power supply required).

All-in-all, it seems like the kind of equipment that could be suited to small villages and hamlets, and removing the requirement for separate power can only be a benefit. The village might not be dense enough to support G.fast though, and there still has to be fibre fed to the box.

Does this sound like plausible technology to help supply that last 10%? If not, what is going to do it?
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sat 20-Apr-13 06:33:25
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
maybe, maybe not, but of course the last 10% isnt just vaillages, the first 30% of BTs FTTC rollout was mainly rural areas.

Right now there is still parts of london with no planned FTTC eg.

BT Infinity 2 Since Dec 2012
Standard User ryant704
(member) Sat 20-Apr-13 07:58:48
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
To me it does suite it perfectly, though you will see this too late I would imagine.


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

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 20-Apr-13 09:10:57
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
There are smaller vdsl units a 48 line one they are playing with for small EO clusters.
Same could be used for clusters with very long d side too.
There have been line driven 10 line dslam available for a few years too.

The issue is not technical it is cost and the race to get high levels of coverage in short time

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 Crusiux
(learned) Sat 20-Apr-13 10:37:39
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
The idea of 'reverse' power sounds interesting though I wonder how much it would cost on top of usual service. Seems like a recipe for disagreement to me! Especially if one uses it a lot more than the others; should they pay more than the others?

Unlimited BT Infinity 2 Down 73.6 Up 9.7
Standard User jchamier
(knowledge is power) Sat 20-Apr-13 11:16:08
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
But FTTdp seems to be a small cabinet targetted at 8-20 end-users. It aims at having "reverse power", fed from those end-users (ie no mains power supply required).


Ha, sounds ideal for small blocks of flats. Where I live we have 20 flats to a block (and 4 blocks), and so a DP outside the block (currently in an underground chamber) would be ideal. We currently get around 40meg as we are 50/50 distance between two main FTTC cabs.

James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
Standard User gah789
(newbie) Sat 20-Apr-13 12:17:58
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Technology really isn't the problem for the final 10% or 1% - which is what I deal with! Institutional arrangements are critical. The UK needs to learn some lessons from rural cooperative telephone and electricity systems in the US and elsewhere. Economies of scale, whether for DSL or fibre equipment, are not a serious barrier for small operators. The key issue in rural areas is backhaul, which comes down to access to a core network of fibre with sufficient unlit capacity to allow cooperatives and other small groups to connect on non-discriminatory terms.

The standard solution to universal provision in utilities is to run the core network as a common carrier. Investors can earn a reasonable return on their assets and the costs of building the network are spread over a much larger user base. Muddled policies plus lobbying by incumbent telecoms operators has ensured that this has not happened. Governments want to finance networks as commercial services rather than as regulated utilities.

Ensuring universal provision is not close to being rocket science. Still, requires a coherent program based on an acknowledgement of the fundamental principles of network economics. Since both are currently missing, the outcome - for many years - will be a complete lottery unless or until collectively we decide that ensuring the existence and operation of a core network is an economic and/or social necessity.

Once that network exists the development of local distribution systems becomes much easier and gaps can be filled by anything from small businesses to cooperatives and community groups - usually relying upon specialised operators providing network and back office services. There are literally hundreds of small wireless ISPs in the US which operate in this way.
Standard User majika2007
(newbie) Sat 20-Apr-13 14:38:35
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: gah789] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
Clearly the final 10% is getting left even further behind. We need some technology that targets these locations.

I absolutely agree! Something really needs to be done to ensure they aren't left even further behind.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
But FTTdp seems to be a small cabinet targetted at 8-20 end-users. It aims at having "reverse power", fed from those end-users (ie no mains power supply required).

Indeed, this does sound like a feasible method of provisioning these services to the final 10% of UK.

However, as stated previously it will be interesting to see how the "reverse power feeds" is calculated
Power draw Vs. Actual internet usages per end-user between the various parties involved.
I can see end-users concerns surrounding this issue for fair charges etc.

I do believe this is also something which can be designed out or at least minimized either by incorporating the use of
renewable into the equation.

A great example of how energy needs are catered for in the community can be found in some of the developing nations community-driven projects. In parts of Asia/Africa we have seen some very clever ideas and thinking.

One case I remember reading about involved providing clean and safe drinking water to villagers in remote parts of Africa.
A water treatment plant in the village used solar power to pump and clean the water through various processes,
this was used to benefit all the villagers and all had a equal stake in the project.

This is probably not the best example of this kind of thing in action but you get the idea.

In reply to a post by gah789:
The UK needs to learn some lessons from rural cooperative telephone and electricity systems in the US and elsewhere

I also think its a good idea to look at how others have achieved similar results. We need to look at examples from other parts of the world where innovative solutions have been found to overcome initial barriers.

In reply to a post by gah789:
The standard solution to universal provision in utilities is to run the core network as a common carrier. Investors can earn a reasonable return on their assets and the costs of building the network are spread over a much larger user base. Muddled policies plus lobbying by incumbent telecoms operators has ensured that this has not happened. Governments want to finance networks as commercial services rather than as regulated utilities.


This has been the case since the The times of the Ragan & Thatcher administrations who's economic policies emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector) and the privatisation of state-owned companies. Deregulation was (and still is) believed to be the way to go for those in power.

Everything now seems to be in the hands of private interests in some shape of form, which is NOT always a bad thing.
However until this way of working / thinking has changed its will be an up-hill battle to reverse the deregulation policy's for ex-state owned companies, infrastructure and services In certain situations..

FreeServe @ 56Kbs -> BT Business (ADSL) @ 512kbps -> AOL 2Mbps -> TalkTalk upto 24Meg (19Mbps) -> SkyBB upto 10Meg (8.4Mbps) :: Now, Patiently waiting for FTTC then upgrade to FTTPoD
Standard User somerset
(committed) Sat 20-Apr-13 15:25:14
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: gah789] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by gah789:
Technology really isn't the problem for the final 10% or 1% - which is what I deal with! Institutional arrangements are critical. The UK needs to learn some lessons from rural cooperative telephone and electricity systems in the US and elsewhere. Economies of scale, whether for DSL or fibre equipment, are not a serious barrier for small operators. The key issue in rural areas is backhaul, which comes down to access to a core network of fibre with sufficient unlit capacity to allow cooperatives and other small groups to connect on non-discriminatory terms.

The standard solution to universal provision in utilities is to run the core network as a common carrier. Investors can earn a reasonable return on their assets and the costs of building the network are spread over a much larger user base. Muddled policies plus lobbying by incumbent telecoms operators has ensured that this has not happened. Governments want to finance networks as commercial services rather than as regulated utilities.

Ensuring universal provision is not close to being rocket science. Still, requires a coherent program based on an acknowledgement of the fundamental principles of network economics. Since both are currently missing, the outcome - for many years - will be a complete lottery unless or until collectively we decide that ensuring the existence and operation of a core network is an economic and/or social necessity.

Once that network exists the development of local distribution systems becomes much easier and gaps can be filled by anything from small businesses to cooperatives and community groups - usually relying upon specialised operators providing network and back office services. There are literally hundreds of small wireless ISPs in the US which operate in this way.


Do people in the US have a choice of gas or electricity supplier?
Standard User gah789
(newbie) Sat 20-Apr-13 16:11:44
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: somerset] [link to this post]
 
In most states, yes. But that is a separate question.

What I was referring to is the role of a core network (transmission system) operated under open access rules. We have part of that as BT Openreach is required to function as an open access network operator. However, it does not have an obligation to ensure that its fibre network provides something approximating universal coverage - for example that every exchange has some minimum level of fibre capacity. The cost of meeting that target would be much less than what BDUK is spending and it would transform opportunities for local operators to find a niche in serving rural communities.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sat 20-Apr-13 16:59:04
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: gah789] [link to this post]
 
are EO lines in that 10% as well?

BT Infinity 2 Since Dec 2012
Standard User somerset
(committed) Sat 20-Apr-13 17:11:19
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: gah789] [link to this post]
 
What do you mean by 'fibre capacity' at an exchange and how would that benefit the end users?
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 20-Apr-13 20:53:51
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
maybe, maybe not, but of course the last 10% isnt just vaillages, the first 30% of BTs FTTC rollout was mainly rural areas.


When people refer to the "last 10%" in this context, they usually mean the "least likely 10% to be included". It also means they're going to be the last ones physically worked on... because they won't get worked on.

But the reverse isn't true.

In a large rollout, the first 30% of the rollout in time that BT happen to actually work on, don't have to be the first 30% in terms of likelihood of service, or profitability, or priority. They probably happened to be the easiest to run the project on - either because of the ease of civils, the space in the exchange, or the ease of using the manpower.

However, the "last 10%" is almost certainly still going to be the least dense, longest backhaul cases.

Except...

EO's are a special case that don't quite fit right - they're probably dense enough, and have short backhaul (certainly reasonable backhaul). However, they have an excessive build cost for a different reason.

My gut feel is that most EO lines that go in "bundles", while not cost-effective during commercial deployment, will prove to be OK for BDUK funding.

But it is no more than a gut feel.
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 20-Apr-13 20:56:44
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
The issue is not technical it is cost and the race to get high levels of coverage in short time


I agree. The solution is going to be in the balance of cost of backhaul, cabinet and power - and they way those are offset.

FTTdp boxes have the in-built advantage of the reverse power, so it changes the shape of the playing field a bit. If end-users can be persuaded to power them!
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 20-Apr-13 21:00:02
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
There are smaller vdsl units a 48 line one they are playing with for small EO clusters.

That makes sense - and we saw them proudly showing these DSLAMs as "NGA innovation" a couple of years ago (alongside the shovels and conductive concrete).

We've just not heard about them since!

I'd have thought they could fit the job of handling clusters that are too far from the PCP for regular FTTC too, though there's scope for more complication there.
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 20-Apr-13 21:17:04
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: Crusiux] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Crusiux:
The idea of 'reverse' power sounds interesting though I wonder how much it would cost on top of usual service. Seems like a recipe for disagreement to me! Especially if one uses it a lot more than the others; should they pay more than the others?


Yup. Room for a good disagreement there, and I wonder if an operator will feel the need for wayleave-type agreements.

It looks like the initial discussions expect power capability to be like "power over ethernet", amounting to around 400mA at around 48V, max 15 Watts, or 14W at the remote node after losses. About the same as leaving a low-energy lightbulb on all the time.

I've seen one graph that suggests a dp node may need around 3 users to be powering it before it can even start to function.

Elsewhere, however, I've seen an Italian company with a product where the user supplies the power that his own portion uses.

A good question comes - what happens if *all* the users turn things off. The ONT can't communicate with the exchange head-end then.
Standard User gah789
(newbie) Sat 20-Apr-13 21:35:17
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: somerset] [link to this post]
 
My parallel would be with electricity. Subject to safety regulations it is possible to permit anyone to use the high voltage grid to transmit power. They would have to pay connection costs and some structure of uniform transport costs. Usually there are rules to deal with capacity constraints at key nodes in the system. The grid is a simple transport utility with (relatively) open access.

A core fibre network system operating under open access can be required to fulfil any reasonable request to provide fibre connections at any exchange on payment of a standard connection charge plus a data transport charge. The point is that you move away from a system under which each exchange or new leased line is expected to bear the costs of installing fibre to a specific location to one in which the costs of the whole network are spread over all users. Usually, the result is an improvement in overall network efficiency.

Some end users will pay more, though in most networks the increase is very small, while the bottom 10% or whatever will get access to services that would be uneconomic if they have to pay the costs of installing fibre to remote areas. All that is guaranteed is access to the fibre core on reasonable terms. That is where cooperatives or other local distributors have a role.

The basic idea is simple and standard for other networks. Most regulation focuses on the "final mile", i.e. your phone line which is the distribution link from exchange to premise. However, for many rural areas it is the existence of and access to fibre links from exchange to central aggregation points that is the critical issue.

There are, of course, many technical complications but the key issue is one of philosophy. The original vision of the "information highway" was one of a public utility providing data transport. The question is whether it is possible (yes) and desirable (your decision) to reassert that vision.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 20-Apr-13 21:47:28
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: gah789] [link to this post]
 
So how many exchanges don't have fibre available in them?

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 MCM
(fountain of knowledge) Sun 21-Apr-13 02:51:19
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
My gut feel is that most EO lines that go in "bundles", while not cost-effective during commercial deployment, will prove to be OK for BDUK funding.

But it is no more than a gut feel.
Sadly I don't believe that there is any BDUK funding for those of us living in the big cities. The connected city funding is instead being spent on public Wi-Fi and the like rather than those BT has chosen, for whatever reason, to omit from their NGA programme. I live on a development of 75 properties, all EO, with approaching 100 lines connected to the Vauxhall exchange 2km away in Kennington. Other properties in the same road have the choice of FTTC or VM. BT, to date, have refused to provide any information to us whatsoever as to whether we will ever have access to faster broadband.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sun 21-Apr-13 10:44:16
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
What you say is logical but this rollout hasnt been entirely logical, I expect political intervention has been involved also.

There is still some parts of my city which have no rollout plans eg. and because BDUK is for rural they seem to have no hope.

BT Infinity 2 Since Dec 2012
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sun 21-Apr-13 14:59:52
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
BDUK isn't, strictly, for rural. It is merely to go from 67% coverage to 90% coverage.

The funding, from a central government perspective, certainly favoured the counties with rural areas over the suburban counties and metropolitan cities. No question about that part.

But those counties have plenty of city & town coverage that is needed, as well as their rural areas.

The local council now gets to choose where the coverage happens. They *might* favour rural over the incomplete parts of towns - but it'll cost more, and they'll hit less of their overall 90% target. Subsidising the in-fill of a town will (probably) need a little less money, and get more bang for the buck.

Different councils will follow different strategies, so it is hard to say where it will go.

My gut feel, right now (especially after watching Cioffi's lecture), is that councils should edge towards getting fibre to as many villages & hamlets as possible (ie concentrate on getting rural backhaul as ubiquitous as possible). This will give more opportunity for small groups & communities to buy themselves onto the network in the future, even if they're left off for now.

In favouring rural, they'd be leaving the in-fill out - Town/city groups missing from the rollout will not be far off the fibre network, and the financial picture will probably balance in their favour eventually.

Its all speculation though...
Standard User ryant704
(member) Sun 21-Apr-13 15:05:11
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
The BDUK is aimed at improving rural area's, seeing some Information about BDUK Norfolk I know they're marketing the lower market exchange areas which is good.

Edited by ryant704 (Sun 21-Apr-13 15:08:44)

Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Sun 21-Apr-13 16:14:15
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: ryant704] [link to this post]
 
Generically, yes, BDUK is aimed at rural areas.

But each county as a whole includes the towns and cities, has a 90% target, and has a limited budget.

It also has the 2Mbps target for the remainder, from the same budget, but I'm leaving that part out - I'm only talking the SFBB portion.

The only realistic way it can hit the 90% target, with the budget it has, is to target the cheapest, easiest 90% - and, like the commercial rollout, this means it favours infill in the towns, *still*, over the deepest, darkest hamlets in the most out-of-the-way rural spots.

I've seen stats for the UK that say that 90.1% of the population live in urban areas. A coincidence that the numbers match, but using that definition of urban, you can see that BDUK SFBB is not for rural. It is just for the the un-commercial urban areas.

North Yorkshire's BDUK plan (pretty rural, like Norfolk) has taken the 13 exchanges of the commercial rollout, and added 110 exchanges or so (mostly market 1), leaving out only 5ish. But the 10% of population that gets left out is still going to be the most rural 10%, not the urban area.
Standard User ryant704
(member) Sun 21-Apr-13 16:33:44
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
I know BDUK Norfolk (BBfN) is going to-do well as it's aimed at 80% Superfast 24Mbps+ then the remaining having access to at least 2Mbps.

This is what is planned though personally I can see the 80% being a bit lower and areas being missed out. The majority of big exchanges are planned or have been rolled out so there is only the rural areas to-do. None of this came from the BBfN so it the majority of the funds will be focused at the rural areas.

Edited by ryant704 (Sun 21-Apr-13 16:36:59)

Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Sun 21-Apr-13 16:59:06
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: ryant704] [link to this post]
 
In December 2012 Norfolk County Council and BT signed a deal that means that over 80% of Norfolk’s homes and businesses are expected to be able to access superfast broadband (24 Megabits per second plus) by the end of 2015. In addition to this, the Better Broadband for Norfolk programme intends to make minimum broadband speeds of 2Mbps available to all Norfolk premises by the end of 2015.

The first services are expected to be available by the end of this year.



__________________________________________________________________________The back pedalling starts here__________________

Edited by BatBoy (Sun 21-Apr-13 17:00:32)

Standard User yarwell
(sensei) Mon 22-Apr-13 11:45:42
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
Ha, sounds ideal for small blocks of flats.
Just put a DSLAM in a rack in the basement / comms room or similar, that's the standard FTTB with VDSL approach.

--

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Standard User yarwell
(sensei) Mon 22-Apr-13 11:47:50
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
I think the power is trivial TBH. A fair proportion of the final 10% will have overhead power (often on the same poles as the phone line) and electricity is pretty universal for a modest connection fee.

So is the "hard bit" getting the fibre to the locality ?

--

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Standard User jchamier
(knowledge is power) Mon 22-Apr-13 19:34:48
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: yarwell] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by yarwell:
Ha, sounds ideal for small blocks of flats.
Just put a DSLAM in a rack in the basement / comms room or similar, that's the standard FTTB with VDSL approach.

Yes if you have a high rise no problem, but I'm talking about small blocks. No basement, no comms room, no lift shaft, and in many cases no communal walkway areas.

James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Speeds 49 / 8.2 Mbps - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m
Huawei modem -> RT-N66U -> Switch -> PC/Mac/Linux/NAS/Phone/TV - last speedtest
13 years of broadband - 1999 ntl:(512k/1M)/BTbusiness(2M)/Metronet(2M)/Bulldog(8M/16M)/BE(19M/16M)/BT FTTC(46M)
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 23-Apr-13 00:10:32
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: yarwell] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by yarwell:
I think the power is trivial TBH. A fair proportion of the final 10% will have overhead power (often on the same poles as the phone line) and electricity is pretty universal for a modest connection fee.

Access to power might be quite trivial, but not always so cheap.

On the other hand, while power probably exists at each house, it might not exist at the central point where the DP is.

So is the "hard bit" getting the fibre to the locality ?

I suspect it is, but it is a lot cheaper running fibre through agricultural landscape than through the towns.
Standard User yarwell
(sensei) Tue 23-Apr-13 09:18:01
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
not even a common electrical distribution cupboard ?

--

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Standard User yarwell
(sensei) Tue 23-Apr-13 09:38:07
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Access to power might be quite trivial, but not always so cheap.


£1200 ? I would feel more comfortable with a proper supply rather than a back-feed with the risk of householders turning off their kit etc.

--

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 23-Apr-13 12:54:14
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: yarwell] [link to this post]
 
That price is the basic starting level, if the cable is nearby, and there is capacity in the transformer.

Unfortunately, they don't average the actual cost over a number of subscribers, so if the transformer needs an upgrade, you get to pay in the entirety. The cost can suddenly jump to £50k instead, sometimes. It could explain why some cabinets become suddenly unviable, even after installation.

My main point was really that, while the houses will almost certainly have good access to power, the DP might not. And that would mean additional build costs, even in the normal case without transformer updates.

I agree at the potential for the aggravation when any amount of "other users" can cause your broadband to be lost.

But if that's the only way you're going to get connected?
Standard User yarwell
(sensei) Tue 23-Apr-13 13:03:11
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
But if that's the only way you're going to get connected?

Yeah, if that was the deciding factor. You do see the odd generator powered mobile base station where presumably costs were excessive but the vast majority are hooked up to the public supply.

The power load has to be supplied either way, be it adding on to households or a dedicated unmetered supply, so I would be challenging any "extra load" based charge concept.

--

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 23-Apr-13 13:11:53
Print Post

Re: FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)


[re: yarwell] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by yarwell:
The power load has to be supplied either way, be it adding on to households or a dedicated unmetered supply, so I would be challenging any "extra load" based charge concept.


The transformer (and cable) capacity isn't based on how much you (and all other connections) actually do use. It is based on how much you *could* use, ever.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to