FTTV - Fibre To The Village (really FTTdp)

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?

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.

To me it does suite it perfectly, though you will see this too late I would imagine.

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

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?

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.

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.

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..

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?

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.