Commercialy viable

After some effort I have made a little progress in finding out about FTTC coverage for our village.
Our exchange is Alvaston and we are connected via cabinet 7. Both have been FTTC enabled for some time. The line then goes to the village of Thulston where there is a sub cabinet7/1. there is no FTTC availability from that point. I spoke to a Open Reach engineer working on the sub cabinet today. He told me a long stretch of the line to the sub cabinet had been replaced in January, but the cabinet was a mess and a lot of the local wiring was aluminium. This is likely why the village of Thulston is not been offered FTTC even though the distance from the FTTC cabinet to the village is 1.5 Miles. There are approx 160 houses that are attached to the sub cabinet.
Tomorrow I am at a Meeting with Digital Derbyshire. Currently they say our area been covered by existing and expected commercial coverage. 2 years ago though they informed the parish council that they were responsible for this area.
I appreciate that this is a difficult question with all the factors that may need to be taking into account but is there any rule of thumb to what Open Reach would consider commercially viable. I am sceptical that they are going to bother with the village and may be under the impression Digital Derbyshire have taken responsibility
I am trying to get my thought together for the best approach in this meeting tomorrow. The opportunity to attend was offered this evening.

A secondary cab would not be commercially viable due mainly to the copper rearrangement costs.
I wouldn't be surprised if the village fell through the cracks of the current bduk scheme as it connected to an FTTC cabinet, albeit one too far to get service

The simple answer is that something is commercially viable when money can be made from it

In this case the cost of replacing/upgrading your cabinet is going to be quite high. Maybe very high if they want to replace the ally cabling as well. 160 properties are not going to raise much revenue although it's possible that there'd be a high take-up if current service is poor. Based on that the only way I can see it moving forward would be for some third party to add additional funds to offset the costs. Another thing you could try though is to drum up local support and get signatures. I think FTTC take-up is currently averaging 10% which at 16 houses (call it £5pcm per subscriber going into BT's coffers) is piddling. But if you can convince BT that take-up would 50% or higher they might be interested.

Edited by Andrue (Thu 20-Mar-14 08:18:43)

the SCP is not recognised and so it would have looked as the main cab -- the community could fund the SCP / PCP rearrangement whch woud brihg the community to circar 50k depending on distance from Cab -- this is what was done in Binfield Heath and Rotherwick Gap funded by Commuiity / Openreach

Until your county is working on 100% coverage at a superfast speeds it is unlikely that you will see any changes.

1.5m even if it is copper is a long way for VDSL2, so even without the Al it is unlikely that VDSL2 would be offered.

Even if you get the council to recognise the area, I suspect only funding to ensure 2 Mbps minimum might be available, as lots of other areas that can probably get superfast with less gap funding.

Thanks for the responses, it helps going to these meetings with some knowledge.
It was a Digital Derbyshire meeting for Parish Councillors and Digital Champions. ( I got in at the invitation of my parish council).
Typical County Council run meeting, a promo video you could watch on there website without travelling and the sound did not work. Really inspires confidence that those sorting out IT for your county can not get a lap top plugged into a sound system. The agenda was a tour round the local exchange, a demonstration showing fibre and how it is connected and a talk on how they go about placing the cabinets. All this with endless PR about how brilliant FTTC is and how 90% of the population of Derbyshire will get it.
What they did not seem to grasp is that many who were there were from the 10% and all anybody wanted too know was when is this service coming and how fast will it be in our village, farm, etc. Telling a group of people how wonderful a service can be and then giving no clear and precise answers does not help. Working to the PR agenda building peoples expectations, having to then deal with unrealistic expectations and getting the real job done must be very difficult. I am just glad its not my job to run these things.
For me it may have been a use full day, got contacts from Digital Derbyshire. BT open Reach and BT all promising to look into what was happening about our villages. Will see what happens at least I have now got telephone numbers of real people. The answer that comes back may well be negative but hopefully it will be a clear answer and plans can be made.
Also found out today that the County Council spent £18000 putting a cable in a place called Elvaston Castle. I live in the grounds and the cable they put in runs behind the 2 villages. There is only an handful of staff working there, mainly gardeners and rangers and they seem to use their mobile dongles. The place was on the same telephone lines we are on. Why did they not upgrade the 2 villages at the same time?

the he link tot the castle will be a dedicated ethernet cct - cant be used for broadband as its decicated link - the only option is the enablement of the SCP and that need to be privaye funded as not in the interveion area

the cable to the castle is for broadband internet connection. They could get no connection except with a dongle at the castle. The council said that was not secure so they had to have the cable put in. I do not know what the gardeners and rangers are up too that requires that levelof security. The staff told me today that its a fibre cable? but they are still only getting 2-4mbs? I can make no sense of it. The obvious answer would have been FTTP to the sub cabinet and the whole community would have benifited.
One of the reasons for going today was to find out if it was an area that Digital Derbyshire were taking resposibilty, which they informed the parish council they were doing. Or whether it is been covered by existing and expected commercial coverage which they now say is the case.

In reply to a post by equiton:

the cable to the castle is for broadband internet connection.

A cable for internet connectivity isn't the same as a cable for broadband.

In general, when we use the term "broadband" nowadays, we mean a solution that gives internet access to the masses, cheaply.

However, the castle almost certainly has a dedicated (leased-line style) connection, that it uses for internet access.

Such dedicated links are expensive to install, and expensive to run, but still give internet access. They aren't considered "broadband" (in today's terminology) because they aren't a cheap, mass-market proposition. They are 10x the cost.

The staff told me today that its a fibre cable? but they are still only getting 2-4mbs?

The main limiting factor, for mass-market broadband using copper, is the distance. Almost everyone can afford an ADSL2+ package that gives full speed, but the distance is the limiting factor on the actual speed.

In the leased-line arena, the limiting factor is *cost*. Even with the service provided over fibre, many businesses choose a low speed limit to keep the costs down. They don't really need much of a download speed, and may want more from the upstream. Of course, the speed is usually symmetric on leased lines.

So the council were probably forced to shell out for the installation of a leased-line, and needed to use fibre to overcome the distance limitation, but they can keep the subsequent costs down by running it at a low speed.

We're seeing the same thing in the residential FTTP market, where it is available. The fibre can carry gigabit speeds, but most consumers buy the cheapest package with speeds limited to something considerably lower. KC say most people taking their Lightstream product choose the cheapest 50/5 package.

One of the reasons for going today was to find out if it was an area that Digital Derbyshire were taking resposibilty, which they informed the parish council they were doing. Or whether it is been covered by existing and expected commercial coverage which they now say is the case.

As someone else pointed out: There is 10% who won't be covered, and it will be the trickiest cases that get put aside. Those left out will be made up of a mix; perhaps 5% will be from properties who aren't on converted cabinets at all, but the other 5% will be like you: on converted cabinets, but too far to make use of the speed.

DD are obviously aware of the first 5% group - for whom no NGA work will be done.

Eventually, DD will realise that the second 5% group exists - and that it is being created as the leftovers of both the commercial rollout *and* the rollout of BDUK-funded cabinets. Your attendance of such meetings will be one factor that helps them realise it, and (even more eventually) realise they have to deal with it.

In reality, you aren't likely to be considered for further funding in phase 1 - they'll likely hit a 90% target from just converting cabinets, and converting EO lines, without having to do anything more complex.

It seems most likely (to me) that you'd be considered as part of the phase 2 funding.

So the council were probably forced to shell out for the installation of a leased-line, and needed to use fibre to overcome the distance limitation, but they can keep the subsequent costs down by running it at a low speed.

Or possibly that link is primarily for access back to the council network and internal services rather than Internet. The Internet backhaul may well be smaller, might be throttled per site or even the technologies used on the network may not be that friendly to speed testers.

Perhaps the security is needed so that those people at the castle can securely get at their payslips, enter expenses claims, etc. And if it is a connection back to the county network then it would need to be secure as that network almost certainly has connections to government networks that will require certain security levels across the corporate network links.