2 PCP cabs - single FTTC cab?

Hello

The estate I live on is finally getting FTTC via Connecting Cheshire, the setup is a little strange as rather than one or two PCP cabs it has 5, this is because it was originally a TPON setup. I was told each cab would be updated from grey to standard green cab and get each would have there own FTTC cab.

However two of the cabs 208/209 are now showing as having FTTC available but there is only one FTTC cab next to 208, nothing next to 209. Can two PCP cabs share a single FTTC cab? Or is the checker showing false data? It has previously.

You can see a pic of the setup here:
http://anything.agency/temp/winwick_fttc.jpg

Edited by kingbiscit (Thu 03-Sep-15 08:28:56)

No reason why two PCPs cannot share an FTTC cabinet although it would be rather odd. And with the distance from 209 to the FTTC being around 100m nearing the furthest extent of separation.

No reason why two PCPs cannot share an FTTC cabinet although it would be rather odd.

No physical reason, but you can easily imagine to confusion in the ordering system to try and do it this way. It's not something I've ever come across.

These these two cabs now have two separate FTTC twins, if they were going to co-locate in one FTTC cab, surely it would have been done in a location like this ?

Just looking at that estate - 5 cabinets is a lot with each serving well under 100 properties, possibly just 40 or 50. Would an FTTC cabinet be financially viable for each PCP.

Why should there be a confusion with the ordering system? After all, the order is against a line, and not a cabinet.

Of course what is required is that OpenReach's provisioning and configuration systems must allow for such an eventuality. In any event, the opposite is certainly possible. That is more than one VDSL cabinet serving a single wiring cabinet. If the OR systems allowed for that possibility, I don't see why the designers would not have allowed for the opposite.

So yes, it's likely to be rare, but presumably the IT systems and procedures have been designed to allow for it or it would not be happening.

you can only connect a dslam to a single PCP you cannot share DSLAMS with more than one pcp

Why not? Can you give a set of technical reasons why they cannot be?

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

you can only connect a dslam to a single PCP you cannot share DSLAMS with more than one pcp

Well that's not true as I can think of at least three cases where there are two FTTC cabinets for one PCP and thus two DSLAMs for one PCP....

Edited by deleted (Thu 03-Sep-15 10:09:12)

I think 209 must an error then as its not been installed. As said, each PCP has its own fttc cabinet(s). This is to ensure line power management is adhered to and to allow slu availability should it be requested. Cabinet line power management is based on e side copper cable losses, if there were more than one PCP connected the losses would be different and it would afftect the power management.

Edited by deleted (Thu 03-Sep-15 10:12:26)

As documented here https://thecomputerperson.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/d...

Fastman2 really has no clue at all.

One PCP can have multiple fttc cabs, one fttc cabinet will only connect to one PCP cabinet

It is possible that a network rearrangement may take place, have seen some cabinets effectively lose all their active lines as smaller cabs get resolved into a more sensible situation. Does not happen all the time but sometimes, and in some ways is not massively different to what goes on with an EO area gaining a cabinet.

In the TPON scenario they also be doing extra work to remove the TPON side totally.

In reply to a post by arobertson545:

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

you can only connect a dslam to a single PCP you cannot share DSLAMS with more than one pcp

Well that's not true as I can think of at least three cases where there are two FTTC cabinets for one PCP and thus two DSLAMs for one PCP....

He said the opposite of what you counter. He said you cannot have two PCPs to one DSLAM.

there is no ability for Dslams to share PCP's

You can have 2 dslams to 1 pcp

you cannot have 2 pcp's to 1 DSLAM

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

there is no ability for Dslams to share PCP's

You can have 2 dslams to 1 pcp

you cannot have 2 pcp's to 1 DSLAM

Again you have failed to provide a reason for your WRONG answer.


In Lowestoft there is an FTTC cabinet adjacent to cabinet 59 and is connected to it. Cabinet 91 which is around 100m away is also connected.


edit to add:

Even mentioned in a thread 4four years back: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4126537-re-...

Edited by MHC (Thu 03-Sep-15 12:47:18)

Yeah I can't see why not.... at the end of the day all the DSLAM does is provide a pair to boards in the PCP...

so a DSLAM capable of 288 provides 144 (maybe) would be in PCP 1 and 144 in PCP 2 !

Thanks for all the replies. Connecting Cheshire have come back and confirmed its an error, cab 209 isn't live even though the system is allowing orders to go through.

The asumption in that thread was incorrect .Those pcps have separate Dslams

It's a blanket openreach policy to allow them to manage Dslam line power to prevent inteferance from exchange based services , and provide the same power management info to industry for SLU provision. The power management is based on copper e side losses, and different cabs may have different losses so will need different power management. It's a blanket policy that doesn't discriminate between cabinets

Edited by deleted (Thu 03-Sep-15 13:48:39)

AHh sorry yes, I was meant to edit the previous post when I saw the rpevious post about managing the E side, but bit busy..