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
(knowledge is power) Wed 30-Nov-16 16:50:36
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: PaulKirby] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

each of those Aggregation Nodes supplies fibres to a few Splitter Nodes that are also daisy chained, and each of those Splitter Nodes supply fibres for the Fibre DP's which are also daisy chained each supplying up to 12 fibres for 12 homes.


The basic dimensioning that BT had for the underground nodes were:
- 12 splitter nodes per AN
- 48 splitter devices per AN; 4 splitter devices per splitter node
- 1536 end users per AN
- 128 end users per splitter node
- 32 end users per splitter device
- up to 20 end users per fibre DP

The daisy-chain of aggregation nodes would take in a cable with up to 288 fibres, bound in elements of 12 fibres together. The intention is that the fibres that will continue on down the chain do not get cut/spliced in intermediate ANs; those elements just get looped, and tucked away inbetween the splice trays.

With the dimensioning above, you'd expect that at least 48 E-side fibres get pulled off the spine in each AN, plus some spares. A spine could have 4-6 AN's.

Each AN could perhaps serve properties that today are on 3-4 separate PCPs.

* - These numbers were all before connectorisation was started. That process looks like it is more likely to have smaller DPs (8, 12 or 16, rather than 20), and make use of 2 levels of split.
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Wed 30-Nov-16 17:03:30
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: godsell4] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by godsell4:
If BTO are going to install FTTP, where would that large Aggregation Node go? On a pole or ? This is to supply about 60 properties.


I suspect that AN's will always go underground.

Splitter nodes could be underground, as in the video, or they could go in green boxes on the side of some telegraph poles (as could fibre DPs).
One architecture that might apply where overhead distribution happens: http://www.optservices.eu/FTTP%20-%202%20Level%20of%...

The connector blocks for the newer install could be found underground, or at the top of the poles (as in the video).
MrS has some photos that apply in this case:
http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2015/09/g-fast-and-fo...

and

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2016/06/a-peek-at-the...
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Wed 30-Nov-16 17:35:19
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
And have seen most of that kit in other locations when not had someone from Openreach in tow smile

Not the stuff in pavement chambers I should highlight as I don't go lifting the slabs randomly, but pole mounted kit

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.


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

Standard User PaulKirby
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 01-Dec-16 03:17:45
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Maybe I am not understanding him right, but either that guy has no clue what he's talking about, or he has been given incorrect information.

Or maybe they are misleading people to choose this new way of installing FTTP.

Our FTTP only took about 2 hours tops to do both external and internal work and we was up and running.

How can he say it takes almost a day to install FTTP to a customers home where it only take a few hours.

Or am I missing something here.

Paul

BTBroadband - Infinity 4 - 310Mbps (down), 31Mbps (up)
TBB Speedtest
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 01-Dec-16 10:10:22
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: PaulKirby] [link to this post]
 
Sample of one issues...

For some areas yes existing system can take a shorter time, especially if the engineer doing the external box also does the internal run. The new fibre is strong enough when going through the final duct to clear the odd small blockage on its own, just need to cut off the dirty bit plus a bit of leeway.

The connectorised system should be faster overall, especially when going down a street of modern style build. Its a move away from the over engineered solution towards something that others are happy doing across the globe and accepting the small losses from the mechanical connections rather than fusion splicing where at all possible.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Fri 02-Dec-16 00:52:08
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: PaulKirby] [link to this post]
 
Some of the changes help in between the splitter and the new connector block (that replaces the DP and manifold). Primarily to reduce the need for digging out blocked ducts. This is before the install day.

Other changes help reduce the on-the-day installation. Primarily the lack of splicing, so no need to set up that hardware, and blowing, so need to setup compressor and hardware. The peelable fibre helps, I guess, by keeping one length of fibre, but which copes with both indoor (low smoke) requirements, and outdoor (UV safe) too.

There's probably some difference in getting the new fibre to the property vs getting the old tube, but I don't know the real impact there. Maybe it too deals with blockages better.

Was yours an aerial feed? Maybe that took away duct issues for you
Standard User PaulKirby
(fountain of knowledge) Fri 02-Dec-16 02:33:46
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
Some of the changes help in between the splitter and the new connector block (that replaces the DP and manifold). Primarily to reduce the need for digging out blocked ducts. This is before the install day.

I am aware of what it replaces, but if the ducting is blocked it will still need to be cleared out no matter if it used the old or new proposed method.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
Other changes help reduce the on-the-day installation. Primarily the lack of splicing, so no need to set up that hardware, and blowing, so need to setup compressor and hardware. The peelable fibre helps, I guess, by keeping one length of fibre, but which copes with both indoor (low smoke) requirements, and outdoor (UV safe) too.

This I can see as being better, however the splicing of a single fibre only take a couple of mins to actually do, where as the new way the engineer has to stip off the end put the modular connector which has to be crimmped which probaly still take a couple of mins, so no speed gained there.

I think with my external install they setup all the gear while they was doing the actual install, so everything was ready when they needed to blow and join the fibre, but yeah if everything was done when it was needed then yes it would of taken longer to do, so in this case the new way might be better.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
There's probably some difference in getting the new fibre to the property vs getting the old tube, but I don't know the real impact there. Maybe it too deals with blockages better.

Not too sure on this one, either way will still have to tackle possible blockages.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
Was yours an aerial feed? Maybe that took away duct issues for you

Well our Splitter Node is located the bottom of our road in an underground chamber, all those fibres all get daisy chained through all the DP's all underground in the chambers all the way up to our DP where it goes up the phone pole to our manifold, then the fibre it hung over head to just below our gutter on our house, down our wall to our CSP Box and then into our house.

So everything is underground apart from the drop wire from the pole to our home.

In my opiun I think the new way will end up causing more issues later on, this is due to the air gap between the modular connector and their sockets, thermal joining of the fibres I think is the better way, but thats just me.

Saying that though, I do really like the modular connectors used, but I think it will cost more when the fibre cable needs to be replaced resulting in the entire cable needing to be replaced and also requiring the engineer to access the property, where as the current way the engineer only need to blow the new fibres through and just join the fibres at the DP and CSP and not requiring access to the property.

So there is pro's and con's with both ways.

Paul

BTBroadband - Infinity 4 - 310Mbps (down), 31Mbps (up)
TBB Speedtest

Edited by PaulKirby (Fri 02-Dec-16 02:35:17)

Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Sat 03-Dec-16 00:55:44
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: PaulKirby] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
I am aware of what it replaces, but if the ducting is blocked it will still need to be cleared out no matter if it used the old or new proposed method.


The point with the new method is that it is a stronger cable, and can (with the push/pull method) be pushed through some blockages ... negating the need for a dig of any sort. No need to clear the blockage that way.

I imagine some of the trials were to figure out just how often this turned out to be a saver.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
however the splicing of a single fibre only take a couple of mins to actually do, where as the new way the engineer has to stip off the end put the modular connector which has to be crimmped which probaly still take a couple of mins, so no speed gained there.


You might be right, I couldn't say whether it affects the total number of man-hours that the job takes.

But note that this is also the segment of the line - the drop wire - that most likely needs replacements in the future.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
In my opiun I think the new way will end up causing more issues later on, this is due to the air gap between the modular connector and their sockets, thermal joining of the fibres I think is the better way, but thats just me.


I think BT's chief engineers thought the same way: keep the optical budget intact at every stage. The new thinking appears to be that there is enough room for a couple of unspliced connectors in the path.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
more when the fibre cable needs to be replaced resulting in the entire cable needing to be replaced and also requiring the engineer to access the property, where as the current way the engineer only need to blow the new fibres through and just join the fibres at the DP and CSP and not requiring access to the property.


I imagine that if there is sufficient damage to cause problems to the blown fibre unit, then there will be enough damage to the outer blown fibre tubing too. I'd expect an engineer to replace both.

I suspect that no engineer would splice at the DP and at the CSP without wanting to do an end-end light test or a connectivity test - both of which would need access, wouldn't it?

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
So there is pro's and con's with both ways.


No doubt about that.
Standard User PaulKirby
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 03-Dec-16 03:35:04
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
I am aware of what it replaces, but if the ducting is blocked it will still need to be cleared out no matter if it used the old or new proposed method.


The point with the new method is that it is a stronger cable, and can (with the push/pull method) be pushed through some blockages ... negating the need for a dig of any sort. No need to clear the blockage that way.

I imagine some of the trials were to figure out just how often this turned out to be a saver.

Well the cables that go through the ducts between chambers are the big strong cables with loads of fibres already in it, ours had 96 odd fibres and that cable was very stiff, so that would get through anything.

Now from the chamber where the DP is to the home, that might be a different case if that is required to be installed to the building via underground ducts.
So in that case I agree.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
however the splicing of a single fibre only take a couple of mins to actually do, where as the new way the engineer has to stip off the end put the modular connector which has to be crimmped which probaly still take a couple of mins, so no speed gained there.


You might be right, I couldn't say whether it affects the total number of man-hours that the job takes.

But note that this is also the segment of the line - the drop wire - that most likely needs replacements in the future.

True

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
In my opiun I think the new way will end up causing more issues later on, this is due to the air gap between the modular connector and their sockets, thermal joining of the fibres I think is the better way, but thats just me.


I think BT's chief engineers thought the same way: keep the optical budget intact at every stage. The new thinking appears to be that there is enough room for a couple of unspliced connectors in the path.

You would think this, but we are talking about BT here.
But what I was getting at was the fact that an air gap would be fine and would work, but bad air or even dampness could get into the the actual air gap and then make things worse.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
more when the fibre cable needs to be replaced resulting in the entire cable needing to be replaced and also requiring the engineer to access the property, where as the current way the engineer only need to blow the new fibres through and just join the fibres at the DP and CSP and not requiring access to the property.


I imagine that if there is sufficient damage to cause problems to the blown fibre unit, then there will be enough damage to the outer blown fibre tubing too. I'd expect an engineer to replace both.

Well the current way if there is a break in the drop wire or if it was damaged then the engineer would only require to replace from the DP to the CSP.
This is unless the damaged part was after the CSP Box but still outside the building, then yes they would need to gain the building to replace that part of the cable.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
I suspect that no engineer would splice at the DP and at the CSP without wanting to do an end-end light test or a connectivity test - both of which would need access, wouldn't it?

Erm, no, I don't think they would need to access the building, they could do checks / tests remotly, and if it fails the tests then they need to access the internal hardware.

But to save time I guess they might just say they need access to the internal equipment even when they might not.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
So there is pro's and con's with both ways.

No doubt about that.

We will just have to wait and see I guess.

Paul

BTBroadband - Infinity 4 - 310Mbps (down), 31Mbps (up)
TBB Speedtest
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Mon 05-Dec-16 12:52:53
Print Post

Re: Openreach Connectorised FTTP video


[re: PaulKirby] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by PaulKirby:
Well the cables that go through the ducts between chambers are the big strong cables with loads of fibres already in it, ours had 96 odd fibres and that cable was very stiff, so that would get through anything.


One aspect I don't know: How often would the larger cables, 96+ fibre, be put into a duct directly? And how often would sub-duct be put into the original duct, and then the 96+ fibre be blown down that? I guess solving a blockage needs two different methods for these.

But perhaps the difference is that the cable going from the connection block/secondary splitter back to the primary splitter can be both small and stiff. Maybe the benefit comes from size as much as strength. Some of the stories on here are about the use of smaller and smaller cables.

I could see that being a benefit in FoD, where connection blocks will be few and far apart - with little need for 96-fibre cables in the short term.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | [3] | 4 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to