Vectoring ...

Does anyone know of a recent - say Q3/Q4 2016, statement or press release by BT on Vectoring on VDSL2 and the overall status of it within the network..

Off top of my head - no.

Post deleted by adslmax

BT are no longer interest on vectoring. Move on with upcoming G.Fast instead.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

BT are no longer interest on vectoring. Move on with upcoming G.Fast instead.

AND????

I asked if there were any BT statements not what should be used instead.

That's actually very disappointing if true, as vectoring would have benefited many people at no extra cost to them, whereas G.fast looks certain to be an extra cost option.

Well, nothing we can do about it. BT is final decision.

BT are no longer interest on vectoring

I have heard otherwise

To be frank based on how not spot-on some of ADSLMax comments are, I'd treat it with a large degree of scepticism

Its like newspapers saying its going to snow, say it often enough and you'll be right sometimes.

And unfortunately there is a lot of other "misinformation" out there. Do a web search and you find almost every possible option for it but no firm statement from BT one way or the other.

Isn't vectoring an integral and essential part of G.Fast? As opposed to vectoring on bog standard FTTC.

Surely there is going to be a "cross-talk crisis" if this is not implemented?.

Day 1 attainable rate 78Mbit
Day 363 - attainable rate 49Mbit

I hope this doesn't keep dropping!...

Correct, G.fast does not exist without vectoring.

It is, however, I am looking for the BT position on VDSL2 Vectoring.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/09/bt-reve...

It would appear the stance right now is its been enabled in BDUK areas, and also the trial long range areas, but not on the normal commercial deployed areas.

I think those on hauwei cabinets can have a hope it may appear some day, but on ECI i consider it very unlikely.

Too true, us on ECI cabs miss out on everything. G.INP doesn't work properly and no vectoring without the DSLAM being replaced but at least I know my line speed can only get worse with the potentially another 30 fibre connections in the next few months.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/09/bt-reve...

The only references to vectoring are in the comments.

Edited by kasg (Mon 09-Jan-17 20:25:55)

g.fast uses vectoring

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

g.fast uses vectoring

Yes, but I took the original question to be about vectoring without G.fast.

IIRC, it was @Ignitionnet that broke the details about vectoring - that BT would consider it only for tactical purposes for BDUK; if the increased range of "superfast" speeds on select cabinets pulled more properties into the "passed" column.

However, I haven't seen a specific comment on that from BT themselves.

There's a bit of me that wonders if the fact that BT are now starting to squeeze higher port-count cards into the DSLAMs rules out vectoring there. Can the same sized card cope with both a 33% increase in lines and the extra processing power for vectoring?

The only really official statement I recall from BT is that vectoring is an integral part of the LR-VDSL offering. As detailed in the STIN:
http://www.btplc.com/sinet/sins/pdf/STIN522v1p0.pdf

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

There's a bit of me that wonders if the fact that BT are now starting to squeeze higher port-count cards into the DSLAMs rules out vectoring there. Can the same sized card cope with both a 33% increase in lines and the extra processing power for vectoring?

Vectoring is done on a separate service board, at least in the case of Huawei kit, WWW.

I should mention use of it for BDUK did not mean just BDUK cabinets, but to hit coverage targets per BDUK and, indeed USC it seems.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Vectoring is done on a separate service board, at least in the case of Huawei kit, WWW.

I've still not seen a picture of one in use in either a 5603 or 5616... Does it use up one of the 4 or 6 linecard slots? Or does it get placed in one of the other "generic" slots that seem to be used for central control, power and backhaul?

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I should mention use of it for BDUK did not mean just BDUK cabinets, but to hit coverage targets per BDUK and, indeed USC it seems.

I worded my post to specifically not call it a "BDUK cabinet", but your explicit point is well-made. However, I guess the extra premises reached would have to have been labelled as part of the intervention area ... so it depends whether the LA chose to include "out of reach on commercial cab" premises in the IA (At which point I have to kick myself to remember that there are two IA's, one for USC-level too)

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I've still not seen a picture of one in use in either a 5603 or 5616... Does it use up one of the 4 or 6 linecard slots? Or does it get placed in one of the other "generic" slots that seem to be used for central control, power and backhaul?

In the case of the 5616 it's a team effort. You need a combination of a compatible control board, an H831CCUE in the case of the 5616, VCLF or VCMM service boards, the H831MABB backplane, and a PDNA/A or PVNA/A power supply board.

In the case of the 5603T you need the H802MABO 2Tb backplane, H80BVCMM service boards, these are 48 ports, unsure about the 64 port variety, an H802SCUN Super Control Unit is adequate, and the H806VPEA or H806VPGA Vector Processing Engine.

I think the VPE goes into the Universal interface board slot. It certainly doesn't take one of the service boards or SCU control board slots, and the remaining slots on the chassis are 2 for upstream interface and 2 for power interface - there are 13 slots, not all full-height, on the MA5603T.