Where do leased lines terminate on other end to your house?

Do they terminate in FTTC cabinets or elsewhere?

I run a business from home, I only get 4MB/s download but more importantly only 500KB/s upload (bytes).

At the moment I have to host on servers and mess around with ftp etc but the business involves constantly changing things, it would be much more time efficient to host at home - which is where the business is based.

So I am looking into fibre based leased line, ideally I would like 1GBPS duplex for futureproofing + my residential needs as well. I live 700m or so from a cabinet and luckily this cabinet is simply at the top of my road, the current copper cabling comes through ducting at the side of this road (which is marshland and they aren't allowed to build houses on it).

It also appears from BT openreach activity that the PoP is under a manhole cover directly under the house, that is also where it comes up from the ground to a telegraph pole.

I cannot get FTTP(oD) and even if I could why isn't the upload duplex? It is the upload I need!

I don't have a budget. I don't know how it works but I assume the business can pay for it.

I did a quote with andrews or arnold or some hard to remember company like that, only place I could get online quote, I don't want people ringing me / hassling me for it. It came to something like £9k to fit and £300 a month IIRC but that's for 100mbit duplex.

Thanks!

Leased lines by their nature are bespoke and can terminate wherever they are required, but they don't terminate in FTTC cabinets, usually in an exchange (local or distant) or in a 3rd party location typically where they have a POP. The POP isn't in a manhole but an exchange or 3rd party location.
I presume you mean symmetrical not duplex.

Edited by witchunt (Sat 13-May-17 22:22:19)

Also give linebroker.co.uk a try.

In reply to a post by thesmileyone:

At the moment I have to host on servers and mess around with ftp etc but the business involves constantly changing things, it would be much more time efficient to host at home - which is where the business is based.

It might make sense for you but it does not make sense from a networking point of view. Hosting services should be near the core of the network, not out at the edges.

I can appreciate that you currently have a slow connection but paying for something fat enough to allow for commercial hosting does not sound like a good idea to me. In your position I would pay enough to get a reasonable connection (20Mb/s in each direction would be enough, honestly) and continue hosting where you do now. These days hosting is easy to do - just rent some time on AWS or Azure. Let them deal with the tricky stuff and you just administrate from home.

I have to agree with Andrue. It makes far more sense from the standpoint of network robustness and end-user experience to host services in a data centre (which might mean cloud hosting or some other solution), then install the minimum acceptable bandwidth to the business location. Hosting as much as possible in a central location is likely to be cheaper too.

The OP's idea of having 1Gbit/s symmetric to your house is wonderful, but could easily lead to ongoing bills of over £10k per year (the amount depends on many things, including the location - in the competitive central London market you will pay less than in a rural location). You've got to have a very firm usage case to be spending that sort of money. I struggle to see how any home based business can make effective use of uncontended 1Gbit/s symmetric bandwidth - even a creative professional making heavy use of 4K video clips is going to use only a fraction of the capacity of such a line (at least averaged over a working day) and unless the content was very time sensitive, such as current affairs, could likely be downloaded and uploaded over several hours whilst the professional gets on with other work. Moreover, fibre installed as a leased line cannot be converted into a low cost FTTP installation at a later date, unlike FTTPoD which can be turned into an ordinary FTTP product after 3 years.

It would be possible to have a bearer capable of 1Gbit/s symmetric installed, but only have part of that capacity made available for use, which would be cheaper and allow for easy future upgrades. Even so, it's unlikely to be cost effective. If upload bandwidth is the aim, the likes of AAISP might be able to bond a few FTTC circuits together for a lower cost solution to the business needs.

Without some idea of the OP's usage case, it's difficult to suggest possible solutions.

I'd agree too. I have plenty of speed, but I wouldn't choose to host things at home.

The OP complains about making constant changes, and needing to manually FTP. We don't know the full use case, but I suspect that there's a case to investigate automation, and make use of some continuous integration/deployment tools.

But I'm confused over one point.... the OP's signature reports speeds of 47/9, not 4/0.5.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

But I'm confused over one point.... the OP's signature reports speeds of 47/9, not 4/0.5.

So is the OP ! He appears not to know that data rates are measured in bits per second and gives his in bytes! He is probably on something above 32/4 Mbps

See the OP's sig. Makes his speedtest speeds look very dodgy if both are sets of readings are correct.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 14-May-17 16:14:54)

Confused indeed, especially since the OP appears to want a GBps connection rather than a Gbps connection. Now I wonder what that would cost!

Just to add, the problem with hosting at home is you need to build in redundancy which means running at least 2 mirrored servers and have some sort of off-site backup set up. Then on top of that you need some sort of disaster recovery plan in place with backup servers. office space, etc.

Plus potentially a backup Internet connection via diverse routing, UPS in case of power cuts, etc.

Then there is the simple question of burglars removing the kit, or at a lesser extreme i wonder what fire-prevention/protection systems the OP has?

Your premises will be connected to the nearest POP (Point of Presence). The POP comprises one or more racks of boundary routers servicing the clients with backhaul into their network; typically over MPLS. Most new POPs are located in BT Exchanges. This means the tail to your premises can be an Openreach EAD-LA (Ethernet Access Direct � Local Access). This is lower cost than a full EAD terminating in a POP that isn�t in a BT Exchange. With the exception of Virgin most networks use Openreach EAD or EAD-LA tails.

Leased Lines are completely separate from broadband infrastructure. The EAD/EAD-LA does not route via the street cabinet and a Virgin tail does not route via their DOCSIS network. It is a direct connection between your premises and the POP. It may share ducting with broadband but not the actual fibre.

Just to extend whilst POPs are often at exchanges most exhanges are not POPs. The nearest POPs to me are over 20 miles away.

In reply to a post by MHC:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

But I'm confused over one point.... the OP's signature reports speeds of 47/9, not 4/0.5.

So is the OP ! He appears not to know that data rates are measured in bits per second and gives his in bytes! He is probably on something above 32/4 Mbps

Doh! I missed the bytes part. Probably because it isn't a nice 8x multiplier.

Mixing units should be a crime punishable by death...

Just to extend whilst POPs are often at exchanges most exhanges are not POPs.

Yep, agreed.

The one in Reading isn't in an exchange at all, a large BT building, but it's not an exchange.

Why this option?

+1 - Don't run a server from home.

Hi

In reply to a post by ukhardy07:

+1 - Don't run a server from home.

Running a server from home as a developer/business is perfectly fine. Often it's a very convenient way of spinning up test and training websites or demo sites on your own local server.

Even live/production websites are fine for smaller customers and some websites might only have a few dozen hits a day and care little for paying for any particular SLA for up times.

Regards

Phil

It just makes little to no sense given the wide spread availability of AWS etc. Consider a home based server in the US being accessed by a customer in Australia, it will perform extremely poorly. Pictures will load slowly, everything will struggle. Unless for testing, it makes no sense hosting at home. You also run the risk of absence of patching / upgrading of firmware, software, OS etc, which could result in a compromise of your home network vs isolated in a data centre.

Hi

In reply to a post by ukhardy07:

It just makes little to no sense given the wide spread availability of AWS etc. Consider a home based server in the US being accessed by a customer in Australia, it will perform extremely poorly. Pictures will load slowly, everything will struggle. Unless for testing, it makes no sense hosting at home. You also run the risk of absence of patching / upgrading of firmware, software, OS etc, which could result in a compromise of your home network vs isolated in a data centre.

Even cloud servers though have the same issue, they are geographically based. Unless you are someone big like Microsoft or Google you don't have multiple servers in different territories. Besides these days a website wouldn't appear slower just because it's the other side of the world, latency may be an issue if it was share dealing or game playing but otherwise you wouldn't know.

Why do you run the risk of absence of patching or upgrading firmware? You can just do that yourself or automatically. Security on a shared platform in a data centre is no more secure than anything else, if the Spectre vulnerability is anything to go by, shared hardware was the most at risk. Plus a data centre isn't isolated, it is the opposite of that, it's a collection of 100s or 1000s of websites and programs from who knows who running on shared hardware.

Different people and different companies have different requirements, there is no one size that fits all.

Regards

Phil

If you have ever configured AWS instances you will know how slow a site loads the first time you pull it down from another market across the world.

Secondly many cloud services do not require maintenance of the underlying OS.

Given the wide availability of cloud services and the costing associated I stand by the statement it makes little to no sense to host on a server locally. I work with organisations who store process and transmit cardholder data in the cloud, there is not an argument that it�s insecure, you opt into a shared platform or not based on your risk tolerances.

Hi

Perhaps the OP isn't wanting to use AWS instances?

Some applications and business systems are better on a real machine with access available for all ports and behind a hardware firewall under complete control of the company. Not everything is better in the cloud or wanted in the cloud which is why you can still buy servers from the likes of Dell and HP.

IT and applications are very diverse, just because you can or wish to use AWS, doesn't meant that fits every application.

As for sites loading slow or not in different parts of the world, a lot of business systems are only used in one country. Not every website is for the world.

Without knowing the OPs precise reasons for hosting themselves we can't just give blanket advise of "host it in the cloud". Even then if you are doing a lot of work in the cloud and needing to upload or download or query large databases with large result sets, well there's a use case for a leased line anyway.

Regards

Phil

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Without knowing the OPs precise reasons for hosting themselves we can't just give blanket advise of "host it in the cloud". Even then if you are doing a lot of work in the cloud and needing to upload or download or query large databases with large result sets, well there's a use case for a leased line anyway.

It's turned into a very interesting discussion, but the OP is unlikely to enlighten us . Only posted the opening post here, and only one other post since this thread died in May 2017. The later post was in November 2017.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 28-May-19 17:57:52)

I think given the costing discussed, this is best done in the cloud. Where the install was not so expensive I would agree.

Hi

I now see the date and wouldn't have bothered posting, this seems to be yet another old thread posted on by Organizm with some random question. Is this user legit or something getting ready to SPAM?

Regards

Phil