Is my area getting G.Fast?

I've been out of the phone-line broadband loop for a few years now (Cable was the only realistic option in the new house). Over the last year we got an FTTC cab (huawei) on our PCP so I've started showing an interest again (but stuck with cable).

However, this week I've seen OR working on the PCP itself - and there is now a small cabinet bolted on to the side of it. And it looks uncannily like a G.Fast pod. Everywhere I've looked has said my area isn't on any sort of rollout plan for GFast - so either I'm missing some info or there's another type of bolt-on pod. Just to make it clear, it's definitely bolted to the PCP - NOT the FTTC cabinet.

Is anyone able to check what the work is - or if there are more substantial rollout plans I'm missing? It's PCP 110 on THBK (Bracknell) exchange.
I will try and get a photo tomorrow once it's light outside if it would help people.

If the pod, has some vents in its door then a gfast pod, if not then just a capacity extension

Most likely g.fast. I'd expect lots of cabs in Bracknell to get pods.

Hi witchunt ..

Cab 38 Brookwood , Morrison�s guy was splicing in the fibre to the g.Fast on Thursday. Does your crystal ball offer any clues to a ready for service date for that please ?

Thanks Witchunt!

I couldn't see any information out there which suggested Bracknell was getting it - which is why I thought I'd ask the question. Is any of this information public (such as est. Live date)?

Edited by deleted (Sat 15-Dec-18 08:41:47)

Public information is limited to once the cabinet is actually enabled, which is unlike with VDSL (FTTC) deployments. No estimated dates are available to us and I can't see this changing soon.

I presume that witchunt meant that Bracknell is a good G.fast candidate, i.e. urban, dense, premises close proximity to existing PCPs; essentially a good portion of premises would be able to eligible receive over 100 Mbps (ultrafast) as most would fall under ~350 meters (the max. range of current G.fast deployments).

You should confirm the following to us (what MrSaffron said):

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the pod, has some vents in its door then a gfast pod, if not then just a capacity extension

If the pod has no vents, then it is not being enabled for G.fast since copper capacity extensions do not have ventilation.

Your best bet is to keep an eye on the BTW DSL checker since it will appear there once it is available on the wholesale providing your line is short enough and therefore capable of providing you the service. The Openreach Fibre Broadband checker would be able to tell you as soon as the cabinet is enabled, but not ready for orders from the wholesale side (BTW DSL checker does that).

We have had one pod bolted onto my cabinet (Brackley, 15) a month or so ago. We've now had another one bolted on the other side this last couple of weeks. I'm beginning to think it's just an Openreach fashion statement. There was also a van working on the original FTTC cabinet which seems more than coincidence.

It's odd because we're not on any roll-out list :-/

Do they always install two pods right from the off?

Edited by Andrue (Sat 15-Dec-18 10:32:05)

They never install two pods from the off. I'd suggest one of them was a copper extension.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

We have had one pod bolted onto my cabinet (Brackley, 15) a month or so ago. We've now had another one bolted on the other side this last couple of weeks.

What are these pods? Are you implying they are both G.fast? Do they both have ventiliation holes?

In reply to a post by Andrue:

There was also a van working on the original FTTC cabinet which seems more than coincidence.

They still need to provide power and fibre to the G.fast pod from the existing FTTC cabinet. Could be related.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

It's odd because we're not on any roll-out list :-/

Quite a few places that have had G.fast pods installed have not been announced. Perhaps the announcement will come after pods have been enabled since I am sure I have seen that before.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Do they always install two pods right from the off?

I've never seen two G.fast pods installed. I am not sure how that would work. One is likely to be a copper extension.

I'll wander over today and take a look. At least one has vent holes and the other looks the same. Also cabinet 15 was relocated and enlarged last year. Although there are plans for an extension to our estate it's unlikely (I think, based on location) that cabinet 15 would be part of that.

But yeah, adding two pods seems daft for an area that doesn't yet have the service. Also I'd question if that many properties would benefit anyway. The cabinet is on the edge of the area it serves :-/

https://goo.gl/maps/5KHhuG5nwiS2

The new cabinet is to the left of the roundabout.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I'll wander over today and take a look. At least one has vent holes and the other looks the same.

Most definitely not. Never seen 2 G.Fast pods fitted to a single PCP and I don't expect it for at least years.
They plan on doubling the capacity on G.Fast so fitting 2 pods while waiting for this upgrade to be rolled out makes no sense.

At most 1 has vents. At least none have vents.
A few cabinets around me have a pair of wings (a pod on both sides of the cabinet).
Both "wings" in all these cases near me are unvented copper extensions.

You have 1 G.Fast pod or possibly even 0, definitely not 2.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I'll wander over today and take a look. At least one has vent holes and the other looks the same.

If in doubt, take a picture and upload it somewhere.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

But yeah, adding two pods seems daft for an area that doesn't yet have the service. Also I'd question if that many properties would benefit anyway. The cabinet is on the edge of the area it serves :-/

Absolutely. It's why it is more likely a copper extension. Plus I am not sure how much of a difference it makes or what the logistics are of having two G.fast pods served by a single FTTC cabinet (is it even possible under current provisions?).

Still, I would say it would be foolish of Openreach to place two pods (assuming it is possible) since there are denser areas served by only one pod (48 ports, said to be 96 in the future) and there is no guarantee of demand exceeding that level in this area.

Its the same here in Ipswich.

No announcement for G.Fast yet just about all the cabinet in the town have had G Fast Posts installed.

The first one I noticed was around August time but still no announcement as to if / when they will go live.

j0el

witchunt has accurate info so it is not a guess. When he says this is happening believe him..

There are places that have pods enabled which have not [yet] been announced. Chepstow is one of those places.

In reference to the time it takes, you'd probably be interested to know that in the G.fast factsheet dated 16-10-2017 it says:

In reference to www.homeandbusiness.openreach.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-doc...:

It typically takes us about three months to plan and build Gfast services in a new location.

In reality, it seems builds that I have been watching have been taking longer than this. Some places, ignoring trial areas, have taken in excess of 4 months after the pod has been put in place. In my own area, according to plans revealed by the Project Manager of the area, it is expected to take a total of 7-8 months after the pod was put in place, ignoring any time prior that for initial planning.

In reply to a post by kitcat:

j0el

witchunt has accurate info so it is not a guess. When he says this is happening believe him..

kitcat, my intention was not to discredit. I just made a seemingly incorrect presumption since I do not know them.

I was going to go out and take a look and a picture this afternoon but the weather turned so now I'd rather not

But I'm certainly intrigued. I know there is at least one pod and I'm pretty sure there's two although due to road problems in the area I haven't driven past it as often since it appeared. But little about this makes sense at the moment. The cabinet is serving a mature part of Brackley (my house is over 20 years old) and the only new building that has been proposed is a large school a quarter of a mile away. There's supposed to eventually be a tranche of houses running up from there along the back of our estate but it seems highly unlikely they'd be attached to our cabinet.

But since Openreach went to the trouble of relocating our cabinet from its previous dangerous position next to the roundabout and replaced it with a larger one I can't understand why it would need extension pods.

Then again I wouldn't think it a great candidate for G.FAST anyway. It is right on the edge of the area it serves so most properties are going to struggle to benefit. Most of the lines probably circumnavigate the children's play area which won't help with distance.

I should get a chance to get a closer look tomorrow and then the mystery should be solved

Mystery solved. It is indeed one G.FAST pod and one 'other'. But now I'm left wondering why Openreach have felt the need to add an extension pod to an ~20 year old cabinet that was re-shelled 18 months ago in an area where no new properties are known to be planned. I've just checked the local planning site and there's nothing other than what I already know about. I can't believe OR would run cables half a mile alongside a footpath then past a school to reach a green field development. I'm pretty sure that would limit the new properties to sub-40Mb/s VDSL.

How many extra lines do these PCP extensions support?

Odd :-/

In reply to a post by gamesaregood:

Its the same here in Ipswich.

No announcement for G.Fast yet just about all the cabinet in the town have had G Fast Posts installed.

The first one I noticed was around August time but still no announcement as to if / when they will go live.

I'm also in Ipswich, I've noticed that my address now has g.fast available to order. I'm thinking of getting it when my current contract comes to an end in late February. Though as Plusnet are unlikely to support it, so it'll be a switch of ISP.

I wonder if the FTTC/G.Fast lines are almost/fully used, and there's still several lines on the older ADSL or with no broadband, so needing to add some more capacity for people wanting FTTC/G.Fast.

In reply to a post by smsm1:

I wonder if the FTTC/G.Fast lines are almost/fully used, and there's still several lines on the older ADSL or with no broadband, so needing to add some more capacity for people wanting FTTC/G.Fast.

I suppose so but having already upgraded from the original cast iron PCP to a larger steel PCP it seems odd that it should now need an extension pod.

The PCP must be upgraded to the new steel version in order for a G.fast pod to be attached. The old cast iron versions do not support any pods whatsoever, regardless of whether G.fast or copper extensions.

Apologies if you already knew that.

Edited by deleted (Sat 15-Dec-18 21:32:42)

In reply to a post by smsm1:

I wonder if the FTTC/G.Fast lines are almost/fully used, and there's still several lines on the older ADSL or with no broadband, so needing to add some more capacity for people wanting FTTC/G.Fast.

There is no differentiation of service between the premises and PCP (D-Side). All connections go down the same line regardless, but signal is injected at different points depending on the service.

If there is more FTTC capacity required, then Openreach will install a capacity upgrade to the FTTC (VDSL) DSLAM or add a twin cabinet.

If there is more G.fast capacity required, then I am not sure what happens since it's not something I have witnessed yet. Someone here might now.

If more copper pairs are required, then it is not unusual to provide an copper extension. This can be for any copper-based service.

But as Andrue implies, a reshell of a small PCP to the current type in order to provide G.Fast to the close-by properties should obviate the need for an extension pod.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

But as Andrue implies, a reshell of a small PCP to the current type in order to provide G.Fast to the close-by properties should obviate the need for an extension pod.

For what it's worth this is the original PCP.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

But as Andrue implies, a reshell of a small PCP to the current type in order to provide G.Fast to the close-by properties should obviate the need for an extension pod.

I would be inclined to agree. For what reason would they also need to supply a copper extension when a larger cabinet should be sufficient enough for current amount of pairs? An anticipated increase in premises connected to the cabinet, network rearrangements?

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by smsm1:

I wonder if the FTTC/G.Fast lines are almost/fully used, and there's still several lines on the older ADSL or with no broadband, so needing to add some more capacity for people wanting FTTC/G.Fast.

I suppose so but having already upgraded from the original cast iron PCP to a larger steel PCP it seems odd that it should now need an extension pod.

Perhaps the FTTC cabinet has also had a High Density upgrade, and so requiring additional space further?

On the larger Huawei cabinets (288 ports) the extension is the darker green section on the right of this cabinet.

https://ibb.co/gJW6khN

It's only a few inches wide and most people don't even notice it has been added. It increases capacity to 384 ports.

The smaller Huawei cabinets High Density extensions are much more obvious.

https://ibb.co/kccwH0K

Both those cabinets are local to me.
The larger Huawei in the 1st image is my serving DSLAM.

Gfast pods deploy with 48 ports, in theory can take 96 but not sure on status of vectoring engines, i.e. vectoring at G.fast speeds across 96 ports was possible in lab but they were having issues getting production chips doing it, That was a couple of years ago though.

Demand of Gfast is such that at last financials there was just 7,000 customers across UK.

I had read in quite a few places that the target was to get 96 ports in the future. But judging by uptake, 48 ports will probably suffice for the quite a while. Some people who are somewhere between midway to the edge of coverage may be put off by the potential of having a slower upstream, so it doesn't help the case.

But I am curious to know the solution if G.fast capacity becomes full at this present time because I do not see an immediate remedy.

As Vectoring is mandatory on G.Fast there are absolutely zero ways to increase capacity. They need to wait for double capacity line cards.

They can't put a 2nd G.Fast pod as they don't support node level vectoring. In other words the 2 individual G.Fast pods couldn't Vector across each other.

edit: auto correct mistakes

Edited by j0hn83 (Sun 16-Dec-18 13:58:12)

Just back to the original cab in question: https://imgur.com/a/cHsiEJS - it most definitely has vents!

I'm just a bit surprised there's no information public which indicates what areas are getting gfast. Ironically, I'm looking at moving next year so probably won't be able to give it a go!

Edited by deleted (Sun 16-Dec-18 16:08:50)

In reply to a post by biohead:

Just back to the original cab in question: https://imgur.com/a/cHsiEJS - it most definitely has vents!

I'm just a bit surprised there's no information public which indicates what areas are getting gfast. Ironically, I'm looking at moving next year so probably won't be able to give it a go!

Yeah it's a bit odd. Openreach have this whole public roll-out programme going while not mentioning quite a lot of places that are also getting it. From this afternoon's drive to golf it seems like all of Brackley is getting G.FAST but there's no mention of it in Openreach publicity.

When I saw the Morrison�s guy doing the fibre for my cabinet last week, he informed me that they had only the first card in, also it was apparent the filters/fuses only had 24(maybe) plugged in .....

Not the actions of a company waiting to be swamped by orders is it ?

My place to the cab is about 65m as the crow flies, but 181m by accurate measurement. ..... So scope for massive improvements seems unlikely for the majority.

I still think it is a chocolate teapot of a product. Full fibre or nowt. Don�t get me wrong, I�ll give it a go if offered, but.

I think it is an expensive way of saying they have coverage of n% at these speeds. The bean counters probably don't expect high take up, but it satisfies Ofcom and the government .

Completely agree Bob.

Was going to witter on in my last post how I thought it was just driven by regulatory pressure.

I can out-witter you any time . Outwit you though, I very much doubt.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I can out-witter you any time . Outwit you though, I very much doubt.

It seemed to make some sense as a small pod to hang off a lamp-post in not-spots but obviously that didn't pan out. That was the point when they should have dropped it but I suppose too much money had been invested and they didn't want to be seen to have funded a dead end.

Edited by Andrue (Sun 16-Dec-18 20:28:15)

I agree. They possibly had bulk manufacturing contracts that they couldn't get out of as well.

Cheaper to build gfast and find there is no demand than build full fibre and find there is no demand.

>>I still think it is a chocolate teapot of a product. Full fibre or nowt.

Punters don't care about whether a product is delivered over gfast or full fibre. All they care about is price. When it comes to digging up peoples block pavers they may well prefer gfast's price and implementation.

If all they care about is price, they don't need G.Fast. They are getting more than plenty speed already with the cabinet-only deployment.

I agree, I don't think there is much demand for either. If there was overwhelming demand for faster speeds Virgin would already have cleaned up.

Edited by deleted (Sun 16-Dec-18 21:59:25)

... but it�s effective range is pathetic.

In reply to a post by partial:

Cheaper to build gfast and find there is no demand than build full fibre and find there is no demand.

... but then not to have a product anyone wants ? That�s short sighted.

Recall 2008/2009 the same with VDSL2 take-up was in 2010 to 2012 only started to climb a couple of years later

In reply to a post by partial:

Punters don't care about whether a product is delivered over gfast or full fibre. All they care about is price. When it comes to digging up peoples block pavers they may well prefer gfast's price and implementation.

The only digging needed here in Leeds is new poles and duct unblocking. No-one's block paving is getting attacked.

I'm paying VM £72 a month for business grade broadband. The G.fast pod is too far away to be of any use.

Sales of the product are going to be extremely low. When the only people it's available to are already getting 80Mb sync and some of those will only see a 25% uplift on G.fast it's not a massive surprise.

A major use for FTTP would have been uplift for those whose VDSL was poor. G.fast from the PCP does nothing for them. Uptake is low because it is an expensive, prolonged PR exercise to tick boxes on availability at >100Mb. The areas that are being deployed to now can, if anything, feel somewhat depressed about it as they are likely at the back of the queue for FTTP now.

Had Openreach been serious about this they would have put fibre deeper into the access network and used remote nodes. VDSL is still going strong 10 years later and has a few years left in it. I seriously doubt this iteration of G.fast is expected to last more than 5.

In reply to a post by partial:

Cheaper to build gfast and find there is no demand than build full fibre and find there is no demand.

Cheaper still to do your homework and build nothing for now. Openreach have telemetry on every VDSL line on their network in the UK. They know exactly how much data customers are using. They have no need to build then find no demand.

If what you're saying is true what's the mindset behind overbuilding VDSL with FTTP in some areas, or Vodafone and VM building out at scale?

Have you seen the cost savings Verizon and AT&T have reported in terms of operational expense alongside how cheap they have gotten FTTP construction via existing infrastructure down to?

G.fast from PCP provides zero operational cost reduction. That is all provided by VDSL.

pretty much agree with everything ignition has said.

g.fast from poles would have been great, it would have been an intermediate step between vdsl and fttp. Instead it seems a cheap marketing hack for higher speed with it only been deployed from cabinets. Given openreach are already stepping up FTTP rollout, then g.fast will be short lived.

My area was announced for FTTP before g.fast from openreach, I wonder if the 2 departments are even talking to each other.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

My area was announced for FTTP before g.fast from openreach, I wonder if the 2 departments are even talking to each other.

Fibre Cities is a hybrid deployment, not just FTTP. Some exchange areas within the city get all G.fast, some all FTTP, some a mixture. So a big warning that just because your city has featured in a press release doesn't mean FTTP is coming to you, just that either FTTP or G.fast is likely.

Announcements don't indicate pure FTTP.

ok will wait and see then, if it is g.fast I will just keep my vdsl.

I just found this which I missed before, so if openreach do just do g.fast this may happen.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/08/cityfi...

business only service but the areas listed I am in there, and the postcode checker gives me this. Which seems to suggest I am not in there but within a range of possible future expansion.

Great News!
It looks like you're very close to our network.

I looked at their map and my road is done, and there is also a residential section on the cityfibre website which seems tied to vodafone, but I cannot find a way to do a check/order for residential, but this is an interesting turnup.

I found postcode checker on vodafone and it says superfast only so I registered my interest, so lets see what they come up with, according to cityfibre's coverage map I am within a FTTP area, and they also list a business FTTP reseller as selling service to my postcode (onecom), so hopefully this is because vodafone just need to update their systems or something.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 24-Dec-18 15:12:16)

Vodafone CityFibre roll-out is very different to the CityFibre business

Gigafast means a fibre pot/manifold at edge of your property ready for connecting, CityFIbre business means within 250m or so of your property

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I'll wander over today and take a look. At least one has vent holes and the other looks the same.

Both "wings" in all these cases near me are unvented copper extensions.

This is an aside but they may not be unvented. I�ll need to check tomorrow.

But all new cabinets are vented, you just can�t see the vents from outside, but it�s achieved by the cabinet being double shelled. The top �shell� overlaps the bottom shell slightly at the bottom. The bottom shell (inside) has holes in it. So looking from inside the cabinet you can see daylight.

I would imagine an extension is the same. But I could well be wrong.

I�m in a copper extension now. They�re definitely vented!

I am going to speculate.

The border of the coverage runs along my road, I thought it meant my road was done, I expect it means the side streets on that side of the line are done but not my road itself, the nearest side street to me is easily within 250m, so that may explain exactly what you have just told me, I assume cityfibre business are ok with it as they can probably get business customers to pay the extra to cover that last bit of distance, whilst vodafone currently have free install for FTTP so a different business model.

I have done what I can which is register my interest, and if I am lucky vodafone will decide to deploy it, I estimate the distance at about 40-80m. (assuming they didnt go past the last front door, street is only about 20-30m).

On the flip side it may make VM a good service now, as lots of streets near me have top end speed FTTP competition to take customers away from VM and lower docsis utilisation levels.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 28-Dec-18 15:53:31)

I think I got confused, my belief openreach were doing my City was from a post you made on kitz saying its in the list for "by 2024", did you mean cityfibre?

I searched openreach news announcements, and the only single one Leicester is mentioned, and it mentions my exchange specifically sadly is a g.fast specific announcement. I expect from openreach it will be g.fast and why would they deploy g.fast if they doing FTTP, which probably means no FTTP at all or at least for a decade or so.

So this leaves cityfibre hoping they are willing to do some work to extend the reach from the side street to my property.

The cabinet coverage I am right on the edge, I can see the next cabinet across the road from me, and I am 365m at the edge, so I suppose from an openreach point of view g.fast from the cabinet may well give reasonable speeds to a good % of those of those on the cabinet, but I am probably placed in the worst location possible, the next house down the road is on the other cabinet at a 60m copper distance (there is a gap to next house as is park and a business in between).

Interestingly the other city exchange is not on the g.fast list, that other exchange covers about 80% of the cityfibre coverage, Which makes me think that may get openreach FTTP. MY exchange covers most of the other 20%.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 31-Dec-18 12:03:17)

Predicting who will and who won't get Openreach FTTP is as reliable as the trains into London Victoria today

Nothing in the Gfast roll-out precludes an exchange from having a mixed technology delivery

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I think I got confused, my belief openreach were doing my City was from a post you made on kitz saying its in the list for "by 2024", did you mean cityfibre?

Yes. The distance between you and their existing ring in Leicester is really not a problem. That ring is just a base for collecting traffic together, they are building multiple kilometres of duct length from that existing infrastructure.

Chrysalis

From Cardiff experience, the fact that an exchange has G-Fast coverage does NOT mean no FTTP. We have several exchanges that G-Fast is live in and FTTP is / has already been installed in. Quite a few areas have both installed ( not yet live FTTP), I check the checker regularly for a selection of areas but as of today the FTTP is not yet live. ( All show FTTP-OD at 1000/220 which has changed from 330/30 in the last 3 weeks)

In reply to a post by Icaras:

I�m in a copper extension now. They�re definitely vented!

You should buy / rent a house, mate.