Full Fibre for all in 2025 say Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson want full fibre for everyones in UK land by 2025 if he become PM but where does he find the money from? Who will fund it?

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/fibr...

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Who will fund it?

The Tory Magic Money Tree

More likely to be tax charge by the taxpayers just like Labour Party did with Gordon Brown promise of broadband tax 50p

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Who will fund it?

The Tory Magic Money Tree

Which is slightly smaller than the LibDem one, which in turn is way smaller than the Labour one! Or do Labour share a full forest of them with the Greens?


I have acquaintances in remnote parts of Scotland. One "exchange" which serves around 40 lines is something like 15km from the parent exchange. That will cost hundreds of thousands to duct. Then, for the various premises which spread out in a massive star, some are 9 or 10 km away there will be another massive expense.

Maybe cancel HS2, and if we're not in the EU anymore then the government can directly finance it.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

More likely to be tax charge by the taxpayers just like Labour Party did with Gordon Brown promise of broadband tax 50p

They could call it the telephone license.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Boris Johnson want full fibre for everyones in UK land by 2025 if he become PM but where does he find the money from? Who will fund it?

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/fibr...

Who's going to build it? Will we import foreign engineers to help out?

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Who will fund it?

The Tory Magic Money Tree

steptoe Corbyn has the same money tree, and his staff have to use an abacus to do their sums don't they Dianne?

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Boris Johnson want full fibre for everyones in UK land by 2025 if he become PM but where does he find the money from? Who will fund it?

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/fibr...

Who's going to build it? Will we import foreign engineers to help out?

what more engineers we already have thousands of them that came with the nuclear scientists and brain surgeons from the 3rd world

In reply to a post by MHC:

I have acquaintances in remnote parts of Scotland. One "exchange" which serves around 40 lines is something like 15km from the parent exchange. That will cost hundreds of thousands to duct. Then, for the various premises which spread out in a massive star, some are 9 or 10 km away there will be another massive expense.

Ah, but if Boris gets us out of the EU at the end of October, Scotland won't be part of the UK by 2025.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 17-Jun-19 18:20:21)

In reply to a post by bowdon:

Maybe cancel HS2, and if we're not in the EU anymore then the government can directly finance it.

deffo kill off HS2. full fibre to all will be more beneficial than HS2 and will cause less destruction of the countryside

In reply to a post by threelegs:

In reply to a post by bowdon:

Maybe cancel HS2, and if we're not in the EU anymore then the government can directly finance it.

deffo kill off HS2. full fibre to all will be more beneficial than HS2 and will cause less destruction of the countryside

They could do video conferencing (MP's) instead of travelling to and from London, think of all that ££££ it should save NO EXPENSES being paid for hotels ect

Hi,

If they did video conferencing then they wouldn't have an excuse to get drunk at the taxpayer's expense!!!

LOL,

One should always use the real name of politicians so it's Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, especially when his "announcement" like much of what he says is complete piffle

Theres £123m going begging at the moment. That's a start

In reply to a post by MHC:

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Who will fund it?

The Tory Magic Money Tree

Which is slightly smaller than the LibDem one, which in turn is way smaller than the Labour one! Or do Labour share a full forest of them with the Greens?


I have acquaintances in remnote parts of Scotland. One "exchange" which serves around 40 lines is something like 15km from the parent exchange. That will cost hundreds of thousands to duct. Then, for the various premises which spread out in a massive star, some are 9 or 10 km away there will be another massive expense.

In that situation they�ll just run the fibres the shortest distance possible.

In the same way that now many small and medium sized exchanges were bypassed with the fibre for FTTC and FTTP which goes directly to the large handover exchange.

The fibre to our cabinet doesn�t pass our exchange at all.

So, 15km to the middle of nowhere and then out over fields and tracks for another 10 km as most of the remote houses are accessed by trackes close to te remote exchange.

10km of ductin/overhead for opne house, plus a share of te fibre costs coming in ... Can you really see BT paying £100k for one property?

He can just tack on some additional words later like wee nippy Sturgeon did to R100.


Simples, you say its going to be 100% then later you say except for some.

Gary

Edited by Swac3 (Sun 23-Jun-19 21:20:15)

In reply to a post by mking90031:

Hi,

If they did video conferencing then they wouldn't have an excuse to get drunk at the taxpayer's expense!!!

LOL,

that was my plan think of the money it would save us, how many extra police on the beat would just that pay for?, then there is that ECO carbon footprint too, it would be a win win for common sense , shame the traitor class elites don't do common sense do they? Only common purpose and PC, As Donald said DRAIN THE SWAMP we need to do this ASAP or we will be doomed just one example of the clown world we are living in,(it's old but relevant) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/16/boys-can...

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 24-Jun-19 01:35:33)

In reply to a post by Swac3:

... wee nippy Sturgeon ....



Gary

Uncalled for, gratuitous, name calling that does you no favours.
And adds nothing whatsoever to this thread.

New PM Boris Johnson has confirmed in his speech Fibre for all of us in this county of this great UK.

Do you think he will keep his promise words?

He has not said who will pay ... almost everyone can get it now if they are prepared to pay. Someone has to pick up te cost - there is no magic money tree to fund all of these politicians "promises".

Listening to the speech he did NOT actually say full fibre for everyone and also did not say 2025 - there are subtle differences.

Previous before entering office for all was mentioned, but we need to wait for it to go through DCMS channels to learn more I suspect.

In reply to a post by threelegs:

In reply to a post by bowdon:

Maybe cancel HS2, and if we're not in the EU anymore then the government can directly finance it.

deffo kill off HS2. full fibre to all will be more beneficial than HS2 and will cause less destruction of the countryside

No maybe about it HS2 scrapped, Foreign aid scrapped (Foreign aid replaced with a natural disaster relief fund) budget set by us, and we decide who gets it , and if the oney doesn't get spent in any year it stays in the pot unlike the lunacity we have with the current system that wastes money on vanity projects common sense is what is needed put an end to clown world

When has the scrapping of HS2 being announced?

That would be a major bit of news.

A big difference between saying it will be looked at in the light of the changes in projected costs to actually announcing the scraping.

In reply to a post by Icaras:

In that situation they�ll just run the fibres the shortest distance possible.

In the same way that now many small and medium sized exchanges were bypassed with the fibre for FTTC and FTTP which goes directly to the large handover exchange.

The fibre to our cabinet doesn�t pass our exchange at all.

That is not going to work at these distances because GPON (the chosen technology) only does 20km of fibre. No for sure if you went to standard BiDi Ethernet with long distance optics it would not be a problem you can get a pair of 80km rated BiDi SFP's for £80 and 40km rated ones for £34. Perhaps in these scenarios the emerging CDWM GPON would make more sense. Actually makes more sense everywhere as you would get seamless upgrades to symmetric 10Gbps right now by just changing the optics either end of the link.

In reply to a post by MHC:

So, 15km to the middle of nowhere and then out over fields and tracks for another 10 km as most of the remote houses are accessed by trackes close to te remote exchange.

10km of ductin/overhead for opne house, plus a share of te fibre costs coming in ... Can you really see BT paying £100k for one property?

In the same way that a telephone line was installed originally? Anyway you would be mad to duct that you just mole plough in some SWA cable and be done with it at a fraction of the cost.

In fact if you just took it to the edge of the estate left a large drum of SWA fibre and said get to it, the estates would likely put someone on it relatively quickly to mole plough them in. If you drop it off on the 12th August then it will be a while but in the off season I would imagine it would likely happen quickly. Most estates with have a range of suitable machinery for the job. Openreach could then come back and do some jointing work and jobs a goodun.

Let's be honest these super remote properties are almost all hunting lodges and associated estate worker homes.

I reckon his promise words to his various wives and mistresses were more convincing.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Listening to the speech he did NOT actually say full fibre for everyone and also did not say 2025 - there are subtle differences.

Previous before entering office for all was mentioned, but we need to wait for it to go through DCMS channels to learn more I suspect.

He has said both in previous speeches, full fibre for everyone on tues. One thing, what was the cost for "full fibre" ? Sky claimed he spent £6bn in total yesterday, i would have thought full fibre by 2025 would be north of £10bn. Further as tbb article said - who will be contracted to do this.

The everyone bit comes and goes, but was not said in the podium speech on Wednesday - used to watching for these specifics as had all this fun with Jeremy Hunt some years ago.

Post it note calculation that does factor in what has been built where already, £16 billion is a good starting point to take us from 8.3% to 100% and factors in a fairly low cost of £300/premises in urban, £1000 in rural and £1,700 in the deeper rural areas.

What we don't know yet is how much overlap there will exactly be between the commercial roll-outs, they stack to around 15 million premises as ambitions but actual committed and in build is a lot lower at this time.

The existing RGC and LFFN strategy for the hardest rural (deep rural is what I call it) that makes up around 10% of premises which is based around vouchers will not work - will expand that thought in a news item in the next few days. NOTE: Vouchers do work, but if aim is 100% true coverage they don't.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The everyone bit comes and goes, but was not said in the podium speech on Wednesday - used to watching for these specifics as had all this fun with Jeremy Hunt some years ago.

He didn't say it on Wednesday but Tuesday he did

"And like some slumbering giant, we are going to rise and ping off the guy ropes of self-doubt and negativity. With better education, better infrastructure, more police, fantastic full-fibre broadband sprouting in every household, we are going to unite this amazing country and we are going to take it forward."

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parti...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-49085156/boris-john...

Yes aware he said it on Tuesday and at other times it has been 100% of businesses and households, all slightly different things.

In reply to a post by partial:

I reckon his promise words to his various wives and mistresses were more convincing.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Yes aware he said it on Tuesday and at other times it has been 100% of businesses and households, all slightly different things.

Yeah, admittedly its a fudge of Johnson.

Its a classic repeat of the confusion that existed around Superfast targets many years ago when Jeremy Hunt was at DCMS.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Its a classic repeat of the confusion that existed around Superfast targets many years ago when Jeremy Hunt was at DCMS.

As you already known that i've not been a fan, of some of the deployment of BDUK and the various other messes from it. The messes start when people who have no idea of how broadband or in this case fttp works and then proclaims statements; which becomes an issue when the details are then pushed into the equation.

I wonder how many pennies on tax would need to be added to make it possible from a financial point of view, increasing tax shouldn't be a sin if its for the benefit of everyone and not just a few (either at the top or at the bottom of society). Appreciate that the detail of who could or will do it is another story.

I am pretty sure raising tax is a sin as far as Conservatives are concerned and Boris himself, as part of his campaign, wants to raise the higher tax band threshold from £50K to £80K (although some changes to NI partially offset this).

In reply to a post by dect:

I wonder how many pennies on tax would need to be added to make it possible from a financial point of view, increasing tax shouldn't be a sin if its for the benefit of everyone and not just a few (either at the top or at the bottom of society). Appreciate that the detail of who could or will do it is another story.

Well if its like areas on my Exchange, probably not much, the reason I say this is that areas on my Exchange already have all the FTTP hardware in place (i.e. all the Fibre DP's and the Manifolds up the poles or tucked away in the chambers) and BTOR deciding to then install FTTC.
So areas near me wouldn't cost much to roll out FTTP, just a matter of checking what is here and flipping the switch.

Do forget BT / BTOR all said there was not FTTP hardware down my road, even though I sent loads of photos showing there was, loads of emails and phone calls to and from the CEO / Chairman's office and we now haw FTTP.

So it makes me wonder how many other areas are also like this, especially in London.

Paul

Waits for stampede from everyone else where FTTP is in the same state in their area.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Waits for stampede from everyone else where FTTP is in the same state in their area.

LOL

What I was getting at was it wouldn't take much for them to enable FTTP in areas like near me or in areas at the same state / stage.
Not fully sure why they were left at that stage back in 2011 / 2012, maybe they forgot about them when they went to do all the BDUK stuff, who knows.

Paul

Over on ispreview there is the story of a G.fast pod on Hunslet 82 which is over two years and counting to be activated. Reading the story it looks like it was/still is "forgotten" about.

There I believe there is a scads of FTTP hardware partly installed in Wales that was just abandoned at the close of the BDUK contracts.

Presumably there is a whole bunch of TPON fibre in Milton Keynes that could be repurposed for GPON.

I reckon that you could meet the 2025 for "premises passed" at a pinch (there is six years to go) but even if you could then connect one million properties per year (which is more than double what the GPO was able to manage in the 60's and 70's with the rollout of the telephone network) it would take another two decades to actually connect everyone. Now admittedly not everyone would want connecting immediately but we are going to be back to the long waits of the 60's and 70's to get connected to FTTP under even the most optimistic scenarios.

I personally blame Rupert Murdock for not having a FTTP connection today.

I don't see why copper is even an option anymore.
Stop any further copper longevity projects like gfast and vectoring.
All new developments should be mandatory FTTP.

Who would install all the fibre and the network to handle the traffic?

In reply to a post by Stealthbird97:

I don't see why copper is even an option anymore.
Stop any further copper longevity projects like gfast and vectoring.
All new developments should be mandatory FTTP.

I believe (based on what an Openreach engineer told me yesterday) that any new build estate with more than 29 houses is automatically built with only fibre available.

In reply to a post by stephengw:

I believe (based on what an Openreach engineer told me yesterday) that any new build estate with more than 29 houses is automatically built with only fibre available.

Not the case.

It's only FREE for developments with over 30 homes, but in no way is it automatic.
It still requires the developer to engage with OpenReach and install chambers/ducting to their specification.

If a developer builds 1000 homes and doesn't request FTTP then they will get copper only.

Developments of under 30 homes can still get FTTP with a contribution.

Edited by j0hn83 (Fri 26-Jul-19 11:13:37)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Who would install all the fibre and the network to handle the traffic?

I think it is relatively obvious who would install the fibre and handle the traffic.
It is already established that OR is required to provide the backbone network. The new USO
regulations basically mandate that. The issue is the connection to it. The issue is not back-haul, but the last mile. And especially for new developments, there is no excuse to opt for copper when fibre can be installed just as easily.
All new development should be required to have FTTP, no ifs no buts. The developers should be required to take up this cost for the connection if OR won't.

Edited by Stealthbird97 (Sat 27-Jul-19 03:38:35)

Or the Fibre UK fee!

But USO has nothing to do with this. Wouldn't Gigaclear, Cityfibre etc then take the gov to court, just like eurotunnel did when it [gov] didn't do the tender process properly and then won.

What about the way-leaves ?

You say the back haul isn't an issue, say that to the ducts that need clearing, or don't even exist. And then you have the last mile.

Lastly, when you start needing multiple 100Gbit links further towards the customer, whos gonna pay for that?

Plus the extra people needed to install all of this.

2025 isn't doable at all.

Ideas are great, but the first thing you always do is look at the problems, are they resolvable - it seems team Alex Johnson hasn't even thought about it - let somebody else sort it

In reply to a post by Taras:

team Alex Johnson

Nice hook, yes some of us already know Boris is only one of his middle names

In reply to a post by Stealthbird97:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Who would install all the fibre and the network to handle the traffic?

I think it is relatively obvious who would install the fibre and handle the traffic.
It is already established that OR is required to provide the backbone network. The new USO
regulations basically mandate that. The issue is the connection to it. The issue is not back-haul, but the last mile. And especially for new developments, there is no excuse to opt for copper when fibre can be installed just as easily.

Openreach is a private company owned by a public company, which although large has limited financial and physical resources, including manpower.

BT Group is compelled by law to maximise shareholder benefit. Full Fibre to all is not something that company can afford, and as has since been said there are now several other companies competing in the full fibre "last mile" market who would have every right to call for judicial review of any government subsidies to Openreach.

As for the backhaul, I did not use that word, but in the case of GEA-FTTP that in effect starts at each aggregation node. My choice of the word "network" was not accidental.

There will be thousands of miles of fibre required for every new build to have native FTTP, never mind the millions of homes that don't even have FTTC.

All new development should be required to have FTTP, no ifs no buts. The developers should be required to take up this cost for the connection if OR won't.

The provision by developers of the relevant ducting would indeed not be difficult or particularly expensive, but getting the fibre to it is quite another matter as just explained. I expect you have seen some of the higher FTTPoD costs, the higher ones being so because of the cost of the infrastructure installation or upgrading required even for relatively short distances in built-up areas.

This whole Johnson proposal, which is basically rhetorical not practicable, is going to cost billions. Billions that have to come from somewhere. Your taxes?

It is 100% not going to happen in that timescale. Nor does the USO mandate full fibre to all remote locations. Have you ever driven through extensive moorland areas in any of the "awesome foursome"? Observed the locations of occupied buildings literally miles from any public road?

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 27-Jul-19 09:54:46)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

BT Group is compelled by law to maximise shareholder benefit. Full Fibre to all is not something that company can afford, and as has since been said there are now several other companies competing in the full fibre "last mile" market who would have every right to call for judicial review of any government subsidies to Openreach.

Firstly can BT afford not to go full fibre? If they don't then they will loose forever a significant proportion of the UK market and future profits. Remember single mode fibre is forever. There is no technology ever going to replace it in the next 100 years at a minimum. This many sound fantastically but it's not. The standard for single mode fibre is already over 30 years old and gone from 10Mbps to over 100Gbps with off the shelf components to over 1Tbps with currently specialist hardware.

Second Parliament is sovereign. so once out the EU and not bound by their state aid rules, primary legislation from Parliament giving large subsidies to Openreach cannot be challenged in the courts. That said Boris seems to show an astounding level of contempt for Parliament and wants to do something last attempted by Charles I. That ended with a civil war and the loss of his head, that anyone thinks it is an option beggars belief.

As for the backhaul, I did not use that word, but in the case of GEA-FTTP that in effect starts at each aggregation node. My choice of the word "network" was not accidental.

The backhaul for GEA-FTTP starts at the OLT which is not the same as the aggregation node as I understand it.

This whole Johnson proposal, which is basically rhetorical not practicable, is going to cost billions. Billions that have to come from somewhere. Your taxes?

It's more than not practicable, it's physically not possible. There is simply not the manpower to hook every home up in that time scale. Pass yes, but connect no. No amount of enthusiasm changes the laws of physics. That said I guess it would be possible in some sort of cultural revolution police state way. However those never worked out very well for China and are hopefully not possible in the UK.

It is 100% not going to happen in that timescale. Nor does the USO mandate full fibre to all remote locations. Have you ever driven through extensive moorland areas in any of the "awesome foursome"? Observed the locations of occupied buildings literally miles from any public road?

Probably not. I think a lot of people from "down south" have not the foggiest idea what "rural" really means and would have a stroke if they actually visited such places. That said you just mole plough some SWA fibre in many of these areas because there is no underground infrastructure to damage doing so, it's open moorland. This is wildly cheaper than standard trenching methods with ducting and then blowing fibre.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

BT Group is compelled by law to maximise shareholder benefit. Full Fibre to all is not something that company can afford, and as has since been said there are now several other companies competing in the full fibre "last mile" market who would have every right to call for judicial review of any government subsidies to Openreach.

Firstly can BT afford not to go full fibre? If they don't then they will loose forever a significant proportion of the UK market and future profits. Remember single mode fibre is forever.

I'm not sure where you work out how BT Group spending several thousand pounds per property is ever going to give a positive ROI, particularly while they are obliged by Ofcom and competition law to allow other CPs to provide services over that fibre. Thus restricting their income to that obtained by Openreach.

There is no technology ever going to replace it in the next 100 years at a minimum. This many sound fantastically but it's not. The standard for single mode fibre is already over 30 years old and gone from 10Mbps to over 100Gbps with off the shelf components to over 1Tbps with currently specialist hardware.

I think if you stand back a little from that and thing about it logically, you might begin to see the illogicality of the first two sentences in the quote.

The accelerating rate of change of communications technologies means we have no idea whatsoever what is going to be feasible and available in 50 years time, never mind 100 years. Even fibre optics for consumer entertainment and communications could be completely redundant.

Did you foresee graphene? Or quantum computing? Or more importantly, the general subject of quantum mechanics? Have a read of this article which explains at a noddy level things that were being discussed by Einstein and his contemporaries over 70 years ago. Then maybe go and fine "Part 2" and post a link, as I've better things to do such as get something to eat.

Second Parliament is sovereign. so once out the EU and not bound by their state aid rules, primary legislation from Parliament giving large subsidies to Openreach cannot be challenged in the courts.

Wrong. We have our own competition laws and our own Supreme Court. With a high probability that it will be to a considerable degree influenced by future EU law and ECJ decisions if we wish to trade with the EU.

That said Boris seems to show an astounding level of contempt for Parliament and wants to do something last attempted by Charles I. That ended with a civil war and the loss of his head, that anyone thinks it is an option beggars belief.

You seem to disagree with the highly experienced constitutional lawyers in the government, including Rabb and Cox, and the powers the Leader of the House has.

The rest of your post seems more or less to agree with what I said to the person my post was a reply to. I'n not sure why you needed to tell me any of it.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

There is no technology ever going to replace it in the next 100 years at a minimum. This many sound fantastically but it's not. The standard for single mode fibre is already over 30 years old and gone from 10Mbps to over 100Gbps with off the shelf components to over 1Tbps with currently specialist hardware.

I think if you stand back a little from that and thing about it logically, you might begin to see the illogicality of the first two sentences in the quote.

The accelerating rate of change of communications technologies means we have no idea whatsoever what is going to be feasible and available in 50 years time, never mind 100 years. Even fibre optics for consumer entertainment and communications could be completely redundant.

Speaking from a Physics background, specifically photonics. I do find it unlikely that there will be any major developments which will beat the reliability, availability and overall capability of fibre optics.

That said, we do not know how technologies such as 5G and how future variations are going to work out.

Edited by Stealthbird97 (Sun 28-Jul-19 21:05:48)

In reply to a post by Stealthbird97:

Speaking from a Physics background, specifically photonics. I do find it unlikely that there will be any major developments which will beat the reliability, availability and overall capability of fibre optics.

That said, we do not know how technologies such as 5G and how future variations are going to work out.

"That said", , bear in mind that this side-dispute is over:-

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Remember single mode fibre is forever. There is no technology ever going to replace it in the next 100 years at a minimum. This many sound fantastically but it's not.

Consider the changes in all aspects of scientific and technological knowledge between 1719 and 1819; 1819 and 1919; the last hundred years 1919 to the present day; that the rate of advance has increased exponentially during most of those periods and will rocket as a result of the application of the next couple of generations of AI to deep data mining, and I think you might begin to doubt both the certainty of the statement I challenged and your own .

Consider also for example the implications of this sort of research. How about this discussion of dark matter? Such as, from that link:-

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.

None of us can have the slightest idea of how data will be transmitted or stored in 2119.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

The backhaul for GEA-FTTP starts at the OLT which is not the same as the aggregation node as I understand it.

Yep. Goes to the CP's kit via Cablelinks,

They come in 1G and 10G varieties. The pricing was lunacy at one point but is much more sane now.

Alexander is still talking out of his hindmost given what other members of his cabinet have to say. Taking a super-hard line on immigration while simultaneously expecting this to happen isn't going to work - need skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled bodies to make this happen by 2025: the UK is close to full employment.

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

The backhaul for GEA-FTTP starts at the OLT which is not the same as the aggregation node as I understand it.

Yep. Goes to the CP's kit via Cablelinks,

Note I did say "in effect". Not "technically" or "in BT-speak". The carefully chosen word I originally used was "network". See this post and what I say; quote; and am trying to refute there. The quoted part also using "backbone" as well as "back-haul".

The fibre from the premises for 100% coverage would require many more aggregation nodes to be created and fed back to the OLT. That is what I was getting at.

Questions - as I don't know . What are the equivalent terms for full fibre networks for the old telephone E-side and D-side? With that in a way also applying to the fibre part of FTTC? Are VM terms for their network the same?

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Second Parliament is sovereign. so once out the EU and not bound by their state aid rules, primary legislation from Parliament giving large subsidies to Openreach cannot be challenged in the courts.

The uk Supreme court can not create laws but it can strike down existing ones and challenge and push the government in changing its direction. The effect of EU laws (which we have ben a major party to) are there mostly to protect the consumer. That aside, what you propose will never happen (giving large subsidies)as it will have a very short shelf life in the courts. Not only that, virgin et all can send it to Competition and Markets Authority and if they fail to do anything then anyone one of them can ask for a judicial review ..

OR aren't providing the backbone network anyway, they're providing the access network. They are opposites, the backbone being the very centre of a network where the traffic from the devices that aggregate together the access/edge network are aggregated together and transported elsewhere.

I'm not aware of any term for such things for PONs or actually point to point thinking about it.

EDIT: VM I am not sure of, though they're making their old school telephony redundant anyways. Not sure if they call the higher copper count cables that go from individual access cabinets to the cabinet with the MSAN anything.

Edited by CarlTSpeak (Mon 29-Jul-19 11:25:38)

The fibre from the premises for 100% coverage would require many more aggregation nodes to be created and fed back to the OLT. That is what I was getting at.

If you mean in areas that already have Aggregation Nodes and FTTC then that's not necessarily true.

The reason it's always stated that an Agg Node serves roughly 3 or 4 DSLAMs is because OR actually had the sense to plan the FTTC rollout with a future FTTP rollout in mind.

An Aggregation Node can serve up to 1400 homes (on top of the FTTC cabs) which should be roughly the 3 or 4 cabinet areas it already serves.

They should only need more Agg Nodes in areas where a lot of house building has been going on.

edit: typos

Edited by j0hn83 (Mon 29-Jul-19 12:12:41)

Thanks Carl .

Re backbone, yes. I thought it odd which is why I mentioned its use to you, as I've always associated the BT backbone with BT Wholesale. Though I might be wrong there.

Don't forget we are talking about FTTP to farflung areas j0hn .

If that doesn't requite aggregation nodes then fair enough, I take your point. But some splitting method could well be required. Think Dartmoor and the Yorkshire moors and also the almost certain objections to poles in such places. Never mind the danger to poles from moorland fires which are common enough already and becoming more frequent.

I just don't see fibre being feasible to such places. Certainly not by 2025.

Many many many splitter nodes inbetween the Agg Nodes and properties.

If BoJo gets anywhere near full fibre coverage by 2025 I'll eat my own Johnson.

Right now we have a bit of a full fibre explosion going on.

OpenReach have set some ambitious FTTP targets.
Virgin continue to rollout their project lightning (and will even have covered my town in Midlothian in the next few months, which I was pleasantly surprised to see).
There many smaller Alt-Nets also doing their thing.

BoJo announcing state money going to full fibre is going to put the brakes on much of this fully commercial FTTP rollout.
Why would these companies keep using their own money when someone's going to pay them to do it.

He needs to keep his big gob shut as he'll do more harm than good.

There are already poles all around the Yorkshire Moors (at least where there are houses / buildings). The cables are presumably directly buried as they disappear underground when nothing is around. Surely FTTP will just follow same logic, existing poles to houses, and then directly burried in the ground?

I basically agree re the money j0hn. But given Cummings as BoJo's advisor, post-election and a win if he's lucky then simply ban new copper installations and require existing ones to be supplanted.

/joke

I've seen that suggestion before and it just won't work.

It will kill rural developments and do more harm than good

Who's paying to roll out the fibre to a small 10 home development in the middle of nowhere?

Note the last line of the post j0hn . I agree entirely.

In reply to a post by gary333:

There are already poles all around the Yorkshire Moors (at least where there are houses / buildings). The cables are presumably directly buried as they disappear underground when nothing is around. Surely FTTP will just follow same logic, existing poles to houses, and then directly burried in the ground?

Note the bit I now highlight:-

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It is 100% not going to happen in that timescale. Nor does the USO mandate full fibre to all remote locations. Have you ever driven through extensive moorland areas in any of the "awesome foursome"? Observed the locations of occupied buildings literally miles from any public road?

Trenching to replace underground copper to such places, or even installing fibre if the copper is on poles, is very unlikely.

Trenching to replace underground copper to such places, or even installing fibre if the copper is on poles, is very unlikely.

Why?

Hint - trenching or using existing duct or using overhead poles is what is happening where FTTP is being rolled out. How else people think it gets to areas.

Because I'm talking all the way through the thread about a mile or so up an unpaved track winding round a hill to a single building. That track at its road end being several miles from the nearest village.

If I'm wrong, then what is all the talk about the USO of 10Mbps being fulfilled by satellite or long-distance wifi and such? Does Johnson's promise for fibre to have 100% coverage, which is the subject of the thread, mean the USO can now be consigned to history?

Every one of my posts in the thread, other than the first, is basically saying it simply isn't going to happen. I now see in the comments to this article of yours many logistical reasons why it won't, even in relatively accessible locations.

Was not clear to me that you were referring to a single building down a unpaved track going down a hill.

In theory yes if the 2025 100% full fibre does deliver the USO becomes irrelevant once the 100% is hit, until then it will still exist.

NOTE: I am questioning of the 100% target, i.e. its not impossible but needs a lot of public money if the properties as you suggest will all be covered.

To say it is not going to happen is too binary in my opinion, the 50% looked achievable pending major problems for the commercial operators in the next six years. So its a question of how far between 50% and 100% we will get and how much help can be given to push the result as close to 100% as possible.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The accelerating rate of change of communications technologies means we have no idea whatsoever what is going to be feasible and available in 50 years time, never mind 100 years. Even fibre optics for consumer entertainment and communications could be completely redundant.

In physics there are some hard limits that you can never overcome. One of these are the laws of thermodynamics. Another is General Relativity. If someone proposes something that is in contravention of these hard limits trained physicists snigger at the those making the suggestions as clearly they don't know what they are talking about.

General Relativity puts a hard limit on transmitting information between two points at the speed of light. Unless you want to open up a worm hole between then which would require the entire energy output of the galaxy to do so and destroy the earth in the process.

Right now single mode optical fibre has a core with a refractive index of 1.445 which means light travels in the glass at ~70% the speed it would in a vaccum. So if hollow core optical fibre was to become a reality for optical communication then the improvement in latency (not speed, that would remain the same) by replacing all the current standard single mode fibre in the distribution network (aka everything between the OLT and the ONT's) would if you where on the maximum 20km of fibre is about 18 microseconds or 0.018ms.

Unless you are a bottom feeding high frequency trader you simply don't care about 18 microseconds of improved latency. You certainly would never replace the distribution network cabling for that. You might lay new long haul cables where larger improvements are to be had, but that is not what we are talking about.

As such single mode fibre as it is today is as good as it will ever get. It has not improved in over 30 years so far and that is because it can't. Technically purity of the glass core has improved allowing longer distances between repeaters. but that only effects long haul cables aka transatlantic etc. and does not effect the speed or latency of the links.

Consequently you can make 100 year investment decisions knowing you will only need to change the optics either end of the fibre going forward and not the fibre itself.

If you want to continue to believe otherwise you are an deluded idiot that is beyond rational argument.

In reply to a post by Taras:

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Second Parliament is sovereign. so once out the EU and not bound by their state aid rules, primary legislation from Parliament giving large subsidies to Openreach cannot be challenged in the courts.

The uk Supreme court can not create laws but it can strike down existing ones and challenge and push the government in changing its direction. The effect of EU laws (which we have ben a major party to) are there mostly to protect the consumer. That aside, what you propose will never happen (giving large subsidies)as it will have a very short shelf life in the courts. Not only that, virgin et all can send it to Competition and Markets Authority and if they fail to do anything then anyone one of them can ask for a judicial review ..

The UK supreme court cannot strike down primary legisation. This was recently confirmed when the supreme court ruled that the executive cannot use secondary legislation to strike down primary legislation. So if parliement passes primary legislation giving shed loads of cash to Openreach to put down full fibre for the UK no firm can do anything about it. In case of a no deal there won't be any trade deals with state aid rules to worry about

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Because I'm talking all the way through the thread about a mile or so up an unpaved track winding round a hill to a single building. That track at its road end being several miles from the nearest village.

You mole plough some SWA cable in at a fraction of the price. As I said elsewhere, in Scotland at least the estate works would likely do it in the off season for free as the vast majority of such remote buildings are hunting lodges and assoicated estate work homes.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

If you want to continue to believe otherwise you are an deluded idiot that is beyond rational argument.

Thank you for that .

I'm really glad that you know more than Einstein did over 40 years ago, and Stephen Hawking had discovered by the time he died.

I'm impressed and humbled by the fact that you can forecast the science of 100 years ahead based on the fraction you know of the fraction of the total knowledge of the universe(s?) we currently have available. The first person other than Jules Verne to do that. Except he forecast advances, not stasis.

Goodnight, goodbye, and good luck!

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

The UK supreme court cannot strike down primary legisation. This was recently confirmed when the supreme court ruled that the executive cannot use secondary legislation to strike down primary legislation.

You have a non sequitur there. Plus apparently not knowing what comprises secondary legislation.

I know exactly what secondary and primary legislation is, and I was deliberately very precise in my language. I take my legal advice from an actual salaried judge that used to teach constitutional law at the University of Law, not jumped up MP's that once upon a time many moons ago did some legal practice in an area of law that was not constitutional law.

Primary legislation from Parliament handing out large amounts of subsidies for FTTP cannot be challanged in a UK court. Well it can be challanged but it will get nowhere. Requires an Act of Parliament, with a vote on the floor of the House, rather than some minister signing a Statutory Instrument but as Isaid primary legilsation and it cannot be challanged, that is what is ment when you say Parliament is soverign. Constituionally Boris is just Paliament's representative to the Queen.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I'm really glad that you know more than Einstein did over 40 years ago, and Stephen Hawking had discovered by the time he died.

I'm impressed and humbled by the fact that you can forecast the science of 100 years ahead based on the fraction you know of the fraction of the total knowledge of the universe(s?) we currently have available. The first person other than Jules Verne to do that. Except he forecast advances, not stasis.

Goodnight, goodbye, and good luck!

Transmitting information faster than the speed of light is rulled impossible by General Relativity. Given that General Relativity is the crowning glory of Einstiens achievements and has withstood over 100 years of probing by physicists to find limits to the theory without success, then the person claiming to know more than Einstein is yourself not me. No writing of Stephen Hawking has ever suggested this is not correct either. He would not be so stupid as to make the suggestion. Only junk science says General Relativity is wrong.

I would note that even if you could find a regime in which General Realtivity does not apply (and it almost certainly exists), it would have to be outside the currently tested limits which means that won't happen on Earth without destroying it such would be the extreme conditions required for it.

Perhaps you think that more science can overcome the laws of thermodynamics because they are even older than General Relativity. Of course this will never happen as would mean one could construct a perpetual motion machine LOL.

So yes single mode fibre as it exists today is good enough for at least the next 100 years and probably all time. You will replace the lasers and photodiodes at each end to increase throughput but the fibre itself in the distribution network no because it is so close to the theoretical maximum already as not to be economic to replace even if a hollow fibres are ever a reality for optical communication.

Any degree educated physicist knows the reality of what I am saying.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

I know exactly what secondary and primary legislation is, and I was deliberately very precise in my language. I take my legal advice from an actual salaried judge that used to teach constitutional law at the University of Law, not jumped up MP's that once upon a time many moons ago did some legal practice in an area of law that was not constitutional law.

In which case you must have completed misunderstood the advice.

I am not arguing that the Supreme Court can strike out primary legislation, (though there are circumstances in which it could), but you stated that it couldn't on the basis that the SC ruled that the executive could not use secondary legislation to strike down (over-ride) primary.

Perhaps you should go back to this post and google "non sequitur". Or email Jacob or Boris and ask them.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Any degree educated physicist knows the reality of what I am saying.

And any physicist with decades of research after obtaining a PhD would never be so definite about that reality.

You keep banging on about General Relativity. You seem to forget that even Einstein entitled it his Theory of General Relativity. Not The Ultimate Truth of General Relativity.

A hypothesis is something put forward as a possible explanation of something observed. Tests are than devised to test that hypothesis. If all tests seem to confirm that it predicts all related observations it becomes a theory. It's still a long way of being the final statement of fact.

Modern physics is finding things that Einstein believed impossible. Have a read of this paper, or this one. Plus many more.

I suggest you stopped at the first degree level, if you got that far.

Not saying either of you are right or wrong but I think you guys should simply agree to disagree as most viewer of these threads switch off when contributors get to this level of detail.

On the subject of Boris and full fibre by 2025 I think we should all wait and see, yes the target is unlikely to be achieved but anyone getting full fibre because of Boris by 2025 rather than 2033 will be a winner and lets hope their are many winners.

In reply to a post by dect:

Not saying either of you are right or wrong but I think you guys should simply agree to disagree as most viewer of these threads switch off when contributors get to this level of detail.

Agreed. Great walls of (often seemingly un-proofread) drifting off-topic text make the thread a nightmare.

In reply to a post by dect:

Not saying either of you are right or wrong but I think you guys should simply agree to disagree as most viewer of these threads switch off when contributors get to this level of detail.

I'm glad someone mentioned this, I looked in these forums earlier this morning for a quick glance round and reading spats like this made me switch off again.

I agree, just change planning consents to mandate Fibre on all new builds. Has been done in Wales to mandate Sprinkler systems in all new homes so even the devolved parts could do this NOW without waiting for Westminster to argue. Still wouldn't affect all those already with consent but would put pressure on them to provide from now.

Agreed, but that will only affect 200,000-300,000 houses per year. No existing ones.

As for the several recent posts about the argument between me and t�other, point taken. By me at least .

Given that new build is doing full fibre for around 7 out of 10 at present, its going to affect a much smaller number, of the order of 50,000 a year.

This was mentioned on the radio this morning:

Broadband chiefs fire back at PM's full-fibre internet pledge