aggregation nodes

In reference to www.thinkbroadband.com/news/8556-baker-s-dozen-of-villages-to-see-l...:

Adapting existing VDSL2 cabinets to utilise spare fibres to link the GPON network back to the aggregation node or handover exchange. This reduces the amount of new spine cabling required.

I'm not actually sure why this wasn't done in the first place where possible. That alone if done for all vdsl2 cabs would have reduce costs from going from vdsl2 to fttp.

In reply to a post by Taras:

I'm not actually sure why this wasn't done in the first place where possible. That alone if done for all vdsl2 cabs would have reduce costs from going from vdsl2 to fttp.

Possibly a reluctance to commit the spares to a future use they weren't originally intended for. Yes, it reduces the future capital costs, but it also means reduced ability to cope with expansion of existing facilities or faults therein.

Then, with experience gained over time and changing requirements, it becomes a viable option.

Maybe.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Taras:

I'm not actually sure why this wasn't done in the first place where possible. That alone if done for all vdsl2 cabs would have reduce costs from going from vdsl2 to fttp.

Possibly a reluctance to commit the spares to a future use they weren't originally intended for. Yes, it reduces the future capital costs, but it also means reduced ability to cope with expansion of existing facilities or faults therein.

Then, with experience gained over time and changing requirements, it becomes a viable option.

Maybe.

If it was done at the design stage, then your comments wouldn't be true. But yes i do agree with that, you are loosing current redundancy

Also means either further work to do in a few years, or committing to keeping the street furniture with largely redundant DSLAM once VDSL2 is dead

Like hard shoulders on the now far more dangerous �smart� motorways.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Also means either further work to do in a few years, or committing to keeping the street furniture with largely redundant DSLAM once VDSL2 is dead

How much of the cab structure would be needed and how much could be sunk underground. I would have thought that most of the dslam would go and only the fibre structures would remain? The biggest problem doing this on a reactionary basis, is the lack of redundancy.

In reply to a post by Taras:

If it was done at the design stage, then your comments wouldn't be true.

Which begs the question whether widespread fttp was ever more than a gleam in someone's eye when the fttc network was being planned... about which I haven't the faintest idea

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Like hard shoulders on the now far more dangerous �smart� motorways.

the idea of smart motorways isn't a bad one, but joe public having to guess what it all means. Smart motorways can create hard shoulders ad-hoc and also on the right hand side too.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Taras:

If it was done at the design stage, then your comments wouldn't be true.

Which begs the question whether widespread fttp was ever more than a gleam in someone's eye when the fttc network was being planned... about which I haven't the faintest idea

Correct. Many didn't see consumers needing > 100mbits. Hdr and 4k/8k changes that.

Depends on how it is all done e.g. is the DSLAM the GPON end point and then uses point to point back to the handover, this is what adds the range extension they are talking about. DSLAM is just a core part with a number of slots for different line cards one of which does GPON FTTP.

OR

Is one fibre split with a passive splitter, for cabinets covering large number of premises this may not work, but in rural areas less of an issue.

Believe current plan is to site the passive splitter option inside the space of the cabinet. Since this is where the spare fibres have been blown too.

Nothing has changed much no on the FTTP front from Openreach for a few years, but these changes are ones that I'll try to get along to and get some pictures of.

And given not many extra fibres are blown to the cabs, the issues Bill raised are there too.

But from what your saying again it depends on the implementation.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Also means either further work to do in a few years, or committing to keeping the street furniture with largely redundant DSLAM once VDSL2 is dead

Andrew I�m pretty sure they don�t actually mean they�re jointing spare fibres inside the VDSL cabinet itself and then back out to an FTTP node. It�ll be done in the jointbox in the pavement in front of the cab. They just mean spares in the fibre cable that was put in to service the VDSL cabinet.

In reply to a post by Icaras:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Also means either further work to do in a few years, or committing to keeping the street furniture with largely redundant DSLAM once VDSL2 is dead

Andrew I�m pretty sure they don�t actually mean they�re jointing spare fibres inside the VDSL cabinet itself and then back out to an FTTP node. It�ll be done in the jointbox in the pavement in front of the cab. They just mean spares in the fibre cable that was put in to service the VDSL cabinet.

My understanding was neither.

A mini-OLT would be installed inside the FTTC cabinet. Specifically the Huawei MA5800-X2.

Spare fibres can be be used but the whole point of it is it extends the GPON signal further to reach properties too far to receive GPON from the Head-End OLT.

It would only borrow a power supply from the FTTC DSLAM.
No other connections to the DSLAM would be necessary.

It could go underground but it still needs a power supply.

If that is the case why does press release say otherwise

"The company is also trialling �remote nodes� � where fibre-optic cables can be built out from specially-adapted existing green roadside cabinets. Specialised broadband-boosting equipment installed inside the cabinet enables full fibre connections to extend by more than one and a half times their current reach, with the capacity to connect more than 1,000 premises."

If it is just the footway box then no need to say cabinets are adapted since they are just intercepting the fibre bundle and splicing into a spare in the footway box.

The boost stuff is definitely in the cabinet as using power and DSLAM to boost light signal, the remote nodes is the one where the question is raised.

They seem to work well on my oft travelled bit of the M3 ... the usual issues are pinheads who sit in the 2nd lane, leaving others loathe to undertake.

Fair enough then. I missed the bit about it needing boosting entirely.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

They seem to work well on my oft travelled bit of the M3 ... the usual issues are pinheads who sit in the 2nd lane, leaving others loathe to undertake.

Highyway code rule 264!

Drives me mad.

Two modes...

The boost mode nicking some power/dslam rack space

The reuse of fibre which is in its blown fibre tube in the cabinet and adding a small splitter

Small headache on the M3 smart motorway bit as the left lane is often marked as the exit lane for the next junction.

Yes, for a mile prior to the junction, sometimes a tad more, like 4 to 4A where it�s all the way, but still doesn�t excuse it.

Me too John, and having 4 lanes just seems to confuse them further.

The main danger is a breakdown or an accident, plus an hugely increased risk of a breakdown causing an accident. Emergency vehicles not able to get to the scene either.

But we aren't really in the right place for this discussion. I was merely trying initially to point out that decisions made about solving capacity problems by using and thereby removing the deliberately engineered in safety margin are rarely wise.

It is incredibly difficult to sit in the middle lane of a 4 lane motorway - there must be drivers that have a mental breakdown when confronted with such an issue...

That was my take too. Though the number of premises that are two far from the OLT to get GPON must be very low. I would suspect well less that 1% are going to be those tricky deep rural properties several miles up a glen somewhere in Scotland. There was some talk earlier that using lower split ratios (as low as 1:4) gets a longer distance from the OLT to begin with anyway.

That said for this small number of premises involved I would be tempted either to go fully PtP because standard 1Gbps BiDi optics can be had at 120km for under £100 a pair and gives you a fully symmetric connection.

The other option would be to go with the emerging CWDM-PON standard which only requires split rations of 1:9 or less and for which 120km SFP's can be had for even less, though you would need CWDM-PON splitters and again this is a fully symmetric system.

Both of these alternative options are also good for symmetric speeds of 10Gbps and 25Gbps today so very future proof.

Nah, they just believe that the centre lane has been widened to a dual carriageway.

In reply to a post by Taras:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Like hard shoulders on the now far more dangerous �smart� motorways.

the idea of smart motorways isn't a bad one, but joe public having to guess what it all means. Smart motorways can create hard shoulders ad-hoc and also on the right hand side too.

Doesn't that rely on people actually reading and complying with the gantry signs? Something that rarely happens in my experience until people actually see the obstruction and try to rapidly change lanes.

Sorry, way off topic now.