General Discussion
  >> Fibre Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User jabuzzard
(experienced) Sat 16-Jan-21 14:55:24
Print Post

CFP question


[link to this post]
 
I have a question about a CFP. Someone is looking into it for the estate my mother lives on. The cabinet is at the entrance to the estate Normally she should get something like 70/15 but there is a fault on the line limiting it to 38/4 and Openreach are insisting they have to come inside to investigate so that's out the question at the moment.

However is there any point in me expressing an interest for her given the "normal" speeds she can get? I would imagine that the far end of the estate gets awful speeds, and if she could get full fibre I would probably upgrade her. However it strikes me that it would be pointless to register an interest given the speed she can get.
Standard User candlerb
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 16-Jan-21 20:57:32
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: jabuzzard] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jabuzzard:
I have a question about a CFP. Someone is looking into it for the estate my mother lives on. The cabinet is at the entrance to the estate Normally she should get something like 70/15 but there is a fault on the line limiting it to 38/4 and Openreach are insisting they have to come inside to investigate so that's out the question at the moment.

However is there any point in me expressing an interest for her given the "normal" speeds she can get? I would imagine that the far end of the estate gets awful speeds, and if she could get full fibre I would probably upgrade her. However it strikes me that it would be pointless to register an interest given the speed she can get.


You say that if FTTP were available, you'd take it (presumably for reliability / future-proofing). Therefore you're interested. Expressing an interest doesn't commit you to anything, and if a lot of interest is shown, there's a chance that OR would turn this into a "demand-led" scheme - so the CFP organiser may appreciate this.

However it also sounds like if you were required to make any more than a token financial contribution, you wouldn't be willing to (as the benefit is small). You can be up front with the CFP organiser about that too. I expect quite a few people fall into that category.
Standard User Fastman3
(member) Sun 17-Jan-21 10:31:37
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: candlerb] [link to this post]
 
let me give you a view on how this will likely to play out - if the estate is say 30 or 150 or however many it is and they all get over 30 m/bs its is pretty likely that you will get a cost for doing the whole estate. Openreach is not going provide a few premises for FTTP if it could do the complete estate for the relatively similar build cost (the primary cost is from Headend to aggregation node to splitters (if the estate is ducted that the least of the problems and normally the cheapest - think you need to see what the appetite is in the estate for doing this


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User jabuzzard
(experienced) Sun 17-Jan-21 18:04:41
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
The estate has two bits. The original bit built in the late 1960's. Then a newer bit built late 1970's early 1980's from memory. It was not there when I where a lad. Most of the original estate gets decent speeds and it is all direct buried and fed from telegraph poles. Apparently the developer was very naughty as it was supposed to be ducted, or at least that what my mother tells me and she brought the house from new. That's Leech for you, but I think most developers are cheap skates to this day.

The newer bit of the estate must be all ducted because there are no telegraph poles. Exactly how the cables get from the entrance to the estate to the new bit I don't know.

At a guestimate the estate is ~350-400 houses, with two thirds being the original bit. With half the estate getting better than 70Mbps.
Standard User dect
(fountain of knowledge) Sun 17-Jan-21 22:34:59
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: jabuzzard] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jabuzzard:
it is all direct buried and fed from telegraph poles.
That sounds an expensive CFP if thats the case.
Standard User Fastman3
(member) Mon 18-Jan-21 11:40:05
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: dect] [link to this post]
 
agreed

also id be worried about the newer part as well as that does not sound great also migth be part duct . part buried
Standard User dect
(fountain of knowledge) Mon 18-Jan-21 11:50:12
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Fastman3:
agreed

also id be worried about the newer part as well as that does not sound great also migth be part duct . part buried
True

I would still register my interest as the OP's mum has nothing to lose and can walk away if the CFP quote is too high.
Standard User jabuzzard
(experienced) Mon 18-Jan-21 12:41:11
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
The newer bit is 1980's (on checking) and almost certainly ducted. I did a count and there are 301 properties on the estate with a couple more being built (right now) on some land between the old and new bit which I imagine back in the day was considered too steep to build on (still is if you ask me).

I wonder if they are getting FTTP whether that could be taken into account. If they are hauling fibre to them then might as well do the ducted bit of the estate at a minimum.

Though I suspect that's way to much imaginative thinking for Openreach.
Standard User Fastman3
(member) Mon 18-Jan-21 13:23:14
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: dect] [link to this post]
 
the new build if that is being done with that a developer is nothing to do with the exisitng nor will it being considered. thats the equivalent of your ordering your driving to be paved and all your neighbours expecting to be done free because that would be imaginaitive
Standard User jabuzzard
(experienced) Mon 18-Jan-21 15:19:24
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Fastman3:
the new build if that is being done with that a developer is nothing to do with the exisitng nor will it being considered. thats the equivalent of your ordering your driving to be paved and all your neighbours expecting to be done free because that would be imaginaitive


That's a false equivalent. If you are doing a pile of work to get fibre to the two new builds on "vacant" land on the housing estate then the additional cost of installing extra fibres to cover the area of the estate further down that gets poor broadband and consequently likely to have a high uptake of FTTP is significantly less than if you have to come back and do it all again separately for the CFP.

In short installing two fibres is not twice the cost of installing one, and if you think it is then you are on the crack pipe.

Anyone who does not understand that is part of the problem in achieving the maximum roll out of FTTP for the minimum cost in the UK.
Standard User Fastman3
(member) Tue 19-Jan-21 07:29:31
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: jabuzzard] [link to this post]
 
jabuzzard

the greenfield will be funded by the SOD payment from the developer and would not have copper in and so you get a return on that , who is going to fund the outlay of the other X hundred houses and what type of return would you want , . there is a massive difference between FTTP in greenfield and FTTP in brownfield - (eserpcailly in a 1970s, 1980s estate irrelevant of the spine and aggregation node and the splitters . (so you funding the duct wortk , all the buried lead ins and every thing else associated with a brown field fttp development , - , its clear you think you rock up[ with a fibre cable and hey presto. every body gets service. - its n othing like that and anything that involves extensive cilvs work will massive increase the Gap required over the commercial case and wont be done
Standard User j0hn83
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 19-Jan-21 12:38:30
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
You think a developer of a 1980's housing development is making contributions to an FTTP rollout?

Do you even read threads?

the greenfield will be funded by the SOD payment from the developer


You do realise it's OpenReach who pay the developer a SOD payment and not the other way round?
Standard User jabuzzard
(experienced) Tue 19-Jan-21 22:47:12
Print Post

Re: CFP question


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
You have completely missed the point.

Housing estate built late 1960's very to early 1970's has direct buried telephone to telegraph poles (at least I think that's the case from what I have seen after repairs to the cable in the past). Developer came back in early 1980's for a second phase which is almost certainly ducted. There are no telegraph poles visible for starters. The older bit of the estate mostly has very good speeds, with bits furthest from the entrance dipping to around 40Mbps. The newer bit of the estate has poor broadband speeds. Everything is fed from a cabinet at the entrance to the estate.

Recently a developer has started building two houses on some previously unused land between the old and new sections of the estate. My guess is the original developer considered the land the two new houses are being built on too steep. In fact I would still consider that to be the case.

Now as I understand it Openreach only does FTTP hooks for new properties, so the developer of the two new properties pays £X which looking at the price list is likely to be much lower than £Y the cost to Openreach of the install. These properties are not yet finished either so chances of the fibre being pulled to them is low. They don't have roofs yet.

There is now a CFP in play primarily targeting the newer end of the estate with the worst speeds, which starts beyond the two new houses.

Now Openreach can spend £Y and then £Z either via the CFP or at some point in the future if you work on the premise that something close to 100% fibre us the ultimate goal.

The point I was making is that doing both together at the same time would be significantly cheaper than £(Y+Z) and make the CFP more attractive. In fact my guess is the marginal cost increase to serve the new bit of the estate especially if it's ducted is quite low. However this does as I suggested require Openreach to think outside the box.

I am sort of curious how BT got extra lines to the new bit of the estate back in the day as I am not obvious signs of trenching up of roads/paths to lay extra cable and I have no recollection of any being done either, so it may be already ducted. Bizarrely a couple of years ago a whole bunch of Openreach manholes where inserted into the paths around the old bit of the estate and at the base of all the telegraph poles. Other interesting point of note is that a significant proportion of the cabinets of the exchange had g.Fast pods fitted but not the one for this estate.

For reference purposes it's NEPH cabinet 4.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to