MGfast can do 10Gig on copper line

Goodness me, MGfast can deliver 10Gig on copper line but within shorter distance of less than 100m. Seem ok for those who are a stone throw from the cabinet to benefit MGfast up to 10Gig.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MGFAST%3A-A-Ne...

That's pretty pointless though. It means that:

1. there must be some *powered* equipment less than 100m away from you; and
2. that equipment must have a 10G+ backhaul, which means it must have fibre

In that case, it makes much more sense just to pull a fibre for the last 100m, and be done with the powered equipment altogether.

That's basically what killed G.Fast as FTTRN.

Yup - If you're bringing fibre to within 100m of you, especially a 10GB bearer, might as well just hook it up direclty to the end user.

I could see it working in old old buildings like Parliament etc where it would just be horredously expensive to rip out the old copper and replace it, but niche examples.

I know you used Parliament as an example of an old building but in this case I pretty much guarantee Parliament already has fibre leased line installed. Flats I would say at the moment are the more likely candidate as it means you don't have to run fibres to all the flats and instead can use the existing copper lines. But what if the copper is degraded - surely that will mean the signal strength and reliability would be impacted which could mean it needs to be replaced - in which case you would just install fibre.

if fibre didn't exist this would be *perfect* but with fttp being available for a long time. Its kinda pointless for mainstream implementation.

Article published in 2019.

Anyway, G.Fast isn't the only alternative broadband technology:
https://imgur.com/a/kzgBFcm

😀
From a right-hand link there, this GIF is well worth a click. Make sure you scroll up to see his feet hit the water .

4 years ago BT researching MGfast before Openreach ditched it and ditched G.fast roll out to paused it in June 2020 until April 2021 but it decided Openreach are now rolling out FTTP instead.

4 years ago press news: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/08/bt-adt...

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Goodness me, MGfast can deliver 10Gig on copper line but within shorter distance of less than 100m. Seem ok for those who are a stone throw from the cabinet to benefit MGfast up to 10Gig.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MGFAST%3A-A-Ne...

Completely, totally and utterly pointless. Just a box ticking exercise by the standards bodies.

Internal wiring degrades at a much lower rate than external anything. Blocks of flats where existing copper wiring runs through flats to adjacent flats which makes running fibre a difficult and complex task, especially historically with the difficulties in getting relevant permissions from landlords and management companies.

At the end of the day all that matters is does the connection work reliably and at speed. CityFibre (I think) do the last drop in flats with Cat5e because a wired ethernet connection is just as good a fibre connection. Mind you using Cat5e is a boneheaded decision if you ask me Cat6a would have been so much more future proofed. Though the introduction of NBaseT does given them a 2.5Gbps upgrade option I guess.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

CityFibre (I think) do the last drop in flats with Cat5e because a wired ethernet connection is just as good a fibre connection.

Cityfibre don't, but you're probably thinking of Hyperoptic.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

CityFibre (I think) do the last drop in flats with Cat5e because a wired ethernet connection is just as good a fibre connection.

Cityfibre don't, but you're probably thinking of Hyperoptic.

This ^

Though Hyperoptic have switched from using Cat5e to using fibre for most installs now.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Though Hyperoptic have switched from using Cat5e to using fibre for most installs now.

I'd say it has reached the point where the costs of switches every floor or two (and the electrical installation to power them, electricity consumed etc.) are higher than an OLT in the basement or indeed further down the road shared between several buildings.

The Cat5e itself isn't going to be a problem for a while yet.

I would agree that it's likely that a wayleave to install a passive network is far easier to arrange than siting of active equipment, arranging for power supplies to be installed, and then paying landlords for that power. Also the changes to the Openreach EAD product pricing probably didn't help.

Edited by jpm (Sun 22-Aug-21 19:14:03)

In reply to a post by jpm:

I would agree that it's likely that a wayleave to install a passive network is far easier to arrange than siting of active equipment, arranging for power supplies to be installed, and then paying landlords for that power. Also the changes to the Openreach EAD product pricing probably didn't help.

Wouldn’t Hyperoptic use their own fibre network, rather than an Openreach EAD circuit?

Probably using PIA now but I don't know for sure. I'm 100% sure they used to deliver EAD to each site and then install a switch, though.

Interesting to know. I guess the ‘surcharge’ OR announced last December for these types of uses of EAD hastened their change.

I've been speaking to Hyperoptic about getting my building done and they said Invisilight is the default for internal installs now.

In my previous building they used Cat5e with one switch on the ground floor serving 42 flats over 6 stories. No need for a switch every floor or two unless it's a huge building.

Given the difficulty I've experienced getting the managing agent and landlord to cooperate, I can see MGfast being a pretty sensible option for many existing blocks. Even in my current block where Hyperoptic are drawing up an install proposal, they can't work out how to connect the last two flats. The Openreach wiring may well run through one to get to the other making it essentially impossible to do an internal install.

Given that would entail Hyperoptic to enter into a type of sub loop unbundling arrangement with Openreach to use their copper lead-in cabling, I think it highly, highly unlikely from a commercial perspective and also given their wider focus is on delivering “full fibre” connections.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Interesting to know. I guess the ‘surcharge’ OR announced last December for these types of uses of EAD hastened their change.

Yet Hyperoptic could continue to deploy Cat5e with no surcharge.

That surcharge is really blatantly anti-competitive, I'm amazed there wasn't more noise made.

Presumably other leased line vendors are happy to take a chunk of that business, or more likely raise their prices to match.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Given that would entail Hyperoptic to enter into a type of sub loop unbundling arrangement with Openreach to use their copper lead-in cabling, I think it highly, highly unlikely from a commercial perspective and also given their wider focus is on delivering “full fibre” connections.

I agree, I'm not suggesting another provider would use the lead-in copper. Just that MGfast or something similar could be useful for special cases where Openreach can't get permission to install "full fibre", or doing so would require destroying a neighbouring properties decoration.

In my case, if Hyperoptic can't install full fibre (to 1/2 flats in the building), I don't see how Openreach can either. Maybe they could use the existing Cat5e to the flat (since it's theirs) and put the ONT at the closest distribution point. Though, I've never heard of an ONT being outside a premises...

Edited by Cockroach (Wed 25-Aug-21 11:34:13)

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

Though, I've never heard of an ONT being outside a premises...

At the moment that's how Virgin Media do their FTTP.
It's not a GPON ONT but it's the same principle.
It's reverse powered from the customers property.

There's 'outside' the property and outdoors I guess.

Those Boostral RFoG modems are more tolerant/IP rated to be sited in an outdoor enclosure being constructed of an alloy casing.

As compared to the typical Openreach ONT, which is 100% an indoor-rated devices with their lovely open view of the PCB through the venting/grills.

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

In my case, if Hyperoptic can't install full fibre (to 1/2 flats in the building), I don't see how Openreach can either. Maybe they could use the existing Cat5e to the flat (since it's theirs) and put the ONT at the closest distribution point. Though, I've never heard of an ONT being outside a premises...

As the 'user presentation' is copper anyway, theres no reason why the ONT couldn't be located in an internal communal riser or equipment cupboard. There's still the capability to run 100 metres in Cat5e/6 from the ONT to the users router or other network device.

It's possibly more a case of access; if you need to get access to the ONT and it's not easily accessible (for example locked away in a riser/cupboard that the building manager only has ordinary access to). The CP's probably wouldn't approve as there's more a chance of 'others' interfering or borrowing / sharing service, than if the ONT is only accessible to the end user/resident.

Edited by Pheasant (Wed 25-Aug-21 12:13:50)

I hadn't really considered powering the ONT over Ethernet from the consumer side. That probably make it much more feasible for Openreach to take that approach in some special cases if they instruct the "engineers" properly. They'd still need permission to use the cupboard/riser space but that'd be easier than getting power there too.

There will still be cases where they can't run any new cabling to or within a building and might need to consider an alternative technology. My feeling from Openreach regarding MDUs is they're kicking the can down the road in most cases. When an area is rolled out, it seems that flats are skipped. When they get to the point of diminishing returns on the standard deployments, they'll have to circle back and figure out how to retrofit MDUs.

The example that John cited was for the O2VM (Virgin Media) RFoG devices which are purposely designed to be fed from the customer premises in this way.

This should not be confused rather contrasted with Openreach ONT - none of which have native PoE capability on the Ethernet port and can only be powered in this way through the use of an external PoE splitter device, which delivers power to the ONT barrel connector. It’s NOT a standard method of powering the ONT and Openreach won’t provision them in this way - although folks have done it themselves, after the fact. It remains non-standard not approved by Openreach.

Yep, understand the current Openreach ONTs don't support that. Just thinking out loud about what Openreach could do in future to tackle problematic MDUs.

Noting that Ubiquti have PoE powered ONT's, though admittedly they are 24V passive PoE. However if Mikrotik can do a £20 WiFi access point (mAP lite) that supports 24V passive PoE and 802.3af/at it's about time Openreach got their fingers out.

If ONT's start support PoE then routers will start support PoE on their WAN port.

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

Yep, understand the current Openreach ONTs don't support that. Just thinking out loud about what Openreach could do in future to tackle problematic MDUs.

I think it's possibly wishful thinking that copper will figure in resolving that conundrum now for Openreach.

Sure they could do, as technically lots of stuff is quite possible. However given all the messaging, the desire to retire copper (eventually) and of course the huge strategic push with FTTP, I think is massively unlikely that Openreach will ever again embrace any sort of copper broadband tech going forward.

G.fast was a regrettable and expensive strategic mistake for them. I doubt very much they would look to repeat the error with something like MGfast.

On the other hand they are honing and refining how they deliver FTTP. In 2021 that is the only realistic 'last mile' (or several hundred feet in most situations) tech going forward. Even Virgin will get out of the coax game soon enough, despite the promises of D4 etc and push on the FTTP bandwagon.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I think it's possibly wishful thinking that copper will figure in resolving that conundrum now for Openreach.

Sure they could do, as technically lots of stuff is quite possible. However given all the messaging, the desire to retire copper (eventually) and of course the huge strategic push with FTTP, I think is massively unlikely that Openreach will ever again embrace any sort of copper broadband tech going forward.

G.fast was a regrettable and expensive strategic mistake for them. I doubt very much they would look to repeat the error with something like MGfast.

The problem is that Openreach own that last mile of copper and are not going to start leasing just that bit (e.g. from the street or building). So if they don't utilise it with faster tech, no one can. If FTTP for a building is impossible or expensive consumers will be pushed to 5G to achieve faster speeds. A colleague of mine has just had Community Fibre provision his street and he still opted to renew his Three mobile broadband contract.

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

The problem is that Openreach own that last mile of copper and are not going to start leasing just that bit (e.g. from the street or building). So if they don't utilise it with faster tech, no one can.

They can and do do similar. It's called Sub Loop Unbundling.

There are a number of providers who install their own DSLAMs on PCP's that OpenReach haven't installed their own DSLAM on.
Glide (formerly WarwickNet) and Callflow are the 2 biggest I'm aware of.

If OpenReach haven't put a VDSL2 cabinet on a PCP then other providers are free to install their own VDSL2 and/or G.Fast DSLAM on it

MGFast would of course be useless if it were deployed from a PCP unless that PCP was right in front of a very large MDU.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

They can and do do similar. It's called Sub Loop Unbundling.

There are a number of providers who install their own DSLAMs on PCP's that OpenReach haven't installed their own DSLAM on.
Glide (formerly WarwickNet) and Callflow are the 2 biggest I'm aware of.

If OpenReach haven't put a VDSL2 cabinet on a PCP then other providers are free to install their own VDSL2 and/or G.Fast DSLAM on it

MGFast would of course be useless if it were deployed from a PCP unless that PCP was right in front of a very large MDU.

Interesting, I thought they only did unbundling from the exchange (LLU). If Openreach already has a product for it, perhaps someone will fill any MDU voids that are left.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

The problem is that Openreach own that last mile of copper and are not going to start leasing just that bit (e.g. from the street or building). So if they don't utilise it with faster tech, no one can.

They can and do do similar. It's called Sub Loop Unbundling.

There are a number of providers who install their own DSLAMs on PCP's that OpenReach haven't installed their own DSLAM on.
Glide (formerly WarwickNet) and Callflow are the 2 biggest I'm aware of.

If OpenReach haven't put a VDSL2 cabinet on a PCP then other providers are free to install their own VDSL2 and/or G.Fast DSLAM on it

MGFast would of course be useless if it were deployed from a PCP unless that PCP was right in front of a very large MDU.

Reminds me of that thread a few weeks ago, where the chap in Ponders End/Enfield using Glide was told their cabinet was being decommissioned by Glide in 30 days, with no prospect for further service. There's that tie cable distance limit between PCP and SLU cabinet - they either couldn't make that work if relocating their SLU cabinet or simply couldn't be bothered to continue service, perhaps because of low utilisation.

Edited by Pheasant (Thu 26-Aug-21 12:18:42)

Let's not let the freeholders of the buildings off the hook here. If the fit and finish in communal areas is important to the building owners, there are no existing cable risers and there currently only exists copper pairs buried within the building fabric then there is nothing stopping the owners of the building providing approved cabling paths to be used by any network operator, and then repairing decorations to their own standards.

Building owners wanting unreasonable fees to grant wayleaves isn't a problem that network builders should have to work around, it's a waste of their energy to do so that would be better spent on genuine R&D.

In reply to a post by jpm:

Let's not let the freeholders of the buildings off the hook here. If the fit and finish in communal areas is important to the building owners, there are no existing cable risers and there currently only exists copper pairs buried within the building fabric then there is nothing stopping the owners of the building providing approved cabling paths to be used by any network operator, and then repairing decorations to their own standards.

I agree we shouldn't let them off the hook, but if the reality is they are being unresponsive or difficult, you've got to work with what you've got. In most instances, network operators are not going to spend a ton of effort chasing and pushing for an individual block.

Agreed, but if I was a network operator in that situation I'd be inclined to just leave that building out of my plans rather than siting a cabinet outside and using the copper pairs to provide a service that has different characteristics and uses different equipment to the other 95%+ of my network. If you have a difficult building owner or agent then what happens if the copper in the building gets damaged? Are you going to be allowed to maintain it?

In reply to a post by jpm:

Agreed, but if I was a network operator in that situation I'd be inclined to just leave that building out of my plans rather than siting a cabinet outside and using the copper pairs to provide a service that has different characteristics and uses different equipment to the other 95%+ of my network. If you have a difficult building owner or agent then what happens if the copper in the building gets damaged? Are you going to be allowed to maintain it?

Indeed. As OR have some time ago abandoned new G.fast deployments, have now spent £30M on IT software and digital workflow tools alone to be enable them to upgrade their fibre build rollout targets and crank up to provide 70,000+ properties passed per week on FTTP plus and have stated on numerous occasions their desire to transform the network, as we see first PSTN shutting off in 2 years - the chances of them "looking back" to copper now for ultra high speed broadband connectivity are pretty much zilch.