FTTP - Very close, but not available

Leicestershire council have been awarding contracts to Openreach to deploy FTTP, and one of the addresses covered in this is "The Old Lock House" at postcode LE11 1QA. This is a bit of a strange postcode as it covers a stretch of towpath rather than being a smaller geographical area, all postcodes were targeted for FTTP funding and it looks like that has now been installed. Our offices are located at Unit B, LE11 5XH but if you look on a map you can see these two addresses are basically right next to each other. The copper services for the Lock House pass in front of us to get to them, and we are both served off the same PCP according to the BTw checker.

Openreach have enabled the Lock House address for FTTP and managed to avoid enabling us at the same time. The only ways I can think that they have done this are either by bringing the fibre cable 300m up a tow path from the next closest property (digging it into verge or hopping onto power poles for around half the distance), or the CBT is in a chamber right next to us but it's locked out on a database to prevent public funding enabling out-of-scope premises. I can't see why Openreach would drag a cable 300m rather than using the existing ducted network with the final drop being off a pole, but there presumably are reasons. I have access to the Openreach mapping tool through an ISP we resell, and no additional ducts have been laid to serve this premise from a different direction, but this could simply be because the data isn't up-to-date, or that a single FTTP drop wouldn't appear on there anyway.

I'm not able to just go and have a look around unfortunately for another month or so as I work remotely, but anybody who can provide a bit of insight into this would be really helping out. I have filled in the usual "my neighbour can get FTTP but I can't" form, but I doubt they will be telling me where CBTs have been positioned etc.

In reply to a post by jpm:

I can't see why Openreach would drag a cable 300m rather than using the existing ducted network with the final drop being off a pole, but there presumably are reasons.

It's quite common for OR to ignore existing ducts and run FTTP on poles, as this can be a lot quicker and cheaper than resolving problems with blocked and collapsed ducts.

Can you see any fibre cable on poles, or have any yellow fibre warning stickers appeared?

If you look on the pole that serves the Old Lock House, and if you can see the CBT, you may be able to tell whether it's fed aerially or runs down the pole and underground.

Thanks, I'll see if someone can get some photos.

Someone on site has taken a look around, and there's nothing there. No CBT at the top of the pole that serves this address, just the same copper DP that's been there for years. The BTw checker lists this as "Single Dwelling Unit Residential OH Feed hoist required.", and FTTP is available to order.

It's possible the CBT is on another pole, and the final drop would be run between poles. It would mean that the copper DP and the CBT are in different locations, but that's normal.

I've never heard of a property being served from a pole where the CBT is underground.

Me neither, which is why it's got me confused.

The whole industrial estate is served off an underground network, then there's a pole next to a chamber with a copper DP at the top, and then two intermediate poles before this house is connected. It's the only thing served by the poles, which have been there for decades.

In reply to a post by jpm:

The whole industrial estate is served off an underground network, then there's a pole next to a chamber with a copper DP at the top, and then two intermediate poles before this house is connected. It's the only thing served by the poles, which have been there for decades.

And the CBT is not on one of those other poles? And none of the poles have a yellow "Caution: Overhead Fibre" sticker?

Seems weird. Maybe the checker is wrong and FTTP *isn't* available at that property yet?

Nothing on any of the poles, they just support the existing copper cable on the span

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.7806065,-1.2154161,3...

That's a street view from a few years ago but it looks the same now. I was thinking maybe they build the infrastructure out when an order is placed but it would be different to everything I've picked up about how the Openreach FTTP rollout works.

So the property hasn't actually *ordered* FTTP then? I suppose it could be a hybrid cable but then they'd have to break out the copper pair at the copper DP.

Personally, I'd say the chances are it's a database error, and FTTP isn't available there after all.

I suppose, as you suggest, OR could be quietly trialling some new process of installing CBT on-demand when the order is placed. In that case, I'd expect the BTw checker to say at least "KCI2 Assure" (it says "1 Stage"). Also, it seems unlikely that the council would have paid OR to *promise* to install a CBT, without having done so.

Edited by candlerb (Thu 18-Nov-21 10:40:46)

Now I think about it, a more likely possibility is that the Old Lock House is being served by FTTP from a completely different direction. This is quite normal: the copper may head off in one direction towards the local exchange, while the fibre heads off in a different direction towards the fibre aggregation node (and hence onwards towards a larger head-end exchange).

The copper and fibre networks are completely independent.

I had considered that, but it comes back to the post that started this - it seems like a lot of effort to purposely avoid using the network that is already in place (the ducts are good, we had an EAD service installed recently and some work has been undertaken in the past year to replace a collapsed section). No new poles have been installed, so unless the plan is to put them in them when an order is placed I am at a loss as to how this premise is going to be served.

I'm sure it's not a database error because it was funded by the local authority and only recently flipped to showing as being served.

I guess all we can really do is keep an eye on things and see what happens.

The EAD network is also completely separate from the FTTP network, and I believe it's also exchange-based (hence more likely to follow copper routes).

When I had my FTTPoD installed, some of the engineers I talked to expressed surprise that OR were ignoring all the existing leased-line fibre and pulling a new cable from scratch to the fibre aggregation node. It's just how they work - FTTP is kept entirely separate.

But like you say, wait and see what happens when the OLH gets its service installed.

I'm aware it's separate but it doesn't have it's own duct network - I mentioned it to cover off the possibility of ignoring existing ducts due to them being damaged.

I've never heard of a property being served from a pole where the CBT is underground.

…. but it does occur sometimes.

Have had a UG CBT, then up the stick, and span to a property.

A wall mounted CBT, then through duct to a pole, then three spans before the property (that was a huge PITA to pull in)

Edited by Zarjaz (Thu 18-Nov-21 11:49:42)

OK, well that's positive.

This also might be an opportunity for the OP to try out the new FTTPoD pricing trial from Dec 1st.

Presumably the office in question is not planned to be served from the same CBT (otherwise it would already show as available in the checker). But if OR only have to install a new CBT in another footway box, and connect it to an existing splitter within 500m, then the reduced pricing could be available. They will have to commit £250+VAT to find out though.

In reply to a post by jpm:

The whole industrial estate is served off an underground network, then there's a pole next to a chamber with a copper DP at the top, and then two intermediate poles before this house is connected. It's the only thing served by the poles, which have been there for decades.

Given that, reckon a CBT (if it does actually exist and isn’t an artefact from a DB anomaly) would be located in a chamber.

The poles look subsidiary and not the main network pathway.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

The EAD network is also completely separate from the FTTP network, and I believe it's also exchange-based (hence more likely to follow copper routes).

When I had my FTTPoD installed, some of the engineers I talked to expressed surprise that OR were ignoring all the existing leased-line fibre and pulling a new cable from scratch to the fibre aggregation node. It's just how they work - FTTP is kept entirely separate.

But like you say, wait and see what happens when the OLH gets its service installed.

I think getting a new EAD service just proves, as jpm said, that the local OR duct network is in good enough shape to pull new cables through, whether that be for FTTP or private circuits.

Don't think theres much more to it than that. They are as you say separate and EAD typically runs to the nearest node (joint enclosre) - jpm probably has access to the mapping tools from OR and can see where the various T nodes are located.

I'm surprised he's not thought of selling broadband to his neighbours....apparently its a doddle...

Given the other side is a lock, i don't think BT/OR would have spent money on doing ducting around there. So the overhead feed makes sense and is the cheapest route.

Completely unrelated to this thread and the OP (sorry for the tangent) - this made me think of all the dark fibre thats was laid pre-millennium around canals and waterways owned by British Waterways - a surprising number of trunk routes are under those towpaths.

Carry on

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

owned by British Waterways

(formerly British Waterways), and I remember the "Energis" brand that installed dark fibre on the electricity pylons.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Completely unrelated to this thread and the OP (sorry for the tangent) - this made me think of all the dark fibre thats was laid pre-millennium around canals and waterways owned by British Waterways - a surprising number of trunk routes are under those towpaths.

Carry on

how much of it is re-usable now?.. Common sense would say to do so but corporate culture is more "even though its there lets lay our own"

Under various different ownerships etc. over the past 20+ years, but I believe a lot of it is still very much in use.

Charlie Boisseau did a good summary presentation at one of the UKNOF meetings a few years ago. Think it’s on YouTube…

You won't a CBT anywhere near there. Nothing within about 400 metres

Ah, the poster I was hoping would reply has arrived. Any insight into how this address has been served, or has the database jumped ahead of reality?

I don't see how it can be served at present

Interesting. I guess we wait and see then.

To provide some closure to this thread, I pushed Openreach a bit until they escalated back to an infrastructure team in the UK who have confirmed that their database is incorrect and the Old Lock House premise is not served by FTTP, and any order placed would fail.

Perhaps unsurprisingly this runs counter to what the local authority believe to be the case, but they seem to frequently forget how to use email so I'm inclined to believe Openreach.

Edited by jpm (Wed 24-Aug-22 12:19:35)