Openreach installing full fibre - only half of street?

Hi all, apologies if this has been asked before. I live in a fairly new property (built in 2014) and I noticed multiple Openreach vans on my street 2 weeks ago. I spoke with one of the engineers briefly and he confirmed they were installing full fibre for the street. They had 2 reels, 1 which appeared to be fibre cabling and another of blue rope.

We don't have any overhead poles and all properties are served from underground cabinets/ducts as is pretty standard for newer builds. My worry is when I put in my postcode and house number on the checker (I live in an odd numbered house, 19) on the Openreach website, it states "At the moment, we don't have any plans to upgrade your area to full fibre, but provide your contact details and we'll keep you up to date if things change - we add new locations into our build plan every three months". This is also the case for several other odd numbered properties when I've searched them.

However, when I do the same with an even numbered property on my street, it states "We're starting to build our ultra-fast, ultra-reliable Full Fibre broadband in your area". Is it common for Openreach to only account for 1 side of a street, or is this more a database issue which will be updated once their work is complete? I noticed they were back briefly today after 2 weeks of no progress but didn't get a chance to speak with them.

Is there anything different about your side of the street - in particular, are the properties on that side flats (MDUs)?

No nothing out of the ordinary on our side, all houses. The underground cabinets are on the even numbered side of the road's footpath but we currently have FTTC broadband. I'm assuming our copper cabling would be coming via ducting that would cross underneath the street.

Does your copper cable emerge from a duct beside your house?

If the cables are buried across the road, that might be the issue. But like you say, it could also just be a database issue. Basically: you'll either get it or you won't, and you'll have to wait and see.

Yes that's right, we have a duct with a grey plastic cover next to our front door, similar to what you see on the "rodding and roping" process that Openreach explain in their FAQs. I think it's a wait and see like you said, I'll keep an eye on the availability checker. Thanks for your help!

I had the exact same issue, OR claimed our side of the street was not financially viable, don’t know why, they haven’t really provided much of an explaination. We’ve ended up going down the community fibre partnership route. The bottom line is Openreach will do what Openreach want!

Edited by Maverick567 (Tue 23-Nov-21 19:02:41)

Maverick - that is not corrrect. There is a commercial case and premises are in the commerical case or outside of it (its very black and white) (whether you think that is correct or not) there are a whole number of reason why some premises wont be , CFP should only ever be covering things that are not in any current or proposed plan, - (interesting did you fund your CFP or use vouchers to fund it).

Where a new build has been done with copper and that site has been registered with Openreach possibly under different phase and different registration by developers and different build timelines and also when royal mail address and postcode are available are available that some time only part of a development gets covered (as they rest may not be visible to the plan. this all around timing

Edited by Fastman3 (Tue 23-Nov-21 20:44:49)

In reply to a post by Maverick567:

I had the exact same issue, OR claimed our side of the street was not financially viable, don’t know why, they haven’t really provided much of an explaination. We’ve ended up going down the community fibre partnership route. The bottom line is Openreach will do what Openreach want!

That's true as Openreach won't care! They only want profit money!

I’m not sure what you disagreeing with, but I can absolutely assure you that half of my street is being built as part of the commercial build, with my half being not commercially viable so not within any form of build plan. I have several emails from the Openreach project manager confirming as much. As to the CFP, I live in a “rural town” so the commercial gap will be funded by vouchers, just waiting for the DCMS sign off.

I commented purely to point out to the Op that it’s not uncommon for parts of streets to be built and the decision is Openreach’s to make, with its sometimes being unclear as to why the decisions are made.

the bit i am disagreeing with is The bottom line is comment Openreach will do what Openreach want! - there are very clear rules - it about what passes the commercial case and what doesnt

In reply to a post by Maverick567:

I’m not sure what you disagreeing with, but I can absolutely assure you that half of my street is being built as part of the commercial build, with my half being not commercially viable so not within any form of build plan. I have several emails from the Openreach project manager confirming as much. As to the CFP, I live in a “rural town” so the commercial gap will be funded by vouchers, just waiting for the DCMS sign off.

I commented purely to point out to the Op that it’s not uncommon for parts of streets to be built and the decision is Openreach’s to make, with its sometimes being unclear as to why the decisions are made.

Things can go badly wrong which are outside of OR's control, sometimes. If you want to see what I mean look at East Boldre and the other 10 or so bduk projects that are trashed because of Natural England's objection

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

the bit i am disagreeing with is The bottom line is comment Openreach will do what Openreach want! - there are very clear rules - it about what passes the commercial case and what doesnt

Seems an odd post to disagree with.

I'd love to know what these "very clear rules" are for the commercial build.

It's what Openreach decide is commercially viable.
While they have a target figure for premises passed (which varies in different areas) there's nothing stopping them spending £5k per premises passed if they wanted.

"Openreach will do what Openreach want" sums up the commercial build perfectly. It's their money and they decide how and where to spend.

It's the subsidised build that has strict rules on eligibility.

For OR’s commercial build there may well be strict internal rules as to what they will and won’t build following a survey and network planning, however those rules in my mind are “Openreach doing what Openreach want” in the pursuit of making their shareholders money.

I am aware there are strict rules for funded builds, but it doesn’t appear that the Op’s case is a funded build.

A quick update on this, I contacted Openreach to ask if the entire street is in scope for FTTP and their response confirms the engineering work for my postcode/address is planned to be done by end of March 2022 which is promising. Interestingly they didn't answer my question about the entire street but here's hoping.

Openreach were here today (last week there was roadworks which looks like they were either repairing or clearing a duct). I noticed they have spray painted numbers on two of the underground chamber covers, a number 7 on the one nearest to my property and a number 5 halfway up the street. Does anyone have an idea what these numbers mean? Would it be how many properties each chamber serves via a CBT?

Eight port and twelve port CBTs are the typically deployed units. Obviously denser developments or urban conurbations will use the higher port count units (often multiple). The four port CBTs are typically deployed in more sparse / rural settings.

The numbers sprayed on the chamber lids could be anything, for the crew pulling the gear in. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Edited by Pheasant (Tue 11-Jan-22 14:42:58)

The coming soon checker isnt always accurate. They have recently been doing a lot of work around my house roping the ducts in preparation for the installation of the fibre, however the fibre checker states they have no planned work. They updated the postcodes to a certain point but not the entire area in which they are working.

I was speaking too an Openreach survey one day who parked outside my house, he showed me the drawings of the planned network and 2 weeks later they were out fishing rope down the ducts.

Probably work point numbers , a typical planning job pack is laid out as WP’s , typically something like At WP1, JUF4 o/s No.1 Any Street, provide medium TM splitter node , introduce coiled 36f COF 600, lay out fibres as per job pack.
At WP2 , JUF4 o/s No.10, Any Street, provide 30m 12 way CBT from WP1 .
At WP3, JUF4 o/s No.30, Any Street , provide 70m 8 way CBT from WP1.
The number sprayed on the box lid ( Jointbox Unreinforced Footway 4 in my example ) doesn’t indicate what’s going inside but indicates a location for some work , not every box will be a work point even if new cables run through them on route to or from WP’s….obviously in an overhead area a WP could be on a pole.

Edited by Iniltous (Tue 11-Jan-22 19:05:55)

im going to desist from trying to help people on these fourms as it appears that most of you seem to think you know more about about this (co funded stiff with openreach) and the commercial case so i wont bother anymore

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

im going to desist from trying to help people on these fourms as it appears that most of you seem to think you know more about about this (co funded stiff with openreach) and the commercial case so i wont bother anymore

Seem to think they know more about it than who?
You?

I wouldn't ask your how to spell Openreach.

I'm always willing to learn from anyone but I can't say I've ever seen anything on this forum about how Openreach calculate the costs of a commercial rollout and if you have knowledge in this area I would be interested to hear what you know. Like others I agree there seems to be no rhyme or reason on how Openreach calculate the costs as I've seen Openreach slash tens of thousands off the gap funded costs of a CFP when challenged.

I would doubt anyone from Openreach in the know would voluntarily divulge this sort of highly commercially sensitive information - let alone on a public forum. All the network builders keep their cards very close.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I would doubt anyone from Openreach in the know would voluntarily divulge this sort of highly commercially sensitive information - let alone on a public forum. All the network builders keep their cards very close.

Nothing to lose by asking

I'd also be interested to learn more.

I suspect, though, that Openreach's internal goalposts will be ever-shifting as returns on FTTP investment are increasingly based on real data rather than projections. Likewise, cost estimates will change as builds are surveyed and planned in more detail.

I'd expect them to prioritise the areas that will turn the greatest profit, while also meeting delivery commitments made on receipt of public funding. Within the subsidised build areas there will also be some flexibility for them to deliver the most profitable parts first.

There will also be a juggle of contractor availability, whether it's worth sending them to the other end of the country at higher cost but to a more profitable build area. There are no douby many more factors, fundamentally there are an awful lot of permutations to cost which is where the challenge lies.

In reply to a post by Maverick567:

For OR’s commercial build there may well be strict internal rules as to what they will and won’t build following a survey and network planning, however those rules in my mind are “Openreach doing what Openreach want” in the pursuit of making their shareholders money.

I am aware there are strict rules for funded builds, but it doesn’t appear that the Op’s case is a funded build.

Given BT/Openreach's past history on getting correct what is commercially viable and what is not commercially viable then the reasonable default position to take is they could not organise a [censored] up while swimming in a pool of neat vodka.

So looking at FTTC, if Openreach where even remotely competent then there would be very little claw-back on BDUK. Thing is there is large amounts of claw-back because the "it's not commercially viable" line from Openreach was in large parts complete and total fantasy.

There are large numbers of cabinets not commercially viable for a fibre twin that now have two large Huawei twins. That shows an abject failure

This is however the same BT/Openreach that back in the late 1990's when trialling ADSL decided when a a PC cost ~£1000 to enable the Meadow Well council estate in north Tyneside (yep the one with the riots several years earlier) rather an more affluent area, say Gosforth or Jesmond. They then promptly announced that it was not commercial viable to install ADSL because takeup was too low. No sh!t Sherlock.

There are only two reasonable conclusions to draw for BT/Openreaches's past claims on what is and is not commercially viable. Neither of them reflects well on BT/Openreach.

The first is that they are indeed utterly incompetent and we should basically take anything they say with a lorry load of salt.

The second is that they are deliberately disingenuous. They enabled exchanges in deprived areas knowing take up would be low so they could keep everyone on dialup which was a real money spinner. They have claimed cabinets that clearly would have had large uptake as being commercially nonviable so they could firstly sweat their existing assents and secondly get what amounted to cheap financing from the government via BDUK.

So when Openreach say we can't do one side of a street that is fully ducted because it is not commercially viable the only reasonable presumption you can make is that it is a large pile of steaming dinosaur droppings. Note even if only one side of the street was being funded for some reason you would have to be brain dead not to do the other side of the street commercially. The incremental cost would be negligible as the main cost is getting the fibre to the CBT's into the manholes in the street which you are doing anyway and are shared by both sides of the street by all accounts in this case.

Costings for some commercial rollouts I've seen clearly don't full into either the £250 or even £450 bracket per property, others that clearly do full into one of these brackets have been pushed to BDUK to do so I can only stick to my opinion that there is no rhyme or reason to the decisions Openreach make.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

This is however the same BT/Openreach that back in the late 1990's when trialling ADSL decided when a a PC cost ~£1000 to enable the Meadow Well council estate in north Tyneside (yep the one with the riots several years earlier) rather an more affluent area, say Gosforth or Jesmond. They then promptly announced that it was not commercial viable to install ADSL because takeup was too low. No sh!t Sherlock.

....


The second is that they are deliberately disingenuous. They enabled exchanges in deprived areas knowing take up would be low so they could keep everyone on dialup which was a real money spinner.

Fortunately the affluency of an area has never had a bearing on the rollout, nor should it.

Between late 1999 - 2004 (a time period I have extensive personal experience of) ADSL take up was higher on the local council estates than it was in the more affluent areas made up of privately owned new builds.

The same goes for the FTTC rollout. Take up has been higher in many of the less affluent areas.

Poor people can't afford broadband is a prejudice that doesn't match reality.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Between late 1999 - 2004 (a time period I have extensive personal experience of) ADSL take up was higher on the local council estates than it was in the more affluent areas made up of privately owned new builds.

The same goes for the FTTC rollout.

The same goes for Sky satellite dishes

No idea why you sent me that PM, but the arrogance of it is quite exceptional

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

i know more about this stuff around commercial case and cofunded that anyone

Rather than bragging in PM to someone who doesn't give 2 hoots why not answer the members who have politely asked you to provide more info on these strict rules for the commercial build, oh fountain of knowledge.

Another quick update on this. I saw what I think was an 8 port CBT being installed in the chamber opposite my property, and they were also doing work in a chamber on the main road at the top of my close today. Looks like some good progress is being made!

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Fortunately the affluency of an area has never had a bearing on the rollout, nor should it.

Between late 1999 - 2004 (a time period I have extensive personal experience of) ADSL take up was higher on the local council estates than it was in the more affluent areas made up of privately owned new builds.

The same goes for the FTTC rollout. Take up has been higher in many of the less affluent areas.

Poor people can't afford broadband is a prejudice that doesn't match reality.

Yes it should have an impact on a commercial roll out and to suggest otherwise is complete stupidity. The point was in 1997 there was ample data to suggest that households in deprived council estates (not not all council estates are deprived but Meadow Well was particularly deprived) where significantly less likely to have £1000 PC's capable of an internet connection. Consequently enabling an exchange serving such an area in 1997 for ADSL as a trial was absolutely idiotic. The residents simply didn't own enough internet capable devices for there to be a significant uptake of ADSL even if every single household with a PC took out an ADSL connection.

I would also point out that during the pandemic the fact that less well off households had worse access to computers and worse access to broadband has been a recurring theme. If you think the children of a judge went about the whole of lockdown sharing a laptop between them you are out of your tiny mind. As I know from personal experience such households where able to throw resources at the problem and fix it pretty dam quick.

Denying the digital divide is not largely an economic divide is fantasy. Sure there are some locations with well off residents that have poor broadband, but that is because they can't actually get broadband with a decent speed. On the other hand there are lots of people able to get good broadband but who can't actually afford it. Why else would there be social tariffs for broadband if this where not the case eh? Are you denying that there are more people out of work in Meadow Well than Gosforth/Jesmond? If you are then you are a fruity as Djokovic

In reply to a post by candlerb:

The same goes for Sky satellite dishes

That's because Sky actually represents cheap entertainment. In 1997 the fledgling internet did not represent cheap entertainment and PC ownership in deprived areas was very low.

Well I have some very exciting news, been checking the wholesale checker every day and it has updated this morning as FTTP available! Order placed with my current ISP (Sky) for Ultrafast Plus which is 500mb, getting installed on Thursday 10th Feb!

In reply to a post by sleepywalrus:

Well I have some very exciting news, been checking the wholesale checker every day and it has updated this morning as FTTP available! Order placed with my current ISP (Sky) for Ultrafast Plus which is 500mb, getting installed on Thursday 10th Feb!

Great news, good luck

Two months ahead of schedule. Enjoy!

i know you dont give two hoots - i have offered to give yo a view based on my expertise and knowledge in this field and you have been rude and derogatory -- but i wont bother in future -- its pretty rude to publish a PM actually !!!! but why does not surprise me

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

i have offered to give yo a view based on my expertise and knowledge in this field

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

i know more about this stuff around commercial case and cofunded that anyone

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

Realalemadrid wehether thewy make sense to you i really not fussed either way - what i can tell you is i know what i am talking about and now this stuff works

Your arrogance is astounding.

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

i know you dont give two hoots - i have offered to give yo a view based on my expertise and knowledge in this field and you have been rude and derogatory -- but i wont bother in future -- its pretty rude to publish a PM actually !!!! but why does not surprise me

Nobody cares when you go on like a spoiled child.

In reply to a post by BuckleZ:

Nobody cares when you go on like a spoiled child.

Lets all try de-escalating this disagreement rather than adding to the flames.

Had my install today, OR engineer was great. No duct blockages, only small snag was as I was the first connection to the CBT, it had switched itself off since installation. One quick phone call to his engineering support team and they turned it on remotely.

I bought an Asus XT8 mesh system and have it all set up directly to the ONT, the 2nd node is in my office wired to my PC and I'm getting 517 down, 70 up. Over the moon with the results!

In reply to a post by sleepywalrus:

only small snag was as I was the first connection to the CBT, it had switched itself off since installation.

There is nothing at the CBT to switch off, was they talking about the OLT port in the headend exchange?

Edited by deleted (Mon 14-Feb-22 22:05:14)

In reply to a post by sleepywalrus:

Had my install today, OR engineer was great. No duct blockages, only small snag was as I was the first connection to the CBT, it had switched itself off since installation. One quick phone call to his engineering support team and they turned it on remotely.

I bought an Asus XT8 mesh system and have it all set up directly to the ONT, the 2nd node is in my office wired to my PC and I'm getting 517 down, 70 up. Over the moon with the results!

Nice! 👌

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by sleepywalrus:

only small snag was as I was the first connection to the CBT, it had switched itself off since installation.

There is nothing at the CBT to switch off, was they talking about the OLT port in the headend exchange?

Perhaps something got ‘lost in translation’ - as you say the CBT is just a passive box with ports.

Plus, I'm not sure how something would've "turned itself off" after going live!

Quite. There’s only electronics at either end, all passive in between.

Just think it’s one of those harmless but meaningless things that are said…possibly to placate customer or avoid difficult questions or follow up conversations…