Do leased lines use same physical fibres as for WBC FTTP ?

Someone I know who owns a small business is having both leased line and WBC FTTP broadband installed into their new business premises. There are newly built (unoccupied) residential apartments above the premises. WBC FTTP only recently became available in the area.

There is a white plastic wall mounted Openreach/Prysmian 24? port Fibre Optic Distribution Point box in the services/utilities room serving entire building.

Landlord says there is a new single multicore fibre cable into the above box.

Openreach has supplied an ONT for the WBC FTTP service, but it is not yet connected to the Distribution Point.

The the leased line apparently will cost £2.5k to install, excluding monthly charges. Openreach missed the first install date following survey last month.

Does anyone know whether a new leased line would use the above infrastructure for WBC FTTP, or is it always separate fibre cable?

100% completely separate in all respects. The only thing the two may share are ducts (or poles)

Actually this isn't totally true anymore. We're finding that Openreach are taking 'leased line' circuits back to aggregation nodes for GEA-FTTP/C on long haul routes in particular. The "serving exchange" is no longer the local "copper" exchange for the premises, but the GEA parent exchange. Comes down the same cable as GEA-FTTP.

This is true even in cities with multiple exchanges, we have a circuit going into a DC and there's a T-Node right outside but they're taking it to an aggregation node instead.

Thank you all for your answers.

Edited by bill888 (Thu 09-Dec-21 03:21:26)

In reply to a post by k4a:

Actually this isn't totally true anymore. We're finding that Openreach are taking 'leased line' circuits back to aggregation nodes for GEA-FTTP/C on long haul routes in particular. The "serving exchange" is no longer the local "copper" exchange for the premises, but the GEA parent exchange. Comes down the same cable as GEA-FTTP.

This is true even in cities with multiple exchanges, we have a circuit going into a DC and there's a T-Node right outside but they're taking it to an aggregation node instead.

Thanks for the update there.

That's rather interesting that this is now a standardised deployment method. I had an Openreach EAD leased circuit installed earlier this year, and it all runs via the local T-node (and several other nodes) to the local exchange (rather than GEA headend exchange).

I do now recall a some Openreach video briefings, like this one, where the presenter mentions 'a mix of technologies...including Ethernet...' running via the Aggregation Nodes.

It would make sense to move leased line circuits to linking back to GEA parent exchanges, otherwise closing exchanges is going to be tricky if they are have leased line circuits.

If you are doing that, then it makes total financial sense to use the one fibre bundle from the aggregation node to the GEA exchange. It's all single mode fibre so it's not like there is a distance limitation issue that requires going to the local exchange anymore. There is also a good chance the aggregation node is a lot closer than the local exchange.

If CDWM-GPON ever becomes a widespread thing then you could even use the same fibre all the way to the premises

Indeed. Given OR are running 432-core ‘ribbon’ fibre in an 11mm diameter spine cable, ought to be ample future capacity from the exchange to the Ag Node.

GPON and 1000/1000 EAD currently use the same 1490nm wavelength down for GPON as is used upstream for EAD. So they definitely wouldn’t be using the same fibre core to carry both currently.

Future iterations / generations of GPON like XGS-PON, 25 GPON and 50 GPON neatly segue their various allocated wavelengths to allow concurrent operation over the same fibre core - at least 4 wavelengths before going to any sort of real CWDM - this providing a pretty seamless upgrade path for PON tech.

It always made sense to keep them entirely separate even if only for reliability reasons. Less chance of someone accidentally being disconnected.

But a leased line would still bypass much of the standard FTTP infrastructure that would be closer to the home/business. It would go directly to the aggregation node, and most engineers don’t have access to that so it still should be nice and reliable. It’s a good compromise and will save Openreach a lot of money.

I can understand the exchange consolidation desire, but there's a lot of RO2 out there, so it would be interesting to see how that is handled.

In reply to a post by k4a:

Actually this isn't totally true anymore. We're finding that Openreach are taking 'leased line' circuits back to aggregation nodes for GEA-FTTP/C on long haul routes in particular.

But even then, the FTTP would go to a splitter node (probably via a CBT), whilst the leased line would go directly to the aggregation node.

So I'd say the chances are extremely high that two fibre cables would be pulled into the building.

I don't believe there was any suggestion in the replies in this thread that the leased line would share the incoming fibre with an FTTP service. The leased line has to be a separate fibre back to the aggregation node

Edited for clarification

Edited by Realalemadrid (Wed 22-Dec-21 16:44:27)

That was the question effectively posed by the OP

Edited by Pheasant (Wed 22-Dec-21 14:05:28)

But leased lines can use a CBT port to provide service, then a separate fibre feed into the property

Can they really?? I thought every port on a CBT was effectively taken back to the corresponding FTTP splitter output. Are you saying that's not the case?

AIUI, there should be more ports provided than properties covered, so some (1) are potentially free for leased lines. The splitter is built into a node so fibres can be spliced straight through if needed.

That would effectively turn a splitter node into a new sort of fibre aggregation node. Whilst I don't deny that it's possible, would you really want to do it?

In reply to a post by witchunt:

But leased lines can use a CBT port to provide service, then a separate fibre feed into the property

How though? You’re then into the realms if sharing fibre again, which defeats the object of a leased line.

Openreach CBTs do not incorporate a splitter. A 12 port CBT has an input cable with 12 fibres. The leased line service will also likely share the same cable all the way back to the aggregation node unless there is no spare capacity on the cable.

Theoretically yes there should be spare cores from the Ag node to the splitter node which could be used for EAD service.

Openreach blew a 12-core fibre bundle/unit into the prem. when I had my EAD service connected. That’s pretty much standard fayre.

You’d be very much more limited if the ‘FTTP’ infrastructure up to and including the CBT was used to provision EAD.

A pretty [censored] solution (putting it bluntly) - for EAD anyway.

It's still a dedicated fibre for the leased line, only sharing infrastructure not the individual fibre or its bandwidth

OR do indeed now leverage the NGA network for leased lines and vice versa, it’s called ‘single fibre network’ , but, TBH , unless a domestic address wanted a leased line there isn’t necessarily much of a cross over , business addresses will probably have a reasonably close by Ethernet node , and , if ordering a leased line , the network would be extended to the business property.
An issue with using the connectorised FTTP network for a leased line , is that even if a CBT has a spare port , and it can be spliced to a spare fibre in the splitter node back to the aggregation node ( missing out the splitter itself ) , then there is only one fibre to the property, ‘traditional’ leased lines would be a 4 fibre bundle or a 12 fibre cable , so should a second or third service be ordered it’s a ‘quick win’ to provide it , the chances of 2 spare CBT ports at a CBT are slim….quite often with leased lines , a business may get a better offer for a new leased line than the renewal of the existing contract , in these cases it’s common for the second service to be installed before the original service is ceased, not a problem if 4 or 12 fibres were provided from an Ethernet node, but probably a problem from a CBT from a splitter node.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

OR do indeed now leverage the NGA network for leased lines and vice versa, it’s called ‘single fibre network’ , but, TBH , unless a domestic address wanted a leased line there isn’t necessarily much of a cross over , business addresses will probably have a reasonably close by Ethernet node , and , if ordering a leased line , the network would be extended to the business property.

Cool. So does this mean one could order FTTP where there are spare (EAD) fibres in the building or at least order FTTPoD?

If its now a "single fibre network"...

(Merry Christmas all btw)

FTTP will always be installed using a single fibre to the premises. Historic EAD fibres will not go to a FTTP agg node.

In reply to a post by kpx:

FTTP will always be installed using a single fibre to the premises. Historic EAD fibres will not go to a FTTP agg node.

So the “…and vice versa” comment in the post above doesn’t really hold - in effect “historic” (or traditional) EAD cannot be used to deliver FTTP, even if there are spare cores that are pulled/blown from the T-node to the premises. I think that is the scenario that the OP was originally querying. My response was ‘forget it - totally separate’ which on the face of it still applies.

If you have a spare CBT port available from FTTP then there is a possibility your provider could ask Openreach to deliver a single “new” style EAD service that is fed via the rest of network built for GEA (i.e. from an agg. node + splitter node). Just don’t expect (any) spare fibre capacity at the premises for additional EAD services.

So begs the question; is there a scenario now where Openreach will run a new say 12-core cable / blown fibre bundle for EAD services into a premises from an GEA splitter node (or Ag Node) rather than using the rest of the downstream FTTP network and ‘spare CBT port’? Or is this on the cards - are they moving away from dedicated T-nodes etc for EAD services.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

So the “…and vice versa” comment in the post above doesn’t really hold

The second part of below comment we already know and the first part is not clear enough to make any call about if above is true or not.

In reply to a post by kpx:

FTTP will always be installed using a single fibre to the premises. Historic EAD fibres will not go to a FTTP agg node.

I would say that an EAD delivered via CBT is an exception and not the norm. It’s more likely to be considered an option in rural locations where a very long length of cable is required to connect to the nearest T-node or FTTP node but a CBT is already quite close to the end user.

In regards to whether the T-node or FTTP node is used, that depends whether the circuit is served by the local copper exchange or involves a main link element. Over time T-nodes will become redundant in many areas as the smaller exchanges close and services are served via FTTP parent exchanges.

To clarify, consider vice versa is in terms of network fibres not distribution fibres ( not quite the same , but in the copper network , E side and D side cables ) , initially NGA network fibres were delivered from an OCR ( optical consolidation rack ) to an Aggregation node , and leased lines from an OFR ( optical flexibility rack , and it’s predecessors OFF etc ) , to a ‘leased line’ node. with generally no crossover , (there was always some , in certain circumstances), now with SFN, the fibres from either OCR or OFR ( and anything new from an ODF ) can be used for either work stream , the planner decides which is appropriate, so using the ‘wrong sort’ of network fibre is no longer the last resort.
Once at a node ( initially conceived as NGA or leased line ) the distribution would be built to suit , so either , splitter node , CBT , ONT for FTTP or a point to point fibre terminating eventually on a SC /LC tail ( depending on what was ordered, not all leased lines are EAD)
Providing a FTTP circuit over network that was originally provided for a leased line is not as straightforward as EAD over a ‘spare’ CBT port, as a PON ( splitter) would still need to be created, and if located at the customer end , it would be of no use to anyone other than someone else within the building , trying to get an ISP to accept a FTTP order would be the first issue …and obviously a whole PON for one customer without much prospect of any others ever joining that PON, the whole enterprise would be soon rejected by OR anyway , the ISP simply told to order an EAD , and as it would be a ‘quick win ’ ( building already has a leased line ) it would be relatively cheap , but ( obviously) not as cheap as a consumer grade FTTP circuit .

Edited by Iniltous (Sun 26-Dec-21 11:29:43)

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Just don’t expect (any) spare fibre capacity at the premises for additional EAD services.

Well they could use an 18 channel CDWM splitter on the fibre to get up to nine different services at speeds up to at least 10Gbps. I am sure higher speed CDWM optics are on the horizon.

You could even use a lower channel count CDWM splitter and save some money if you don't think you will even need nine services. A couple of eight channel CDWM splitters are ~£700 on fs.com and 10Gbps CDWM SFP+'s are ~£30 each.

EAD is just "ethernet" under the hood so it's all off the shelf components.

Thanks for the clarification.

Given all you’ve said, circling back to the OP scenario and question - even in a combined multi-tenant business + multiple dwelling residential building - even if there is a multi-core fibre already pulled into the building - my read is that Openreach would still not consider this as “standard” much less preferred means for FTTP deployment within the building.

I would tend to agree with you, I know of a current scenario where EAD infrastructure already exists (from a FTTP head end exchange) but Openreach are still planning on pulling in fibre directly from an agg node 5 miles away to delivery FTTP to a small number of properties even thou they know the EAD infrastructure exists.

Is that likely to be because they would have a very low number of people on an OLT port and don't want to burn ports in that fashion?

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Is that likely to be because they would have a very low number of people on an OLT port and don't want to burn ports in that fashion?

I don't believe it is as using the EAD infrastructure or going via the agg node its going to be the same number of properties connected to the OLT port. The new splitter (served by the agg node) is going to be located in the same joint box as the EAD infrastructure so no more properties will be served either way.

Could be any number of reasons why a new cable and new NGA node is being provided rather than using the existing legacy node, insufficient spare fibres at the legacy node , or if sufficient for a single PON, perhaps future expansion plans mean it’s better to provide a new cable now ( nodes are daisy chained together) ….many legacy nodes don’t have much spare capacity and although only 1 fibre per PON is currently lit, 3 fibres per PON are provided for future use .

Edited by Iniltous (Mon 27-Dec-21 17:25:38)

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Could be any number of reasons why a new cable and new NGA node is being provided rather than using the existing legacy node, insufficient spare fibres at the legacy node , or if sufficient for a single PON, perhaps future expansion plans mean it’s better to provide a new cable now (nodes are daisy chained together) ….many legacy nodes don’t have much spare capacity and although only 1 fibre per PON is currently lit, 3 fibres per PON are provided for future use .

Thank you, your posts are very informative.

interesting thread this, we recently went live last Thursday with FTTP at a business premises, which is on a small industrial estate where there are three BT EAD customers ( leased lines)

there are 2 x Y-Codes to the North and 2 x Y-Codes to the South, my client is the first FTTP customer on the industrial estate, where an existing fibre bundle that ran past a nearby BT pole was used to splice some Single Mode fibres up to an 8 port CBT ( installed on the top of the pole)

many weeks ago we had already dug a 160m duct (with draw rope ) from the comms room to the bottom of the BT pole, and Openreach on their last visit to site simply used a pre made fibre ( with APC connectors already terminated on each end) to connect my client to Port 1 on the CBT and at the other end to the ONT in my clients comms room

NB apparently the max length Openreach will entertain for these pre-made APC fibre connections is 350 metres if you ask them nicely !

the OP asked if "Leased Lines" aka EAD circuits use the same fibres as WBC FTTP, and this is highly likely, but the opposite is definately true as evidenced by this recent install

NB I know this SM fibre was originally there to service more leased lines on the ind estate, and that this same fibre ran past the BT pole, because the Openreach engineer who spliced the 8 fibres up to the CBT told me so himself !

In reply to a post by pcourtney:

the OP asked if "Leased Lines" aka EAD circuits use the same fibres as WBC FTTP, and this is highly likely, but the opposite is definately true as evidenced by this recent install

This is by no means a certainty or definitive

pcourtney

Yu are looking at it the wrong way around. FTTP will not use the same infrastructure as existing EAD circuits. (Your situation)

However it is possible for new EAD circuits to use the same Fibre cables as existing FTTP infrastructure (This is only just starting to happen so cases are very low at present).

Are you sure it was a CBT…

I have a Openreach EAD with a node all to myself and 12 fibres coming into the premises.

Telecoms companies (and Openreach is no different) will not remove cabling once it’s installed, unless they are specifically requested or contracted to do so. It’s not worth their while and can be used again in future. It would be wasteful to rip it out only to have the next business/occupier/resident requesting it all over.

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Are you sure it was a CBT…

I have a Openreach EAD with a node all to myself and 12 fibres coming into the premises.

All I can tell you is that when the OR guys came to pull the fibre through(?) that they said they couldn't continue and left blue rope instead - when I asked why they said the CBT box they expected was not there yet and they had to wait for that to be installed before they could come back and then set up the fibre and all the kit in my rack - which they did about a week later.

EAD lines on FTTP infrastructure are a relatively new thing, as noted in this thread. I’m slightly surprised that they installed a (new and dedicated) CBT just for your circuit. I had thought this sort of scenario would be seen more in existing / “brown field” FTTP where the CBT was already in existence and they simply rearranged the splicing at the splitter node to accommodate the dedicated path for the EAD service. Clearly not so 😎

Did they install a regular FTTP-style customer service point (CSP) to transition the fibre from external to internal?

My EAD uses the traditional blown fibre method with a dual “shotgun” fibre duct, about the size/shape of electrical twin and earth flat cable if you’re familiar with it (one 12-fibre bundle occupying one of the tubes, the other tube is spare) coming from the EAD node in the street footway chamber via the BT duct into the property and terminating on an internal splice enclosure with trays etc (about 2-3 times the size of an FTTP CSP). From there it continues to a fibre tray/shelf in my comms cabinet.

Be interested to see some photos of your install.

Edited by deleted (Thu 12-May-22 22:39:46)

Interesting. Is that a recent install? Who is your service provider?

That isn’t a connectorised cable , ( single fibre drop cable ) so the other end of it isn’t capable of being ‘plugged’ into a CBT , the multi fibre cable shown ,if it doesn’t come from a traditional EAD node must come from the FTTP splitter node or an intermediate joint of the FTTP network , , that’s not to say there isn’t also a CBT , possibly in the same joint box as the splitter or IJ, but this circuit isn’t from a CBT .
TBH it looks like a pretty conventional new style EAD install , multi fibre cable ( probably a 12 FDC or COF ) into a splice point ( internal fibre DP ) with a single SC ‘ pigtail’ into the SFP plugged into the NTE...the fact that the fibre DP is marked with a Y code differentiates it from the normal FTTP network, called a 6fDP as it has the capability of 6 separate cables exiting it.
OR have moved away from using blown fibre on new EAD circuits, ( although it’s still used if that makes sense in that individual location ) , the majority now use a solid COF ( cable optical fibre ) cable , but these are not connectorised cables , they are spliced at both ends ( at the node and at the customer ) so cannot use a CBT

Edited by Iniltous (Thu 12-May-22 23:27:08)

😎

Edited by deleted (Fri 13-May-22 00:37:51)

Edited by deleted (Fri 13-May-22 00:49:29)

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

All I know is that I get 1Gbps both ways and I have a 5 hour fix time and a number to call if I need help anytime. I have a 10Gbps port on my Mac so I get well over the 940/940 other people get - I will do a speed test tomorrow when I log back in

How do you get well over 940/940? Unless.you are somehow aggregating another WAN connection - its not physically possible to exceed the port speed on that EAD service - irrespective of your LAN port speed on the Mac.

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

I could have sworn I got about 1050mbps both ways - I will check tomorrow i'm on another connection and not on the main system

I said I didn't know much about this system. I was told that to get the full speed of this system I had to upgrade from the standard 1Gbps port as that only gets about 940 max - and I should go for a 2.5Gbps adapter as a minimum but as I am on a 10Gbps bearer I thought it best to upgrade my machine to that as I wouldn't mind 2 or even 3Gbps when needed.

Interesting. But how....

That ADVA box you linked a picture to is *not* capable of supporting a 10 Gbps bearer. Its an FSP 150-GE100 series box probably an FSP 150-GE102Pro

For you my friend I present Flip Fantasia....

If you upgraded they would probably replace the Adva for something that could do 10Gbps - no point though in providing more expensive hardware for a line that doesn't need it.

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

This is what I had installed. The top box has the CD case thing in it.

https://ibb.co/Y3j0bdL

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Interesting. Is that a recent install? Who is your service provider?

BTNet - been in just over 6 months

So its been installed 6 months? which means November 2021 if my maths is correct. The picture was taken on 21 April 2022 (3 weeks ago) but the circuit appears to have nothing connected to it.

Can anyone else verify that.

In reply to a post by dect:

Can anyone else verify that.

Wasn't just me then.

Edited by jchamier (Fri 13-May-22 11:38:01)

By my post I meant that if you were to order an upgrade they would presumably replace the device to something that can support the higher speeds - I am assuming it was provided by the line provider in which case they would swap it out if you needed more than the current speed. The line itself is probably 10Gbps capable it just needs a hardware swap out to enable the higher speeds.

Unless they sold it to you that you could increase at any time with a config change?

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

in this day and age where people are getting 1Gbps for £40 a month why would someone lie about getting a service costing 10x as much!?

You make an extremely good point, which a fair few of us are wondering why you are so clearing doing it and the only conclusion I and others can make is that you are a fantasist. You have a track record of doing it on here and posting as Anon on ISPReview. We honestly don't care if you have a lease line or ADSL we will think nothing more or less of you but all we ask for is that you're honest with your posts as without honesty you are nothing.

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

I have a choice - 2.5mb ADSL or this - and I choose this

Don't forget you claimed yesterday you had access to Lightspeed as well

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

Lightspeed recently did our area - they just added kit to the existing BT street furniture and then added some bits outside our house. I am not interested in them as I want to go with an established ISP for now - and maybe them in the future

I don't care if you log into this forum with your Username26 or Buggs8 account (although I think the 2 accounts is to deceive people which I think is in breach of the forum rules)

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

I had my office re done and my desk moved around - when that picture was taken everything was disconnected and removed from the room whilst they did some roof work and I had a red light on the port where the Router connects. (I was told not to power down that unit as it would trigger the SLA)

Powering down the managed router would've had the same effect. BT Business aren't monitoring the Adva, they can't, if anything they're monitoring the link between their router in the exchange and the managed one at the premises. Could be using BFD or something else but unplugging the router would certainly trigger alarms if they're monitoring.

What it won't do is start the SLA clock. BT don't monitor every single BTnet leased line to the point where they're own the phone every time one goes down, Openreach don't proactively monitor every EAD, and neither proactively work every single user fault.

I'm confused where this impression comes from that the moment an EAD goes down it sends the ISP into battle stations. That might be the case for a smaller ISP with relatively few EAD customers but when you're up to the scale of BT, TalkTalk Business, etc, customers need to report faults, they catch it proactively it's a bonus, and the 5 hour repair SLA starts when the fault is reported. There are actually two separate SLAs here, the one given to the end user and Openreach's to the ISP.

I'm fairly sure the clock starting upon report of an issue is stated in both BTNet's service schedule and the Openreach EAD contracts. Others can correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by XGS_Is_On (Fri 13-May-22 15:44:55)

Edited by deleted (Fri 13-May-22 18:22:33)

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

Thanks for the reply - all this comes from the engineers who installed it - I guess I won't be listening to anything OR tells me in future. I just read in my contract that an engineer will be alerted within 30 minutes of a fault being raised, so the latter of what you said makes perfect sense to me.

The SLA for Openreach to acknowledge receipt of a fault, not an engineer being assigned but acknowledgement of a raised fault from a CP, is an hour.

You apparently had some extremely talkative installers with no idea what they're talking about.

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

Thanks for the reply - It was sold as a 1Gbps line but upgradable - they never said how - on my contract is says 1Gbps line 10Gbps bearer so I assume like you said a hardware swap would sort it. They did say 20 working days would be the time it would take to change.

No, 1G on a 10G bearer means 10G rate limited to 1G.

If this is all as presented this is an astonishing catalogue of incompetence from BT's business arm, Openreach and the installers.

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

on my contract is says 1Gbps line 10Gbps bearer so I assume like you said a hardware swap would sort it.

If it's 1G on a 10G bearer, then no hardware swap is required - it can be upgraded remotely.

This would also explain why you can get a little more than the 940Mbps, when you connect with a 10G ethernet connection. The line runs at 10G, but overall IP traffic is limited to 1G by a configured policer, not by the speed of a 1Gbps ethernet port. Most likely the policer is set to allow slightly more than 1G through, to ensure they are meeting their side of the bargain.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

This would also explain why you can get a little more than the 940Mbps, when you connect with a 10G ethernet connection. The line runs at 10G, but overall IP traffic is limited to 1G by a configured policer, not by the speed of a 1Gbps ethernet port. Most likely the policer is set to allow slightly more than 1G through, to ensure they are meeting their side of the bargain.

Those rules on having to advertise services by throughput not line rate don't apply to leased lines. A gigabit leased line is usually provisioned at either exactly 1G or at 1.024G due to 'historical' reasons. BT Wholesale don't overprovision.

Either way doesn't apply here - that ADVA NTE isn't a 10G box so 1.05G isn't happening.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Either way doesn't apply here - that ADVA NTE isn't a 10G box so 1.05G isn't happening.

Yep. Except in one's fertile imagination 😎

Edited by Pheasant (Fri 13-May-22 20:11:27)

You are your own worse enemy with your serial lying.

Posted Thursday 12 May 22 at 15:13:42

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

Lightspeed recently did our area - they just added kit to the existing BT street furniture and then added some bits outside our house.

Posted Friday 13 May 22 at 18:19:45

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

There is no Lightspeed in Hope St Chatham- not unless it suddenly came overnight.

At least one of above is a lie, I rest my case.

Edited by deleted (Fri 13-May-22 22:14:56)

In reply to a post by dect:

You are your own worse enemy with your serial lying.

Posted Thursday 12 May 22 at 15:13:42

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

Lightspeed recently did our area - they just added kit to the existing BT street furniture and then added some bits outside our house.

Posted Friday 13 May 22 at 18:19:45

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

There is no Lightspeed in Hope St Chatham- not unless it suddenly came overnight.

At least one of above is a lie, I rest my case.

Detective Dect on the case as per

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Detective Dect

More like Inspector Clouseau 🕵️😎🤣

There's no EAD Y-nodes on that street either

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Detective Dect

More like Inspector Clouseau 🕵️😎🤣

Does your dog bite?

In reply to a post by jpm:

There's no EAD Y-nodes on that street either

In reply to a post by Buggs8:

This is what I had installed. The top box has the CD case thing in it.

https://ibb.co/Y3j0bdL

Before the link above was broken, the photo above had the Y-node ID on it, YOSFG/A

Can you do a reverse look-up on the Y-node (without getting into data protection hot water)?

In reply to a post by Rhynchelma:

In reply to a post by dect:

More like Inspector Clouseau 🕵️😎🤣

Does your dog bite?

No but the pink panther does 🤣

No, I only have access to a portal that shows Y and T-nodes to help with predictions of how long EAD circuits might take to go in

Possibly an indication of the age of the Y code ( rather that the age of circuit itself ) Ycodes are building specific, no single building should have more than one Y code and Y codes are unique to one building, many years ago a Ycode could be chosen to be descriptive, so YBANK could be used for a bank , but many buildings have more than one ‘SOF’ , so the first install would be YBANK/A and should another cable be provided ( possibly to a different floor in the same building) it would be YBANK/B….this format was changed many years ago as it doesn’t particularly help in identifying where the ‘SOF’ actually is within the building, so the floor of the building is now part of the Y code , so Y/BANK/0A signifying is the first ‘cable’ on the ground floor , if a second cable were provided to the first floor , that would be YBANK/1A …as the YCODE on the image was Y****/A suggests it’s a fairly old installation

Edited by Iniltous (Mon 16-May-22 20:57:03)

Interestingly I have /0A as a suffix on the rack mounted splice shelf/tray above the ADVA - together with the designations of the other T-nodes in the circuit path all the way back to the exchange with its designation. Also the ON number.

The wall mounted enclosure (same floor, a few rooms away) just has the five character Y-node ID.

No worries. Just a thought.

However I think it’s fairly obvious where there are clear fabrications now in the latter part of this thread from post 38 onwards. The dead horse has been well and truly flogged. 😎🤣

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

However I think it’s fairly obvious where there are clear fabrications now in the latter part of this thread from post 38 onwards. The dead horse has been well and truly flogged. 😎🤣

I would like to think the garbage man has gone for good but now knowing his previously posted on this forum over 6500 times over a 15 year period I suspect he will be back at some point with another new account.