In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

But, imagine, a length between two boxes is not ducted, but DIG … so Altnet provides a duct between the two, having used the existing OR duct to get this far, but then, if needed OR cannot use the the Altnet provided duct ….. PIA ? PITA I say.

Why not a single fibre infrastructure provider going back to ‘communal’ nodes allowing whomever to provide FTTP without digging again, or cramming more plant up the top of the stick ….

Openreach / BT Group didn't choose PON at gunpoint. They could've provided point to point fibre for minimal cost increment on top of PON but didn't want to allow for dark fibre drops to customers. That would've saved a ton of digging.

Forcing mutual duct unbundling would've ensured no-one else built and left consumers with fewer options. Having to unbundle your passive infrastructure as you build it would be a nightmare. Remember the mess that was PIA version 1? No-one used it as it was too much of a PITA.

Many thanks candlerb for your clarification and to the other members for their further comments.
So as I understand it, where OP is able to permit use of its underground infrastructure, CF decline a reciprocal arrangement to OP / SKY.
That being the situation, it will mean total chaos returning again to our road (and likely in the whole town as it’s mainly CF infrastructure) as footways are dug up again so the broadband customer has the freedom to choose an ISP not on CF’s narrow band of ISP’s.
In my view the privatisation of the Telecom industry has been one of the worst – at least the now dwindling number of energy company’s were able to share pipes and cables.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

But, imagine, a length between two boxes is not ducted, but DIG … so Altnet provides a duct between the two, having used the existing OR duct to get this far, but then, if needed OR cannot use the the Altnet provided duct ….. PIA ? PITA I say.

Why not a single fibre infrastructure provider going back to ‘communal’ nodes allowing whomever to provide FTTP without digging again, or cramming more plant up the top of the stick ….

In my view the privatisation of the Telecom industry has been one of the worst – at least the now dwindling number of energy company’s were able to share pipes and cables.

The telecom infra providers from the likes of Openreach, Community Fibre, Hyperoptic, Gigaclear, CityFibre, ect.... all have their own networks and use their own cables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ73FMEzIBs

Openreach's PIA allows sharing of Openreach's ducts and poles but not all other infra providers take that up or offer a similar service.

In reply to a post by rombic:

In my view the privatisation of the Telecom industry has been one of the worst – at least the now dwindling number of energy company’s were able to share pipes and cables.

Actually it's set up slightly different for energy companies. Literally just have 1 electricity distribution network operator and if gas is available again just 1 gas distribution operator for a region. These change based on regions.
E.g Midlands, South West and Wales this is Western Power Distribution and for central Scotland this is SP Networks for electricity.

The energy companies you buy from are just brokers, i.e just handle the bulk buying and transferring of money.

"energy company’s were able to share pipes and cables. "
The electricity and gas were NOT supplied via different companies.

My utopian ideal would have been each local authority building and maintaining a duct network and then all providers utilising it. Takes most of the civils costs out of new operators wanting to get involved, could provide the opportunity for very regional providers to offer things like point-to-point services, gets rid of the issue where reinstatement works aren't to the satisfaction of the council because it was their own contractors etc.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Why not a single fibre infrastructure provider going back to ‘communal’ nodes allowing whomever to provide FTTP without digging again

You mean, like a fibre version of LLU?

I observe that these communal nodes would have to be large enough to accommodate splitters or ODFs from various providers. There would be patching between each incoming customer connection and those splitters. The extra pluggable connections would reduce reliability. Migrating a customer from one ISP to another would require a physical visit to the node to repatch, and risk disconnecting the wrong customer.

But the fundamental problem is that BT/Openreach would have to pay for all this, and then allow everyone else to use it. The ongoing (and regulated) costs charged by Openreach to the providers to recoup these costs would probably be at the point that the other providers would decide there's a business case for pulling their own independent cables into areas where it's cheap to build - and then you're back to square one.

Effectively what you propose is very little different to what we have today, except there is a Openreach-managed GPON layer on top. The cost of the electronics is only a tiny part of the total cost of the fibre build, and therefore has very little impact on the wholesale pricing. It has the advantage that ISP-to-ISP migrations can be done entirely in software without any engineer visits; and connections are fully spliced all the way, except at the CBT.

Now, having the fibres go to different provider's optical equipment would allow more "innovative" services like symmetric upload/download and leased line replacements. But that's not the reason the altnets are rolling out. The real reason is because they can make money in cherry-picked areas, by undercutting Openreach's regulated pricing - which has to be the same for both urban and rural areas.

Edited by candlerb (Fri 13-May-22 12:56:39)

It has the advantage that ISP-to-ISP migrations can be done entirely in software without any engineer visits; and connections are fully spliced all the way, except at the CBT.

Which to me seems like very positive, err, positives.

That properties would only have on new connection to be fitted (see how many posts there already are moaning about this that and the other of a new connection to their house.

Less upset due to digging in new ducts.

Competition between providers would be down to providing a good product and good customer service.

My theory will be shot to pieces I know. But it makes sense to me.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

It has the advantage that ISP-to-ISP migrations can be done entirely in software without any engineer visits; and connections are fully spliced all the way, except at the CBT.

Which to me seems like very positive, err, positives.

That properties would only have on new connection to be fitted (see how many posts there already are moaning about this that and the other of a new connection to their house.

Less upset due to digging in new ducts.

Competition between providers would be down to providing a good product and good customer service.

Indeed - and this is exactly what WBC FTTP is. It may not be perfect, but it's a pretty decent option.

The upset is caused by altnets bypassing this network in cheap-to-build areas. But to be fair, without the altnets, Openreach would never have started building in the first place.