FTTH compatibility.

Having only just recovered from nearly 2 years of grief during the City Fibre (CF) rollout in our street, we’ve been shocked to learn that a neighbour who has signed up for Sky’s full Fibre has been told by OpenReach (OP) that they don’t use CF’s installation and will take up the footways to lay their own.
Please please can anyone tell me OP are not correct and if possible the reason either way.
Many thanks.

In reply to a post by rombic:

Having only just recovered from nearly 2 years of grief during the City Fibre (CF) rollout in our street, we’ve been shocked to learn that a neighbour who has signed up for Sky’s full Fibre has been told by OpenReach (OP) that they don’t use CF’s installation and will take up the footways to lay their own.
Please please can anyone tell me OP are not correct and if possible the reason either way.

They are correct that Openreach won't use CF's infrastructure. (However it can work the other way round - that is, CF and other altnets can use Openreach's infrastructure)

If Sky's Full Fibre delivered over the Openreach network is available to order for your neighbour, then that means the Openreach network has already been built to some point just outside your neighbour's house - either on a pole, or in an underground chamber, where there will be a Connectorised Block Terminal (CBT). They won't be digging up the public footway in response to an individual order.

Getting from the CBT to the house normally uses an underground lead-in duct (if it exists), or an aerial fibre (if fed from a pole).

If your neighbour's copper connection is buried "Direct In Ground", then Openreach may decide to lay a new lead-in duct - that is, dig up the customer's own driveway. It's an expensive thing to do, so they should be grateful for it. In this situation, often Openreach will install a new pole instead, which is cheaper but uglier.

I'm pretty sure that Cityfibre would only have built their network to the boundary of the property, in a "Toby box". So even if your neighbour ordered from Cityfibre, they would still have to get the connection up their driveway.

I wrote an answer but yours is far more comprehensive and better @candlerb, so wiped it before posting.

The only other consideration I had, was that if there is overbuild in the same coverage area with CF and Openreach and where there are ISP's that are present on both (i.e. like Zen or Vodafone) then they will prefer one network over the other - usually in favour of CityFibre.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

They are correct that Openreach won't use CF's infrastructure. (However it can work the other way round - that is, CF and other altnets can use Openreach's infrastructure)

More a case of can't rather than won't. CF could allow them access but they will not.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

They won't be digging up the public footway in response to an individual order.

Although I'm sure that's normally true, I forgot that I have experienced a counter-example.

I had FTTPoD installed three years ago, which put a CBT in the footway box right outside my property. As a side effect, two of my neighbours became FTTP-enabled in the checker. The next ones either side hadn't, and I didn't check any further.

However, it turns out that strangely, a neighbour 3 doors away had also been marked as FTTP enabled. I don't know why - perhaps it was a mistake, or perhaps their copper is served from a DP in my footway box. When the people living there renewed their contract with Vodafone, VF told them they could have full fibre, and so they ordered it.

When Openreach came out to install it, they found that there was no duct from my footway box to the one outside their property.

Rather than simply reject the order (on the grounds that their database was wrong), they actually came back, surveyed it, and a few weeks later dug up the pavement between my house and theirs to lay a brand new duct.

I think it was really a case of following what the computer said, rather than questioning it.

But it goes to show: you *can* end up with a dug-up footway just from placing an order. The neighbour effectively got FTTPoD for free

In reply to a post by MHC:

In reply to a post by candlerb:

They are correct that Openreach won't use CF's infrastructure. (However it can work the other way round - that is, CF and other altnets can use Openreach's infrastructure)

More a case of can't rather than won't. CF could allow them access but they will not.

Well said.

Would Openreach even *want* to use CityFibre's microducts - which only run between a Cityfibre cabinet and each individual property?

Unless those cabinets have space to contain Openreach CBTs or ODFs, then Openreach would have to pull a fibre from the CBT up to the cabinet and from there to the property. Furthermore it would have to be a small fibre cable that can be blown through CF's microducts, not their regular outdoor cable.

Traditional ducts are much more amenable to sharing.

It seems odd that Sky don't have a deal with CF.

In reply to a post by bowdon:

It seems odd that Sky don't have a deal with CF.

Renting space in CF's FEx is pretty expensive and Sky couldn't come to commercial terms. Perhaps now there's a national product becoming available.

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 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.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

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.

Are you saying you would prefer that the entire market offer whatever BT Wholesale/Openreach deign to give them?

The infrastructure competition we have is clearly delivering better products and more choice to the consumer. If Openreach either offered point to point fibre that could be unbundled or were pushing the envelope I'd agree - they aren't even close. They're outdone by KCom.

Only Openreach are forced to offer PIA , at peppercorn rent, it’s up to other network operators , if they want to use it or install their own physical infrastructure…those that do install their own infrastructure may offer others access , but they are not compelled to do so, and certainly don’t have the regulator dictating the prices that can be charged for allowing others access, OR don’t use other network providers infrastructure, BT only use OR.
Obviously if an alternative network gets it infrastructure in first , it would be a regulator sanctioned monopoly if they disallowed others from installing infrastructure just because it could cause some disruption during the install.
FWIW, the chances are that at least some Openreach duct /jointboxes etc will exist in areas that are not fully ducted , so OR build is likely to be less disruptive that a network that is built from scratch

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Only Openreach are forced to offer PIA , at peppercorn rent

Wouldn't call it peppercorn rent. Comparable to the passive products other telcos offer.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

The infrastructure competition we have is clearly delivering better products and more choice to the consumer.

Macro or micro level?

At the macro level you are opening the market so that consumers can use different providers. However the current market and economic forces mean that a lot of consumers will not have a range of choice at micro level. At the micro level you are forcing consumers to use whichever ISPs have taken up the option to buy capacity from the particular macro-level network provider. So at the micro level you are confining the choice for the consumer to what is potentially a far more restrictive range of market options than they currently have under ADSL/VDSL.

You wouldn’t call it peppercorn rent , I would , you say comparable to other Telcos that offer PIA , without an example of a Telco that offers PIA ( either voluntary or enforced) or evidence of an equivalent price list to OR ( a price list effectively set by the regulator) …the fact remains only OR are forced to do this , if it were not forced it wouldn’t be available and it’s wholly in the interest of OR competitors, many of which are backed by much wealthier organisations.
Consider the frankly ludicrous situation where an alt net installs a cable in a duct , or places a wire on a pole , or puts a CBT in a box that belongs to Openreach and by doing so exhausts the capacity of that asset ( no more space on the pole , anything extra would be an infringement of safety rules , or no more space in the duct for another cable or the joint box now has no more space ) and OR , have a need to use that asset themselves, they are required to build new infrastructure, seems somewhat unfair to me

Edited by Iniltous (Sat 14-May-22 09:27:52)

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

You wouldn’t call it peppercorn rent , I would , you say comparable to other Telcos that offer PIA , without any example of any Telco that offers PIA ( either voluntary or enforced) or evidence of an equivalent price list to OR …the fact remains only OR are forced to do this , if it were not forced it wouldn’t be available and it’s wholly in the interest of OR competitors, many of which are backed by much wealthier organisations,

France Telecom / Orange, Telefonica's fixed assets in Spain, Altice Portugal, Swisscom come to mind immediately as telcos offering similar.

I'm talking about their peer incumbents, not alternative networks. If Openreach want to pursue mutual duct unbundling they know where Ofcom are to make their case.

When you mentioned who PIA is in the interest of you forgot end users. Those enjoying faster, cheaper services as a result of it would probably be pretty happy about it if they were aware.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Consider the frankly ludicrous situation where an alt net installs a cable in a duct , or places a wire on a pole , or puts a CBT in a box that belongs to Openreach and by doing so exhausts the capacity of that asset ( no more space on the pole , anything extra would be an infringement of safety rules , or no more space in the duct for another cable or the joint box now has no more space ) and OR , have a need to use that asset themselves, they are required to build new infrastructure, seems somewhat unfair to me

A flipside is of course altnets unblocking ducts that Openreach can then use themselves for full fibre. £400-ish saved per blockage? Doesn't take many of those to cover standing a new pole, 2, or a few meters of 1-way.

Fairness isn't a big consideration in these builds. If fairness were considered a thing Openreach wouldn't be playing 'chase the altnet' prioritising overbuilding or preemptively building as soon as they see PIA action and streetworks permit requests to try and prevent them gaining market share.

Edited by XGS_Is_On (Sat 14-May-22 09:51:58)

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

The infrastructure competition we have is clearly delivering better products and more choice to the consumer.

Macro or micro level?

At the macro level you are opening the market so that consumers can use different providers. However the current market and economic forces mean that a lot of consumers will not have a range of choice at micro level. At the micro level you are forcing consumers to use whichever ISPs have taken up the option to buy capacity from the particular macro-level network provider. So at the micro level you are confining the choice for the consumer to what is potentially a far more restrictive range of market options than they currently have under ADSL/VDSL.

How many premises do you think Openreach will be deterred from a build by PIA from?

The opposite happens. As soon as a competitor turns up Openreach start building themselves much of the time.

Why? When you have 60-100% of the fixed line business in an area, steadily, there's minimal business case to invest in FTTP for the sake of a few pounds a month per premises extra revenue. When a new company appears that'll take all the revenue from you on 10% initially then more of that area you have a much bigger incentive to build.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

You wouldn’t call it peppercorn rent , I would , you say comparable to other Telcos that offer PIA , without any example of any Telco that offers PIA ( either voluntary or enforced) or evidence of an equivalent price list to OR …the fact remains only OR are forced to do this , if it were not forced it wouldn’t be available and it’s wholly in the interest of OR competitors, many of which are backed by much wealthier organisations,

France Telecom / Orange, Telefonica's fixed assets in Spain, Altice Portugal, Swisscom come to mind immediately as telcos offering similar.

I'm talking about their peer incumbents, not alternative networks. If Openreach want to pursue mutual duct unbundling they know where Ofcom are to make their case.

When you mentioned who PIA is in the interest of you forgot end users. Those enjoying faster, cheaper services as a result of it would probably be pretty happy about it if they were aware.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

Consider the frankly ludicrous situation where an alt net installs a cable in a duct , or places a wire on a pole , or puts a CBT in a box that belongs to Openreach and by doing so exhausts the capacity of that asset ( no more space on the pole , anything extra would be an infringement of safety rules , or no more space in the duct for another cable or the joint box now has no more space ) and OR , have a need to use that asset themselves, they are required to build new infrastructure, seems somewhat unfair to me

A flipside is of course altnets unblocking ducts that Openreach can then use themselves for full fibre. £400-ish saved per blockage? Doesn't take many of those to cover standing a new pole, 2, or a few meters of 1-way.

Fairness isn't a big consideration in these builds. If fairness were considered a thing Openreach wouldn't be playing 'chase the altnet' prioritising overbuilding or preemptively building as soon as they see PIA action and streetworks permit requests to try and prevent them gaining market share.

Openreach are a commercial company , is there something wrong in a private company attempting to hang onto customers , why should they simply say ‘ after you ‘ ?,
I find it interesting that you have to use an international comparison with national incumbents because there are no domestic comparisons .
Your other evidence free assertion that OR prioritise an area as soon as they see competitors, even if it were true ,( it isn’t ) how is it unfair ? , how is it anti competitive ? the consumer would have a much wider range of ISP to chose than if the choice for FTTP were simply from the Alt Net , or are you happy with FTTP monopoly's as long as it isn’t OR ?
If Openreach puts their own FTTP kit in their own infrastructure at their own expense how can you possibly object to that.
Cheaper and faster ?, given the massive advantage these Alt Nets are given ( especially with PIA ) not too difficult to be cheaper , plus how else are you going to gain customers initially, and ‘faster’ , the majority of customers who take FTTP don’t take the fastest packages , because most people don’t need multi gigabit speeds , and the network architecture OR use is pretty standard and upgradable should those speeds ever be required, you don’t build a 6 lane highway if the traffic now and in the foreseeable future doesn’t require it

Edited by Iniltous (Sat 14-May-22 12:38:18)

The opposite happens. As soon as a competitor turns up Openreach start building themselves much of the time.

In the town where I’m sat right now, there are two Altnets (one PIA, one not) happily tearing up these mean streets to provide service, and already providing service in some places. The only place which has Openreach provided FTTP is a block of flats.
Your statement is not correct.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

The opposite happens. As soon as a competitor turns up Openreach start building themselves much of the time.

In the town where I’m sat right now, there are two Altnets (one PIA, one not) happily tearing up these mean streets to provide service, and already providing service in some places. The only place which has Openreach provided FTTP is a block of flats.
Your statement is not correct.

I said 'much of the time' not 'all of the time'.

Umm yes, I use international comparisons as there's only one incumbent or to give them their full name incumbent local exchange carrier in a territory. In the UK its KCOM in Hull and BT everywhere else. There literally can't be another incumbent only competitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent_local_exchan...

I didn't say anything about whether things should be fair or not. You complained about something being unfair, not me. Openreach are behaving exactly as I would expect them to. A competitor rocks up it immediately changes the business case.

Incidentally this constant denial that Openreach prioritise areas when alternative networks rock up is tiresome. Of course they do and it's seen time after time where towns not previously on Openreach lists see unannounced FTTP build almost immediately a competitor announces/commences build. It would be negligent of Openreach not to given that, as you said, it's just business.

Given that most of your post is about something I didn't actually say it's quite difficult to respond. It seems likely you work for Openreach as some kind of engineer in the field so inevitably aren't going to be a fan of alternative networks using their assets.

For all these alleged advantages altnets have over Openreach they clearly don't count for that much given Openreach are building faster than everyone else put together, including Liberty Global and CityFibre. Looks like Openreach have some serious advantages somewhere. Incumbency and all that comes with it can't be bought.

Small edit to comment on pricing: a number of the deals are loss leaders to try and get some take up going. This also comes with a reminder of what scale can bring: do you know what CityFibre charge? I do, and even though the products aren't directly equivalent Openreach Equinox comes mightily close. An altnet building almost exclusively in large towns and cities can barely undercut Openreach, who are building all over.

Fact is we won't have a clue how this all works out until consolidation kicks in. I believe PIA is vital to producing infrastructure competition across as much of the UK as possible, and a necessary remedy that benefits consumers and CPs, you don't, and that's cool.

Edited by XGS_Is_On (Sat 14-May-22 15:24:29)

In reply to a post by jpm:

My utopian ideal would have been each local authority building and maintaining a duct network and then all providers utilising it.

Not sure why my reply 'disappeared', I'll try again.

I think you might mean dystopian, certainly having our local authority involved in anything like this would be a nightmare.

Your reply to me was


Wouldn't call it peppercorn rent. Comparable to the passive products other telcos offer
You don’t mention incumbents at all,


Your fixed statement
Wouldn't call it peppercorn rent. Comparable to the passive products other nations incumbent telcos offer,
If that were your post I probably wouldn’t have commented further , but now you have clarified , yes they also have no choice to offer PIA , and no doubt the Alt Nets in those country’s also only pay peppercorn rent, and in the context of the OP question, if CF infrastructure was also subject to PIA , then perhaps other Alt Net Telcos could use it and negate the need to dig up the roads and footpaths again.

To use your logic , if being critical of PIA I must work for Openreach , then you presumably must work for an Alt Net that uses PIA.

Edited by Iniltous (Sat 14-May-22 16:17:54)

All

If I only had a pound for every time this topic was discussed and the same opinions (as now) were posted. Would be simpler to post a link to the old threads as it just seems like deja vu.

Hope everyone is enjoying their Saturday in the sun

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

The opposite happens. As soon as a competitor turns up Openreach start building themselves much of the time.

In the town where I’m sat right now, there are two Altnets (one PIA, one not) happily tearing up these mean streets to provide service, and already providing service in some places. The only place which has Openreach provided FTTP is a block of flats.
Your statement is not correct.

I said 'much of the time' not 'all of the time'.

So you made a generalisation, I believe your generalisation is generally wrong.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

So you made a generalisation, I believe your generalisation is generally wrong.

Yeah I'm not going to waste time pursuing this one. Have a good weekend, Zarjaz.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

So you made a generalisation, I believe your generalisation is generally wrong.

Yeah I'm not going to waste time pursuing this one. Have a good weekend, Zarjaz.

When you've been rumbled, shut the topic down?

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

....Swisscom come to mind immediately as telcos offering similar.

I do like the Swisscom model - point-2-point fibre to the premises and tails to the ISP...Pascal let's do that crazy 25G to the home thing!OK happy days

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

When you've been rumbled, shut the topic down?

When it's clear there's nowhere for the topic to go leaving it be. If you feel otherwise and wish to flog this dead horse that's your call. I stand by what I said, I'm sure Zarjaz does what he said, we do not and won't agree, that's life. 🙂

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

....Swisscom come to mind immediately as telcos offering similar.

I do like the Swisscom model - point-2-point fibre to the premises and tails to the ISP...Pascal let's do that crazy 25G to the home thing!OK happy days

Me too! Just one infrastructure, off the same distribution point your can end up with a customer on Swisscom XGSPON next door to one with 25GBASE-BX, who is in turn next door to someone with a budget GPON service.

Larger businesses could aggregate links using their own equipment at the ODF and resell the portfolio nationally. No need for them to inerconnect at every ODF.

GPON, having been in production since 2006/7 is probably overdue for an upgrade, however the NTU are really cheap, the XGSPON CPE cost quite a bit more.

Just for the audience again: yes, when you have that CityFibre or Openreach full fibre install that new ONU is very small. It's also really cheap, and using technology for 15 years ago.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

When it's clear there's nowhere for the topic to go leaving it be. If you feel otherwise and wish to flog this dead horse that's your call.

Threads discussing this very point always end this way sadly, everyone has a difference of opinions and you can probably argue the toss either way as I'm sure there are examples that can be used by either side and with Openreach rolling out over 11,000 connections a day at present they won't be hard to find.

I do wonder whether point-to-point (effectively dark fibre to the premises) was ever really a “contender” when BT Group were evaluating strategic options to replace copper in the last mile.

The cost delta between P2P and PON is not enormous - seeing as the real difference is 1:1 fibre capacity between the last node and the POP/exchange and enough ODF space in the exchange (perhaps 4 to 5x what is there for PON). Mind you this could be re-engineered into the existing distribution network without too much difficulty - especially when E side copper is retrieved some time on the next 10-15 years.

Pheasant

Real cost difference is not in the access fibre it may be in maintaining the ODF. Have you ever seen a big copper MDF they are frighteningly messy to have to deal with. The thought of 100,000 - 200,000 fibres with any to any connectivity for fibre unbundling would have biased the options to any condensed solution. GPON would have seemed ideal reducing the exchange fibre connectivity by a factor of at least 32.

Have to take into account as well the hope to close buildings, so that some buildings may host 250-400k connections, P to P may well not scale for a wholesaler. likely to have to sell on to multiple providers. ( Vertically Integrated supplier able to connect directly to their own electronics without the complexity of interconnection would scale much better but was never an option for a heavily regulated OR)

BT(OR) Design decisions always had to take account of the ways regulation could affect (break) what could have been an efficient design. These often closed down some designs that would otherwise be attractive.

.

Edited by kitcat (Sun 15-May-22 16:36:18)