Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
Hi,
I've done some reading and keep finding slightly conflicting information on the future of fibre to the cabinet in rural locations.
I understand that all the exchanges will shut down analogue services by 2027.
I understand that OR is rolling out FTTP to most locations.
I keep reading that after the analogue shutdown, your phone line will need to be connected to your router.
However, I'm not sure I can find a definitive answer on whether the Cab to Premises can/will remain over copper to rural locations and if so for how long.
ADSL and ADSL2 are both analogue but I presume this is only analogue back to the cabinet and would not be guaranteed to have been upgraded by the 2027 'deadline'
I'm considering making an offer on a new house in a rural location with terrible cell service.
It's connected to an exchange Turville Health (THTV) that is not yet on OR rollout plans for upgrade.
I do expect that to change before the end of 2027 but there are only about 20 houses on the road/cabinet so I can't see OR prioritising it for FTTP rollout.
I'm apprehensive about buying a house that could be left on last mile ADSL analogue services and permanently.
It's got decent FTC performance but I don't want to buy a house and then struggle to sell it in the future if it never gets FTTP.
Can anyone help me clarify what the worst case on FTTC looks like after the cutover?
Can anyone point me at some definitive documentation to understand the rural FTTP rollout over the next 10 to 15 years?
thanks
Tony.
Edited by tonyj2 (Mon 14-Oct-24 10:09:48)
|
|
|
Its my understanding that for remote area's that are uneconomic to give FTTP and are not covered by local authority schemes or an altnet they will be left on copper and ADSL will provide a VOIP as the minimum phone only option.
FTTP
Expected to reach 85% of homes by 2026, and 96% by 2027
Up to 1,000 megabits per second (Mb)
So by 2027 4% of homes will still have no access to FTTP.
|
|
|
There is something called project gigabit, bucks area has been awarded to Cityfibre, so check with them with any roll out. Check with https://bidb.uk/ for any potential roadworks and also mobile data mapping as that shows 4g and 5g .
If you want to go to the dark side with no other options, Starlink could be one way to gap the isssue till fttp arrives. Fibre to the exchange (adsl/2+) and fttc will be avialble for sometime if already deployed to the location that you wish to buy.
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
|
OR plans to go into the 30s with fttp rollout. Project gigabit will despite its flaws will cover alot of uneconomic premises
|
|
|
I understand that all the exchanges will shut down analogue services by 2027.
I understand that OR is rolling out FTTP to most locations.
I keep reading that after the analogue shutdown, your phone line will need to be connected to your router.
However, I'm not sure I can find a definitive answer on whether the Cab to Premises can/will remain over copper to rural locations and if so for how long.
ADSL and ADSL2 are both analogue but I presume this is only analogue back to the cabinet and would not be guaranteed to have been upgraded by the 2027 'deadline'
ADSL/ADSL2 are still digital - the equipment is housed at the exchange, rather than in DSLAM cabinets adjacent to customer-to-exchange connection points (PCPs).
There are two separate Openreach programmes:
PSTN shutdown, originally by the end of 2025, now Jan 2027: This removes all voice services, including wholesale line rental (WLR) from FTTC and ADSL services. Openreach will be providing SOGEA as a replacement to FTTC via the existing DSLAM cabinets, BT Wholesale will be providing SOADSL using Openreach SOTAP.
FTTP rollout: This replaces the copper connections to premises with full fibre. Once an exchange area has fibre available at 75% or more premises a stop-sell is imposed so where FTTP is available you can no longer order a new copper line or migrate a copper line to a different provider, you have to install or upgrade to FTTP.
Communication providers may offer digital voice services over the top of any of these broadband data services.
SOGEA will likely exist well into the 2030s as the DSLAM cabinets are not reliant on local exchanges, their fibre connections are already go to, or will be rerouted to, 'head-end' exchanges.
SOADSL/SOTAP will likely only exist until the early 2030s either as the non-head-end exchanges are decommissioned, copper rearrangements providing SOGEA, or FTTP become available.
There is a separate SOTAP for Analogue product which provides a voice-only service equivalent to WLR, however this is very much a transition product for critical national infrastructure (CNI) and premises which only have an active phone service with no existing data (FTTC or ADSL).
|
|
|
Why don't you put the address into one of the switch type site, like uswitch? That will give you an idea what is available.
As been said, ADSL is digital, it just comes from exchange, where FTTC have the equipment in the cabinet, which is why it is faster.
Adrian
Desktop machines Mac mini pro with macOS Ventura, also pc Ryzen powered with windows something or other.
Zooming with Zzoomm FTTP,
|
|
|
|
Shutting down the analogue services does not mean removing copper lines.
They're shutting down the analogue voice services that runs over copper lines and replacing it with a VoIP service. That VoIP server can run over ADSL and VDSL services using copper and FTTP using fibre.
Some exchanges may run ADSL for some time yet, notably in parts of Scotland.
|
|
|
I understand that all the exchanges will shut down analogue services by 2027.
Analogue *voice* services from Openreach will be shut down.
I keep reading that after the analogue shutdown, your phone line will need to be connected to your router.
Yes: a.k.a. "digital voice". The underlying broadband (ADSL or VDSL) then carries both your Internet traffic and your voice calls. (EDIT: your "phone line" is already connected to your router. But your telephone *handset* will need to be moved to a port on your router, if you retain a voice service)
However, I'm not sure I can find a definitive answer on whether the Cab to Premises can/will remain over copper to rural locations and if so for how long.
They will remain for as long as necessary - i.e. until FTTP is available to a given property, which for some properties will be many years away.
ADSL and ADSL2 are both analogue
ADSL(2) and VDSL carry a modulated digital signal. They are nothing to do with the analogue voice component ("narrowband") which can also be carried over the same copper wires, and will be switched off. Running just the broadband by itself is called SOGEA and is how all new copper broadband lines are provisioned now.
There are copper wires from the exchange to the cabinet (E-side, exchange side) and copper wires from the cabinet to the property (D-side, distribution side).
In the very long term, the exchanges themselves will be shut down (apart from the main "head-end" exchanges which carry FTTP), and in principle the E-side cables could be recovered. But the cabinets will remain, with their VDSL line cards, until the last user on the cabinet moves away from copper. That'll be many years away in most areas. Whilst FTTP priority areas don't allow ordering of new copper services or migrating them, people who still have them can keep them. There's not yet been any serious proposal for forcibly disconnecting people who choose to remain on copper services when FTTP is available to order.
I'm apprehensive about buying a house that could be left on last mile ADSL analogue services and permanently.
ADSL is from the exchange, VDSL (FTTC) is from the cabinet. If the property has decent FTTC performance then you can rely on that remaining there indefinitely, until such time as FTTP is available. Indeed, it may improve slightly, as other users on the cabinet move to FTTP, reducing crosstalk.
I don't want to buy a house and then struggle to sell it in the future if it never gets FTTP.
Well, that's a different issue entirely. There are cost benefits to Openreach in being able to shut down exchanges, and being able to downsize their copper-skilled workforce when copper goes away completely - so ultimately when it gets down to the last few properties in an area I think they will make a final push to finish off the job. But there *is* a risk that the property could be on FTTC for a long time.
Can anyone help me clarify what the worst case on FTTC looks like after the cutover?
The worst case is that it carries on the same as it does today, because there is no "cutover" to speak of, apart from removal of the voice signal from the exchange.
EDIT: even if you were to move in tomorrow and order FTTC, you'd get SOGEA - there would be no narrowband voice signal on your line. So you'd already be "future proofed" against the 2027 PSTN switch-off. You'd stay on exactly the same service until such time as FTTP became available and you chose to migrate to it.
Can anyone point me at some definitive documentation to understand the rural FTTP rollout over the next 10 to 15 years?
No, because it doesn't exist. Openreach have published "aspirations" to get to 85% FTTP coverage by 2027, and to 95% by 2030, but that's all they are: broad-brush aspirations, and certainly not in detail to the level of individual properties or even exchange areas.
Edited by candlerb (Mon 14-Oct-24 21:00:10)
|
|
|
|
@candlerb
Excellent summary. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
If there is a FTTC cabinet, does this mean that there might be a fibre usable for a 20-home PON?
Or is it a different system? Would there likely at least be a duct route to/from wherever it needs to be?
I have read a lot on the forum about the possible difficulties of getting the fibres the last few metres into the homes, but is the long run out to the rural area generally easier, where there is FTTC?
|
|
|
|
if theres a FTTC cabinet in 99.9% of cases theres an aggregation point, that goes to a headend exchange. In some cases where properties where directly connected to exchanges OR did put FTTC cabs there but these are likely to have their aggregation point inside the exchange.
OR pons are up to 30 premiss per pon with 2 spare connections.
|
|
|
|
Thank you. Having read further I understand you to be saying that there is invariably an aggregation node in the vicinity of a FTTC DSLAM cabinet. Except perhaps in the small percentage of cases where a cabinet was built to provide better internet on EO lines (cables running all the way back to the exchange without passing through any jointing cabinet (PCP)).
So I assume that in a rural area with FTTC the decision to deploy FTTP will be strongly influenced by the cost of getting the fibres into the premises locally, rather than the distance from the headend.
For interest, I understand that a fibre would go from the aggregation node to a splitter node and individual fibres from there to the distribution points and premises.
The data from the aggregation node to the splitter would be formatted for a PON (passive optical network). I presume that other fibres from the aggregation node to the DSLAM would be formatted differently - ATM? Ethernet? (how many fibres are there per card or port?).
And I presume that all these different types of data (PON, Ethernet, others?) are merged by the aggregator into yet another format providing security of transmission to the headend where they are all unpacked and forwarded on to the corresponding upstream functions.
Is this all generally correct?
|
|
|
Thank you. Having read further I understand you to be saying that there is invariably an aggregation node in the vicinity of a FTTC DSLAM cabinet.
No, not necessarily. The FTTC cabinet is invariably linked back to a fibre aggregation node, but that node might be some distance away.
There has been talk of deploying subtended headends (mini OLTs) inside FTTC cabinets, exactly for the case where the FTTC cabinet has a spare fibre strand back to the FAN, but it would be prohibitively expensive to bring a new cable for FTTP.
That's unusual though. In many cases, when an FTTC cabinet was deployed a FAN was deployed close by at the same time. (If you see a large footway box with three covers, that's quite a good indication).
EDIT: you should also be aware that the FTTP network doesn't necessarily have the same topology as the copper network, since the FTTP connections are headed towards the head-end exchange, whereas the copper network is headed towards the local exchange.
Except perhaps in the small percentage of cases where a cabinet was built to provide better internet on EO lines (cables running all the way back to the exchange without passing through any jointing cabinet (PCP)).
If an infill cabinet is added to serve those users, then those lines are no longer EO lines, by definition.
So I assume that in a rural area with FTTC the decision to deploy FTTP will be strongly influenced by the cost of getting the fibres into the premises locally, rather than the distance from the headend.
There are lots of things that influence the cost. The OP talked about a cluster of 20 buildings; if so, those could be attractive to connect, since the cost of bringing the fibre to the cluster is divided by 20 for the per-property cost. But that assumes that sticking a single splitter node in a single location will serve them all, and they all have either good underground ducts or are served overhead. If they are geographically dispersed rather than a tight cluster that might not work.
For interest, I understand that a fibre would go from the aggregation node to a splitter node and individual fibres from there to the distribution points and premises.
That's correct (for FTTP). Splitter nodes are usually underground.
The data from the aggregation node to the splitter would be formatted for a PON (passive optical network). I presume that other fibres from the aggregation node to the DSLAM would be formatted differently - ATM? Ethernet? (how many fibres are there per card or port?).
Have you now changed to talking about FTTC? For FTTC, I'm unclear about the details of exactly how the backhaul from DSLAMs to exchange works (e.g. ethernet or PON), but I don't think it really makes much difference.
For FTTP, the network is completely passive. Each splitter has one dedicated fibre which is spliced all the way back to the head-end exchange where it plugs into its own port on the OLT.
GPON uses two different wavelengths (lambdas), one for receive and one for transmit, and these pass directly through to all the ONTs on that PON. The infrastructure in between doesn't care about framing. Indeed, multiple types of PON can run over the same fibre, on different lambdas (e.g. GPON and XGS-PON).
And I presume that all these different types of data (PON, Ethernet, others?) are merged by the aggregator into yet another format providing security of transmission to the headend
No. The fibre aggregation node is completely passive. It's just a place where distribution fibres are spliced into spine fibres; the spine is a thick cable with hundreds of fibre strands going back to the head-end exchange.
Edited by candlerb (Tue 15-Oct-24 12:56:25)
|
|
|
|
Wow. Thank you to everyone who’s replied so far, I wasn’t expecting quite as much feedback and guidance.
To call out a few:
candlerb - you’ve really helped a lot of this click for me. thank you so much for your answers and explinations.
tdw42
Thank you for pointing out that the A in ADSL wasn’t analogue [FacePalm] !!
Many of my questions were skewed by my expectation that analogue switch off would also turn of ADSL and that needed a replacement IP based solution.
Whilst I asked my questions with reference to analogue and talked about cell signal. It’s actually the robustness and performance of internet links that I’m most keen to understand the future for.
My take away so far is that OR are working to get 96% of homes able to order FTTP by 2027.
So there is actually a better chance than I thought that FTTP might be available in the not too distant future.
The ability to order will be dictated by how far/difficult the last mile is.
the D-Side copper could be sticking around for years to come in very rural areas and will be dictated by how expensive those D-side links are to replace.
I’m still not entirely clear on this exchange vs a head exchange.
The Turville Health (THTV) exchange that the cabinet sits below, isn’t yet on the upgrade plans but presumably will be 2027.
I think this may be a fairly small (number of premises served) exchange.
Does it seem possible/likely that this could be replaced as part of the FTTP roll out?
perhaps OR could cable the FTTC cabs back to a larger close-by exchange instead of upgrading THTV to be FTTP ready?
My Wife was keen to walk away from the property and I was rather included to agree.
(We don’t expect FTTP day 1 in a country village but in the next 5 years would be desirable)
In terms of peoples best guesses, is there anything about the following setup that would be a red flag to upgrading to FTTP?
In terms of geographic layout of the potential house to cabinet ..
It’s a pretty short run. 50 to 75m meter and ducted into the property (I’m not sure where from - cab or nearest pole?))
Two houses closer to the cabinet are on over head cables.
Given the cabinet has been upgraded to FTTC and the house gets very good speed to the premises does this mean that a FTTC cabinet can be upgraded to be FTTP after exchange is upgraded fairly easily and without too much expense to OR?
my fear was that with under 50 houses on the cabinet they might leave it as a FTTC cab with copper last mile indefinitely and this is what scares us off the property.
(Cell coverage is bad as it’s in a valley)
4G on EE is possible at the property by only gets 1 bar outside so it’s not a suitable backup.
three shows on their map has having signal but it’s very patchy 1 bar at best.
I will be buying and testing an LTE booster with roof mounted antenna but I can’t rely upon this for work from home - hence wanting to understand peoples expectations on FTTP at a location like this.
thank you again for all of the insight and suggestions and guidance.
|
|
|
So by 2027 4% of homes will still have no access to FTTP.
No by 2028 (Openreach are talking about the 31st of December 2027 in there roadmap) 4% of homes won't have access to Openreach based FTTP. A significant proportion of the remainder will have access to FTTP from another provider.
|
|
|
I’m still not entirely clear on this exchange vs a head exchange.
Because fibre optic links can be very long without degradation not all exchanges will be needed in the future. Typically on the 1:32 split ratio that Openreach uses, you can reach out 20km from the exchange to the premises. Consequently, only a fraction of the exchanges have FTTP equipment installed. These are called headend exchanges. From memory, it's about 1500 out of the 5600 that Openreach has. Note that the FTTC cabinets are fed from the headend exchanges so once the analogue switch off occurs (assuming there is no one on ADSL) Openreach will be looking to close those ~4000 exchanges.
I had the notion that along side the analogue switch off, people on ADSL that had a VDSL option were going to be forced to migrate to VDSL. Basically you can only keep an ADSL connection if that is your only option. Even then I am sure I have seen talk of putting ADSL cards in the cabinets for people not on a headend exchange.
Basically Openreach really want to be shot the non headend exchanges as they sold them all off and leased them back and thus it costs to have them.
Theoretically, if there is a splitter next to the cabinet and you have ducting to your property then FTTP on demand might not be too expensive where it will still be several thousand but people move into a property and spend £10k on a new kitchen or spend >£50k on new car etc. So all depends on your priorities 
|
|
|
So there is actually a better chance than I thought that FTTP might be available in the not too distant future.
The ability to order will be dictated by how far/difficult the last mile is.
the D-Side copper could be sticking around for years to come in very rural areas and will be dictated by how expensive those D-side links are to replace.
The bottom line is that Openreach is a business and they want to make as much profit as they can for the shareholders so their planners will continually be re-evaluating areas - the largest groups of premises which can be upgraded at the lowest cost per premises passed will be at the top of the list, they may prioritise areas where altnets are planning to build to get their foot in the door first, and they may actually push small clusters of premises with high costs per premises past down the list if there is a chance of winning a bid for BDUK / Project Gigagbit funding.
I’m still not entirely clear on this exchange vs a head exchange.
The Turville Health (THTV) exchange that the cabinet sits below, isn’t yet on the upgrade plans but presumably will be 2027.
I think this may be a fairly small (number of premises served) exchange.
Does it seem possible/likely that this could be replaced as part of the FTTP roll out?
perhaps OR could cable the FTTC cabs back to a larger close-by exchange instead of upgrading THTV to be FTTP ready?
Nettlebed (THNB), Rotherfield Greys (THRO) and Turville Heath (THTV) have Henley-On-Thames (THHT) as their head-end exchange. Fibre from all of the DSLAMs makes its way back to THHT via aggregation nodes.
Openreach intend to close around 4600 satellite exchanges leaving around 1000 head-end exchanges. There are pilot programmes running with plans to close 100 by the end of 2030 and the remaining 4500 in the early 2030s, many Openreach premises were sold and leased back so they will want to complete closures before leases expire rather than having to renegotiate them.
Once the PSTN voice services are shut down only ADSL will be served from the satellite exchanges (not completely true, there are various B2B products but those wouldn't affect normal residential and most business premises) so Openreach could actually deploy more infill cabinets moving customers to SOGEA if they desparately need to close down the exchange and FTTP is too expensive or delayed in that area.
If the fibre connections from the DSLAMs do run through the satellite exchange they would reroute these into inspection chambers near those exchanges, e.g. the footway immediately outside it, as part of the decomissioning process.
At the end of the day if you have good rate SOGEA, e.g. somewhere between 60/15 and 80/20, and FTTP build is expensive (e.g. having to build new spine crossing rivers, railways, motoways or other major roads) that may be all you get until the 2030s.
|
|
|
Theoretically, if there is a splitter next to the cabinet and you have ducting to your property then FTTP on demand might not be too expensive where it will still be several thousand but people move into a property and spend £10k on a new kitchen or spend >£50k on new car etc. So all depends on your priorities
Is FTTP on demand still a thing through OR in 2024?
Last time I looked at that I was put off by the high monthly subscription fees more than the one-off install fee. From memory, the fees were over £150 a month after the FTTP-OD install.
Where I to pay for FTTP-OD would that install/upgrade on my cabinet and enable FTTP for all my neighbours too? (wondering about splitting the install costs if it did)
Would I be able to buy Internet through any ISP that supports normal O.R. FTTP wholesale pricing?
thanks again, everyone.
Feeling a little more comfortable about a rural house now
|
|
|
Nettlebed (THNB), Rotherfield Greys (THRO) and Turville Heath (THTV) All of them very rural exchange areas. Wasted MANY an hour chasing faults down monstrous D sides there.
I wonder if the OP has actually found Turville Heath exchange yet ?
(it appears out of the mist like Brigadoon every hundred years or so)
54-46 was my number
|
|
|
Theoretically, if there is a splitter next to the cabinet and you have ducting to your property then FTTP on demand might not be too expensive where it will still be several thousand but people move into a property and spend £10k on a new kitchen or spend >£50k on new car etc. So all depends on your priorities
Is FTTP on demand still a thing through OR in 2024?
Last time I looked at that I was put off by the high monthly subscription fees more than the one-off install fee. From memory, the fees were over £150 a month after the FTTP-OD install.
Where I to pay for FTTP-OD would that install/upgrade on my cabinet and enable FTTP for all my neighbours too? (wondering about splitting the install costs if it did)
Would I be able to buy Internet through any ISP that supports normal O.R. FTTP wholesale pricing?
thanks again, everyone.
Feeling a little more comfortable about a rural house now
AFAIK , FTTPod is still available, ( it was paused , but has been made available again ) it’s always been a niche product and available from a small number of providers ( mass market ISP’s generally are not interested in offering this Openreach product ) , the higher monthly cost ( after paying the construction costs ) is only until the end of the minimum term at which point you can negotiate with the supplying ISP to move onto their regular pricing, or change provider and get native FTTP pricing from them .
There is no cabinet upgrade, ( FTTP doesn’t originate from a ‘cabinet’ ) anyone who does pay for an FTTPod provide basically provides the network to the CBT that they are served from , and any neighbours that can also be served from that CBT will have access to native FTTP ( its available as a consequence of the FTTPod build ) , obviously the number of neighbours that benefit will vary depending on the situation, if someone lives pretty remotely ( no neighbours served from the same copper DP ) then no one else would benefit, but if someone was ( for example ) served from a telegraph pole , that 10 others were served from , then those 10 would have access to FTTP , from any ISP’s that offers OR FTTP , at that ISP’s ‘regular’ prices .
Edited by Iniltous (Tue 15-Oct-24 22:13:12)
|
|
|
Wasted MANY an hour chasing faults down monstrous D sides there.
Waterlogged copper or corroded aluminium?
I wonder if the OP has actually found Turville Heath exchange yet ?
Some small rural exchanges do seem to be named not after the closest settlement to their location, I guess for historic reasons.
You just have to look for the Openreach van parked outside https://www.google.com/maps/@51.611509,-0.8892895,3a...
|
|
|
(useless post alert)
And were those bushes smaller behind the van, you could see Professor Caractacus Potts windmill on the top of that hill.
54-46 was my number
|
|
|
Logically this lowers the case for FTTP on the head end exchanges (metro exchanges?)
Interestingly the one exchange in my area that has no OR FTTP plans, whilst the others surrounding it now have completed build is also the one metro exchange.
|
|
|
My take away so far is that OR are working to get 96% of homes able to order FTTP by 2027.
Last I heard the target was 85% by December 2027, and 95% by 2030.
As of July, coverage was about 47% and growing at about 1% per month, so they're more or less on target.
However there are other FTTP networks, so total UK FTTP coverage is higher than that - currently around 70%.
The Turville Health (THTV) exchange that the cabinet sits below, isn’t yet on the upgrade plans but presumably will be 2027.
I think this may be a fairly small (number of premises served) exchange.
Does it seem possible/likely that this could be replaced as part of the FTTP roll out?
perhaps OR could cable the FTTC cabs back to a larger close-by exchange instead of upgrading THTV to be FTTP ready?
The copper connections go back to the local exchange, but the fibre connections (from FTTC cabinets and from FTTP network) go via fibre aggregation nodes directly to the head-end exchange, as explained by others. That is, OR have *already* cabled the FTTC cabs with fibre-optic back to the head-end exchange. Only the copper E-side cables run from the FTTC cabs to the local exchange.
The local exchange won't be "upgraded" for FTTP, and eventually it will be closed. That will be when the last ADSL equipment is removed (multiple providers host their own ADSL DSLAMs in Openreach exchanges), any leased line nodes are decommissioned, and so on.
You may see your local exchange mentioned in FTTP rollout plans, but that just means the exchange *area*: the geographical footprint around the exchange which is currently served by copper from that exchange.
In terms of peoples best guesses, is there anything about the following setup that would be a red flag to upgrading to FTTP?
In terms of geographic layout of the potential house to cabinet ..
It’s a pretty short run. 50 to 75m meter and ducted into the property (I’m not sure where from - cab or nearest pole?))
Two houses closer to the cabinet are on over head cables.
Cabinets aren't generally involved in FTTP. What matters is the fibre aggregation node, but the locations of these aren't published.
As I said before, if you see a large chamber close to an FTTC cabinet, with three lids, that's an indication that it *may* be a fibre aggregation node.
However, the FTTP network plan may be to serve your property from a completely different fibre aggregation node. For example if the local exchange is in one direction from your building but the head-end exchange is in the opposite direction, you'll likely be served from a FAN which sits between you and the head-end exchange. It also depends on what ducts and poles exist.
Given the cabinet has been upgraded to FTTC and the house gets very good speed to the premises does this mean that a FTTC cabinet can be upgraded to be FTTP after exchange is upgraded fairly easily and without too much expense to OR?
Except in very unusual circumstances, FTTC cabinets have nothing to do with FTTP. When FTTP is fully rolled out in an area, and all customers have been migrated to it (which will take years), the FTTC cabinet is likely to be decommissioned and removed. Or just rust away.
my fear was that with under 50 houses on the cabinet they might leave it as a FTTC cab with copper last mile indefinitely and this is what scares us off the property.
It is certainly a possibility. Hence your issues are:
1. Could *you* live with 80/20Mbps Internet indefinitely?
2. Would lack of FTTP make the house more difficult to sell in the future?
(1) you can answer, but (2) is crystal-ball gazing. None of us can do anything which gives you any certainty about FTTP, so it's down to you how long you're intending to live there and whether the plus sides of the house outweigh that particular risk, or whether the asking price sufficiently accounts for that risk.
There *is* always Starlink, which is quite expensive as an ongoing cost, but not outrageously so (I think around £75 per month, plus the electricity bill from the power-hungry terminal).
|
|
|
Logically this lowers the case for FTTP on the head end exchanges (metro exchanges?)
Having decent speeds from existing DSLAMs is only part of the decision process, the 'cost per premises past' and 'deployment before altnets' are likely to figure more highly.
Interestingly the one exchange in my area that has no OR FTTP plans, whilst the others surrounding it now have completed build is also the one metro exchange.
The arrangement of head end to satellite exchanges is not always obvious, and likely down to decisions made back in GPO days. Are you sure that the one without plans is a head end, there may be large exchanges which are not.
|
|
|
|
Even in small villages you may find more than one aggregation node. I was told that OR with our build that they went between the two nodes overhead. our build was mostly overhead as we had soo much ducting issues.
|
|
|
|
Aggregation nodes are always underground, but small and medium splitter nodes can be pole mounted as well as underground, aggregation nodes can be daisy chained , so not every aggregation node has a route directly back to the cable chamber of the headend exchange, some aggregation nodes will feed several other aggregation nodes that the feed splitters etc .
FYI , 40Kms from the headend to the aggregation node isn’t unusual, so the headend isn’t necessarily close by .
|
|
|
Logically this lowers the case for FTTP on the head end exchanges (metro exchanges?)
Having decent speeds from existing DSLAMs is only part of the decision process, the 'cost per premises past' and 'deployment before altnets' are likely to figure more highly.
Interestingly the one exchange in my area that has no OR FTTP plans, whilst the others surrounding it now have completed build is also the one metro exchange.
The arrangement of head end to satellite exchanges is not always obvious, and likely down to decisions made back in GPO days. Are you sure that the one without plans is a head end, there may be large exchanges which are not.
Unless databases are inaccurate it is the metro exchange, and with no planned removal in the 2030s.
The metrics you mentioned are not applicable (dense terraced housing and altnet competition), as this is either equal or more favourable than the other exchanges on those metrics (less dense higher cost semi detached housing, and same altnet competition). I think people keep assuming its altnet competition and cost per premises, but there is clearly other factors as is exchanges getting skipped over that match those metrics. I checked some other metro exchanges as well, and found others with no public plans.
Another factor is that this exchange has really high VM take up, basically OR have not many customers to lose, there isnt much revenue to save.
Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 20-Oct-24 15:56:20)
|
|
|
Starlink will be the most viable option for high speed internet in locations such as the one your considering. It's already available, it's just very expensive (£75 a month).
|
|
|
Another factor is that this exchange has really high VM take up, basically OR have not many customers to lose, there isnt much revenue to save.
I'd say the opposite. In an exchange area with high VM take up, rolling out FTTP gives OR an opportunity to capture back a large number of customers, for a big increase in revenue and immediate return on investment.
In an exchange area where OR copper is the only current option, then if OR rolls out FTTP, all that will happen is that users will migrate from OR copper to OR fibre. The users will be happy, but the difference in price at wholesale is only about £1 per month, so the business case is very poor. There's the long-term benefit to OR of lower fault rate, and a proportion of users will take higher speeds, but at wholesale the difference in price is negligible - about £3.70 per month between 80M and 550M.
But in an area with high migration from OR copper to VM, there is clear demand for good service, and enough people who have bad experience with VM to make it easy to tempt them back again. OR has the benefit of many well-known ISP brands on its network, whereas with VM you just get what you get.
(This factor might eventually force VM to open up its network, as has long been suggested. I suspect they are dragging their heels because they won't be able to price-gouge their wholesale ISP customers in the same way as they are used to doing for their retail customers, so will see a substantial short-term drop in revenue if users on VM's network migrate to other ISPs on the same connection)
|
|
|
I'd say the opposite. In an exchange area with high VM take up, rolling out FTTP gives OR an opportunity to capture back a large number of customers, for a big increase in revenue and immediate return on investment.
This is unquestionably what OR do, but you do get some perverse incentives that fall out of this. The biggest being that an area that is only served by copper has almost no incentive for OR to go in and upgrade it, forcing it to the bottom of the pile (especially if it's in any way tricky to deploy).
Round here, there's been a mad race with OR almost chasing VM down streets as they've been installing cable so they don't lose too many customers and likewise with altnet provision, with the result that some streets might have as many as four different *physical provision* FTTP options (OR, VM and a couple of altnets) while three streets over there might be only a single, legacy copper option available because VM decided not to cable it, and thus OR adopted a "we're number one so why try harder?" approach, and shoved them to the bottom of the pile.
I get it from a purely commercial point of view, but this is why OR, as inheritor of a nationwide infrastructure, does need to have different rules applied to it than other operators building from scratch.
|
|
|
Inheritor of a nationwide infrastructure, so not a penny was paid by the shareholders ( FWIW , the share price in 1984 , 40 years ago ) was £1.30 , today it’s around £1.40 and that’s after 40% increase in recent months ) plus what about ‘infrastructure’ built in the last 40 years in what way coukd that be described as inherited, your description of what an inheritance is seems at odds with the dictionary definition of it .
Edited by Iniltous (Fri 01-Nov-24 14:23:43)
|
|
|
Inheritor of a nationwide infrastructure, so not a penny was paid by the shareholders ( FWIW , the share price in 1984 , 40 years ago ) was £1.30 , today it’s around £1.40 and that’s after 40% increase in recent months ) plus what about ‘infrastructure’ built in the last 40 years in what way coukd that be described as inherited, your description of what an inheritance is seems at odds with the dictionary definition of it .
Well, the OR physical infrastructure in my street hasn't changed one iota in 40 years and, however you put it, OR have been selling services based on an inherited last-mile infrastructure for most of that time. Only relatively recently have they had to start investing into that last-mile infrastructure by government edict and commercial pressure.
And, of course, OR have for most of that time been just an arm of BT, holding a strong monopoly position in the country.
Edited by daern (Fri 01-Nov-24 14:39:39)
|
|
|
Their rollout seems to suggest otherwise, they rolling out in rural areas with no VM presence, and areas they already have sewn up, whilst my area has FTTP and is dominated by VM and has no OR plans. My exchange is metro as well with no plans to close it. I have also seen reports from others in very high VM take up areas where OR is skipping the exchange.
Kind of funny as I got told, once CityFibre did the area, OR would be there quickly, nope. Meanwhile EE keep trying to sell me VDSL.
VM wont be keen on wholesale, I think on either mustang or nexfibre as it creates a headache for them, however if they dont adapt they will just keep losing customers, so I think it will come, just not quickly. Unless you get a retention deal their standard pricing is ridiculous.
Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 01-Nov-24 16:38:37)
|
|
|
In what universe is buying something ( at market value , which ultimately has proved to be a terrible investment ) an inheritance ?, are people living in ex council houses ( which were sold at a discount ) living in inherited properties ? .
How many houses , retail parks , enterprise parks , etc have been constructed in the last 40 years that have Openreach infrastructure serving them , , was that infrastructure also inherited or built after privatisation.
Inheritance isn’t a matter of opinion, where you and I can have an opinion, it’s a matter of fact , and the fact is you are wrong to say the existing infrastructure was inherited by BT/Openreach , their shareholders were not gifted it , they were sold the assets by the Government of the day , how can something paid for by shareholders be an inheritance ? you may have an opinion that the assets were sold too cheaply, but the current share price would suggest that’s a fallacy.
Edited by Iniltous (Fri 01-Nov-24 19:49:56)
|
|
|
Ummm are you replying to me? I never said anything about inherited infrastructure. Sorry I think was daern, ignore this post.
Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 01-Nov-24 16:55:56)
|
|
|
the current share price would suggest that’s a fallacy.
Although to be fair, the share price has been much, much higher in the past (£10 in Jan 2000, and £5 in Nov 2015)
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
