With 1.8km (or so) left on the D-side, you'd benefit hugely from ADSL2+-from-the-cabinet - maybe around 17-18Mbps raw. But that distance sounds like it is the border for VDSL2 performance.
One day soon, BT will recognise that FTTC is good for (almost) all, no matter what circumstance they have. But while they concentrate on the headline speed of 40mbps, and on keeping their "Infinity" brand pure, there is less chance of them doing anything.
There may be light at the end of the tunnel, as Openreach appear to be updating their internal systems to allow fibre to be handled at "up to 2Mbps" speeds - and the *only* reason for doing this would be to benefit lines like yours.
I also agree about the cabinets.. at some point in the rollout, BT will realise that they need to put some cabinets further out in the network. However, I doubt if this will be of the form of the "big" green cabinet... For example, Ericsson make a DSLAM for 12 lines, small enough to mount on a pole. i imagine that, while fibre may not reach the home, it *does* get further out in the network. Just later...
DACS - i doubt it will handle VDSL2 any more than it handled ADSL.
I wondered if - depending on where the DACS box is - a telephony service could still be run through it, and as the rest of the line splices off to the fibre cab the DACS line could still have the fibre service since it "skips" the bit where the DACS box is. If that makes sense
I'm involved in the parish planning committee and potentially getting a private solution for our village, as the chances of getting FTTC are nil (c. 1300 premises). If we get our own solution in place then BT will pop along and fibre the cab up immediately so there would be a choice of two (for the people like us living very near to it, anyway).
Though the village doesn't have a transient population, and people have memories of what BT services are like.
From what I'd read, @ 1.5km D side FTTC can only manage 22Mbps at best based on VDSL1 and a good quality copper line, which we don't have, and some D-sides are circa 3km+.
The village isn't like a "hub" with a cab in the middle. It's two narrow roads which intersect (mainly, there are side roads) and the cab is nowhere near central.
The layout and configuration should enable a FTTP service to be installed relatively easily by just running along the two main roads. However the cost is likely to be prohibitive unless there's decent take-up.
A wireless option would seem to be the most pragmatic since the antennas only need putting on the chimneys who would take the service. Initial indications are that demand will be much higher than I'd thought which is positive.
That said, if telephony could be bundled in, BT may as well just shut the exchange; there are issues with the telephone service here (calls don't connect but you still get charged, for instance, crackling lines when it rains, etc) as it's so old and decrepit. I don't know how widespread that is, but four seperate people have said this to me now and it used to happen on our line from time to time when we had it.
FTTC strikes me as a very expensive way (2 or 3 new cabs needed to service probably only 200 properties each) of delivering a barely current gen solution which would only last perhaps ten years, but it's academic anyway since nobody would have the cabs, and even if they were, nobody is going to install them.
In a clustered high density urban area, though, where all the properties are within 1km of the cab, then FTTC could potentially supply much faster speeds - it suits that configuration and would be OK in the short to medium term.
If the private solution we (hopefully) manage to get is FTTP and can run TV services too that would be great as TV signals are poor too. People in rural areas don't like ugly satellite dishes on their roofs.
The best option for our village is for the "consortium" to come along and fibre the whole village up, so I watch with interest, sorts phone and TV potentially too, and would save us an enormous amount of money
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
