its a solution in the sense it brings the option of FTTC to those connected.

The fact those near the exchnage have good syncs anyway is probably a factor in the business decision to not provide FTTC to EO lines.

However what I dont like about your argument is that you think there is something unique about long EO lines, its not unique, there is also long FTTC lines on cabinets.

Obviously those with long EO lines would either be hoping for FTTP or a cabinet placed far out near to their premises. The latter seems extremely unlikely given BT's existing policies on changing the local loop to shorten line lengths. I just cant see it happening any time soon. If you on a long EO line I suggest moving.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

its a solution in the sense it brings the option of FTTC to those connected.

The fact those near the exchnage have good syncs anyway is probably a factor in the business decision to not provide FTTC to EO lines.

However what I dont like about your argument is that you think there is something unique about long EO lines, its not unique, there is also long FTTC lines on cabinets.

Obviously those with long EO lines would either be hoping for FTTP or a cabinet placed far out near to their premises. The latter seems extremely unlikely given BT's existing policies on changing the local loop to shorten line lengths. I just cant see it happening any time soon. If you on a long EO line I suggest moving.

There's nothing unique about long EO lines however it is yourself who appears to be fixated on short EO lines to the exclusion of all else. For the last time, placing a cab outside an exchange and connecting all of the EO lines to it is NOT a solution. A solution for some but far from a solution for all.

I think there's a BDUK framework item / price for as it were hacking through an EO line and inserting a cab for FTTC.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

However what I dont like about your argument is that you think there is something unique about long EO lines, its not unique, there is also long FTTC lines on cabinets.

It isn't a question about the on-off nature of unique vs not-unique. It is a balance of probabilities.

All (or almost all) lines are less than 6km long, including EO lines.

PCP lines have, by definition, a PCP whose D-side is shorter than the total length, by at least 200 metres, and often a lot more. This is true of PCP lines whether they are short or long in their overall length.

On balance, therefore, long EO-lines are going to be longer than the D-side of long PCP lines.

Obviously those with long EO lines would either be hoping for FTTP or a cabinet placed far out near to their premises. The latter seems extremely unlikely given BT's existing policies on changing the local loop to shorten line lengths. I just cant see it happening any time soon. If you on a long EO line I suggest moving.

It will depend. If the long EO line occurs in a big-enough cluster, it is worth installing a cabinet and FTTC.

A small-enough cluster, and it might be worth using FTTP.

why would BT change policy to do that when they already say tough luck to existing long FTTC lines?

The BDUK EO lines have been dealt with as I said as well cabinet outside the exchange.

I am just trying not to give the guy false hope, if he is sitting waiting for a FTTC solution on a long EO line I think he will be waiting a long time.

Has there been any occurance of BT installing new cabs where non existed to shorten the FTTC distance, or is every FTTC cab installed next to existing cabs only. BT will look at this from a business point of view and nothing else, unless subsidised or political intervention.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

why would BT change policy to do that when they already say tough luck to existing long FTTC lines?

To help them reach the target for the county? Re-arrangement might be expensive, but it might prove the cheapest way to hits the targets.

After all, Surrey has a BDUK target for SFBB of something like 99.5% - which almost certainly requires them to consider a solution for *all* long lines (both EO and PCP-based)

Other counties have targets that are not quite that high within the BDUK projects, but are at levels that imply long lines must be considered too. And a few counties have ongoing plans for 100% coverage in the 2017-2020 timeframe. Those too will need alternative solutions.

[Aside: We know little about the actual number of EO lines, and the actual number of long EO lines, and the actual number of long PCP lines. We've seen estimates of 10% EO, and 10% long PCP. If true, then any BDUK target > 80% must solve at least one of these problems, and any target > 90% must solve both, to some degree]

Looking at this from the opposite perspective... BT do show themselves (in video, and in press releases) to use the small ECI pole-mounted box. Where would they use this? It isn't going to be at the sites we see so far (ie at the PCP, which are too big), so it must be for some other purpose.

The usual "other purposes" would include FTTB for MDU, or being placed deeper in the network than the PCP - closer to a small cluster of properties that aren't well-served by a box at the PCP. That implies clusters of long-line properties, whether they are long EO or long PCP lines.

The question is why haven't they been used yet? We have yet to see a single picture of one in use. The answer is (probably) that there is little point until you are a long way through the standard rollout *and* with a fair take-up, so you can re-assess which locations require it.

And that answer effectively says why BT currently say "tough luck" to existing long FTTC (ie long PCP) lines.

I am just trying not to give the guy false hope, if he is sitting waiting for a FTTC solution on a long EO line I think he will be waiting a long time.

Absolutely - I'm trying to do a realistic assessment too. My conclusion is that you can't say "never", but you can't guarantee coverage either - and that whatever happens, it isn't going to be speedy.

EO lines seem to be at the back end of BDUK projects, so long EO (and long PCP) are at the back end of the back end - easily looking like 2016-2017.

Has there been any occurance of BT installing new cabs where non existed to shorten the FTTC distance, or is every FTTC cab installed next to existing cabs only. BT will look at this from a business point of view and nothing else, unless subsidised or political intervention.

The original expectation was that BT would place FTTC cabinets next to the PCP (primary) cabinets. Some lines have SCP (secondary) cabinets deeper in the network, but apparently not many, and none have seen FTTC cabinets before.

However, the Oxfordshire village that recently raised its own funds to get FTTC cabinets added (Binfield Heath) seems to be getting 2 cabinets, one at each of 2 SCPs.

And in the recent financial results, they indicate that the future includes G.fast, which is destined to work in FTTdp cabinets deeper in the network than the current PCPs. That implies that *all* the rules and assumptions we know now are to be torn up in 10 years (or so) anyway.

It is definitely a case of "never say never".

Finally, to a point you didn't quite make:

[BT] already say tough luck to existing long FTTC lines

They say "tough luck" right now, but that doesn't mean they have no hope either, even without recourse to network rearrangement.

There are two technology changes that can have an impact on long-line FTTC. Those are Vectoring and Bonding (on the FTTC cards, not a BET solution).

Vectoring looks like it has the realistic potential to increase the range of SFBB speeds by around 200-300 metres (eg 40Mbps at 1km), which reduces the need for physical intervention deeper in the network. While trials start this year, a rollout would only complete in 2017 - so it leaves BT in a quandary until that time.

Bonding has the potential to increase the range by 50% too - but at the cost of using extra pairs. The D-side appears to have more spare capacity than the E-side, and drops to the house usually have at least one spare pair, so this is possible for at least some properties.

With bonding only working with the addition of scarce resources, you only want to apply it to properties that have no other answer - so it would come after you have deployed vectoring. Then comes the balancing act - is the line part of a cluster where a small ECI cab would be better deployed? Or perhaps even FTTP? Or if there are a few spare pairs, then bond.

When the local travelling community borrow a section of multicore cable Openreach are pretty slick at getting it back into operation. A similar amount of effort is involved in inserting a new cab into the system so I do expect to see it happening in due course. There would only be one cabinet, as all the connections can be made in the FTTC cab.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

[Aside: We know little about the actual number of EO lines, and the actual number of long EO lines, and the actual number of long PCP lines. We've seen estimates of 10% EO, and 10% long PCP. If true, then any BDUK target > 80% must solve at least one of these problems, and any target > 90% must solve both, to some degree]

To give some idea of the scale of the EO problem on the WRVAUX exchange 237 postcodes of 1,090 contain at least 1 EO line with 81 of the postcodes being 100% EO. I appreciate that quite a number of these will be business lines.

Our relatively small residential development (2 postcodes) has approaching 100 EO lines. I note also that the large new St George's Wharf residential development at Vauxhall Bridge (1,100 flats) appears to be entirely EO lines and therefore, due to its size, potentially rich pickings for Hyperoptic. Perhaps the developers incorporated either FFTP or FTTB in the construction.

Being in central London there is of course no BDUK money to help solve these problems so the government will need to come up with some other scheme to help those in the cities if it is to meet its broadband targets.

when I mean is there any known cases I meant in the commercial rollout.

obviously with subsidisation the rules change because as long as someone else pays BT are far more willing.

I agree its not impossible, but I standby that without intervention its extremely unlikely.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Being in central London there is of course no BDUK money to help solve these problems so the government will need to come up with some other scheme to help those in the cities

Most cities are part of a BDUK project, or are covered by something else. The only ones that aren't seem to be London & Hull. And even London has a pot of £25m from the Urban fund - whatever that turns out to allow.