In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

As far as I can tell, and speaking with a couple of people in the know seems to bear this out, the only thing that'll stop deployment of it will be if the trials go very wrong. Cost savings of not having to do that final drop are still non-trivial even with the costs of the DP kit.

How invasive/expensive-to-install is FTTP at the user end? I imagine it would vary depending on property, and the FTTdp solution would also mean the in-house wiring can remain as-is. To "fibre up" my house, the cable would have to replace the existing copper coming in under the front door, into a cupboard outside the kitchen and through the wall to the current master socket. Easy compared to some, perhaps.

In reply to a post by Senn:

How invasive/expensive-to-install is FTTP at the user end?

A termination box inside or outside the property can deliver a Cat5 type ethernet connection to a switch with wireless capability.

Fibre needs larger radius bends than copper.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

(So bypassing all trains and driving is still more preferable).

Definitely preferable. My journey to work by car takes about 55 mins door to door, going by train takes around 90 mins.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

As far as I can tell, and speaking with a couple of people in the know seems to bear this out, the only thing that'll stop deployment of it will be if the trials go very wrong. Cost savings of not having to do that final drop are still non-trivial even with the costs of the DP kit.

I've seen bar-charts that depict the relative costs for FTTC, FTTdp, FTTP and another option FTTW, though not specific to a UK rollout. Unfortunately, I can't find them at the mo.

Both FTTC and FTTdp are cheaper than FTTP in total rollout cost - simply because, for every DP box there will be 10-30 subscribers who don't get that final 100m of fibre. Each of which doesn't need an appointment for the final install, which seems to be the real problem.

To put the cost of those appointments into context, look at FTTW:

FTTW, where W=Wall, is a scenario where fibre goes to an external wall of every property. At the wall, an electronic box would be installed to convert back to copper for the final run inside the property - a domestic version of FTTB. The electronics would be an OLT and something like a single-channel modem for G.fast, so very similar to a small FTTdp box.

The advantage of FTTW would be that no appointments would need to be made with the householder, while the downside is obviously the addition of the extra box of tricks - more cost, more power problems, and more maintenance.

Those bar graphs showed that, in total, FTTW cost the same as FTTP!

That means the cost of each appointment is roughly the same as the long term cost of a small FTTdp box (CapEx + OpEx).

I'm pretty sure that FTTdp is going to be cheaper, and is highly likely to be perceived as a worthwhile step for a big chunk of the country.

So, as you say, the only thing likely to stop it is if it just doesn't work from a technical perspective.

FTTW sounds kinds like how timerwarner do there cable.

Openreach FTTP is two visits

1. No need to get into property, but wayleave/permission needed to attach box to outside wall and the final 20 to 60m of fibre is blown in ducting or new overhead tube to a termination unit.
2. Second visit a pre terminated fibre is connected and run inside the property to the ONT and battery backup if a telephone also using the fibre.

Old estimates was 7 hours to do both, now try employing a plumber for 7 hours and think of the cost.

I suspect that where a FTTPoD connection was already live, then no g.fast but the GEA pricing would let others order for same price in a good few years.

I hadn't heard of FTTW before, but it would likely not work without appointments for a lot of houses. Quite a few of them in my street alone have front doors that step out onto the pavement, so connecting any equipment up would have to be done on the homeowner's property or land.

I guess it makes me think of my original question - it seems to be the consensus that my nearest DP would be the large manhole at the end of my street, but to bring the infrastructure closer to the "FTTW" concept, the fibre would have to be blown to the small manholes outside every other house.

Secretly hoping (false hope, I know) for this in the not-so-near future.

Before I finish my house extension I'm going to make sure I have a tube that runs from an external wall into my server room, just in case real fibre comes my way.

It will be far cheaper. Full FTTP would tax several hours of work at each premises

Given how close to the Home FTTD gets there is little advantage of full FTTP for residential premises

Getting the cost of FTTD down and demand are going to be the two key issues

Never heard of FTTW, it's the same as FTTP as far as I'm aware. Some Verizon FiOS installs use an external ONT. Still requires a home visit as there's still the requirement to get power to the ONT, and to connect the internal home network / CPE to the ONT.