In reply to a post by garethr:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

did verizon in america even state FTTP paid for itself by the reduced maintenance costs?

Have you seen a FIOS install? They don't protect the fibre. You can get at it. If you're really unlucky they wrap the excess around the externally mounted ONT. Mind you the yanks seem to have this approach to infrastructure anyway. I doubt it took them long to install. I think BT are missing a trick!

They do have battery backup which is (on my bros house) installed internally on the property close to the ONT. The ONT is an Alcatel Lucent cable box. The house is then wired with COAX. The STB's are all very nice Cisco jobs. The CM I think is Alcatel.


Regards,


Gareth

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZPQh-9vXRoY/UlB9b...

There is also COX cable there as well. To move the house over to COX instead of Verizon the engineer simple unplugs the COAX cable. Its a pretty clever way of dong things really.

Verizon can also swap out the ONT without talking to the customer.

Regards,

Gareth

again I repeat, endpoint congestion.

Is this line of thinking why we have a senior bod at BT claiming packetloss is ok?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Is this line of thinking why we have a senior bod at BT claiming packetloss is ok?

I've tried to explain so that it's easy to understand how this actually works. Maybe if you say what you struggled with, rather than talking about some "senior bod at BT" then I can expand on the part where you got stuck.

Better, take it to the tech sub-forum, where it would be more on topic.

In reply to a post by tialaramex:

I don't doubt that BT have made some strategic errors here and there, but I really don't buy the theory that Openreach is going to find itself running FTTP to every residence any time soon, nor that we're going to be kicking ourselves as a nation that they don't.

...

People tend to wrongly project from a few data points on an upward trend that things will grow endlessly, but in reality they're more often on something like an S curve, and they just can't see that yet.

I bet early electricity distribution looked like this too. At first you're running a cable to someone's home for a light, then it's five lights, then they want to run a refrigerator, oven, heating... it seems to analysts as though demand grows without end, but they're wrong. Running 1MW electrical supply to each home would not be "future-proofing" it would just be wasted money.

^^^ This. I totally agree with this observation.

I'm not convinced that there is much higher-bandwidth content coming than we already know about (ie streamed 4k HDTV); I'm also convinced that there won't be much demand for that - and that for many people plain HD is sufficient - especially if video becomes pay-per-pixel.

Of course, we'll have many new apps that manipulate (for a price) content in new & fascinating ways, but for many people, the volume & timeliness of content isn't going to get bigger than those two.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Openreach's allergy to CapEx has become abundantly clear, and areas where they're deploying a second FTTC cabinet at considerable cost, and will follow it up by deploying G.Fast, and follow that up by eventually deploying FTTP are a testament to that attitude. They're like someone running on a payday loan who'll pay way more in the future to avoid having to pay now.

You're probably right that they will follow these steps, and probably right that they'll pay more.

However, there is a good reason for a business to work in steps like this - it helps them secure a return on their investment in manageable steps, which stops them going bust if they make a bad investment.

John Cioffi points this out in a more US-centric way. The operators will invest a sum of money when they have a certain level of confidence that they'll get it back over a period of time. It helps immensely if they can lock you into a contract for that period.

As you point out, KC have (effectively) a vertical monopoly, and are left with the confidence to invest in something that they won't get full return on for 20 years. BT work in a more competitive environment - and they need to feel safe (or rather their investors do) that they'll get enough of their money back to warrant spending it in the first place.

Stepwise investment gives you stepwise confidence that you'll get a return... and you can stop whenever that turns out to be not as true as you thought.

In reply to a post by tialaramex:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Is this line of thinking why we have a senior bod at BT claiming packetloss is ok?

I've tried to explain so that it's easy to understand how this actually works. Maybe if you say what you struggled with, rather than talking about some "senior bod at BT" then I can expand on the part where you got stuck.

Better, take it to the tech sub-forum, where it would be more on topic.

I am sorry you have failed to understand it properly.

The self regulation part of tcp expects packetloss to dissapear when it "slows down" which it typically will do in a normal situation, of course that doesnt happen when an intermediate router is the cause.

Yes there is algorithms that try to manage intermediate caused congestion better, but ultimately that type of congestion should never be there in the first place.

I am not stuck thank you.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Openreach's allergy to CapEx has become abundantly clear, and areas where they're deploying a second FTTC cabinet at considerable cost, and will follow it up by deploying G.Fast, and follow that up by eventually deploying FTTP are a testament to that attitude. They're like someone running on a payday loan who'll pay way more in the future to avoid having to pay now.

You're probably right that they will follow these steps, and probably right that they'll pay more.

However, there is a good reason for a business to work in steps like this - it helps them secure a return on their investment in manageable steps, which stops them going bust if they make a bad investment.

John Cioffi points this out in a more US-centric way. The operators will invest a sum of money when they have a certain level of confidence that they'll get it back over a period of time. It helps immensely if they can lock you into a contract for that period.

As you point out, KC have (effectively) a vertical monopoly, and are left with the confidence to invest in something that they won't get full return on for 20 years. BT work in a more competitive environment - and they need to feel safe (or rather their investors do) that they'll get enough of their money back to warrant spending it in the first place.

Stepwise investment gives you stepwise confidence that you'll get a return... and you can stop whenever that turns out to be not as true as you thought.

Do you think their investment in football is in managed steps?

Always liked to think the proximity to Bletchley Park was in some way connected

FVA and battery backup meets the requirements fine - the battery the responsibility of the customer to replaced when required (would be cheaper than BT Retail prices anyhow)

BT though are in no way ready to launch a full retail product for FVA as in my experience they cannot support it

BT contact centres particularly the offshore ones need far better training for a start

May be lower line rental may be the trick here

I'm told by BT that uptake of FVA is slowly increasing but was unable to pin them down to even rough ballpark figures. I would imagine it is fairly low

Anyone thinking of it, I would advise wait and stick with copper for the time being - unless of course you have no choice

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Do you think their investment in football is in managed steps?

Yes. A few years at a time. Renewable if it turns out to have been a successful strategy, measured by reduced churn, increased take-up of triple-play subscribers, increased viewing figures of those on dual-play, and increased stickiness of both kinds of subscriber. Droppable if not successful.