Looks similar to BT blown fibre tubing.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

What on that thread proves it is a FTTP roll-out and not just fibres being installed to cabinets and small tubing for subsequent coax to homes.

The new phone bit could just as easily be VM looking to start doing just coax without the twisted pair and use VoIP over the DOCSIS.

There's both an FTTP deployment and a CATV deployment in Papworth.

VM continue to build hybrid network with telco and CATV. VM have no home gateways that'll take battery back up and deliver POTS unless they were to use unbranded kit. If they were to trial VoIP there's no need to build new network to do it.

I look forward to reading the news article.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

With FTTP it is normal to deploy to a small pavement chamber/pot and then run the final 20m or so to the home only when someone actually orders.

Just waiting on confirmation of some wording from Virgin

No, it's normal for BT to deploy that way because they have pre-existing ducting to properties.

When building a completely new network other approaches can make more sense, such as in the case of VM when they deploy CATV where they deploy duct and tees to each property regardless of whether an order has been placed.

So we now know the answer.

Trial gigabit fro 100 homes and 152 for others.

I trailed along with others the RFoG a few years ago and it was great. We never got offered gigabit services though we just had 100mbps.

I'm hoping with Papworth going live our area will be reconnected because we had all our services terminated.

I'm not sure if Virgin are going to do this but when we had RFoG our telco was supplied via the BT pstn network but we didn't have to pay any money to BT. Vm took care of it all...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Icaras:

This is interesting. Have they decided that people just don't need a home phone service?

No, they've decided not to offer a phone service due to the cost of battery back up.

I no Virgin don't have any battery backup's in my area anymore, power cut and phones out too, The local warden controlled bungalows for the elderly where very chuffed when they found this out as most have Virgin phone with the TV.

Maybe VoIP service coming in the future.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Icaras:

This is interesting. Have they decided that people just don't need a home phone service?

No, they've decided not to offer a phone service due to the cost of battery back up.

I no Virgin don't have any battery backup's in my area anymore, power cut and phones out too, The local warden controlled bungalows for the elderly where very chuffed when they found this out as most have Virgin phone with the TV.

Maybe VoIP service coming in the future.

VOIP has exactly the same problem. I thought it was a requirement to have battery backup on PSTN lines?!?!?

When I trailed FTTP (RFoG) for VM we got our PSTN provided and billed for by VM but it was actually a BT "naked" PSTN line. Even had a VM voicemail, Etc.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

VOIP has exactly the same problem. I thought it was a requirement to have battery backup on PSTN lines?!?!?

Did you mean that?

PSTN lines are the copper ones, with power provided by the exchange.

The requirement is, I think, actually written in terms of providing a robust enough service for access to the emergency services - but last time I looked, it doesn't actually specify what "robust enough" would qualify as.

When voice is provided within BT's FVA service (voice over fibre), I think their interpretation of the requirement is that it requires a backup battery with a few hours of life. This is a form of VoIP, but is carried within a separate VLAN in the access network and at the exchange, the voice component is then carried separately within the (more robust) core network.

However, your average VoIP service carried "on top of" your average internet connection does not have this robustness. It is as reliable as the "best effort" nature of the internet as a whole.

If your ISP fails (eg you can't authenticate), then FVA would work, but VoIP carried over the internet connection would fail.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

VOIP has exactly the same problem. I thought it was a requirement to have battery backup on PSTN lines?!?!?

Did you mean that?

PSTN lines are the copper ones, with power provided by the exchange.

The requirement is, I think, actually written in terms of providing a robust enough service for access to the emergency services - but last time I looked, it doesn't actually specify what "robust enough" would qualify as.

When voice is provided within BT's FVA service (voice over fibre), I think their interpretation of the requirement is that it requires a backup battery with a few hours of life. This is a form of VoIP, but is carried within a separate VLAN in the access network and at the exchange, the voice component is then carried separately within the (more robust) core network.

However, your average VoIP service carried "on top of" your average internet connection does not have this robustness. It is as reliable as the "best effort" nature of the internet as a whole.

If your ISP fails (eg you can't authenticate), then FVA would work, but VoIP carried over the internet connection would fail.

Yes in agreement with what your saying. What I meant was VoIP will always fail if the power goes down unless it's got battery backup at all stops.

When I was talking about PSTN lines (standard copper pair) I was unsure what level of redundancy is required. I know my mother is on oxygen and they had a special line fitted by BT in co-ordination with the fire dept. People on oxygen at home get their oxygen from a condenser (they stupidly have no battery backup) and only use cylinders for backup or the mini ones for going out. Obviously it is very important for someone in my mums position to have a highly robust line because the cylinders run out quickly and they only provide someone with a couple.

VOIP operators are not required to make sure their service can work through a power cut (even those that use dedicated VOIP phones). For VOIP operators to do so would, of course, require UPS on all the critical in-house devices to be supported by a UPS. It could be done, but it's very expensive. Also, VOIP is rather vulnerable to a whole load of other service issues which means that, in general, it is nothing like as robust as a dedicated voice service.

Fibre Voice Access is a very different thing and battery backup is mandated (albeit I think the battery life is fairly limited from what I've read).

I'm sure that the reason VM are not providing FVA for a pilot like this is simply because the costs involved in implementing it for such a purpose are too high. Probably there purpose in undergoing such a trial is to understand the logistics and costs involved in installation. The original cable TV roll-out in the UK effectively bankrupted all the operators (the operations only remained viable after financial restructuring), and I've not doubt VM will hope that fibre is much more cost-effective than coax. Among other things, fibre should require many fewer of those CATV cabinets which you find in VM areas. Many round my part of the world are in a very sorry state indeed, rusting and doors hanging off where they outnumber BT cabinets about 20:1. It must be a significant cost to maintain those things.

I'm sure that if VM do decide to go ahead with fibre rollouts, FVA will follow. Requiring customers who want fixed-line voice services to have a BT line as well would not make for a good retail proposition.