I would of though BTOR would of replaced the first 96 with a bigger cabinet...

But that would have meant protracted downtime for the cabs original users.

Yeah but they could of built a 288 cab then during the night or early morning switched the 96 lines to the 288 and then removed the 96 once completed

Break of service is break of service, though I'm sure many would disagree, Openreach do endeavour to provide no breaks !

Oh well I suppose people can remember that when there's cabinets everywhere

In reply to a post by madnutter56:

I'm thinking OR should have installed a 288 from the start and then we wouldn't have any of this 3 cabinet mess...

Quite likely that they would have done if they could have predicted the current demand and/or were not constrained by costs when the original cabinets were installed.

It's not a valid reason to cause downtime on people's phone services. If it were that simple Openreach would be doing it.

Contrary to apparently popular opinion they do have some clue what they are doing most of the time.

And it would certainly not be just a few minutes downtime either. If it was a full changeover, it could be a day or maybe two - no one woudl accept that on their residential service let alone a small business.

It wouldn't be that long per customer to be honest, but it would be noticeable.

Though the man has a point about street furniture getting messy.

My node's collection - another small cab arriving soon.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Vectoring when multiple cabinets are present is more difficult, only way it can work if all the same DSLAM and a dedicated fibre link between them JUST for the vectoring data so they can share information when doing the calculations.

Neil McRae, in his talk on G.Fast at uknof, suggested that manufacturers aren't working on a link between cabs, for vectoring, with any real seriousness. He went on to suggest that once an operator has deployed a fibre cab, then they effectively own that location forever more.

This was in answer to a guy from Warwicknet, so he hoped they intended to deploy G.fast at their sites...

Sure he wasn't referring to vectoring between different operators there?

I read that as a discussion on SLU, not on vectoring between cabinets which is an already delivered and proven technology.

EDIT: Just FYI Warwicknet are one of the few that do sub-loop unbundle.

Edited by deleted (Mon 18-May-15 18:42:33)