In reply to a post by schander:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

What's the bet us two will end up being the last ones that end up getting the stupid Satellite broadband
Which will really suck.
Paul

Having said that satellite broadband offer 6meg up now and some offer unlimited download overnight, still more expensive than normal broadband, but not bad. I might be tempted given that the council are offering a grant for the setup costs. Then I could just take a monthly plan until we get wire broadband.

Thanks
Satpal

You also have to think about bad weather, show, and heavy raid affects satellite signals, which is why Sky TV looses signal when it rains heavy of snows heavy.

Paul

I'd take a look at the latest speed test results, satellite talks a good fight but you know things are not good when the mean is lower than the median and upload looks seriously impacted compared to the adverts.

1 Mbps versus satellite - I'd pick the ADSL

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I'd take a look at the latest speed test results, satellite talks a good fight but you know things are not good when the mean is lower than the median and upload looks seriously impacted compared to the adverts.

1 Mbps versus satellite - I'd pick the ADSL

Agreed, I would also pick ADSL, the latency of satellite broadband sucks big time, and for a software developer currently working on game development low latency is a must and having a 1 to 2 second delay between packet requests is a no no.

Paul

In reply to a post by schander:

Get this the council asked BDUK to include us in the the second phase, which is supposed to cost between £400-£500 per premise and they were told that it was wasn't viable. However 44T which was done in phase one, £100-£200 per premise did the kicker here is that 70% of the houses connected to cabinet 44T have access to Virgin Media.

The £££ per premise calculation is done using only the count of premises that can't already get superfast speeds - so the cabinet will have met the funding threshold using just the 30% of premises that cannot receive VM.

Presumably, having already run fibre ready for 44T, it wasn't hard to extend the fibre to the 49T, which (if it is an SCP) will have cable and ducting running from 44T.

And those 30% premises are enough for them to hit take-up targets too.

In reply to a post by schander:

I simply cannot see how OpenReach provided FTTP for 100-200 per premise and cannot provide it at 400-500 per premise and that was for a cabinet that already had 70% superfasts coverage.

Presumably BT *can* see the numbers, and can justify those numbers in the face of being explicitly asked to consider it for inclusion.

I think one problem for FTTP decisions is that, for FTTP to be viable, every single property needs to be viable (PK's situation being somewhat odd). A few odd premises can send the average sky-high.

Your FTTC cabinet is a great example ... where viability is not determined by there being physical space to site the new cabinet, but determined by more intangible factors. The same can be true of FTTP - such as a proportion of unducted properties.

In reply to a post by schander:

My situation is a little strange.

So my question is, How can I find out if the cabinet I'm connected to is full for new telephone lines connections? Secondly work out if i ordered a second line it would come from the cabinet with fttp?

IMHO, your situation is *so* strange, perhaps almost unique, that I'm not sure anyone can give you proper, sound advice.

As far as I can see, you'd not be able to order phone line + FTTP in one single order; you'd be relying on the first order (for a phone line) to create a database connection between your property and an FTTP-oriented cabinet.

However...
a) You might get charged excess construction costs for a phone line that did this, with no recourse to the rules on USO (this is a second line, after all) to limit the cost.
b) Once the phone line is in, you might get refused FTTP anyway (like PaulKirby) as there is no FTTP infrastructure already prepared for your home. Or, even if they accepted it, you might get passed the excess construction costs for them to put that infrastructure in place.

This seems like such a unique punt that the only way to answer will be to order.

Just a warning when I had my second lne installed, it came from the same cabinet down the same wire, using a spare pair. I gather that this is the normal procedure and the spare pair is present in almost all current connections for built in redundancy. So you might just end up with double your current situation.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Presumably, having already run fibre ready for 44T, it wasn't hard to extend the fibre to the 49T, which (if it is an SCP) will have cable and ducting running from 44T.

Who said it was an SCP? 49T is (or was) a TPON cabinet. There's not necessarily ducting in place between it and 44T

There will by definition already be Fibre to it if it is a TPON cab. The fibre may also be closer to the customer than that depending on where the last splitter was.

This may be a perfect situation for Gfast as the last TPON splitters appear to have been powered and only served about 24-32 premises. BUT it does depend on OR spotting the potential and then doiing something about it.

In reply to a post by Icaras:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Presumably, having already run fibre ready for 44T, it wasn't hard to extend the fibre to the 49T, which (if it is an SCP) will have cable and ducting running from 44T.

Who said it was an SCP? 49T is (or was) a TPON cabinet. There's not necessarily ducting in place between it and 44T

OpenReach told the BDUK guy at the council that is was a SCP. There is definitely ducting in place as an OpenReach engineer was installing FTTP from the cable chamber at 49T to a house that was closer to 44T!!

Thanks
Satpal

Edited by deleted (Wed 02-Dec-15 17:17:30)

In reply to a post by kitcat:

There will by definition already be Fibre to it if it is a TPON cab. The fibre may also be closer to the customer than that depending on where the last splitter was.

It was TPON cab however no one is connected via TPON now, everyone is on copper, which has a run of approx 4.5km to the exchange, hence the really poor ADSL connection speeds (<2mbps).

In reply to a post by kitcat:

This may be a perfect situation for Gfast as the last TPON splitters appear to have been powered and only served about 24-32 premises. BUT it does depend on OR spotting the potential and then doiing something about it.

As I understand it Gfast is only available if you have FTTC, which we were told is mostly likely not going to happen, besides there is length limit on Gfast, 350m I think?

Thanks
Satpal.

Edited by deleted (Wed 02-Dec-15 17:18:25)

In reply to a post by schander:

As I understand it Gfast is only available if you have FTTC, which we were told is mostly likely not going to happen, besides there is length limit on Gfast, 350m I think?

There's no definition for where or when G.fast will be deployed (as part of NGA2), and certainly nothing (yet) about how it relates to the NGA-1 deployment choices of FTTC or FTTP.

The trials, in Huntingdon and Gosforth, are meant to tell BT some of the parameters they need to know to set the rules, but even that won't be enough - G.fast, as it stands right now, is still targeted as small DPUs and short line lengths. BT are awaiting more standardisation work, and updated chipsets, to be able to try out the longer line lengths - the 350m target.