In reply to a post by partial:

Nobody is going to be running any grease filled cables out of the exchange for E0 cab cut ins.

I agree with that entirely.

In this case, though, the OP mentioned the cab has 50 lines, so whatever the solution turns out to be, it isn't one of the large scale.

In reply to a post by partial:

You can simply airblock either side of the cabinet and bridge with an air tube.

That part I didn't know. Is it common to use this setup?

And coverage target can vary from county to county

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

... The layout you've just invented would work, but it would be unique in the whole country and won't be done.

To make an analogy: imagine a world in which there is a railway company with a nice fast main line from Leeds to London, but no main line from Bradford to London, just a local line from Bradford to Leeds. They have plans to build a spur that will remedy the situation - one day, when the cash is available. But for now, there is no way of running trains directly from Bradford to London.

How would the public react if my imagined rail company said that because they couldn't run the best option of through trains from Bradford to London, then they wouldn't do anything to help Bradford to London passengers? These people would like to make the best of the available infrastructure and travel on local trains to Leeds, and then on the main line from Leeds to London. But the railway company says that this is "not their normal way of operating" so they will not cooperate - they will not sell through tickets, and their timetables will be set so that Bradford-London passengers would have to wait ages at Leeds.

I think the public would think this amazingly stupid. There would be immense pressure to sell through tickets and to arrange decent connecting times so that - until the ideal solution is available - then Bradford customers could have the best service that could be squeezed out of the existing infrastructure.

And if it were a profit-seeking company, the shareholders would sack any management who deliberately avoided extra revenue. Unless, of course, they thought that they could use the dreadful Bradford service to extract a public subsidy for the extra trackwork needed for their preferred direct Bradford-London service.

To clarify the analogy - My via-a-non-FTTC-cabinet neighbours are Bradford residents. The new FTTC cabinet is Leeds City station with its fast service to London. But Openreach are declining to take simple actions that would offer them a great improvement on what they have today by running a connecting service.

Nice analogy but telecoms world is different.

An often overlooked aspect is that the FTTC enabling actually brings part of the FTTP build needed for an eventual roll-out one day, and the components would have been scaled for the number of premises service by the EO cluster that has got FTTC now.

Has Openreach or BDUK Local Authority confirmed that there is no intention to provide FTTC to you? It is normal for cabs to be rolled out in stages, so it may simply be that a later phase will see you helped.

Your scenario requires wiring back from the VDSL2 cab into the exchange and then across to where your incoming lines in the exchange are located and intercepting in the building somewhere in a non standard fashion. The wiring in telephone exchanges is intended to be standard and the same across the UK so that engineers can turn up and be familiar with any exchange after a very short time.

This will also involve the RF signals from VDSL2 travelling through the exchange wiring looms, something that the regulations don't allow for, due to interference with existing ADSL/ADSL2+ services.

There are network rearrangement options where you can pay for custom work, but be prepared for the large bill.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Has Openreach or BDUK Local Authority confirmed that there is no intention to provide FTTC to you? It is normal for cabs to be rolled out in stages, so it may simply be that a later phase will see you helped.

The local BDUK outfit (Digital Derbyshire) have indeed confirmed that the non-FTTC cabinet is outside their funded programme (which runs to 2018).

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

There are network rearrangement options where you can pay for custom work, but be prepared for the large bill.

Any idea of rough cost of connecting a property across a highway to a pole perhaps 15m away, assuming that there is sufficient capacity back to the exchange?

The middle of the mostly-non-FTTC road that I am concerned with does in fact have a pole that does get FTTC (coming in across footpaths and gardens), but it currently only serves three properties on that road. A couple of closer non-FTTC properties could be served by new overhead wiring with above-streetlight clearance.

Would this be covered under "External Shifts of Exchange Line Wiring and Rearrangements of BT Network Equipment and Lineplant" in section 12.2 of the BT Pricelist, which appears to have a fixed cost of £193 inc VAT for residential customers?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Your scenario requires wiring back from the VDSL2 cab into the exchange and then across to where your incoming lines in the exchange are located and intercepting in the building somewhere in a non standard fashion. The wiring in telephone exchanges is intended to be standard and the same across the UK so that engineers can turn up and be familiar with any exchange after a very short time.

This will also involve the RF signals from VDSL2 travelling through the exchange wiring looms, something that the regulations don't allow for, due to interference with existing ADSL/ADSL2+ services.

Hmm, I had a response that went along these lines, but it seems to have gone missing.

Still, it is an important point ... connecting back through the exchange frame is not allowed, because it is not allowed to have the VDSL2 frequencies.

Even worse, the FTTC cabinet will have power levels carefully chosen so that there is no interference to ADSL/2+ signals coming from exchange-based DSLAMs (or vice-versa). Wiring back to the exchange frame will negate this - leading to interference between the ADSL subscribers and VDSL subscribers.

Complete FUBAR.

It also very much means that areas A and B are not served in the way the OP presumes. Either they are already wired from the "right" side of the main road, or the diversion joints have been made in some other cable chamber outside the exchange itself.

Total aside: Some interesting pictures of the cables entering an exchange can be found here:
http://www.britishtelephones.com/gpo/cablechamber.htm
http://www.britishtelephones.com/gpo/jointbox2.htm

In reply to a post by JohnGeddes:

To clarify the analogy - My via-a-non-FTTC-cabinet neighbours are Bradford residents. The new FTTC cabinet is Leeds City station with its fast service to London. But Openreach are declining to take simple actions that would offer them a great improvement on what they have today by running a connecting service.

Using your own analogy, perhaps the better way to see what is wrong is to understand that the only way to accept services from Bradford is to serious interfere with services from Leeds (oh, and interfere with those seemingly unrelated services from York too). Intercity 225's would be left queuing behind Pacers all the way to London.

In reply to a post by JohnGeddes:

Any idea of rough cost of connecting a property across a highway to a pole perhaps 15m away, assuming that there is sufficient capacity back to the exchange?

Would this be covered under "External Shifts of Exchange Line Wiring and Rearrangements of BT Network Equipment and Lineplant" in section 12.2 of the BT Pricelist, which appears to have a fixed cost of £193 inc VAT for residential customers?

You are right that the work would come under the generic term of "network re-arrangement" but it wouldn't be under the that kind of fixed-price schedule. People before have been quoted thousands, but it can be hard to find anyone at an ISP who'll even listen to the kind of request you are making.

This kind of thing *has* been known to happen though, but rarely.

Note that there are also rules about wiring from poles in different circumstances, that can limit how many drop cables can be strung out in different directions. Just because a pole is there doesn't make it freely available either.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

It also very much means that areas A and B are not served in the way the OP presumes. Either they are already wired from the "right" side of the main road, or the diversion joints have been made in some other cable chamber outside the exchange itself.

Thanks for this - but I am still a bit confused. I understand that VDSL frequencies make interference with ADSL a real issue - but surely there are VDSL and ADSL pairs in the same cables that run along the street, and with only a single trench across the main road from exchange to FTTC cabinet, every ADSL pair on the cabinet is running parallel to every VDSL pair.

If the crosstalk issues are manageable in such a topography, why is it unthinkable that VDSL should should be run via the MDF for those on non-FTTC cabinets?

The UK regulations stop BT running VDSL direct into the exchange - I believe Ofcom set those regulations.

It isn't VDSL2 until it reaches the FTTC cabinet from the headend exchange. Similarly it isn't VDSL2 from the FTTC cabinet back to the headend.

The only place the two are in close-together wiring is between the PCP and the premises. Where the problem is far more manageable than inside an exchange.