I keep being told the opposite, that I'm mad to have a 40/2 product on FTTP, when as a single person who just wants to use email/browse, download catch up TV and stream the odd movie that's fine for what I need and doesn't break the bank.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

This could be interesting.

This could be a trench up Max's drive.

I'm not sure you could've made that sound more wrong if you'd tried.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Was the main node serving 8 other exchanges.

Do you know the way traffic was presented at "this" exchange from the 8 child exchanges?

For example, in a manner that mirrored the "local" cabinets/splitters - GPON fibres and single fibres from ? Or in some other manner?

---

Separately ...

I just realised that we can see a couple of features by looking at the second OLT in the rack (picture 23, or the bottom of picture 20)

- The second OLT is dimensioned slightly differently - it has one additional GPON card, and one fewer "FTTC" card.
- The second OLT supports considerably fewer locations at the time of the photo: just 8 GPON splitters and 12 FTTC cabinets.
- The second OLT has 5 pairs running into the "uplink card", just like the first OLT.

With both OLT's have 5 uplink fibre pairs, it could suggest they are being used because the serve 5 different destinations (eg 5 different CP's) rather than being needed for carrying a high volume of traffic. Does this favour them being cablelinks, rather than uplinks to a remote handover node?

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I'm relaying what I was told by a CP with regards to Cablelinks I haven't looked into them with a great amount of detail. I'm aware that L2S and OLT at least can be the same chassis.

Yeah. I'm aware that the best example we have - with MrSaffron's photos - is also going to be wildly dissimilar to most of the country. Falmouth, being an ECI OLT with an awful lot of FTTP, is definitely not going to represent the norm within a big city, with almost no FTTP.

Regardless, excluding the 2k per L2S/OLT is a nice saving but doesn't change the tiny addressable customer base. Really not worth the while of most, and hence most don't bother with it.

Absolutely true for a national LLU/backhaul supplier, if separate handover nodes need to be supported.

But CP's using BTW as their basis should be able to cope with FTTP without such consideration.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Do you know the way traffic was presented at "this" exchange from the 8 child exchanges?

For example, in a manner that mirrored the "local" cabinets/splitters - GPON fibres and single fibres from ? Or in some other manner?

There's no mapping between child exchanges and L2S, they are described as child exchanges due to the historical copper boundaries. They go wherever there's room on the headend.

Edited by deleted (Wed 06-Apr-16 17:52:17)

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Yeah. I'm aware that the best example we have - with MrSaffron's photos - is also going to be wildly dissimilar to most of the country. Falmouth, being an ECI OLT with an awful lot of FTTP, is definitely not going to represent the norm within a big city, with almost no FTTP.

The 'almost' is superfluous in 6 of the UK's 10 largest

Falmouth's BDUK cabinets cover a few exchanges and are spread across 3 different OLT/L2S.

No idea about the original Cornwall build.

And there is the reality, there is no single one cap fits all scenario, i.e. we are all different. So hopefully people will accept that and if making any connection suggestions remember that their usage pattern is not necessarily the same as someone else.

It was at the end of a long day so difficult to recall several years down the line.