In reply to a post by panda:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I wonder though ... I'm sure Zarjaz will know. Might it have been the simple "Primary Connection Point" in times of yore, because surely its only cross-connection function is with these new-fangled FTTC cabinets?

It's always been a cross-connection point, as it cross connects the E & D side pairs.

+ 1 for Panda's reply.

In reply to a post by panda:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I wonder though ... I'm sure Zarjaz will know. Might it have been the simple "Primary Connection Point" in times of yore, because surely its only cross-connection function is with these new-fangled FTTC cabinets?

It's always been a cross-connection point, as it cross connects the E & D side pairs.

I guess the important point is back when the GPO introduced PCPs in the first place, and what improvement they were seeking.

Was it the ability to change the cross-connection in the event of faults?

I've also heard the term flexibility point.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Was it the ability to change the cross-connection in the event of faults?

I've also heard the term flexibility point.

Flexibility point is a valid generic description, but whilst all PCPs (and SCPs) can be 'flexibility points', not all flexibility point are (P|S)CPs.

The original intent was to allow an access point where line routing can be easily manipulated - either for provision or repair - without the need for specialist skills or equipment. Remember that the majority of cabinets were installed at the time of hot (lead)/cold/resin joints which are a PITA and time consuming to open and close.

From a routing perspective, it allows some latitude when you have a choice of several E-side cables than can be connected to multiple DPs - particularly if the preferred route has issues, as an alternative may be available to provide service sooner than pulling in new cables with the inevitable hassle and delays.

Yep, I recall being told on my very first day that flexibility was what the network provided.

I have seen the "flexibility point" used in some theoretical paper on fibre too. That made it look like the aggregation node was fibre's equivalent flexibility point.

It is seems that the experience of running an access network for the odd decade or three has rubbed off.