In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

then they are wasting a lot of fibre cables and reducing the available space in the duct, how stupid is that.

I guess the stupidity depends on whether duct space, in these locations, is the primary problem, or if the blocks are meant to help solve a different problem.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

So each cable is going from the splitter node to an individual connectorized block.

Like I already said above, they will be wasting a huge amount of fibre cables if that's what they are doing.

Plus sod having to sit up the stop of the poll joining all the fibres to the connectorized block.

Much better and safer to have a premade connectorized block with a pre-length of fibre cable already fitted and sealed, to then tack to the pole and then into the chamber to a form of DP where they are all joint together.

The connectorized blocks are indeed pre-terminated with a tail of fibre - but more than just the length needed to get from the top of a pole down to the chamber.

One of the points of this system was to have a cable that was small but came with sufficient strengtheners that it could be pushed through many duct blockages. That reduced the number of calls into the digging teams - and seems to have been the main problem that was under consideration.

Remember too that we are talking of the cables between the connectorised DP and the splitter node, which has a max size of 128 premises. One or two streets at a time, so lengths are relatively short. The splitters can still be daisy-chained. We might see an architecture where the old-style fibre cable runs along main roads, chaining splitter nodes, while the pre-terminated cabling runs along side-streets.

The connectorised blocks (Corning Optisheath Multiport) can be supplied with different lengths of tail - anything from 3m to 600m, but I think the standard variants come with 50ft, 100ft, 150ft, 200ft.
https://objects.eanixter.com/PD362314.PDF

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Even if half way up a pole you leave long enough tails so it can be brought down to ground level for the infrequent splicing it may need.

Interesting to see that KCOM's architecture is to put splice tray DPs part-way up each pole. Not at the top, but just above the height that the metal cable protectors run up to.

https://youtu.be/hbwTCX4QP8Y?t=66

That�s just common sense to protect their lineplant.

In reply to a post by sparkymark75:

Far too much logical thinking going on in here

Each way is logical. It just depends what your main problems are.

For BT, in this part of the network, it looks like getting past duct blockages, between DP and splitter node, was an important consideration.

Another was trying to reduce the amount of time it took to deploy on installation day. They wanted to stop using blown fibre in the drop (to reduce the need for compressors and blowing equipment), and reduce the need for splicing (at both the DP and on the exterior of the house).

Connectorised blocks with pre-made tails solves issues in one direction, while pre-made drop cables with a peelable cable solves issues in the other direction (peelable == cable that is both outdoor spec and indoor spec, with the outdoor sheath that can peel away at the entrance to the home).

https://youtu.be/LLpk2dz6nBQ?t=582

The downside is the number of cables in the ducts, if duct-space is an issue.

From a protection perspective, yes.

But interesting that they're willing to let engineers splice at a short height, which Openreach seem to be much less willing to do.

There must be a logical answer, because if you cannot get a flat stable surface close enough to the fibres to splice you are stuffed....

Have had to use the top flat step of a four tread step ladder before, not ideal, but worked.... also piled up a combination of cardboard boxes to reach the required height. This all in utility cupboards about a meter and a half square. Fun.

LOL

When you splice a strand, and then have to wind it all back into the splice tray, what kind of length can it hold? Can you get a couple of metres in there?

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

then they are wasting a lot of fibre cables and reducing the available space in the duct, how stupid is that.

I guess the stupidity depends on whether duct space, in these locations, is the primary problem, or if the blocks are meant to help solve a different problem.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

So each cable is going from the splitter node to an individual connectorized block.

Like I already said above, they will be wasting a huge amount of fibre cables if that's what they are doing.

<snip>

<snip>

One of the points of this system was to have a cable that was small but came with sufficient strengtheners that it could be pushed through many duct blockages. That reduced the number of calls into the digging teams - and seems to have been the main problem that was under consideration.

Remember too that we are talking of the cables between the connectorised DP and the splitter node, which has a max size of 128 premises. One or two streets at a time, so lengths are relatively short. The splitters can still be daisy-chained. We might see an architecture where the old-style fibre cable runs along main roads, chaining splitter nodes, while the pre-terminated cabling runs along side-streets.

<snip>

It appears that BTOR have now decided to install the new connectorised block method for FTTP even where the old-style manifolds have not been used to capacity, at least where duct-space is not an issue.

I've been chasing BTOR via the local Superfast organisation for over 2 months to find out why a couple of friends at different addresses (and different Cabinet Areas) in my town are no longer able to order FTTP when their addresses were previously on the BT database as FTTP-enabled about 4 years ago.

Both addresses have copper lines via overhead cabling from nearby poles which have had the old type 'bottle' shaped manifolds fitted for several years, and both manifolds are supplying a very small number of FTTP connections (2 on one, harder to see on the one pictured at the link below).

Because both addresses have nearby properties served from the same poles/manifolds which are able to order FTTP I was under the impression that this was likely a database issue and that was the tack I took with my chasing-up, but it appears that it was not as simple as that. During my last conversation with the local Superfast rep I was told that some progress had been made regarding the pictured location, and that equipment had been installed which was waiting to be commissioned. I doubted this and continued with my argument that no commissioning should be necessary as the manifold had been in place for around 4 years and was actually in use.

As I was passing that location yesterday I decided to take a look at the pole (mainly to see if the existing manifold was full) and was surprised to see that even though there were very few connections on it, that a new connectorised block with its cable had been fitted to the pole.

This photo shows both fittings on the pole, although the lighting was not too clever due to it being an overcast day and fairly late in the afternoon.

Wow.

The main driver for doing this, surely, would be the number of engineers trained and equipped to do each type of installation.

Yes, 2m is what my BTOR installer wound back into the CSP after splicing, which is fitted slightly higher than the specified position. I just checked - it's 1.35m above the floor in a tiny utility cupboard which opens into a downstairs room.