In reply to a post by olicuk:

The whole residential deployment is strange (as it overlays good FTTC), now even more so with its randomness.

Do you seriously believe Openreach deploy FTTP willy nilly?

Edited by deleted (Fri 10-Aug-18 21:54:41)

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

In reply to a post by olicuk:

The whole residential deployment is strange (as it overlays good FTTC), now even more so with its randomness.

Do you seriously believe Openreach deploy FTTP willy nilly?

Deploying FTTP I think is ok, but agreeing its there and activating it is another thing.

Our road and side roads are split up over 2 Splitter Nodes, one for the top half and the other for the bottom half.

We are on the bottom half and our FibreDP (which is live) is on the end of the fibre from our Splitter Node and our fibres daisy chain through all the other FibreDP hardware between us and the Spliiter Node.

Now you would think that the other FibreDP before ours (i.e the ones closer to the splitter node) would also be live, sadly thats not the case.

And BT FTTP Team all say there is no FTTP infrastructure in place for those addresses, and as usual I produce photos showing its there and BT sound confused and say they will pass it on to "their suppliers" and nothing happens from it.

So something isn't right.

Paul

Quite the opposite, it's akin to getting blood out of a stone - unless there is competition about. However they are lack planning, control and strategy, and due to most of the network being built in a completely different technological era, don't appear to have accurate records either.

Take the people clued-up enough to find this forum, seeking help with database issues preventing them getting FTTC or FTTP when it's basically available;

Look at my map I published earlier, and the obvious issues either with the databases, or potentially where the network has been badly built, just on one cabinet. See the four red links where data is dubious or obviously incorrect:

- the property adjactent to DP515 showing as being connected to DP525 (typo in data entry or scan?), but they're as far as you can be across the cabinet footprint from each other;
- the property adjacent to 532 being connected to 528 is also an anomaly and unlikely.
- one of the three properties (all within metres of each other) on DP531 shows FTTP as not available, where the other two show as available.
- one property is randomly connected (apparently) to a totally differnt cab to everyone else, which is a new cab for a development built c10 years after the property.
- one property in a terrace that should go to DP536 along with all of its neighbours and the other properties in the same street, shows as going to DP515... and consequently can't order FTTP.

Then there's the 3 or 4 properties in the business park that appear to have been omitted; and the one random business-park property (DP442) connected to a different PCP than all of the rest in its terrace/phase.

Then I still have the quesiton of why the FTTP here has been done in the first place, covering, looking at all of the other speed data available, a random grouping of DPs. I'd be highly surprised of people on ten different DPs have ordered FTTPoD together... and the contract team doing the work including those who did the survey were very much under the impression of it being BDUK work.

Then you have the fact these people doing the work are being contracted to travel the country to work here, there, and everywhere, rather than more local teams being employed longer term, working through their own areas.

Then there's quality, or lack of it. One duct blockage in my road, they didn't repair properly and ran the fibre in whilst the hole was exposed, so will need to dig again to enable the adjactent DP in due course. The other blockage in the road, the fibre-pullers still strugged with after it had been cleared so it again was poorly repaired. And the third hole was dug AFTER the fibre was in, just to they could claim an extra hole dug on their expenses... no fault there at all. Oh, then someone decided to send a van with traffic lights every day, mostly when no one showed up to do any actual work, and they just sat there half the day.... every day for a week and a half Didn't see traffic lights used once, it's a local small estate road, and there would be no need.

What was good was the speed of implementation... live a month from the groundworks, none of this year+ business, or fibre dangling from poles forever as often seems to be the case in the more rural areas likes mid-Wales.

But yes, I stand by my original statement, applicable to both BDUK and OR.

In reply to a post by olicuk:

Look at my map I published earlier, and the obvious issues either with the databases, or potentially where the network has been badly built, just on one cabinet. See the four red links where data is dubious or obviously incorrect:

Did you draw the above map using Openreach's FTTP network topology map or just the results from th BT/OR DSL checker? Because if the latter, I hope you're aware that the DSL checker can be wrong thereby potentially making your map useless. As I've said elsewhere you need to sit down with the Openreach planners and accountants and let them explain the logic/reasoning behind the FTTP rollout in your area.

As per the topic of this thread, using the data from the Home and Business checker (merged/checked against the DSLchecker - both give the same results, but different additional fields). Regardless of whether Openreach have a separate FTTP network topology map, that's useless for the souls who want to order it and can't because their service provider says no as they're taking a feed from the same database as the Home and Business and DSLchecker sites.

eg/ bt.com says 16 St John's Close can only get superfast 67Mbps services, whereas everyone else in their road can order FTTP.

Therefore these "errors" make a significant difference.

As baby frog mentions, I don't know why you are getting so concerned. Ignoring the business park for the moment, the FTTP largely infills properties which are furthest away from the original FTTC deployment.

This makes perfect sense as those would likely be the longest lines. It may have been more cost effective for FTTP than to do a massive copper rearrangement of the bigger cables feeding the DPs to allow fitting of an AIO cabinet (for those properties not originally served by FTTC). The exact same mix of FTTC and FTTP has been done under BDUK in my village, for exactly that reason.

Business parks are always a bit strange as they often have multiple copper lines to one premise and also leased lines/data lines etc. Your map shows most premises have their own DP, which again seems very sensible from a copper network build perspective and highlights that OR expected each premise to have a complex copper network and certainly multiple lines. These may not go back to the cabinet and some could be EO. So providing FTTP again seems more sensible.

The missed properties could be just a database error. Again we had this in our village several times. This was fixed via discussions between our council BDUK person and OR. It is no good as you Joe Public trying to fix this without engaging with Hampshire CC. The fact that some properties are not connected to the nearest DP and may connect to one "far away" is almost certainly due to there not being enough copper pairs left in the DP. These are often fed only by10/20 pair cables and there is certainly not a 50 way pair run to each DP. Given the patchwork nature of the build of the area, this is highly likely.

A further factor maybe failed pairs may have meant none are spare in a particular DP, so pairs from a DP further away are used.

In summary, you can't say "its wrong" by just plotting maps from a public data source. You don't have access to the OR copper and duct maps, nor the knowledge to the historical reasons for why the network was built as it is.

Edited by sidef (Sat 11-Aug-18 09:39:09)

I suspect its a classic case of sour grapes from olicuk as he wants to know why he's not getting FTTP (despite already enjoying 64 Mbps on FTTC) yet some others with FTTC in his area are getting FTTP - allegedly. He doesn't realise its extremely rare for Openreach to deploy native FTTP to properties already getting good FTTC speeds (excl. Fibre First areas). If he was stuck on 0.5 Mbps ADSL then yes his concerns would be valid but he's not.

If he's really that desperate for higher speeds, then he should consider paying for FTTPoD like a few of us have done or a cheaper solution would be to bond multiple FTTC lines.

Cheers mate....

It is extremely rare, correct... assuming we're allowed to trust the TBB maps or published figures of 1% of whatever it is, then it's rare even without FTTC also being present.

Obviously I'm disappointed not to have the FTTP option without hassle (I can presumably get a gigabit voucher through my small business and still get FTTP relatively easily and "cheaply" as it shouldn't need more than 1x 300m 4-port CBT to supply me, with only the last 10m of route being any different to that just supplied)� and I'm disappointed those installing it who said everyone in the street would be able to get it were wrong (but I could see that coming). I know exactly why FTTP hasn't been put everywhere... I'm surprised it came here at all as I expect this area to be near the bottom of the prioritisation for it, given the FTTC availability, lack of competition, etc. And I am pleased to have good (and just got better) FTTC, without needing to campaign for it for 2 years as I did where I lived before (successfully resulting in commercial deployment over 3 cabinets to around 800 properties).

However, I can't believe that whilst there are some fairly obvious data errors in the "system", that it is so wrong that it says the 47 properties just made available for FTTP could have previously got great FTTC speeds, and actually they couldn't and needed intervention. It's a relatively tiny cabinet footprint (far smaller than nearby PCP 5 for example), and I've seen the cables in the ground that feed some of the properties, so unless there's some weird interference affecting very particular areas, there's nothing wrong with those properties FTTC.

Anyhow, once I hear back from BDUK/Openreach, hopefully all will become clear... I still anticipate it being a "mistake" caused by poor data.

If you have firm data (rather than a feeling) that our maps are wrong then details of what is wrong are always welcome.

If this thread is about the area I think, then I agree with the other poster saying the area with FTTP was likely to be the slower VDSL2 ones and on the business there is extra funding available, so giving them FTTP is more likely.

"or published figures of 1% of whatever it is" I've no idea which 1% you are referring too.

BTW on areas with FTTC and FTTP I had better warn to not look at Northern Ireland where FTTP is starting to roll-out across VDSL2 areas.

No nothing wrong with the TBB maps as far as I know.... I was just questioning the last two commenters if I'm allowed to trust the TBB maps as they implied I shouldn't trust the data from DSLchecker and Home and Business

I'm done with the discussion on here about my particular area until I've (hopefully!) managed to engage HCC and Openreach to discuss it. I was just sharing new information (uncovered thanks to this thread) which I believe will be useful in my discussions with them. And whatever some think, I'm primarily trying to ensure the BDUK funds are going where they're meant to, and Openreach are providing accurate data in support of that.