In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I think it's possibly wishful thinking that copper will figure in resolving that conundrum now for Openreach.

Sure they could do, as technically lots of stuff is quite possible. However given all the messaging, the desire to retire copper (eventually) and of course the huge strategic push with FTTP, I think is massively unlikely that Openreach will ever again embrace any sort of copper broadband tech going forward.

G.fast was a regrettable and expensive strategic mistake for them. I doubt very much they would look to repeat the error with something like MGfast.

The problem is that Openreach own that last mile of copper and are not going to start leasing just that bit (e.g. from the street or building). So if they don't utilise it with faster tech, no one can. If FTTP for a building is impossible or expensive consumers will be pushed to 5G to achieve faster speeds. A colleague of mine has just had Community Fibre provision his street and he still opted to renew his Three mobile broadband contract.

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

The problem is that Openreach own that last mile of copper and are not going to start leasing just that bit (e.g. from the street or building). So if they don't utilise it with faster tech, no one can.

They can and do do similar. It's called Sub Loop Unbundling.

There are a number of providers who install their own DSLAMs on PCP's that OpenReach haven't installed their own DSLAM on.
Glide (formerly WarwickNet) and Callflow are the 2 biggest I'm aware of.

If OpenReach haven't put a VDSL2 cabinet on a PCP then other providers are free to install their own VDSL2 and/or G.Fast DSLAM on it

MGFast would of course be useless if it were deployed from a PCP unless that PCP was right in front of a very large MDU.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

They can and do do similar. It's called Sub Loop Unbundling.

There are a number of providers who install their own DSLAMs on PCP's that OpenReach haven't installed their own DSLAM on.
Glide (formerly WarwickNet) and Callflow are the 2 biggest I'm aware of.

If OpenReach haven't put a VDSL2 cabinet on a PCP then other providers are free to install their own VDSL2 and/or G.Fast DSLAM on it

MGFast would of course be useless if it were deployed from a PCP unless that PCP was right in front of a very large MDU.

Interesting, I thought they only did unbundling from the exchange (LLU). If Openreach already has a product for it, perhaps someone will fill any MDU voids that are left.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by Cockroach:

The problem is that Openreach own that last mile of copper and are not going to start leasing just that bit (e.g. from the street or building). So if they don't utilise it with faster tech, no one can.

They can and do do similar. It's called Sub Loop Unbundling.

There are a number of providers who install their own DSLAMs on PCP's that OpenReach haven't installed their own DSLAM on.
Glide (formerly WarwickNet) and Callflow are the 2 biggest I'm aware of.

If OpenReach haven't put a VDSL2 cabinet on a PCP then other providers are free to install their own VDSL2 and/or G.Fast DSLAM on it

MGFast would of course be useless if it were deployed from a PCP unless that PCP was right in front of a very large MDU.

Reminds me of that thread a few weeks ago, where the chap in Ponders End/Enfield using Glide was told their cabinet was being decommissioned by Glide in 30 days, with no prospect for further service. There's that tie cable distance limit between PCP and SLU cabinet - they either couldn't make that work if relocating their SLU cabinet or simply couldn't be bothered to continue service, perhaps because of low utilisation.

Edited by Pheasant (Thu 26-Aug-21 12:18:42)

Let's not let the freeholders of the buildings off the hook here. If the fit and finish in communal areas is important to the building owners, there are no existing cable risers and there currently only exists copper pairs buried within the building fabric then there is nothing stopping the owners of the building providing approved cabling paths to be used by any network operator, and then repairing decorations to their own standards.

Building owners wanting unreasonable fees to grant wayleaves isn't a problem that network builders should have to work around, it's a waste of their energy to do so that would be better spent on genuine R&D.

In reply to a post by jpm:

Let's not let the freeholders of the buildings off the hook here. If the fit and finish in communal areas is important to the building owners, there are no existing cable risers and there currently only exists copper pairs buried within the building fabric then there is nothing stopping the owners of the building providing approved cabling paths to be used by any network operator, and then repairing decorations to their own standards.

I agree we shouldn't let them off the hook, but if the reality is they are being unresponsive or difficult, you've got to work with what you've got. In most instances, network operators are not going to spend a ton of effort chasing and pushing for an individual block.

Agreed, but if I was a network operator in that situation I'd be inclined to just leave that building out of my plans rather than siting a cabinet outside and using the copper pairs to provide a service that has different characteristics and uses different equipment to the other 95%+ of my network. If you have a difficult building owner or agent then what happens if the copper in the building gets damaged? Are you going to be allowed to maintain it?

In reply to a post by jpm:

Agreed, but if I was a network operator in that situation I'd be inclined to just leave that building out of my plans rather than siting a cabinet outside and using the copper pairs to provide a service that has different characteristics and uses different equipment to the other 95%+ of my network. If you have a difficult building owner or agent then what happens if the copper in the building gets damaged? Are you going to be allowed to maintain it?

Indeed. As OR have some time ago abandoned new G.fast deployments, have now spent £30M on IT software and digital workflow tools alone to be enable them to upgrade their fibre build rollout targets and crank up to provide 70,000+ properties passed per week on FTTP plus and have stated on numerous occasions their desire to transform the network, as we see first PSTN shutting off in 2 years - the chances of them "looking back" to copper now for ultra high speed broadband connectivity are pretty much zilch.