I am sorry - but if you do not read the post, you will not grasp the point being made.

There is an obvious efficiency and benefit to use manpower present in an area to upgrade a larger number of properties at the same time, compared to revisiting the same area over and over.

The cost per property is reduced by doing this, the time and environmental impact per property is reduced by doing this.

By seeking funding to upgrade even a single road of 33 properties in many visits in a piecemeal fashion, it makes the rollout take longer, and cost more overall.

A longer rollout at greater cost provides OpenReach with more profit but no more benefit to the country.

By dragging ut the overall rollout to take longer, in the manner in which it is presently being done costs more. More wages, more funding, more environmental damage, and for OpenReach and their contractors - More profit.

Does that explain it more clearly?

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sun 14-Nov-21 10:58:59)

Lets be honest here and cut out all the rubbish about rollouts not being done the way you think they should be.

At the end of the day you are just miffed that some houses up the road from yourself are now able to order FTTP and you can't, that's the bottom line here isn't it. Forget the rest as it's all irrelevant. If you want to order FTTP yourself right now then put your hand in your own pocket and order FTTPoD (just like you have been told by numerous people at Openreach).

However, i suspect from reading your comments you have no intention of actually paying for FTTP and want it installed for nothing in the rest of your street by Openreach. I'm quite sure Openreach will do that, but they'll do it at a time they see fit, for reasons only they know. You've absolutely no idea what is involved in the planning of such networks or the decisions behind their roll outs, so as i said above, pay yourself or wait for your area to be upgraded.

As there are other companies also installing FTTP then Openreach will deploy their resources where they need to for commercial reasons, which obviously they are not going to divulge with yourself, no matter how loud you scream about it. It's their money not yours. I'm also quite sure that Openreach would love to snap their fingers and have FTTP everywhere yesterday, but this is the real world and it is going to take time.

Remember there is also a much bigger picture to all of this, one that is way way bigger than your street, estate and town.

Edited by TheInstaller (Sun 14-Nov-21 11:39:51)

Wow - so many assumptions and unjustified comments in one post...

While I could easily order FTTPoD for myself and a few other properties would no doubt benefit, I have at no point said this is about ME getting FTTP - and indeed the overall tone of the thread is, if it was read, about a country wide and efficient FTTP roll out - for everyone.

Being able to get fibre for myself only increases the digital divide and perpetuates the current dis-jointed rollout, and the inefficiencies seen here and across the country.

You might be unable to see the bigger country wide issue here, with increased costs and delays perpetuating an endless cycle of a bit of funding and a bit of rollout and a bit more profit, but I am addressing the bigger issue here.

It is pretty obvious I think, that I i were looking to get my property upgraded for free, this is hardly the approach I would take.

Edited by TechGuyUK (Sun 14-Nov-21 12:06:08)

You need to stop playing mental gymnastics. At the end of the day, Openreach planners/bean counters aren't stupid, they would have had their reasons for not rolling out fibre to your property (for now at least) - which you will most likely never find out. As difficult as it might be, probably a good idea to move on and stop tying yourself into knots over this.

TechGuyUK

You are right it is inefficient, however it was an attempt to provide service to a limited amount of people who wanted to pay extra for it ( Jump the queue if you like).

If OR had just run to their efficient plan the Cul-de-sac that s annoying you would not have been done and you wouldn't be annoyed.

There were a limited number of small teams doing these small builds whilst the main areas were being done. OR even put the price up to restrict the demand whilst they built up their resource levels. People had to pay quite a lot to counterbalance the inefficiencies.

There is a new scheme starting so that where the infrastructure already exists, Like in your situation, the cost to jump the queue drops towards the actual cost to do the work. There are still people complaining this is too much.

The alternative is to wait for the OR plans to be delivered and not pay a penny extra. Whatever OR do they will have people complaining that they are at the back of the queue.

The rest of your close will be done with the OR efficient plan that you want! unless someone stumps up the extra to 'jump the queue. ( If all 12 on a CBT wanted it it comes out at around £120 each).

the inference of your thread is very clear - your not happy the rest of the road has been done and you havent -- that a commercial reality - whether you like it or not -- , any operator has be very specific un connecting any premises via public money to ensure A it deliver what the requirement and B it does not then to commerical build the next bit using the public money bit as that could be see as an abuse of public money -- . this siuation will be more common than it already is and infererring bad management or profiteerting smacks "why have they not done me" clearly signpost your intention

In reply to a post by kitcat:

There were a limited number of small teams doing these small builds whilst the main areas were being done. OR even put the price up to restrict the demand whilst they built up their resource levels. People had to pay quite a lot to counterbalance the inefficiencies.

Had wondered why the FoD pricing had gone up substantially between 2018/19 and 2020/21 to the point where the minimum 'floor' price was averaging around £8K irrespective.

Will be interesting to see how the FoD 'near network' trial goes in the coming months. Presumably resource levels with OR are such now that they can sustain the pace of the native FTTP rollout as well as dedicating sufficient resources to FoD builds. I recall in the early days they were limited to I think it was 20 per month nationally or some such figure. Must be substantially more capacity now for them to announce this aggressive new pricing model under the trial.

It's stupid though. Because at £8k floor for FTTP, you may as well get a leased line and just share the link between other properties. Leased lines are heavily subsidised on install costs, so unlikely to cost as much to install.

With a good deal of around £350/mth for a leased line service for a fully uncontended 1gbps service. Using typical OR contention ratios of provisioning ~80mbps (2.488/1.244gbps GPON / 32 = 77.75/38.875 per split), so a 1gbps leased line could hold 12 properties with the same contention, thus costing each person under £30. Or upgrade to a 10GbE leased line for ~£450/mth and effectively put either 10x more properties on or upgrade the '12' to 777mbps uncontended symmetrical.

If you're doing a Community Fibre Partnership, it's a no-brainer to do it via a shared leased line instead. You get a full SLA and fully symmetric low latency service to boot and depending on how many share the cost, cheaper too.

No offence, really I'm not trying to be rude but you don't have a clue. Not in the slightest.

Can you explain to me why you think it's more efficient to stop at the end of a street than it is to stop halfway up a street.
What's the magical price of infrastructure OpenReach have that mean ends of streets are cheaper?

You have been told multiple times in this thread that when they were in your street they will have installed enough capacity to come back later and complete it. It's all just ducts and poles like everywhere else.

If it's an 8 hour job to do the rest of your street what does it matter if they do it now or in a year? It's still 8 hours work. There's no extra work required by coming back later.

OpenReach have contracts to fulfill, like any business does.
The chances are your street was not in their plans. They are rolling out FTTP at an astonishingly fast rate.
They completed over 300,000 homes in October alone. How many properties have you rolled out FTTP to?

Your street is either BDUK funded or was an FTTPoD build.
With both Openreach are only paid to do specific properties.
BDUK usually don't know their a*** from their elbow. You wouldn't be the 1st and won't be the last to be told it wasn't their funding when it definitely was.
The fact the properties that have been covered had lower estimates that were below 30Mb/s pretty much confirms it was BDUK or some kind of public funding/voucher work.

You've had a number of users answer each of your points politely explaining some of the regulation that prevents OpenReach just rolling out Willy nilly and the reasoning behind specific contracts.
You just keep repeating the same complaints about inefficiencies when you don't have a clue how much any of it costs.

OpenReach are a company with share holders and have a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of those share holders. That's to make them money.
Being inefficient doesn't make money.
OpenReach have a targeted "cost per premises passed" for FTTP. Covering the other 22 properties on your street may currently cost more than that target.
It's inefficient to do it "just because you are in the street anyway". Each job is unique, is surveyed and costed.

OpenReach have been paid by someone to do the 11 properties, that's a certainty.

You haven't a clue what's going on under the ground either. You can't possibly know what ducts are blocked. You can't possibly know how much fibre capacity OpenReach have in the area and how much it would cost to bring more in. You seem to think you know better though.
You just sounds like someone with sour grapes that they got missed.

Edited by j0hn83 (Sun 14-Nov-21 13:36:40)

Sounds great in theory, but your are presuming a few things which may not bear out in reality:

1) your excess construction costs are nil for a leased line. Only true if you are effectively on-net and there is sufficient capacity near to you from one of the large providers and/or where they are willing to write this off over a three year deal. Outside of major urban metro areas the ECCs for leased circuits can be hefty.

2) Whomever your agreeing to purchase that leased line understands that it is going to effectively be used as a sublet circuit for one to effectively act as an ISP. Could be especially problematic with Openreach tails.

3) Actual monthly charges of leased lines vary massively depending on geography/location and capacity. getting a good deal in central London is easier than getting one in rural Suffolk for example, as I can attest.

4) The costs and ease to reticulate some form of connection to your neighbours etc are not insubstantial and there are ongoing run costs which are not zero. This is usually the deal breaker with these sorts of notions.