In reply to a post by craigski:

Thanks. Hypothetically looking at my CBT on pole its a 4 way, and there are 4 properties, so I assume even if only 2 are live, the others may be 'reserved' for existing properties with no FTTP currently connected rather than providing additional ONT to existing FTTP enabled properties.

Correct

In reply to a post by TheInstaller:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If there are spare ports on the CBT that serves you, then you should be able to order. There is no ‘reservation’ per se for the other neighbours. If the neighbours decide at a later point to order and there aren’t enough ports on the CBT at the time, then it’s kind of tough luck for them. First come first served.

This is NOT correct at all...

Every property served by a CBT is allocated capacity, if that is used or not. Remember every property will be connected to a CBT in years to come, just because another property has not yet connected to a CBT, doesn't mean you can use their capacity. If there is spare capacity at the CBT then you might be able to order a second line.

The way forward would be a 4 port ONT would need to be installed at the property.

That's not my experience at all. Done a few installs where a single dwelling has taken 2 CBT ports where there were exactly enough ports for each property. Never heard anyone say this before now either. I would take that comment with a bucket of salt.

Edited by AllanMcOR (Thu 27-Jan-22 18:43:26)

In reply to a post by TheInstaller:

Every property served by a CBT is allocated capacity, if that is used or not. Remember every property will be connected to a CBT in years to come, just because another property has not yet connected to a CBT, doesn't mean you can use their capacity.

Is that a new thing? It never used to be the case. 4 port ONT's were the default for years so it was never a requirement.

Right next to my work there's an 8 port CBT feeding 7 properties.
2 new builds were built around 18 months ago and are served by this CBT. Both of those new builds now have FTTP, although there are still a couple free ports.
If the ports were all allocated/reserved how have both of the new builds managed to order FTTP?

There have also been at least a couple threads on the BT forums where users haven't been able to order FTTP because there's no free CBT ports because a neighbour is using 2 ports/2 ONT's.

There's a large number of deployments where exactly the right number of CBT ports have been installed for the number of properties they serve.
That would mean at every such location none of those properties would be allowed a 2nd service.

I've never heard of an order being rejected because a CBT port is allocated to someone else.

I really can't see the logic in creating a system to allocate ports to each property when that's what the 4 port subsequent provide ordering system that is being rolled out is there to solve.

That's the 1st I've ever seen that suggested and it makes zero sense. I've always understood it to be 1st come 1st served on GEA-FTTP.

Edit: perhaps someone like Martin Pitt from Aquiss could give his knowledgeable input?

Edited by j0hn83 (Thu 27-Jan-22 20:40:45)

Thanks both for confirming that I wasn’t going loopy. 🤣🙏

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

I've never heard of an order being rejected because a CBT port is allocated to someone else.

I really can't see the logic in creating a system to allocate ports to each property when that's what the 4 port subsequent provide ordering system that is being rolled out is there to solve.

Maybe it could be 'allocated' if it was part of a community/BDUK project, as there would be a voucher that could be claimed on that port when activated?

In reply to a post by craigski:

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

I've never heard of an order being rejected because a CBT port is allocated to someone else.

I really can't see the logic in creating a system to allocate ports to each property when that's what the 4 port subsequent provide ordering system that is being rolled out is there to solve.

Maybe it could be 'allocated' if it was part of a community/BDUK project, as there would be a voucher that could be claimed on that port when activated?

Possibly, but I still very much doubt it.
A 2nd drop cable with a 2nd ONT is any extremely rare occurrence.
We had 4 port ONT's for years.

It's only the last couple years Openreach have exhausted supplies of the 4 port Huawei ONT's and have launched the Nokia kit minus a 4 port ONT at the start.

They now over provision splitters and keep them to 30:1 so there's a couple spare connections in the budget. They tend to install CBT's bigger than what is required.
The chances of multiple people on a single PON being given 2 ONT's is tiny.

BDUK funds and CFP's have paid for FTTC cabinets for years. It's never guaranteed anyone a port on the cabinet.
Chipping in on funds for an FTTC cabinet didn't guarantee you a port. FTTP will be no different.

It's Openreach themselves who would miss out on unclaimed vouchers.

The cost and complexity of creating such a system would be huge for it likely to never be required.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

I'm using a multiport already and have no service on port 1 but a service on another which might explain things.

You have 2 FTTPs connections right? Are they on the same ONT or separate, because I remember you were asking about the switching speed of the ONT, or have you got a new ONT?

Would be interesting to see what happens if 4x 1gbps connections are requested. The entire PON only has 2.4gbps...

I have my own ONT, a slightly later revision of the Openreach HG8240G, its 'H' cousin - 2.5G backplane instead of the 1G the Openreach model has.

I have 2 connections on the ONT. Briefly there were 3, totalling more than the full capacity of the PON.

If you're curious about what GPON can do on download with 31 other customers on the split as well it's about 2.1 Gb/s - think I've a screen cllip of a Steam download running at >250 MB/s goodput.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

They now over provision splitters and keep them to 30:1 so there's a couple spare connections in the budget.

Yes, this is their normal model. Keeps 1 spare in case of fault and the other has to be authorised for use by a higher up. Obviously in some cases there will be a few spares as the PON covers fewer than 30 properties.

Our estate was built outside of these planning rules - exactly 96 premises. Guess how that was built out?

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

Our estate was built outside of these planning rules - exactly 96 premises. Guess how that was built out?

Wow. 3 splitters full to the brim? On an FTTP only site as well.
That should always have been done with 4 splitters. Here's hoping that doesn't go faulty.

It could be worse. Each splitter could also be connected to 4 x 8 port CBT's full to the brim 😂

It's rather fortunate you managed to blag a 4 port ONT. Not a single property on the development will have the option of a 2nd line (yet at least).

I've got BT on port 1, Zen on port 2. The other 2 and empty.

But I agree, the number of multiple services must be pretty small.