In reply to a post by jchamier:

The complexity for cable was the need to sell TV as well as broadband.

Did you mean broadband as well as TV given they were built to carry cable TV?

The main complication was the billing and administration. The networks themselves were the same basic architecture and the odd one that wasn't up to scratch has been rebuilt or upgraded.

Leicester for example used to be all coaxial, no H or F in that area's networks. ntl rebuilt and upgraded it to 500 homes passed HFC in the 2000s. Eurobell areas were generally 30 MHz return paths and needed upgrading, Videotron areas needed rebuilding.

Something that helped with cable was that all the networks started off analogue when built and digital was brought on later. Alongside digital came 2-way interactive, VoD and broadband with standardised equipment in the hubs to deliver the digital and the analogue retired in time.

They are a variety of different networks still though, that's true, with different capabilities.

FTTP has the extra complication of some operators having OLTs hosted in Openreach exchanges while others have them in street cabinets alongside most of the network equipment. It'll be interesting to see what happens when an operator using one model acquires another using the other model.

VMO2 use street cabinets for their OLTs and aggregation, Netomnia don't even have cabinets. CityFibre use cabinets for passives and their own exchanges for OLTs.

Edited by CarlTSpeak (Sun 10-Apr-22 23:15:29)

Of course with (a) one can argue that with PIA, altnets that use Openreach physical assets aren't necessarily completely distinct infrastructure networks, as they are making use of the same ducts and/or poles.

Not sure how using the same ducts and poles actually comes into it. The fibre they put through these shared spots IS completely separate.

As a sad side note, if Altnet’s use PIA, and need to provide ducts where, say, only DIG cable from Openreach exists …. then Openreach are not allowed to use their ducts to provide their service…… it seems wholly unreasonable to me.

‘All animals are equal, only some are more equal than others.’*


* loose misquote from Animal Farm

One phrase: 'Significant Market Power'.

Besides which it would be insanely onerous on a small supplier forcing them to have a PIA product. You could make the case for opening up VMO2 but everyone else is a no-no.

So to do a comparison, would it be fair for you to borrow something from a neighbour who lives in a bigger house than you but not for them to ask to borrow anything from you as you live in a smaller house?

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

As a sad side note, if Altnet’s use PIA, and need to provide ducts where, say, only DIG cable from Openreach exists …. then Openreach are not allowed to use their ducts to provide their service…… it seems wholly unreasonable to me.

You'd think something could be made work here on pretty good terms for the altnet.

-Altnet install lead-in to Openreach spec and deliver their own service with it. No payment due to OR (or maybe there's a chamber entry charge, I'm not current on these things...)
-Openreach either subsequently or concurrently want to provide service to same premises. Even an arrangement where OR 'buy' the lead-in duct from the altnet for a fixed fee but grant them a perpetual PIA license at 1p per year would make financial sense for both parties. Even if the fee paid to the altnet was 50% of the actual cost of construction I'd say they'd be happy to take it.

And the homeowner doesn't get their driveway dug up again.

In reply to a post by dect:

So to do a comparison, would it be fair for you to borrow something from a neighbour who lives in a bigger house than you but not for them to ask to borrow anything from you as you live in a smaller house?

It's a genuinely absurd comparison I won't indulge with further discussion.

Most altnets are owned by far bigger firms than BT so much bigger houses. Or in Cityfibre's case, palaces.

Edited by FibreBubble (Mon 11-Apr-22 14:51:06)

I wasn’t talking about lead ins particularly …. more between network boxes. If they have used 300m of our ducts to get their fibre this far, why should they begrudge Openreach replacing a length of DIG cable via the new duct the Altnet put in ?

This is ignoring that it seems every box they pass their kit through, they have removed existing copper joints from the fixings and left them in the water.

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

It's a genuinely absurd comparison I won't indulge with further discussion.

Thats a shame, that was one of my better ones

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Of course with (a) one can argue that with PIA, altnets that use Openreach physical assets aren't necessarily completely distinct infrastructure networks, as they are making use of the same ducts and/or poles.

Not sure how using the same ducts and poles actually comes into it. The fibre they put through these shared spots IS completely separate.

Yes, the fibre is completely seperate... but the ducts and poles are shared, and ducts and poles count as infrastructure in my book. Very important - well crucial, infrastructure for a fibre optic network!

(When I wrote the earlier post I was going to add that with PIA the networks are 'optically distinct' - as a fibre-optic equivalent of being 'electrically distinct' - but then I didn't think anyone would know what I was talking about!)


As an aside, I can envisage the future scenario of someone thinking they've got redundant fibre connectivity from both Openreach and an altnet, only to find that the redundancy isn't so effective when a JCB slices through the duct that both fibres share, or a shared telegraph pole collapses after a lorry collides with it etc etc!

Edited by binary (Mon 11-Apr-22 17:07:23)