In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Wasted MANY an hour chasing faults down monstrous D sides there.

Waterlogged copper or corroded aluminium?

I wonder if the OP has actually found Turville Heath exchange yet ?

Some small rural exchanges do seem to be named not after the closest settlement to their location, I guess for historic reasons.

You just have to look for the Openreach van parked outside https://www.google.com/maps/@51.611509,-0.8892895,3a...

(useless post alert)
And were those bushes smaller behind the van, you could see Professor Caractacus Potts windmill on the top of that hill.

Logically this lowers the case for FTTP on the head end exchanges (metro exchanges?)

Interestingly the one exchange in my area that has no OR FTTP plans, whilst the others surrounding it now have completed build is also the one metro exchange.

In reply to a post by tonyj2:

My take away so far is that OR are working to get 96% of homes able to order FTTP by 2027.

Last I heard the target was 85% by December 2027, and 95% by 2030.

As of July, coverage was about 47% and growing at about 1% per month, so they're more or less on target.

However there are other FTTP networks, so total UK FTTP coverage is higher than that - currently around 70%.

In reply to a post by tonyj2:

The Turville Health (THTV) exchange that the cabinet sits below, isn’t yet on the upgrade plans but presumably will be 2027.
I think this may be a fairly small (number of premises served) exchange.

Does it seem possible/likely that this could be replaced as part of the FTTP roll out?
perhaps OR could cable the FTTC cabs back to a larger close-by exchange instead of upgrading THTV to be FTTP ready?

The copper connections go back to the local exchange, but the fibre connections (from FTTC cabinets and from FTTP network) go via fibre aggregation nodes directly to the head-end exchange, as explained by others. That is, OR have *already* cabled the FTTC cabs with fibre-optic back to the head-end exchange. Only the copper E-side cables run from the FTTC cabs to the local exchange.

The local exchange won't be "upgraded" for FTTP, and eventually it will be closed. That will be when the last ADSL equipment is removed (multiple providers host their own ADSL DSLAMs in Openreach exchanges), any leased line nodes are decommissioned, and so on.

You may see your local exchange mentioned in FTTP rollout plans, but that just means the exchange *area*: the geographical footprint around the exchange which is currently served by copper from that exchange.

In reply to a post by tonyj2:

In terms of peoples best guesses, is there anything about the following setup that would be a red flag to upgrading to FTTP?

In terms of geographic layout of the potential house to cabinet ..
It’s a pretty short run. 50 to 75m meter and ducted into the property (I’m not sure where from - cab or nearest pole?))
Two houses closer to the cabinet are on over head cables.

Cabinets aren't generally involved in FTTP. What matters is the fibre aggregation node, but the locations of these aren't published.

As I said before, if you see a large chamber close to an FTTC cabinet, with three lids, that's an indication that it *may* be a fibre aggregation node.

However, the FTTP network plan may be to serve your property from a completely different fibre aggregation node. For example if the local exchange is in one direction from your building but the head-end exchange is in the opposite direction, you'll likely be served from a FAN which sits between you and the head-end exchange. It also depends on what ducts and poles exist.

In reply to a post by tonyj2:

Given the cabinet has been upgraded to FTTC and the house gets very good speed to the premises does this mean that a FTTC cabinet can be upgraded to be FTTP after exchange is upgraded fairly easily and without too much expense to OR?

Except in very unusual circumstances, FTTC cabinets have nothing to do with FTTP. When FTTP is fully rolled out in an area, and all customers have been migrated to it (which will take years), the FTTC cabinet is likely to be decommissioned and removed. Or just rust away.

In reply to a post by tonyj2:

my fear was that with under 50 houses on the cabinet they might leave it as a FTTC cab with copper last mile indefinitely and this is what scares us off the property.

It is certainly a possibility. Hence your issues are:
1. Could *you* live with 80/20Mbps Internet indefinitely?
2. Would lack of FTTP make the house more difficult to sell in the future?

(1) you can answer, but (2) is crystal-ball gazing. None of us can do anything which gives you any certainty about FTTP, so it's down to you how long you're intending to live there and whether the plus sides of the house outweigh that particular risk, or whether the asking price sufficiently accounts for that risk.

There *is* always Starlink, which is quite expensive as an ongoing cost, but not outrageously so (I think around £75 per month, plus the electricity bill from the power-hungry terminal).

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Logically this lowers the case for FTTP on the head end exchanges (metro exchanges?)

Having decent speeds from existing DSLAMs is only part of the decision process, the 'cost per premises past' and 'deployment before altnets' are likely to figure more highly.

Interestingly the one exchange in my area that has no OR FTTP plans, whilst the others surrounding it now have completed build is also the one metro exchange.

The arrangement of head end to satellite exchanges is not always obvious, and likely down to decisions made back in GPO days. Are you sure that the one without plans is a head end, there may be large exchanges which are not.

Even in small villages you may find more than one aggregation node. I was told that OR with our build that they went between the two nodes overhead. our build was mostly overhead as we had soo much ducting issues.

Aggregation nodes are always underground, but small and medium splitter nodes can be pole mounted as well as underground, aggregation nodes can be daisy chained , so not every aggregation node has a route directly back to the cable chamber of the headend exchange, some aggregation nodes will feed several other aggregation nodes that the feed splitters etc .
FYI , 40Kms from the headend to the aggregation node isn’t unusual, so the headend isn’t necessarily close by .

In reply to a post by tdw42:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Logically this lowers the case for FTTP on the head end exchanges (metro exchanges?)

Having decent speeds from existing DSLAMs is only part of the decision process, the 'cost per premises past' and 'deployment before altnets' are likely to figure more highly.

Interestingly the one exchange in my area that has no OR FTTP plans, whilst the others surrounding it now have completed build is also the one metro exchange.

The arrangement of head end to satellite exchanges is not always obvious, and likely down to decisions made back in GPO days. Are you sure that the one without plans is a head end, there may be large exchanges which are not.

Unless databases are inaccurate it is the metro exchange, and with no planned removal in the 2030s.

The metrics you mentioned are not applicable (dense terraced housing and altnet competition), as this is either equal or more favourable than the other exchanges on those metrics (less dense higher cost semi detached housing, and same altnet competition). I think people keep assuming its altnet competition and cost per premises, but there is clearly other factors as is exchanges getting skipped over that match those metrics. I checked some other metro exchanges as well, and found others with no public plans.

Another factor is that this exchange has really high VM take up, basically OR have not many customers to lose, there isnt much revenue to save.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 20-Oct-24 15:56:20)

Starlink will be the most viable option for high speed internet in locations such as the one your considering. It's already available, it's just very expensive (£75 a month).

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Another factor is that this exchange has really high VM take up, basically OR have not many customers to lose, there isnt much revenue to save.

I'd say the opposite. In an exchange area with high VM take up, rolling out FTTP gives OR an opportunity to capture back a large number of customers, for a big increase in revenue and immediate return on investment.

In an exchange area where OR copper is the only current option, then if OR rolls out FTTP, all that will happen is that users will migrate from OR copper to OR fibre. The users will be happy, but the difference in price at wholesale is only about £1 per month, so the business case is very poor. There's the long-term benefit to OR of lower fault rate, and a proportion of users will take higher speeds, but at wholesale the difference in price is negligible - about £3.70 per month between 80M and 550M.

But in an area with high migration from OR copper to VM, there is clear demand for good service, and enough people who have bad experience with VM to make it easy to tempt them back again. OR has the benefit of many well-known ISP brands on its network, whereas with VM you just get what you get.

(This factor might eventually force VM to open up its network, as has long been suggested. I suspect they are dragging their heels because they won't be able to price-gouge their wholesale ISP customers in the same way as they are used to doing for their retail customers, so will see a substantial short-term drop in revenue if users on VM's network migrate to other ISPs on the same connection)