20CN has a shorter life span, but question was ADSL2+.

WiFi - only has a short range and its 2.4GHz spectrum is unmanaged and already difficult to use in urban/busy areas. So not sure how Wi-Fi will become a dominant access tech.

Even the trumpeted mythical 5G if ever deployed on 700MHz will not cope with the data needs of 2020 upwards for millions of homes.

At the end of the day, a mixture of technologies may be the solution, but some old tech will continue to live for a long time.

I didn't say it would happen *everywhere*.

When it happens at any one location, the cost of running fibre will be partially offset by the reduced copper maintenance cost, the reduced rates/power etc from stopping the exchange, and either the reduced rental from the exchange building/land or the capital gained by selling it off.

If it happens in the next 5 years, the fibre could be run overhead, after the planning rules were relaxed.

It just becomes another item to consider when factoring profit, loss & RoI. If the numbers look good in a particular village, they'll start doing it.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

20CN has a shorter life span, but question was ADSL2+.

On the other hand, since FTTC can be used on BT-Only IPstream exchanges, BT might just tell people who are fed up with 8 meg to order FTTC and never bother upgrading the exchange to WBC. These are the small, rural exchanges, of course, FTTC via council funding.

There are at least 500, perhaps a 1,000, exchanges at which selling the exchange with planning permission to build a house in its place would generate sufficient money to install a cabinet with a remote concentrator, perhaps with a remote switch. Whether this includes a DSLAM for any variant of ADSL or VDSL would depend upon public funding commitments, but it is hard to see anyone making money out of providing broadband at exchanges with < 200 lines without some form of cross-subsidy.

However, there is a significant regulatory issue. Would BT be permitted to sell exchange buildings, replacing them with concentrators, as this would, in effect, rule out any possibility of LLU competition? Combining exchanges is ok when distances are short enough but my exchange (with 75 lines) is at least 6 miles from its nearest neighbour. LLU entry is never going to happen, but making it impossible could be construed as anti-competitive behaviour. So, in practice you need a regulatory compact by which small exchanges are explicitly subject to separate rules.

They might, but people will moan and not upgrade due to the price differences

Losing ADSL* support from the exchange would, theoretically, allow the VDSL2 power masks on the cabinets to be improved, giving everyone (especially at longer range) an improved speed.

I guess there is a point when the good of the many outweighs the moans of a few...

Does BT even own the buildings? Thought many were just on long term leases.

It will not, however benefit those with VERY long lines.

Neighbours of friends have a line that is something like 4km from the cabinet which itself is 3km from the exchange.The cabinet serves probably less than 5 lines. So, the cabinet is never going to get a VDSL/FTTC upgrade, making it a fibre aggregation point is unlikely too and even if then did putting in 3km of fibre for 5 potential customers and then several km for each is expensive especially as it is underground. At least with basic ADSLmax they have a service.

Edited by MHC (Wed 17-Sep-14 18:20:38)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Does BT even own the buildings? Thought many were just on long term leases.

They DID ... however back in around 2001 they sold and leased back a large number of buildings for around £2.5bn. There are complex parts to the agreement to allow BT to reacquire the buildings at certain times and the new "owners" cannot sell without BT agreement.