I appreciate that now, that you were reinforcing rather than "criticising" my comment. My apologies if my post suggested otherwise.

In some ways glad I don't do Facebook for that exact reason, its bad enough when we mention new cabinets or interesting snippets we've noticed when doing our coverage checks.

Wales is interesting as many believe its current target is 96% superfast, when it is not, it is 96% fibre based, which will be around 90% superfast. The next phase will take this onto 95% superfast.

Alas once you get to such high figures, the presumption is that I must be in the 'superfast' area.

The marketing could have been so much better, but then as I've found as soon as you attempt anything more than a soundbite explanation people switch off and just want you to give a short yes or no, and refuse to accept anything that may slightly grey.

In reply to a post by Icaras:

What I don't understand is why this stuff (FTTP) is suddenly on the side of poles. If I think of FTTP locations near here, Chester South and Saltney all you have are the manifolds at the top of the poles. The rest of the FTTP network is underground. Why the change to having FTTP splitters on the sides of poles?

They've been using the green boxes as pictured in Lee's post, here in Cornwall for years - in support of the FTTP rollouts here. Not "suddenly" at all

IIRC it may have to do with lack of space to put them - I've seen them in extremely rural areas where there aren't any obvious manholes to plonk the splitters in (and maybe they even use aerial fibre)

In reply to a post by mrijones:

There doesn't seem to be a pattern to how things are setup and no rhyme or reason to the order they do things.

Makes no sense where I am either. Some streets got FTTP, the rest got FTTC. Greenfield or brownfield, doesn't matter, nor does it matter if it's a town centre or farmers and hundreds of acres. Even parts of streets got FTTP and others didn't, simply because they're served from a different copper cabinet so BT obviously considers it a different bit of the rollout. Some extremely rural areas are on FTTP, others got FTTC, others are still waiting (and may be pushed onto satellite).

They did get the stuff up and running quickly enough though - which is why I don't believe the arguments about rollout speed or lack of resources - as they can damn well do it when they feel like it.

Can't wait for the fun when we find out that the FTTC areas will be waiting years for "improvements" like G.fast (ugh) and its compromised performance, whereas the places that got FTTP originally are able to get 1Gbit or something brilliant at a flick of a switch. Such is the reality of BT's stupid lottery.

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Mar-16 20:25:24)

In reply to a post by sor:

IIRC it may have to do with lack of space to put them - I've seen them in extremely rural areas where there aren't any obvious manholes to plonk the splitters in (and maybe they even use aerial fibre)

Essentially, the pole-mounted boxes are used where aerial distribution is in place - that is, the D-side cables are strung pole-pole-pole - rather than underground distribution.

Pole-top manifolds are used where the drop-wires are aerial. Obviously you get both boxes and manifolds where both the distribution and drop wires are aerial.

Here's a diagram showing a variety of distribution methods, with 5 pole-mounted boxes:
Overhead Distribution - Two levels of split

Note too that the green boxes aren't just splitters. There are 6 different types, covering a multitude of splitter, DP and jointing functions:
Pole-mounted Box Types

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Wales is now at the stage of rolling out at a lot of FTTP so more likely to be fibre splitters than FTTrN

Indeed.

Those in urban and suburban areas, with the exception of some apartment blocks, desiring FTTP are way better served looking at rural areas on Rightmove than a broadband comparison site.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Hardly a "bank loan" as I understand BT only get reimbursed on the provision of invoices for work done/completed. No BDUK money is used to fund BT's commercial upgrade.

Although of course BT is able to be very selective about where "commercial" rollout is done as they know sooner or later the rest will get funded.... so...

Although of course BT is able to be very selective about where "commercial" rollout is done as they know sooner or later the rest will get funded.... so...

And your point is? BT is a PRIVATE company answerable to its shareholders and thus expected to make a profit from any capital investment, just like any other company. Now if BT were instead to be a public corporation sucking money from tax payers and the treasury without regard to cost the position might be different and we, as a nation, would no doubt be even deeper in the mire. I for one have no wish at all to see BT returned to public ownership as I have all too vivid memories of the appalling state of British Telecom in the 1970s.

BT is not a monopoly and hasn't been since the mid-80s regardless of what others seem to mistakenly seem to believe so there is nothing stopping others setting up their stall in any part of the UK, instead they have tended to cherry pick and only operate where they feel they can make a profit. Why should BT be any different? It is also my understanding that BDUK money has mainly been used to gap fund upgrades rather than pay the entire cost.

In reply to a post by MCM:

BT is not a monopoly

The government disagrees - Openreach is very much a monopoly (even in areas with Virgin, there is no other open access operator), though BT Wholesale is in some areas and BT Retail isn't at all.

In reply to a post by MCM:

and hasn't been since the mid-80s regardless of what others seem to mistakenly seem to believe so there is nothing stopping others setting up their stall in any part of the UK, instead they have tended to cherry pick and only operate where they feel they can make a profit. Why should BT be any different? It is also my understanding that BDUK money has mainly been used to gap fund upgrades rather than pay the entire cost.

Because BT is unique in that it has the duct and pole network, and (currently) is allowed to ensure that no one other than BT is allowed to put cables in or on them. It is simply ludicrous to assume that every operator must undertake an extremely time consuming, costly and risky overlay of that infrastructure from scratch. The cable companies tried; they all went bust - it took decades of bankruptcy, mergers and licking wounds for its successor to try again in any meaningful scale. Look at the US, where they expect new entrants to do just that. They've ended up with a situation where city governments are pleading with Google and their enormous pockets to step in and break the real monopoly/duopoly.

BT also receives enormous incomes from its position as the monopoly infraco, making money regardless of who the end user chooses for their provider. They are also the largest recipient of taxpayer money for "rural" broadband rollouts. That is why BT is expected to act differently to any other operator. The same reason why Royal Mail has to deliver to every house in the country, for example.

Countries that once looked to the UK for tips on how to wrangle their incumbent telco (NZ, most notably - even going as far as hiring a BT exec to run their telco), have now surpassed us - they're well on the way to a proper fibre network, while we stick with antiquated copper bodges that will cost more for BT in the long run, while holding the country back for another decade

Edited by deleted (Tue 22-Mar-16 20:38:22)

BT is not a monopoly, anyone or company is free and legally able to set up an alternative. Perhaps some people need revisit and understand the meaning of the word monopoly rather than twist its meaning. A monopoly is where one individual, company or the state has the exclusive right to supply or trade. BT has no such exclusive right.

BT may well be, in some areas, effectively a monopoly due to no other company having the inclination to compete or set up an alternative network but there is nothing legally to prevent others setting up in competition. Now if it were illegal for another company to compete then, yes, BT would be a monopoly however that hasn't been the case since the mid 1980s.

In reply to a post by sor:

In reply to a post by MCM:

BT is not a monopoly

The government disagrees

Ah well, if the government disagrees and think Openreach are a monopoly, then it must be true!

Edited by deleted (Tue 22-Mar-16 21:35:09)