Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t5grvn$8b0$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:32:39 on Wed, 11 May
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t58krv$5jv$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:07 on Sun, 8 May 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>, at 14:00:55 on
>>>>> Sun, 8 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart
>>>>>>>>>>> your bare hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>>>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit
>>>>>>>>> or cabinet safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken
>>>>>>>>> is if someone messes about with it. The only exception would be
>>>>>>>>> overhead wires from poles to houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the
>>>>>>>> copper local loop has something but not too much with its
>>>>>>>> impending replacement with fibre. If you are OpenReach with
>>>>>>>> copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec down and 20 up, and
>>>>>>>> your competitors come along with fibre that can manage an order
>>>>>>>> of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>>>>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive
>>>>>>>> in the market place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>>>>>>> copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>>>>>>> areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that FTTC or FTTP?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's FTTC, and the final throw of the dice for copper-to-the-premises.
>>>>> Most resellers won't guarantee more than about 160Mbps, but I seem to be
>>>>> lucky in having towards the upper end of the 330Mbps theoretical limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, I'd have preferred FTTP, but Openreach haven't done that in my
>>>>> street yet. And with the "end of copper" deadline heading for the long
>>>>> grass, I decided I didn't want to wait.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
>>>>>>> precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of local FTTP competitors, but I'm not sure if there
>>>>>> are any national ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are those FTTP competitors using their own networks, dug by them through
>>>>> the streets; or are they Piggy-backing Openreach's FTTP? In a sense LLU,
>>>>> but in this case the local [all the way back to wherever Openreach's
>>>>> head end is] loop is fibre, not copper.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no Virgin here, and actually only two LLU.
>>>>
>>>> Read up on CityFibres plans and financing. They are digging round here and
>>>> intend to (and nearby are) offer service in the same streets as Virgin
>>>> Media and OpenReach. They aren’t the only ones going for the suburban
>>>> market.
>>>>
>>>> https://cityfibre.com/about-us/our-network
>>>
>>> Interesting, if somewhat spotty, network map there. With some clusters.
>>> They say they have their own exchanges, and there's obviously one
>>> in/near Crawley. I wonder what's so special about North Walsham (near
>>> Norwich)... other than maybe the Bacton Gas Terminal.
>>>
>>>> CF lay their own fibre, mainly in their own ducts (purple pipes) but
>>>> sometime seem to use existing OR ducts into the house. They have their own
>>>> head end “exchanges”. Unlike OR’s FTTP, CF offer symmetric up and down
>>>> speeds up to 1 GBit/sec. It’s a wholesale network and you can
>>>> choose from a
>>>> number of retail provides. Vodafone and Zen seem to be the main players at
>>>> the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Your high speed FTTC connection only works because you are very near to
>>>> your cabinet, so you are lucky.
>>>
>>> I'm not *that* close for a built-up area.
>>>
>>>> It’s nothing to do with OR trying harder.
>>>
>>> It is, because they bothered to equip the cabinet with G-Fast.
>>>
>>> Ironically, people living further from the exchange here *can* get FTTP!
>>> That's because ...
>>>
>>>> Most FTTC customers aren’t even close enough to get the basic 80 Mbit/sec
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>> ...they weren't getting much joy from even the 12Mbps ADSL.
>>>
>>>> https://cloudandfibre.co.uk/what-is-gfast/
>>>>
>>>> “GFast works in a very similar way to FTTC but extra specialised equipment
>>>> is fitted to the BT cabinet
>>>
>>> It's an Openreach cabinet. I'm not getting service from BT.
>>>
>>>> to alter the speed frequencies of the connection. This change within
>>>> the frequencies increases the speed through the copper cable which
>>>> results in a more reliable broadband with ultrafast speeds.
>>>
>>> As I usually put it, each advance in the speed of ADSL is basically by
>>> SHOUTING LOUDER down the copper, and some better modem silicon, just
>>> like we progressed from 2.4K to 14.4k (via 9.6K) dial-up over a
>>> relatively short period.
>>>
>> Well you’d be putting it wrong if you think it is to do with shouting
>> louder. By that I assume you mean increasing the amplitude of the signals.
>
> The original concerns with the 2Mbps ADSL was that crosstalk within the
> cable bundles would be an issue, also RFI with other services due to the
> dropwires etc become aerials. So the amplitude was limited.
>
>> It’s actually achieved by increasing the number of subcarrier frequencies
>> used:
>>
>> “It encodes digital data for transmission over copper wires. The only
>> difference is that it uses a wider range of frequencies, ADSL1 is 1.1MHz,
>> ADSL2+ is 2.2MHz, VDSL as deployed by BT is 17MHz, and G.Fast goes over
>> 100MHz.”
>>
>> Those higher frequencies get attenuated earlier by increasing line length,
>> hence the very limited range of gfast between your street cabinet and your
>> house.
>>
>> From what I’ve read OpenReach have stopped installing new gfast plant
>> equipment in favour of their newfound enthusiasm for proper fibre FTTP.
>
> G-Fast was a temporary thing to provide up to 300Mbps on copper using
> mainly the existing infrastructure (all that needed adding was some
> equipment in the street cabinets, and being a bit pickier about where in
> the house they would terminate the dropwire).
>
> FTTP is a separate initiative, to replace *all* the "copper" with fibre,
> and leap-frogs G-Fast, which I think you are correct in saying they
> aren't rolling out to additional street cabinets any more.
>
> Apparently by the time they stopped the rollout they had reached 2.8m
> premises, of which about a tenth had taken the service. At the same date
> (Sept 2021) 5.2m premises were reachable by FTTP, of which a fifth had
> taken the service.
>
> I'd have preferred to get FTTP than G-fast, but in their infinite wisdom
> OR have not enabled my Street cabinet/Telegraph pole yet (and have no
> projected date to do so, other than the portmanteau 2025), despite other
> Street cabinets/Telegraph poles on the same exchange and within a mile
> of me, having FTTP. I think they are concentrating on new-build estates,
> of which there are several nearby, and people living where FTTC is only
> giving low tens of Mbps.

I’m afraid you are in asset sweating territory, which is BT/OR’s long term
problem. CItyFibre aren’t just in the game for domestic customers. Their
infrastructure will connect up all those millimetre band 5G cells that will
be deployed at high density in urban areas, plus all sorts of other things
like traffic cameras, traffic lights, business premises etc etc. It’s been
fashionable for telcos to not want to end up being “dumb pipes” hence
stupidities such as BT Sport, but CF appear to have a strategy of doing
exactly that, but providing high quality reasonably priced dumb pipes.