http://tinyurl.com/mxnntaf

BT has conducted field trials that show it can deliver broadband
download speeds of nearly 800Mbps using fiber and copper, a company
announcement said yesterday.
The technology delivers data over fiber from the British telecom's
facilities to neighborhoods while using copper for the final meters.
Deployments of this sort are less expensive than fiber-to-the-home
because they reuse existing copper lines used for telephone service and
DSL.


These are greedy *******s who reckoned we'd never get anything faster
than dialup speeds at home.

In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:

The technology delivers data over fiber from the British telecom's
facilities to neighborhoods while using copper for the final meters.
Deployments of this sort are less expensive than fiber-to-the-home
because they reuse existing copper lines used for telephone service and
DSL.

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from
the pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

-- Richard

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:52:07 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles.

Interesting idea "DP22" is a small jointing post at the base of "our"
pole. Which is fed underground via armoured cable rather than ducted,
so how does the fibre get to it and how would these pole DSLAMs be
powered? Also there is just one customer fed from DP22 us. Several
others pass through but they'll be 1/2 a mile or more away.

But once they have that, a fiber connection from the pole to the house
should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

IIRC we had a line fault in DP22 once, BT man got out his TDR, the
fault was 50+m away. If this technology is FTTDP then I have less
trouble with the 80% of lines being within 66 m statement.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/09/2014 21:58, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:52:07 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles.

Interesting idea "DP22" is a small jointing post at the base of "our"
pole. Which is fed underground via armoured cable rather than ducted,
so how does the fibre get to it and how would these pole DSLAMs be
powered? Also there is just one customer fed from DP22 us. Several
others pass through but they'll be 1/2 a mile or more away.

The proposal I developed used a special BT router to power the switch
(PoE before it was invented) and terminate the line.
As long as one of the homes was switched on it would work, if none were
switched on it didn't matter.
The router was also intended to prioritise ports so they could have VoIP
services in some of them and was to have WiFi to implement a public
network (ring any bells?). The switch chips proposed supported an early
version of label switching to create VPNs over Ethernet.

I even proposed that multiple ethernet switches could be dropped down
foot way holes or put on poles in a daisy chain to deliver longer
distances. They still could.

You could have had a pretty good service by now if politics weren't an
issue.


But once they have that, a fiber connection from the pole to the house
should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

IIRC we had a line fault in DP22 once, BT man got out his TDR, the
fault was 50+m away. If this technology is FTTDP then I have less
trouble with the 80% of lines being within 66 m statement.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:52:07 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs on
telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from the
pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

Riiight. And how many properties will one "distribution point" be serving?

In article ,
Adrian wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs on
telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from the
pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

Riiight. And how many properties will one "distribution point" be serving?

Well, look at a telephone pole. Maybe a dozen or so?

I don't see what you're getting at.

-- Richard

En el artículo , Richard Tobin
escribió:

I don't see what you're getting at.

Think Adrian's referring to contention, i.e. the bottleneck moves from
the DSLAM in the exchange to the top of the pole.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:24:32 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from
the pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

Riiight. And how many properties will one "distribution point" be
serving?

Well, look at a telephone pole. Maybe a dozen or so?

I don't see what you're getting at.

For the eight houses our handy pole serves, that's probably a quarter of
a mile or more of copper from the fibre. But I can't really see them
running fibre three or four km from the exchange to the pole for eight
houses. The furthest houses from the exchange are about 8km, and one pole
DSLAM would be covering one or two of them.

It's another whizzy technology upgrade that forgets that there are a lot
of people still coping with sub-1Mbit connections (if they can get
broadband at all - not all can), and for whom approaching current speeds
would be a nice first step. Yet again the "digital divide" is widened,
not closed.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:24:32 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from
the pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

Riiight. And how many properties will one "distribution point" be
serving?

Well, look at a telephone pole. Maybe a dozen or so?

I don't see what you're getting at.

For the eight houses our handy pole serves, that's probably a quarter of
a mile or more of copper from the fibre. But I can't really see them
running fibre three or four km from the exchange to the pole for eight
houses. The furthest houses from the exchange are about 8km, and one pole
DSLAM would be covering one or two of them.

It's another whizzy technology upgrade that forgets that there are a lot
of people still coping with sub-1Mbit connections (if they can get
broadband at all - not all can), and for whom approaching current speeds
would be a nice first step. Yet again the "digital divide" is widened,
not closed.

Quite. Annoyingly leading web designers to inflate gizmos on their
already overlarge sites:-(

--
Tim Lamb

On 28/09/2014 08:44, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:24:32 +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from
the pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

Riiight. And how many properties will one "distribution point" be
serving?

Well, look at a telephone pole. Maybe a dozen or so?

I don't see what you're getting at.

For the eight houses our handy pole serves, that's probably a quarter of
a mile or more of copper from the fibre. But I can't really see them
running fibre three or four km from the exchange to the pole for eight
houses. The furthest houses from the exchange are about 8km, and one pole
DSLAM would be covering one or two of them.

It's another whizzy technology upgrade that forgets that there are a lot
of people still coping with sub-1Mbit connections (if they can get
broadband at all - not all can), and for whom approaching current speeds
would be a nice first step. Yet again the "digital divide" is widened,
not closed.


You have to ask why they *need* more than 1 Mbit.
If they do *need* it then why hasn't one of them solved the problem.
What's the GSM network like there?

In article ,
Adrian wrote:

For the eight houses our handy pole serves, that's probably a quarter of
a mile or more of copper from the fibre. But I can't really see them
running fibre three or four km from the exchange to the pole for eight
houses. The furthest houses from the exchange are about 8km, and one pole
DSLAM would be covering one or two of them.

The normal situation would presumably be that they run fibre from the
(already-fibred) cabinet to the pole - likely to be a few hundred
metres.

So certainly if you're in an area that doesn't (and won't) get FTTC
then you're not likely to get this either.

It's another whizzy technology upgrade that forgets that there are a lot
of people still coping with sub-1Mbit connections (if they can get
broadband at all - not all can), and for whom approaching current speeds
would be a nice first step. Yet again the "digital divide" is widened,
not closed.

Well, that's one of the disadvantages of living in the country. I
live in a big city and have a good broadband connection, along with
frequent buses and nearby supermarkets. On the other hand I'd quite
like to have open fields and a babbling brook at the bottom of my
garden, but it seems that the government isn't going to do anything
about it.

-- Richard

On 27/09/2014 20:52, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:

The technology delivers data over fiber from the British telecom's
facilities to neighborhoods while using copper for the final meters.
Deployments of this sort are less expensive than fiber-to-the-home
because they reuse existing copper lines used for telephone service and
DSL.

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from
the pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

For that distance I would be happy to buy my own fiber!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

En el artículo , Richard Tobin
escribió:

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles.

Yes, I spotted that too. Should think it would mean they would need to
run power up each DP to run the fibre/copper transceiver.

Hope it comes off - the copper run from the top of the pole to my master
socket is about 10m

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 8:52:07 PM UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article sting.com,

The technology delivers data over fiber from the British telecom's
facilities to neighborhoods while using copper for the final meters.
Deployments of this sort are less expensive than fiber-to-the-home
because they reuse existing copper lines used for telephone service and
DSL.

This is "Fibre to the Distribution Point" which seems to mean DSLAMs
on telephone poles. But once they have that, a fiber connection from
the pole to the house should be *much* cheaper than current FTTP.

Fibre to the premises (using epon) is cheap enough that in some parts of China it is the ONLY option - even for residential internet connections. ADSL is being phased out. SOme blocks of offices don't have any telecomms copper - only fibre.

John

In article ,
wrote:

Fibre to the premises (using epon) is cheap enough that in some parts of
China it is the ONLY option - even for residential internet connections.
ADSL is being phased out. SOme blocks of offices don't have any
telecomms copper - only fibre.

This makes sense for blocks of offices, blocks of flats, and other
similarly dense housing. You need the equivalent of a cabinet for the
building anyway, so you might as well have fibre all the way.

The situation is different for most housing in Britain, though BT's
FTTP on demand prices are ridiculous - fixed connection charge of 750
pounds, plus distance-based connection charge (e.g. 1,050 pounds for
200-399 meters from the cabinet), and then 1,188 pounds a year rental.
All plus VAT of course.

-- Richard

On 28/09/14 16:38, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Fibre to the premises (using epon) is cheap enough that in some parts of
China it is the ONLY option - even for residential internet connections.
ADSL is being phased out. SOme blocks of offices don't have any
telecomms copper - only fibre.

This makes sense for blocks of offices, blocks of flats, and other
similarly dense housing. You need the equivalent of a cabinet for the
building anyway, so you might as well have fibre all the way.

The situation is different for most housing in Britain, though BT's
FTTP on demand prices are ridiculous - fixed connection charge of 750
pounds, plus distance-based connection charge (e.g. 1,050 pounds for
200-399 meters from the cabinet), and then 1,188 pounds a year rental.
All plus VAT of course.

-- Richard


Just like ISDN used to be IIRC...

If, back in the 90's when cable TV was going everywhere, someone in the
government had said:

You are not allowed to dig up the roads.

However, we will give licenses for a 3rd party company to dig up the
roads, just once, to lay in super duper ducting and ground boxes with
duct spurs to the curtilage of every house. Then you guys get to rent
space in those ducts. BT will also be required to use the same ducts for
new cabling.

It would have been lots of pain once. But just think how easy it would
be to pull a new service through now and for all time...

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
On 28/09/14 16:38, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Fibre to the premises (using epon) is cheap enough that in some parts of
China it is the ONLY option - even for residential internet connections.
ADSL is being phased out. SOme blocks of offices don't have any
telecomms copper - only fibre.

This makes sense for blocks of offices, blocks of flats, and other
similarly dense housing. You need the equivalent of a cabinet for the
building anyway, so you might as well have fibre all the way.

The situation is different for most housing in Britain, though BT's
FTTP on demand prices are ridiculous - fixed connection charge of 750
pounds, plus distance-based connection charge (e.g. 1,050 pounds for
200-399 meters from the cabinet), and then 1,188 pounds a year rental.
All plus VAT of course.

-- Richard


Just like ISDN used to be IIRC...

If, back in the 90's when cable TV was going everywhere, someone in the
government had said:

You are not allowed to dig up the roads.

Did they?, they did a lot of digging around here and hence my now 100
Meg BB service via VM...



However, we will give licenses for a 3rd party company to dig up the
roads, just once, to lay in super duper ducting and ground boxes with
duct spurs to the curtilage of every house. Then you guys get to rent
space in those ducts. BT will also be required to use the same ducts for
new cabling.

It would have been lots of pain once. But just think how easy it would
be to pull a new service through now and for all time...

Theres ducting around over a lot of the UK this is where it's been
viable to dig it, else overhead line can work fine providing the tech is
right ...
--
Tony Sayer

On 28/09/2014 22:21, Tim Watts wrote:

If, back in the 90's when cable TV was going everywhere, someone in the
government had said:

You are not allowed to dig up the roads.

However, we will give licenses for a 3rd party company to dig up the
roads, just once, to lay in super duper ducting and ground boxes with
duct spurs to the curtilage of every house. Then you guys get to rent
space in those ducts. BT will also be required to use the same ducts for
new cabling.

It would have been lots of pain once. But just think how easy it would
be to pull a new service through now and for all time...

How many of those ducts would now be full of water or blocked with
"stuff" now I wonder?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:01:58 +0100, Jabba wrote:

BT has conducted field trials that show it can deliver broadband
download speeds of nearly 800Mbps using fiber and copper, a company
announcement said yesterday.
The technology delivers data over fiber from the British telecom's
facilities to neighborhoods while using copper for the final meters.

Ah yes the BBC News article quoted a distance for these faster
speeds. Up to 66 m (sixty six metres) or a shade over 200 feet. It
also said that covered 80% of lines. which I find very hard to
believe even in urban areas.

FTTC is in the process of being installed here, indeed the 30 odd
core fibre cable to feed the cabinet passes under our forcourt 20'
from the front door. Unfortunately the cabinet will be about 2 km
away at that distance FTTC would be hardly any faster than the ADSL2
(up to 8 Mbps) we currently have. I say "would be" as our line
doesn't go anywhere near that cabinet anyway so we won't be able to
get FTTC full stop.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:08:19 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Ah yes the BBC News article quoted a distance for these faster speeds.
Up to 66 m (sixty six metres) or a shade over 200 feet. It also said
that covered 80% of lines. which I find very hard to believe even in
urban areas.

It doesn't even come close to covering the spur to next door from where
it peels off from us. I'm not even sure it'd even cover one stretch of it.

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:08:19 PM UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Ah yes the BBC News article quoted a distance for these faster
speeds. Up to 66 m (sixty six metres) or a shade over 200 feet. It
also said that covered 80% of lines. which I find very hard to
believe even in urban areas.
FTTC is in the process of being installed here, indeed the 30 odd
core fibre cable to feed the cabinet passes under our forcourt 20'
from the front door. Unfortunately the cabinet will be about 2 km
away at that distance FTTC would be hardly any faster than the ADSL2
(up to 8 Mbps) we currently have. I say "would be" as our line
doesn't go anywhere near that cabinet anyway so we won't be able to
get FTTC full stop.

Perhaps they did a survey in a tower block


NT