David wrote:
I would want to know why they replaced 2km of cable rather than
using a couple of splice enclosures and a patch in the cut cable..
The system margin should have been able to cope with this fairly
easily and the material cost would be perhaps £100, add in the
labour and I'd look at less than a grand.


In general a system is designed to cope with increased losses of 6dB to
account for aging of components etc. Each splice/joint should add less than
0.1dB excess loss(typically 0.02dB for a decent splice). They would need two
splices to remake the connection, to give a max of 0.2dB excess loss which
should still leave a margin of 5.8dB.

even if the cable had say 100 fibres the cost of connecting them all would
be in the region of 100x2 x £20/splice, to give £4000 + £1000 for
enclosures and other sundries.

depending on the system even upgrading the source/receiver units could be
more economical than relaying the cable

Something is certainly missing from the story... but then again the the guy
who went through the cable must also have been very careless, every cable is
generally enclosed in a green plastic pipe, which should be fairly obvious
at the time.

cheers

David

Looks like a metpost through the cable, he'd never see the thing...

As for repair costs, I worked for BT marine (when we, as in the UK)
still had our own ships etc, the joints and stuff were for a max of 25
fibres, don't know about land based stuff, but I'd have thought jointing
would have been much cheaper, still atleast it didn't have a king wire
at 25Kv in it!

Niel, now working in the "home" of fibre comms.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Be careful where you dig!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Nick Brooks wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Be careful where you dig!

Not quite sure why BT's fibre optics cable was going under this man's
garden!

In any case, I would hope that the Public Liability part of his household
insurance would pay.

--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is Black Hole!

"Set Square" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Nick Brooks wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Be careful where you dig!

Not quite sure why BT's fibre optics cable was going under this man's
garden!

In any case, I would hope that the Public Liability part of his household
insurance would pay.

--
Cheers,
Set Square
______


I would want to know why they replaced 2km of cable rather than using a
couple of splice enclosures and a patch in the cut cable.. The system margin
should have been able to cope with this fairly easily and the material cost
would be perhaps £100, add in the labour and I'd look at less than a grand.

Looks like an excuse to upgrade the link and get somebody else to pay for
it.

cheers

David

David wrote:
"Set Square" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Nick Brooks wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Be careful where you dig!

Not quite sure why BT's fibre optics cable was going under this man's
garden!

In any case, I would hope that the Public Liability part of his
household insurance would pay.

--
Cheers,
Set Square
______


I would want to know why they replaced 2km of cable rather than
using a couple of splice enclosures and a patch in the cut cable..
The system margin should have been able to cope with this fairly
easily and the material cost would be perhaps £100, add in the
labour and I'd look at less than a grand.

Looks like an excuse to upgrade the link and get somebody else to pay
for it.

Firstly I can only assume the cable must have been near the boundary wall.
I doubt a fibre cable would go through someone's garden. No idea though how
deep it was buried and how protected it was. Maybe the guy was using a
digger?!?

As for why 2km of cable was replaced - joints in fibre do add losses.
Depending on the length of the cable (in this case, 2km) a joint may have
reduced it to unsatifactory levels. I would have expected a joint to have
been possible - but I've no idea as to the infrastructure in place in that
guy's situation.

D

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:54:12 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Nick Brooks
strung together this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Bit more info on this one that I found in another group,
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2905857
I think BT are being a bit vague on this one though.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd.

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Nick Brooks
saying something like:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

They're taking the ****.

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
David wrote:
snip
______


I would want to know why they replaced 2km of cable rather than
using a couple of splice enclosures and a patch in the cut cable..
The system margin should have been able to cope with this fairly
easily and the material cost would be perhaps £100, add in the
labour and I'd look at less than a grand.

Looks like an excuse to upgrade the link and get somebody else to pay
for it.

Firstly I can only assume the cable must have been near the boundary wall.
I doubt a fibre cable would go through someone's garden. No idea though
how
deep it was buried and how protected it was. Maybe the guy was using a
digger?!?

As for why 2km of cable was replaced - joints in fibre do add losses.
Depending on the length of the cable (in this case, 2km) a joint may have
reduced it to unsatifactory levels. I would have expected a joint to have
been possible - but I've no idea as to the infrastructure in place in that
guy's situation.


In general a system is designed to cope with increased losses of 6dB to
account for aging of components etc. Each splice/joint should add less than
0.1dB excess loss(typically 0.02dB for a decent splice). They would need two
splices to remake the connection, to give a max of 0.2dB excess loss which
should still leave a margin of 5.8dB.

even if the cable had say 100 fibres the cost of connecting them all would
be in the region of 100x2 x £20/splice, to give £4000 + £1000 for
enclosures and other sundries.

depending on the system even upgrading the source/receiver units could be
more economical than relaying the cable

Something is certainly missing from the story... but then again the the guy
who went through the cable must also have been very careless, every cable is
generally enclosed in a green plastic pipe, which should be fairly obvious
at the time.

cheers

David

David wrote:
"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
David wrote:
snip
______


I would want to know why they replaced 2km of cable rather than
using a couple of splice enclosures and a patch in the cut cable..
The system margin should have been able to cope with this fairly
easily and the material cost would be perhaps £100, add in the
labour and I'd look at less than a grand.

Looks like an excuse to upgrade the link and get somebody else to
pay for it.

Firstly I can only assume the cable must have been near the boundary
wall. I doubt a fibre cable would go through someone's garden. No
idea though how deep it was buried and how protected it was. Maybe
the guy was using a digger?!?

As for why 2km of cable was replaced - joints in fibre do add losses.
Depending on the length of the cable (in this case, 2km) a joint may
have reduced it to unsatifactory levels. I would have expected a
joint to have been possible - but I've no idea as to the
infrastructure in place in that guy's situation.


In general a system is designed to cope with increased losses of 6dB
to account for aging of components etc. Each splice/joint should add
less than
0.1dB excess loss(typically 0.02dB for a decent splice). They would
need two splices to remake the connection, to give a max of 0.2dB
excess loss which should still leave a margin of 5.8dB.

even if the cable had say 100 fibres the cost of connecting them all
would be in the region of 100x2 x £20/splice, to give £4000 + £1000
for enclosures and other sundries.

depending on the system even upgrading the source/receiver units
could be more economical than relaying the cable

Something is certainly missing from the story... but then again the
the guy who went through the cable must also have been very careless,
every cable is generally enclosed in a green plastic pipe, which
should be fairly obvious at the time.

Maybe it had been a common problem along the 2km length of fibre. 29 people
before him damaging the cable outside their house such that he was the
unfortunate person who hit the 6db limit...

Certainly glad it wasn't me with the bill though!

D

On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:08:29 GMT,
(Lurch) wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:54:12 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Nick Brooks
strung together this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Bit more info on this one that I found in another group,
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2905857
I think BT are being a bit vague on this one though.


I found another source of info on this story, the final
paragraph is the most revealing - reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...

--
Regards,

Will.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:17:14 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Will
strung together this:

reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...

Typical BT, get someone else to move the world if it means we don't
have to do anything.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:34:17 GMT,
(Lurch) wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:17:14 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Will
strung together this:

reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...

Typical BT, get someone else to move the world if it means we don't
have to do anything.

Whoops, be even better if I posted the link :-)

http://www.itvregions.com/news.php?r...a&content=5618

--
Regards,

Will.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:17:14 +0100, Will wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:08:29 GMT,
(Lurch) wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:54:12 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Nick Brooks
strung together this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Bit more info on this one that I found in another group,
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2905857
I think BT are being a bit vague on this one though.


I found another source of info on this story, the final
paragraph is the most revealing - reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...

I'm not sure that I'd read that into it at all.

It is very common for there to be a services strip at the edge of a
property next to the road. I have one about a metre wide at the end
of my drive where it connects with the road. It's marked either side
with stone inserts at the edges of the drive.

AIUI, it is my property, but any organisation delivering services
(e.g. cables, pipes, etc.) has an automatic wayleave to use this area
as long as they make good afterwards.

The fences at the sides of the drive go all the way to the road and
belong to me.

Given that scenario, it is easy to figure out what could have happened
in this instance.






..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 19 May 2004 21:14:50 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:17:14 +0100, Will wrote:

I found another source of info on this story, the final
paragraph is the most revealing - reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...

I'm not sure that I'd read that into it at all.

It is very common for there to be a services strip at the edge of a
property next to the road. I have one about a metre wide at the end
of my drive where it connects with the road. It's marked either side
with stone inserts at the edges of the drive.

AIUI, it is my property, but any organisation delivering services
(e.g. cables, pipes, etc.) has an automatic wayleave to use this area
as long as they make good afterwards.

The fences at the sides of the drive go all the way to the road and
belong to me.

Given that scenario, it is easy to figure out what could have happened
in this instance.


Hi Andy,

I guess that you live in a fairly modern property? I have seen
such like that have blocks let into front lawns that read "boundary"
or similar, a meter or so before the inner edge of the pavement.

The area that I live in, which must be similar to a huge number
of others, predates this scenario, in that my boundary extends to the
inner edge of the pavement, the demarcation evident by slim inset
"kerb stones". As far as I'm aware - and I was the first occupant of
the property nearly 40 years ago - all of the services, with the
exception of the overhead electrical supply, run under the road. The
water cutoffs are let into the pavement, and I can remember my father
(I didn't say that I was the head of the family!) cutting the 'phone
line whilst laying the front lawn. The phone line entered the property
perpendicular to the frontage.

It is possible that you are correct in your deductions, but
having witnessed the "workmen" that the utility companies tend to
employ, I am not too surprised that the cable might well be within
this chap's boundary...

--
Regards,

Will.

"David Hearn" wrote in message


Maybe it had been a common problem along the 2km length of fibre. 29 people
before him damaging the cable outside their house such that he was the
unfortunate person who hit the 6db limit...

So in law he is only responsible for the fraction of it that they didn't
cause and maybe not even that. You get a bill to setle out of court by a
certain date after that things get expensive.

However the corporate world of Thatcherist monopolism has a good chance
against the average DIYer in the British legal system. Remember the
golden handshake for the disasterous first boss?

I'd offer a fiver a week and renege on it as often as I could. And
advertise where it is buried and how to damage it, all around the local
schools.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Wed, 19 May 2004 21:29:37 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Mcneil"
wrote:

"David Hearn" wrote in message


Maybe it had been a common problem along the 2km length of fibre. 29 people
before him damaging the cable outside their house such that he was the
unfortunate person who hit the 6db limit...

So in law he is only responsible for the fraction of it that they didn't
cause and maybe not even that. You get a bill to setle out of court by a
certain date after that things get expensive.

However the corporate world of Thatcherist monopolism has a good chance
against the average DIYer in the British legal system.

What on earth are you talking about ?


I'd offer a fiver a week and renege on it as often as I could. And
advertise where it is buried and how to damage it, all around the local
schools.


That's a really sensible idea...... NOT.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:24:01 +0100, Will wrote:


Hi Andy,

I guess that you live in a fairly modern property? I have seen
such like that have blocks let into front lawns that read "boundary"
or similar, a meter or so before the inner edge of the pavement.

Exactly.


The area that I live in, which must be similar to a huge number
of others, predates this scenario, in that my boundary extends to the
inner edge of the pavement, the demarcation evident by slim inset
"kerb stones". As far as I'm aware - and I was the first occupant of
the property nearly 40 years ago - all of the services, with the
exception of the overhead electrical supply, run under the road. The
water cutoffs are let into the pavement, and I can remember my father
(I didn't say that I was the head of the family!) cutting the 'phone
line whilst laying the front lawn. The phone line entered the property
perpendicular to the frontage.

It is possible that you are correct in your deductions, but
having witnessed the "workmen" that the utility companies tend to
employ, I am not too surprised that the cable might well be within
this chap's boundary...


Oh sure. They don't bury in the correct place or depth.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Will wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:08:29 GMT,
(Lurch) wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:54:12 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Nick Brooks
strung together this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bt_bill_cable/

Bit more info on this one that I found in another group,
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2905857
I think BT are being a bit vague on this one though.


I found another source of info on this story, the final
paragraph is the most revealing - reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...

"We are also looking into the fact that Mr Brown may have extended his
boundary into the public highway"

Reading between the lines it appears this chap was putting up a new
fence and trying to grab a bit of extra garden ;-)

MBQ