[weesteev]

Hopefully I can shed some light on this one for you....

The sheltered housing scheme was either built after the local NTL network build or the owners at the time refused permission for NTL to dig on site during the main build (some 25 years ago!). The VM network database has a cabinet ID referenced to this building but was never deployed for whatever reason, so this was either planned from the start and wasn't deployed or has been looked at since and not deployed.

The first issue here is wayleave, the permission to dig around the building and drop infrastructure to provide service. There are no heights issues here so the majority of the network build would just be duct in the ground. If the building/landowners sign off on any wayleave documents required then that would tick the first box.

The second issue is capacity, your comment about being in range of the cabinet is the perfect example of why not to judge your serviceability based on how close you are to existing network elements. In this case, the cabinet you refer has no capacity, it already serves more homes than it has physical tap ports, network build now is done on a 100% penetration rule so if there are 40 homes then there would need to be at least 40 available tap ports. In the case of Handley Court, a new distribution cabinet and amplifier would need to be built as well as upgrading the previous amplifier chain to support it. Worst case scenario, a new coax feed from the fibre node would be needed if there was an available output.

As for the building itself, internal wiring would not be considered here. We have so much experience of internal wiring that we avoid it unless its a new build. Buildings like this wouldn't be wired at all, drop cables would be installed to each customer as and when they signed up for service.

Now the bad news...

This building complex is an example of another 100,000 examples that are identical to this situation that VM investigates every year. Currently there wouldn't be the desire to provide service here due to the focus on existing large scale projects. The fact this network area is an existing HFC build type would make it less appealing to expand currently, compared to the area being FTTP. There is the chance to provide FTTP to this complex but the cost would come in the expensive inverse fibre node and long cable run back to the main fibre node location which would really add to the cost.

I hate to say this but this doesn't look like a project that would get picked up anytime soon for infill. Its not a substantial size, the average cost per home would be questionable due to the amount of hand digging in private land as well as the cost of deploying a new amplifier cabinet wouldn't make this economical.

I know this isn't a great response but sometimes its better ripping off the band aid. Drop me a line if you need anymore information or support.