Superhub : Superhub 3 with 802.11ac?

Originally Posted by General Maximus

it's a shame there isnt a special divison of VM whose sole purpose is devoted to infrastructure and expansion. As well as upgrading the existing network they could do with a seperate team of peeps who have a 10 year plan to expand the network to 20% beyond its current boundaries (e.g. as far as the next two villages). VM are going to get to a point where they realised they never going to increase their customer numbers until they open themselves up to a new market.

There are rumours around that they are looking at some areas to start building, linked into voice over cable. Possibly part of the 1 billion pound spend that their CEO mentioned last week?

Sirius may know more

[Sephiroth]

AFAIK, that voice over cable project also involves putting DSLAMS into street cabinets. It's a few months since I gleaned that so I'm not up to date and I think it was initially for business services.

Someone will know, though I suspect that VM insiders will not comment publicly about DSLAMs.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

No idea why you are excusing BT. You and I are in Openreach monopoly areas and they are gladly serving up a service delivered as cheaply as possible because of it. At least VM have responded to competition, BT won't even discuss delivering faster services unless someone else is picking up the bill.

Yep, it's an Openreach monopoly area because Openreach bothered building a fibre network here and Virgin Media didn't.

Competition? VM could be competing but they're not willing to do any building either unless it's handed to them on a plate. Nonetheless, they did have the option of LLU'ing FTTC but it seems they couldn't be bothered in the end either.

Nah. I'm not excusing BT. I'm just pointing out a "steaming pile of crap" network that delivers a fast and reliable service beats even the best and most amazing network that can't deliver any service at all.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

AFAIK, that voice over cable project also involves putting DSLAMS into street cabinets. It's a few months since I gleaned that so I'm not up to date and I think it was initially for business services.

Someone will know, though I suspect that VM insiders will not comment publicly about DSLAMs.

If that's what they're planning perhaps that's why they abandoned their LLU rollout.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

AFAIK, that voice over cable project also involves putting DSLAMS into street cabinets. It's a few months since I gleaned that so I'm not up to date and I think it was initially for business services.

Someone will know, though I suspect that VM insiders will not comment publicly about DSLAMs.

Why would VoIP using PCMM involve installing DSLAMs in street cabinets? I'm at a loss as to why VM would want to use VDSL though I've heard those rumours too. First heard rumours about putting this kit in street cabinets in the mid-2000s. There is absolutely nothing for VM to gain by doing this. It would be pointless either in cabled or non-cabled areas.

The plans for VoIP are real and do not require any additional hardware in the field, it's all at hubsites/headends and new CPE for the home.

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Yep, it's an Openreach monopoly area because Openreach bothered building a fibre network here and Virgin Media didn't.

Competition? VM could be competing but they're not willing to do any building either unless it's handed to them on a plate. Nonetheless, they did have the option of LLU'ing FTTC but it seems they couldn't be bothered in the end either.

Nah. I'm not excusing BT. I'm just pointing out a "steaming pile of crap" network that delivers a fast and reliable service beats even the best and most amazing network that can't deliver any service at all.

What exactly would having a GEA cablelink do for VM? They could supply the same things everyone else supplies over the same last mile network. I can't blame them for abandoning the idea, there's no real option there to differentiate themselves.

Sadly some companies don't inherit a ton of ducting, etc, that allows them to build a 'fibre network' covering 19 million premises for 1.3 billion quid in CapEx. To build a cable or FTTP network in a new area you're looking at, best case, maybe 750 GBP - 1k GBP per home passed.

BT's 'fibre network' was less than years of VM's cable upgrade bill per home passed to build. When you compare less than 70 GBP per home passed with ten times that it's not really that surprising that VM aren't busting a gut to build in new areas. Some companies actually have to dig throughout to build 'fibre networks' rather than using pre-existing civils for the most part.

So if we're talking about companies who only build when it's handed to them on a plate we don't need to look any farther.

These ********* had an amazing opportunity to deploy really fibre-deep next generation access networks, following a hybrid model such as the one in Switzerland where they deployed fibre to the street in more rural areas, basically to distribution points, alongside FTTP in urban areas.

Instead they spend more on football per year than they did on their fibre-to-the-press-release network and deployed something that has no real upgrade path without extensive hardware changes and which Virgin will outperform both downstream and upstream by next year.

It's a mess when your telco has the money to put bids in on sports rights that make even Murdoch's boys grimace but stubbornly refuses to invest in being a 21st century telco.

I'm actually annoyed that BT deployed their FTTC here, had they not done so we'd probably be looking at an FTTP build this year.

[Sephiroth]

Of one thing I'm certain - and that is at the beginning of the year, VM were planning the deployment of DSLAMs to the street. It went quiet and I've no more information other than there was a business customer aspect to the programme. Whether or not they've canned it, I don't know.

[Kushan]

Given how much virgin has had to invest in its network just to get it up to scratch, I'm actually glad they're not building out just yet. Seems a few of us have forgotten how bad Virgin used to be just a couple of years ago - congestion, horrendous STM, overcapacity on huge swathes of the network that wasn't dealt with for literally years.

It's still not quite there in a number of areas, but the improvements have been clear. Had they invested that money in building out, I don't think they'd be in anywhere near as strong as a position they are today.

Plus, we all know that there's a new DOCSIS version due soon and probably more in the pipeline after that. That's going to require investment and it probably makes sense to hang tight, invest in what they've got and keep improving before building out more. After all, it's not like they own 90% of the market where they're available.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Yep, it's an Openreach monopoly area because Openreach bothered building a fibre network here and Virgin Media didn't.

Competition? VM could be competing but they're not willing to do any building either unless it's handed to them on a plate. Nonetheless, they did have the option of LLU'ing FTTC but it seems they couldn't be bothered in the end either.

Nah. I'm not excusing BT. I'm just pointing out a "steaming pile of crap" network that delivers a fast and reliable service beats even the best and most amazing network that can't deliver any service at all.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------


If that's what they're planning perhaps that's why they abandoned their LLU rollout.

I think they said they had scrapped that idea in one of their investor calls last year.

[jb66]

Not quite the same. All houses have a phone line, it's easy to upgrade the lines to fttc. Having to dig up every road would cost billions

[Kushan]

I think tbb claimed that the HS2 rollout is costing us roughly what it would cost to blanket the country in FTTP.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by jb66

Not quite the same. All houses have a phone line, it's easy to upgrade the lines to fttc. Having to dig up every road would cost billions

Having to dig up the road to install a new cabinet, pay the copper line rental, along with the SLU fees, pay for backhaul to the exchange / PoP, etc, etc, isn't any better.

LGI haven't deployed this anywhere else and they make a big deal of their network being a USP. Deploying FTTC would completely do away with that USP. They would have to deploy the same VDSL 2 over the same 17a band plan that Openreach do with the same power masking, etc.

LGI canned VM's plan to use BT's FTTC network as they wanted to concentrate on the cable network. Be bizarre indeed to not just use BT's copper but also overbuild their FTTC overlay having stated a desire to concentrate on the cable network.

The only thing I can think of that VM may want to put into street cabinets is fibre nodes to go to an FTTLA architecture in their on-net areas. To deploy VDSL 2 off-net would seem to be nuts.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------

I have actually thought of something that VM would use DSLAMs for - ultrafast FTTP services delivered over PON or Metro Ethernet.

Those I can understand - Comcast and Rogers in North America come to mind immediately.

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Plus, we all know that there's a new DOCSIS version due soon

Somebody posted a ppt from the AGM last year. Didn't they were going to start the docsis3.1 trials next year with a view to rolling it out in 2016?

[Kushan]

Yeah I remember that. It supposedly will start with DOCSIS3.1 modems being given out, then network upgrades to follow. Bit of a shame the SH3 is just 3.0, really.

[Sephiroth]

... or even a SH2ac.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Yeah I remember that. It supposedly will start with DOCSIS3.1 modems being given out, then network upgrades to follow. Bit of a shame the SH3 is just 3.0, really.

As far as I know there aren't any D3.1 gatways being produced yet.

[General Maximus]

If I remember correctly they wanted to do it a bit backwards. They were going to rollout 3.1 modems long before they had planned doing the network upgrades. I think the idea was that modems are bakwards compatible with 3.0 so they are going to work regardless and then as the infrastructure becomes available everything will be migrated transparently and the user will be none the wiser .