VM FTTP trial Papworth Everard

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Most of the telco equipment is already there, and has been for years. If someone isn't connected to it, then it's sat there costing money to maintain without any return. Even where a property hasn't had services before, I'd expect the cost of installing a master socket is pretty low in the grand scheme of network costs

Perhaps, but it still takes extra time, nomatter how small. In my case it took the engineers an extra hour of going back and forth because of some technical problems connecting the line, even though I told them to leave it since I'd never use it anyway, they refused to leave until it was working. At the very least, it couldn't be done without an engineer visit while the broadband could easily have been a self-install. The cost of installing a phone line might be relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but so is flipping a couple of bits in computer memory to activate someone's service but they feel the need to levy a £49.95 "activation charge" to do it...

Anyway, the standalone broadband costs on VM are cheaper than BB + Telco, just not the full difference, as the pricing will be done partly to encourage people to take more services.

50Mb broadband on it's own: £26.50 per month + £49.95 activation charge = £367.95 over the year 50Mb broadband + phone: £10 per month, plus £12 for phone (with line rental saver) = £264 over the year, over £100 cheaper. And if you take cashback deals, e.g. Quidco, the difference is even bigger - since you get £30 cashback on the BB+Phone and only £20 on BB alone.

£103.95 more over the course of 12 months for standalone BB is just ridiculous.

[BenMcr]

Fair enough, I wasn't counting the introductory offers, but the standard pricing, as people aren't always going to have those.

[jb66]

The ofcom battery rule is outdated. Everyone has a mobile phone for emergencies or should if they are vunrable.

A
If this was changed I'm sure virgin would go voip and be done with the outdated copper network

[Jayster]

The real question here is, will Virgin actually end up doing any sort of large scale roll out of FTTP if this is successful?

Also I assume virgin is at quite the disadvantage if BT can essentially roll out FTTP to any FTTC enabled houses (capacity dependant) essentially overnight?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Jayster

The real question here is, will Virgin actually end up doing any sort of large scale roll out of FTTP if this is successful?

Also I assume virgin is at quite the disadvantage if BT can essentially roll out FTTP to any FTTC enabled houses (capacity dependant) essentially overnight?

BT have absolutely no interest in rolling out FTTP to FTTC enabled houses overnight or over months or years without being paid a load of money.

I'm sure VM will, however it won't be overbuilding their existing cabled areas for the foreseeable.

[Jayster]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

BT have absolutely no interest in rolling out FTTP to FTTC enabled houses overnight or over months or years without being paid a load of money.

I'm sure VM will, however it won't be overbuilding their existing cabled areas for the foreseeable.

Sounds like we wont be seeing any FTTP competition any time soon then.

Say if Virgin wanted to turn an existing cabled area into an FTTP area roughly how much work would that require? Can they use much of the existing network or is it a case of completely rebuilding the network?

[jb66]

docsis 3.1 is cheaper than going fibre, cant see it changing for a long time

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by jb66

The ofcom battery rule is outdated. Everyone has a mobile phone for emergencies or should if they are vunrable.

A
If this was changed I'm sure virgin would go voip and be done with the outdated copper network

The problem is those emergency support systems, like what elderly and disabled people have. You know, the panic button or the "I've fallen over and can't get up and/or might be dying" devices. They rely on the phone line. That's the reason the phone line is treated as critical infrastructure.

[jb66]

Originally Posted by Kushan

The problem is those emergency support systems, like what elderly and disabled people have. You know, the panic button or the "I've fallen over and can't get up and/or might be dying" devices. They rely on the phone line. That's the reason the phone line is treated as critical infrastructure.

I guess those who need it could keep the existing copper, but I guess a system like that could work on 3g

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Jayster

Sounds like we wont be seeing any FTTP competition any time soon then.

Say if Virgin wanted to turn an existing cabled area into an FTTP area roughly how much work would that require? Can they use much of the existing network or is it a case of completely rebuilding the network?

You have faster than FTTC speeds already - there are no prospects of VM upgrading areas when they could deliver the speeds that BT are with FTTP right now, 300Mb down, 30Mb up via upgrades of existing network.

Turning an existing area into FTTP would ideally use existing ducts and some existing fibre. Would probably need some more fibre, and each home covered by FTTP would need new CPE.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by jb66

I guess those who need it could keep the existing copper, but I guess a system like that could work on 3g

At the start of this year my area was hit a *very* large storm (Red Met Office warning and bits of people's houses flying off). We lost *all* mobile phone networks within an hour of the storm starting and they were off for at least a day, and they didn't come back all at once, so some networks were off for even longer.

The landline phone network didn't have any downtime (except lines physically downed by a falling trees etc). The local exchange UPS kept everything going with no issues. The real issue was with some homeowners who couldn't make or receive any calls because their home electricity supply was off and they only had cordless phones (our local electricity network operator was handing out pound shop corded phones to anyone who needed one).

The fact is that mobile phone networks simply aren't designed with the same resilience as even a domestic phone line. Its very, very rare you'll get a "network busy" or "no free lines" type fault on a landline, but its easily done with mobiles.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

The problem is those emergency support systems, like what elderly and disabled people have. You know, the panic button or the "I've fallen over and can't get up and/or might be dying" devices. They rely on the phone line. That's the reason the phone line is treated as critical infrastructure.

Well the elderly and disabled people who need panic buttons and such devices probably aren't the target market for superfast pure-fibre broadband... BT still have a universal service obligation to provide copper whether or not VM also roll out FTTP in any given area.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------

Originally Posted by rhyds

At the start of this year my area was hit a *very* large storm (Red Met Office warning and bits of people's houses flying off). We lost *all* mobile phone networks within an hour of the storm starting and they were off for at least a day, and they didn't come back all at once, so some networks were off for even longer. The landline phone network didn't have any downtime (except lines physically downed by a falling trees etc). The local exchange UPS kept everything going with no issues. The real issue was with some homeowners who couldn't make or receive any calls because their home electricity supply was off and they only had cordless phones (our local electricity network operator was handing out pound shop corded phones to anyone who needed one). The fact is that mobile phone networks simply aren't designed with the same resilience as even a domestic phone line. Its very, very rare you'll get a "network busy" or "no free lines" type fault on a landline, but its easily done with mobiles.

Sounds like a pretty poorly run area. Mobile can be inherently more reliable than fixed-line copper for a number of reasons, particularly if a mast is fed with underground fibre. On the other hand if an area is remote and accessible only via microwave relays, then it tends to be a lot worse when the weather comes in.

It's rare to get 'Network busy' on a fixed line a) because hardly anyone uses them anybore and b) because they're still running off archaic circuit-switched systems. Plus you don't get 100,000+ people all taking their landlines into the city centre at once at the weekends when they go shopping thus shifting an entire city's worth of load into one tiny area.

Nonetheless mobile can frequently be more resilient than fixed-line. Not always, certainly not with consumer networks, but the 'real' industrial TETRA and GSM-R networks are rock solid. Furthermore if mobile was inherently unreliable, the government wouldn't be seeking to replace the emergency services' dedicated network with rented capacity on public LTE services in future.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Well the elderly and disabled people who need panic buttons and such devices probably aren't the target market for superfast pure-fibre broadband... BT still have a universal service obligation to provide copper whether or not VM also roll out FTTP in any given area.

None the less, if Virgin wants to supply phone lines, they have to do it within the regulations that OFCOM specify.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Well the elderly and disabled people who need panic buttons and such devices probably aren't the target market for superfast pure-fibre broadband... BT still have a universal service obligation to provide copper whether or not VM also roll out FTTP in any given area.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------


Sounds like a pretty poorly run area. Mobile can be inherently more reliable than fixed-line copper for a number of reasons, particularly if a mast is fed with underground fibre. On the other hand if an area is remote and accessible only via microwave relays, then it tends to be a lot worse when the weather comes in.

It's rare to get 'Network busy' on a fixed line a) because hardly anyone uses them anybore and b) because they're still running off archaic circuit-switched systems. Plus you don't get 100,000+ people all taking their landlines into the city centre at once at the weekends when they go shopping thus shifting an entire city's worth of load into one tiny area.

The reason I said "very, very unlikely" is that in the last 10 years the exchange serving my parents house (rural area with no mobile coverage) has lost its external connection at least twice (both times the main BT fibre was hit by digging works). I believe our local mobile mast is probably fed via a microwave link and that could be why it went down (at one point during the storm we were losing BBC radio stations due to the local high power mast's uplink failing during particularly strong gusts).

Nonetheless mobile can frequently be more resilient than fixed-line. Not always, certainly not with consumer networks, but the 'real' industrial TETRA and GSM-R networks are rock solid. Furthermore if mobile was inherently unreliable, the government wouldn't be seeking to replace the emergency services' dedicated network with rented capacity on public LTE services in future.

I really wouldn't put it past any government to downgrade the resiliency of even emergency comms in order to save a few quid and I can't see any reason to remove the requirement for phone lines to work during power cuts.

[qasdfdsaq]

As I say microwave linked masts are subject to weather constraints just like microwave linked phone lines - that said most mobile masts are also quite capable of working during a power cut, as is BT Infinity and similar Openreach FTTC services. Some mobile masts are even run off wind and solar power thus not needing mains electricity at all, but then they'll be microwaved which kinda defeats any benefit.