[Simon Rodgers]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

People are so quick to have a go on this forum now, then when proven wrong they don't reply!

I'd love to see someone prove me wrong but I don't think they can.

[DANCE OF DEATH]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

I'm sorry but you are wrong. I know that for a fact. I know the routing of the fibre from the cabinets in my town for example, they don't go into my local exchange they go to one 4 miles away.

Where are you getting you information from may I ask?

That would explain why there is problems with Hetton le-Hole exchange. Even though I live in Seaham County Durham, during peak times my speed drops off the cliff . When FTTC was first installed the engineer did say that it was going to Hetton-le-Hole exchange even though there is an exchange just a mile away from me.

Hopefully it is suppose to be sorted out at the end of the month.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

So sorry to prove you wrong. Maybe you should learn things before slagging people off, especially people who do work in the industry.

Please see following link: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/ispnews/d...titive/nga.gif

That's a really simplistic diagram that you've linked to there which gives a very basic explanation of how FTTC works. And in the case of large exchange areas that's exactly right. There's 3 exchanges within 5 miles of me that are large. The cabinets in these 3 exchange areas are connected directly to the nearby exchange in the fashion you've suggested.

There are 4 other exchanges in the same area, the cabinets in those areas are connected to one of the 3 'big' exchanges. I'm sorry but you are plain wrong, even when now a few other people have backed me up on this you are still sticking to your guns!

The plan long term for BT is to close these smaller exchanges. That's why they've not connected the cabinets to them.

[Icaraa]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

It is done at headend level. I've explained this a few times on here but no one pays attention.

With FTTC from Openreach all of the cabinets are connected to a nearby headend which is inside an exchange. Not necessarily your closest exchange. A headend takes care of usually 3 or 4 exchange areas.

They have a massive amount of bandwidth to these headends.

Your cabinet may not be connected to your local exchange. In fact there's more chance it isn't. So they don't need mega bandwidth to every exchange, only the FTTC headend ones.

This is right, it can be seen on their computer when an engineer picks up an FTTC job were the cab is connected to. A lot of the time it is not the nearest exchange

[robertcrowther]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

That's a really simplistic diagram that you've linked to there which gives a very basic explanation of how FTTC works. And in the case of large exchange areas that's exactly right. There's 3 exchanges within 5 miles of me that are large. The cabinets in these 3 exchange areas are connected directly to the nearby exchange in the fashion you've suggested.

There are 4 other exchanges in the same area, the cabinets in those areas are connected to one of the 3 'big' exchanges. I'm sorry but you are plain wrong, even when now a few other people have backed me up on this you are still sticking to your guns!

The plan long term for BT is to close these smaller exchanges. That's why they've not connected the cabinets to them.

Out of all the exchanges that are FTTC enabled, most of them have have the cabinets going to them, just because a small percentage have cabinets going to other exchanges does not mean that is the norm, which your post implied.

Also, Openreach not BT run the exchanges, and as such they have no plans to close the smaller exchanges until full roll-out of FTTP has been completed, which is many many years from now.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

Out of all the exchanges that are FTTC enabled, most of them have have the cabinets going to them, just because a small percentage have cabinets going to other exchanges does not mean that is the norm, which your post implied.

Also, Openreach not BT run the exchanges, and as such they have no plans to close the smaller exchanges until full roll-out of FTTP has been completed, which is many many years from now.

Ah so you concede!

It is more common than not. There aren't that many areas where every exchange would be a headend (and thus have cabinets connected directly to it). So in most 5-10 mile areas you will tend to have several small-medium size exchanges and 1 or 2 large ones.

As for your second sentence, you're not quite right. BT Group Property is the part of BT Group that owns the exchange. Openreach own and run the frame and some equipment inside the exchange and the wires going to it. Other parts of the company own and run some of the equipment inside the exchange.

Openreach, and these other parts of BT Group are just business groups, not completely seperate companies which your post seems to imply. If BT Group as a whole would like to close some exchanges these business groups will work together towards that. Of course yes, this would be many years down the line. But they have obviously taken the view that it makes no sense to connect cabinets to small and medium size exchanges if there won't be a need for them in 10-15 years time.

When they launch the voice over fibre product if you can get every customer connected to an FTTC cabinet, the small exchanges become redundant.

[albertd]

Originally Posted by Simon Rodgers

BTs service is limited because it keeps cutting out.

You must surely realise that the term "unlimited" relates specfically to the monthly usage limits and to throttling, not to individual lines' reliability.

[robertcrowther]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

Ah so you concede!

It is more common than not. There aren't that many areas where every exchange would be a headend (and thus have cabinets connected directly to it). So in most 5-10 mile areas you will tend to have several small-medium size exchanges and 1 or 2 large ones.

As for your second sentence, you're not quite right. BT Group Property is the part of BT Group that owns the exchange. Openreach own and run the frame and some equipment inside the exchange and the wires going to it. Other parts of the company own and run some of the equipment inside the exchange.

Openreach, and these other parts of BT Group are just business groups, not completely seperate companies which your post seems to imply. If BT Group as a whole would like to close some exchanges these business groups will work together towards that. Of course yes, this would be many years down the line. But they have obviously taken the view that it makes no sense to connect cabinets to small and medium size exchanges if there won't be a need for them in 10-15 years time.

When they launch the voice over fibre product if you can get every customer connected to an FTTC cabinet, the small exchanges become redundant.

Well, over 97% of FTTC cabinets are connected to the local exchanges, so I take that as the norm. rather than what you have said.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

It is done at headend level. I've explained this a few times on here but no one pays attention.

Oh, forgive me for failing to read and remember all your posts. But if you'd read all mine, you would have noticed that two posts prior to the one you quoted, I said:

"separate backhaul paths from wherever the linear channel bandwidth is measured and controlled (cabinet/exchange/wherever)"

so I never claimed that multicast was implemented at exchange level anyway. Even in my post that you quoted, I finished with a question mark because although I *know* my cabinet is connected to my local exchange I didn't know if that was always the case, or if multicast would always be implemented at that level.

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

With FTTC from Openreach all of the cabinets are connected to a nearby headend which is inside an exchange. Not necessarily your closest exchange. A headend takes care of usually 3 or 4 exchange areas.

They have a massive amount of bandwidth to these headends.

Your cabinet may not be connected to your local exchange. In fact there's more chance it isn't. So they don't need mega bandwidth to every exchange, only the FTTC headend ones.

My cab is connected to my local exchange alright. And irrespective of the "massive amount of bandwidth to these headends" my original point may remain: that if they don't plan it right, or if they don't keep up with unexpected local/regional surges in bandwidth demand, the BT multicast TV channels *could* have a negative impact on other internet services. So they'd better get it right (OK, they probably will, as I said in the first place, but we shall see).

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

Well, over 97% of FTTC cabinets are connected to the local exchanges, so I take that as the norm. rather than what you have said.

97%? I gave you an example before and I was a little off. In a 10 mile area of where I live there are 11 exchanges. All but one are FTTC enabled. The cabinets are connected to only 4 of thiose exchanges. Not 97% is it?

Anyway you obviously don't know what you're talking about, we are well off topic and I'm fed up of arguing about it with you.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by d'@ve

my original point may remain: that if they don't plan it right, or if they don't keep up with unexpected local/regional surges in bandwidth demand, the BT multicast TV channels *could* have a negative impact on other internet services. So they'd better get it right (OK, they probably will, as I said in the first place, but we shall see).

Sure, can't disagree there.

[robertcrowther]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

97%? I gave you an example before and I was a little off. In a 10 mile area of where I live there are 11 exchanges. All but one are FTTC enabled. The cabinets are connected to only 4 of thiose exchanges. Not 97% is it?

Anyway you obviously don't know what you're talking about, we are well off topic and I'm fed up of arguing about it with you.

Excuse me, but you can't take what's in your local area and think the rest of the country is like that, because it's not. The fact is over 97% of FTTC cabinets are connected to their local exchanges, sorry if that does not apply in your area, but that is the information Openreach has for the country.

For the record, I do know what I'm talking about. End Of Line.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

Excuse me, but you can't take what's in your local area and think the rest of the country is like that, because it's not. The fact is over 97% of FTTC cabinets are connected to their local exchanges, sorry if that does not apply in your area, but that is the information Openreach has for the country.

For the record, I do know what I'm talking about. End Of Line.

It's not just my area though. I've observed this across the whole region.

But we are talking about a 70 mile area I've seen this in.

[robertcrowther]

Originally Posted by *MikeB*

It's not just my area though. I've observed this across the whole region.

But we are talking about a 70 mile area I've seen this in.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it's not from Openreach. I think the UK is bigger than a 70 mile area, therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it's not from Openreach. I think the UK is bigger than a 70 mile area, therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

Fair enough. I guess you are getting your information from Openreach. Maybe there's some reason why some regions are different than others.

Still, my point really was that you can't just assume you are connected to your closest exchange as it isn't always the case.

[d'@ve]

I wonder if you are both right (or eventually will have been)?

That is to say, perhaps the areas served by the 'main' exchanges where these 'headends' (I forget the technical name) are apparently located have been and will be the first to get FTTC, with the smaller surrounding exchange areas getting it further down the line, as the rollout continues, and being connected to the nearest 'large' exchange instead of the smaller local one?

My local exchange is a major one to which my cabinet was connected directly way back in 2010 and that's probably where multicast will be implemented (in this case). However, the surrounding smaller exchanges have only recently started to get FTTC and there are still many of them to be completed.

In which case, you'd expect the 97% to be right say last year but for that percentage to fall considerably as the rollout continues? Speculation on my part, of course but it's interesting to know these things if anyone can comment.

[*MikeB*]

Possibly, in the area I'm talking about the first exchange to be connected was medium sized. The fibre cabs were connected to a big exchange 4 miles away.

Interestingly the big exchange itself still doesn't have any fibre cabs.

Next to go live was another big exchange, all the fibre cabinets there were connected directly to that exchange. Following that was another big exchange again where the cabinets were directly connected.

Next following that was a small exchange with cabinets connected to a 3rd big exchange! All of the smaller exchanges that went live after this the cabinets were connected to one of those 4 large exchanges.

[Mystic Eddy]

My area has followed the pattern of a 'headend' exchange feeding the smaller exchanges. In my case, three medium sized exchange areas have been connected up to the big exchange. I also know this to be the case for another main exchange area (main exchange feeding four smaller area cabs). In all, that'll be covering ~110k lines (conservative based upon not all cabs in an area being enabled).
robertcrowther, please cite your source of this 97% figure .

[moox]

I can only assume mine is connected to a different exchange too, as my exchange does not have Sky or TalkTalk LLU yet their unlimited fibre services are available (I understand that Sky and TalkTalk choose to connect directly to the FTTx headends rather than use the BT Wholesale WBC service like most other ISPs, and that they usually only target areas where the backhaul exists from an existing LLU installation).

I don't know which exchange it would be though, there are at least two that have both LLU installations.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by moox

I can only assume mine is connected to a different exchange too, as my exchange does not have Sky or TalkTalk LLU yet their unlimited fibre services are available (I understand that Sky and TalkTalk choose to connect directly to the FTTx headends rather than use the BT Wholesale WBC service like most other ISPs, and that they usually only target areas where the backhaul exists from an existing LLU installation).

I don't know which exchange it would be though, there are at least two that have both LLU installations.

Yeah you're spot on there. It won't be your local exchange. It'll be a nearby exchange, no more than 4 or 5 miles away and obviously with Sky's LLU service. What exchange is your local one?

[robertcrowther]

Originally Posted by Mystic Eddy

My area has followed the pattern of a 'headend' exchange feeding the smaller exchanges. In my case, three medium sized exchange areas have been connected up to the big exchange. I also know this to be the case for another main exchange area (main exchange feeding four smaller area cabs). In all, that'll be covering ~110k lines (conservative based upon not all cabs in an area being enabled).
robertcrowther, please cite your source of this 97% figure .

My source for the 97% is Openreach.

[*MikeB*]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

My source for the 97% is Openreach.

Interesting.

[Icaraa]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

My source for the 97% is Openreach.

Could your source perhaps be a little out of date?

[robertcrowther]

Originally Posted by Icaraa

Could your source perhaps be a little out of date?

Was up-to-date as of last week. It does make sense if you think about it, the larger exchanges are going to have way more cabinets than small exchanges, so there will be more going directly than indirect.

I know of several exchanges around me where there is more than 200 FTTC cabinets connected to each of them. I wonder how many small exchanges that equals to for each large exchange.

[timboy]

Originally Posted by robertcrowther

I know of several exchanges around me where there is more than 200 FTTC cabinets connected to each of them. I wonder how many small exchanges that equals to for each large exchange.

Name a couple of those exchanges.

It will easily verify your claim.