FTTC cabinet positions - one for Kraftee?

Hi there

Not sure if it is secret information but why oh why are there so many BT
FTTC cabs so very close to exchanges?
As mentioned here before, I know of one literally just outside the
exchange wall (Brentwood)and another barely 100yds away across the road
(Ealing)and a couple a few hundred yards away from Walworth.

I am sure the cable length from the cab to the premises isn't much less
than direct (allowing for the interception cable to the nearest old cab)

Is it to reduce DSLAMs in the exchanges. But surely there is still some
sort of router/concentrator there. The boxes only support relatively few
customers so it is a huge drain on resources to have so many spread
around the streets all requiring installation/power supplies/maintenance.

Or is it just to get the high speed bits out of the exchange to scupper
unbundling?

Mike

"m" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi there
>
> Not sure if it is secret information but why oh why are there so many BT
> FTTC cabs so very close to exchanges?
> As mentioned here before, I know of one literally just outside the
> exchange wall (Brentwood)and another barely 100yds away across the road
> (Ealing)and a couple a few hundred yards away from Walworth.
>
> I am sure the cable length from the cab to the premises isn't much less
> than direct (allowing for the interception cable to the nearest old cab)
>
> Is it to reduce DSLAMs in the exchanges. But surely there is still some
> sort of router/concentrator there. The boxes only support relatively few
> customers so it is a huge drain on resources to have so many spread around
> the streets all requiring installation/power supplies/maintenance.
>
> Or is it just to get the high speed bits out of the exchange to scupper
> unbundling?
>
> Mike

Good question...

At the present moment there appears to be absolutely no logic to the way it
is (or rather it is not) being rolled out.

Mind you when I visit users who live over 2Km from the exchange and who are
getting 14Mbps I can but wonder about the whole scheme of things....

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:40:04 +0000, m made love to the words:

> Not sure if it is secret information but why oh why are there so many BT
> FTTC cabs so very close to exchanges?

Because even customers who are fed from cabs close to exchanges want FTTC
too.

> I am sure the cable length from the cab to the premises isn't much less
> than direct (allowing for the interception cable to the nearest old cab)

But it does not work like that. The only point you can intercept the D
side to the customer is in the cab. It is, apparently, not ideal to send
VSDL down smaller E-side cables as crosstalk and interference are a
concern.

>
> Is it to reduce DSLAMs in the exchanges. But surely there is still some
> sort of router/concentrator there.

There is plenty of room in most exchanges left over from when all the
Strowger gear was ripped out.


> Or is it just to get the high speed bits out of the exchange to scupper
> unbundling?

I don't think so. Other suppliers are allowed to provide over BT FTTC
gear. IDNET and Zen both do it. In addition, there is nothing - other
than planning consent - to stop other licensed operators putting their
own fibre networks and multiplexers out to the streets.

Sultan of Usenet wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:40:04 +0000, m made love to the words:
>
>
>>Not sure if it is secret information but why oh why are there so many BT
>>FTTC cabs so very close to exchanges?
>
>
> Because even customers who are fed from cabs close to exchanges want FTTC
> too.
>
>
>>I am sure the cable length from the cab to the premises isn't much less
>>than direct (allowing for the interception cable to the nearest old cab)
>
>
> But it does not work like that. The only point you can intercept the D
> side to the customer is in the cab. It is, apparently, not ideal to send
> VSDL down smaller E-side cables as crosstalk and interference are a
> concern.


Thats an interesting point actually as well. I suppose it is possible
that removing VDSL from the main E side cables will reduce crosstalk to
pairs still in use and enable higher speeds to be available due to
better S/N on those pairs.>


>
>>Is it to reduce DSLAMs in the exchanges. But surely there is still some
>>sort of router/concentrator there.
>
>
> There is plenty of room in most exchanges left over from when all the
> Strowger gear was ripped out.

However quite few exchanges have been either closed (The Earls Court one
in The Boltons which has presumably had all it's customers re-routed to
Fulham and the site sold off for a nice block of flats)or the spare
space rented out for offices. (We used spare space at BT in Edinburgh
for a whole Broadcast Centre for the Commonwealth Games)
That was of course done pre-BB and is why some customers are so far from
the serving exchange - thus needing FTTC!!
>
>
>
>>Or is it just to get the high speed bits out of the exchange to scupper
>>unbundling?
>
>
> I don't think so. Other suppliers are allowed to provide over BT FTTC
> gear. IDNET and Zen both do it. In addition, there is nothing - other
> than planning consent - to stop other licensed operators putting their
> own fibre networks and multiplexers out to the streets.
>
A bit like Virgin but costing them lots of dosh!

Mike

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:23:30 +0000, m <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Sultan of Usenet wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:40:04 +0000, m made love to the words:
>>
>>
>>>Not sure if it is secret information but why oh why are there so many BT
>>>FTTC cabs so very close to exchanges?
>>
>>
>> Because even customers who are fed from cabs close to exchanges want FTTC
>> too.
>>
>>
>>>I am sure the cable length from the cab to the premises isn't much less
>>>than direct (allowing for the interception cable to the nearest old cab)
>>
>>
>> But it does not work like that. The only point you can intercept the D
>> side to the customer is in the cab. It is, apparently, not ideal to send
>> VSDL down smaller E-side cables as crosstalk and interference are a
>> concern.
>
>
>Thats an interesting point actually as well. I suppose it is possible
>that removing VDSL from the main E side cables will reduce crosstalk to
>pairs still in use and enable higher speeds to be available due to
>better S/N on those pairs.>

More to the point, IIRC, the UK access network frequency plan does
not allow for exchange-based VDSL. So it all has to be cabinet based.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:39:52 +0000, Mark made love to the words:

>>Thats an interesting point actually as well. I suppose it is possible
>>that removing VDSL from the main E side cables will reduce crosstalk to
>>pairs still in use and enable higher speeds to be available due to
>>better S/N on those pairs.>
>
> More to the point, IIRC, the UK access network frequency plan does not
> allow for exchange-based VDSL. So it all has to be cabinet based.

Good news for all those customers fed on EO cables.......

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:33:53 +0000 (UTC), Sultan of Usenet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:39:52 +0000, Mark made love to the words:
>
>>>Thats an interesting point actually as well. I suppose it is possible
>>>that removing VDSL from the main E side cables will reduce crosstalk to
>>>pairs still in use and enable higher speeds to be available due to
>>>better S/N on those pairs.>
>>
>> More to the point, IIRC, the UK access network frequency plan does not
>> allow for exchange-based VDSL. So it all has to be cabinet based.
>
>Good news for all those customers fed on EO cables.......

Indeed. And I imagine there's quite a lot of them.