Identifying whether new BT lines might provide broadband service

Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?

My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has not
been an option in the village - not because of line length but because of
"incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have recently removed
the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells you the likely speed
and any likely problems. :-(

I imagine that the "incompatible equipment" is some sort of multiplexer:
when they enquired a while ago, they were told that all the phones for the
village are multiplexed over a few lines and that BT would "never" be able
to supply any additional phone lines if people ever wanted a second line.

Recently a contractor on behalf of BT has installed a number of additional
underground lines but BT have not publicised to the householders whether
this will allow broadband. There is a lot of rumour and discussion but no
hard fact anywhere.

Is there a facility (eg a web site) for checking by exchange or phone number
whether there are plans to enable additional lines and/or remove
"incompatible equipment"?

Mortimer wrote:
> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
>

Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the
connected exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get
off it, if it is.


> My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has not
> been an option in the village - not because of line length but because of
> "incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have recently removed
> the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells you the likely speed
> and any likely problems. :-(
>

I am sure it still exists somewhere.

This one still works

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php


> I imagine that the "incompatible equipment" is some sort of multiplexer:
> when they enquired a while ago, they were told that all the phones for the
> village are multiplexed over a few lines and that BT would "never" be able
> to supply any additional phone lines if people ever wanted a second line.
>

Yes, they traded bandwith for number of subscribers. Probably on the
backhaul.

Upgrading the backhaul might mean a new microwave link, or a new fibre
into the exchange.


> Recently a contractor on behalf of BT has installed a number of additional
> underground lines but BT have not publicised to the householders whether
> this will allow broadband. There is a lot of rumour and discussion but no
> hard fact anywhere.
>

One of the better ways is to simply order it from an ISP. They will soon
tell you if it cannot be done. BT may have blown its backhaul capacity
on voice alone, which means the whole exchange is probably upgraded.



> Is there a facility (eg a web site) for checking by exchange or phone number
> whether there are plans to enable additional lines and/or remove
> "incompatible equipment"?
>
>

"The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mortimer wrote:
>> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
>> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
>>
>
> Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the connected
> exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get off it, if it
> is.

The exchange is certainly enabled, and has been since 2004, I see from the
Kitz checker below.

The problem is local loop: it looks likely that BT took the decision in the
past to save on the number of pairs by muxing them. With the newly-installed
lines (taken as a spur from a new water-pumping station nearby which had
more lines installed by BT than were needed!) maybe they will now be able to
offer one pair per house.

>> My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has
>> not been an option in the village - not because of line length but
>> because of "incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have
>> recently removed the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells
>> you the likely speed and any likely problems. :-(
>>
>
> I am sure it still exists somewhere.
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php

That seems to be saying that 256 and 512 fixed and RADSL are possible. What
is the maximum line length for ADSL these days? Kitz is giving a by-road
distance of about 6.5 km.

I think my parents will be pleased with any speed of broadband: even 256 is
better than about 30-35 by dial-up.

Mortimer wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
>>> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
>>>
>> Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the connected
>> exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get off it, if it
>> is.
>
> The exchange is certainly enabled, and has been since 2004, I see from the
> Kitz checker below.
>
> The problem is local loop: it looks likely that BT took the decision in the
> past to save on the number of pairs by muxing them. With the newly-installed
> lines (taken as a spur from a new water-pumping station nearby which had
> more lines installed by BT than were needed!) maybe they will now be able to
> offer one pair per house.

Mmm. you are talking party line,. I don't think I have seen party line
since the 60's: It's far more likely it was the excahnge capacity below
par sharing 'trunks' than two people on one twisted pair..


>
>>> My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has
>>> not been an option in the village - not because of line length but
>>> because of "incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have
>>> recently removed the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells
>>> you the likely speed and any likely problems. :-(
>>>
>> I am sure it still exists somewhere.
>>
>> This one still works
>>
>> http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php
>
> That seems to be saying that 256 and 512 fixed and RADSL are possible. What
> is the maximum line length for ADSL these days? Kitz is giving a by-road
> distance of about 6.5 km.

Ouch! I get 4,5Mpbs indicated on the kitz site, which is pretty much
what I DO get..thats at 2.8km. I'd guess you wouldn't see much over
1Mbps at 6.5km.

But that's still not bad. at lest you still get the 448k upload speeds.

That was MY reason to go up from 512k to Max..better uploads.

>
> I think my parents will be pleased with any speed of broadband: even 256 is
> better than about 30-35 by dial-up.
>

Of course. Look go to a DECENT ISP - people here seem to rate IDNET -
and try and order it.

If it 'cant be done' they will get back to you, but at least BT will get
a message saying 'yet another person in Fuctup-in-the-Marsh wants broadband'

They tend to record that data, and enable/rewire places that look
profitable..



>
>

"The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mortimer wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will
>>>> support broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to
>>>> now?
>>>>
>>> Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the
>>> connected exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get
>>> off it, if it is.
>>
>> The exchange is certainly enabled, and has been since 2004, I see from
>> the Kitz checker below.
>>
>> The problem is local loop: it looks likely that BT took the decision in
>> the past to save on the number of pairs by muxing them. With the
>> newly-installed lines (taken as a spur from a new water-pumping station
>> nearby which had more lines installed by BT than were needed!) maybe they
>> will now be able to offer one pair per house.
>
> Mmm. you are talking party line,. I don't think I have seen party line
> since the 60's: It's far more likely it was the excahnge capacity below
> par sharing 'trunks' than two people on one twisted pair..

I dont think they are party lines: there's never an occasion when you pick
up the phone to make a call and hear an existing conversation from the other
person that you share the party line with. The last time I remember coming
across a party line was when my friend's parents had one in the late 60s and
early 70s.

You could be right about the exchange capacity, but I understood that it's a
problem to this specific village and maybe a few other equally outlying
communities, rather than the whole exchange which also serves a nearby town
and provides broadband perfectly well to them.

What is a DACS? I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing
several houses over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather than
time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally incompatible with
broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than just the
multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a DACS that was the
"incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.

>> Kitz is giving a by-road distance of about 6.5 km.
>
> Ouch! I get 4,5Mpbs indicated on the kitz site, which is pretty much what
> I DO get..thats at 2.8km. I'd guess you wouldn't see much over 1Mbps at
> 6.5km.
>
> But that's still not bad. at lest you still get the 448k upload speeds.

Yes, a 1 M / 448 k service would be great. Even 512/384 would be a
significant improvement.

If my parents order broadband at present, will BT just reject the
application on the grounds of "incompatible equipment on the line - now sod
off" or will they say to the ISP "we can't do it right now but we've got
plans to upgrade the lines any day soon".

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 11:32 pm, in MID
<(E-Mail Removed) >, Mortimer
((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:


> I dont think they are party lines:

Neither do I. IIRC, party lines - the old "shared service" arrangement -
disappeared when exchange switches went digital.

> there's never an occasion when you pick
> up the phone to make a call and hear an existing conversation from the
> other person that you share the party line with. The last time I remember
> coming across a party line was when my friend's parents had one in the
> late 60s and early 70s.
>
> You could be right about the exchange capacity, but I understood that it's
> a problem to this specific village and maybe a few other equally outlying
> communities, rather than the whole exchange which also serves a nearby
> town and provides broadband perfectly well to them.
>
> What is a DACS?

A 2 channel PCM thingy, for squirting 2 lines down one pair of wires. Both
lines can be used at the same time without interfering with each other.

DSL doesn't work over DACS.

> I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing
> several houses over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather
> than time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally incompatible
> with broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than
> just the multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a DACS
> that was the "incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.

Or a.n.other kind of incompatible service - Line Concentrator, TPON etc.


--
Ian...

"ian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wednesday 09 July 2008 11:32 pm, in MID
> <(E-Mail Removed) >, Mortimer
> ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>
>
>> What is a DACS?
>
> A 2 channel PCM thingy, for squirting 2 lines down one pair of wires. Both
> lines can be used at the same time without interfering with each other.
>
> DSL doesn't work over DACS.

Where is the customer end of the DACS fitted - beside the master socket in
each house or on the pole from which the lines radiate to the houses. I
remember when my parents first got a phone at the cottage (early 90s,
maybe), there was a big black box on the wall beside the master socket but
this was later removed.

>> I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing
>> several houses over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather
>> than time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally
>> incompatible
>> with broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than
>> just the multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a DACS
>> that was the "incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.
>
> Or a.n.other kind of incompatible service - Line Concentrator, TPON etc.

So what's a line concentrator, then? Is it another form of DACS which allows
more than two calls to be multiplexed by PCM? Wikipedia doesn't have an
entry for line concentrator.

Mortimer wrote:

> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?

Did you ask BT directly ? If you can get through to a UK member of staff they
can be very helpful.

Graham

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:21:47 +0100, "Mortimer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>So what's a line concentrator, then? Is it another form of DACS which allows
>more than two calls to be multiplexed by PCM? Wikipedia doesn't have an
>entry for line concentrator.

In the "old days" line concentrators were analogue devices that could
connect a number of customers in a given area to the exchange over a
much smaller number of trunks. A typical size was 80 customers using
16 trunks (+ 2 control/power pairs) back to the exchange.

They were still being installed on digital exchanges when I left BT
(about 13 years ago) but I don't know what the situation is now.

It was done "on demand" with a small switch at each end selecting a
trunk and physically connecting the customer to that trunk when they
needed to make/receive a call. When the call ended the trunk was
released back to general use.

The most common ones were known as "GFellers", after their Swiss
manufacturer, and utilized a very neat set of mini crossbar switches
at each end.


--
Ian

The from address is valid

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:07:15 +0100, ian passed an empty day by writing:

> On Wednesday 09 July 2008 11:32 pm, in MID
> <(E-Mail Removed) >, Mortimer
> ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>
>
>> I dont think they are party lines:
>
> Neither do I. IIRC, party lines - the old "shared service" arrangement -
> disappeared when exchange switches went digital.
>
>> there's never an occasion when you pick up the phone to make a call and
>> hear an existing conversation from the other person that you share the
>> party line with. The last time I remember coming across a party line
>> was when my friend's parents had one in the late 60s and early 70s.
>>
>> You could be right about the exchange capacity, but I understood that
>> it's a problem to this specific village and maybe a few other equally
>> outlying communities, rather than the whole exchange which also serves
>> a nearby town and provides broadband perfectly well to them.
>>
>> What is a DACS?
>
> A 2 channel PCM thingy, for squirting 2 lines down one pair of wires.
> Both lines can be used at the same time without interfering with each
> other.
>
> DSL doesn't work over DACS.
>
>> I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing several houses
>> over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather than
>> time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally incompatible
>> with broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than
>> just the multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a
>> DACS that was the "incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.
>
> Or a.n.other kind of incompatible service - Line Concentrator, TPON etc.

Could they be Gfella (don't remember the oddball spelling). From memory
these came in a number of sizes. The worst one I have dealt with had 16
'trunks' feeding some 60 odd customers. The idea being when the handset
was lifted the concentrator sensed it and looked for a spare trunk to
provide dial tone. The crux of it being that nobody had a physical pair
going back to the exchange and if customer 17 tried to pick up there was
no service.

The straw that broke the donkeys back was the dial up modem. With these
grabbing the line for hours whilst people went surfing the web, 56k
style, meant trunks were tied up and service compromised.

When I left BT they were still in use, but somewhat rare. The only other
thing that I recall was 'incompatible' was TPON - but I've never seen or
worked on one and, to be totally honest, I have no idea what it is. My
best guess is that it's a fibre unit parented off an exchange providing
multiplexing. This would also be 'incompatible'.

One thing is nearly certain. For small developments the only 'new'
network will be the part in the development itself. BT rarely spend any
money beyond that point until the wet string is really bust. It normally
means 100 metres nice new copper - the rest all old crap ;-)

--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe