oh, ok. I misunderstood. Like the good old days when you ordered ISDN
64, because that featured free fibre installation, cancelled it after a month and ordered a 2Mbps link to the ISP over it afterwards :-)used to be £3500 back in the day.
But yes, you need to have a reason for that. But seriously it is in Openreach's interest to go FTTP as fast as it can. Its lower maintenance and higher speeds.
Of course if you want it sooner and have £3500 burning a hole on yer pocket...
That will not be done by openreach then Even new build had underground ducts added where appropriate
How do the photons know which way to go?
They don't know. Some go down each route and the box at the customer end works out which signals are intended for it and which are to be ignored - just like cable television type internet services. As all the downstream signals come from the same device there is no problem with clashes. The uplink signals come from all the different customer boxes and they could transmit simultaneously which would cause data to be lost. To avoid this, the uplink is divided into timeslots and there is a protocol which allows the customer box to request the use of particular timeslots for uplink transmission so that only one device transmits at a time. In this direction the splitter acts as a combiner. John
+1. and because all the customers get each others data, its encrypted.
FTTP is cheap to install, FTTPoD on the other hand is an open ended cost. I did investigate it a bit, but it was almost impossible to find anyone who would offer it, and it was likely to be north of £9K for installation. In the end not worth it since I knew the FTTP would be along in a year or two.
And there is less chance some lowlife will come along and try and pull a few km of it out of a duct with a Land Rover!
In message <si1tch$cvl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid writes
A few years back, someone worked out that the scrap value of BT/OR's copper holdings exceed BT's stock market value.
Adrian
In message snipped-for-privacy@brightview.co.uk>, John Rumm snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.null writes
Given that some of the aforementioned lowlife aren't that bright, I wonder how long (how many removals) it will take them to work out that the copper has been replaced by fibre.
Adrian
That would be dim of them!
Oh good.
Owain
you can do your own encryption by using a VPN....
Everyone's light goes to everyone's house (on the same splitter) the ONT filters out everyone else's packets.
Maybe not everyone, but they did our entire village.
Andy
Here they are playing leapfrog - people who could not get FTTC are now on FTTP
No doubt once they have achieved the government target, they will look to replace FTTC
In message <si1mme$1cb7$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:18 on Fri, 17 Sep
2021, SH snipped-for-privacy@spam.com remarked:Yes, I've seen a few of those.
In message <si1rk6$123$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 11:45:25 on Fri, 17 Sep
2021, The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid remarked:
There's one in my street. The racks of connectors which are inside a street cabinet are on arms which hinge up so they are accessible from pavement level.
Bollocks. Huge numbers of 1970's houses had phone lines direct buried under all the grass verges, with sealed connectors where a 4-wire armoured cable went under the front garden and up onto the front wall of the house. That's how the *GPO* did things in those days.
But not to the Chinese.
When I spoke to the linesman who did mine, he said they made sure everything fibre was festooned in yellow stickers to point out they were fibre!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required