Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

UPDATE BT Prep UK Fibre-to-the-Remote-Node FTTRN Broadband Trials

Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 (8:11 am) - Score 6,499

The Superfast North Yorkshire project in England, which last week touted extra funding to help reach their 100% coverage target for BT’s “fibre broadband” (FTTC/P) network (here), now looks set to become the first UK county to trial the operators latest Fibre-to-the-Remote-Node (FTTRN) technology for even faster speeds.

Most people probably haven’t heard of FTTRN before and indeed it’s not a popular acronym for the technology being proposed, which holds more than a passing similarity to the Fibre-To-The-Distribution-Point (FTTdp) approach that we’ve reported on before. Ofcom wants BT to conduct a trial of FTTdp before the end of its 3-year Fixed Telecoms Market Review period and FTTRN might well be their answer.

According to SNY’s latest update document, which was spotted via way of a post on Thinkbroadband, BT’s proposed FTTRN service could eventually deliver speeds of above 25Mbps (Megabits per second) to 5,000 premises in the area, with the trial itself expected to involve a much smaller figure in the market town and civil parish area of Leyburn (Richmondshire).

In this update the FTTRN solution is described as being a variant of Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC) but using “small cabinets that can be attached to telegraph poles etc.” (you can explain FTTdp in a similar way). In theory this could, depending upon how it’s deployed, also shorten the run of copper cable between homes and the “remote node” to improve speeds (assuming they do take the fibre optic cable all the way to the node but they might not).

One other significant bonus extracted from the latest update is that we now have a better idea of how many premises in North Yorkshire’s roll-out plan will actually be able to receive “superfast” (25Mbps+) download speeds (4.2.1 below).

SNY Status Update – FTTRN Trial Plans

4.2 BT Proposal

4.2.1 Following lengthy negotiations with BT since October 2013, BT have now proposed that they will connect a further 17,700 premises delivering 11,100 premises above 25Mbs. For the Intervention Area this will see 97% (188,404) of premises connected to fibre broadband with 83% (161,044) above 25Mbs; this is equivalent to 89% in the combined IA and commercial areas. Because this additional spend with BT effectively reduces the cost to BT of fulfilling their USC obligation BT has released £2m (of the £5m referred to in paragraph 3.1.4 above) to augment the additional funding of £8m.

4.2.2 BT have indicated that within this funding envelope a further 5000 premises may be uplifted to above 25Mbs using Fibre to the Remote Node (FTTRN). FTTRN is a variant of Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) but using small cabinets that can be attached to telegraph poles etc. This approach enables fibre to go deeper into rural areas, on a more cost effective basis, than otherwise would be the case using FTTC or FTTP. BT is still developing the FTTRN product in anticipation of it ‘solving’ their problem of getting fibre based broadband into more deeply rural areas.

4.2.3 If the FTTRN technology can be successfully deployed in North Yorkshire the further 5000 premises referred to would increase the above 25mbs coverage to 85% (166,044 premises) in the Intervention Area and 90% in the combined IA and commercial areas.

4.2.4 Because the FTTRN proposal is not substantive at this stage BT will, before 30 September 2014, confirm the number of premises that will receive above 25mbs from FTTRN/FTTC/FTTP under Phase 2.

4.2.5 SFNY will then have the option of either accepting the revised number of premises, or continuing the roll out of Phase 2 using FTTC/FTTP.

4.2.6 If SFNY choose to stop, no further payment is made to BT under the Phase 2 change request, and all other contractual obligations with respect to Phase 1 remain in place (including the USC obligation for properties with < 2mbs and the use of satellite technology being limited to 3895 premises)

4.2.7 Before 30 September 2014, BT will also confirm the additional number of >25mbs, and fibre connected, premises that could be reached, using the USC £3m, were SFNY to remove the cap on satellite provision for those not receiving 2mbs.

It’s noted that at this stage the council has not made any firm plans for the deployment of FTTRN, outside of the initial trial (assuming they green light that too), because they don’t yet know “whether FTTRN technology [is] effective“.

Naturally the use of FTTRN would attract a cost but it appears as if the scheme has found a way to handle it within the existing budget and serving 5,000 premises for the given amount (4.2.1/2 above) doesn’t seem too shabby, although it’s not cheap. “Once it was known whether FTTRN technology works, it could then be consolidated into the Phase 3 planning,” proposed council officer John Moore.

As we’ve said before, BT currently has no plans to roll-out a national Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) style network due to the lengthy timescales and high costs involved. But the idea of shortening their runs of existing copper cable via FTTdp / FTTRN technology and then using Vectored FTTC or G.fast (aka – FTTC2) to boost speeds is often seen as more attractive (no need to dig up your garden for it etc.),

However a complex web of nodes might also make BT’s network harder to maintain and even FTTRN / G.fast can still attract a sizeable deployment cost (albeit not the £20bn – £30bn needed for FTTH). But then that’s why you conduct real-world trials, to find the answers to such questions.

In theory a G.fast and FTTRN/dp combination could make mass market speeds of around 250Mbps plausible but it’s too early to say what BT’s approach will be and for now they’ll probably stick to FTTC’s headline rate of up to 80Mbps.

UPDATE 25th March 2014

One of our readers has noticed that the latest March 2014 newsletter for the Bedford Broadband project, which also covers Milton Keynes, has made a less specific mention of the new FTTRN technology; albeit as part of a trial under the Government’s new £10m fund. The relevant piece is as follows.

5. Technology Developments, Take Up and Other Routes to Greater Superfast Broadband Access

Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), which then uses existing copper from the cabinet to premises is the main technology of the Borough’s current broadband plan. However, Fibre to the Premise (FTTP) can be requested (‘on demand’ though typically costly) and Fibre to the remote Node (FTTrN) is being developed (and may be tested further through an Innovation Fund project). Wireless is quite capable of delivering superfast broadband (see 3) and there are fast broadband options like satellite and, increasingly, 4G mobile.

Some of these options offer the prospect of reducing costs in the current broadband project, as would superfast take up greater than the 20% assumed and a reduction in the extent of activity required to achieve a Borough-wide minimum of basic broadband … everything therefore looks to point towards much greater superfast access than originally expected.

Delicious
Add to Diigo
Mark Jackson
By Mark Jackson
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he is also the founder of ISPreview since 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on Twitter, , Facebook and Linkedin.
Leave a Comment
95 Responses
  1. Chris Conder

    It would be far better to give that funding to Gigaclear or another altnet to deliver a futureproof solution. All this is going to do is cause more hassle for overstretched openreach engineers trying to keep an obsolete phone network going. It has probably cost BT more in ‘research and development’ and ‘marketing’ than any funding could cover, and its simply to prevent anyone else getting a funding support package to start a brand new fibre network. The gfast is powered up from the customer’s home, so if they have power cuts what keeps the thing on the pole working? and do the customers know they are subsidising BT’s power bill? This job isn’t being done to help a few on the longer lines, its being done to keep those on shorter lines tied to BT. If they can keep everyone on copper they can protect their obsolete phone lines for another few years. The emperor has no clothes on.

    • Gadget

      I can’t find anywhere where it states the customer(s) will be powering the node, only their own equipment the same as any powered modem/hub, so grateful if you can post a link.

    • FibreFred

      This isn’t G.fast but then you’d know that if you read the article instead of cutting and pasting from your pre-prepared BTDigs.doc ;o)

      This sounds like a very interesting solution to those on long lines/rural areas

      Do Gigaclear operate in North Yorks? I think its just their own backyard isn’t it?

    • Unknown101

      Chris Conder – the amount the government are subsidising this roll out wouldn’t touch 1/10 of the UK like most articles say it would cost between 20-30bn in funding so BT bringing the fibre closer to everyone’s property and then offering them FOD is the best way to keep most people happy. People who want fibre into their homes can pay to have FOD people happy with a subsidise fibre network brought closer to their homes and speeds above what their currently getting can just have the basic FTTC/FTTCRN/FTTDP/FTTC with an amplifier or FTTC 4G. This keeps the majority of people happy.

    • Ignitionnet

      This isn’t just BT’s R+D. This is, as with the FTTC cabinets, hardware from commercial suppliers using standards BT, among others, contributed R+D to.

      Gigaclear et al have quite specific requirements for deployments that make areas viable for them and, due to not offering an open access solution, do not meet the requirements for BDUK regardless.

    • George

      You are quite correct chris as i have previously pointed out to the multi nick troll the consumer pays for the powering of G.Fast and similar using BTs solution.

      https://neil-fairbrother.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/1/gfast-a-high-speed-cul-de-sac

      Read from about a quarter of the way down where it says “Is G.Fast the answer? Alas, no.” as the sub-heading.

    • No clue

      One does have to wonder how long this troll has been stalking Chris both on here and on thinkbroadband with its alternate nicks that agree with itself every hour
      http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6373-progress-report-from-north-yorkshire.html

  2. JJ

    …not to mention the FWA operators already supplying superfast connections in North Yorkshire, that have been paid for by the public purse. Disgraceful truth be know.

  3. Unknown101

    FTTPRN will feed upto 60 lines so I doubt there going to put it on a 20 pair DP, they’ll more likely feed it to the beginning of a 100 pair feed and put one ECI remote node there and wait to see demand before putting another node on the cable.

  4. Chris Conder

    http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/huawei-gfast-fttdp-copper-bt-129855 there you go Gadget.

    dear fibrefred, I never cut and paste apart from links. Its the same principle as gfast and getting power to poles would add a lot to the cost, so it stands to reason that is what they will do?
    I think Gigaclear or altents like them will operate anywhere they can get backhaul. ie dark fibre. So would plenty of other groups but many would need kickstart funding. That is why its imperative that BT convince the councils not to give it to them. That is why we’re all being tied to a monopoly and old phone lines.
    I don’t think BT need the funding with their enormous revenue, they just need to stop any competition in its tracks.

    101, FOD is not affordable to those who really need it. Its far cheaper to use an altnet. It was just a sop to the councils, and will not be used especially now there has been a price hike and of course the ‘excess construction charges’.

    • FibreFred

      These units have a variety of power options including being fed from the exchange using existing pairs.

    • JNeuhoff

      “I don’t think BT need the funding with their enormous revenue” Fully agree, stop giving taxpayer’s money to BT, and srap the BDUK!

    • TheFacts

      Without the BDUK scheme and not funding BT how would we get the planned rollout in the next 2 years?

    • FibreFred

      Jn is I’m alright jack he doesn’t want those with no access to the super fast commercial rollout to have any hope of any better speeds.

      Although I bet if Fuji had one a bid with mostly fttc he wouldn’t have minded , it’s just a hatred of Bt

    • Unknown101

      Chris – yeah FOD is too expensive for the ones who want faster broadband, so they can just have all of the things I’ve mentioned. Then for all the people or companies who need the next step (FTTP) can pay for it. £3bn won’t give everyone FTTP but it’ll give most people a stop gap which will increase their speeds. £3bn wouldn’t touch the edge of a national FTTP rollout!

    • Gadget

      Thanks for the link – I think other folk have already picked up on the “can” not “will be” for power.
      Also on the subject of power BT have their own poles but also share poles with another utility – guess which one?

    • George

      BT G.Fast and similar is not the answer and BTs implementation as Chris points out does mean the consumer powers the kit…

      https://neil-fairbrother.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/1/gfast-a-high-speed-cul-de-sac
      From quart down the page where it starts… “Is G.Fast the answer? Alas, no.”

      ‘Here’s a picture of the telegraph pole at the top of my drive. Notice the lack of power sockets to provide the required power to these new micro-DSLAMs. The proposal for electricity supply to these “DSLAMs-on-a-stick” is that they are powered by “reverse power from the customer’s residential gateway” – in other words the necessary new routers (Home Hubs) needed in homes will also feed power back from the home to the DSLAMs. We, the end users, will be powering BT’s network (assuming BT deploys this technology which their Bill Murphy has said publicly that they will).’

    • No clue

      Seems pretty clear cut

    • No clue

      When have BT been sure on anything? In fact how many of their “trials” actually make it pass that stage?

    • DTMark

      “£3bn wouldn’t touch the edge of a national FTTP rollout!”

      No, it wouldn’t. But, you seem to be disregarding the idea of private investment, and assuming that the taxpayer must pay the whole sum. Why?

    • FibreFred

      So… some marketing blogger doesn’t like G.Fast and that’s it, its dead in the water, he’s the ultimate authority, lol… I’m sure you can find a blogger that will denounce everything, everyone with a blog is an expert.

    • FibreFred

      DTMark

      It doesn’t really matter that much does it? Unless private investment equals at least £17bn which we know it won’t

    • Unknown101

      DTMark – Well I don’t see any other company with their money trying to do a NATIONAL broadband upgrade. All these altnets are just basing themselves in tightly packed “posh” villages who are far away from Openreach exchanges, Virgin won’t grow any bigger apart from the odd new estate or MDU, Sky definitely can’t afford to build their own network further than the exchanges… etc etc. Only one company applied for the BDUK grants, well two but the other dropped out because it obviously bit off more than it could chew with regards to the specifics of the contract. So unless any other company is willing to fork out £20-£30Bn for a national FTTP rollout then FTTC is unfortunately all your going to get with the £1.oddBn the government has invested with the opportunity for the people who WANT a FTTP speed to pay for it via FOD. There will be many other option for people who still have a long line after FTTC, which involve a FTTC amplified, FTTC 4G, FTTCRN & even the FTTC cabinet being brough closer an a smaller SPCP installed.

    • JNeuhoff

      @TheFacts: “Without the BDUK scheme and not funding BT how would we get the planned rollout in the next 2 years?” Posters have explained to you alternative public investments models with proper ROI several times over in the past. Hence, it amazes me how you repeatedly keep on asking the same stupid questions. BT is a private company, with annual incomes bigger than the wasted taxpayer’s money, this company is NOT a charity in need of money. Even some of the hardcore BT trolls have admitted here that the BDUK process is flawed!

    • FibreFred

      JNeuhoff, I personally don’t remember seeing your alternative funding model apart from scrap HS2 which doesn’t count. But whatever it is why not inform the government? Ranting on this site won’t help its a government decision?!

    • DTMark

      From this blog:

      http://br0kent3l3ph0n3.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/mps-lords-to-face-anger-over-failing-uk-broadband-roll-out/

      “Quoting from the National Audit Office report on the rural broadband roll-out, the DBF said, “The department (of culture media and sport said) its aim was to achieve the most possible with the given funding, not to lever the maximum amount of private investment.”

      Yes, you read that right. There was no attempt to look ahead or to plan for the future, it was a tick-box exercise in spending taxpayer’s money.

      Taxpayer’s money spent – tick.

    • JNeuhoff

      “JNeuhoff, I personally don’t remember seeing your alternative funding model ”

      I was talking to TheFacts, not to you. Make up your mind of what user id you want to use here!

    • FibreFred

      ^ I know you were and I was speaking direct to you on the same subject (hope that is ok), posting from my only id. I’m asking the same question as he is, so lets hear it?

    • Raindrops

      DTMark quoting blogs or any other link that disputes the garbage he spreads in here is not evidence enough for him.

    • George

      You can link to all types of evidence but you can not educate an idiot 🙂

  5. colin

    Yes, having more equipment beyond any PCP/FTTC will add strain for Openreach.
    Putting that aside, small self contained nodes on a DP should not require much maintenance and would be powered by the home gateways of the end users.

    Available funding can only push fibre so far and that’s why telcoms need to look at the last mile of copper. One way forward would be to bond all copper pairs from the FTTC to the DP and save on fibre costs to the DP (FTTDP). This tech is available from http://www.genesistechsys.com/products/dsl-rings

  6. Matthew Williams

    Hopefully the trial goes well and BT can start to consider deploying this technology nation wide by 2020 think that is a reasonable timeline for it at least. Certainly a solution to the existing problem a national FTTP project is just not feasible. Imagine if national FTTdp happened FOD would be cheaper as it would only be from the mast to your house the work would need be done so if people want a true fibre connection they will be able get.

  7. George

    “..a further 5000 premises may be uplifted to above 25Mbs using Fibre to the Remote Node (FTTRN)..”

    “MAY BE” they do not seem that confident in the tech.

    • FibreFred

      Seems like a safe enough phrase to use based on the fact its in trial and its 5000 prems

    • George

      So they are not entirely sure it will deliver 25+Mb?

    • Dan Dodex

      What do you think “trial” means?

    • Raindrops

      I imagine he thinks trial means the same as me. A method to test said product and its capabilities. In which case they should not know what the capabilities are of the product BEFORE said trial, or instigate they do with guesstimations.

    • George

      Indeed that is what i thought a trial was and why you would need one. If you know how it performs already (or like BT want to pretend you know) what is the point in testing something you know will perform at 25+Mb already?

    • TheFacts

      Product trials are not just about the technology, they include the processes to order, install and maintain it.

    • FibreFred

      TheFacts , been through this before with the same person albeit he was using a now burnt and unusable alias.

      Trials are not just tech trials they also trial ordering processes, costs etc etc, all lost on the poor soul. You’d think after spending so long trolling this site he’d actual learn something sadly it doesn’t seem to be the case.

      But going back to this trial I doubt its a trial of the capabilities of the unit itself which are known, more about where to place it and what you can get out of it because as ever its all dependent on line length quality etc

    • Raindrops

      “Product trials are not just about the technology, they include the processes to order, install and maintain it.”

      Oh i see so BT do not know how to process an order, or bolt things to a pole. That explains why engineers often fail to turn up. As to knowing the capabilities already that goes back to the why say “MAYBE” 25Mb then?

    • TheFacts

      Includes the ISPs modifying their systems to able to order etc.

    • Raindrops

      Oh really so now multi ISPs are involved in this trial of 5000 homes. LMAO of course they are its not just BT.

    • TheFacts

      Why won’t the ISPs, including BT, be involved? How many ISPs do FTTC?

    • George

      How many of the 5000 in the trial are NOT BT retail customers then?
      How about you tell us that and then i link to the evidence which makes your guess figures look dimwitted.

  8. MikeW

    [Also posted on the North Yorkshire story from earlier this week]

    Note that “Superfast North Yorkshire” haven’t actually announced funding for 100% coverage.

    The story (earlier this week) repeats the rather vague “goal” of 100% by 2017 that the council has always had – but there has been no further allocation of funds, or any extra plans made.

    What *has* happened is that the council have been given another progress report on phase 1, along with a slightly more detailed plan for phase 2.

    The phase 2 funds were given to SFNY in October 2013. On 29th october, the council approved allocation of £3m, which allowed them to accept £3m from BDUK and £2m from ERDF. The council approved the money back then, but did not approve that it should be spent with BT. Stories are on here somewhere.

    The new event this week is that SFNY has reported more progress to NYCC, and has put forward a tentative plan to spend the money with BT; it remains tentative because it depends on the trial of FTTRN. The council approved this tentative plan.

    The tentative plan still only targets 90% or so with superfast speeds. The tranche-2 cash is still needed to go deeper.

    • DTMark

      The article reads as 83% with potential access to superfast speeds leaving 17%.

      The proposed solution appears to take this to 85% still leaving another 15%.

      For those without the remote node technology left with the dead-end solution of VDSL (I’ll wait for a BT shareholder to pipe up about “Fibre on Demand”), in as little as five years, there will need to be another project. Then another project. And so on.

      Rather than being cost effective this strikes me as an extremely expensive – indeed, potentially, the most expensive – way to deploy a broadband network.

    • JNeuhoff

      @DTMark: Longterm cost-effective FTTP investment with ROI, and without placing a burden on the taxpayers, is a concept many of the BT trolls don’t understand.

    • TheFacts

      @JNeuhoff – £20B? investment first? Where is the ROI when many properties will want to pay £20/month and FTTC/VM offers them a solution?

    • JNeuhoff

      @TheFacts: You just don’t get it, and keep on asking the same stupid question.

      How about you come with a proposal where NO taxpayer’s money is wasted on broadband?

    • FibreFred

      JNeuhoff, if you have those details why not share them with TheFacts and he might stop asking 🙂 just an idea

    • JNeuhoff

      @FibreFred: Again, I wasn’t talking to you. And it won’t stop TheFacts asking his same stupid questions. He was already given details in the past but doesn’t want to hear it because of his vested financial interests as regards BT. Just remember, it’s your taxpayer’s money, too, being wasted here. BT won’t give you a break!

    • FibreFred

      Ok, just asking! 🙂

  9. Thanks Mark. The document does not refer to any effciency gains so the current doc says 399 cabs service 107k premises. If we extrapolate this to 149k premises for phase 1, this suggests 559 cabs for £26.4m or £47k subsidy each.

    There is no reference to the exceptional cost of power or the amount of new duct dug in the document.

    In terms of NAO/PAC the £47k was to include lots of future proofing for Fibre on Demand, yet there is no reference to it here, just worries about spending more to over build the USC.

    BT suggested NI + 12.5% at PAC which puts us at c£15-£16k subsidy range. Are you in a position to ask Nynet if they have paid 71% of £26.6m funding pot, or what invoices have been presented to reach 399 cabinets?

  10. Michael

    Pole Mounted ADSL2+ and VDSL2 units have been available from manufacturers around the world since 2008. So in raw technology terms this is now 4-5 years old. BT announced in their Fiancial reports to analysts 2 years ago that they intended to look at pole mounted 24 – 60 port devices. The smallest I have seen used is a 12 port unit. Most use aerial Fibre as backhaul to the unit where countries allow overhead fibre in their regulations.
    Some units do power from customer premise, some from electricity to the pole locally, and some from copper wires from the exchange as power bearers.

    I guess the nature of the trial is more to do with the economics and serviceability of pole mounted electronics, and see if it throws up good design criteria which scale.

    This is a replica of ADSL unit architectures from over 15 years ago when I was the product mananger for such devices, focussed on rural villages around the globe.

  11. finaldest

    BT could raise 20 billion to roll out FTTH by doing the following:-

    25 million homes in the UK paying an extra £7 per month line rental for 10 years would yield the necessary funds to roll out FTTH nationally.

    £7 per month over 10 years = £840 per household.
    £840 x 25,000,000 households in UK = 21,000,000,000.

    So BT would need to raise 2.1 billion each year based on a 10 year FTTH roll out.

    • In current Ofcom market review for 2014-2017 (Fixed line access, Wholesale Broadband Access) Ofcom proposing c£85pa to recover from each copper pair including £17 pa for the drop wire which they say has a ten year life. Given e-side to PCP/VDSL cab is now fibre, it would take 2 lines to change in the current review to put an incentive in place to begin what you describe.

      But it looks unlikely as we have no recognisable ‘market failure’! So yes and it is easier than we think to start the process.

    • Unknown101

      Can you imagine what consumers would say if everyones prices were raised by £7 a month – people go crazy when they go up 50p! Also youll need to increase any taxes appropriately. Would be more than £7 each line.

    • JNeuhoff

      Also think about the fact that BT is one of the biggest copper mines in the UK, worth up to £50 Billion with its old copper assets. It is madness to run parallel network infrastructures of both old copper and fibre, the latter should REPLACE copper.

    • TheFacts

      How do you calculate £50B? Scrap coated wire looks to be £1/kg and 100 pair could be 1kg/m. So 1p/pair/m.

    • From Johm Moore figures he is paying an average subsidy £47k to serve 268 customers. If 20% of these take service you have spent £800 each on FTTP. FTTC makes sense at £15k subsidy per cab, but these subsidy rates are enough to get FTTP moving.

    • JNeuhoff

      75m miles of copper cabling and that using a £5,000 per tonne spot price for copper this could be worth around £50bn. But then again, TheFacts knew that already, as usual he’s just desperately trying to defend his beloved BT. He keeps asking the same questions.

      It is a rough figure, because we can still debate the copper mining/extraction costs, even if the latter costs Billions, it is by far still worth an undertaking. And TheFact’s tax payer’s money could still be spent on the useless HS2 🙂

    • TheFacts

      I calculate £2.16B for 120M km of 0.5mm diameter pairs. Less cost of recovery. Where have I gone wrong?

    • TheFacts

      @JN – please, as they say, show your workings.

    • Raindrops

      Why should he show his workings when you just spurt figures like an uncontrolled fat whale.

    • TheFacts

      0.5mm dia Cu is 1.8kg/km x 2 x 120M km = 432Mkg. x £5k/1000kg = £2.16B.

    • George

      Dunno how or where you think kg and km are the same thing or can be calculated from each other.

    • George

      Oh forgive are you calculating it based on a single pair, what are you going to do with that single pair?

    • TheFacts

      Cu is 9000kg per cubic metre. Basic maths.

    • Raindrops

      Err but you are not dealing with a cubic metre, unless suddenly your 0.5mm diameter cable is going to be a square bit of cable?

    • Raindrops

      Cubic millimetre
      the volume of a cube of side length one millimetre (0.001 m) equal to a microlitre
      1 mm3 = 0.000000001 m3 = 10-9 m3 = 1 µL

      SO yeah as a was saying, spurts nonsense figures.

    • George

      I did not even spot that rather obvious flaw in his drunken equation.

    • TheFacts

      Please show the correct calculation for 75M miles.

    • George

      I think it is more fair you try again as it is you who initially rubbished a users figures and then went on to try to explain 0.5mm wire is cubic in shape.

    • TheFacts

      Still think mine are correct, please show your calculations.

    • No clue

      For your workings to be correct you would have in excess of a 240km squared block of copper.

      That is a block of copper over 149 miles in length, height and width.

      Or to put it in some perspective. That is a block roughly 4x the distance of Manchester to Leeds in length and almost half the height of the country of Ireland.

      That is one fecking big lorry that is going to deliver your bargain priced bit of copper. I suggest you recalculate, or better yet leave the maths to people with more than a single ball on the abacus.

    • TheFacts

      George/No clue/Raindrops – what happened to maths education?

      Read this very carefully, I shall type it only once.

      0.5mm diameter is 0.25mm radius. The area is πr² so equals 0.2 sq mm. 2 wires per pair so 0.4 sq mm per circuit. Converted to sq metres is 4 x 10^-7

      120M km is 1.2 x 10^11 metres. Volume is area times length so equals 4 x 10^-7 x 1.2 x 10^11 which is 48000 cubic metres. About 400 London buses taking up 4.4km.

      The density of copper is 9 tonnes or 9000kg per cubic metre so the weight is 48000 x 9 = 432,000 tonnes. JN uses a figure of £5,000 per tonne so we have an answer of 432,000 x 5,000 = £2.16 billion.

      Note we are calculating the weight, the shape of the wire does not matter.

    • No clue

      “0.5mm diameter is 0.25mm radius….”

      Too bad that was not your calculation…
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/03/north-yorkshire-moot-bt-trial-fibre-remote-node-broadband-tech.html#comment-139360

      Where you clearly say 0.5mm cubic. Which does not even make it round in the first place, right from the start of your equation.

      You then did “1.8kg/km x 2 x 120M km” which equates out to a chunk of copper that is over 240km cubic. That is a 149 mile cube, that would make your chunk of copper whether you want to call it cubic or not taller than any building on earth and technically if you stood it on end be it a round or square shape if you want to remove your cubic equation still be more than double the height NASA defines as reaching outer space (which is 100km or 62 miles).

      You are still going to need one fecking large lorry to deliver it. Even if it was just a thin strand which was wound or on a massive spool, that spool itself if you now want to talk diameters would be the size of a small county in this country.

      I suggest you quit thinking.

    • TheFacts

      Cu is the chemical symbol for copper.

      480 cubic metres is not 480x480x480 metres, it is 480 blocks 1x1x1 metre.

    • FibreFred

      TheFacts, please don’t feed the troll. I can hardly believe what I’m reading here, you guys are seriously arguing the scrap value of BT’s copper assets. Not just arguing but really trying to work it out.

      Lives anyone?

    • No clue

      Just a shame he confirms in this post he is talking about cubic metres and not the chemical symbol for copper…
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/03/north-yorkshire-moot-bt-trial-fibre-remote-node-broadband-tech.html#comment-139436

    • No clue

      And also here
      http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/03/north-yorkshire-moot-bt-trial-fibre-remote-node-broadband-tech.html#comment-139619

      Cubic measurement is the volume of a cube so no idea what you are babbling about, which is no shock as you are the same individual with serious maths issues.

    • TheFacts

      If the maths is incorrect please show the correct answer.

    • No clue

      That is the difference i never claimed to know any costs involved. Unlike you i am not stupid enough to pretend i know the facts and figures and then spew garbage numbers on here. I only claim your maths is one big FAIL. Good attempt with the last minute change and trying to pretend your cu was copper and not cubic. Would had worked if you had not confirmed in numerous posts your were talking a cubic measurement already.

    • George

      So after another multi-thread discussion we have reached the same conclusion as we do in so many involving this clown of many aliases. He can not count!

  12. Darren

    As we all know, well ok some of us, FTTP isn’t feasable in one step. So BT are doing it in stages. Inching it closer to the home step by step, fibre to the cab is well underway, vectoring will improve the performance and FTTdp will follow. The final step is fibre from dp into the home.

    I am happy with that, as long as we get the fibre into the home before the bandwidth demand really hots up. Otherwise we be stuffed.

    I’m also happy for someone other than BT to bring the fibre into my home.

    Jumping up and down screaming we want FTTP now while ignoring the situation and what is actually happening isn’t acheiving anything. It would be more productive to create a donation pot named “UK FTTP Rollout” and encorage people to contribute to it (I would BTW). Then when you have your many billions you can get on with a FTTP rollout.

    • colin

      Hi Darren,
      The deployment of FTTC has been a great step forward especially when introduced into highly populated areas.
      Copper is everywhere unlike fibre so why throw away that investment and do we really need to dig up all the streets across the UK.
      For VDSL connections to the home ( the last mile) the answer ,I believe, is copper thanks to new technologies which are now available.

  13. Thanks for share the blog!!!interesting and informative one,,,i liked your blog!!!Business Broadband Packages

  14. Ignitionnet

    Reading these comments was like having dental work done without anaesthetic, except I’d rather do that than repeat this experience.

    Can we have a debate/discussion that doesn’t regurgitate the same points over and over again? Every bloody news story remotely related to FTTC/P brings out the exact same posts, with exactly the same deficiencies.

    • FibreFred

      Posted a similar comment myself, its seems like cut/paste from story to story these days. Tiresome

    • No clue

      Maybe the solution to stop the arguing in the first place is make one simple rule of only being allowed to comment on the news article and not others opinions.

      Commenting on others opinions seems to be what kicks things off, with certain individuals not liking it when they are treated the same and their opinions rubbished.

    • Ignitionnet

      To be honest I think being able to criticise other people’s opinions is an essential part of comment on news articles, and there’s no way to police such a policy anyway.

      Compulsory registration would perhaps be wise and avoid some of the accusations of multi-account trolling. Obviously not all as that has happened to me on the forum itself when I posted disagreeing with someone as they were, simply, wrong and in return was accused of being someone else, trolling, etc.

    • Raindrops

      Part of the reason if you look back the comments on this item have grown to the length they have appears to be due to a poster asking another to prove their figures, who then can not prove their own. If you are going to argue a user is wrong especially when it comes to figures you should at the very least be able to demonstrate why if you challenge them.

      There are a few on here that follow very specific posters around pestering them at every opportunity. ‘No clue’ makes mention of a good example with chris constantly being pestered by the same people in another news item. You yourself ignitionnet have made a few comments towards them in the past which are below the belt even rude for no reason apart from disagreeing (citations can be given).

      If certain people want to pester others, demand they prove things and in general make remarks towards users rather than the news item, they should then expect the exact same in return.

      We then also have the problem of what is very obviously staff/shareholders and similar of certain organisations, where even if that organisation is clearly in the wrong they will rattle off multiple posts defending them and trying do discredit anything anyone has to say.

      Perhaps if a stop was put to all that so would the lengthy diatribes that take place. As humans we interact according to circumstance, remove the circumstance and you remove the long interaction.

      Then again you could argue opinions are like a**holes everyone has one. If you do not want to attract an a**hole do not act like one yourself in the beginning. You can file me under that category if you want. Childish, maybe, meeting them at the same level most definitely.

      I will agree with you calling people trolls in a actual registered forum is wrong. On a news item though where VERY SPECIFIC individuals troll other individuals in every item, then tough they should expect the same in return, or grow up and treat others as they want to be treated.

      It is pretty simple do not pester others and they will not pester you. If you want to have a free open chat system where you can “criticise” people and their opinions you have to expect the same back. Which from my viewing seems to be what causes half the issues in the first place. Poke a hornets nest and it might sting.

      ^^^ All the above NOT aimed at specific individuals except where mentioned but observation in general.

  15. Pete

    Why Leyburn? Bar the rural farms etc, lines are short – everything is centred around a village AND it has FTTC covering the three main areas of housing….

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Promotion
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £15.00 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 30Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Code: BLACKFRIDAY
  • Vodafone £20.00 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.50
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £23.99 (*34.98)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Origin Broadband £24.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
Poll
*Javascript must be ON to vote*
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2265)
  2. FTTP (1723)
  3. FTTC (1498)
  4. Broadband Delivery UK (1480)
  5. Openreach (1213)
  6. Politics (1211)
  7. Business (1079)
  8. Statistics (952)
  9. Fibre Optic (871)
  10. Mobile Broadband (869)
  11. FTTH (803)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (800)
  13. Wireless Internet (796)
  14. 4G (753)
  15. Virgin Media (735)
  16. Sky Broadband (542)
  17. TalkTalk (519)
  18. EE (502)
  19. Vodafone (393)
  20. Security (367)
Promotion
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules