» ISP News » 

First BT Fibre-to-the-Remote-Node FTTrN Broadband Trial Set for Q4 2014

Friday, August 29th, 2014 (8:01 am) - Score 9,765

The Superfast North Yorkshire project in England has confirmed to ISPreview.co.uk that its first trial of BT’s new superfast Fibre-to-the-Remote-Node (FTTrN) broadband technology, which has the potential to deliver much faster and more stable speeds than the traditional Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC) service, is now being implemented and will be “ready to accept customer orders” in late 2014.

The FTTrN trials, which will also be taking placing in other locations such as London’s Shoreditch area and a small part of Bedford town in Bedfordshire among others, first came to light in March 2014 (here) and hold more than a passing similarity to the Fibre-To-The-Distribution-Point (FTTdp) approach that we’ve reported on before.

At present most of BT’s national superfast broadband (24-30Mbps+) roll-out involves the use of ‘up to’ 80Mbps capable hybrid-fibre FTTC, with previous little 330Mbps pure fibre optic Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP). The latter would cost tens of billions more and many additional years to roll-out across the United Kingdom, which Openreach understandably deems to be far too expensive.

By comparison FTTC is considerably cheaper, if admittedly a lot slower, and able to reach a much larger proportion of people in a shorter space of time because it only runs the new fibre optic cable up to your local street cabinet. After that the existing copper line infrastructure (between your home and the cabinet) is simply re-used via VDSL2 technology (like ADSL but faster over the shorter distance of remaining copper).

But for some deeper rural areas, and even a few urban locations, FTTC might not be the most cost effective approach and so BT intends to trial FTTrN.

What is FTTrN?

In simple terms FTTRN will work like FTTC, except that instead of taking the fibre optic cable to your local street cabinet it will run the fibre all the way up to smaller and lower power remote nodes (e.g. similar to the ECI Hi-Focus MiniCAB 64V perhaps), which can be positioned on nearby telegraph poles, inside manholes / NGA aggregation nodes or at a variety of other locations.

The nodes themselves would effectively act like tiny street cabinets and distribute the broadband service via VDSL2 using the remaining run of copper cable to your home or office. Several advantages may exist with this approach, such as the ability to avoid building an expensive FTTC cabinet, with all its cosmetic, power supply and planning complications, and the potential for a reverse power setup; although it could also be remote powered (depending upon the hardware used).

It’s possible that BT may experiment with more than one type of node and in the past they’ve mooted the idea of a reverse power approach, although this may create problems. On a traditional copper line the wire is usually remote powered by BT, which is why you can plug a basic non-battery handset in and it works even when your local electricity supply is cut (unless BT’s backup has also failed).

By comparison a reverse power approach means that the remote node would instead be powered from the customer’s premise. The cost to the end-user is likely to be fairly small (estimates vary from a few watts to 20-30W, depending upon the number of lines and how it’s managed) and this helps to make superfast broadband significantly cheaper to deploy, although equally if you suffer a power cut then your phone and broadband would also be disconnected (solutions for this may exist via a smaller backup battery).

Take note that ECI’s older minicabs, which Openreach has talked about using in the past and look set to form part of the initial trial (it’s often described to us in a way that sounds distinctly more ‘remote’ than ‘reverse’ powered), only support the more traditional remote power setup. Meanwhile other companies, such as Alcatel-Lucent, sell similar micro-nodes that support both types of power (here).

In addition, FTTrN also has the potential to help shorten the remaining run of copper cable than might otherwise be possible in a traditional FTTC setup. By doing this you not only put more homes within reach of the top 80Mbps speed (shorter copper = less interference), but you also give them the potential to benefit from even faster 100-200Mbps speeds in the future (i.e. when combined with Vectoring to tackle crosstalk interference and a 30a profile – 30MHz of spectrum vs 17.66MHz with the current 17a profile).

Going further there’s also the possibility of future G.fast (aka – FTTC2) technology being used to push some homes nearer to Gigabit speeds, although that’s still someway off and much would depend upon how close the fibre can be taken to your home. G.fast loses many of its advantages after just a few hundred metres, although that’s still enough to benefit a several million premises but experiences will dramatically vary.

The North Yorkshire Trial

BT originally indicated that a further 5,000 premises could potentially be uplifted to above 25Mbps by using FTTrN in North Yorkshire, although the trial itself will involve a significantly smaller number of premises. A spokesperson for SFNY told ISPreview.co.uk, “As the technology is engineered around serving small communities the number of premises served by each node will be low (when compared to current FTTC deployment).”

In this instance, local planning for the trial shows that there will be circa 20 premises served by the introduction of a node (we’re informed that there may also be some home-based businesses running from these premises). At the time of the first reveal BT told the local authority that they intended to conduct their pilot within the market town of Leyburn (Richmondshire), although SFNY advised us that this had been “incorrectly reported” (note: it clearly appeared in their own meeting minutes).

SFNY later clarified to ISPreview.co.uk that officially they could only confirm that Richmondshire is the right district and “the exact location of the trial will be disclosed in due course“. Indeed we’re further told that the trial will be conducted in a “remote village“, which could mean one of Leyburn’s closest outlying villages like Harmby, Wensley or Bellerby.

In any case we’re informed by SFNY that their local trial is now officially within the implementation phase (this includes the deployment of both fibre optic lines and power) and it’s anticipated to be ready to accept customer orders during late 2014. Once it’s known whether FTTRN technology works then it could be consolidated into the projects Phase 3 planning for official deployment.

It should be stressed that FTTrN won’t be viable for every location, but it does have the potential to bring superfast broadband to many more premises than currently possible and within the existing Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) programme budget. Quite how widely it will be adopted has yet to be determined and that’s part of what the trials will help BT to discover.

Leave a Comment
48 Responses
  1. Avatar Tomo says:

    If they are going to run the fibre that far they may as well go the extra step and run it to the building.

    1. Avatar FibreFred says:

      If it was as cheap to do that they’d do it?

      Obviously… it isn’t

    2. Avatar Karen says:

      Think of it as a step forward. Fibre to the Exchange, Fibre to the Cabinet, Fibre to the Remote Node – each step the fibre is getting closer.

      With the fibre just outside the house, it won’t be as expensive for the final step to run fibre from the building to the remote node. It might even make FTTPoD cost effective.

    3. Avatar Raindrops says:

      I can not understand why they can not just run it to your home either. In most though i admit not all cases the cable from your home to the pole or an underground point is only a few metres (typically from what i see around my way less than 10M) long.

      In my street and many within a couple of square miles of me this solution would not save much money at all. Cables be they fibre or copper in my area currently are ducted from the exchange to the cabinets, but after that to my house (around another 700M run of cable) there is no ducting its literally just under the pavement, ive seen them just laying there when gas and water board have gone through them in the past leaving no internet/phone for a day or so BT i must admit do quickly fix other idiots screw ups.

      If BT wanted to implement this solution in my road and many around me they would have to dig up streets all the way back to the cabinet as a minimum. Replacing another (in my case) 5M of cable from my house to the pole surely would not add massively to the cost.

      FTTrn/FTTdp for my road atleast seems just another half baked solution rather than just biting the bullet and doing the job properly.

      FTTC i can understand THAT DOES SAVE MONEY on the rollout, this though i do not see how it saves significantly.

    4. Avatar X66yh says:

      Why do you think FTTP firms like Gigaclear stop at the property boundary and leave the cost of getting the fibre from the boundary to the house to be at the householders expense.
      These firms really are not stupid – they know the cost/aggro of the final XX meters though drives, across grass under patios, though walls etc is one for them to avoid at all costs.

    5. Avatar Raindrops says:

      If you are arguing Gigaclear is basically the same thing, the why is their product 1000Mb both ways and this is not if its the same thing?

    6. Avatar FibreFred says:

      ^ What a ridiculous comment, the discussion is about cabling to the home and costs of doing so

      As X66yh says Giga (and others) leave it at the road and the rest is up to you. If there was little difference in cost I’m sure they’d fibre all the way, its very easy for armchair experts to say “go the whole stretch” without actually knowing what is involved including the financials.

      I think its a great move, if the trial works well some rural areas will have fibre closer to their homes than urban areas

    7. Avatar Raindrops says:

      They do not just leave it at road. Install cost is around £100
      Will BT FTTrn cost as little as that for install/setup? Isn’t the recommend install fee for FTTC around that price already?

      To even suggest Gigaclear is in some way expensive or in some manner similar to this BT product is complete and utter nonsense, its cheaper per month, cheaper install, faster, and all round superior.

    8. Avatar Raindrops says:

      PPS…… NO frigging dumb ass line rental either lol

    9. Avatar FibreFred says:

      Do they install it to the boundary and you can install it yourself or use their recommended installer boxcom?

      I’ll give you a clue

      Its what I said

      They leave it at the boundary, why provide a link that proves what I said and disproves what you said?

      Its ok… I know why 🙂

    10. Avatar Raindrops says:

      No different to FTTC and choosing to have openreach install or not then.

      Everything needed to install yourself is included, no idea what your point is.

      Maybe people like you have problems plugging in a wire unless it is from your fave supplier.

    11. Avatar FibreFred says:

      No, its no different. I’ll leave you to troll on to yourself

    12. Avatar Raindrops says:

      The install price is not much different to the install cost for FTTC if you decide to go for an engineer install.

      I do not see how this is trolling it was you that stated the conversation was about cabling to the home and costs of doing so. Gigaclear appears to be able to run fibre from their distribution point to you home for hundred quid. Why cant BT do that?

      How much will a install and connection for FTTdp/FTTrn be again? Significantly more is it not?

  2. Avatar MikeW says:

    Oof – while the fact the trial is going ahead and is already being implemented is good news overall, it might prove to be bad timing for the North Yorkshire project.

    Didn’t the council have to make some decisions in September about phase 2 of the project? Decisions which needed to know whether FTTRN would be a success, and would allow re-allocation of £2m from the USC budget into the phase 2 superfast budget. Phase 1 of the project is due to complete in October, so there isn’t a lot of leeway there…

    1. Avatar MikeW says:

      As a follow-up, it seems that the council were due to consider their phase 3 options (phase 3 is the one funded by SEP) in the council meeting on the 9th September. That has been postponed…

  3. Avatar Lindsey says:

    Wensley, Harmby and Bellerby are not remote. Should be further up either Swaledale or Wensleydale. Askrigg, Bainbridge,Aysgarth or Reeth would be FAR far better choices.

  4. Avatar col says:

    Can these nodes/dp’s be supplied by overhead fibre or does it need to be underground?

    1. Avatar Raindrops says:

      You would need a bloody long bit of overhead fibre cable all the way to your phone pole. Possible in some rural locations where the current cable runs for miles overhead, unrealistic in most places though.

  5. Avatar Walter G M Willcox says:

    I’d like to offer another facet to this debate from Dr Peter Cochrane who was commenting upon a similar subject last year.
    (Typos corrected)

    “All this was so obvious way back in 1986….but ‘real engineering and economics’ has been driven out of the telecoms industry. You can’t beat physics (loss and crosstalk) and you can’t stop Moore’s Law! Mini-DSlams are an insane option! To get network reliability and resilience you have to take out electronics not put more in! To get a ‘Green Network’ you have to reduce the amount of material used and energy consumed! And Mbit/s are not enough for an obvious future rushing towards us. We have to start talking Gbit/s. But if you want sub-optimal industries and a population who just sit and watch sport on TV….just keep installing copper!

    With a copper network you need over 6000 switch site in the UK. If you install optical fibre this number drops below 70. 20,000 man in van crews goes down to 1,000, and all water ingress related faults just go away. Now redo the economic argument. Go figure!

    Peter Cochrane”

    The original article is here:-


    1. Avatar Bill says:

      That would mean 19,000 man in van crews unemployed.

    2. Avatar Gadget says:

      Not sure the logic about the people reduction as the work still needs to be done at the customers premises at least until everyone has a fibre connection – so you could do it with 1000 people but the work volume and the physical travel would mean quite a pipeline and hence delay

    3. Mark Jackson Mark Jackson says:

      Pure fibre optic networks aren’t maintenance free by any stretch of the imagination and Openreach’s engineers do a lot more than mere maintenance. Certainly you could reduce the engineering team, but taking it down to 1,000? I don’t see any evidence for that claim, not without a massive quality loss. You’d need a lot more than 1k to serve the UK adequately.

      Sadly there’s not a lot of data about this aspect around but I recall various reports mentioning more modest savings of around 30%, although experiences vary.. no two networks are alike so it’s difficult to compare. Here’s another report:


    4. Avatar gerarda says:

      Unfortunately BT’s Board is infected by the same short term results incentives and pressures as most UK Plcs so achieving long term economies and the expense of resluts today is not on thier agenda

    5. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Ironic BT claim FTTH would cost too much yet they can find millions more to dig up roads all the way to a pole to lay a fibre cable and then just supply the super slow 80Mb speed. I guess the BT maths department has been at the bottle again and have double vision when it comes to the balls on the abacus.

    6. Avatar TheFacts says:

      80M is what you call superslow, any evidence of significant demand for more that fits in with a business case?

    7. Avatar Raindrops says:

      What has demand got to do with something being Super slow? 80M is super slow especially for the additional cost this FTTrn product is going to be. I spose if the trial is a success BT can always go sniffing around government like a stray dog again for more love from the tax payer.

    8. Avatar Gadget says:

      Must have missed the bit where it says there will be a new product created for FTTn which will cost more

    9. Avatar MikeW says:

      Peter Cochrane: He’s a telecom engineer of the old mould, and is right on the technical issues. In his time, some of the toughest, and most expensive, requirements on the voice comms came from the availability, resilience & network reliability needs (esp to sustain access to emergency service). Adding mini-DSLAMs would be madness if they had to meet the same availability requirements – but they don’t. All internet access is very much “best effort”.

      In 1986, it would have been a no-brainer to fibre almost everybody, without subsidy, because they’d get to offer TV channels to almost everyone. At the time, there would have been no competition from cable, satellite or terrestrial. A nice, fat, juicy, profitable monopoly.

      But BT were banned from doing that, and the space was left to regional cable companies (who probably should have used fibre). Sky then arrived, and added a huge dominating effect (by offering Sport TV, much maligned by Peter). Even Freeview means that terrestrial TV has become competitive.

      The real-world economics that have disrupted Peter’s grand plan have come about because of the way the Government have forced competition into the market, and because some of those competitors don’t care about the (expensive) high-end engineering & availability factors – they want cheap packaged offers to get bums on seats even if Sport TV is the incentive.

      Nowadays it is the competition, the regulation behind the competition, and the cheap prices offered (and sought by the majority of subscribers), that prevents the nation from affording a high-end solution for all, and scares investors from those companies pursuing it.

      As for the van-crew count: The number might go down once fibre is installed for all. But in the interim, while the old network is working and the new is being deployed, you’d need more. Over something like 20 years. The benefit only kicks in much later

    10. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      What does Mr Cochrane have to say about Sky, TalkTalk and others complaining to Ofcom that BT want to obsolete the copper access networks that they use to deliver their free / near-free ADSL?

      If people want to complain to anyone about the lack of copper replacement start with the EU, then the rubber-stampers at Ofcom as much of their regulation is implementing EU directives like many laws, then the LLU operators who want to protect their obsolete copper-based broadband base and their ability to offer obsolete services delivered over obsolete network provided by a telco required to keep that obsolete network in place for them to rent at regulated rates.

      I’m sure Openreach/BT could push harder for change but likely know it’s futile trying to so don’t waste their breath.

      Still so long as people can get crappy broadband for ‘free’ that’s the main thing for Ofcom it seems.

  6. Avatar MikeW says:

    FTTRN isn’t likely to be more expensive than FTTH: The final distance to the home might seem insignificant to you – only 200m or so – but there are millions of those connections.

    Here’s Alcatel’s take on the total cost (I’d say FTTRN would be similar to their FTT-Curb column, 48 subs per node): http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine/the-numbers-are-in-vectoring-2-0-makes-g-fast-faster/print-52/

    My take?
    On average, for the UK as a whole, each FTTC cabinet takes fibre from being 3.5km from the home (ie at the exchange) to 400m from the home. For 80,000 cabinets, that amounts to 250,000km of the fibre route done.

    If we were talking FTTdp, in a phase after FTTC, then getting fibre to the 4 million DP’s will get you 350m closer, and would amount to an extra 1.4m km of fibre routes. But that will still leave 1.4m km of routes to the 28 million premises. That last segment, from DP to home, amounts to near half the total distance, but would need separate appointments. Much harder to organise, and it appears with less ducting in place. Much more expensive.

    For FTTRN, each node is likely to serve multiple DPs, but sit further away from each home. The proportion of the line left to go, from RN to home, would be higher than half there, and correspondingly cheaper.

    I’m not so sure that, in principle, the BT Maths department have it wrong. At least they seem to understand the scale involved.

    1. Avatar Ignitionnet says:

      Cost saving of FTTdp over FTTP is reckoned to average out at between 10-20%.

    2. Avatar Raindrops says:

      “FTTRN isn’t likely to be more expensive than FTTH: The final distance to the home might seem insignificant to you – only 200m or so – but there are millions of those connections.”

      Id like to know where there are millions of homes where the drop wire (Or final bit of copper) is 200M long. Or even how you think a wire that length supports itself.

      “On average, for the UK as a whole, each FTTC cabinet takes fibre from being 3.5km from the home (ie at the exchange) to 400m from the home.”

      Utter horse manure unless you are talking radial distance rather than actual cable distance.

      The rest of you made up figures im not even going to bother with.

    3. Avatar Raindrops says:

      That sounds about right ignitionnet. The way some are speaking they think it would be massively more cost difference than that.

    4. Avatar MikeW says:


      FTTRN != FTTdp. RN != DP.

      I don’t expect the RN node to be deployed at “the DP” because I expect it to provide service for more subscribers than a single DP; this trial seems to target 20 subscribers, while Richmondshire council seem to have been told that FTTRN may bring service to communities down to 30 properties (cf standard FTTC, of 120-500 properties).

      So, for at least some of the subscribers, likely most subscribers, the distance will include the drop wire (or underground distribution wire) plus an unknown portion of the D-side. The figure of 200m is my guess, as a compromise between average drop lengths (25m) and average D-side lengths (~400m).

      The maximum length that an overhead drop-wire can support itself as a catenary is also irrelevant, as a good proportion of the country are supplied by underground lead-in wires from the DP. It also appears that some overhead drop wires run pole-pole before running to the house, making the total length irrelevant there too.

      My other figures generally come from the 2008 Sagentia report (section 2.2), which itself sources the data from a report to NICC, and gives an analysis of the BT access network. They come up with an average (median) for combined E-side and D-side lengths of ~3.5km, and an average (median) D-side length of 400-450m. Elsewhere, they say that drop wires are a min of 5m and a max of 80m.

      The figures on the Thinkbroadband site (cumulative %age of D-side) are sourced from the same report, section 2.2.2. TBB’s table suggests a median D-side length of around 430m.

      Sagentia report: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/technology-research/asses.pdf

      I also have slides from a BT presentation that describes typical E+D length (incl Drop) of 3.25km, typical D length (incl Drop) of 420m and typical Drop length of 25m (where “Drop” includes underground distribution), but I have no link to the slides. Amazing how these “typical” numbers match up with Sagentia’s calculations, though.

      Once you accept the averages, the rest of the numbers are simple maths. Hardly taxing for a back-of-fag-packet calculation.

    5. Avatar MikeW says:

      That would seem to be of the right order, provided you are comparing FTTP and FTTdp.

      However, Raindrops was complaining that BT would deploy fibre to the pole, followed by “superslow 80Mbps” service to the home.

      In that complaint, he is most certainly describing FTTRN rather than FTTdp. The closest equivalent in that Alcatel chart would probably be FTTCurb, which is < 50% of the cost of FTTP.

      It isn't a surprise to see Raindrops getting confused; he does love to add a layer of confusion into the FUD-like rants. We should take care to not perpetuate that confusion.

    6. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Nobody is confused except you over costs, line lengths and life in general.

  7. Avatar Abuse Alert says:

    @Raindrops – Is there a reason why you are unable to write a polite reply to anyone? Your language does not make your points more valid. You would not get away with it in the real world outside internet forums.

    1. Avatar MikeW says:

      You noticed that too? It is rare to have a positive contribution from Raindrops, just arguments.

      I usually make it a point to not respond to him/her; it is rarely worth the effort.

    2. Avatar Raindrops says:

      Im sorry you find anything i have to say in response not to your satisfaction, i would like to help by suggesting perhaps the easy way to avid me upsetting you is to not respond to anything i have to say. We will both be happy then.

  8. Avatar col says:

    Instead of taking fibre to the dp could you not just bond all the lines to the dp from the fttc using dsl ring tech?

    1. Avatar MikeW says:

      Technically, yes.

      However, it removes the copper from being able to be used for just voice comms, or from LLU connections, which is probably a regulatory no-no.

      It also relegates voice comms to being carried as VoIP over the DSLAM, which probably doesn’t have the robustness/reliability/availability figures to match the requirements placed on BT for voice access to emergency services.

  9. Avatar DTMark says:

    “In this instance, local planning for the trial shows that there will be circa 20 premises served by the introduction of a node”

    Good news for those 20 residents.

    Only about another 1,450,000 of these nodes left to deploy then 😉

    1. Avatar Raindrops says:

      LMAO do not confuse BT with simple maths, let them make a mess of it thereself like the FTTH rollout.

      They can claim in 5 years time anything they say now was not a commitment but just a daydream. A daydream they feel compelled to always share and then wonder why it can not be met. A daydream where there will be millions of poles with millions of new bits of equipment bolted to them and hundreds of thousands of streets dug up to run cable to these new bits of equipment.

      In the style of a mastercard advert……
      Over 1 million more bits of equipment to mount on poles
      Fibre to typically run to within around 100M of a property to a dp or pole
      Men to did up street,
      Another man to climb up poles to install equipment
      extra equipment on pole all equals cheaper than just running the fibre cable all the way to the house.

      The BT worker bees will be along any second to explain why common sense and logic makes no sense on planet BT.

    2. Avatar New_Londoner says:

      No need to use these for all premises, only those where a DSLAM doesn’t make economic sense. I believe these are more relevant to the last 5% or so of premises, not the majority where VDSL is already available and offers good speeds.

    3. Avatar New_Londoner says:

      MikeW has already given a pretty clear explanation why FTTP is more expensive, suggest you go back and read his helpful posts.

    4. Avatar MikeW says:

      If you see FTTRN as extending the coverage of superfast speeds, then an FTTRN node is going to be deployed around 1000-1200 metres beyond the existing FTTC cabinet, and provide superfast service to those in the following 1,000-1,200 metres.

      Looking at the Sagentia report again, figures 4 and 5, it seems that around 90% of lines are within 1km, leaving 10% outside that range. However, there looks to be at most 2% beyond 2km – leaving around 8% as the best possible target coverage of FTTRN (or at least, just one layer of FTTRN, anyway).

      Undoubtedly, the full 8% couldn’t be reached with this technology: not all are going to be clustered in the right kind of way, and there will still be many lone buildings left out.

  10. Avatar aggrieved cumbria says:

    glad everyone seems pleased about the alleged trial by bt of fttrn,and the so called short lengths of copper from exchange to box to home,take myself and my neighbours case,we 932 yds ish from our local box which gives us a total distnace of plus 4.5 km distance from our local exchange(bt going european measurements on us)
    it has taken me twelve years of complaints yes 12 years of complaining about noise on phone line/erratic broadband speeds,up until i became a sky subscriber i had a
    continual procession of bt engineers stating”intermittent fault nothing we can do about it”,until a old school bt engineer actually fetched out of his van a tool supplied to all bt engineers called a LAPTOP, upon being the first engineer to use this unusual testing tool,he found the cause of 99% of my problems ,a failed carriageway joint,which was raised to three way traffic lights,despite bt/openreach being aware of traffic light permission being sought from local authority,they still sent another engineer out who would,and i quote”i am going to fix this fault today”,this engineer being accompanied by an invisible to sky fellow engineer recieving training from the aforementioned quoting(the invisible engineer having visted my property 3 months prevously and coming up with the intermittent fault flannel) ,when i informed the super engineer there was a traffic light request already in,he phoneed mission control,who confirmed that fact and sent him and the invisible to sky second trainee engineer away,roll on5 days from that and my next door neighbour who is unfortunately for him a bt customer had complained to bt about the same faults,despite bt insisting there were no line fault ??,they sent an engineer out 2 days before openreachs claimed
    repair of carriageway fault,my neighbour and myself told his visting engineer that they (openreach)were due out in two days to repair a serous fault and replace 1.6km of copper cable from box to carriageway joint(openreach telling sky this),my neighbours engineer proceeded to phone mission control,and again being told to leave job as it would be cured in two days time(openreach send 2 official engineers and 1 unoffical engineer out unecesarely),scroll forwards two days to the claimed fix day,no traffic lights no engineers no nothing,me i ring sky they ring openreach @ 1030am and state they will out today without fail, still nothing a 130pm when sky did again ring openreach,who again stated they would be out on that day(wednesday),lo and behold 530pm no engineers visible or not (:,so @ 545pm i fired off a disgruntled email to chairman of bt,next day thursday i decided to ring local authority highways dept to check whether a traffic light request was in,you guessed the answer a NO,so i fired the second emailof the day off to openreach ceo accusing them of lying,kaboom reply within 15 mins from opereach ceo informing me he has given task to senoir managers to deal with asap,@ 1pm on thursday i recieve a call from my isp sky telling that openreach have informed them the job will DE£FINATELY be done the next day without fail,friday i got a call from a bt engineer @ 838 am informing me that he is waiting for traffic lights to go out hoooooooooray,along with him and a “fibre qualified” engineer(one of of 12 in our area of cumbria) plus the original laptop using fault spotting engineer, 7 hours later one carriageway fault fixed one pole connections reterminated and one new cable from pole to house along with new in house junctionand rewired master socket,all faults gone checked perfect by the laptop using old school engineer who was being chased by mission control to fix fault,hooray the first time since broadband arrived at my house i getting 3’6mbs,as opposedc to between 0.80 and 2.5mbps,my poor bt customer neighbour only getting 2.6 mbps ??,roll on 7 days later,and my broadband which had risen to a steady 3.996mbps falls through the floor on friday night (the 7th day of fixing)to 0.20mbps,sat morning sky rang me to tell of that,to which i was unaware asdi was out till early hours saturday morning,sky managed to resync mybband to 2’1mbps on the saturday,along comes monday and line still changing speeds up then down,so i rang sky who agreed to send me a new router on a swap out basis,as this was the only thing that could be wrong,wednesday new router arrives speeds yet again up and down max 3.6mbps low 2.5mbps by friday my normal person i speak to at sky(she remains nameless :)) rings me twice to infrom me that nobody at openreach can understand yoyo speeds,and books openreach to come out yesterday(monday) yesterday bt engineer phones me a 1243pm to ask if anyone else has been out recently to which i give him the old school laptop using engineers name,he then says i am just leaving whiteh***n and will be with you shortly(a distance of 10 miles max) a hour and half later,the engineer arrives(without laptop) and proceeds to question who has fixed what blah,blah i gave polite correct answers to,of course he couldnt get the line to drop or show faults ??,so he states i got to ring sky,so i offered to ring them from my mobile for him,no he states i got to go through our sources(mission control),off to his van for 30 ish minutes,upon his return he trys to blame my installed for 3 months amateur radio aerial,to which i pointed out was not the cause ,as ipointed out when i was not at home it dropped down to 0.20mbps,so he arranges a return visit tomorrow(wednesday)with specialist interference testing equipment(laptop??),2 hours prior to the engineers vist yesterday,two carillion vans where parked on my road(openreach fibre pulling company) and the 2 people were examinging the nearest to my road end triple lid in the path chamber,which i know for a fact has a fat broadband cable leading straight to maryp**t,along with two recently installed smaller fibre pipes with cable in,coincidence ??, also while my no laptop using openreach engineer was here yesterday i happened to find out that openreach are claiming they have nearly finished enabling my exchange,and that my box will proably be in phase 2 of connecting cumbria fibre rollout,as my box is “commercial upgrade” not bduk,as phase 2 hasnt even been tendered for yet,i will proably have to endure countless more visits from openreach engineers who cant seem to find the fault,the simple solution install a dslam at my road end pigback off one of the 3 fibre cables already in situ and live and hey presto my and my neighbours (which include 4 commercial customers and 20 or so residential connections)could achieve fibre,due to us allegedely not being commercially viable ,this despite a bduk kickback to openreach of install costs once 20% of every fibre cabinet has been enabled,this despite bt group spending £900m on football sponsorship instead of infrastructure maintainance ,to which they legally obliged to do so under there privatasation agreement way back then,the moral of the story take openreach and a brewery and you will stay sober :),sky are a far better isp to deal with and dont throttle like bt do, me 3.5mbps my next door neighhbour(bt customer )2.4mbps alleged,thin yourself lucky the 21st century has reached you here in the wilds of forgotten cumbria we are still behind the times thanks openreach

Comments are closed.

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.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • NOW £22.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.00 (*29.95)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £22.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £22.00
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPERSPRING
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*36.52)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Gigaclear £24.00 (*44.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Offer Code: SPRUCE20
  • Vodafone £26.00 (*29.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Virgin Media £28.00 (*44.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £29.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPERSPRING
  • TalkTalk £29.95 (*39.95)
    Speed: 145Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3206)
  2. BT (2920)
  3. FTTC (1849)
  4. Building Digital UK (1847)
  5. Politics (1826)
  6. Openreach (1745)
  7. Business (1588)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1371)
  9. FTTH (1355)
  10. Statistics (1346)
  11. 4G (1181)
  12. Fibre Optic (1127)
  13. Wireless Internet (1107)
  14. Virgin Media (1101)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1095)
  16. EE (785)
  17. Vodafone (777)
  18. TalkTalk (735)
  19. Sky Broadband (714)
  20. 5G (664)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

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