Sponsored Links

Openreach XGS-PON

GM2000

Casual Member
Hi, will openreach need to change any of the CBT’s etc on poles/chambers when they move to XGS-PON? Or will it just be a change to equipment in the exchange and a new ONT?
 
Hi, will openreach need to change any of the CBT’s etc on poles/chambers when they move to XGS-PON? Or will it just be a change to equipment in the exchange and a new ONT?
PON stands for Passive Optical Network, meaning there is nothing active between you and the exchange so only the ONTs (Customer side) and OLTs (Exchange side) that need to be changed
 
Sponsored Links
They can have GPON and XGS-PON on the same fibre, so they needn't upgrade existing ONTs initially. Long term I expect they would only install XGS-PON and retire GPON but that could be many years after they start installing XGS-PON by default
 
Last edited:
Many of the OLTs that OR are xgs-pon capable. Its just a question of when. For the lower speeds gpon would work well and be complement with XGS-pon.
 
I believe with the push to Adtran, they now have an easy route to XGS-PON going forward

Yeah seen a video talking about a combo unit, so that would allow them to rollout XGS-PON without needing to replace ONT's for existing customers. That will mean though if I understand right, existing customers on GPON, will remain on it until they order a service that is exclusive to XGS-PON such as 2.5gbit or higher services.

Cityfibre are perhaps actually in a worse position, as their high upload speeds places more pressure on needing to switch, and it looks (again only to my understanding based in random things I have read) like they will have a harder challenge moving over. Only 20% footprint covered, rest likely not using combo hardware else they would have been able to flick the switch. Cant imagine they willing to just throw deployed kit aside, so I think they wont have close to 100% coverage for a while, them releasing a 2g GPON product suggests that as well. Although I believe (again if I understand right) they could run separate XGS-PON kit alongside GPON as can be used on different frequencies known as overlay? Most other altnets seem to be using either 10g-epon or xgs-pon.

I am curious of how much money was saved with doing a rollout with GPON, I have spent about 3-4 hours today on wikipedia and other sites reading up on various things internet related, ISDN, ADSL (alcatel initially only vendor supporting ADSL which is interesting, I do remember their stingray modem) and of course PON. GPON early 2000s invented is ancient at this point but was chosen, XGS-PON mid 2010s from a forward thinking and vendor support perspective surely would have been the more logical choice (there is even various intermediate PONs such as XG-PON), and I struggle to understand the idea it saves money by initially using device A only to replace it with device B shortly after. Openreach if true their kit is already XGS-PON capable, I guess suggests they may have been using combo units already prior to the Adtran partnership?


This quote gives a giggle, as it reminds me of BT asset sweat.

Openreach also wants greater energy efficiency and to maximise older-gen GPON value extraction
 
Sponsored Links
Think about the cost difference between the ONTs and multiply it by a few million. It's significant.
So you think its mostly a ONT side issue then.

Just checked they have a take up of 34%, so they have already deploying in the millions. Their take up seems way higher than the others.
 
There is no need to replace any existing ONTs. GPON and XGS-PON use different wavelengths and happy coexist on the same fibre.

They will deploy XGS-PON ONTs to customers who upgrade to higher bandwidth services (as they are doing for GPON ONTs with 2.5G ports today); and when the price is cheap enough they'll start to give XGS-PON ONTs to new customers on <1G services too. But there's no need to truck-roll replacement ONTs to existing users.

At the exchange side, if they already have XGS-PON/GPON combo OLTs, then there's nothing to be saved by getting rid of GPON.
 
So you think its mostly a ONT side issue then.
The order books for the likes of BT, buying equipment at the scale they do would also likely negotiate a pretty hefty discount.

At the exchange side, if they already have XGS-PON/GPON combo OLTs, then there's nothing to be saved by getting rid of GPON.
Bingo :) and if it is GPON only, then maintenance swapout likely isn't a huge undertaking. (I seem to remember Adtran/Nokia at least saying the upgrade process is "easy")

Also at the exchange side - specification for GPON being older doesn't mean the kit is old. If anything it means at the time of planning they would have likely ran into less issues, or at least less issues that the vendor didn't already know about.

An example - look at VDSL rollout, the Huawei modems that they had multiple revisions for - would have been so ridiculously cheap in comparison to alternatives, so even with multiple replacements of the BTOR Modem - it's likely cost wasn't an issue. (Especially as they're collecting the old dead modem, they may have additional deals with the vendor to replace dead kit - e.g. cradle to grave style hardware lifecycle)


This quote gives a giggle, as it reminds me of BT asset sweat.

I mean this is just good business sense, If I bought something that works for 95%+ of my customer base, am I going to replace it when it's only just started making me money ? There's no look for them on 25/50gig because they don't have the customer demand (from their point of view). It also would come with backhaul increases (potentially ££££ depending on where the bottleneck is) to support a handful of customers to max out their lines. It's not really a sensible strategy.

You have to remember we're a small section of the general population. Most people do not care, it just needs to be affordable, and work enough for things like Netflix.

Altnets pushing to newer/faster tiers will pick up those handfuls of customers where they have footprint. Once they've "made the market" the big players will be able to make some hardware swap outs and compete. The slow expensive bit is the initial deployment of fibre in the ground. Once that's done - It doesn't really matter what happens at each end of it.

Their take up seems way higher than the others.
Lots of ISPs can and do take BTOR FTTP Services, so you have big companies vying for those customers, vs a smaller altnet with a much more limited amount of smaller ISPs, with much smaller marketing budgets. Also people may not "trust" a new entrant vs going for someone like BT, Sky etc. Sky also have the addition of bundling with other services like TV. When doing comparisons if someone has Sky TV already, adding phone+broadband is usually a cost saver in comparison (or at least super competitive with an altnet)
 
Sponsored Links
There is no need to replace any existing ONTs. GPON and XGS-PON use different wavelengths and happy coexist on the same fibre.

They will deploy XGS-PON ONTs to customers who upgrade to higher bandwidth services (as they are doing for GPON ONTs with 2.5G ports today); and when the price is cheap enough they'll start to give XGS-PON ONTs to new customers on <1G services too. But there's no need to truck-roll replacement ONTs to existing users.

At the exchange side, if they already have XGS-PON/GPON combo OLTs, then there's nothing to be saved by getting rid of GPON.
My comment on replacing was more in line with the exchange side equipment, this is why I said I think they in a better position than CityFibre because of the existing combo units.
 
It will be interesting to see how long it will take before Openreach moves to offering XGS speeds … a while I suspect as they’ve only recently started offering 1.8gbps on GPON.

Perhaps it would depend on how VM ramp up their own packages.
 
I mean this is just good business sense, If I bought something that works for 95%+ of my customer base, am I going to replace it when it's only just started making me money ? There's no look for them on 25/50gig because they don't have the customer demand (from their point of view). It also would come with backhaul increases (potentially ££££ depending on where the bottleneck is) to support a handful of customers to max out their lines. It's not really a sensible strategy.

You have to remember we're a small section of the general population. Most people do not care, it just needs to be affordable, and work enough for things like Netflix.

Altnets pushing to newer/faster tiers will pick up those handfuls of customers where they have footprint. Once they've "made the market" the big players will be able to make some hardware swap outs and compete. The slow expensive bit is the initial deployment of fibre in the ground. Once that's done - It doesn't really matter what happens at each end of it.
I think both view points have some validity.

If you operating in a way where your up most priority is short termism minimum capital expenditure like you running on a payday loan then I agree with you.

But if you have long term vision, and you know at some point its going to not be good enough and the solution for that is already available, then in the longer term it may be cheaper, then you spend the little bit extra. The majority of the cost of the rollout will still be the labour in the cabling.

On the Netflix argument,. we going into an entirely different area, FTTP is just massive overkill for that and you can watch it on VDSL. So I think that doesnt apply here. Customers are ignorant, that will never change.

I do agree with you that they are not going to replace all GPON equipment so soon, I actually made that comment in my original reply as to why I think CF's rollout will be slow. I dont see the issue of GPON ONT's as such a big deal, they just get replaced adhoc as and when needed. My comment was more on the rollout of exchange side equipment, and because it looks like Openreach are using combo devices, I did comment that I think its not as big an issue for them.

The question back to you though, if you think focusing on short term costs is good business sense, does this mean you think the likes of Netomnia have got it wrong?
 
Last edited:
There was mentions from the FTTP guys in OR desk teams in regards to XGS-PON being trialed again this year, I’ll take it with a pinch of salt but I wonder if Virgin’s XGS upgrade woke up the beast
 
does this mean you think the likes of Netomnia have got it wrong?
No. I think they're an example of this:

Altnets pushing to newer/faster tiers will pick up those handfuls of customers where they have footprint. Once they've "made the market" the big players will be able to make some hardware swap outs and compete.

I really want Netomnia to do well. If they'd connect me up (I'm only 3 roads away ! ;) if I could bung them an install cost I'd be tempted I think) I'd get a line with them 'just because'. I would do the same for CF if they did my street (nothing local though)

Re:
as you seem to be wanting to defend the industry
Not particularly, I can just understand why they're doing what they're doing. Also BT have a few other things in play:
  • If they start pushing faster speeds, on their bigger footprint. It'll stifle competition for faster speeds, and complaints will come in from the likes of Cityfibre (which is fair)
  • It potentially may harm their leased line business (smaller businesses end up on a Business FTTP package, rather than a leased line as they don't really need the supreme SLA, just the speed to be available)
  • They're heavily regulated vs others in the market. A low-risk approach makes sense from their point of view.
  • They got burnt by the Huawei / ECI split for VDSL, where the vendors had feature disparity. I suspect they've been significantly more careful in how they've progressed this.
If you operating in a way where your up most priority is short termism minimum capital expenditure like you running on a payday loan then I agree with you.
Like it or not, BT has to answer to shareholders. Putting in the best kit, for it to sit mostly dormant isn't a wise use of funds vs doing something likely significantly cheaper, and getting 90% of the customers you would have had.
 
Sponsored Links
There was mentions from the FTTP guys in OR desk teams in regards to XGS-PON being trialed again this year, I’ll take it with a pinch of salt but I wonder if Virgin’s XGS upgrade woke up the beast
I think you may be right.

Upto 1.8gbps GPON is fine for download but I can get 1130/1130 for £45 with VM so it’s really the upload that’s the main issue.

Whilst many people don’t really have a use case for it, do Openreach and their customers really want to go years being behind VM from a halo/marketing perspective?
 
Interesting Matt, was seeing if you would be consistent, but you backed both strategies, to avoid conflicting with industry. ;) Then liked a post saying it might cause marketing issues if they dont move forward, after going on about shareholders and business cases. You all over the place, but at least you consistent with disagreeing with me. I need to stop being a naughty boy daring to criticise industry.
 
NbcXS.png


Source - https://www.telcotitans.com/btwatch...ch-brews-overbuild-upgrade-plans/7552.article
 
Upto 1.8gbps GPON is fine for download but I can get 1130/1130 for £45 with VM so it’s really the upload that’s the main issue.

Whilst many people don’t really have a use case for it, do Openreach and their customers really want to go years being behind VM from a halo/marketing perspective?
In short, yes.

Suppose there are 5% of users taking up 80% of the bandwidth (warning: figures plucked entirely out of thin air). If those 5% of users go to the altnets, then it's a win for Openreach and their CPs: the remaining 95% of customers are more profitable.

Having said that: there are also a number of people who *take* multi-gigabit services but won't actually be using them for more than a few minutes per day. They just like the idea of having the fastest available, and looking at the speedometer display. That's nice cream for the altnets. Some cripple their low-bandwidth services with CGNAT and that pushes some users to take higher speeds than they actually want.

Technology moves on at a rapid pace. There's no point buying something faster than you need today for "future proofing" because whatever you buy today will be out of date in 3-5 years anyway - and by then, the equivalent to the thing you bought today will be both better and cheaper. That applies equally to consumers and to providers.

And it's entirely correct to say that the vast majority of the cost is in laying the fibres in the ground, plus the marketing cost of acquiring the customer for the first time, plus the initial installation visit that drills the hole in the wall.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6026)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

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