Homepage » News Archive » View News Item 4050

Openreach announce BET trial to extend broadband distance
Tuesday 15 September 2009 15:09:48 by John Hunt

Broadband not-spots could benefit from a new solution from BT Openreach which promises to provide broadband over longer distances. Broadband Enabling Technology (BET) uses SHDSL to provide a broadband service at speeds of 1meg (upstream and downstream) at up to 12km, and by using a second line and bonding technology, this can be increased to 2meg.

Trials in Inverness and Dingwall in Scotland have already been taking place and have been successful in providing service on lines between 7km and 12km from the local telephone exchange. BT will be piloting the technology at 8 further exchanges to the existing trial:

Twyford, Berkshire
Badsey, Worcestershire
Llanfyllin, Powys
Leyland, Lancashire
Ponteland, Northmberland
Wigton, Cumbria
Horsham, West Sussex
Wymondham, Norfolk
*Inverness Culloden, Scotland
*Dingwall, Scotland

* indicates exchange on existing trial

A remote powered unit is deployed with an NTE (network termination equipment) by Openreach at the customers home to enable the service as well as equipment in the telephone exchange. This installation is free of charge during the trial period and customers are free to sign up to a broadband provider of their choosing. It's unclear what the costs of deploying will be when launched as a full service. There are an estimated 160,000 lines that are thought to be over the threshold for standard broadband, and if this technology is viable, it could help communities get online using fixed line broadband service, and help the government meet its obligations of a broadband service to all by 2012.

"We're really excited about the potential of BET to extend broadband to the remaining not-spots. Thanks to BT's past investment, the UK already boasts world leading broadband availability. By rolling out BET, we can help customers and assist the Government to realise its aim for a universal 2Mb/s broadband service.

"We're keen to work with local and regional authorities and other bodies with funding to discuss how the technology can be rolled out to their areas."

John Small (Managing Director, Service Delivery), Openreach

A previous announcement on BET in February indicated the cost of installation at between £1,000 and £3,000, however it's not clear if this applies per line connected, and it does note that this doesn't give an indication of retail pricing. In any case, with the possible £200m surplus from the Digital Switchover being suggested for the broadband USO, this could help fund BET where this is a viable option to get communities online.

If you live in a broadband not-spot or slow-spot, you can register at our broadband notspot site to help us track broadband coverage.

[ Topic: Wholesale | 132 comments | link to this item ]

Comments

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
totally disgraceful abuse of funds, if they put money into an obsolete copper network when they could lay fibre and do a proper job. Look at BT clamouring for public funds that are earmarked for NEXT GEN access, not extending the narrowband copper. This is the kiss of death for any hopes of a digital britain. The best viable option for rural areas is fibre. Then the job is done once and for all. See The Big LIE on http://5tth.blogspot.com/

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
after years of BT saying that 99.6% of the uk can get broadband, now they see money in the digitalbritain pot they want some. nice. even more areas can have slower than pigeon broadband. Thanks BT. This was the real agenda behind the 2Mbps DBR USC conclusion - BT tail wagging the UK PLC dog

Posted by EnglishRob over 2 years ago
I dare say it would cost a WHOLE LOT MORE than £1000 to £3000 to lay fibre to these remote locations up to 12km away.

Wouldn't wireless be a good alternative for something like this?

I guess too it's more of a business class service rather than a residential class service.

Rob

Posted by mikeblogs over 2 years ago
All connectivity is good. I assume this is a DSL signal extension capability, used in China and in remote South Korea! I think the kit is about £200 a line in reasonable volumes.

FTTH = strategic investment. Digital Britain = forensic investment (or levy raising)

It's a piece of the jigsaw, too small to be a kiss of death of anything.

Posted by mikeblogs over 2 years ago
Remenber Ofcom wanted geographic de-averaged pricing, hence this needs to be a separate line item.

This plus a femto cell attached and a good many services are possible...no HD TV streaming but you can get 25FPS Video conferening with 200Kbps, and the mobile calls will be better than PSTN.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Cyberdoyle? They're not going to lay fibre out to the remote rural notspots, which is where this technology is intended for. Even in a mass rollout plan, these areas would simply not be included.

And no, the USO funding is nothing whatsoever to do with "next-gen" access, it's to do with basic provision. BT are, as usual, willing to take this sort of work on marginally above cost.

Your magic fibre flag is set again.

Rob - I'd think WiMAX was more suitable, but I guess for isolated cases this may be cheaper.

Posted by chrysalis over 2 years ago
this does seem a waste, if I lived in the mountains or something and decided I needed broadband I would move, I wouldnt expect it reasonable to expect a modern infrastructure in a remote location.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
any funding from spectrum sales or the mythical £6 a year 'levy' was to be used to build next gen in areas of BT market fail. If BT get their hands on this money they won't build next gen, they will patch up the copper. A total right off. And it isn't USO, they watered it down in the final report to USC. From the looks of it everyone is totally ignoring the report anyway and just doing what Darth Mandy wants.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
and if the rural areas don't get fibre to the home it won't stimulate investment by the telcos to provide it in urban areas, so they will be stuck on 40 meg contended for many years to come. Think out of the box you lot, and see other countries can do it, and so can we. Don't keep patching, help build a next generation network for your kids.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
No, the funds from the spectrum sales were allways going to support the USO. It's about widening access to broadband, not making it faster for a few.

And please link to commercially successful rural FTTH projects.

And you've tripped your magic fibre switch again. "FOR THE CHILDREN". Well, there's this little thing called fiscal responsability which you need to learn about, because you utterly lack it.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
yes Dawn, the funds were for the USC (uso disappeared after interim report)to widen access by building next gen out to the notspots because Carter knew that the market would keep up in the cities. Korea supplies 1000meg for £10 a month. I am not expecting that, all I want is fibre to deliver this country's broadband. What comes through it is up to the customer, but I just want broadband that works. And patching up the copper will not give us any quality.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
and also Dawn you can't have successful rural FTTH project links yet, because getting the fibre fat pipe TO them is impossible, even though it runs right through the fields next to the users needing it. BT won't let you have access. We laid and lit fibre to the home to two properties, fed by wireless, and that is working commercially and is not going to need replacing for decades, unlike the rest of our connections on wireless kit which needs quite a lot of maintenance and upgrades.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
And doyle bangs his worn drum again and again. If these areas can barely get DSL they aint getting fibre anytime soon and its just a case of "Changing the bits on the end" not investing in copper. Keep harping on about fibre to rural spots but I doubt it will happen for many 10's of years if ever. I for one hope it doesn't happen as I know it annoys you :)

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Do you not have children Dawn? Don't you care that they won't be able to do all the things the kids in Sweden can do? I am not just fighting for rural areas, I am fighting for the whole country. You may think your 20 or 40 meg is fast, but you pop over and try korean gigabits and you may realise that already they are romping ahead. Soon many countries won't want to do digital trading with the UK slowlane, and our fantastic content will be worthless.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
and GMAN99 you don't pay attention. It is a case of laying copper, they can't bond lines that aren't there, so in order to deliver the 2meg they will lay more copper. The problem in the notspots is there aren't enough lines without DAKs on them, so there is no way there is enough to bond. My argument is that if they are gonna run a line it might as well be fibre. Its cheaper and a million times better.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
The quote given to the village near me was £9000 for one copper line running to it to give a customer broadband.They are close enough to the exchange to get broadband, just no lines left to deliver it.
Might as well run fibre?

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
No I didn't read it I didn't see the bit about running a second line in. Still someone must have done the maths? It must be cheaper to do this and give them BB than laying fibre. Fibre to remotes just isn't gonna happen. FTTH in cities and other major concentrations of population (which is where there's most chance of getting a return) hasn't even been announced so why would they rollout it out in the sticks?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
BT don't have anything to do with "allowing access" to dig up land, Cyberdoyle, it's the land owners.

My theoretical kids, pretty much regardless of where I live in the UK, would have broadband. This is less true in other countries, and we're about to get the generally offered speeds over double with FTTC.

What "digital trading" are you talking about. What "fantastic content" are you refering to? Examples, not slogans.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
And no, it's not cheaper to lay fibre. Less firms do it, costs are higher, and you can run multiple pairs on laid copper. You can't run ADSL across it, and booster stations are very expensive. How do you intend to support a product for a few thousand people?

There's for that village there is no "might as well", if they want to get a quote for fibre the laying alone is likely to be in the £250k region, before connectivity.

Gman - sssh, that's using LOGIC.

Posted by timmay over 2 years ago
A pointless technology that not only is limited to 2Mbps will also be incompatible with future FTTC roll out. Replacing the copper between the PCP and end customer with a thicker gage could improve the service and will also help when FTTC is deployed to that PCP!

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Dawn, the landowners give BT wayleaves and BT can come and create a POP wherever they like. They just won't do it to give you access to the fibre to run into your own rural network. You have to rent the fibre to the nearest town and they light a fibre out to you. At massive expense to the customer, but easy for BT, all they need to do is put a £250 adaptor on the end of the fibre and power it up. Also laying a fibre or laying a copper wire costs the same. Around £200-300 a metre if BT do it. Free if you dig it in yourself, or £2.75 a metre for the same contractor that BT uses.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Dawn - Logic is spending money on something that will last. Not wasting public money propping up something that is past its sell by date. And why would anyone want to run ADSL over a fibre? that is like saying we will row the atlantic in a model t ford.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
Depends what type of logic your talking? Sounds like good business logic to me. Ask the customer to pay for something now and then again when they want something better. Beats them paying just the once.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
Where, exactly, is this fibre 'runs right through the fields next to the users'?

Do you have quote from a contractor to instal fibre at £2.75/m? Is this ploughed into the ground? What about duct and joint boxes? How do you cross roads?

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
Why should BT give free access to 'the fibre'. I get the impression from the words you use that you do fully understand telecomms networks.

Why not see if Vigin or C&W etc. will give you access to their fibre that's all over the country. Put an adaptor on the end of their fibre (whatever that means).

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Timmay - No realistic future plan has fibre running to those notspots. The reality is, it's this is no broadband for the people involved.

Cyberdoyle - Given copper lasts longer in the ground than fibre, your argument seems to be flawed.

And BT would still have to pay for those wayleaves, and pay massive sums to local councils to dig the roads up (even when they're not having their requests blanket denied).

If you believe as you do, you should be lobbying the government for FTTH, because it dosn't make commercial sense.

Posted by timmay over 2 years ago
Re: Dawn_Falcon

Well maybe I meant "... if FTTC is deployed to that PCP!

Of course this assumes that the PCP is some distance from the customer, substantial enough (i.e. 1km+) for thicker copper for that part to make a difference.

Posted by timmay over 2 years ago
FTTC is the nicest way to get higher speeds to poorly served areas. No Wireless device on your roof and No digging up of your drive way.

I do agree that in some places where population is sparse BET could be the best solution. So the odd house here and there right on the exchange boundary is fine.

Posted by Andy_K over 2 years ago
I'm on the Leyland exchange on a large brownfield new deveopment that is a mix of slow and not spots. So I'm guessing rather than offer our community something like the other FTTC / FTTH trials going on they ar egoing to offer BET... This really seems like a baby step, rather than doing the right thing...

Elsewhere I guess there's hope...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8257152.stm

Posted by herdwick over 2 years ago
" We laid and lit fibre to the home to two properties, fed by wireless, and that is working commercially and is not going to need replacing for decades" - until somebody puts a backhoe or plough through your unmarked, undocumented and unprotected fibre tube :-)

Posted by herdwick over 2 years ago
"Wouldn't wireless be a good alternative for something like this?" - 7 to 12 km is a bit of a stretch for wireless and requires line of sight. Openreach as a fixed line operator have come up with a fixed line solution, other providers are available ;-)

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
hi Herdwick, our phone line been ploughed up 42 times in the last few years. Our fibre is buried properly by professional machine. It is also marked, photographed, documented and protected. It is armoured cable to start with, and is ducted in danger spots. It is also marked on maps and kept with deeds of properties involved.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Hi Somerset. no virgin cable near here, they only do urban areas. 12gig fat pipe runs through next village, also fibre on all railway lines and up sides of motorways. they are all over the place. We just need a Point of Presence and then we can use it. Cheap backhaul available from manchester, we just need dumb pipe to feed our networks.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Many community ISPs have been bonding copper to deliver a better feed to customers, it isn't anything new, its just that BT have now seen a way for government to pay for it. Its a scam. If they cared about their customers they would have done it in 2005 instead of blagging that '99.6%' of the country had broadband.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Somerset, yes I do have a quote of £2.75 (plus vat) from a contractor who works on BT contracts to lay fibre. Moleplough through soft dig, diggers or other machines through hard stuff. Burrowers for under roads a bit more expensive at £30 metre. Or you could use existing ducts if they exist, and many do. Biggest job with roads is highways permissions, but the contractor deals with that too.

Posted by AndrueC over 2 years ago
@Cyberdoyle:It sounds like you have a business plan. Why don't you launch as a company and get rolling?

Posted by themanstan over 2 years ago
What a load of crock cyberdoyle. Sweden.gov is spending almost a £1b for fibre. There are only 9m swedes...and a quarter of them live in stockholm... you do the math compared to the UK. BT would make more money keeping its money in the bank under current regulation.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
AndrueC we are a company, we are JFDI CIC, but getting access to a fat pipe is the problem. Small communities can't afford to get to POPs in cities. Householders are saving up to lay their own fibre, because they know how important it is for their businesses and families. Just like the rurals are doing in Sweden. DIO fibre. (Do it Ourselves) We could have tried bonded lines in 2005, but decided it was a stopgap waste of money.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
themanstan well that just shows how farsighted the Swedish government really is. And how narrow minded ours are if they put the cash into bt like they did in 2004 to enable exchanges. The money that went into RDAs for rural broadband was channeled into BT for adsl.

Posted by herdwick over 2 years ago
Here's a question for someone in a notspot : Would you like to join our BET trial to give you 1M broadband, or would you prefer to wait for much better and faster FTTH sometime in the unspecified future at an unspecified cost? Bear in mind these people have been waiting 5 years+ already.

"Householders are saving up to lay their own fibre" yeah, right - it gets funnier by the day.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
yep herdwick we have 8 houses and costings for them, they are quite prepared to pay to get a good connection to their property having used wireless for the past 4 years. We have already proved the fibre links are far superior and cost effective and reliable. So we JFDI. what's so funny?

Posted by herdwick over 2 years ago
But your fibre link supplies part of a subsidised contended service at <4M - it's Fake Fibre. Is this what you are advocating for others ?

Any idiot knows that fibre is fast and reliable, I had it in my office in 1992. Where's a coherent business plan for a local or regional or national rollout of FTTH ?

Posted by themanstan over 2 years ago
Then why say that BT should cough-up for the fibre outlay. In sweden the state owned utilities provided a significant part of the backbone, hence the relatively low outlay. Plus direct subsidies for the rural networks and tax breaks for the infrastructure install. Everything is directly related to government strategy and telcos can justify the relatively low profits because they don't need to take on so much debt to provide the service.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
i am just saying that it would be cheaper for BT to do it than countless little rural groups. BT already have the ducts, poles and wayleaves. It wouldn't cost more to run fibre than copper. And if it needs govt help then gov should give it, and stop being conned into patching up copper infrastructure. Sweden has the right idea. And Herdwick fibre is fibre, no matter what bandwidth is put through it. it is able to expand. copper aint.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
and Herdwick I am only one volunteer in a rural community, I can't write a business plan for national rollout of FTTH, I thought that is why we paid a fortune for the digital britain report? shame they listened to telco suits instead of the people.

Posted by herdwick over 2 years ago
"I can't write a business plan for national rollout of FTTH" - do one for a village then, or get your fellow gurus to do it. You'll not convince people you're right by constant nagging they need to be shown the way.

If it needs Govt intervention there's an election next year - you can stand as the Maoist candidate and get all the unemployed trenching fibre by hand.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
So let me get this right. You've laid fibre to various buildings in your village and plan to bring more on-line and your all sharing a 4Mb ADSL connection to the outside world? Is that that correct?

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
GMANN - nope, we can't get adsl to our network. We get our feed from the arqiva mast, a commercial feed from telewest. We run this wireless network outside the village to rural SMEs. The wireless was a stop gap solution to get broadband to them, and easier and cheaper than bonding. Now we are replacing with fibre cos its better and cheaper than any other solution we have looked at.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
So what's the feed? What do you pay for it?

Your 'plan' seems to be based on free access to existing ducts, etc. What use is fibre along motorways? Do you know what it's used for?

Still trying to work out how a contractor will burrow across a road for ~£200.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
the fibre goes from city to city. across rural areas. Breakout points are in cities. we just need some in rural POPs/places. contractors don't burrow across roads, they have little burrowing machines that go under them, no impact. mega. sensor driven and can detect other utilities and avoid. the feed is currently 2meg symmetrical bursting to 8meg. no point in buying more until the fibre is in place cos wireless kit needs upgrading to take higher bandwidth. already our wireless network is obsolete too! ;)

Posted by FibreGuy over 2 years ago
What CyberDoyle is saying is that communities at a grassroots level now have the opportunity to create an alternative 4th utility to that on offer by BT.

It can be done and has been already - the point about FttH deployments is that it is future-ready - there is no point in deploying any more copper wire.

BET is a classic case of make do and mend, FttH is about transformation - chalk and cheese.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
We know what Cyberdoyle is saying, what we are saying is how does whoever is putting in this fibre actually make any money in doing it?

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
I did mean under...

Fibre does not have 'breakout points'. Surely it's installed between buildings etc. And it's not all just for broadband access.

It's not just a question of breaking into any old bit of fibre, a dedicated circuit has to be provided (at a cost).

These POPs you want already exist in exchanges.

I doubt if much copper is being deployed. BT is working on a scalable solution, look at the Openreach site.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
copper has to be deployed to implement BET.
There are no fibre POPs in rural exchanges. You have to pay transit to cities. Fibre can have breakout points. Yes they have to be paid for, but are cheaper than paying transit for all eternity.

Posted by deadman1984 over 2 years ago
one of my exchanges is listed but i ant saying which for security reasons tipical bt like i have always said they suck and do things on the cheap the only way for digital britian and for fast stable lines is fibre not pathetic old copper thats past its sell buy date bit like food lol seriously if africa can get fibre which they have done why cant the uk oh no wait the uk laggs behind other countrys like its always done for the past several years

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
deadman - Uk has fibre all over the place, just like Africa.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - PPOs have to be paid for and setting one up in a town or village for just cyberdoyleinternet would be expensive...

It's not just breaking into some existing fibre.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
yep, uk has fibre running all over the place, feeding obsolete copper to the home to pay fatcat BT salaries, pension funds and shareholders. They won't let communities use it. We have to be content with a meg or move. Wonder who will grow your food if we all move into cities?

Posted by AndrueC over 2 years ago
@deadman:Everything from the exchanges back and all the national inter-connects are fibre and high speed switches. Likewise our international connections. The UK does operate one of the world's busiest satellite downlinks (might still be the busiest of all) and you can't do that without a decent infrastructure.

Posted by AndrueC over 2 years ago
cont..

Even though most of the stuff on our side of the exchange is copper it is still perfectly possible for people with deep pockets to get fibre.

All this copper v. fibre arguing really just comes down to supporting residential and small business use. Everyone else can already get fibre if they need it badly enough.

This is not about a lack of technology. It's about financial decisions on both sides. Nothing else.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Cyberdoyle - The problem with having too many fibre optic break-out points is signal loss. For six houses, it's not going to be make commercial sense to install 100k of booster to make up for it.

And there should be regional WiMAX liscences avaliable...

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
Openreach should be re-nationalised. Subsidise the rollout by the state and give all those drug addicts and other criminals on "community service" a pick and a shovel and set them to digging. I find it disgusting that the UK isn't in the top ten of countries with a fibre infrastructure

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - what do you mean by 'let communities use it'? Which fibre?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Kamelion? Firstly, laying ducting is a specalised skill, and secondly putting companies out of work by using unpaid labour is a bad, bad idea.

Oh and thirdly, get lobbying the government for funding then. "Renationalising" infrastructure is nice 80's thinking, mind you.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle I keep asking how fibre to a small community such as yours will get a return on investment. So far its falling on deaf ears...

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
Dawn who said anything about letting them do anything as complicated and technical as laying ducting? Just get them digging trenches any idiot can do that. Same the technical stuff for the technicians.

It kills two birds with one stone. It impresses on the criminal element that community service isn't a soft option and it also takes a lot of the cost out of the actual laying of cable. It's win win.

Posted by nmg196 over 2 years ago
@cyberdoyle - As you've been told many times before on other threads on this site, there is no market for FTTH in this country. Nobody would pay the £1500 installation fee, let alone the monthly cost of it. There is also no need for it - there isn't a single application which needs 1000Mb data rates. 20Mb is perfectly sufficient to stream several HD channels simultaneously - and even that isn't availble yet. It would be a complete waste of money and nobody would sign up to it. Faster rollout of FTTC and usable broadband in rural areas is a far higher priority.

Posted by nmg196 over 2 years ago
Also, contractors do not have "little machines" which can magically detect utilities and tunnel around them. Although directional drilling machines exist, if there are existing utilities present they dig up the road like everyone else. You cannot sense anything with a drill bit. Laying fibre to every home would cost billions. Who'd pay that to get something they don't need?

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
kamelion - so get these people digging trenches with a spade when a JCB can do it acurately in minutes with a trained driver?

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
gman, sorry, thought i had answered that one. the householders who paid for our first rural fibre dig thought it a great investment, it cost them a grand each, but they both say the stability of the new connection is worth it. That is our return for the investment. A broadband connection that works. Worth every penny. Something that urban people take for granted. A necessary utility, especially in rural areas. We JFDI. videos on youtube, search 'wennetvideo'1 kilometre of fibre used.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
nmg196, rural areas are NEVER gonna get 20meg. the BET that BT is offering will cost a fortune in new copper lines and still only deliver 1-2 meg if that. Do you want 90% of the UK land mass on that for the future? These are the people who look after this country, grow the food and do all the real work, running SMEs, educating children and looking after the elderly with no handy libraries, hospitals or schools. Broadband is a necessity, and a decent connection essential.

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
Somerset if it takes minutes with a JCB why does it cost £300 a metre?

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
I have to add in the 80's I was a ganger laying the new replacement plastic gas pipes. Of course this was all before the restrictions placed by and indeed the highways agency it still takes the same manpower and equipment to dig a hole and we earned about £200 a week back then with a six man gang laying 100 metres of pipe a day. Not as technical perhaps as firing a cable down a pipe once its been laid perhaps but still, I can't see gangers being paid that much more these days.

going off 100 m @ £240 (purely for labour of course)

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Hi kamelion, you sound like a man after my own heart! wish you lived here. We hired a moleplough and a digger with licensed drivers and did 1200 metres in a day, cost us £740 plus vat. A contractor quoted us £2.75 a metre. BT quotes around £200-£300 a metre. The householders did the final bit of digging themselves through their lawns. They laid ducting and we threaded the last bit of fibre through it.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
Cyberdoyle, I'm not talking about your ROI. I'm talking about if BT came in and fibred your remote village, how would they even cover the costs let alone turn profit? Its all about money.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
Moleploughing on open fields is one thing but how do you get to properties on 'normal' roads?

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
exactly gman which is why the infrastructure should be nationalised.

Let us (via the government) pay for the backbone. Give the whole telecoms industry a level playing field , i.e. everyone pays ukteleco rather than btopenbreach , every company gets access to a fibre network it doesn't even have to be to the home , to the cabinet would be fine. The country makes money, the isps make money the customers get the performance they need and ofcom doesn't have to worry about keeping prices artificially high to prevent monopoly issues.

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
The added bonus is that local councils won't be able to stop the laying of new cable either thus making the whole process a lot cheaper and faster and Virgin media will finally be able to say they run a fibre network without fear of retribution from the ASA

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
kamelion - Using slave labour /allways/ has nasty knock-on effects on businesses, sorry.

Er, yes, local councils approval (while overrideable, that takes time and money) is still needed for National-government pushed schemes rhat involve digging up their roads. And the appropriate fees still have to be paid.

Handing politicians more direct control of the telecoms infrastructure is a bad, bad idea unless you're fond of it being subject to "austerity measures" and censorship.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
kamelion - what's this 'fibre network' you want access to? What's on the end of it, where does it go to?

Doesn't any company have access to the Openreach network, at a cost.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
"Posted by kamelion
exactly gman which is why the infrastructure should be nationalised." It was wasn't it, and wasn't it a nightmare?

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - more here!

http://www.wrayvillage.co.uk/wraycomcomhome.htm

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
slave labour? They are repaying a debt to society. Perhaps if they are digging all day they will be too tired to go out burgling honest people.
Local law can always be overuled that's why we have parliament. If parish councils, who as far as I recall are the only ones that can over- rule parliament by consensus want to live iin the past then fair enough- its a matter for the people to decide.

Politicians are a part of government not the whole government. I'm sure that any politicians who censure censorship will be looking for a job come election time.

Posted by kamelion over 2 years ago
censure = condone

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
I call a rock a rock, Kamelion. It's slave labour. And it has allways caused nasty economic disruption.

And looool at your simplistic and naieve view of UK politics.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
am convinced you are a BT shareholder now dawn. Your spelling goes to pot when somebody riles you.Dunno why you have to take it all personal...
...aren't we all on the same side here, wanting a solution to create a truly great digitalbritain? ie one where everyone has access to a fantastic utility?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
That's funny, for a BT shareholder I seem to have a marked lack of BT shares. And my spelling is crap because I'm dyslexic. You might want to get checked for foot in mouth syndrome.

If you wanted a soloution, you'd be lobbying the government. I write to my MP periodically on the issue, do you?

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
dawn, your spelling is usually great. yep, I do write to MP, councillors and I lobby govt. It doesn't do much good, cos none of them get IT. They think 2meg is good enuf for our future comms in the UK cos suits have told them it is.

Posted by AndrueC over 2 years ago
@nmg196:I agree with you but I have to correct you :)

20Mb is not enough for 'several' HD channels. It is enough for two. Perhaps. Although at the moment the BBC are coming under fire with their attempt to squeeze BBC HD into 10Mb.

I think most people would consider 12Mb/s to be a sensible limit and 10Mb/s to be the minimum. That could change a bit over time but not hugely so.

Posted by AndrueC over 2 years ago
..cont.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that iPlayer offers true HD. The resolution, framerate and colour depth are all reduced. There is also a lot of artifacting. It's very impressive what they've achieved but those of us who have access to real broadcast HD can tell the difference :)

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Implementing BET to rural areas will mean running copper wires to the homes. Most rural phone lines are already on DACS so two people share each line, so neither can get broadband. BET will also mean householders have to pay double or pos treble line charges. Why not run fibre instead of copper and do the job right? Copper is £6 metre. fibre is under £1 a metre.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Um no, DACS (Pair Gain) is quite uncommon. Unless you have ISDN installed, which /uses/ Pair Gain.

Fibre of the quality used for high speed broadband, with the appropriate coatings, is not £1/meter. And then there's no suitable products, etc. (Major costs to BT for a few thousand lines, which would be reflected in the product cost)

Incidentally, DACS lines installed since ~2005 work fine with ADSL.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - what do you mean by 'rural'? How do you know 'most' (>50%) are on DACS?

Again, it's the cost of running in fibre plus kit on the end needing power (with UPS) etc.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
Why Cyberdole? I'll tell you. Because no matter what your calculations are you obviously don't know the whole story. Your just talking about the cable itself, you have no idea what is needed to provide the end to end comms whether its fibre in the middle or copper or the cost of either option. For them to be talking about providing copper that option MUST be cheaper end to end. Why would they do otherwise, just to keep you lot in the dark ages on purpose?

Posted by ElBobbo over 2 years ago
Funny, Dawn, you don't provide a price per meter or a product that you think is 'suitable'.
Verizon seems to be perfectly capable of finding suitable fibre. Half of the countries in Europe are rolling out FTTH, so..?
GMAN - perhaps you could fill in the whole story? You seem to have assumed that it must be cheaper but you've completely ignored the bigger picture yourself.
If they suddenly start providing fibre in rural exchanges it will highlight how poor the exchange's backhaul is currently.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
No I can't fill in the story. And what poor backhaul are you referring to?

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
Are you referring to the rural exchange backhaul? Well of course its poor that's the whole point of my "end to end" comms not just to the exchange, also including a pipe big enough to cope to the rest of the network... Lots of £££££ which Cyberdoyle doesn't seem to appreciate

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
ElBobbit - Verizon have government funding. And feel free to research fibre prices in your own time.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Dawn,Every rural community group i talk to says they have many DACS in their area. How many do you talk to? In our area alone far more than 50% of the people outside the villages are on them. Broadband will NOT work through them. The fibre we laid here is capable of taking every email from the UK through it. It is commercial grade and came in less than £1 a metre. And Gman99 I do know the costs for equipment, we bought some of that too, £240 per house lights both ends. How many metres of cable have you laid btw?

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
Dawn http://tinyurl.com/kww39v shows you fibre prices, starting well under a quid if you care to look. GMANN: Rural exchanges currently do not have fibre feed to them and cannot deliver enough from them. They can't get what feed they have out to the people cos of line length and DACS. The Eside to PCP to Dside to DP pole will also need attention. The Dropwire to the NTE5 should also be fibre, and terminated with media adaptor which the householder could pay for if they wanted high speed next gen access, but currently none is available via exchange and never will be if BET is implemented.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - how are rural exchanges connected to main exchanges then with 2/8M digital links?

Surely BET is just a quick solution for long lines.

The next few rollout plans for FTTC/FTTH should be interesting.

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
What does how many meters of cable I have laid have anything to do with it? I'm talking about the cost of doing this end to end with ALL the equipment involved, not just a bit of fibre or lighting it. I put up a good argument and you avoid replying with a proper answer. The ONLY facts are you don't know how much it costs to end to end a rural house and exchange with copper or fibre. You just don't know and can't know as your not a Telecomms provider. And unless you know the price of both you can't say which is cheaper so why do you keep posting the same non-arguments in every topic?

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
If you worked in the industry a rival of BT and were taking shots at them as you knew what is involved then I'd be listening, but you don't. None of your suggestions will work as they don't scale as you don't know the in's and out's of connectivity to exchanges & POP's or anything about how it all hangs together, only your two bit fibre connection which is super fast until you want to actually access the Internet itself!

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Cyberdoyle - And if you tried to suggest to someone with actual knowledge of fibre that it be used for broadband rollouts, they'd die laughing.

/Some/ of every rural area will have DACS, sure. But you're extrapolating from your own area. (And again, modern DACS allows broadband!)

Also, stop trying to confuse the areas where FTTC are viable with the areas where BET will happen.

Posted by jumpmum over 2 years ago
Dawn: I believe that Fibre is suitable, see Verizon rollouts in the states, now available to al least 2m customers. But only for green/brownfield sites where you are starting from scratch. Costs are then similar to Copper. BT should be rolling out PON to ALL green/brown sites now rather than Copper. 2012 site is meant to be all fibre!

Posted by jumpmum over 2 years ago
DACs does not allow BB, it uses the same frequencys as ISDN and cannot work with DSL as these overlap with the DSL ones. Any web search will confirm this.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/7ok4 is the link to the DACS info site. I agree with jumpmum. And if Africa chooses fibre over copper, and all other countries without legacy phone network are doing the same, maybe Dawn should see if they are laughing at his/her old fashioned ideas? http://www.physorg.com/news164595432.html

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
Yet again fails to ignore the real argument - who pays for it all and how do they make their money back?

Posted by GMAN99 over 2 years ago
Hmmmm lets make that "ignores the real argument" instead of a double negative...

Posted by john1287 over 2 years ago
i live 3.2km from the exchange ad have a depressingly slow 512kb adsl line. Will BET help me? It appears it can produce speed of 2mb etc up to 12km from exchange, but, will it give me more than that ot is it a fixed speed no matter how far/near you are from the exchange?

Posted by john1287 over 2 years ago
sorry,followed the bet link above and answered my own question, 2mb maxk.. still after struggling with intermittent 512kb when so close to the nexchange due to shoddy copper wiring, 2mb will feel like a dream.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - your DACS link - modified 2004-01-06 and we are told 'DACS lines installed since ~2005 work fine with ADSL'. Who is right?

And your South Korea link - who paid for it and is the geography similar to the UK?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
john1287 - You won't get BET, since that's exclusively aimed at very long lines. However, if your area gets FTTC, you'll very likely see a substantial improvement.

jumpmum - Oh yes, "no/poor existing infrastructure" is one of the things which enables economic FTTH rollout.

But rolling out PON is precisely the wrong thing to do. It's a technological dead end which shafts time-sensitive apps.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Somerset: The site Cyberdoyle links is 2004 vintage, before DACS2 came about.

I know he wants BT to go bankrupt and to stop all investment in FTTC, but he's getting ridonculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_gain

"More recent digital pair gain systems take the concept even further, however, restoring 56k and DSL capabilities by performing the functions of a DSLAM at the pair gain device."

Posted by rogan8 over 2 years ago
But DACS2 has been around since mid 90s, s what happened in 2005 to make it DSL compatible.
I dont believe DACS performs the functions of a DSLAM, its too old hat

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Then edit it out the wikipedia page and see how far you get.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
The article is very unspecific. It just says UK DACS uses ISDN.

Presumably in some cases it's possible to swap a non-broadband customer with one who wants broadband.

How would a DACS unit connect ADSL to the appropriate customer?

Posted by Rich_01 over 2 years ago
Does anyone know how this works technically? I understand that shdsl is used to provide the long line capability. However, most service providers don't offer an SHDSL product so how can customers go to any service provider?

Richard

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Somerset - Precisely the way I quoted. It's a mini-DSLAM. Is that cheap? Well, it's cheaper than digging.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
Like this:

http://www.telspec.co.uk/pages/categories.php?area=detail&type=products&prod_id=53

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
ps. not sure how/if broadband can be supplied to a customer.

Rich_01 - this is not SHDSL kit as used by ISPs.

Posted by rogan8 over 2 years ago
Certainly no pair gain system used by BT (Openreach) is compatible with DSL.
The type of system refered to in the wiki article seems to be like the Telspec TelMax PG system, whish uses a DSL line system to provide multiple POTS line.
The Telspec TelMax PG systems still seem to require a dedicated pair for specific DSL services.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
So the conclusion is that customers on a particular cable will have broadband on a dedicated pair. Non broadband customers will potentially have DACS.

Problems start when there are not enough pairs for all the broadband customers. How likely is this when the Telspec kit will run 12 lines over a pair?

Posted by cyberdoyle over 2 years ago
somerset, the dacs have been swapped round so only the early adopters got broadband, the rest are on dacs. To implement BET there will need to be new copper lines laid out to the customers. That is what bt is after public money for. Then the ISP supplying the customer will be charged for two lines instead of one. Therefore the customer will pay for two phone lines, like isdn. My point is that if they are going to go to all that trouble they should think to the future. And lay fibre.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
cyberdoyle - only need a second line for 2M.

What will they put on the end of fibre?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Somerset - certainly an issue. The DACS-ADSL kit is not a panacea, but it's a way of providing some demand. Arguably BT should of been pushing ISDN/ISDL for long lines in the interim years, of course...

(And yes, even ISDN 64k makes a huge difference to browsing compared to a 56k modem!)

Posted by mikeblogs over 2 years ago
I did submit about 6 years ago as a 'new idea' to BT to re-name ISDN to IDSL. This SHDSL looks odd, I thought it was a simple loop extension signal booster, but it changes the signal.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Er... ISDL is not quite the same as ISDN, certainly not a "re-name". It's an allways-on pure data service with a margially higher connection rate. However, it does take over the line entirely unlike ISDN (no telephone voice calls, although ofc you can use VoIP...).

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
...IDSL. Gotta stop dyslexing those letters. Heh.

Posted by mikeblogs over 2 years ago
It's about connectivity, BT had the kit, it worked and could be used for that purpose, rather than seeking out yet another solution, which takes two years to source test productise and launch. Perhaps the support costs will be lower.

It's less dyslexic in this case but thanks for the reminder, but it is something the BT Marketing folk might grasp. Verizon had from memory a ISDN/IDSL service. It would be less mis-leading that selling up to 20Mbs, when there is about 30Kbps of peak capacity per user.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 2 years ago
Well, for one line IDSN is 64k and SHDSL is 1MBit... ISDL is 144k, but takes a pair and dosn't allow voice service on that line.

Posted by Somerset over 2 years ago
BT ISDN2 is 2 64k lines plus some signalling over one copper pair. Can be 64k data plus voice or just 128k data.