On 16/08/17 22:28, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> "I can do millions of homes with GFAST at a cost that is _several_ orders of
> magnitude lower than FTTP and at a rate of millions per year.."
Sounds a lot like RFC1925 Section 7 to me...
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three)."
P
Dave,
We’ve had a fair bit of experience tapping into Openreach assets to deliver
backhaul to remote Community Broadband projects. Specifically in the Highlands
& Islands of Scotland (which has it’s own challenges).
A lot of Community Broadband folks we speak to are worried that BT or someone
On Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:34:25PM +0100, David Derrick wrote:
> B4RN's presentation at UKNOF34 said that government grants were problematic
> but he didn't go into detail. It may of course be different in Scotland, or
> even England now.
The problem with many of the government grants are that they
On Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 09:19:43PM +, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> I love seeing community builds they help us remind how difficult this is and
> many of them are doing a great job but customers will eventually want more
> than these communities can often provide.
As a company supporting various com
On Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 06:18:29PM +, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> A lot of Community Broadband folks we speak to are worried that BT
> or someone similar may choose to over-build their infrastructure with
> FTTC or FTTP. There is a risk of that
Fair certainty that will happen. The scot. gov. are
On 16 August 2017 at 22:49, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZU5tvBUwZM&t=650s
>
> is the presentation I gave at uknof a couple of years ago on the build we did
> on connecting some of the islands.
that was a great presentation. it highlighted how apparently simple
thing
On 16/08/2017 21:39, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
On Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 06:18:29PM +, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
A lot of Community Broadband folks we speak to are worried that BT
or someone similar may choose to over-build their infrastructure with
FTTC or FTTP. There is a risk of that
Fair c
>> can you state what speed - up and down - that BT considers to be
>> "good" and wants to be able to offer that to everybody, where
>> reasonably practicable? Would that be ADSL2+ speed, VDSL2+ speed?
>
> Not sure ADSL or VDSL "speed" is the right way of putting this.
I chose them purely to illus
If your quick crack on- but with USO, 4GPro, GFAST and 5G our intent is to
offer our services everywhere - we have been clear about that for sometime.
Cheers,
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 18:52, David Derrick wrote:
>
> One of our neighbours in Orkney is looking into setting
Simon,
I'd be surprised if we point blank refused anything - we have worked with
several communities to build
capability - what we will refuse is something that makes a loss and sometimes
what the community can pay versus what we can add doesn't work. Things change
in terms of build constantly a
On 16/08/2017 22:49, Neil J. McRae wrote:
One thing to consider David, digging up the ground over some farms is
relatively straight forward, but connecting islands is tough and
expensive.
Yes, that's the biggest technical challenge I think and one of the
points I raised during our discussion.
Sent from my iPad
On 17 Aug 2017, at 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> I chose them purely to illustrate what service people might currently
> get if they're lucky to have a copper phone line in good condition
> which isn't too long, has low cross-talk etc.
You mean the majority of premises?
>
On Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03:53AM +0100, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> And there's a lot of domestic customers who seem to prefer to pay the
> absolute bare minimum and put up with a crappy service and moan about
> it!
It might be slower but it should not be crappy, they have been told it'll
do the job
On 16/08/2017 22:28, Neil J. McRae wrote:
On 16 Aug 2017, at 21:46, David Derrick wrote:
>
g.fast sounds like another half-arsed excuse not to do fibre
properly. On our island pretty much everyone only gets a flaky
1Mbps, by the time you've patched it up to do g.fast how much extra
would it ha
We are busy building an FTTP network in rural Buckinghamshire. It is a
'for profit' enterprise, but we are still very much hands on at this
stage as everything has been privately funded and money is therefore tight.
You are more than welcome to drop me a line off-list if you would like
any ad
David,
Yes backhaul is expensive too, some expect it for nothing! ;) crazies even sell
it for just about nothing!
Pulling fibre to one cabinet costs x building to 10 homes costs x *10. Yes
there are variances and different situations but it never costs less to do FTTP
over something where there
On 16/08/2017 21:33, Paul Mansfield wrote:
For example, can a property which gets, say, ADSL2 with only 16Mb/s
down, 400Kb/s up, be considered good, acceptable or poor?
And would BT be likely to actively invest to bring that up to FTTC
standard at 80M/20M or better?
To be honest, my connection
> On 17 August 2017 at 11:43, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> do you have any figures to back up the claim that the *majority* of
> premises, including domestic, have phone lines capable of supporting
> even ADSL2/2+ at better than 80% of maximum possible speed?
I don't know let me check- but who mad
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:24:26PM +, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Pulling fibre to one cabinet costs x building to 10 homes costs x
> *10. Yes there are variances and different situations but it never
> costs less to do FTTP over something where there is an opportunity
> for aggregation. It might we
On 17/08/2017 13:24, Neil J. McRae wrote:
David, Yes backhaul is expensive too, some expect it for nothing! ;)
crazies even sell it for just about nothing!
Oh indeed.
Pulling fibre to one cabinet costs x building to 10 homes costs x
*10.
That doesn't seem right. Surely you pull one large fi
On 17 August 2017 at 16:08, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> On 17 August 2017 at 11:43, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>>
>> do you have any figures to back up the claim that the *majority* of
>> premises, including domestic, have phone lines capable of supporting
>> even ADSL2/2+ at better than 80% of maximum pos
On 17/08/17 16:35, David Derrick wrote:
> I didn't expect FTTP to be cheaper, I was wondering whether it might
> be more cost effective sometimes where big improvements are needed
> regardless and given the greater future proofing in full fibre. Good
> to know there's flexibility to not aggregate w
On 17/08/2017 16:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Any chance of some fibre here in Soho? I think there may be one or two
potential customers in the area, it being kinda the opposite of rural ;-)
Probably not as many as you think. I expect most people there are
content with their speed so have little in
On 17/08/2017 11:43, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Actually when you dig in to the reasons of what makes customers
unhappy (other than billing or ordering cockups), what seems to drive
it is wifi more than the DSL,
B4RN mentioned that in their UKNOF34 presentation too. Totally agree
it's a problem but
Sent from my iPhone
> On 17 Aug 2017, at 17:04, James Harrison wrote:
>
>>
> Certainly some of us are of that opinion and deploying nothing but FTTP
> en masse in rural areas - we seem to be able to make it make financial
> sense at large scales, at any rate!
Define large scale?
>
> There'
25 matches
Mail list logo
