On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:56:31 Andy Burns wrote:

>David Rance wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> He brought the overhead fibre straight through the wall (the entry
>>> point is about 2 metres directly below the attachment to the soffit) and
>>> did an internal splice in a very small box fitted right over the entry
>>> hole. There is about 10cm of internal fibre going to the ONT next to it.
>>>
>>> I know this is not how it's meant to be, but I'm not complaining.
>> ?? But that's exactly how mine was done a couple of weeks ago and I
>>thought that was normal.
>
>There 'should' be an external junction box at ground level, so that in
>future they can access it without ladders, and without requiring you to
>let them into your property ...

There *is* a box covering where the cable enters the property but all it
does is cover the hole in the wall.
>
><https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/full-fibre-broadband-install
>ation-checklist>

Hmm ... it was done by Citifibre and not OR!

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

David Rance wrote:

> it was done by Citifibre and not OR!

All bets are off then ...

On 22/09/2023 11:51, David Rance wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:56:31 Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> David Rance wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> He brought the overhead fibre straight through the wall (the entry
>>>> point is about 2 metres directly below the attachment to the soffit)
>>>> and
>>>> did an internal splice in a very small box fitted right over the entry
>>>> hole. There is about 10cm of internal fibre going to the ONT next to
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I know this is not how it's meant to be, but I'm not complaining.
>>>  ?? But that's exactly how mine was done a couple of weeks ago and I
>>> thought that was normal.
>>
>> There 'should' be an external junction box at ground level, so that in
>> future they can access it without ladders, and without requiring you
>> to let them into your property ...
>
> There *is* a box covering where the cable enters the property but all it
> does is cover the hole in the wall.
>>
>> <https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/full-fibre-broadband-install
>> ation-checklist>
>
> Hmm ... it was done by Citifibre and not OR!

They have their own rules, an indeed their own offerings which are AFAIK
symmetric so same up and down speeds..

>
> David
>

Dave

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:30:48 David Wade wrote:

>On 22/09/2023 11:51, David Rance wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:56:31 Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> David Rance wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He brought the overhead fibre straight through the wall (the entry
>>>>> point is about 2 metres directly below the attachment to the
>>>>>soffit) and
>>>>> did an internal splice in a very small box fitted right over the entry
>>>>> hole. There is about 10cm of internal fibre going to the ONT next
>>>>>it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know this is not how it's meant to be, but I'm not complaining.
>>>>  ?? But that's exactly how mine was done a couple of weeks ago and
>>>>I thought that was normal.
>>>
>>> There 'should' be an external junction box at ground level, so that
>>>in future they can access it without ladders, and without requiring
>>>you to let them into your property ...
>> There *is* a box covering where the cable enters the property but
>>all it does is cover the hole in the wall.
>>>
>>> <https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/full-fibre-broadband-install
>>> ation-checklist>
>> Hmm ... it was done by Citifibre and not OR!
>
>They have their own rules, an indeed their own offerings which are
>AFAIK symmetric so same up and down speeds..

Yes, Mine is symmetric. Isn't that the same for the others?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:14:13 +0100, David Rance wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:30:48 David Wade wrote:
>
>>On 22/09/2023 11:51, David Rance wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:56:31 Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Rance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He brought the overhead fibre straight through the wall (the entry
>>>>>> point is about 2 metres directly below the attachment to the
>>>>>>soffit) and
>>>>>> did an internal splice in a very small box fitted right over the
>>>>>> entry hole. There is about 10cm of internal fibre going to the ONT
>>>>>> next
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this is not how it's meant to be, but I'm not complaining.
>>>>>  ?? But that's exactly how mine was done a couple of weeks ago and
>>>>>I thought that was normal.
>>>>
>>>> There 'should' be an external junction box at ground level, so that
>>>>in future they can access it without ladders, and without requiring
>>>>you to let them into your property ...
>>> There *is* a box covering where the cable enters the property but
>>>all it does is cover the hole in the wall.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/full-fibre-broadband-
install
>>>> ation-checklist>
>>> Hmm ... it was done by Citifibre and not OR!
>>
>>They have their own rules, an indeed their own offerings which are AFAIK
>> symmetric so same up and down speeds..
>
> Yes, Mine is symmetric. Isn't that the same for the others?

The OpenReach offering is asymmetric. I have the 300/50 product. Adequate
download, but I wanted 50 Mb/s up.

On 23/09/2023 11:09, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:14:13 +0100, David Rance wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:30:48 David Wade wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/09/2023 11:51, David Rance wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:56:31 Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Rance wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He brought the overhead fibre straight through the wall (the entry
>>>>>>> point is about 2 metres directly below the attachment to the
>>>>>>> soffit) and
>>>>>>> did an internal splice in a very small box fitted right over the
>>>>>>> entry hole. There is about 10cm of internal fibre going to the ONT
>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know this is not how it's meant to be, but I'm not complaining.
>>>>>>  ?? But that's exactly how mine was done a couple of weeks ago and
>>>>>> I thought that was normal.
>>>>>
>>>>> There 'should' be an external junction box at ground level, so that
>>>>> in future they can access it without ladders, and without requiring
>>>>> you to let them into your property ...
>>>> There *is* a box covering where the cable enters the property but
>>>> all it does is cover the hole in the wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/full-fibre-broadband-
> install
>>>>> ation-checklist>
>>>> Hmm ... it was done by Citifibre and not OR!
>>>
>>> They have their own rules, an indeed their own offerings which are AFAIK
>>> symmetric so same up and down speeds..
>>
>> Yes, Mine is symmetric. Isn't that the same for the others?
>
> The OpenReach offering is asymmetric. I have the 300/50 product. Adequate
> download, but I wanted 50 Mb/s up.

I have the 500/73 for the same reason. I build web sites and want to
upload software releases etc...

Dave

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 21:20:11 +0100, David Wade wrote:

> On 23/09/2023 11:09, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:14:13 +0100, David Rance wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:30:48 David Wade wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/09/2023 11:51, David Rance wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:56:31 Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Rance wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He brought the overhead fibre straight through the wall (the
>>>>>>>> entry point is about 2 metres directly below the attachment to
>>>>>>>> the soffit) and did an internal splice in a very small box fitted
>>>>>>>> right over the entry hole. There is about 10cm of internal fibre
>>>>>>>> going to the ONT next it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know this is not how it's meant to be, but I'm not complaining.
>>>>>>>  ?? But that's exactly how mine was done a couple of weeks ago
>>>>>>>  and
>>>>>>> I thought that was normal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There 'should' be an external junction box at ground level, so that
>>>>>> in future they can access it without ladders, and without requiring
>>>>>> you to let them into your property ...
>>>>> There *is* a box covering where the cable enters the property but
>>>>> all it does is cover the hole in the wall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/full-fibre-broadband-
>> install
>>>>>> ation-checklist>
>>>>> Hmm ... it was done by Citifibre and not OR!
>>>>
>>>> They have their own rules, an indeed their own offerings which are
>>>> AFAIK symmetric so same up and down speeds..
>>>
>>> Yes, Mine is symmetric. Isn't that the same for the others?
>>
>> The OpenReach offering is asymmetric. I have the 300/50 product.
>> Adequate download, but I wanted 50 Mb/s up.
>
> I have the 500/73 for the same reason. I build web sites and want to
> upload software releases etc...

I want to run a local jitsi server. I managed four users with only 2.5Mb/
s, so I should be OK - I rarely have more than 15 people!

On 17/09/2023 19:00, Graham J wrote:
> MikeS wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> BT have a firm intention to turn off the traditional *analogue* phone
>> service. In areas w/o BT (Openreach) fibre they will supply customers
>> with a digital voice service using the existing copper connection.
>> Most of them are probably already using the copper for broadband anyway.
>
> Broadband over copper wires is far too unreliable to support VoIP.

That does not really make any sense to me... I have plenty of customers
who have all their business critical voice traffic over VoIP in offices
serviced by FTTC / SoGEA connections.

> Typically ADSL gives about 2Mbits/sec max and re-syncs several times per
> day taking a minute to do so each time.

Who's ADSL though?

Sure ADSL can be poor on long lines, but can give reliable service in
the right circumstances, and a speeds more than adequate for VoIP.

My ADSL service limps along at 1.5 to 2 Mbps down, 800k up. However it
is a stable connection and will work for weeks at a time without a
complete line drop.

> VDSL is better if the green
> cabinet is less than about 100 metres away, but further than that and
> you get poor speeds and variable reliability.

You will get the highest rates at lines distances under 400m, however
you can still get 20/4 at over 1km.

VoIP is not a high bandwidth application (it can run quite acceptably
over dialup). GSM phones managed ok ish voice quality on 13 kbps.

What matters more is the router having proper quality of service and
bandwidth management to ensure that the VoIP traffic never gets swamped
by other applications.

> A re-sync still takes
> about a minute - imagine that during a phone call !!!

Connection stability is a different problem from speed or latency or
jitter. Plenty of VDSL connections will have up times measured in weeks
or months.

> I've noticed that FTTP is being rolled out in populated rural areas
> where copper broadband is unreliable. In less populated areas where
> copper broadband is effectively not available there's no evidence of
> fibre being installed.

ISTM that openreach had been prioritising FTTP in cases where they can't
(and could never) meet their minimum broadband performance requirements
using ADSL. Many rural settings don't have any street cabinet furniture,
so the choice would be run fibre 99% of the way, install street cabinets
for VDSL, and then connect that, or just do fibre 100% of the way and do
without the street cabinets and their power requirements.

It is fairly obvious that going for an inferior experience, at massive
extra expense makes no sense, so FTTP wins.

However FTTC made lots of sense in areas with the infrastructure already
in place, and it was an easy upgrade at the time.

> But in towns where FTTC (i.e. VDSL) is in use then VoIP may be supplied
> by 2025 as threatened by Openreach.  It will be a disaster, mainly
> because the public has not been properly informed.  Listen to any Radio
> 4 consumer program.

Time will tell, but I expect for many it will be an almost invisible
changeover.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

John Rumm wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 19:00, Graham J wrote:
>> MikeS wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> BT have a firm intention to turn off the traditional *analogue* phone
>>> service. In areas w/o BT (Openreach) fibre they will supply customers
>>> with a digital voice service using the existing copper connection.
>>> Most of them are probably already using the copper for broadband anyway.
>>
>> Broadband over copper wires is far too unreliable to support VoIP.
>
> That does not really make any sense to me... I have plenty of customers
> who have all their business critical voice traffic over VoIP in offices
> serviced by FTTC / SoGEA connections.

By contrast, in my small business I had about 50 customers. Of them,
certainly 10 suffered unreliable ADSL or VDSL - a re-sync every couple
of days, and more during thunderstorms. One specifically suffered a
4-day outage when the nearby green cabinet developed a fault which
Openreach could not fix.

--
Graham J

Graham J wrote:

> in my small business I had about 50 customers.  Of them, certainly 10
> suffered unreliable ADSL or VDSL

As I recall, your customers tended to be farmers in relatively remote
locations? I know they need reliable broadband as much as anyone else,
but satellite might be an answer for them, geostationary would probably
be too high latency for VoIP but LEO ought to work.

Andy Burns wrote:
> Graham J wrote:
>
>> in my small business I had about 50 customers.  Of them, certainly 10
>> suffered unreliable ADSL or VDSL
>
> As I recall, your customers tended to be farmers in relatively remote
> locations?  I know they need reliable broadband as much as anyone else,
> but satellite might be an answer for them, geostationary would probably
> be too high latency for VoIP but LEO ought to work.

Indeed yes. One customer site was a quarry in the middle of nowhere.
Electricity but no phone line! Used Tooway satellite - which supported
VoIP despite the latency.

--
Graham J

On 26/09/2023 09:02, Andy Burns wrote:
> As I recall, your customers tended to be farmers in relatively remote
> locations?  I know they need reliable broadband as much as anyone else,
> but satellite might be an answer for them, geostationary would probably
> be too high latency for VoIP but LEO ought to work.

I can remember many years ago satellite being promoted for more remote
users, I think a farmer I knew used it.

Even Airwave use satellite for some of their sites because no
terrestrial broadband available.

On 26/09/2023 08:30, Graham J wrote:
> John Rumm wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 19:00, Graham J wrote:
>>> MikeS wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BT have a firm intention to turn off the traditional *analogue*
>>>> phone service. In areas w/o BT (Openreach) fibre they will supply
>>>> customers with a digital voice service using the existing copper
>>>> connection. Most of them are probably already using the copper for
>>>> broadband anyway.
>>>
>>> Broadband over copper wires is far too unreliable to support VoIP.
>>
>> That does not really make any sense to me... I have plenty of
>> customers who have all their business critical voice traffic over VoIP
>> in offices serviced by FTTC / SoGEA connections.
>
> By contrast, in my small business I had about 50 customers.  Of them,
> certainly 10 suffered unreliable ADSL or VDSL - a re-sync every couple
> of days, and more during thunderstorms.

And what was their analogue voice quality like, and how often did that fail?

> One specifically suffered a
> 4-day outage when the nearby green cabinet developed a fault which
> Openreach could not fix.

My FTTP suffered a week's outage when a local farmer decided to flail
the fibre while hedge cutting! Nothing is perfect.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

John Rumm wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> By contrast, in my small business I had about 50 customers.  Of them,
>> certainly 10 suffered unreliable ADSL or VDSL - a re-sync every couple
>> of days, and more during thunderstorms.
>
> And what was their analogue voice quality like, and how often did that
> fail?

Analog voice quality generally good - not noisy. Even during a
thunderstorm all that the user would notice was a click.

Given that there is no way to monitor it, I could not identify whether
it ever failed. But nobody ever complained of interrupted phone calls.

--
Graham J