nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Eir rural FTTH thread

rob808

I made this thread for people on eir rural blue line FTTH please keep here and don't post in Eircom FTTH 66 towns 1 Gb thread about rural FTTH rollout.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ED E

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Except having an unmonitored electrical appliance permanently plugged in there.

Not a good idea IMO.

BandMember wrote: »

I completely agree, that's why I would never be happy with an attic install to be honest. I'd much rather everything be downstairs somewhere in the main house.

Horsecrap.

If your 500W fridge is left running when you leave the house why would you worry about a 5w DC transformer? There are rakes of unmonitored electronics left on in every house. How many offices have a comms cabinet? Do they switch off the PABX when leaving? Tin foil hat syndrome.

OB is totally on the money.

Bored Accountant wrote: »

Attic can get very hot in summer which may reduce the life span because temp of the devices are too hot and no fan to cool them down.

This is kit thats sold to Spain and Italy. A warm Irish attic is well within operating thresholds. The ONT does no "processing" its just a small ADC and ASIC. Thermals arent an issue.

So long as the equipment is supplied by Openeir, I can't think of a good reason (other than it doesn't exist yet ) why all these functions can't be provided in one powered box.

That'd end up being anti competitive. The whole point is OLOs can differentiate their services and compete on CPE purchasing.

If 2x mains is an issue (IMO its really not) then the solution is use ONTs that are PoE powered and allow the OLOs to source CPE with PoE WAN ports.

ctlsleh

plodder wrote: »

Yes, that's a fair point. At the end of the day, people will suck up whatever perceived inconvenience there is for the service supplied. Though the fact people are shoving it into the attic, shows aesthetics does matter too

What I was imagining is some kind of semi open platform that Openeir (or Siro) might deploy that contains all the hardware and a single power source. The retail/ISP would just add their bells and whistles as software to that platform. I wouldn't be surprised if it moves in that direction long term.

Yea, sorry, i meant to say OPenEir and Eir, but same principal applies, OpenEir could wholesale to Sky tomorrow (like they do on VDSL) and Sky would want their own home Gateway..........but the principal of what you are suggesting is absolutely possible, but probably a bit too complex considering the cost of a HomeGW for residential services. I do see your model in the future as operators move to a Software Defined Network Architecture however

Johnboy1951

ED E wrote: »

Horsecrap.
...

You are entitled to your opinion and I stand by mine that an attic installation of an electrical appliance is not a good idea.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

But, that's an organisational thing rather than a sound technical reason. I can see some end users asking why they have to supply sockets for two powered devices, where they had one before.

So long as the equipment is supplied by Openeir, I can't think of a good reason (other than it doesn't exist yet ) why all these functions can't be provided in one powered box.

It's more of a regulatory thing than an organisational thing, but it's a bit of both.

The ONT is the demarcation point between the wholesale and retail networks. Everything on the optical side is open eir's problem; everything on the copper side is the ISP's. There needs to be a demarcation point.

plodder wrote: »

What I was imagining is some kind of semi open platform that Openeir (or Siro) might deploy that contains all the hardware and a single power source. The retail/ISP would just add their bells and whistles as software to that platform. I wouldn't be surprised if it moves in that direction long term.

I would. Have a read of the Imagine LTE thread in this forum to see what happens when the provider dictates the router that can be used.

I can think of dozens of scenarios where integration could go wrong, but to pick just one: suppose a business customer doesn't want an off-the-shelf consumer-grade Huawei ONT/router combo, but wants to directly connect their big fancy rack-mounted firewall to the ONT. Right now, that's not a problem, but with an integrated ONT/router, there's an unwanted chunk of hardware in the way.

Or take the attic photos recently posted: it may suit to bring the fibre in to a location from where a cat6 cable can be brought to the optimal location for a wireless router. It may not be feasible to bring the fibre to that location.

There are a bucketload of compelling arguments against combining the ONT and router, and really only one in favour. It shouldn't happen, and probably won't.

The Cush

What is the purpose of the ODP if it can be dispensed with as we can see from the above install?

Is it simply a junction box where the chunky black cable from outside can be converted to a more eye-pleasing fibre cable to the ONT in visible areas inside the house?

oscarBravo

The Cush wrote: »

What is the purpose of the ODP if it can be dispensed with as we can see from the above install?

Is it simply a junction box where the chunky black cable from outside can be converted to a more eye-pleasing fibre cable to the ONT in visible areas inside the house?

I'm guessing it's a splice box, where (as you say) the outdoor cable is terminated in what is effectively a wall socket. I would imagine that it's a little bit like the way a mains wall socket has chunky solid-cored copper wire coming into the back of it, and a flexible lead from the plug to the appliance.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised to see an LC (?) connector directly attached to an indoor/outdoor cable.

[Deleted User]

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm guessing it's a splice box, where (as you say) the outdoor cable is terminated in what is effectively a wall socket. I would imagine that it's a little bit like the way a mains wall socket has chunky solid-cored copper wire coming into the back of it, and a flexible lead from the plug to the appliance.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised to see an LC (?) connector directly attached to an indoor/outdoor cable.

I would be very wary of touching that connector, rigid outdoor cable directly into the LC connector there would not be a proper sleeve to allow for flexing, it could very easily snap off.

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would. Have a read of the Imagine LTE thread in this forum to see what happens when the provider dictates the router that can be used.

I can think of dozens of scenarios where integration could go wrong, but to pick just one: suppose a business customer doesn't want an off-the-shelf consumer-grade Huawei ONT/router combo, but wants to directly connect their big fancy rack-mounted firewall to the ONT. Right now, that's not a problem, but with an integrated ONT/router, there's an unwanted chunk of hardware in the way.

Or take the attic photos recently posted: it may suit to bring the fibre in to a location from where a cat6 cable can be brought to the optimal location for a wireless router. It may not be feasible to bring the fibre to that location.

There are a bucketload of compelling arguments against combining the ONT and router, and really only one in favour. It shouldn't happen, and probably won't.

If a business customer doesn't want a combined ONT/router then they can have them exactly as they are now. It's about choice really, not dictating a particular setup.

tsue921i8wljb3

I'm surprised yesterday went by without anybody mentioning that it was supposed to be the date that Openeir's first 100000 (actually 106340) rural premises were to be completed.

As people may know I have been tracking the project since it's start so here is the best case scenario for Openeir in relation to the number of premises passed:

For the sake of argument I am including all passed premises since September 12th 2016 in the urban areas listed in the above link. The first live rural premises in this project were not announced until the 30th of September 2016.

Town|12/9/16|24/3/17
Cavan|2200|2180
Ennis|1300|1820
Ballincollig|130|130
Carrigaline|1300|1270
Letterkenny|5200|5570
Balbriggan|1070|1070
Tralee|400|1980
Kilkenny|3500|3840
Drogheda|1800|1850
Dundalk|100|100
Castlebar|1300|1330
Monaghan|400|760
Wexford|3900|3970
Greystones|1800|1840

Summing the difference of all these gives 3360 premises.

There are also three exchange areas outstanding with March due live dates, Drumshanbo, Killybegs and Moycullen. Combining all the due premises in these gives 1760 premises.

So a total of 5120. If we add this to our spreadsheet total of 16770 we get a best case number of 21890 or 20.58% completion.

In reality the true number is somewhere between 16770 and 21890 and I would err on the lower of the two numbers.

Hopefully the Department has been doing such due diligence on the numbers and if they have signed a commitment contract with Openeir, that it forces them to significantly up their game to have 300000 premises passed by the end of 2018.

Gonzo

Allison Puny Appetite wrote: »

I'm surprised yesterday went by without anybody mentioning that it was supposed to be the date that Openeir's first 100000 (actually 106340) rural premises were to be completed.

As people may know I have been tracking the project since it's start so here is the best case scenario for Openeir in relation to the number of premises passed:

For the sake of argument I am including all passed premises since September 12th 2016 in the urban areas listed in the above link. The first live rural premises in this project were not announced until the 30th of September 2016.

Town|12/9/16|24/3/17
Cavan|2200|2180
Ennis|1300|1820
Ballincollig|130|130
Carrigaline|1300|1270
Letterkenny|5200|5570
Balbriggan|1070|1070
Tralee|400|1980
Kilkenny|3500|3840
Drogheda|1800|1850
Dundalk|100|100
Castlebar|1300|1330
Monaghan|400|760
Wexford|3900|3970
Greystones|1800|1840

Summing the difference of all these gives 3360 premises.

There are also three exchange areas outstanding with March due live dates, Drumshanbo, Killybegs and Moycullen. Combining all the due premises in these gives 1760 premises.

So a total of 5120. If we add this to our spreadsheet total of 16770 we get a best case number of 21890 or 20.58% completion.

In reality the true number is somewhere between 16770 and 21890 and I would err on the lower of the two numbers.

Hopefully the Department has been doing such due diligence on the numbers and if they have signed a commitment contract with Openeir, that it forces them to significantly up their game to have 300000 premises passed by the end of 2018.

how come Carrigaline and Cavan have less FTTH premises now then they did back in September?

I am guessing we may only reach 100,000k premises passed by end of December 2017. The rollout is almost a year behind schedule in most places, very difficult for them to make all this time without employing a few 100 more crew members to help.

It was 1 year to this day that KN moved into our area and started work on the ducts for the rural rollout. Still waiting to be connected, hopefully I will have a connection by the end of this month. It's been a long time and a huge test to my patience!.

Johnboy1951

It will be an interesting exercise to compare the figures eir produce with those compiled by Navi.

..... IF eir produce any figures .......

KOR101

Allison Puny Appetite wrote: »

Hopefully the Department has been doing such due diligence on the numbers and if they have signed a commitment contract with Openeir, that it forces them to significantly up their game to have 300000 premises passed by the end of 2018.

The commitment contract changes everything because they have already achieved what they wanted which was to have the 300k premises taken out of the NBP and to game the bidding process in their favour.

I really doubt that the commitment contract holds them to an end 2018 date. So, it's anyone's guess whether this will speed up or slow down the 300k rollout. I'd guess slow it down, but they will want to continue developing capacity in advance of the NBP.

Pangea

I see on the eircom site I can finally avail of Eircom Extreme Fibre, I always assumed that I would be upgraded by eircom when the time came and to no extra cost but it appears if I want to upgrade I have to do it myself and it will cost more? Is this correct?

Gonzo

Pangea wrote: »

I see on the eircom site I can finally avail of Eircom Extreme Fibre, I always assumed that I would be upgraded by eircom when the time came and to no extra cost but it appears if I want to upgrade I have to do it myself and it will cost more? Is this correct?

Eir fibre extreme has to be installed by OpenEir/KN, self installs will never be possible as fibre has to be routed from a splice box on a pole and carried over to your home and routed through the house and ODP/ONT/modem fitted.

tsue921i8wljb3

Gonzo wrote: »

how come Carrigaline and Cavan have less FTTH premises now then they did back in September?

I'm not entirely sure why. Going through the data you see it quite often with the FTTC numbers but I don't actually know the reason for the drop.

tsue921i8wljb3

KOR101 wrote: »

The commitment contract changes everything because they have already achieved what they wanted which was to have the 300k premises taken out of the NBP and to game the bidding process in their favour.

I really doubt that the commitment contract holds them to an end 2018 date. So, it's anyone's guess whether this will speed up or slow down the 300k rollout. I'd guess slow it down, but they will want to continue developing capacity in advance of the NBP.

I fear you may be correct. The 100000 in a year was wildly over optimistic and the 300K by 2018 is probably unachievable from where they now stand.

We can only hope for transparency in the contract. Hopefully the Dail does it's job as you have already said.

lucernarian

In a rural part of Louth I'm familiar with, the poles that been marked with a D have been replaced now, though how they were selected is a mystery.

Poles that are completely overgrown with ivy aren't replaced or marked as defective, another that looks to be held up by a neighbour's planted boundary trees is left in situ also. It's leaning significantly.

Most of the remaining poles are at critical points like where they cross roads or at sharp bends and have ivy on them to boot. What gives? It's literally impossible to attach fibre to some of the poles with the state they're in, even though 75% were replaced.

Gonzo

Allison Puny Appetite wrote: »

I fear you may be correct. The 100000 in a year was wildly over optimistic and the 300K by 2018 is probably unachievable from where they now stand.

We can only hope for transparency in the contract. Hopefully the Dail does it's job as you have already said.

I never thought of it like that but now that makes perfect sense, Eir can now take as long as needs be to get the 300,000k premises finished, the deadline of 30th December 2018 is almost impossible at this stage with still approx 282,000 more premises to pass in a year and a half. It's taken just over a year to pass just over 17,000 rural premises.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

If a business customer doesn't want a combined ONT/router then they can have them exactly as they are now. It's about choice really, not dictating a particular setup.

There are several good technical, financial, business process and regulatory reasons to keep them separate. There's only one aesthetic reason to combine them.

You're thinking about this purely from the customer's point of view, which is fine: you're a customer. Other people have to think about it from the wholesale provider's point of view, the retail provider's point of view, the customer's point of view, the regulator's point of view...

I get why you'd want it. I get why you'd think it would be better. But if you worked for open eir, for a retail ISP, or for ComReg, you'd realise it wouldn't.

daraghwal

Gonzo wrote: »

I never thought of it like that but now that makes perfect sense, Eir can now take as long as needs be to get the 300,000k premises finished, the deadline of 30th December 2018 is almost impossible at this stage with still approx 282,000 more premises to pass in a year and a half. It's taken just over a year to pass just over 17,000 rural premises.

Are they allowed to do the 300,000 and NBP together if they want to? Surely they would do the 'commercially viable' 300,000 at the same time if they had the option. If not they'd just be stringing fibre further out past their blue/yellow lines and then coming back to the blue/yellow lines closer into the exchanges (which I presume will still be used for NBP)where the fibre has already passed to the people in the NBP.

ED E

daraghwal wrote: »

Are they allowed to do the 300,000 and NBP together if they want to? Surely they would do the 'commercially viable' 300,000 at the same time if they had the option. If not they'd just be stringing fibre further out past their blue/yellow lines and then coming back to the blue/yellow lines closer into the exchanges (which I presume will still be used for NBP)where the fibre has already passed to the people in the NBP.

The NBP isnt building a state owned network (like the NBN is in Aus IIRC), so any winning bidder is just using Govt funds to expand their own network. We dont get 2x networks at the end.

Having the existing 300k really allows eir to price themselves much more favourably than a competitor as they'll be doing last two miles not last twenty miles.

Johnboy1951

Gonzo wrote: »

I never thought of it like that but now that makes perfect sense, Eir can now take as long as needs be to get the 300,000k premises finished, the deadline of 30th December 2018 is almost impossible at this stage with still approx 282,000 more premises to pass in a year and a half. It's taken just over a year to pass just over 17,000 rural premises.

Everything hinges on the terms of the commitment contract.
As I posted previously, if that is not well done it could mean the blue/yellow lines being delayed until it might suit eir (should they get an NBP contract or two).

I can only hope that eir can get no bite of the NBP payments until they have completed their commercial commitment to the blue/yellow lines.

Gonzo

daraghwal wrote: »

Are they allowed to do the 300,000 and NBP together if they want to? Surely they would do the 'commercially viable' 300,000 at the same time if they had the option. If not they'd just be stringing fibre further out past their blue/yellow lines and then coming back to the blue/yellow lines closer into the exchanges (which I presume will still be used for NBP)where the fibre has already passed to the people in the NBP.

it makes total sense to have all of the 300,000 premises live before starting the NBP areas as those areas are the ends or in between yellow line sections.

However, now that Eir has successfully taken the 300,000 out of the NBP those lines are now totally under control by Eir and can do what they like such as take the time needed to get them done (no more deadlines) or put the less 'important' yellow lines on the backburner and start the more 'important' NBP lines before them.

The main thing I've learned over the past year is that this rollout is going to take much longer than any of us imagined, or even Eir imagined.

There are problems with lines passing by telephone but not eircode (myself and several over boardies have this issue). This needs to be ironed out very quickly.

The 300,000 lines are not gonna get completed by December 2018 unless Eir recruit an army.

Its anyone's guess what happens next, do they complete all 300k lines first and then move on to the NBP (provided they win it).

The slowness and complications involved with the FTTH rollout is only hitting now, I get the feeling there is gonna be much more problems when the NBP starts with more remote and one off housing to cover.

Eir's original long term estimation was to have the 300k premises finished by the end of 2020, then they changed it to 2018, no idea why because it's not realistic, I would say the 300,000 will only be completed by the original deadline of 2020.

KOR101

This cached page lists a

Operator Commitment Contract: Heads of Terms - Annex 3 PDF

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:68ngwAnWQswJ:www.dccae.gov.ie/communications/en-ie/Pages/Consultation/Consultation-on-the-process-for-updating-the-High-Speed-Broadband-Map-preduring-and-post-procurement.aspx+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-b

Don't suppose anyone has that?

Johnboy1951

KOR101 wrote: »

This cached page lists a

Operator Commitment Contract: Heads of Terms - Annex 3 PDF

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:68ngwAnWQswJ:www.dccae.gov.ie/communications/en-ie/Pages/Consultation/Consultation-on-the-process-for-updating-the-High-Speed-Broadband-Map-preduring-and-post-procurement.aspx+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-b

Don't suppose anyone has that?

Submissions received will be carefully considered with a view to finalising the process for managing the High Speed Broadband Map and proceeding to formal procurement by end of 2015.

It is not only eir that run behind estimates.

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are several good technical, financial, business process and regulatory reasons to keep them separate. There's only one aesthetic reason to combine them.

So, what are those good reasons then?

The Cush

lucernarian wrote: »

In a rural part of Louth I'm familiar with, the poles that been marked with a D have been replaced now, though how they were selected is a mystery.

When they were being checked in my area I spoke with the person checking them. The poles are checked for physical condition, rot etc., poles not a sufficient depth into the ground below a notch on the pole are marked defective, old thinner poles are marked defective. I agree with you regards leaning poles I've see a few going unmarked, also at junctions carry pothead joiners in most cases, maybe they'll be done at a later stage by a different crew.

During the check all poles are GPS ID'd via their barcode and recorded to a map on a tablet, red as defective and green OK. Downloaded to a database on return to depot.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

So, what are those good reasons then?

Technical: the ONT is a clear demarcation point between wholesale and retail. It's possible to troubleshoot the ONT and the router separately and to power-cycle them separately. The ONT is a single-purpose device which does one thing and does it well. The retail ISP may have standardised on a particular brand of router, and it may not suit their management systems to work with the combined ONT/router.

Financial: ISPs may decide to offer tiers of service with different classes of router, but wouldn't have a choice if the router is bundled with the ONT. In fact, an ISP could conceivably offer a discounted connection on the basis that the customer would provide their own router - not an option if the ONT and router are bundled.

Business process: this largely comes down to the counter-argument to the above, which is that you could choose either a bundled or an unbundled option. This introduces its own complications: different ordering options at install time, different configurations to figure out when troubleshooting. What happens when a customer is happy with the bundled router at first, but wants to move to using a standalone ONT and their own router? The wholesale operator has to do it, which means the retail operator has to pay for it, which means either passing on or eating the cost. What if the router dies? If they're separate, the retail ISP can impress the customer by showing up at their door within half an hour with a replacement; if they're bundled, the retailer has to wait for the wholesaler to schedule a callout.

Regulatory: this is about demarcation. As it stands, the ONT is the wholesaler's and the router is the retailer's. With a combination, who owns it? The wholesaler isn't going to relinquish ownership of the ONT, so you end up with the wholesale operator owning the router, but the retailer being responsible for troubleshooting it.

These aren't even all the reasons, just what I can rhyme off right now. Seriously: it's not a good idea.

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

Technical: the ONT is a clear demarcation point between wholesale and retail. It's possible to troubleshoot the ONT and the router separately and to power-cycle them separately. The ONT is a single-purpose device which does one thing and does it well. The retail ISP may have standardised on a particular brand of router, and it may not suit their management systems to work with the combined ONT/router.

Financial: ISPs may decide to offer tiers of service with different classes of router, but wouldn't have a choice if the router is bundled with the ONT. In fact, an ISP could conceivably offer a discounted connection on the basis that the customer would provide their own router - not an option if the ONT and router are bundled.

Business process: this largely comes down to the counter-argument to the above, which is that you could choose either a bundled or an unbundled option. This introduces its own complications: different ordering options at install time, different configurations to figure out when troubleshooting. What happens when a customer is happy with the bundled router at first, but wants to move to using a standalone ONT and their own router? The wholesale operator has to do it, which means the retail operator has to pay for it, which means either passing on or eating the cost. What if the router dies? If they're separate, the retail ISP can impress the customer by showing up at their door within half an hour with a replacement; if they're bundled, the retailer has to wait for the wholesaler to schedule a callout.

Regulatory: this is about demarcation. As it stands, the ONT is the wholesaler's and the router is the retailer's. With a combination, who owns it? The wholesaler isn't going to relinquish ownership of the ONT, so you end up with the wholesale operator owning the router, but the retailer being responsible for troubleshooting it.

These aren't even all the reasons, just what I can rhyme off right now. Seriously: it's not a good idea.

Fair points. Maybe the answer is not equipment supplied by Openeir but, equipment, including the ONT supplied by the retail operator.

I think it depends on what the ONT actually is? As far as I can see, it's not much more than an optical/electrical converter. Something like that either works or doesn't work. It's not likely to need specific troubleshooting unless they are particularly unreliable ...

ED E

At the exchange end all ONTs appear in a single path, its how OE differentiates each subscription. 3rd party ONTs mean OLOs would have to register-deregister CPE with OE which is extra OSS complexity for no real gain.

Current setup is nearly perfect. Add a battery backup option and its perfect.