Identifying whether new BT lines might provide broadband service
Mortimer
broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has not
been an option in the village - not because of line length but because of
"incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have recently removed
the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells you the likely speed
and any likely problems. :-(
I imagine that the "incompatible equipment" is some sort of multiplexer:
when they enquired a while ago, they were told that all the phones for the
village are multiplexed over a few lines and that BT would "never" be able
to supply any additional phone lines if people ever wanted a second line.
Recently a contractor on behalf of BT has installed a number of additional
underground lines but BT have not publicised to the householders whether
this will allow broadband. There is a lot of rumour and discussion but no
hard fact anywhere.
Is there a facility (eg a web site) for checking by exchange or phone number
whether there are plans to enable additional lines and/or remove
"incompatible equipment"?
The Natural Philosopher
> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
>
Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the
connected exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get
off it, if it is.
> My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has not
> been an option in the village - not because of line length but because of
> "incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have recently removed
> the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells you the likely speed
> and any likely problems. :-(
>
I am sure it still exists somewhere.
This one still works
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php
> I imagine that the "incompatible equipment" is some sort of multiplexer:
> when they enquired a while ago, they were told that all the phones for the
> village are multiplexed over a few lines and that BT would "never" be able
> to supply any additional phone lines if people ever wanted a second line.
>
Yes, they traded bandwith for number of subscribers. Probably on the
backhaul.
Upgrading the backhaul might mean a new microwave link, or a new fibre
into the exchange.
> Recently a contractor on behalf of BT has installed a number of additional
> underground lines but BT have not publicised to the householders whether
> this will allow broadband. There is a lot of rumour and discussion but no
> hard fact anywhere.
>
One of the better ways is to simply order it from an ISP. They will soon
tell you if it cannot be done. BT may have blown its backhaul capacity
on voice alone, which means the whole exchange is probably upgraded.
Mortimer
news:121562727...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> Mortimer wrote:
>> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
>> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
>>
>
> Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the connected
> exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get off it, if it
> is.
The exchange is certainly enabled, and has been since 2004, I see from the
Kitz checker below.
The problem is local loop: it looks likely that BT took the decision in the
past to save on the number of pairs by muxing them. With the newly-installed
lines (taken as a spur from a new water-pumping station nearby which had
more lines installed by BT than were needed!) maybe they will now be able to
offer one pair per house.
>> My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has
>> not been an option in the village - not because of line length but
>> because of "incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have
>> recently removed the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells
>> you the likely speed and any likely problems. :-(
>>
>
> I am sure it still exists somewhere.
>
> This one still works
>
> http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php
That seems to be saying that 256 and 512 fixed and RADSL are possible. What
is the maximum line length for ADSL these days? Kitz is giving a by-road
distance of about 6.5 km.
I think my parents will be pleased with any speed of broadband: even 256 is
better than about 30-35 by dial-up.
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:121562727...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
>>> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
>>>
>> Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the connected
>> exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get off it, if it
>> is.
>
> The exchange is certainly enabled, and has been since 2004, I see from the
> Kitz checker below.
>
> The problem is local loop: it looks likely that BT took the decision in the
> past to save on the number of pairs by muxing them. With the newly-installed
> lines (taken as a spur from a new water-pumping station nearby which had
> more lines installed by BT than were needed!) maybe they will now be able to
> offer one pair per house.
Mmm. you are talking party line,. I don't think I have seen party line
since the 60's: It's far more likely it was the excahnge capacity below
par sharing 'trunks' than two people on one twisted pair..
>
>>> My parents have a holiday cottage in Yorkshire. Up to now, broadband has
>>> not been an option in the village - not because of line length but
>>> because of "incompatible equipment". Having said that, BT seem to have
>>> recently removed the tool where you put in a phone number and it tells
>>> you the likely speed and any likely problems. :-(
>>>
>> I am sure it still exists somewhere.
>>
>> This one still works
>>
>> http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php
>
> That seems to be saying that 256 and 512 fixed and RADSL are possible. What
> is the maximum line length for ADSL these days? Kitz is giving a by-road
> distance of about 6.5 km.
Ouch! I get 4,5Mpbs indicated on the kitz site, which is pretty much
what I DO get..thats at 2.8km. I'd guess you wouldn't see much over
1Mbps at 6.5km.
But that's still not bad. at lest you still get the 448k upload speeds.
That was MY reason to go up from 512k to Max..better uploads.
>
> I think my parents will be pleased with any speed of broadband: even 256 is
> better than about 30-35 by dial-up.
>
Of course. Look go to a DECENT ISP - people here seem to rate IDNET -
and try and order it.
If it 'cant be done' they will get back to you, but at least BT will get
a message saying 'yet another person in Fuctup-in-the-Marsh wants broadband'
They tend to record that data, and enable/rewire places that look
profitable..
>
>
Mortimer
> Mortimer wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:121562727...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will
>>>> support broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to
>>>> now?
>>>>
>>> Yes. Online checkers exist that will tell you whether or not the
>>> connected exchange is equipped wit DSLAMS and what service you can get
>>> off it, if it is.
>>
>> The exchange is certainly enabled, and has been since 2004, I see from
>> the Kitz checker below.
>>
>> The problem is local loop: it looks likely that BT took the decision in
>> the past to save on the number of pairs by muxing them. With the
>> newly-installed lines (taken as a spur from a new water-pumping station
>> nearby which had more lines installed by BT than were needed!) maybe they
>> will now be able to offer one pair per house.
>
> Mmm. you are talking party line,. I don't think I have seen party line
> since the 60's: It's far more likely it was the excahnge capacity below
> par sharing 'trunks' than two people on one twisted pair..
I dont think they are party lines: there's never an occasion when you pick
up the phone to make a call and hear an existing conversation from the other
person that you share the party line with. The last time I remember coming
across a party line was when my friend's parents had one in the late 60s and
early 70s.
You could be right about the exchange capacity, but I understood that it's a
problem to this specific village and maybe a few other equally outlying
communities, rather than the whole exchange which also serves a nearby town
and provides broadband perfectly well to them.
What is a DACS? I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing
several houses over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather than
time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally incompatible with
broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than just the
multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a DACS that was the
"incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.
>> Kitz is giving a by-road distance of about 6.5 km.
>
> Ouch! I get 4,5Mpbs indicated on the kitz site, which is pretty much what
> I DO get..thats at 2.8km. I'd guess you wouldn't see much over 1Mbps at
> 6.5km.
>
> But that's still not bad. at lest you still get the 448k upload speeds.
Yes, a 1 M / 448 k service would be great. Even 512/384 would be a
significant improvement.
If my parents order broadband at present, will BT just reject the
application on the grounds of "incompatible equipment on the line - now sod
off" or will they say to the ISP "we can't do it right now but we've got
plans to upgrade the lines any day soon".
ian
<ppOdnUCxBpMfoejV...@posted.plusnet>, Mortimer
(m...@privacy.net) wrote:
> I dont think they are party lines:
Neither do I. IIRC, party lines - the old "shared service" arrangement -
disappeared when exchange switches went digital.
> there's never an occasion when you pick
> up the phone to make a call and hear an existing conversation from the
> other person that you share the party line with. The last time I remember
> coming across a party line was when my friend's parents had one in the
> late 60s and early 70s.
>
> You could be right about the exchange capacity, but I understood that it's
> a problem to this specific village and maybe a few other equally outlying
> communities, rather than the whole exchange which also serves a nearby
> town and provides broadband perfectly well to them.
>
> What is a DACS?
A 2 channel PCM thingy, for squirting 2 lines down one pair of wires. Both
lines can be used at the same time without interfering with each other.
DSL doesn't work over DACS.
> I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing
> several houses over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather
> than time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally incompatible
> with broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than
> just the multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a DACS
> that was the "incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.
Or a.n.other kind of incompatible service - Line Concentrator, TPON etc.
--
Ian...
Mortimer
news:j76dnbWB7ak_2ejV...@bt.com...
> On Wednesday 09 July 2008 11:32 pm, in MID
> <ppOdnUCxBpMfoejV...@posted.plusnet>, Mortimer
> (m...@privacy.net) wrote:
>
>
>> What is a DACS?
>
> A 2 channel PCM thingy, for squirting 2 lines down one pair of wires. Both
> lines can be used at the same time without interfering with each other.
>
> DSL doesn't work over DACS.
Where is the customer end of the DACS fitted - beside the master socket in
each house or on the pole from which the lines radiate to the houses. I
remember when my parents first got a phone at the cottage (early 90s,
maybe), there was a big black box on the wall beside the master socket but
this was later removed.
>> I always thought that this was a means of multiplexing
>> several houses over one pair - allowing simultaneous voice calls rather
>> than time-shared ones as with a party line - and thus totally
>> incompatible
>> with broadband which needs several hundred kHz over a pair rather than
>> just the multiplexed 3 kHz of a voice call. I was assuming it was a DACS
>> that was the "incompatible equipment" that Kitz was reporting.
>
> Or a.n.other kind of incompatible service - Line Concentrator, TPON etc.
So what's a line concentrator, then? Is it another form of DACS which allows
more than two calls to be multiplexed by PCM? Wikipedia doesn't have an
entry for line concentrator.
Eeyore
Mortimer wrote:
> Is there way of identifying whether newly installed BT lines will support
> broadband in a village where it has not been possible up to now?
Did you ask BT directly ? If you can get through to a UK member of staff they
can be very helpful.
Graham
IanB
>So what's a line concentrator, then? Is it another form of DACS which allows
>more than two calls to be multiplexed by PCM? Wikipedia doesn't have an
>entry for line concentrator.
In the "old days" line concentrators were analogue devices that could
connect a number of customers in a given area to the exchange over a
much smaller number of trunks. A typical size was 80 customers using
16 trunks (+ 2 control/power pairs) back to the exchange.
They were still being installed on digital exchanges when I left BT
(about 13 years ago) but I don't know what the situation is now.
It was done "on demand" with a small switch at each end selecting a
trunk and physically connecting the customer to that trunk when they
needed to make/receive a call. When the call ended the trunk was
released back to general use.
The most common ones were known as "GFellers", after their Swiss
manufacturer, and utilized a very neat set of mini crossbar switches
at each end.
--
Ian
The from address is valid
Klunk
Could they be Gfella (don't remember the oddball spelling). From memory
these came in a number of sizes. The worst one I have dealt with had 16
'trunks' feeding some 60 odd customers. The idea being when the handset
was lifted the concentrator sensed it and looked for a spare trunk to
provide dial tone. The crux of it being that nobody had a physical pair
going back to the exchange and if customer 17 tried to pick up there was
no service.
The straw that broke the donkeys back was the dial up modem. With these
grabbing the line for hours whilst people went surfing the web, 56k
style, meant trunks were tied up and service compromised.
When I left BT they were still in use, but somewhat rare. The only other
thing that I recall was 'incompatible' was TPON - but I've never seen or
worked on one and, to be totally honest, I have no idea what it is. My
best guess is that it's a fibre unit parented off an exchange providing
multiplexing. This would also be 'incompatible'.
One thing is nearly certain. For small developments the only 'new'
network will be the part in the development itself. BT rarely spend any
money beyond that point until the wet string is really bust. It normally
means 100 metres nice new copper - the rest all old crap ;-)
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
IanB
>I dont think they are party lines: there's never an occasion when you pick
>up the phone to make a call and hear an existing conversation from the other
>person that you share the party line with. The last time I remember coming
>across a party line was when my friend's parents had one in the late 60s and
>early 70s.
Shared service lines were being phased out through the 80's, being
replaced by a couple of different systems culminating in DACS.
There were still a few of the old earth calling shared service lines
(the ones where you could hear the other party) around in the early
90s though; they had to be replaced then as they were incompatible
with the digital system concentrators.
The Natural Philosopher
I had no idea thatBT weer using kit like that..
anyway, round here, BT have been laying new cables like mad.
When I ask why its always the same 'broadband: not enough lines at
decent quality available'
I am not sure if BT doesn't have some commitment to supply broadband
everywhere?
Anyway I still say order the things and see what happens.
If BT has laid ne cables to a new development, its unlikely they would
hae installed more multiplexers: Far more likely that thay have also
upgarded the lines back TO the exchange as well.
I ran into the same philosophy when I had the 11KV overhead put under
ground. It cost a lot, but the power company said 'well, we underground
as fast as we can: there are no more overhead lines going in. I have a
budget. The more miles I can underground within that budget, the better
we like it. You just paid half of this stretch. That looks good."
I suspect te same is true of BT. They are upgrading cables as fast as
they can, given thh budgets that the bean counters allocate. They will
upgrade where the cost per happy customer is least. The more poeple
order against a cable or exchange, the more likely it is to move up the
priority tree.
I was not surprised to learn that Internet shopping is more prominent in
rural araes..broadband IS important in rural locations, and it's now
seen to be profitable as well.
Klunk
empty day by writing:
> If BT has laid ne cables to a new development, its unlikely they would
> hae installed more multiplexers:
Indeed. What normally happens is they provide all the D Side wiring as
new work (from Cab to customer) and then don't bother doing anything as
far as E Side goes ;-) Now, I don't mean to sound cynical, but from
experience when they get pushed and realise they have to do something,
they take one of these options:
a) Do nothing in that budget year bullshitting customers about 'duct
blockages' and issues with road closures/works
b) Find a can nearby with spare E-sides and run a link cable between the
two (stealing capacity from the feeding cab)
c) Find the nearest cable with 'stumped' E-side spares (regardless of
condition)
d) Run new E-sides to cab from the exchange (most unlikely but does
happen).
To give you an idea of cost, the bit part figures we used to use to lay
duct and cable was £45 per metre in soft (grass), £65 in tarmac, £95 per
metre in the carriageway. For big work it's done on a price for the job,
but with only a couple of companies doing this kind of thing it does not
tend to vary much.
> I ran into the same philosophy when I had the 11KV overhead put under
> ground. It cost a lot, but the power company said 'well, we underground
> as fast as we can: there are no more overhead lines going in. I have a
> budget. The more miles I can underground within that budget, the better
> we like it. You just paid half of this stretch. That looks good."
In my village they have just replaced all the open three phase and
neutral overhead. Not by putting it underground, oh no. They have
restrung the whole lot with Ariel Bundled Cable (ABC). It looks a bit
better, but it is all still very much overhead.
Back to the Gfeller (thanks for the spelling whoever it was). It is far
from 'remote' areas that get them. I know there used to be a small
version that fitted into an MC32 pole enclosure with a ratio of 16:4 and
these found there way out into the countryside. The bigger Gfellers
(16:x) are often found in some remarkable places. For those familiar with
the south, Chineham on the outskirts of Basingstoke has one (opposite the
Village Hall), as does Kempshott (on Kempshott Lane near Gracemere
Crescent). I'm going there later and I'll be a sad anorak and see if they
are still there!
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
Mortimer
news:48760137$0$26091$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:45:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
> empty day by writing:
>
> neutral overhead. Not by putting it underground, oh no. They have
> restrung the whole lot with Ariel Bundled Cable (ABC). It looks a bit
> better, but it is all still very much overhead.
Is that the thick bundle which looks about 2 inches in diameter (difficult
to judge when it's up in the air!)?
There seems to have been a programme of doing that for overhead 240V wires
in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.
Klunk
writing:
> "Klunk" <bill....@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:48760137$0$26091$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:45:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher passed an
>> empty day by writing:
>>
>> In my village they have just replaced all the open three phase and
>> neutral overhead. Not by putting it underground, oh no. They have
>> restrung the whole lot with Ariel Bundled Cable (ABC). It looks a bit
>> better, but it is all still very much overhead.
>
> Is that the thick bundle which looks about 2 inches in diameter
> (difficult to judge when it's up in the air!)?
>
> There seems to have been a programme of doing that for overhead 240V
> wires in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.
Sure is - it's twisted three phases and neutral - looking like one of
those old lamp flexes from years ago, just in a bigger version.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
hundred meters, either.
The 'last ten miles' is always 11kV..its the last half mile that is 240V
usually.
No doubt someone who has an insulated anorak will be along shortly to
give you chapter and verse. ;-)
I would guess that round here, the cost benefit between
- issuing refunds for outages
- performing regular tree prunings along hundreds of miles of 11KV overhead
- putting sections underground
is quite an interesting one.
Overheads get trees falling on them, insulators breaking down, and
lighning strikes, Undergrounds don't suffer from any of those, but my
stretch was around £50 a meter to install, allegedly.
I guess there are only about 100 people downstream from me..it runs a
couple of kilometers more..£1000 a customer to replace? something like that.
Klunk
empty day by writing:
> No doubt someone who has an insulated anorak will be along shortly to
> give you chapter and verse. ;-)
LMFAO!
> There are very few overhead 240V wires. Never for more than a few
> hundred meters, either.
I'm not so sure. I fully agree that it's only 240 for the last mile or
so, but look at the sheer amount of homes connected from overhead
supplies. How much that would add up to if you laid it out end to end is
where we have a need for and electricity anorak.
My village has 4 separate main feeds, all overhead. 2 at 11kv and 2 at
33kv. They more or less come in from the north, south east and west.
Going off on a tangent a bit - I have to tip my hat to the guys at the
electricity board(s). I've seen them out in my street all night long
digging to put one house back on. I've seen them take temporary supplies
from lamp posts to keep freezers running whilst they do it. They don't
tend to run away from jobs, they get on with it.
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe
The Natural Philosopher
Actually, people who really work on infratsructure are the blokes I like
the most.
You can't argue with physical reality. Either the stuff works or it
doesn't.
I feed all people working around here n as much tea coffee and biscuits
as they want,cos basically without blokes like that we are screwed.
Jeff Gaines
wrote:
>Going off on a tangent a bit - I have to tip my hat to the guys at the
>electricity board(s). I've seen them out in my street all night long
>digging to put one house back on. I've seen them take temporary supplies
>from lamp posts to keep freezers running whilst they do it. They don't
>tend to run away from jobs, they get on with it.
Hear, hear!
We have overhead cables and when a tree takes a cable down the guys turn
up and don't stop until it's fixed.
It seems to me these engineers who work at the sharp end (and BT
engineers) are a great bunch of people, I'm not sue the same can be said
about their management sadly.
--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those
who can't.
The Natural Philosopher
> I'm not sue
Hey, neither am I..!
Klunk
in use, in busy parts of Basingstoke, Hampshire:
http://www.buzzhost.co.uk/ims/gf2.jpg
http://www.buzzhost.co.uk/ims/gf1.jpg
One has seen far better days. You can't provide broadband on them, but it
never stopped some people from trying ;-)
--
begin oefixed_in_2005.exe