BT Fibre Pulls Out of Chelsea Over Ugly Equipment Cabinets

Agreed by Grizzley9 · 2012-05-31 04:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

TBH, those are fairly ugly. Seems there could be a market for disguising them just like they do some cell phone towers or simply having the city allow it to be put in spaces not out in the open.

Re:Agreed by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-31 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative

They look pretty similar to the Virgin boxes that the residents seem to be fine about. Maybe a bit taller.
BT Infinity is made of fail anyway. It's expensive, slow and capped to hell. Rather than do real fibre to the premises they decided to roll out last century's technology.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Agreed by ciderbrew · 2012-05-31 04:54 · Score: 1

I've been looking at getting it. How capped to hell? I'm changing ISP in the next week or so. Any recommendations other than BT, SKY, talk talk. Virgin is evil and not on my list ...Even if it was free..
Re:Agreed by RdeCourtney · 2012-05-31 04:55 · Score: 4, Informative

BC Hydro here allow kids to put murals on the boxes like this and they also wrap a lot of the boxes in flowers and tree photos to blend them into the environment..

--
Insert signature here...
Re:Agreed by Jeng · 2012-05-31 04:56 · Score: 2

If oil drilling rigs can be so disguised that they aren't noticed in the middle of LA then I am sure that BT could have disguised their cabinets enough to make the snobs happy.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Agreed by MightyYar · 2012-05-31 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Couldn't they have made them into the shape of the old red payphones? This seems like the company was being a bit arrogant.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Agreed by icebike · 2012-05-31 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

This type of Infrastructure stays around for 50 years on average, and there's no need to accept such crappie equipment strewn all over the landscape because once in, you are stuck, they will never improve or replace them.
If you don't force them to do it right the first time, it will look like hell forever.
I have a ground mounted transformer, a telephone cabinet , a cable company cabinet all sitting in my front yard, all because the subdivision builder granted them easements. The service companies bitch where I shroud them with Rhodies.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Agreed by PPH · 2012-05-31 05:07 · Score: 2

My thinking exactly. Cover them with tart cards and no one will spot the difference.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny

If they made them to look like blue police call boxes people would be fighting over having one on their street.
Re:Agreed by strength_of_10_men · 2012-05-31 05:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here in Ann Arbor, the city has allowed local artists to adopt and paint these types of boxes as well as fire hydrants. It's actually pretty neat. It doesn't quite make them disappear into the background but they're not quite the eyesore anymore.
http://julihoffman.wordpress.com/tag/ann-arbor-photos/
Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Our street in Ontario has the same problem. Every 8-10 houses you get three service boxes in your front yard (I'm not a utility nerd, so I'm not sure what's what), one of which is the approximate width and depth of a washing machine, and perhaps two and a half feet high, and painted the same green as the boxes in the BT story. All down the street you have these ugly-ass boxes that have been graffitied by neighborhood kids. They bitch when you plant something to camouflage them, but you can't get the bastards to come out and paint the thing when it gets tagged. I really don't want to look like I live in a crackhouse. Props to Chelsea and Kensington for giving BT the whatfor, because once these things are in you're not going to get rid of them.
Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:39 · Score: 1

I don't think the paint color is the issue, otherwise I expect BT would have agreed to disguise them however the borough wanted. The issue seems to be the location, number, and physical design of the cabinets. No doubt BT is trying to minimize the length of fiber it has to run to save money. If there are fewer cabinets in out-of-the-way locations, then they're going to be that much further from where they need to be to service customers. Underground installations would also obviously increase costs.
Re:Agreed by ShakingSpirit · 2012-05-31 05:50 · Score: 5, Informative

They look pretty similar to the Virgin boxes that the residents seem to be fine about. Maybe a bit taller.
BT Infinity is made of fail anyway. It's expensive, slow and capped to hell. Rather than do real fibre to the premises they decided to roll out last century's technology.
BT Infinity is great, and pretty much the best choice for internet access in the UK, just as long as you don't get it from BT... Plenty of other providers which resell the same FTTC service but without the crappy throttling/shaping. I'm with Zen and get 60down/20up solidly, couldn't be happier to be honest.
Re:Agreed by dj245 · 2012-05-31 06:09 · Score: 1

It wouldn't take a whole lot to put up some cheap, but durable statues or other outdoor art, and build the equipment cabinet into the pedestal base. There are probably artists who would be happy to get their work on public display for little or no cost.

Or you could build the cabinet really long, and make it look like a bench. It would be warm too.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:Agreed by icebike · 2012-05-31 06:12 · Score: 1

Physical size is clearly the issue here. I can guarantee you that these boxes are mostly empty space inside, and the actual equipment could be configured to fit in a much smaller space.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 07:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Taek a look at the UK Free Software Network if you want a non-evil ISP.
I live in RBKC. I started with talktalk in March, and it's fine. I have only paid in advance for 1 year's phone line rental (£114), but the broadband is literally free for a year (they gave me a tesco voucher £25 and I used a cashback site which gave me £70 amazon voucher).
Compared to that, BT is really expensive, but then again they currently spend £20 every month sending snailmail spam to every flat in my building. On the other hand, Virgin spends £40 doing the same thing as they use A4 sized envelopes!
Re:Agreed by colinnwn · 2012-05-31 07:35 · Score: 1

I don't have a dog in this game, but it doesn't seem arrogant to me. If the neighbors wanted BT and thought the boxes were ugly, the council/neighborhood should have offered to pay a reasonable amount for them to be camoflauged. Why should BT pay when they don't pay to camoflauge them in poor residential neighborhoods? Now if they did offer and BT refused or said it would cost them big daddy warbucks, then it does seem arrogant of BT.
Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 07:42 · Score: 1

lol
Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 07:47 · Score: 1

I can guarantee you that you're wrong.
http://www.trefor.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cabinet-with-kit_small.jpg
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/ispnews/data/upimages/subfolders/2009%20Broadband%20Hardware/fttc_deployment.jpg
Re:Agreed by ATMD · 2012-05-31 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I was on UKFSN when I lived with people, but had to switch to a cheaper ISP when I started living on my own. If I could afford it I'd definitely go back, though - proper business-grade ADSL, a /29 subnet, fantastic latency and great customer support (it's run by a geek in his garage).
That was a couple of years ago so it may have changed, but I'd certainly be willing to try them again if I had the chance.

--
Nobody else has this sig.
Re:Agreed by ebuck · 2012-05-31 08:41 · Score: 1

I too don't have a dog in the game. I'm not even on the same contient.
If BT wants to move into my neighborhood (which seems unlikely) then why should my neighborhood pay _anything_ to bring their equipment up to my existing standards? As long as my neighborhood's standards are not designed to foster unfair competition, it is up to BT to conform with the existing code.
If a home builder wants to build in a community, they don't get an "assistance" to bring their quality in line with the local code and regulations.
Re:Agreed by colinnwn · 2012-05-31 08:51 · Score: 1

Not that the USA is anything to aspire to. But it sounds like you have underground utilites with ground level service boxes painted neutral colors. Most of us would love to have that. Only the nicest and richest neighborhoods in the USA have underground utilites. Most neighborhoods have all utilites on poles on the front street. Lucky neighborhoods have the utilites on poles in the alley, so you only see the poles/utilites on crossing streets.

If it was me, I'd set up a survellence camera on the boxes and send the video to the police when they get tagged, and then go out and repaint them green with some exterior paint real fast. We don't have a problem with camoflauging these boxes with plant material or something easy to move, as long as you don't complain to the service company when the plants get torn up.
Re:Agreed by ArsonSmith · 2012-05-31 09:54 · Score: 1

So why cant the box be buried and an access cover put over it? I never understood these eyesores...

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Agreed by Smauler · 2012-05-31 09:55 · Score: 1

paper thin walls
This is the biggest problem with houses... I really think that this is a good place when government regulation could help. The number of times police, courts, etc get involved with noise and neighbour disputes that stem from noise - If you mandated decent walls, you'd save money, grief, and hassle.
Re:Agreed by asdf7890 · 2012-05-31 12:00 · Score: 2

If BT wants to move into my neighborhood (which seems unlikely) then why should my neighborhood pay _anything_ to bring their equipment up to my existing standards? As long as my neighborhood's standards are not designed to foster unfair competition, it is up to BT to conform with the existing code.
Likewise, why should BT bother extending their network into your area if they don't like your conditions? That is essentially what has happened here, and I'm sure BT/OpenReach don't really care. They would have fought the position because they have to: as an incumbent monopoly in certain respects they have provisioning targets set by the industry regulator, but working in that area might be more hassle than it is worth for them. It doesn't matter that the area is pretty rich in fact it makes the area less attractive as a business proposition - people in a million pound home will pay the same 50 quid/month that I pay to connect my hundred thousand pound flat and there are far less potential customers in a given area (a million pound home and its garden tends to take more room than my flat (unless you are in central London)). On top of BT/OR getting less income from areas like that, the nature of the area and how protective the people in it are of it means that working in the area is going to cost more to start with.

I suspect BT/OR is quite happy to be released from that bit of their regulatory responsibility. They've done their due diligence and the residents have forcibly opted out, they can now spend the resource working in a potentially more profitable area. Of course the residents are probably happy too, so this is a win-win situation. In fact the respective legal advisers are happy too no doubt. Win-win-win. If something bad happens with Virgin Media's fiber network in a few years time (if for instance they don't keep up with demand increases and the backbones get bogged down with more traffic than they were intended for) the residents may become less happy to have less choice or alternatives than they otherwise would have done.
Re:Agreed by mirix · 2012-05-31 12:21 · Score: 1

To top it off, we ended up with paper thin walls,
That's because shitty North American houses are made out of paper. (usually) :-p

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Re:Agreed by Sosarian+Avatar · 2012-05-31 18:03 · Score: 1

Only the nicest and richest neighborhoods in the USA have underground utilites.
That may be true where you live, in which case I can only imagine that it kind of sucks... In my Californian county, most of the middle-class & affordable suburban housing built in/after 1970 has underground wiring, at least as far as I've seen.

--
Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!
Re:Agreed by Chrisq · 2012-05-31 18:35 · Score: 1

I think they are a bit smaller, but as this picture shows pretty similar.
Re:Agreed by StoneyMahoney · 2012-05-31 19:42 · Score: 1

A street artist down in Brighton already took the opportunity to have some fun with these simple green boxes:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8174462.Brighton_s_Cassette_Lord_on_graffiti__art_and_brushes_with_the_law/
Re:Agreed by Xest · 2012-05-31 20:21 · Score: 1

Why were they being arrogant? Pretty much the entire rest of the country seems to have had no problem with them including many old villages around here that even have specially designed streetlights in place by the local council to maintain the historic look of the place.
I don't see why these two councils felt they deserved special treatment, deserved BT to spend even more money designing/buying/testing/installing specially designed cabinets just for them leaving BT with even less money in it's fibre rollout pot to spend on people elsewhere in the country who can currently only dream of getting fibre.
It more seems like the councils were being a bit arrogant, believing they were special - perhaps if said councils want special treatment they should fucking fund it. Our local council had to pay BT to even make the usual fibre cabinets viable to install around here, so these ultra-rich councils can certainly find cash if they want specially designed cabinets installing instead. Why should BT foot the bill against it's will? Why should other people not get fibre at all because BT had to put more money into these people feeling they're owed special treatment?
They can already get Virgin's fibre service and already have Virgin cabinets and the older BT cabinets around the place, if BT has deemed that meeting their demands isn't cost effective them good on BT for basically just telling them to go screw themselves. Now BT can go and invest that money and use that equipment elsewhere, where people will actually appreciate it.
Judging by the language used by BT, it sounds like they suspect someone on the council is trying to protect Virgin's monopoly in the area more than anything anyway and if that's the case then it really is the council's problem.
Re:Agreed by drinkypoo · 2012-06-01 00:30 · Score: 1

So why cant the box be buried and an access cover put over it? I never understood these eyesores...
It costs more so people only do this where they are forced to, e.g. San Francisco. Fiber doesn't go into above-ground boxes there, it goes into the sidewalk under some bigass metal doors.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Agreed by tom17 · 2012-06-01 00:49 · Score: 1

But but but that would eat into the builder's profits!!!
And yes, we probably cost quite a bit in police time too. Ultimately they told us if we want to fix the problem, move.
We moved :)
Re:Agreed by tom17 · 2012-06-01 00:51 · Score: 1

I miss brick houses. Kinda getting used to the stick houses over here but I still have to wonder why they don't just build real houses in the first place.
Ahh yes, builders profits :)
Re:Agreed by Builder · 2012-06-01 07:57 · Score: 1

I can't get FTTC from anyone other than BT without major caps. As soon as I want fixed IP as well, I'm SOL - my only choice is BT.
I'm still tempted, just because my ADSL connection currently is 3Mb/0.6Mb
Re:Agreed by AmiMoJo · 2012-06-01 22:33 · Score: 1

Really? Looking at their website they don't appear to offer that:
http://www.zen.co.uk/business/broadband/fibre-broadband.aspx
The closest is 15Mb upload speed and 1000GB/month cap for Â£78/month inc. VAT. Add the mandatory BT phone line and that is about Â£91/month. To give you an idea of what a total rip-off that is I pay just under Â£40/month for Virgin 100Mb/10Mb with no overall cap but various different limits throughout the day.
It's as if BT don't want people to have it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

A new paintjob? by Kozz · 2012-05-31 04:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Perhaps if they're painted like a police box, nobody will even notice they're present?

--
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.

Re:A new paintjob? by zlives · 2012-05-31 04:48 · Score: 2, Funny

or a CCTV camera
Re:A new paintjob? by girlintraining · 2012-05-31 04:56 · Score: 1

Perhaps if they're painted like a police box, nobody will even notice they're present?
As a bonus, equipment with broken chameleon circuits could continue to operate in the community. Of course, you'd also have to put up signs saying that upon meeting an adult who talks very quickly and mumbles about his screwdriver, you are instructed to immediately provide your full name and some kind of sob story. It'll save them when the monsters, sentient water, spacecraft, and parasites come.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

How it really happened... by 3vi1 · 2012-05-31 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny

In my mind, I like to picture this spat ending with them shouting "INDUBITABLY!" at each other and throwing tea.

Re:How it really happened... by who_stole_my_kidneys · 2012-05-31 04:47 · Score: 1

i just spit my coffee out all over the keyboard reading that.
Re:How it really happened... by Stormthirst · 2012-05-31 04:53 · Score: 1

I think you're confusing them with the folks in Boston.
The Brits value tea far too much to be throwing it anywhere, except in a tea pot to make a brew!
Re:How it really happened... by Smauler · 2012-05-31 10:03 · Score: 1

Heh... the sludge that most people drink, and contaminate with 3 sugars and 1/4 a pint of milk doesn't taste like tea anyway.
Guess it's a little like coffee in that respect...

Seems justified... by Antony+T+Curtis · 2012-05-31 04:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

From TFA:

... would not use sites that already had unused BT equipment ...

Seems reasonable to refuse on those grounds alone.

--
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.

Re:I am glad that I live elsewhere by Stormthirst · 2012-05-31 04:52 · Score: 1

I used Vermin cable internet for several years and had no problems at all.

Re:Who or What is BT? by redfox2012 · 2012-05-31 04:53 · Score: 2

British multinational telecommunications services company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is one of the largest telecommunications services companies in the world and has operations in over 170 countries.

Re:Who or What is BT? by majesticmerc · 2012-05-31 04:53 · Score: 1

BT is one of the telecommunications providers in the UK (like Verizon or AT&T in the USA I think).

Not in MY W11! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-05-31 04:54 · Score: 1

We even have very nice looking RBKC covers on the bins, thank you.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/airport-lounge/3067336668/?q=rbkc%20bins

They were designed by William Morris. Take your Land Rover cabinets back to Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith...

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Aesthetics by scarboni888 · 2012-05-31 04:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

Every time aesthetics trumps functionality I get just a little bit sadder.

Re:Aesthetics by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-05-31 05:07 · Score: 1

Every time aesthetics trumps functionality I get just a little bit sadder.
Agreed.
#FirstWorldProblem right here.
Re:Aesthetics by MrNaz · 2012-05-31 05:33 · Score: 5, Informative

If you are unable to see that aesthetics actually has functional value, then I'm surprised you're actually capable of the emotion of "sadness".

--
I hate printers.
Re:Aesthetics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:39 · Score: 1

Every time cost trumps quality I get just a little bit sadder.
Re:Aesthetics by amRadioHed · 2012-05-31 05:45 · Score: 2

Functionality for who? If I was a customer then *maybe* I wouldn't mind seeing their ugly boxes littering the landscape. But what about everyone else? Not everyone is a customer and some people actually like living in nice places.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Aesthetics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Firstworldproblem indeed.
I just moved to Canary Wharf and considering it is the largest financial sector area in Europe, I'm amazed that I have the suckiest Internet connection I have experienced since approx 1995.
Can you believe it: No fiber possible, max bandwidth (irrespective of "competition"): 1-2 Mb/s.
I should have stayed in Zambia where 1) throughput was better - and - 2) if the ISP sucks, you can always fall back on 4G.
4G has not even been deployed in the UK yet (but is readily available for a humane price in Lusaka).
Re:Aesthetics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 06:03 · Score: 1

Every time I see a neighborhood or historic building legally vandalized, simply so a utility company could make a few extra bucks, I get a little bit sadder.
Re:Aesthetics by chrismcb · 2012-05-31 12:23 · Score: 1

Ever summer I travel to Europe. I visit these grand cathedrals and marvel at the architecture. I check out these really cool old buildings.Then I return home and see all these boring buildings, and get just a little bit sadder.

They aren't ugly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 04:54 · Score: 1

Those cabinets aren't ugly, they look like your run-of-the-mill residential power transformers. If the council wants them to look different, they should commission someone to make a better cabinet, or design something that can be put over the existing one. Denying over 34,000 residences fast fiber connections is ridiculous.

Re:They aren't ugly by couchslug · 2012-05-31 05:04 · Score: 1

If it bothers the "34000" then it's their duty to pressure the council. 34K votes is a bunch.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:They aren't ugly by FireFury03 · 2012-05-31 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

The (rather wealthy) area already has access to *faster* full-fibre technology broadband. Virgin cable is a full fibre service, whereas this is "fibre to the cabinet": BT lay the fibre to these new cabinets, and then use copper as normal, using VDSL technology.
I know Virgin have been advertising "fibre optic internet" for many years, but no, it isn't "full" fibre, its basically just FTTC. The only real difference between Virgin's and BT's network is that BT runs fibre to the cabinet and then VDSL over a copper pair to the premises whilst Virgin run fibre to the cabinet and then do DOCSIS over coax... Wake me up when FTTP gets widespread.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:They aren't ugly by Rising+Ape · 2012-05-31 08:12 · Score: 1

Virgin isn't "full fibre", it's HFC like every other cable TV network.
Their advertising campaign was obviously effective at getting their "fibre" message across.
Re:They aren't ugly by amorsen · 2012-05-31 10:30 · Score: 1

Virgin cable is a full fibre service
Yes, they make tiny little cavities inside the coax cabling where they install the fibre runs. Don't ever look at a Virgin cable when it isn't attached, it might blind you!

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

Sounds Like SF by cis4 · 2012-05-31 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

This same issue came up over AT&T wanting to install boxes in SF. Google SF ATT Boxes.

As much as I hate NIMBY's, they have a good point here. If you're going to build something on public land, at least make it pleasant, unobtrusive, or both. Otherwise, buy the property and stop relying on the public to subsidize your business.

I still don't get why utility boxes have to be so ugly. How difficult is it to make a box look appealing?

Fiber Nazi by yabos · 2012-05-31 05:26 · Score: 1

No fiber for you!! Next!!

Re:Why not underground? by Bert64 · 2012-05-31 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

They are deploying thousands of these all around the country, putting them underground would be considerably more expensive...

It's not just maintenance for which they need to access the cabinet, connecting new customers up requires that too.

Also, these cabinets contain quite a lot of kit that generates heat, that would need to be vented somehow and you can't just put vents in the top because water would get in. If you sealed them such that they were waterproof and insulated by dirt and paving slabs on all sides, they would overheat very quickly... With the above ground cabinets, you can have vents which are angled downwards to prevent rain ingress and the metal case will also conduct heat fairly well and is cooled by fresh air on the outside.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!

Re:I am glad that I live elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:32 · Score: 1

Well anyone in the habit of saying "no" is more likely to be a virgin.

Re:Who or What is BT? by nitehawk214 · 2012-05-31 05:42 · Score: 1

Without any knowledge except the city and borough names, I'm guessing "British Telecom" or something equivalent.

Just consider this article as a "Revenge of the Limeys" for all the ones that use US-known TLAs.

I suppose TLA could also stand for Two Letter Acronym....

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

but people will invariably blame the wrong party by green1 · 2012-05-31 05:46 · Score: 2

Cue the people in that area complaining that BT's service is slow, or that they can't get it at all. They'll invariably blame BT, and won't consider that it was their own politicians who prevented them from getting service.
Now I wouldn't call those boxes particularly ugly, but I'm sure if the council was willing to work with BT something could be arranged.
I work for a telco providing fibre service in north america. Our boxes are slightly smaller than that I think (it's hard to get a sense of scale from the photo), and white, they are often hidden behind fences or shrubs, or in back alleys etc. As long as we have access to them, we don't really care what is done to conceal them. In some places they have been treated with a wrap of some form of artwork (one place I really liked was in a touristy part of a city where the box was turned in to a large map of the area, made something that had to be there anyway serve yet another purpose.)

FFS by icebraining · 2012-05-31 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The borough says it doesn't need BT, as Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered.

Yeah, and who needs competition, we all know monopolies are the best way to ensure low prices and good services, am I right?

I understand that the boxes may be ugly, but that statement is utterly moronic.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Re:FFS by Anubis+IV · 2012-05-31 06:52 · Score: 1

It's just them playing hardball in the media. Companies and clients routinely do this when it comes to negotiations. Don't be surprised if at some point in the future a compromise is reached with nicer looking boxes.

Re:Who or What is BT? by tom17 · 2012-05-31 06:16 · Score: 1

AISFATLAYF

"Actually It Stands For A Ten Letter Acronym You Fool"

Re:Some people just like to complain. by jellomizer · 2012-05-31 06:22 · Score: 2

Well some people will complain for the sake of complaining. However for a lot of people the appearance of their neighborhoods is more important then high speed internet. Especially for a technology that within a few years may be obsolete. Say more wireless. where those transmitters are hidden from general view.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

How hard is it to use different cabinets? by Karmashock · 2012-05-31 06:40 · Score: 1

I understand their complaint and it's reasonable. Just use a pretty box.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Why FTTC and not FTTH, anyway? by maXXwell · 2012-05-31 07:00 · Score: 2

This seems to be as good a place as any to ask this: why are providers going with FTTC anyway, rather than FTTH (fibre-to-the-home)? These large cabinets are artifacts of FTTC -- at some point the fibre has to be broken out into bundles of dozens or hundreds of copper (coax or twisted-pair) drops that then need to be driven with enough power to push the signal for the last few hundred metres. Isn't this already a flawed approach? Moreover, this reduces the total bandwidth available between the local exchange carrier and the premises.

As I understand it, FTTC permits the provider to deliver high bandwidth services (at least by today's standards) at lower infrastructure costs then FTTH. However, this seems to be 'kicking the can down the road', to use the prosaic expression.

So, how much are the providers saving? For example, I've read it costs the National Grid on average 13 times more per mile to run 400 kV transmission lines underground as it does via pylons. Is there a similar figure that can be cited for the difference between FTTC and FTTH?

We seem to be living in a golden age of infrastructure underinvestment.

That only works by publiclurker · 2012-05-31 08:04 · Score: 4, Funny

because LA looks like a cesspool to begin with.

Re:Some people just like to complain. by geminidomino · 2012-05-31 08:07 · Score: 1

Or, from what I've been hearing (allow for a dump truck full of salt whenever "gloom and doom" meets "internet") it might go the other way, leaving those historic district types with a historic lack of access.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spectrum-crunch

Re:Some people just like to complain. by mjwalshe · 2012-05-31 08:22 · Score: 1

they are worried that the nanny wont be able to push the giant All Terain prama on the pavemnet (side walk) :-)

Virgin Media by Vahokif · 2012-05-31 08:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered

As a Virgin Media customer in Kensington, I can say that's a load of horsesh

Re:Virgin Media by aiht · 2012-05-31 16:09 · Score: 1

Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered
As a Virgin Media customer in Kensington, I can say that's a load of horsesh
Are you just censoring yourself out of politeness, or did you truncate your sentence to show your connection dropping out, 'NO CARRIER' style?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Re:Virgin Media by Vahokif · 2012-06-01 22:21 · Score: 1

The latter I'm afraid. Nominally we have 30 mbps fiber but the pocket loss is so bad usually that it's more like 1 or 2, and Flash just gives up loading videos. Often it gets so bad I just use the 3G on my phone instead. Also, there is a 5 gig quota in the morning and a 9 gig one in the evening, which basically means Steam games have to be downloaded in two batches.
4 of my friends are sharing 21 mbps O2 ADSL and it works fine, so we're definitely going for that next year.

Re:Some people just like to complain. by sortius_nod · 2012-05-31 08:52 · Score: 2

I both of your assertions are incorrect.

Firstly, fibre doesn't become "obsolete", seeing as endpoints can be upgraded. You ignore that the speed of light is the universal speed limit. I'd really like to know how you can get 1Gbps out of 4G.

Secondly, for decent "wireless" (I assume you mean 3G/4G), you need towers that are quite visible. This doesn't even address the limitations of 3G/4G networks under heavy subscriber numbers.

The same faulty rationale is being used here in Australia to argue against the National Broadband Network.

Re:Some people just like to complain. by Smauler · 2012-05-31 09:42 · Score: 2

By the way, for people in the US, the _average_ house price in Chelsea is about £1.5 million, so well over 2 million dollars. The average semi-detached house price is £12 million. It's not a normal part of the the UK, by any means.

Re:Some people just like to complain. by cheater512 · 2012-05-31 10:19 · Score: 1

Transmitters hidden from general view? Yeah right.

The NBN wireless towers (for areas not covered by fibre) in Australia are being made 40 meters tall and hidden they are not.

I am sure... by SchMoops · 2012-05-31 11:22 · Score: 1

I swear there's a joke somewhere in the headline, but I'm missing it somehow.

Re:I am sure... by chrismcb · 2012-05-31 12:36 · Score: 1

BT Fibre pulls out, as Virgin moves in?

Re:Some people just like to complain. by AHuxley · 2012-05-31 11:36 · Score: 2

Welcome to the world of Australian digital loop carrier boxes getting an adsl2+ upgrade.
This is a cabinet:
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/kimmys34/IMG_0362.jpg
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/kimmys34/IMG_0359.jpg (side on)
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t44/kimmys34/IMG_0357.jpg
Photo credit:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1723486

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:but people will invariably blame the wrong part by green1 · 2012-05-31 12:45 · Score: 1

Sounds like AT&T uVerse to me:

Wrong. not even the right country.

1. Your 'slightly smaller' white boxes are still too bloody big and too numerous, oh and a few of them actually blew up.

Our fibre boxes are just under 3 feet tall, about the same width, and about 2 feet deep. We need one box for every 900 homes (approximately) They are a completely passive device, and as such can only "blow up" if someone places explosives in them.

2. Your speeds and prices aren't actually all that competitive against Comcast, still claiming caps, still trying to bundle when all I want is internet.

We compete quite well with our local cable company, every service has caps, but ours are large enough that the vast majority of customers never manage to reach them (500GB/month on our 25Mbps plan). Bundling is optional, if you want just internet, you get just internet. Bundling will save money over having the 3 services individually though ($5 discount per month per service you add)

3. Your TV service was absolute rubbish when I saw it. The main issue seemed to be the horribly designed Motorola DVR's running the Microsoft MediaRoom software internally... the remote was next to worthless, responsiveness was atrocious, on and on.

We ended up canceling and switching back to Comcast for internet and DirecTV for television... uVerse was so promising but the implementation is horrific.

Well first of all you haven't seen it, secondly we don't use Motorola DVRs, we use Cisco ones. Yes we do use Mediaroom, but independent tests have shown our picture quality to be at least as good as our major cable competitor (in fact better in most cases) The remote, well I'm used to it, but I find it much nicer to work with than either our cable competitor's remote, or either of the 2 satellite companies ones. Our system using mediaroom can also do all sorts of things that the local cable company hasn't figured out yet, such things as recording a show on one TV and watching it on another, controlling your recordings from your smart phone when you aren't even home, accessing facebook and twitter from the TV, recording 4 shows at a time, and many more.

Re:Some people just like to complain. by aXis100 · 2012-05-31 12:49 · Score: 1

Fibre obselete???? Good joke there.

As wireless spectrums get more and more crowded, the enormous bandwidth capabilities of fibre will contine to improve through minor tranceiver upgrades.

Nothing beats having a cable.

Re:I am glad that I live elsewhere by aiht · 2012-05-31 15:48 · Score: 1

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sounds like an abstinence slogan.

Re:but people will invariably blame the wrong part by aiht · 2012-05-31 16:06 · Score: 1

Sounds like AT&T uVerse to me:

Wrong. not even the right country.

Dude, you could have stopped there. You don't need to defend yourself (/ your employer) from an attack against a totally unrelated competitor in a different country.
On another note:

Cue the people in that area complaining ...

Nice to see someone getting 'cue' right; it's a bit painful seeing people say 'queue' all the time.

Re:The case for a new last-mile infrastructure by aiht · 2012-05-31 16:29 · Score: 1

The case discussed here, as well as the extremely similar issues that continue to plague the AT&T uVerse rollout here in the states, underscore why I STILL believe it is necessary to have a separate INDEPENDENT data infrastructure.

It's so obvious and simple yet the entrenched providers and clueless, self-serving politicians make it seemingly impossible to achieve.

My ideal setup would be the creation of a not-for-profit entity to build and manage a FTTP last mile infrastructure. This entity would be responsible for maintaining the lines themselves as well as the regional nodes (sized based on population density). This organization would be explicitly forbidden from offering any actual services to the end users. They would be paid out of fees to the companies which can "light up" the connections at the regional nodes. I'm ready and willing to pay for the creation of this network via my public taxes, as long as it provides open and shared access in terms of selecting providers (anyone willing to put kit in the regional node office).

You get a nice fat fibre connection to your premises (house, business, apartment complex, whatever) and then you can purchase services from anyone willing to install kit into the regional nodes, including multiple separate services over the same line. Technically this is extremely easy to implement, politically not so much.

That would foster TRUE COMPETITION so you know it will never happen.

I'm no expert on the details, but that sounds fairly similar to the Australian NBN setup.

Utility box murals by Sosarian+Avatar · 2012-05-31 18:41 · Score: 1

My city had an artist similarly disguise a pair of traffic signal boxes after he'd painted the city's 150-year history on the side of the building the boxes sit next to. He painted the smaller one to look like a crate with (depending on which side is being viewed) a puppy, kitten, or bunch of little chicks, and the big box as a stack of egg crates with a woman in historic (1800s?) clothing dragging her kids away from the animals. He posted the only photos I can find online at the moment: Petaluma signalbox mural.

--
Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!

Slashdot Mirror

BT Fibre Pulls Out of Chelsea Over Ugly Equipment Cabinets

90 of 136 comments (clear)