BT Fibre Pulls Out of Chelsea Over Ugly Equipment Cabinets

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BT Fibre Pulls Out of Chelsea Over Ugly Equipment Cabinets

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 31, 2012 @04:36AM from the sounds-like-some-elvis-costello-lyrics dept.

judgecorp writes "The up-market London borough of Kensington and Chelsea has lost its chance for BT fast fibre. After residents objected to the ugly fibre cabinets, and the council repeatedly refused permission to install them in historic sites, BT has said the borough will not get its fast BT Infinity product at all. The borough says it doesn't need BT, as Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered."

34 of 136 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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.
1. 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
2. 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...
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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/
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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!
12. 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.
13. 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.
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.
1. Re:A new paintjob? by zlives · 2012-05-31 04:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  or a CCTV camera
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.
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: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.
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?
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: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 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
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.)
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).
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: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.
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.
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
That only works by publiclurker · 2012-05-31 08:04 · Score: 4, Funny

because LA looks like a cesspool to begin with.
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: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 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"