| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:00:11 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
You used to be able to use - I _think_ it was samknows - to get
information on a given exchange, specifically who (which companies) physically had equipment there. It seems samknows has been bought by
somebody
and now redirects to somewhere that doesn't _seem_ to offer
the same functionality, at least AFAICS.
_Is_ that type of information available anywhere? A few others - such as broadbandexposed - look as if they _might_ have it, but I get the
feeling it's likely to be obscured by commercial matters, i. e. pushing
of one company's offering over another, whereas I got the _impression_
that samknows (if it _was_ that site) was independent in that respect.
codelook? It doesn't tell you much about who has what kit where,
but if a.n.other fibre provider is in your street, the cabinet is
likely to have an advert plastered over it, if not they you
generally can order from anyone who uses openreach.
<https://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/codelook.htm>
Angus may still be lurking on this group ...
last week I removed free access for postcode and cabinet information from CodeLook
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a greatNot really, I think the exchange info became less useful as VDSL
demand for this?
I thought I'd been able to look by postcode before, not a big
issue for anyone looking for themselves as they'll know their own
phone number ...
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a
great demand for this?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Almost certainly.
On 03/09/2025 09:53, Andy Burns wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
You used to be able to use - I _think_ it was samknows - to get
information on a given exchange, specifically who (which companies)
physically had equipment there. It seems samknows has been bought by
somebody
By Cisco, presumably Sam is a wealthy chap now ...
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a great
demand for this?
Samsknows also had a big network performance monitoring operation
(Whiteboxes etc). I suppose Cisco wanted them for that, rather than a 20 year old database.
Theo
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a
great demand for this?
About 1,000 exchanges will remain, effectively as small data centres with network routers and fibre terminations.
4,500 exchanges will close, 20 have already closed. But they are all leased properties, so BT won't be making any money from them.
Angus
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a greatNot really, I think the exchange info became less useful as VDSL
demand for this?
(mostly) took over, and will be less relevant again as FTTP takes over
in turn.
On 03/09/2025 11:31, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a
great demand for this?
About 1,000 exchanges will remain, effectively as small data centres with
network routers and fibre terminations.
4,500 exchanges will close, 20 have already closed. But they are all leased >> properties, so BT won't be making any money from them.Well it wont be paying rent on them. So from an accounting perspective
its all positive cashflow, as will be the retiring of old copper engineers...
The cost of maintaining exchanges and copper wires is/was astronomical.
Angus
On 2025/9/3 11:58:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 11:31, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a
great demand for this?
About 1,000 exchanges will remain, effectively as small data centres with >>> network routers and fibre terminations.
Yes, I assumed the buildings containing terminating/switching equipment
would remain, whatever they're actually called.>>
4,500 exchanges will close, 20 have already closed. But they are all leasedWell it wont be paying rent on them. So from an accounting perspective
properties, so BT won't be making any money from them.
its all positive cashflow, as will be the retiring of old copper
engineers...
Yes, copper engineers tend to corrode, and get covered in verdigris.
Even the older brass engineers need polishing from time to time.>
The cost of maintaining exchanges and copper wires is/was astronomical.Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive and difficult (wayleave etc.).
Angus
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive and
difficult (wayleave etc.).
Why? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does
that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
On 03/09/2025 09:53, Andy Burns wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
You used to be able to use - I _think_ it was samknows - to get
information on a given exchange, specifically who (which companies)
physically had equipment there. It seems samknows has been bought by
somebody
By Cisco, presumably Sam is a wealthy chap now ...
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a great
demand for this?
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
You used to be able to use - I _think_ it was samknows - to get
information on a given exchange, specifically who (which companies)
physically had equipment there. It seems samknows has been bought by
somebody
By Cisco, presumably Sam is a wealthy chap now ...
On 03/09/2025 15:43, David Wade wrote:
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive and >>> difficult (wayleave etc.).
Why? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does
that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
Or some other equivalent
Indeed. If there is existing copper, wayleave already exists, and they
could just replace it with fibre...
On 2025/9/3 17:24:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 15:43, David Wade wrote:There's a difference between what's legally the case in theory and what
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensiveWhy? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does
and difficult (wayleave etc.).
that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
Or some other equivalent
Indeed. If there is existing copper, wayleave already exists, and they
could just replace it with fibre...
might happen in practice.
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 03:36:32 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/9/3 17:24:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 15:43, David Wade wrote:There's a difference between what's legally the case in theory and what
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive >>>>> and difficult (wayleave etc.).Why? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does >>>> that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
Or some other equivalent
Indeed. If there is existing copper, wayleave already exists, and they
could just replace it with fibre...
might happen in practice.
TNP is missing the point. The fibre will not (probably) go to the
exchange, but to a fibre concentration point some distance away, in a different direction.
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 03:36:32 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/9/3 17:24:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 15:43, David Wade wrote:There's a difference between what's legally the case in theory and what might happen in practice.
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive >>>> and difficult (wayleave etc.).Why? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does >>> that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
Or some other equivalent
Indeed. If there is existing copper, wayleave already exists, and they
could just replace it with fibre...
TNP is missing the point. The fibre will not (probably) go to the
exchange, but to a fibre concentration point some distance away, in a different direction.
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 03:36:32 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/9/3 17:24:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 15:43, David Wade wrote:There's a difference between what's legally the case in theory and what
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive >>>>>> and difficult (wayleave etc.).Why? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does >>>>> that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
Or some other equivalent
Indeed. If there is existing copper, wayleave already exists, and they >>>> could just replace it with fibre...
might happen in practice.
TNP is missing the point. The fibre will not (probably) go to the
exchange, but to a fibre concentration point some distance away, in a
different direction.
I don't think that's relevant. The wayleave is for the route over a piece
of private land. When it reaches the road it may turn left to the
exchange or turn right to the fibre concentrator, but that doesn't matter - the route over the private land is likely to be the same.
It's of course possible that they want to serve the site from a different direction if that's more convenient - ie a completely new pole route. But
if that is not possible because of wayleave/landowner issues then the old pole route with fibre added on it is still an option. If there are other properties on that road then the fibre will have to run there to serve them anyway.
Theo--
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 03:36:32 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/9/3 17:24:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 15:43, David Wade wrote:There's a difference between what's legally the case in theory and what
Though laying fibre to replace the line to me will be both expensive >>>>> and difficult (wayleave etc.).Why? presumably they have a wayleave for the existing copper? Why does >>>> that not still apply? The might just give you Starlink.
Or some other equivalent
Indeed. If there is existing copper, wayleave already exists, and they
could just replace it with fibre...
might happen in practice.
TNP is missing the point. The fibre will not (probably) go to the
exchange, but to a fibre concentration point some distance away, in a different direction.
(By the way, are you the Bob Eager who was of the computing department
at UKC when I was there, about 1980? I did try emailing but it bounced.)
codelook? It doesn't tell you much about who has what kit where,
but if a.n.other fibre provider is in your street, the cabinet is
likely to have an advert plastered over it, if not they you
generally can order from anyone who uses openreach.
<https://www.telecom-tariffs.co.uk/codelook.htm>
Angus may still be lurking on this group ...
Indeed, CodeLook never had ADSL LLU provider information, but that was obsolete
10 years ago as FTTC took over.
Our FTTC information has not been updated for five years so has become increasingly less useful, as over half the FTTC properties are now full fibre instead, and we don't have FTTP information which is at a property level not post code, #2 in my road has FTTP, #4 next door does not.
On 2025/9/3 11:58:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 11:31, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a
great demand for this?
About 1,000 exchanges will remain, effectively as small data centres with >>> network routers and fibre terminations.
Yes, I assumed the buildings containing terminating/switching equipment
would remain, whatever they're actually called.>>
On 3 Sep 2025 13:44, "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
On 2025/9/3 11:58:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/09/2025 11:31, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
Since exchanges simply wont exist in 5 years time, is there a
great demand for this?
About 1,000 exchanges will remain, effectively as small data centres with >>>> network routers and fibre terminations.
Yes, I assumed the buildings containing terminating/switching equipment
would remain, whatever they're actually called.>>
Not entirely. The "OpenReach Handover Point" will be really rather
small. So, even where there will be one, I don't think it will
necessarily be the same building.
Do we know why there are gaps in FTTP availability?
Do we know why there are gaps in FTTP availability?
In the case of my road, #2 was rebuilt last year as seven apartments, and government regulations forced the developer to pay Openreach -u10,000 to install
FTTP to that property alone, with a new duct. None of the telegraph poles were
served at the time.
But two weeks ago Openreach contractors did pull fibre up the road past the various poles, but no splitter boxes yet.
The road also has Virgin Media (still coax/fibre) and Community Fibre two years
ago, there is a new fibre splitter box sitting at the bottom of the pole because the pole is condemned (despite being new 30 years ago) so they are not
allowed to use ladders to reach the top.
Openreach always brings a hoist vehicle to install and fix telephone lines, but
does not seem interested in replacing the pole. 30 years I ordered a second line and BT paid me -u10/day or something until the old condemned pole was replaced, but now no-one cares.
Community Fibre apparently refuses to use hoists, not interested in new customers despite the money invested in bringing fibre to the pole, their database just says no service at the 25 addresses served by this pole.
So maybe your street has a similar problem with poles?
