With vectoring, a competitor cannot simply connect the customer’s copper cable to their equipment on the network side. Because vectoring only works if all wires in the bundle run via a DSLAM/(m)CAN. This is the only way to sufficiently reduce the crosstalk between pairs of wires through clever modulation. This is the “trick” of vectoring. So the competitor’s data has to be fed in over the last mile via Swisscom equipment (Bitstream Access). The conditions for this are regulated, but not lucrative.

With FTTB, the competitor can take over the fiber connection on the network side and connect its own equipment.

With Bitstream Access, competitors have the problem that they are dependent on Swisscom support for problems in the last mile. And when there are problems with external lines, they often have less urgent need for action than with lines from their own customers.

And since vectoring cannot outsmart physics, the speed sometimes has to be reduced if another pair of wires is connected to the same bundle or the profile is increased. Who will have their speed reduced first?

With all variants of vectoring, access for competitors is more complex and risky than with FTTH. This could not be prevented during a transition phase. With g.Fast over copper instead of FTTH, this situation will now be cemented for years to come. The Anschluss is fast enough and there is no reason for glass…

If, instead of expanding the infrastructure for the next few decades, you are only interested in short-term available bandwidth for statistics, that is a good thing. If you want to get to where they have been for a long time in Scandinavia, it is a step backwards, even if it brings more bandwidth in the short term.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

With vectoring, a competitor cannot simply connect the customer’s copper cable to their equipment on the network side. Because vectoring only works if all wires in the bundle run via a DSLAM/(m)CAN. This is the only way to sufficiently reduce the crosstalk between pairs of wires through clever modulation. This is the “trick” of vectoring. So the competitor’s data has to be fed in over the last mile via Swisscom equipment (Bitstream Access). The conditions for this are regulated, but not lucrative.

With FTTB, the competitor can take over the fiber connection on the network side and connect their own equipment.

With Bitstream Access, competitors have the problem that they are dependent on Swisscom support for problems in the last mile. And when there are problems with external lines, they often have less urgent need for action than with lines from their own customers.

And since vectoring cannot outsmart physics, the speed sometimes has to be reduced if another pair of wires is connected to the same bundle or the profile is increased. Who will have their speed reduced first?

With all variants of vectoring, access for competitors is more complex and risky than with FTTH. This could not be prevented during a transition phase. With g.Fast over copper instead of FTTH, this situation will now be cemented for years to come. The Anschluss is fast enough and there is no reason for glass…

If, instead of expanding the infrastructure for the next few decades, you are only interested in short-term available bandwidth for statistics, that’s a good thing. If you want to get to where they have been for a long time in Scandinavia, it is a step backwards, even if it brings more bandwidth in the short term.

---

Of course, vectoring only works if the entire bundle is attached to a group. uCANs with vectoring are also used for FTTB, otherwise such speeds could almost never be achieved with G. Vectoring is a basic requirement for reducing interference between different fiber bundles. You probably mean FTTH P2P, where every provider can place their equipment in the POP and receive a direct P2P connection to the end customer. Bitstream access will probably also be necessary for FTTB. You will probably only get “physical” access to the line from Swisscom in absolutely individual cases if there is a copper line that goes directly to the headquarters. Thanks to last mile unbundling, you can also place your own equipment there. However, the muCAN for FTTB/FTTS still receive the old POTS lines from the headquarters. Can you still use this connection? What can you buy from Swisscom as an advance payment? I’m not familiar with this area (yet). Technically, vectoring actually only results in bitstream or virtual unbundling sense.

Swisscom will continue to cement its monopoly in the future with FTTH based on GPON.

With proper FTTH, 4 fibers are usually placed in the house. The costs arise from digging and drilling. The number of fibers drawn in doesn’t matter much. Depending on the location, competitors then have to build their technology into the rack at SC (colocation), but have their own fiber from there to the customer. Bitstream via the SC vectoring bundle is not necessary. On the side of your own network, either the SC infrastructure or your own lines can be used, depending on the possibility. The provider therefore has the last mile under control. In all types of vectoring, he is at the mercy of the SC. And this situation will now be cemented for years, the line is fast enough and therefore no glass is necessary.

Call me old-fashioned: Just as the copper network was an investment for decades, a fiber network should be built today as an investment for decades to come. If people had thought back then as they do today, there would be no copper cables anywhere in the country. “It wouldn’t have been worth it.”

---

@millernet wrote:

---

@Roger G wrote:

---

@millernet wrote:

@Roger G That would be great news. I’ve been denouncing for a long time that Deutsche Telekom has up to 40 Mbit/s upload available with VDSL vectoring and Swisscom has so far only 20 Mbit/s. Nevertheless, the checker shows me a maximum of 100/20, for example, even though the cable length should be <100 m since the CAN is right in front of the front door?

---

CAN or mCAN? If it is a HUA CAN/mCAN, then it will be vectorized in the US by Nov18. We are in the middle of the rollout.

---

Thanks for the clarification. Then something will change for many customers, not just on paper, even if only minimally. However, I wonder why you didn’t vectorize in the US much earlier.

---

The reasons can be found in the BBCS services, where we have to make the connections available to all ISPs. Non-vectoring routers or those in which vectoring was not properly implemented would have massively disrupted the neighboring lines. That’s why vectoring was only activated for the DS. Since 2017, we have had the opportunity to reduce the output of these third-party routers in the network and thus minimize the interference (smart limit). This means that the US performance of these routers is massively reduced, but with the vectorized lines we can increase the US from 20 or 25mbps up to 36mbps. We even have 50mbps in the US with VDSL2, but that’s on the latest mCAN with more memory, and we take customers straight to G.fast (19-106MHz), which is a US speed in parallel operation with VDSL2 (up to 17MHz). up to 120mbps possible.

For me it should be 30-35 in the US. There are currently 25 left.

It’s just strange that the checker now gives me 120/25. So only in the DS.

Well, just wait until the next grooming is done.

It remains exciting.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

That should be 30-35 for me in the US. There are currently 25 left.

just strange that the checker now gives me 120/25. So only in the DS.

Well, just wait until the next grooming is done.

It remains exciting.

---

This has nothing to do with grooming, it only takes effect when the Attn.Bitrate changes. We measure this during the migration and set the new profile straight away.

What you check is the address and that is calculated. There is still a far too conservative table behind it, which we will update shortly. We only predicted 34mbps in the lab and are now doing much better in the rollout (especially with mCAN). For example, the calculated 100/22 is displayed for me (PUS, 310m away), but I check with my phone number and then real measured data is returned (100/34).

My advice: If you still have a landline connection (VoIP), then use the phone number. check, because this shows the data measured daily. When checking the address, we don’t know whether the Anschluss is on the pareterre or on the 3rd floor and therefore we have to add a theoretical length of the climbing zone as an average. If you no longer have a landline connection, use the one from your direct neighbor or assume that the address check is worse than the actual service.

---

@millernet wrote:

---

Thanks to the unbundling of the last mile, you can also place your own equipment there. However, the muCAN for FTTB/FTTS still receive the old POTS lines from the headquarters. Can you still use this connection? What can you buy from Swisscom as an advance payment? I’m not familiar with this area (yet). Technically, vectoring actually only results in bitstream or virtual unbundling sense.

Swisscom will continue to cement its monopoly in the future with FTTH based on GPON.

---

Colocation is declining sharply and yes, the lines are basically looped through the mCAN and are switched remotely to the mCAN port via the “relay”. If there is another provider on it or an ADSL customer, then the relay will not be switched. However, I can’t say what kind of services Wholesales offers. The fact is that where we build FTSS/B, the 3rd ISP also use these ports.

I would discuss the ngPON topic in another Fred as it has nothing to do with G.fast and the technology works completely differently 🙂

Thanks for the info @Roger G

I only check with TEL number. Exactly more precisely.

Something will change there. But that can take time.

Checker says 120/25, previously 100. Profile runs at 100/25, but the noise in the US has doubled since it was vectorized there.

There’s still something going on 😜

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the info @Roger G

I only check with TEL number. Exactly more precisely.

Something will change. But that can take time.

Checker says 120/25, previously 100. Profile runs at 100/25, but the noise in the US has doubled since it was vectorized there.

There’s something else going on 😜

---

Uhhh, nope, it should be up there. Can you send me your number in a PM? I would like to briefly check the migration history. Thank you!

@Roger G

My landline connection or The one in my property is connected to the PUS at the entrance to the village of Auslikon (FTTC technology). I assume this control center was equipped with new (m?)CAN technology? I’ve had 30% more speed on my DS/US profile for a few weeks now, could that be the reason? My distance to PUS is about 800m. FTTS or FTTB (my property is a MFH with 12 apartments. 😉 no trace of it anywhere…..

---

@robbieB wrote:

@Roger G

My landline connection or The one in my property is connected to the PUS at the entrance to the village of Auslikon (FTTC technology). I assume this control center was equipped with new (m?)CAN technology? I’ve had 30% more speed on my DS/US profile for a few weeks now, could that be the reason? My distance to PUS is about 800m. FTTS or FTTB (my property is a MFH with 12 apartments. 😉 no trace of it anywhere…..

---

The PUS input village has already been configured with upstream vectoring and all connections have been migrated with the new profiles. Since we also have a much greater granularity of the profiles and the dependency on faulty lines is much lower, the DS also increases in addition to the US. But it is still a HUA CAN that supplies the entire village.

A large house on the road to Badi still has 90/34 profiles! FTTS/B like in Wetzikon is not currently planned.

Thank you @Roger G for the quick and precise answer. This is exactly a new building from 2016 😉 the street that leads to the Badi. FTTS/B is not planned or is probably currently not planned for the Swisscom headquarters on Hittnauerstr. in Pfäffikon? It’s a shame…Currently with my profile I even achieve DS of 96/24 US🙂, at least. But I would have expected more in my new MFH building

😉

This has nothing to do with new construction or not, but rather with the expansion of the location. A friend of mine lives in a small town on an old farm and has a 350/90 line.

It’s clear to me. If we as the client had a GWP >40 NE as a property then none of this would be an issue. But I still have to mention one thing: the construction boom has broken out here in our area with many apartment buildings, among others, on average between 16 and 32 NE’s. In my opinion, the provider’s requirement for a benefit (benefit/effort ratio) would be met. Let’s see how things develop here with the communication infrastructure.

Today, the Council of States, following the National Council, also protected Swisscom’s newly emerging monopoly on the further expansion of the fiber optic network (mainly FTTS/FTTB network), contrary to the Federal Council’s proposal.

Swisscom’s educational work within Parliament was therefore successful.

The main argument of the monopoly supporters, namely that if Swisscom is not allowed to protect its investments through an access monopoly, no investments will take place, has won.

In order to achieve a good fiber optic network, we as the proud country of Switzerland must, from a political point of view, allow a state-affiliated company to have a monopoly, which is very questionable in terms of competition, as the only option so that a basic infrastructure that is very important for the future can be further expanded.

I congratulate Swisscom’s successful lobbying, I am ashamed of Parliament and I regret that the Federal Council was unable to prevail with its more open market stance.

However, it still remains to be seen whether Swisscom will actually expand the nationwide fiber optic network more quickly with increased monopoly protection.

Werner

It’s new territory, so you have to be lenient.

@Werner

Well, if I build a house with my own money, I also want it to be mine and I can decide how much I rent it out for.

If the federal government wants to impose any regulations on me, I at least want subsidies.

You can’t speak of a monopoly either, after all everyone is free to build a fiber optic network.

just no one does that…

@Doc

Of course, fiber optic networks are being built in Baden and the surrounding area, even free of charge, into the apartments of tenants and landlords.

https://www.baden4net.ch/

---

@WalterB wrote:

@Doc

Of course, fiber optic networks are being built, in Baden and the surrounding area, even free of charge into the apartments of tenants and landlords.

https://www.baden4net.ch/

---

yes, and the builders can rightly decide for themselves how much they charge for third-party use.

My statement now referred more to the beneficiaries, salt etc., rather than to the cable providers! ")