[AusNOG] News: Minister Conroy contemplating Government-Fundedundersea cable?
sapage at sapage.net
Thu Oct 4 09:56:28 EST 2012
Thanks for all the replies. So you can not direct for Telstra but your IP
will rarely change.
Can not use a DNS mapping service as the restriction is placed on the
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>wrote:
> > From: Terry Sweetser (SkyMesh CTO) <terry+AusNOG at skymesh.net.au>
> >To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2012 9:12 AM
> >Subject: Re: [AusNOG] News: Minister Conroy contemplating
> Government-Fundedundersea cable?
> >I'm enjoying this debate immensely.
> >And I don't think it is that off-topic.
> >IMO, I don't think funding the NBN is a major issue for this list,
> given it's part "nation building" and part "social policy",
> funding is a political issue before it is a NOG issue.
> >There are, however, NOG issues which also are very relevant to our
> hip pockets.
> >Some things I have issue with:
> > The NBN is expensive at the wholesale level.
> > There are two many POIs.
> > CVC charges are not good value for 80%+ of the network.
> > The tail charges are too expensive at the 12M and 25M speed
> >There's a major "not level playing field" paradigm with the POIs.
> The ACCC has truly shafted every low cap and small rsp in the NBN
> wholesale market space. The only telco with the lowest capex to
> reach every POI is the incumbent. The philosophy of having a new
> monopoly was to break the incumbent's hold on the CAN: this has
> not happened yet, and it is now evident that the NBN will
> facilitate market domination for many years by the incumbent while
> the rest of the RSPs have to fund with real capex getting to these
> many POIs. That's .
> So this seems to be fundamentally based on the assertion that the only
> successful RSP is a national RSP. Having worked for a very successful
> regional RSP, I don't think it is true. For example, that RSP has more than
> 90% of it's customers on it's own DSLAMs, in more than 30 telephone
> exchanges, and those telephone exchanges are all within an hour of where
> on-call (actually all) staff live. Minimising the number of wholesale
> layers there are between you and your customer helps reduce MTTRs. It can
> be much better to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
> The other issue I have with the concern about the number of POIs is that
> financial costs aren't the only consideration - if they were, then the
> ideal number of POIs for the NBN would be a single one, so that an RSP
> would incur only one POI connection cost.
> With the original POI model being 14, and the current one being 121, then
> cost is obviously not the consideration - availability is clearly one of
> the others.
> Availability is a weakest link problem, and from an RSPs perspective, the
> weakest links in the original 14 POI model were the POIs themselves,
> regardless of how much redundancy exists within the NBN itself. If one of
> them as physically destroyed e.g. burnt down (perhaps intentionally), then
> at a minimum, your access to the rest of the population for services is now
> via the remaining POI.
> For example, in the 14 POI model, the Adelaide POIs were not only the SA
> POIs, but also the NT POIs, and were also likely to be the intercap
> junction points between the east and west costs. If one of those POIs had
> been destroyed, would it be acceptable for the all SA, NT, and east-west
> services (numbered in the multiple millions) to go through a single POI?
> Then remember that to replace the other POI, even temporarily is likely to
> be at the very best probably a two months - is that an acceptable time to
> have a single point of failure for half of Australia's telecommunications
> services?. Also remember we aren't talking just Internet here - the NBN is
> intended to or will likely replace *every* other network - Internet
> subscriber access, EFTPOS and ATM, traffic/transport control, utility
> control, TV, mobile phone backhaul. All of those types of services will be
> impacted by a POI failure. The NBN and it's POIs needs to be as available
> as all the networks
> its replacing *combined*. Perhaps the only traffic that won't be on it is
> Department of Defence traffic - hopefully. Other factors that are being
> ignored in the 14 POI model is the expense of redundancy (i.e. with only
> two POIs, due to the traffic volumes you're likely to need high end and
> expensive equipment to carry it), and very little traffic locality (*all*
> traffic between subscribers in Darwin was going to be hair pinned to
> Adelaide an back).
> I think the 121 model is far better than the 14 model, because it allows
> RSPs to be more selective about where they connect, the consequences of
> failure of a POI are far smaller, the costs of redundancy can be lower
> because their are opportunities to use more commodity components (1Gbps
> verses 10Gbps or 100Gbps interfaces e.g., and lower end platforms), and
> there is far better traffic locality. If you want to connect to all 121
> POIs, your business should be large enough to sustain that. OTOH, if it
> can't, there are already wholesale providers who've said they'll be
> providing that sort of product, plus you can mix and match - directly
> connect to POIs within your budget, use wholesale providers to provide
> access to the others.
> The numbers themselves are a bit arbitrary, however the smaller you go,
> the more consequence of failure, the less traffic locality, and the higher
> the technology costs of interconnecting. OTOH, a more diverse network tends
> to be a cheaper, more efficient and more robust one.
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the AusNOG