[AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit

Guy Ellis guy at traverse.com.au
Wed Apr 17 16:12:41 EST 2013


They will keep using them for the next 3-5 years by which stage they 
will be...
(i) fully depreicated
(ii) reaching end of service life anyway

Meawhile iiNet are thinking outside the square with their ADSL bonding - 
this gives them a competitive advantage, makes good use of existing 
infrastructure until that day arrives.

- G.


On 17/04/2013 4:00 PM, James Hodgkinson wrote:
> What about the (not tiny) number of carriers who have invested in 
> DSLAM's? Or doesn't this count as last-mile infrastructure?
>
> James
>
>
> On 17 April 2013 15:46, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com 
> <mailto:hudrob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Aren't those two carriers by and large the only ones with
>     substantial last-mile infrastructure as well?  At least in a
>     residential sense?
>
>     On 17 April 2013 15:41, Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au
>     <mailto:paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>> wrote:
>
>         Narelle -
>
>         They are ONLY offering to pay cash to what .. TWO Carriers.
>
>         There are around 300 registered Carriers according to the ACMA
>         Register today & many of them have spend tens of millions
>         building out their infrastructure.
>
>         I'm sure you'd agree it's rather prejudicial to pay just 2
>         carriers billions & the rest nothing whilst obviously exposing
>         those Carriers to ruin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Narelle [mailto:narellec at gmail.com
>         <mailto:narellec at gmail.com>]
>         Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:33 PM
>         To: Paul Wallace
>         Cc: John Edwards; ausnog at ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
>         Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit
>
>         On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Paul Wallace
>         <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au <mailto:paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         > As a separate note Liberty Group has 25 million subscribers
>         in Europe
>         > mostly on HFC & they're continuing to build out HFC as fast
>         as they
>         > can! That's HFC not fibre. Here in Australia we're paying
>         billions of tax taxpayers funds to rip the two great HFC
>         networks down.
>         >
>         > We actually pay cash here to destroy first class telecoms
>         assets!
>         >
>
>         Alright - I'll bite. :-)
>
>         To go from existing DOCSIS platforms to higher capacity ones,
>         ie make the transition from TDM to OFDM, you need to change
>         out the head end electronics and RF plans for the entire
>         networks. The existing CMTS hardware in place may not be
>         capable of supporting it - the line cards certainly aren't -
>         so a substantial upgrade is required to get to DOCSIS 3.1 and
>         above. All household modems need to be replaced also.
>         Significant tuning and effort is required across the network
>         to condition the plant.
>         That standard isn't finalised, either.
>         http://www.lightreading.com/docsis/docsis-31-to-be-revealed-at-cabletec-expo/240135059
>
>         To make the transistional move to higher than DOCSIS 1.1 -
>         even before going to DOCSIS 3.1 - you need to replace the
>         customer modems, and rejig your RF plan to ensure you can
>         support the bandwidth customers demand in competition with any
>         TV you are servicing. High definition TV is a bandwidth hog,
>         and there has been little take up of trickle down options and
>         local storage for popular programs and/or P2P servicing from
>         set top boxes. Current service models may not fit.
>
>         The service model of the future is also much less download
>         oriented and requires higher upload bandwidths. More
>         challenges for the RF plan.
>
>         That means about now is a good time to really assess that
>         investment.
>         If you own an HFC network and you haven't exactly maintained
>         the outside plant particularly well, then it might be a really
>         good time to stop doing it. If your OSS  and other business
>         systems are magnificently tuned, with a hard to shift model,
>         then that might be a good argument to stay. I suspect the
>         former is quite true, and the latter not so true in
>         Australia's case. Both add up to a timely move away.
>
>         HFC has been a largely failed investment in Australia partly
>         because of the competition aspects when it came into being:
>         many people remember the laughable sight of one crew turning
>         up to install, rapidly followed by the other within days, and
>         so no-one got sufficient footprint to really sustain the
>         business well. Then they competed against each other for
>         content and the studios laughed all the way to the bank as
>         they watched the prices rise. A certain non incumbent telco
>         really suffered and wrote down the investment massively. Once
>         that went, profits were possible!
>
>         One of the main reasons for going to a federally funded
>         national broadband network is to get to an optimal competitive
>         platform.
>         Infrastructure competition has not led to good outcomes
>         nationally.
>         Our HFC experience is a textbook example.
>
>         HFC is a fibre to the node technology. That's what the Hybrid,
>         Fibre and Cable all stand for: FTTN. The current networks are
>         not capable of a fully loaded 90%+ penetration rate delivery
>         to all of the approx 3m homes the combined Telstra (2.5m) and
>         Optus (2.2m) homes pass. This is due to the condition of the
>         cable and the RF plans used to apportion available bandwidth.
>         Upgrades to backhaul etc are easy in this context, but
>         reworking your HFC is not.
>
>         Much of that cable also is aerial, all the way to the homes,
>         and a very popular source of Cockatoo entertainment. No-one
>         has been able to get a multi-dwelling unit model working
>         properly within that scheme.
>
>         That said, I rather enjoy the service my family gets from it,
>         and all the years I was employed by one of them, testing all
>         the newer broadband delivery options, I always happily went
>         back to the HFC service afterwards.
>
>         But no-one was offering me a brand new fibre...
>
>         GPON is vastly more reconfigurable than HFC at the physical
>         level, and vastly more upgradeable electronics-wise leading to
>         much better long term capacity and serviceability.
>
>         What all sides of politics should have done, imho, was to sort
>         out sensible industry competition, say, about 10yrs+ ago and
>         promoted FTTN transition then, when it would have been a
>         sensible transition technology. What did we have? A less than
>         competitive marketplace, and little mechanism to move across then.
>
>         >
>         > We actually pay cash here to destroy first class telecoms
>         assets!
>         >
>
>         Indeed, asset holders should be paid cash to transition off to
>         more longer term, more optimal platforms as part of a sensible
>         government program. Imagine your house being confiscated to
>         build a highway with no recompense?
>
>
>         regards
>
>
>         Narelle
>         _______________________________________________
>         AusNOG mailing list
>         AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>         http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     AusNOG mailing list
>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


-- 
Guy Ellis
guy at traverse.com.au
www.traverse.com.au
T: +61 3 9386 4430 M: +61 419 398 234

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130417/098cfdc6/attachment.html>


More information about the AusNOG mailing list