<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Tim,<br>
Your emails seem to be based around the idea you don't like the idea of
a fibre network and you're highlighting any risk regarding them. <br>
<br>
Many countries around the world have significant aerial
infrastructure. US and Japan especially as markets I'm familiar
with. They have aerial Cu, Fibre and Coax. None of which, in my
discussions with various O/S telcos seem to worry them significantly in
terms of maintenance, risk etc. <br>
<br>
Verizon have said that the maintenance costs of their fibre network
(FiOS) (some above, some underground) are significantly less than Cu
and more reliable. They have developed significant technology around
FTTP install which makes it easy to do and not require as skilled
people.<br>
<br>
In SA there is significant amounts of aerial fibre from one telco. The
outages caused by fibre physical failure have been few and far
between. Certainly no more than I'd expect from underground cable,
maybe less due to the fact that people can see above electricity cables
vs can't see underground cables!<br>
<br>
If there are certain areas where the design of the electricity poles is
so poor that there are outages more than every month, then I'd hope the
percentage underground would include those areas. Most of the
"backbone" will be underground as it's going to be purchased from
existing Telco installs or swapped for equitiy in the new company.<br>
<br>
At the moment I don't see much wrong with what the government has
agreed to do. The only significant change would be to have a time
machine and undo the selling of Telstra in the manner it was in 1997.<br>
<br>
The suggestion you make regarding repurchasing TLS and then using it's
profits to do fibre I think are ultimately fruitless as the cost is
ultimately going to be higher ($43b plus the $6b/year), take longer and
not deliver an additional network.<br>
<br>
It's certainly a valid point to ask about what other things could be
done for the $43b. It's the role of government to weigh these things
up. I guess the decision point is that GDP is likely to get a 0.5%
boost from FTTP but none from water projects. Water is primarily a
state issue, so I guess they're doing what all Federal Govts do and
leave the ugly stuff to the states. <br>
<br>
MMC<br>
<br>
<br>
lists wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:2e4301c9b9f0$6624d7f0$6500a8c0@hal" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name="GENERATOR">
<div>----- Original Message ----- </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" title="mmc@internode.com.au"
href="mailto:mmc@internode.com.au">Matthew Moyle-Croft</a> <br>
</div>
<br>
lists wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:2dd401c9b996$68e6d100$6500a8c0@hal"
type="cite">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Last night I saw reference to
70% of the network being on power poles and only 30% underground. emm
I hope they don't get bush fires, cyclones, cars running into poles,
garbage trucks pulling the cables down etc etc etc. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div>Does your electricity on power poles go out much because of
this? Mine doesn't. I think you're overblowing the risk here. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">I don't,
based on my experience as a field manager for X and research I
undertook as part of a operations research degree I did into X's
network performance fault analysis as well as work I did as a state
analyst. Are you saying you don't have power black outs. If that is
the case you are very fortunate. I have 10 - 20 or more a year</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Does your Optus Cable/Foxtel go out? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">I don't live
in an area that has cable. If it did exist here there would be 10 or
20 faults per year. Believe it or not some areas are more prone to
storm damage than others. Hence why the design needs to reflect the
risk. </font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> I'll point out that undergrounding cable didn't stop the San
Jose vandalism last night! I've had more issues with water getting
into Telstra's Cu cables going to my house than overhead power issues.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">You really should
compare apples with apples not oranges. The issue with the cable to
your house is not poor design, it is poor maintenance. My comments all
relate to design and the business plan</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Heck, the water pipes in the street here crack three times
as often as the electricity has gone out due to someone doing external
aggression on power poles!</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">Different
issue. Water pipes break because of old age (rust), tree roots, soil
cracking, back hoe fade etc. Other than back hoe fade telephone cables
are not affected to the same extent by the other causes in the same way
as water pipes are not affected by electrolysis whereas telephone
cables can be.</font> </font><br>
<br>
Overhead fibre/coax is extremely common around the world. US/Japan
especially. One of the reasons they have many more last-mile networks
than us is that they're not so precious about this.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">1. They may not
be, but your customers are. Aerial is cheaper to install but costs
more to maintain in the long term. I do first in maintenance on a
major TV repeater, if the TV signal goes off or is degraded there can
be as many as 300 calls evey 30 minutes from a repeater that servers
50000 people. In fact when the olympics was on I was paid to sit and
baby sit a transmitter for 5 hours just in case something happened.</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">2. Customers seem
to be expecting quicker and quicker repair times as people rely on
these systems more and more they will require better and better
reliability and repair times. I am already seeing it, with residential
customers asking for compo if their service is down for more than a day.</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">3. If you do not
live in a city then it is highly unlikely that there will be a
maintenance presence. It is not uncommon for telstra to not have a
splicing van within 4 hours of a lot of places. That is because it is
rare for something to get cut. I expect that will be the same for NBN
mk2. As a result of there not being a need on a regular basis there
will not be to many of these vehicles around period</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial" size="2">4. This
brings me to the mess that will happen when cyclones. bush fires etc
etc happen. A set of tools for a copper jointer cost sub $1000, it
doesn't matter if they get wet, dusty etc etc. An OTDR and a fusion
splicer cost $50k and they need to be kept dry clean etc. This
requires that the network be built in such a manner as to be protected
from the elements. Fibre is a very different animal to copper and coax</font><br>
</font><br>
Quite frankly most people have little understanding or appreciation for
external plant and street furniture. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">That is
true, but my experience is extensive in that area, especially in copper
and fibre. The one thing about fibre is that it is not well suited to
frequent re entry. The fibre on power poles around australia is all on
very well maintained main transmission routes. With all the greenies
and the move to aerial bundled cables in street distribution the same
level of maintenance is unlikely /is not going to continue. I was in
Brisbane last week and the weather was wet and windy. Energex had 6000
customers without power all day, as they fixed some others were
reported. This was predominantly due to trees falling on power lines.
This is quite common now. If that had been fibre it would have taken a
week to fix it, not same day. Then there is the cost issue, fibre
cable is cheap but splicing and enclosing it is a different story. It
would not be out of the question for a fibre break to cost $3 to 5k to
fix a simple break where a copper break could be fixed for $300. If
you are paying off a new network you do not want high maintenance
costs. Lets put it this way if I had a choice of providers and one was
under ground and the other on power poles, I would be with the
underground preferably ducted network.</font> </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>They finally notice things that have been there for years and
get all precious about the risk, ignoring the fact that nothing has
happened.<br>
</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Weather events do
happen regularly</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2dd401c9b996$68e6d100$6500a8c0@hal"
type="cite">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Copper cable is easy to locate
and make temporary repairs quickly, not to mention copper is a lot
tougher than fibre. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div>I think that's debatable - fibre is quite tough. You can make
it as tough as you want - depending what you order. (Ever seen the
armoured submarine cable for shallow waters?)<br>
<br>
On power poles faults are easy to find/fix - you just look up!</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I hope you don't
want me to take that seriously. Get someone to show you a bit of
fibre. It doesn't have to come down to break. It deosn't stretch like
copper. You need to use an OTDR to locate faults and to do this you
need to have access points without splitters etc. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Often fibre repairs get a bad rap because the cable is
quite strong </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I am not sure
about that</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>- so by the time it's snapped it's really messed up (eg. ever
seen it fibre really messed up because of a big earth drill pulling and
snapping it?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">That is
underground cable. I haven;t seen to many direction drills that go
through thin air. From my point of view those cables should have been
located properly</font> </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Cu cables tend to be so heavy they break in different ways.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial" size="2">Actually
quite often the bearer breaks and the cable falls on the ground and the
cable is still connected through resulting in many customers still
having a phone</font><br>
</font><br>
Doing Cu repairs is time consuming and hard on large cables.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">And should never
be required. There exist cable locators and vacumn excavation
equipment. I have no sympathy for careless operators who get big
bills. The thing about underground is that if a ducted cable is cut it
is generally in good weather and a quick repair can be undertaken.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Fibre splicing these days can be a lot quicker - you can
much more easily run temporary fibre cables than Cu ones. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">perhaps on cables
> 100 pr, but such damage is preventable if good practice is
followed. I am yet to be able to order a storm or wish a bush fire
away. That is the distinction. Using your reasoning we should probably
not go ahead with the NBN because Telstra's underground cables are
going to be cut by all the cowboy operators constructing the NBN.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> I'm not sure if you've ever watched someone repair or punch
down a 1200 pair street cable, but it's a lot harder than doing fibre.<br>
</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Believe it or not
I have watched, in fact I have done it. What really makes it
interesting is when it is a randon jointed cable which means both ends
need to be identified as well. But I do think such cable cuts are a
lot rarer than cables coming down in storms. In fact I would recon
there would be less than 2 nation wide annually all over Oz. Stom
damage from wind or trees would be probably 20000 to 50000 anually I
think that is a material difference. In fact the numbers could be 10
to a 100 times higher than that.</font></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2dd401c9b996$68e6d100$6500a8c0@hal"
type="cite">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I fellow can locate and make
temp repairs to copper cable, fibre splices need to be prepaired and
protected making temporary repairs that would take 15 minutes on copper
take 4 or 5 hours and more than 1 person on fibre. If the $43Bn cost
estimate is based on 70% aerial deployment then it may well blow out to
$100BN + if it were to all be put underground.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div>If you've got real cable damage then fibre ain't going to be
hard to fix. Maybe you need better splicing guys? I can give you some
references ...<br>
</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">No its not hard,
it just takes longer than copper and cost a lot more. By the way the
last time I looked there weren't to many 1200 pr cables in the
distribution network, most distribution cables are between 2 and 100
prs, with most 30 or below. I can joint a 50 pr in 45 minutes. I can
do a 10 pr in 10 minutes. Try getting your gun fibre spicer to do
that. By the way FTTH design is differnet to IEN design and will
involve a lot more fibre in residential streets</font></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><br>
So, why underground it unless necessary? The rest of the world has
moved on from this curiously Australian dislike of overhead.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial" size="2">It provides
for better reliability in storms and fire events, end of story. Also
there is a report that all carriers that have external plant are
required to fill in regarding getting all the communications cables
under ground which is a requirement of the telecommunications act</font></font></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2dd401c9b996$68e6d100$6500a8c0@hal"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">My analysis would be that if
Rudd is as keen as he is to build FTTH then he needs to buy/ re
nationalise Telstra and build out the Telstra network and separate it
etc. That would be a cheaper way to do it. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>It'd cost $40b to buy Telstra, then another $43b to do FTTH.
So instead of $43b you're out $83b. What's the point of that? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">It would
cost $41BN to $50bn to buy Telstra which would give you the ability to
fund $6BN per annum out of free cash flow to extend the existing fibre
network not build it from scratch, so my point is that it would cost
$41BN to do what they want, change the rules and refloat it for
probably $41BN =$0 cost to the taxpayer.</font> <font color="#0000ff">There
are many other reasons to do it this way as well</font></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2dd401c9b996$68e6d100$6500a8c0@hal"
type="cite">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Might I also add that not all
government assistance needs to be in cash form. Governments could also
use their business as a catalyst to encourage investment etc. This
would result in a better outcome for taxpayers who ultimately pay for
all of this. </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div>I don't think people have thought some of the investment part
through. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I am absolutely
sure of that. The whole process has been flawed from the start</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Nor why the government is doing it. <br>
</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">The government are
doing it to save face and get even with Telstra for not submitting a
valid bid. It is as simple as that. It also looks like good politics,
but when interest rates start to climb again and go through the roof
the mood may change. They dont even have a business plan yet. How
dumb is that announce a $43 Bn project before they have a business
plan. That is assuming this bunch can do it for $43Bn which is
unlikely. There are less risky ways to achive this end which will cost
a lot less. If the governement has a lazy $43 BN to invest on a
nation building project then they should be looking at the Bradfield
scheme to solve the nations fresh water problems. As I said to
someone the other day, we humans need food and water to live but we can
survive with out internet, but better still we can have both for the
same money. FTTH will happen without this grand standing, once the
business case exists.</font></div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Regards<br>
<br>
Tim<br>
</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>