<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=UTF-8>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> Does your Optus Cable/Foxtel go out? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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 face=Arial color=#0000ff 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 face=Arial color=#0000ff 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 face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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 face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> Often fibre repairs get a bad rap because the cable is quite
strong </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I am not sure about
that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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 face=Arial color=#0000ff 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 face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><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> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>I don't think people have thought some of the investment part
through. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I am absolutely sure of that.
The whole process has been flawed from the start</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> Nor why the government is doing it. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards<BR> <BR>Tim<BR> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>