<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
So,<br>
You seem to be advocating doing nothing and hoping it all works out in
the end?<br>
<br>
By which time we've spent another 25years or more in regulatory hell
without the certainty you admit you'd like because Telstra will still
be gaming the system.<br>
<br>
Yay. Sign me up now so I can kill myself.<br>
<br>
MMC<br>
<br>
lists wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:001601c9bb01$984993d0$6500a8c0@hal" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<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> </div>
<div
style="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>To:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="Bevan.Slattery@staff.pipenetworks.com"
href="mailto:Bevan.Slattery@staff.pipenetworks.com">Bevan Slattery</a>
</div>
<div
style="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>Cc:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" title="technical@halenet.com.au"
href="mailto:technical@halenet.com.au">lists</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="ausnog@ausnog.net"
href="mailto:ausnog@ausnog.net">ausnog@ausnog.net</a> </div>
<div
style="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>Sent:</b>
Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:40 PM</div>
<div
style="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>Subject:</b>
Re: [AusNOG] Aust Govt will build National Broadband Network,no company
will be awarded the tender.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
So,
<div>What do you propose as a valid alternative?</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>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">The alternative is
let the market do it commercially. Some new estates have fibre to the
home, the design is being experimented with in these commercially
viable places, which will result in a much wider roll out when the
applications exist and a business case can be made viable. Done this
way will result in lower capital expenditure and lower access prices. </font></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- FTTN is a crap idea (so crap that even Krudd and Conroy
could see it).</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">It is not a crap
idea, it is a means to an end for Telstra. No other company would do
it this way. However picture it this way, you need to crawl before you
walk.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>- The current Cu CAN is starting to near end of life and is
straining to provide broadband at the speeds they want to everyone. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I think you are
exagerating that a bit. You and I may want faster access, but we are
not representitive of the market. What percentage of customers
subscribe to 8000/384 or beyond services. It is not high and it needs
to rise to make the FTTH business case stand up. The growth is still
not suggesting that the need will result any time soon. Many people do
not have the means to pay more than $40 per month. Many pensioners
tell me $30 is all they can afford for internet.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> Even fixing this would require something looking much like
FTTN anyway (eg. nodes to fill in black spots etc).</div>
<div>- It's only going to get more expensive to do (inflation etc).</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I am not sure that
assumption is correct either. the price of much of the FTTH equipment
is continuing to fall. Customer electronics were $1000 3 years ago,
now they are $400. My supplier tells me they will halve over the next
couple of years. As demand rises the cost of passing a home will fall
based on customers connected etc etc. It may cost $100 today to
install the cable and $105 in 2 years time, but the cost of financing
the $100 for it to be idle is more than $105. I am finding the price
is still falling not rising at all.</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not convinced this is commercially infeasible, but it's a
close call I'll admit (and mostly hinges on take up rates).</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><font color="#0000ff">it
absolutely hinges on take up rates, which is going to be influenced by
the price to the consumer which is influenced by the cost of
deployment. My fibre network would be many times larger than it is
now if there was some business certainty around government
regulations. It was a government departments interpretation that
stopped it dead in it tracks. The issue has now expired, but all the
uncertainty around NBN etc delays further deployment. This whole issue
could be solved by regulation. In saying that there needs to be
incentive for network owners to deploy such infrastructure.</font> </font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But if the government wants to do something game changing then
what's the real problem in doing so?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">It will kill
innovation. It duplicates existing infrastructure that was paid for by
shareholders, it is to expensive and governments are not good at
keeping a lid on costs, and there is currently no business case. These
issues need to be addressed and answered before big commitments are
made. How do you recon your employer would like have their
investments being put at risk? Or how would you feel if you had
invested a ship load of money into a network to have that investment
put at risk. This will affect a much larger section of the industry
than just Telstra. </font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many people seem to be saying this is a bad idea and yet
propose no alternative which has any real consideration.</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> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I don't remember
anyone saying FTTH is a bad idea, many including me are saying there
needs to be a business case to support it. In order for the business
case to gain traction, there needs to be research into how to deploy it
commercially. Governments are never good at that. Telstra has a
massive cost advantage in that they already have 95% of the network in
place to support deployment to the 90% the government is proposing to
build to. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>regards Tim</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>