<!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">
On 27/03/2010 11:11 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:6855B462D756004D9A700E875EF936B92FB704@pwkcrkex1.pipe.pwk"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">From: Paul Brooks [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au">mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>]<br>
<br>
> Bevan - have a closer look at the legislation, which includes the<br>
> concept of 'fibre ready' infrastructure being required.<br>
> The standards as to conduit size etc are still to be set, but<br>
> essentially what you describe is part of the proposed legislation
- most<br>
> new developments (subject to subordinate legislation that hasn't
been<br>
> enacted yet, ministerial determnation, etc) will be required to
have<br>
> 'fibre ready' pit-n-pipe (or something equivalent), and
developments<br>
> above certain thresholds will then be required to install fibre as
well."<br>
<br>
I've read the legislation and it is underwhelming. That is because it
has a good framework, but no real substance at this stage. As you
correctly point out there is much more detail that is necessary here
and it comes mainly in the form of subordinate legislation and
Ministerial determination which is yet to be seen. That is of little
comfort for developers at the present. As to the size of development,
the quality of the backhaul and everything in between, the draft
legislation is currently totally devoid of substance.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
Yup - it (the substance, the 'subordinate legislation') is still
coming. I'm working with them (in a group including representatives of
developers) as part of one of my roles and see the drafts, and much of
it should be in place before July, but everyone recognises that doesn't
leave much time for the developers to get ready after it stabilises,
let alone as it works its way through the legislation path. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6855B462D756004D9A700E875EF936B92FB704@pwkcrkex1.pipe.pwk"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">> I disagree - there is sufficient momentum in
greenfields FTTP providers<br>
> at the moment, plus moves to produce detailed guidelines for<br>
> developers and builders that are likely to be used in tender<br>
> requirements documents, that the forthcoming greenfields
developments<br>
> should be as robust (or better) and more consistent as the current
ones.<br>
<br>
> I see the greenfields FTTP operators will keep going, as little
mini<br>
> NBN-like infrastructure owners/operators within their development<br>
> patches<br>
<br>
Being in a non-NBN patch, that sounds about as exciting as being in a
Telstra Velocity estate, or even better a CMUX estate. I'm not talking
about technical capability, but why is it that many people in these
"patches" lose the romance of being connected to fibre and want what
everyone else has. Many of the benefits of being on a FttH premises
stop about where the backhaul starts.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
There's the rub. Leave Velocity for a moment, there are several other
greenfields operators that are wholesale-only-open-access like the NBN
is supposed to be, and recognised ISPs including Internode, iiNet,
Primus etc are providing services through them. The issue in these
places is not so much the fibre or conduit network inside the
development, its the backhaul that is the main problem. If the
backhaul can be fixed, then there is no reason why the services in
those developments can't be precisely as rich and interesting as might
be available through the NBN in other places. That part is not under
the development's control (although sometimes they try to put something
in place to assist the retail SPs).<br>
<br>
Note that NBNCo isn't doing backhaul much either, so whether or not
NBNco or someone else runs the fibre network inside the development,
the SPs will still need the same 'some way' to get to the headend (or
POI in NBNCo-speak). Sounds like a wholesale backhaul aggregation
opportunity for someone.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6855B462D756004D9A700E875EF936B92FB704@pwkcrkex1.pipe.pwk"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">As I said in my original post I see them as
potential little NBN monopolies in many cases without the backhaul
infrastructure necessary to guarantee a true FttP experience. For
example a FttH operator had fibred an estate here in Brisbane and used
EIGHT unlicensed wireless segments to backhaul the service back to the
city. Residents could not guarantee a basic first line service let
alone broadband services. They regularly could not get a working POTS
line! The users were in a mobile blackspot and after 12 months of
wrangling the developer was about to take action against the FttP
operator.<br>
<br>
The developer could not legally take back the infrastructure he paid
for as it was now owned by the FttH operator. The development started
to get a bad name. Apparently there were people in the estate with
serious health issues and a first line service was critical. It almost
went completely pear-shaped and for a last minute plea to us, I agreed
to backhaul the operator back to the city. Incredibly scary.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
Yup, that sort of crap happens, no question. You'd have to think that
those services wouldn't be treated as 'equivalent to what NBNCo would
do themeselves', and in that case the initial operators should and
would be taken over/overbuilt and the problem fixed when NBNCo get to
that location. Incidentally (and possibly off-list) why weren't the
operators of that development subject to legal action or at the very
least complaints through the TIO - or did that happen?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6855B462D756004D9A700E875EF936B92FB704@pwkcrkex1.pipe.pwk"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">My point in all this is, and remains, that the
simplest and most elegant way to future-proof new estates is through
pit and pipe. It is the least cost for the developer *and* the most
productive and cost efficient way to deliver fibre to the premises. It
might not be delivered *today* but when it does, it will be the most
cost effective way.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
I full agree Bevan - and my original point in this is that the
pit-and-pipe is part of the legislation - the legislation might not be
delivered *today* either, but when it does, it should make sure your
'most cost effective way' become reality for more developments.<br>
<br>
P.<br>
</body>
</html>