<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Bevan and John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">With respect, I think your comments
regards the small fibre to the home operator are a little off the mark. I
suspect I know who you are referring to, however you comments fail to
acknowledge that, if it was not for some of the small operators (even in
the dialup days and the early ADSL days) then it is highly unlikely
telstra would have even started doing fibre to the home or offerring other
services. Some of the catalyst for devlopers using the small
operators was to pull telstra into line and force them to offer such
services. The issues some operators didn't recognise in the early days was
that they would need to achieve substantial deployment densities to enable them
to upgrade their backhaul links, or in one case an operator was told a planned
fibre deployment was going to happen which he could connect to, which
didn't and he had no plan B. Personally I wouldn't use unlicensed radio
for such a backhaul service, but many do successfully.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">While some of the comments have
merit they ignore the reality that NBN may not have even been on the table if
some of the small operators hadn't dragged Telstra into that space which has
then dragged other operators into the space. Any issues within these small
ftth deployments would be relativley inexpensive to fix properly, other than
backhaul. While I acknowledge that some of the deployments have not lived up to
there initial expectations that may have been due to a number of reasons.
Some of the early deployments had some budgetary limitations. Developers
wanted the cheapest price, and the operators hadn't factored in backhaul costs
as the networks customer usage grew. This was new technology in a low
margin space. It is very easy to be critical in hindsight, at the
time these operators were starting, they had no previous deployments to learn
from, and they were offering services in the consumer space as opposed to the
commercial space where the margins are much higher. I am sure
Pipe would have charged a commercial price to "save" the operator
concerned. </SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The issues associated with backhaul
were in some cases over looked, which was a bad mistake. It is a mistake
that can be addressed and fixed. If backhhaul wasn't such an issue then
such deployments would be easy. But the reality is that backhaul is the
most constraining issue affecting facing the industry today (due to building
viable business cases for its deployment). The last mile that NBN is going
to address is not where the bottleneck is. Most consumer space customers
are after the cheapest price, not the fastest service, which really questions
the need for the NBN at all. All the screaming from the industry regarding
Telstras anti competitive tactics is what is driving the need for the NBN at
this point, plus I suspect some of the media industry. What really
amazes me is that those screaming the loudest are not prepared to invest in
competitive infrastructure, other than DSLAMS or commercial high margin
services. If it is so easy why haven't they done it? Why aren't the
same companies deploying DSLAMS in "all" the same exchanges as Telstra?.
Which brings me back to the willingness to criticise a small FTTH
operator. You really owe them an apology. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">My point however is that many
companies start off as small, and in same cases the revenue streams allow
some to grow into larger companies, particularly where government departments
put their business with such companies. I therefore find it a little hard
to criticise any operator that has had a go, whether successful or not.
Also by not naming the operator a slur has been cast over all the small
deployments unfairly. I haven't seen either Pipe or Agile internode
offering to deploy infrastructure in this space and I find the criticism just a
tad inappropriate, and outside of your areas or expertise.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">What worries me the most though, is
that you both have influence with governments and yet you may
be behaving in exactly the same manner as Telstra and are probably simply
pushing your own agenda in the policy space while at the same time criticising
Telstra. Your comments would seem to suggest that you have forgotten
where your businesses have come from. Both started off as small
operators.</SPAN></P></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My apologies for being so blunt, but I do think
this needed to be said for balance purposes. To much of the
NBN policy is being driven by the response to the noise form the industry as
opposed to the needs of customers. Ftth will come regardless of NBN,
but I don't see NBN co providing the innovation in the future the same as
Telstra has failed to do so now. In Telstras case I suspect it delayed due
to commercial return on investment decisions and regulatory issues, I suspect we
will therefore replace one monopoly with another and we will be back in the
same space in the future, unless NBN co ensures it keeps modenising its
network. What I see though is no catalyst to ensure this happens
in the current model especially if telstra folds its copper into the
NBN. I still remember what it was like in the old telecom days. I
guess we are going to visit those days again and we will see this debate start
again. Perhaps a look back to the future could avoid some of those issues,
but I won't hold my breath waiting. Personally I would like to see
duct access made available and let all carriers go for it.
Putting fibre in is cheap, the expense is in the duct access and the
backhaul. Then we would achieve some real competition and
innovation. Paying $6 to $8 per meter for duct access kills any
retail business case, however is commercially viable in the commercial
space. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just my 2 cents worth</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards<BR> <BR>Tim </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=JLindsay@internode.com.au
href="mailto:JLindsay@internode.com.au">John Lindsay</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au
href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au">Paul Brooks</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=ausnog@lists.ausnog.net
href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 29, 2010 9:11
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [AusNOG] NBNCo releases its
response to industry consultation</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>No amount of customer complaints through the TIO will fix the underlying
problem if the original service delivery platform is inadequate.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The final "solution" is the customer ends up with no access at all.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In this case Pipe providing backhaul fixed an ugly mess caused by an
overly optimistic retailer.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In other cases Telstra end up providing the bare minimum USO service with
support for superfast 19.2K modem. Amazingly many local governments are
willing to accept this from a property developer.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Australian Broadband Guarantee provides a 512K minimum service so if
you're not getting ADSL or Optus 3G you can have satellite while you wait for
the NBN.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I can't see the current government getting any telco legislation through
in the life of the parliament. It isn't clear what the opposition's
policies are on broadband but Paul Fletcher gave an interview on Friday that I
haven't listened to in which he appears to be signalling a Liberal government
would cave to Telstra on the basis that not doing so would not be fair to
Telstra shareholders.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>How doing so would be fair to all Australians is not spelt out.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>A summary of the interview is here:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/37892-fletcher-backs-telstra-in-alan-jones-chat">http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/37892-fletcher-backs-telstra-in-alan-jones-chat</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>jsl</DIV>
<DIV>--<BR>John Lindsay - GM Regulatory and Corporate Affairs - Internode
and Agile<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 28/03/2010, at 10:38 PM, Paul Brooks wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">On 27/03/2010 11:11 AM, Bevan Slattery
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:6855B462D756004D9A700E875EF936B92FB704@pwkcrkex1.pipe.pwk
type="cite">
<P><FONT size=2>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></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>AusNOG mailing
list<BR>AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>