<!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 22/04/2010 10:11 AM, Curtis Bayne wrote:
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FA0CD0970E4B7F439846F7C7670841C9049AB1@bnehnex1.SONET.local"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">The regional back-haul project is costing a
fraction of the NBN and will provide tangible benefits to consumers
(with increased speeds and reduced cost) far before a consumer is
connected to the NBN network. It enables retail ISPs to install
competitive infrastructure in areas which have previously been serviced
only by the monopoly provider. This is a good thing.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
.....<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FA0CD0970E4B7F439846F7C7670841C9049AB1@bnehnex1.SONET.local"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">Perhaps if we spent a few billion dollars building
a national, regional back haul network capable of servicing major
town/transit routes, we would have a national, regulated carriage
duopoly: this would encourage independent providers to begin building
their own fibre routes in areas where they have previously been unable
to justify expenditure due to a lack of return - especially in places
like Maroochydore, Darwin etc. Customers that are outside of these
regional centers will end up serviced by independent wireless ISPs -
these ISPs now have access to competitive carriage some ~200KM away,
which is only a few microwave hops away. Capitalism again: if there's
money in it, someone will do it.<br>
<br>
As far as I can see, if we pursue this avenue, we will end up with the
following outcomes:<br>
<br>
1. An easily justifiable return on investment for "BackhaulCo" (our tax
dollars do not go to waste!)<br>
2. Delivery of high-speed services to regional areas (fulfilling the
goals of NBNCo).<br>
3. Does not sever the investment that current providers have put in
their own infrastructure (this will make many providers happy)<br>
4. Will most likely (in time) deliver a FTTP network when a commercial
provider deems they are able to amortize their investment (or we'll end
up stuck with HFC - either way, we get our 100Mbps to the home)<br>
5. Encourages smaller ISPs in regional areas, creating jobs and
bolstering the local economy (and keeps me in business)<br>
6. Only marginally pisses Telstra off (could be considered a
disadvantage!)<br>
7. Encourages mobile carriers like Voda/Optus to deploy 3G
infastructure in rural areas (more healthy competition in these areas
and a kick in the pants for the NextG monopoly).<br>
8. Stops Curtis from making page-long rants on a public mailing list
(good for AusNOG in general).<br>
</opinion><br>
<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Curtis - you just described the Opel project, and the Broadband Connect
tendering process in late 2006 that lead the selection of Opel to build
it.<br>
To whit: build a regional backhaul network to bring metro-comparable
backhaul capacity and pricing to regional areas, and then local ISPs
will build the local loop and access networks using whatever
technologies they feel works best in the local community.<br>
<br>
It seemed like a good idea to the previous federal government.<br>
To the current government that appears to have been sufficient to kill
it, and do something different - and if the previous guys thought
backhaul network was good, then the 'different thing' is access network.<br>
<br>
P.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="86">--
Paul Brooks | Mob +61 414 366 605
Layer 10 Advisory | Ph +61 2 9402 7355
-------------------------------------------------------
Layer 10 - telecommunications strategy & network design</pre>
</body>
</html>