<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I'm enjoying this debate immensely.<br>
<br>
And I don't think it is that off-topic.<br>
<br>
IMO, I don't think funding the NBN is a major issue for this list,
given it's part "nation building" and part "social policy",
funding is a political issue before it is a NOG issue.<br>
<br>
There are, however, NOG issues which also are very relevant to our
hip pockets.<br>
<br>
Some things I have issue with:<br>
[0] The NBN is expensive at the wholesale level.<br>
[1] There are two many POIs.<br>
[2] CVC charges are not good value for 80%+ of the network.<br>
[3] The tail charges are too expensive at the 12M and 25M speed
levels.<br>
<br>
Overall, on [0], it's hard to argue against the social policy
issues and not get told "don't ignore the bush". Sadly, 12M and
25M (soon) over wireless and satellite do not really compare well
with FTTP on all technical fronts. FTTP at the high end speeds
represents good value for 2012, and very unlikely to be good value
later in the decade. Paying $20 per Mbps (while free for the 1st
150M for now, not free later) looks like fantastic value for
wireless around Mackay or Satellite to central Australia, for FTTP
at an average range of 5km is ridiculously expensive.<br>
<br>
There's a major "not level playing field" paradigm with the POIs.
The ACCC has truly shafted every low cap and small rsp in the NBN
wholesale market space. The only telco with the lowest capex to
reach every POI is the incumbent. The philosophy of having a new
monopoly was to break the incumbent's hold on the CAN: this has
not happened yet, and it is now evident that the NBN will
facilitate market domination for many years by the incumbent while
the rest of the RSPs have to fund with real capex getting to these
many POIs. That's [1].<br>
<br>
So on [2], in order to obtain "social equality" between FTTP,
wireless and satellite coverage, without addressing the severe
technical shortcomings of wireless and satellite in comparison to
FTTP: the CVC charge has to be "high". I say "high" as the
bandwidth is being fed to the network very close to the population
it services for 80% of the planned network. There's that other
20%, some FTTP, all wireless and all satellite where that per Mbps
cost to NBN far exceeds $20/Mbps. Satellite bandwidth for data is
extremely expensive compared to FTTP. There are spectrum
limitations on wireless which make it a dead-end technology for
the low density areas NBN plan to service with LTE. Spectrum is
not cheap, getting more to accommodate wireless growth on NBN will
be major capex.<br>
<br>
Lastly, regarding [3]: compare the current practice of obtaining
exchange space, buying/laying back-haul and obtaining ULL/SSS from
the incumbent, <b>with</b> paying for NNI, CVC and AVC on NBN.
Your fixed costs are likely comparable to NBN levied fixed costs,
in fact NBN will be cheaper. Now, "per client" costs on NBN have
suddenly jumped from $xx to $yy, and I'll speculate that $yy >
3*$xx. If you're an owner of back-haul to the exchange, you have
a low opex "per client", but you will not enjoy that low cost on
NBN. It seems to me that the RSPs sitting in the middle 75% of
the market right now are not looking at a good deal for NBN,
they're likely rather shocked and dismayed at the opex.<br>
<br>
In summary, the current POI model makes NBN too expensive, RSPs
are paying for the bulk of the transit of data around the NBN on
their own networks, before they even get the to POI.<br>
<br>
CVC bandwidth at $20/Mbps for FTTP would be a lot more value for
money and palatable if the coverage was a whole state, not just 1
CSA.<br>
<br>
(If anyone wants a quote for publishing anything above, please
contact me first, I consider this to be private conversation
amongst friends.)<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://about.me/terry.sweetser">http://about.me/terry.sweetser</a></pre>
On 01/10/12 01:00, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ausnog@ausnog.net">ausnog@ausnog.net</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120930150001.93FD1C02B3@lists.ausnog.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Note well that while technical matters relating to a commercial or
legal dispute MAY be in scope, details of a commercial or legal nature
are NOT permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, naming the
parties involved or including any details of the individuals employed
by or associated with the parties that are involved in the dispute.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>