<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">They will keep using them for the next
3-5 years by which stage they will be...<br>
(i) fully depreicated<br>
(ii) reaching end of service life anyway<br>
<br>
Meawhile iiNet are thinking outside the square with their ADSL
bonding - this gives them a competitive advantage, makes good use
of existing infrastructure until that day arrives.<br>
<br>
- G.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 17/04/2013 4:00 PM, James Hodgkinson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKZ1cTxQEeqzR=U6hmQpneGGbAq21ALyzC9aPxWFNNACqkswLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">What about the (not tiny) number of carriers who
have invested in DSLAM's? Or doesn't this count as last-mile
infrastructure?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>James</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
On 17 April 2013 15:46, Robert Hudson <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:hudrob@gmail.com"
target="_blank">hudrob@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Aren't those two carriers by and large the only ones with
substantial last-mile infrastructure as well? At least in a
residential sense?
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 17 April 2013 15:41, Paul
Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.wallace@mtgi.com.au"
target="_blank">paul.wallace@mtgi.com.au</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Narelle
-<br>
<br>
They are ONLY offering to pay cash to what .. TWO
Carriers.<br>
<br>
There are around 300 registered Carriers according
to the ACMA Register today & many of them have
spend tens of millions building out their
infrastructure.<br>
<br>
I'm sure you'd agree it's rather prejudicial to
pay just 2 carriers billions & the rest
nothing whilst obviously exposing those Carriers
to ruin.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Narelle [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:narellec@gmail.com"
target="_blank">narellec@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:33 PM<br>
To: Paul Wallace<br>
Cc: John Edwards; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog@ausnog.net"
target="_blank">ausnog@ausnog.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Paul
Wallace <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.wallace@mtgi.com.au"
target="_blank">paul.wallace@mtgi.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> As a separate note Liberty Group has 25
million subscribers in Europe<br>
> mostly on HFC & they're continuing to
build out HFC as fast as they<br>
> can! That's HFC not fibre. Here in
Australia we're paying billions of tax
taxpayers funds to rip the two great HFC
networks down.<br>
><br>
> We actually pay cash here to destroy
first class telecoms assets!<br>
><br>
<br>
Alright - I'll bite. :-)<br>
<br>
To go from existing DOCSIS platforms to higher
capacity ones, ie make the transition from TDM
to OFDM, you need to change out the head end
electronics and RF plans for the entire
networks. The existing CMTS hardware in place
may not be capable of supporting it - the line
cards certainly aren't - so a substantial
upgrade is required to get to DOCSIS 3.1 and
above. All household modems need to be
replaced also.<br>
Significant tuning and effort is required
across the network to condition the plant.<br>
That standard isn't finalised, either.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lightreading.com/docsis/docsis-31-to-be-revealed-at-cabletec-expo/240135059"
target="_blank">http://www.lightreading.com/docsis/docsis-31-to-be-revealed-at-cabletec-expo/240135059</a><br>
<br>
To make the transistional move to higher than
DOCSIS 1.1 - even before going to DOCSIS 3.1 -
you need to replace the customer modems, and
rejig your RF plan to ensure you can support
the bandwidth customers demand in competition
with any TV you are servicing. High definition
TV is a bandwidth hog, and there has been
little take up of trickle down options and
local storage for popular programs and/or P2P
servicing from set top boxes. Current service
models may not fit.<br>
<br>
The service model of the future is also much
less download oriented and requires higher
upload bandwidths. More challenges for the RF
plan.<br>
<br>
That means about now is a good time to really
assess that investment.<br>
If you own an HFC network and you haven't
exactly maintained the outside plant
particularly well, then it might be a really
good time to stop doing it. If your OSS and
other business systems are magnificently
tuned, with a hard to shift model, then that
might be a good argument to stay. I suspect
the former is quite true, and the latter not
so true in Australia's case. Both add up to a
timely move away.<br>
<br>
HFC has been a largely failed investment in
Australia partly because of the competition
aspects when it came into being: many people
remember the laughable sight of one crew
turning up to install, rapidly followed by the
other within days, and so no-one got
sufficient footprint to really sustain the
business well. Then they competed against each
other for content and the studios laughed all
the way to the bank as they watched the prices
rise. A certain non incumbent telco really
suffered and wrote down the investment
massively. Once that went, profits were
possible!<br>
<br>
One of the main reasons for going to a
federally funded national broadband network is
to get to an optimal competitive platform.<br>
Infrastructure competition has not led to good
outcomes nationally.<br>
Our HFC experience is a textbook example.<br>
<br>
HFC is a fibre to the node technology. That's
what the Hybrid, Fibre and Cable all stand
for: FTTN. The current networks are not
capable of a fully loaded 90%+ penetration
rate delivery to all of the approx 3m homes
the combined Telstra (2.5m) and Optus (2.2m)
homes pass. This is due to the condition of
the cable and the RF plans used to apportion
available bandwidth. Upgrades to backhaul etc
are easy in this context, but reworking your
HFC is not.<br>
<br>
Much of that cable also is aerial, all the way
to the homes, and a very popular source of
Cockatoo entertainment. No-one has been able
to get a multi-dwelling unit model working
properly within that scheme.<br>
<br>
That said, I rather enjoy the service my
family gets from it, and all the years I was
employed by one of them, testing all the newer
broadband delivery options, I always happily
went back to the HFC service afterwards.<br>
<br>
But no-one was offering me a brand new
fibre...<br>
<br>
GPON is vastly more reconfigurable than HFC at
the physical level, and vastly more
upgradeable electronics-wise leading to much
better long term capacity and serviceability.<br>
<br>
What all sides of politics should have done,
imho, was to sort out sensible industry
competition, say, about 10yrs+ ago and
promoted FTTN transition then, when it would
have been a sensible transition technology.
What did we have? A less than competitive
marketplace, and little mechanism to move
across then.<br>
<br>
><br>
> We actually pay cash here to destroy
first class telecoms assets!<br>
><br>
<br>
Indeed, asset holders should be paid cash to
transition off to more longer term, more
optimal platforms as part of a sensible
government program. Imagine your house being
confiscated to build a highway with no
recompense?<br>
<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Narelle<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"
target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Guy Ellis
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:guy@traverse.com.au">guy@traverse.com.au</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.traverse.com.au">www.traverse.com.au</a>
T: +61 3 9386 4430 M: +61 419 398 234
</pre>
</body>
</html>