<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/09/2015 9:57 AM, Noel Butler
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:eb0c185b3d9b481919c39485228cdf5d@ausics.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p>On 17/09/2015 09:37, Paul Brooks wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/09/2015 7:56 AM, Skeeve
Stevens wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div dir="ltr">I am saying that while the CVC should be like
$2.... if they aggregated their PoI's, you'd need a lot less
because it would scale much much more and it would actually
costs less.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Methinks you're confusing topology with charging model. If you
negotiated your wholesale backhaul provider to just add up all
the traffic on all the POI ports and charge you for the
aggregate, rather than per physical port, it wouldn't matter how
many actual POIs there were.<br>
<br>
This whole mess also seems to hang on two assumptions:<br>
1) every ISP needs to service the whole national footprint<br>
2) every ISP needs to charge the same uniform retail price all
over the footprint.<br>
<br>
Are either of these true?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Of course they are - unless you want to be blasted into
extinction</p>
<p>1 - a necessity to compete/survive</p>
<p>2 - a necessity to compete/survive</p>
<p>I'm truly amazed someone on THIS list assuming they have any
RSP experience even asks such a question</p>
</blockquote>
There are still many many ADSL-based ISPs who serve the mainland but
not Tasmania, due to the high cost of backhaul to Tasmania.<br>
There are many regional providers concentrating on a patch,
providing local service by locals, that don't need the high costs of
trying to serve a national footprint.<br>
<br>
So no - it isn't a necessity for every ISP to cover the entire
national to compete or survive. In fact, if you do, you'll
genericise yourself into oblivion, since you'll have no point of
differentiation.<br>
<br>
If you are close to a set of POIs, and choose to just service
customers in that areas where you have lower-cost/zero-cost backhaul
or direct connection than anybody else, allowing you to undercut
national players with no local customer service and higher backhaul
costs, nothing wrong with that.<br>
<br>
Back to the original subject - what I was getting to is that its
perfectly OK to have 3 RSPs serving a far-off high cost location,
and 300 serving the easy metro areas - theres no problem for NBNCo
to try to solve. Thats just geography in action.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>