[AusNOG] Do we need a new local loop

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

On 13/08/2010, at 12:06 PM, Tim McCullagh wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft<mailto:mmc at internode.com.au>

It's understood.  The point is that your not getting a NEW local loop.

Do you need a new local loop?  If so Why.?
Cu reaches a limit with performance pretty quickly.   By the time you do FTTN then you're spending a LOT of money anyway (to match anything like the NBNCo foot print you'd be spending more than 1/3 of the FTTP cost).

As you've said below, Cu hasn't been maintained.  I keep having fairly disparate explanations of the Cu issues.   I've had one group of people (incl Telstra CAN people) tell me it's the older main cables which are old and degrading.   The others tell me it's the last mile bit into your house.

So, it seems everyone thinks the whole lot is dead.   I'll note Telstra wanted to replace the main cables with FTTN, so it's quite likely it's those parts.

Anyway,  one issue with FTTN is that it's still expensive to run.   FiOS shows less than 1/10th the opex of the original Verizon CAN.   FTTN has many cabinets with active equipment, power etc.



The most fault free part of the local loop is in many cases the oldest part of it. There are extremely few faults in main cables between the exchange and the DA pillars.  These main cables are installed much deeper than most other services, go through concrete manholes etc.  I can tell you with authority that many of the CAN faults are due to poor repair processes and maintenance practices.   Why because many of the repair staff aren't backed up with timely and appropriate support.  To give an example or examples.  How many times do you see driving down the road a slave cable with a temporary joint in a plastic bag.  In a lot of cases you only see the yellow guards with grass growing up through them?   Why ?  Well what happens is someone cuts a cable because they didn't ring dial before you dig, drives over a pit in a vehicle and breaks the lid damaging the cable, a tree comes down over the cable etc etc etc.  A telstra faulty gets a job and an expectation of a timeline in which the fault will be cleared.  He or she drives out locates the damage, rings his dispatcher and is told to make the site safe get the customers back on the air and fill in a report for a contractor to come and do the proper repairs.   There is a budget which controls how many of these jobs find a contractor.  The joints sit in plastic bags in the sun which either act like a sauna and condense water or break down and let the rain and storm water into the cables.  This can be changed by employing a "fix it he first time policy" which is cheaper to deploy, however this does not work well with the appoint time based system used by Telstra and legistlated by the government.   Fix it properly the first time also requires access to resourses which doesn't sit well with staff planning.   Ie to fix a handset fault is a finite amount of time whereas to fix a cust cable may require machinery and additional hands on deck that can require the job is 2 hours to 2 days depending on what is required.  The question then comes down to who is really responsible Telstra or the careless person that didn't pot hole or get dial before you digs, or the tree clearing policy that prevented preventitive maintenance.   FTTH will face the same issues, however the repair timeframes will be longer.

  So at some point you're going to have to start replacing it, I can guarantee it's not going to be cheaper in a decade or two from now.

This is done as part of the maintenance program or when demand renders the existing cable inappropriate.  It doesn't mean you need to replace everything.
FTTN is a stop gap measure.   Even Telstra talked about it being a stepping stone to FTTP.

  So, where do you go then?

So I am assuming you are saying that we should replace the whole network because a pit is broken.   That is what you are saying
Strawman again.   I'm saying that, we need a long term plan.   If we're not going to do FTTP then tell me a story about your LONG term plan.  Not just the next 5 years with a hope about the future.


You've saved money now only to spend more later?

That is not true, there is such a business 101 thing called the time value of money.  Why spend $1 today if you don't need to.  Tomorrow the technology or a business case may have rendered it useless
So, demonstrate an alternate plan.  My assertion is that if you don't do it now then you're just going to have higher costs later and higher maintenance costs now.


   It also doesn't solve the fact that "$150" doesn't buy you a fix in a RIM or for people at the end of loop too long.


I am glad we have finally found some area of agreement.
Now if you have read what I have written on many response on the list, that is the area where we need to focus.  I have been totally consistent on that for years.  But it doesn't mean we need to replace the entire network.  It also doesn't mean that Tesltra should be the only option past the rim.  Each of these areas should be put out to competitive tender to be fixed with a view to allowing open access and to a specification that will address the needs in the future.
That's not a plan.  That's a hope.   NBNCo will have "open access" but you call that a monopoly.   But apparently having a competitive tender first then creating a whole lot of small monopolies where they're the only local loop is okay?

You still need to account for spending money on "fixing" these issues, but you've then spent money on a short term bandaid and then not actually solved the longer term problem.

Again, start thinking LONG term, not bandaid.


 For that you need FTTN at a higher cost, higher Opex and you then have the same issues as NBN with a single entity controlling it.

So, good luck with the $150/port.

Lets say it is $300 per port which I am told it is not.  That is still a long way short or $3500 to 7500 or the $14800 option on my previous email

Yep, But you get a fibre local loop with 50 years of future.   How long will FTTN actually last?   It's a pointless comparision because it doesn't solve the same problem.

So, you haven't answered the question.

If you want me to spend the time providing you with a written template then I am available to consult.  If you list the blockers and I will reply.  In saying that I did provide some examples and solutions to some regulatory situation.  I know there are many more and I suggested a process to address them as well.

Cop out.  Can't be bothered or don't have any answers?  So far you've offfered NONE.

In my case I need a government undertaking  similar to the coalitions commitment in this area, that the government will not destroy the value of my investment using government money (borrowed) to do so.
So, it's come down to that.  It's not about - is it good for Australia, but just about you?
While you may not appreciate how confidence destroying some of the comments regarding how Labor will legistlate to bring Telstra to heel are, and while we may all love to hate Telstra we should be mindful of the fact that we may be the next target. Soveriegn risk is investment destroying.  Labor have shown they don't care how much damage they do.  Look at what happened to the insulation industry.  They brought forward demand sucked in a lot of samll operators and closed it abrupty leaving many with massive inventories and debt with no real way of liquidating it with value and on the other side they have destroyed the demand for the Australian manufactures of insulation.  They are about to repeat the same trick with the car industry.  Again it is business 101 stuff.  Not every aspect of this industry is about the sexy stuff like technology.  In a similar way how Conroy proposes to legistlate a force all ISP's to introduce the internet filter.  Does this explain what I am referring to.   I am sure those sitting in Telstra Optus Primus Pipe and others do.  As I am of some of the mining companies with regard to retrospective taxation.
So, it's really an ideological thing, not actually about NBN?

MMC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100813/16fa7489/attachment.html>