[AusNOG] NBNCo releases its response to industry consultation

[Bevan Slattery]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Brooks [mailto:pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au]

> Bevan - have a closer look at the legislation, which includes the 
> concept of 'fibre ready' infrastructure being required.
> The standards as to conduit size etc are still to be set, but 
> essentially what you describe is part of the proposed legislation - most 
> new developments (subject to subordinate legislation that hasn't been 
> enacted yet, ministerial determnation, etc) will be required to have 
> 'fibre ready' pit-n-pipe (or something equivalent), and developments 
> above certain thresholds will then be required to install fibre as well."

I've read the legislation and it is underwhelming.  That is because it has a good framework, but no real substance at this stage.  As you correctly point out there is much more detail that is necessary here and it comes mainly in the form of subordinate legislation and Ministerial determination which is yet to be seen.  That is of little comfort for developers at the present.  As to the size of development, the quality of the backhaul and everything in between, the draft legislation is currently totally devoid of substance.

> I disagree - there is sufficient momentum in greenfields FTTP providers 
> at the moment, plus moves to produce detailed guidelines for
> developers and builders that are likely to be used in tender 
> requirements documents, that the forthcoming greenfields developments
> should be as robust (or better) and more consistent as the current ones.

> I see the greenfields FTTP operators will keep going, as little mini 
> NBN-like infrastructure owners/operators within their development 
> patches

Being in a non-NBN patch, that sounds about as exciting as being in a Telstra Velocity estate, or even better a CMUX estate.  I'm not talking about technical capability, but why is it that many people in these "patches" lose the romance of being connected to fibre and want what everyone else has.  Many of the benefits of being on a FttH premises stop about where the backhaul starts.

As I said in my original post I see them as potential little NBN monopolies in many cases without the backhaul infrastructure necessary to guarantee a true FttP experience.  For example a FttH operator had fibred an estate here in Brisbane and used EIGHT unlicensed wireless segments to backhaul the service back to the city.  Residents could not guarantee a basic first line service let alone broadband services.  They regularly could not get a working POTS line!  The users were in a mobile blackspot and after 12 months of wrangling the developer was about to take action against the FttP operator.

The developer could not legally take back the infrastructure he paid for as it was now owned by the FttH operator.  The development started to get a bad name.  Apparently there were people in the estate with serious health issues and a first line service was critical.  It almost went completely pear-shaped and for a last minute plea to us, I agreed to backhaul the operator back to the city. Incredibly scary.

> Now, that assumes the solution provided by the FTTP greenfields 
> operators is equivalent - 100Mbps+ access capable, and open access 
> wholesale - or NBN Co may have to overbuild. Many of the existing 
> operators are already open-access, only a handful are not - so some 
> existing operators may need to change business model.


In any case, even if NBN Co were to take over the running of such 
networks, they are unlikely to have to rip out the fibre. Replace some 
terminal ONT/OLT equipment perhaps for consistency of operations, but 
not rip out the fibre - glass is glass, its only the end equipment that 
needs to be upgraded from time to time - isn't that what we keep telling 
people? :-)

Here's some Maths for you.  NBN Co is going to fibre up some 7,000,000+ premises.  Existing FttH providers may have connected somewhere around 1% of that (less than 70,000 premises).  As I outlined in my previous email, do you think that on a 50 year network maintenance basis that NBN Co. should equip all it's maintenance crew with 3,4 or 5 different FttP equipment types to cater for that less than one percent of operators, or do you think that it's best to spend an additional $430m to provide a single standard for everthing.  FttH is a connectorised world and even now there are many standards.  When you start ripping out NTU ONT/OLT and optical splitters, whether you take out the glass to the premises is not actually that relevant.  As I stated in my previous email you have effectively "ripped out most of the network".

My point in all this is, and remains, that the simplest and most elegant way to future-proof new estates is through pit and pipe.  It is the least cost for the developer *and* the most productive and cost efficient way to deliver fibre to the premises.  It might not be delivered *today* but when it does, it will be the most cost effective way.

[b]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100327/a36db3ad/attachment.html>