[AusNOG] NBNCo releases its response to industry consultation

[Paul Brooks]

On 27/03/2010 11:11 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Yup - it (the substance, the 'subordinate legislation') is still coming. 
I'm working with them (in a group including representatives of 
developers) as part of one of my roles and see the drafts, and much of 
it should be in place before July, but everyone recognises that doesn't 
leave much time for the developers to get ready after it stabilises, let 
alone as it works its way through the legislation path.


> > 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.
>
There's the rub. Leave Velocity for a moment, there are several other 
greenfields operators that are wholesale-only-open-access like the NBN 
is supposed to be, and recognised ISPs including Internode, iiNet, 
Primus etc are providing services through them. The issue in these 
places is not so much the fibre or conduit network inside the 
development, its the backhaul that is the main problem.    If the 
backhaul can be fixed, then there is no reason why the services in those 
developments can't be precisely as rich and interesting as might be 
available through the NBN in other places.  That part is not under the 
development's control (although sometimes they try to put something in 
place to assist the retail SPs).

Note that NBNCo isn't doing backhaul much either, so whether or not 
NBNco or someone else runs the fibre network inside the development, the 
SPs will still need the same 'some way' to get to the headend (or POI in 
NBNCo-speak). Sounds like a wholesale backhaul aggregation opportunity 
for someone.


> 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.
>
Yup, that sort of crap happens, no question. You'd have to think that 
those services wouldn't be treated as 'equivalent to what NBNCo would do 
themeselves', and in that case the initial operators should and would be 
taken over/overbuilt and the problem fixed when NBNCo get to that 
location. Incidentally (and possibly off-list) why weren't the operators 
of that development subject to legal action or at the very least 
complaints through the TIO - or did that happen?


> 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.
>
I full agree Bevan - and my original point in this is that the 
pit-and-pipe is part of the legislation - the legislation might not be 
delivered *today* either, but when it does, it should make sure your 
'most cost effective way' become reality for more developments.

P.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100328/b9a6471b/attachment.html>