[AusNOG] NBNCo releases its response to industry consultation

[Bevan Slattery]

Paul,

A question (seeing you seem to be plugged in) I'd like to ask is with
all the legislation and NBN Co. requiring to connect homes whether or
not they actually want the service.  It seems like they need another
Ministerial Determination under schedule 3, or further legislation
somewhere else.  Does the Government intend to make these powers
available to all telco's in the non-discriminatory manner of the Telco
Act's excellent framework, or is it looking to provide further
legislative competitive advantages to NBN Co. as compared to other fibre
based carriers such as PIPE Networks?

I'd like to backbone heaps of buildings, but without customer services
in there (or at least on each floor), I can't use my carrier powers to
efficiently do so.  Why doesn't the government make this amendment to
Schedule 3 *now* and let us get on with delivering NBN type services,
unless of course it intends to give NBN Co. further competitive
advantage over other competing carriers.

Also under the existing draft legislation, there is a provision for the
Minister to determine shared access to developer ducts.  Is the
Minister/Government mean sharing with NBN Co or sharing with all
competing carriers?  Whilst I fear Telstra's vertically integrated
ability to be anti-competitive to PIPE, I fear NBN Co's owners ability
to use the power of legislation to achieve the same result.

Cheers

[b]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Brooks [mailto:pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:08 PM
> To: Bevan Slattery
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] NBNCo releases its response to industry 
> consultation
> 
> 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.
> 
>