[AusNOG] News: Minister Conroy contemplating Government-Fundedundersea cable?

[simon thomason]

Trust me to reply to the wrong email. Sorry.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:56 AM, simon thomason <sapage at sapage.net> wrote:

> Thanks for all the replies. So you can not direct for Telstra but your IP
> will rarely change.
>
> Can not use a DNS mapping service as the restriction is placed on the
> source IP.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon T.
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>wrote:
>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Terry Sweetser (SkyMesh CTO) <terry+AusNOG at skymesh.net.au>
>> >To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> >Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2012 9:12 AM
>> >Subject: Re: [AusNOG] News: Minister Conroy contemplating
>> Government-Fundedundersea cable?
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm enjoying this debate immensely.
>> >
>> >And I don't think it is that off-topic.
>> >
>> >IMO, I don't think funding the NBN is a major issue for this list,
>>       given it's part "nation building" and part "social policy",
>>       funding is a political issue before it is a NOG issue.
>> >
>> >There are, however, NOG issues which also are very relevant to our
>>       hip pockets.
>> >
>> >Some things I have issue with:
>> >[0] The NBN is expensive at the wholesale level.
>> >[1] There are two many POIs.
>> >[2] CVC charges are not good value for 80%+ of the network.
>> >[3] The tail charges are too expensive at the 12M and 25M speed
>>       levels.
>> <snip>
>> >There's a major "not level playing field" paradigm with the POIs.
>>       The ACCC has truly shafted every low cap and small rsp in the NBN
>>       wholesale market space.  The only telco with the lowest capex to
>>       reach every POI is the incumbent.  The philosophy of having a new
>>       monopoly was to break the incumbent's hold on the CAN: this has
>>       not happened yet, and it is now evident that the NBN will
>>       facilitate market domination for many years by the incumbent while
>>       the rest of the RSPs have to fund with real capex getting to these
>>       many POIs. That's [1].
>>
>> So this seems to be fundamentally based on the assertion that the only
>> successful RSP is a national RSP. Having worked for a very successful
>> regional RSP, I don't think it is true. For example, that RSP has more than
>> 90% of it's customers on it's own DSLAMs, in more than 30 telephone
>> exchanges, and those telephone exchanges are all within an hour of where
>> on-call (actually all) staff live. Minimising the number of wholesale
>> layers there are between you and your customer helps reduce MTTRs. It can
>> be much better to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
>>
>> The other issue I have with the concern about the number of POIs is that
>> financial costs aren't the only consideration - if they were, then the
>> ideal number of POIs for the NBN would be a single one, so that an RSP
>> would incur only one POI connection cost.
>>
>> With the original POI model being 14, and the current one being 121, then
>> cost is obviously not the consideration - availability is clearly one of
>> the others.
>>
>> Availability is a weakest link problem, and from an RSPs perspective, the
>> weakest links in the original 14 POI model were the POIs themselves,
>> regardless of how much redundancy exists within the NBN itself. If one of
>> them as physically destroyed e.g. burnt down (perhaps intentionally), then
>> at a minimum, your access to the rest of the population for services is now
>> via the remaining POI.
>>
>> For example, in the 14 POI model, the Adelaide POIs were not only the SA
>> POIs, but also the NT POIs, and were also likely to be the intercap
>> junction points between the east and west costs. If one of those POIs had
>> been destroyed, would it be acceptable for the all SA, NT, and east-west
>> services (numbered in the multiple millions) to go through a single POI?
>> Then remember that to replace the other POI, even temporarily is likely to
>> be at the very best probably a two months - is that an acceptable time to
>> have a single point of failure for half of Australia's telecommunications
>> services?. Also remember we aren't talking just Internet here - the NBN is
>> intended to or will likely replace *every* other network - Internet
>> subscriber access, EFTPOS and ATM, traffic/transport control, utility
>> control, TV, mobile phone backhaul. All of those types of services will be
>> impacted by a POI failure. The NBN and it's POIs needs to be as available
>> as all the networks
>>  its replacing *combined*. Perhaps the only traffic that won't be on it
>> is Department of Defence traffic - hopefully. Other factors that are being
>> ignored in the 14 POI model is the expense of redundancy (i.e. with only
>> two POIs, due to the traffic volumes you're likely to need high end and
>> expensive equipment to carry it), and very little traffic locality (*all*
>> traffic between subscribers in Darwin was going to be hair pinned to
>> Adelaide an back).
>>
>> I think the 121 model is far better than the 14 model, because it allows
>> RSPs to be more selective about where they connect, the consequences of
>> failure of a POI are far smaller, the costs of redundancy can be lower
>> because their are opportunities to use more commodity components (1Gbps
>> verses 10Gbps or 100Gbps interfaces e.g., and lower end platforms), and
>> there is far better traffic locality. If you want to connect to all 121
>> POIs, your business should be large enough to sustain that. OTOH, if it
>> can't, there are already wholesale providers who've said they'll be
>> providing that sort of product, plus you can mix and match - directly
>> connect to POIs within your budget, use wholesale providers to provide
>> access to the others.
>>
>> The numbers themselves are a bit arbitrary, however the smaller you go,
>> the more consequence of failure, the less traffic locality, and the higher
>> the technology costs of interconnecting. OTOH, a more diverse network tends
>> to be a cheaper, more efficient and more robust one.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20121004/08f23c2f/attachment.html>