[AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit

[Robert Hudson]

Aren't those two carriers by and large the only ones with substantial
last-mile infrastructure as well?  At least in a residential sense?

On 17 April 2013 15:41, Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au> wrote:

> Narelle -
>
> They are ONLY offering to pay cash to what .. TWO Carriers.
>
> There are around 300 registered Carriers according to the ACMA Register
> today & many of them have spend tens of millions building out their
> infrastructure.
>
> I'm sure you'd agree it's rather prejudicial to pay just 2 carriers
> billions & the rest nothing whilst obviously exposing those Carriers to
> ruin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Narelle [mailto:narellec at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:33 PM
> To: Paul Wallace
> Cc: John Edwards; ausnog at ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > As a separate note Liberty Group has 25 million subscribers in Europe
> > mostly on HFC & they're continuing to build out HFC as fast as they
> > can! That's HFC not fibre. Here in Australia we're paying billions of
> tax taxpayers funds to rip the two great HFC networks down.
> >
> > We actually pay cash here to destroy first class telecoms assets!
> >
>
> Alright - I'll bite. :-)
>
> To go from existing DOCSIS platforms to higher capacity ones, ie make the
> transition from TDM to OFDM, you need to change out the head end
> electronics and RF plans for the entire networks. The existing CMTS
> hardware in place may not be capable of supporting it - the line cards
> certainly aren't - so a substantial upgrade is required to get to DOCSIS
> 3.1 and above. All household modems need to be replaced also.
> Significant tuning and effort is required across the network to condition
> the plant.
> That standard isn't finalised, either.
>
> http://www.lightreading.com/docsis/docsis-31-to-be-revealed-at-cabletec-expo/240135059
>
> To make the transistional move to higher than DOCSIS 1.1 - even before
> going to DOCSIS 3.1 - you need to replace the customer modems, and rejig
> your RF plan to ensure you can support the bandwidth customers demand in
> competition with any TV you are servicing. High definition TV is a
> bandwidth hog, and there has been little take up of trickle down options
> and local storage for popular programs and/or P2P servicing from set top
> boxes. Current service models may not fit.
>
> The service model of the future is also much less download oriented and
> requires higher upload bandwidths. More challenges for the RF plan.
>
> That means about now is a good time to really assess that investment.
> If you own an HFC network and you haven't exactly maintained the outside
> plant particularly well, then it might be a really good time to stop doing
> it. If your OSS  and other business systems are magnificently tuned, with a
> hard to shift model, then that might be a good argument to stay. I suspect
> the former is quite true, and the latter not so true in Australia's case.
> Both add up to a timely move away.
>
> HFC has been a largely failed investment in Australia partly because of
> the competition aspects when it came into being: many people remember the
> laughable sight of one crew turning up to install, rapidly followed by the
> other within days, and so no-one got sufficient footprint to really sustain
> the business well. Then they competed against each other for content and
> the studios laughed all the way to the bank as they watched the prices
> rise. A certain non incumbent telco really suffered and wrote down the
> investment massively. Once that went, profits were possible!
>
> One of the main reasons for going to a federally funded national broadband
> network is to get to an optimal competitive platform.
> Infrastructure competition has not led to good outcomes nationally.
> Our HFC experience is a textbook example.
>
> HFC is a fibre to the node technology. That's what the Hybrid, Fibre and
> Cable all stand for: FTTN. The current networks are not capable of a fully
> loaded 90%+ penetration rate delivery to all of the approx 3m homes the
> combined Telstra (2.5m) and Optus (2.2m) homes pass. This is due to the
> condition of the cable and the RF plans used to apportion available
> bandwidth. Upgrades to backhaul etc are easy in this context, but reworking
> your HFC is not.
>
> Much of that cable also is aerial, all the way to the homes, and a very
> popular source of Cockatoo entertainment. No-one has been able to get a
> multi-dwelling unit model working properly within that scheme.
>
> That said, I rather enjoy the service my family gets from it, and all the
> years I was employed by one of them, testing all the newer broadband
> delivery options, I always happily went back to the HFC service afterwards.
>
> But no-one was offering me a brand new fibre...
>
> GPON is vastly more reconfigurable than HFC at the physical level, and
> vastly more upgradeable electronics-wise leading to much better long term
> capacity and serviceability.
>
> What all sides of politics should have done, imho, was to sort out
> sensible industry competition, say, about 10yrs+ ago and promoted FTTN
> transition then, when it would have been a sensible transition technology.
> What did we have? A less than competitive marketplace, and little mechanism
> to move across then.
>
> >
> > We actually pay cash here to destroy first class telecoms assets!
> >
>
> Indeed, asset holders should be paid cash to transition off to more longer
> term, more optimal platforms as part of a sensible government program.
> Imagine your house being confiscated to build a highway with no recompense?
>
>
> regards
>
>
> Narelle
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130417/0be36fa9/attachment.html>