[AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit

Wed Apr 17 16:00:32 EST 2013

What about the (not tiny) number of carriers who have invested in DSLAM's?
Or doesn't this count as last-mile infrastructure?

James

On 17 April 2013 15:46, Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ee4827b7/attachment.html>