[AusNOG] Very funny NBN skit
Guy Ellis
guy at traverse.com.au
Wed Apr 17 16:12:41 EST 2013
They will keep using them for the next 3-5 years by which stage they
will be...
(i) fully depreicated
(ii) reaching end of service life anyway
Meawhile iiNet are thinking outside the square with their ADSL bonding -
this gives them a competitive advantage, makes good use of existing
infrastructure until that day arrives.
- G.
On 17/04/2013 4:00 PM, James Hodgkinson wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:narellec at gmail.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:33 PM
> To: Paul Wallace
> Cc: John Edwards; ausnog at ausnog.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto: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
--
Guy Ellis
guy at traverse.com.au
www.traverse.com.au
T: +61 3 9386 4430 M: +61 419 398 234
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130417/098cfdc6/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list