[AusNOG] NBN Review shows FTTN blowout of 12bn, FTTH blowout of 29bn

[Paul Brooks]

On 15/12/2013 4:43 PM, Beeson, Ayden wrote:
> Hey sorry Paul, you might have missed the latest changes with the strategic review, but that guarantee no longer applies to end users.
>
> No minimum guarantee at all to end users, with no clear resolution path given the uncertain nature of the CAN ownership puts it where it currently is, no better...
Actually no - I'm reasonably sure the strategic review is silent on this. Its more
government policy than strategic review, and I was distinguishing line-sync speed from
end-user throughput as two separate things.
FTTN Line-sync is controllable and measurable by NBN Co, and the Strategic Review
consistently speaks of 100% of premises achieving at least 25 Mbps, and 90% of
premises achieving 50 Mbps or more. Exhibit 4-3 on P98, lower three lines, and section
3.4 applies.
End-user throughput is additionally dependent on RSP contention ratios and the
provision of adequate bandwidth in the backhaul regions from the PoIs to the RSP's
datacentres and Internet uplinks. These have always been outside the NBN's control,
and not guaranteed at all.

If the line-sync as indicated in your VDSL2 modem and the NBN VDSL DSLAM syncs up at
less than 25 Mbps (such as due to water in the pits), you should be able to claim a
fault condition. (Not saying you *will* be able to, that is yet to be determined. But
you *should* be able to , as it means you are outside government policy of 100% of
Australians having 25 Mbps or more)   On the other hand, if your VDSL2 modem indicated
a line-sync rate of more than 25 Mbps, but somehow you can't seem to suck that much
through the service from a source reasonably close to being on-net for your ISP (and
you might then measure non-zero packet-loss), then the indication is inadequate
backhaul in your ISP, and you complain to your ISP - but NBN Co would not have a
reason to look at the physical infrastructure in that case.

What you've outlined might be the RSP's standard message to end-users, but I'm fairly
sure it didn't come from the Strategic Review doc released last week. Happy to be
proved wrong if you can point to a section that does.

Paul.

>
> Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> On 15/12/2013 4:18 PM, Gavin Rogers wrote:
>> On 12/12/2013 12:02 PM, Beeson, Ayden wrote:
>>> That's the poke in the eye for me, I always saw fibre as a great way to get more
>>> speed, but more than that, a much more reliable medium with a clear resolution path
>>> for faults, to say I'm disappointed in this would be an understatement.
>>>
>> This.  I could (almost) put up with my 10Mbit ADSL2 service at home if, when it goes
>> bad - and it goes bad every winter for the last 11 years - that there are clearly
>> defined and published fault thresholds and minimum performance  specifications and
>> if the line isn't up to scratch, then it's *replaced*. Not jumpered onto an almost
>> not-quite-as-rubbish pair on the same rubbish multipair cable, assuming that my ISP
>> pesters Telstra enough that they begrudgingly do so.
>>
>> So sick of this, "lol. you have dialtone, your line is fine" nonsense. If we're
>> stuck with FTTN, then how are copper CAN faults handled? If a line really, truly
>> ends up being bad, does it just get "remediated" (bodged up) or is it a shot to the
>> head of the queue for fibre?
> While its not much of an improvement, for the first time you'll have a minimum speed
> guarantee of 25 Mbps. Everybody is supposed to be able to achieve 25 Mbps or higher,
> with 90% achieving 50 Mbps or higher. If your line goes so bad that you get less than
> 25 Mbps line-sync then you should be able to call this in as an objectively verifiable
> fault and have it fixed - before the water in the cable/pit dries out. Since its FTTN
> and there is likely to be no more than 700 metres between you and the node, the 'fix'
> *should* be a stroll down the road towards the node to find the dodgy
> no-longer-watertight joint, and a repair/replacement of the bad joint.
> (Not much comfort if you become used to 70+ Mbps, and in wet weather you get knocked
> down to 30-something Mbps, but thems the breaks on copper).
>
> Paul.
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> Charles Sturt University
>
> | ALBURY-WODONGA | BATHURST | CANBERRA | DUBBO | GOULBURN | MELBOURNE | ONTARIO | ORANGE | PORT MACQUARIE | SYDNEY | WAGGA WAGGA |
>
> LEGAL NOTICE
> This email (and any attachment) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery. Email should be checked for viruses and defects before opening. Charles Sturt University (CSU) does not accept liability for viruses or any consequence which arise as a result of this email transmission. Email communications with CSU may be subject to automated email filtering, which could result in the delay or deletion of a legitimate email before it is read at CSU. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of CSU.
>
> Charles Sturt University in Australia  http://www.csu.edu.au  The Grange Chancellery, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst NSW Australia 2795  (ABN: 83 878 708 551; CRICOS Provider Numbers: 00005F (NSW), 01947G (VIC), 02960B (ACT)). TEQSA Provider Number: PV12018
>
> Charles Sturt University in Ontario  http://www.charlessturt.ca 860 Harrington Court, Burlington Ontario Canada L7N 3N4  Registration: www.peqab.ca
>
> Consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Disclaimer added by CodeTwo Exchange Rules 2007
> http://www.codetwo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog