[AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB

Tue Sep 17 21:11:55 EST 2013

But Robert, if the point of exercise is to help people in the bush, many of which the NBNco wishes to  help via wireless and satellite, then fibre or copper has nothing to do with it.

On 17/09/2013, at 8:50 PM, "Robert Hudson" <hudrob at gmail.com<mailto:hudrob at gmail.com>> wrote:

To be clear - I don't disagree that the execution has been terrible. It has been.

But that isn't to say that FTTP as a notion is broken. It is not.

And it can't be said that FTTN is the automatic solution to the poor execution of the FTTP. There is nothing to stop a FTTN implementation being just as messed up,  and in fact it is potentially easier to mess up with the range of options that it presents (some FTTP, some VDSL, some wireless, some good copper, some bad copper, etc).

Whatis a fact is that our copper network, and the "last-mile" in particular is an absolute mess - ISPs have screamed at Telstra about it for years, Telstra themselves recently admitted that it is grossly undermaintained.

What I am yet to see is any solid figures on what the annual cost of maintaining the last mile copper to a reasonable level would actually be. Nor have I seen any estimate on how much it will take to bring large parts of the copper network up to standard, and how that compares to just scrapping it and replacing it with fibre to start with.

And I am yet to see any details on the the "mid-term" option to run with FTTN now and "upgrade" to FTTP later (I use inverted commas because as far as I have seen, it is a forklift job, not an upgrade in the traditional sense).

What we have seen are sensible ideas for how the cost and complexity of a FTTP network build can be reduced, and how this would potentially also speed up the roll-out. Given that cost, complexity and speed of roll-out are the biggest things that people complain about with the ALPs FTTP rollout, surely those should be the first things considered, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

On 17/09/2013 7:17 PM, "Tim McCullagh" <technical at halenet.com.au<mailto:technical at halenet.com.au>> wrote:
"The NBNs price model is, amongst other things, dependant on scale"

I would suggest the pricing is more dependant on the cost of deployment ( and a 6% return on the build cost) and given the absolute balls up of a roll out the cost is currently probably double the cost which a suitably qualified telco network engineer would have spent.   I have been watching the absolute waste going on in Toowoomba, with much amazement.  I imaging it is the same else where.

This was all forseeable and in fact I personally told Conroy to his face what the issues would be, and I have seen one of those exact situation play out. In particular the lack of suitably skilled people to perform such a roll out.   If conroy was smart he would have employed a Don pernel, mic rocca or Kennedy  type to head up NBNco.  Instead he employed a sales engineer.

This is going to end up being a very expensive rollout for which we will all pay, but I think I did mention that to this list at the start, only to be howled down.   Time to jump back into my box

Regards

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Hudson<mailto:hudrob at gmail.com>
To: Tom Lanyon<mailto:tom+ausnog at oneshoeco.com>
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [AusNOG]Screw the NBN, says TPG: We’ll do our own FTTB

Of course it has an impact on the NBN. The NBNs price model is, amongst other things, dependant on scale and the number of premises connected. Reduce that number by a few million, and the per-port price will rise significantly, and those in less profitable areas ("the bush" as an example), won't have their pricing subsidised by the commercially lucrative connections (in "the city)".

On 17/09/2013 6:47 PM, "Tom Lanyon" <tom+ausnog at oneshoeco.com<mailto:tom+ausnog at oneshoeco.com>> wrote:
On 17/09/2013, at 6:09 PM, Jake Anderson <yahoo at vapourforge.com<mailto:yahoo at vapourforge.com>> wrote:
> On 17/09/2013, at 5:14 PM, Nick Gale <nickgale at gmail.com<mailto:nickgale at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Are you saying we should have the ability for NBN competitors? If so why?
>
> Because if you don't then private enterprise will build a bunch of little fiefdoms where it will be uneconomical for anybody else to try to take market share with diminishing returns, and as a bonus all those areas in "the bush"       that the population as a whole is rather fond of won't get any services at all because its not "economic" to do so.

None of which would be an issue, assuming that this is all occurring in parallel to the NBN, right?

_______________________________________________
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<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130917/19cd16e9/attachment.html>