[AusNOG] Gosford City Council and NBN RSP.

[Jake Anderson]

On 30/05/14 02:25, Mark Newton wrote:
> On 29 May 2014, at 20:56, Jake Anderson <yahoo at vapourforge.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually I would disagree with much of what you have said there.
> Yep, I know.  That's because you're not a network operator (the "NO" part in "AusNOG"), and probably have very little idea of the history or economics of the provision of internet services in Australia.
Things as they are now, perhaps aren't as they always were ;->
Yes I am a lowly "end user" now, but that is not how it always was.
>> There are 2 separate issues, one is bandwidth, and the other is the multi port NTU.
>> I don't see the multi-port NTU as allowing for "new services" that is the domain of bandwidth, anything can be delivered over IP as you suggest.
> Really? Because in your previous message in relation to that very issue, you said these things, which are diametrically opposed with your words in the previous sentence above:
Of course I'll change my position during the course of a discussion, as 
points are made where valid I'll accept what you say and either change 
or clarify my position. Anything else is faith based slavish devotion to 
an ideal and more appropriate to the realms of politics not a "network 
operators group" that is made up of intelligent people.
I must say I thank you for this discussion, you are helping me to refine 
my feelings on the multiport NTU though at this stage you haven't swayed 
me into it being a bad idea.
>
>>> The issue with achieving these things in practise is with the MTM you are in the same boat you are in now, you are at the mercy of the RSP to provide a level of service for over the top services and you are also dependant on them having enough bandwidth.
>>> With FTTP and multi-port NTU's you can guarantee those things for a price.
> i.e., you described both bandwidth AND multi-port NTUs as dependancies for services that'll be delivered over the network.
>
> You then went on to use the provision of a parliamentary inquiry videoconferencing service over dedicated NBN NTU ports as an example.
>
> Is it now your position that you don't believe those things you said?
>
> Because they were the things I was addressing.  If you had written different things I might have responded in a different way.  If you wait for a response and then change your position, that's hardly a useful way to have a productive conversation, is it?
As above changing position after receiving a response is how intelligent 
people move forward, it is of course not a great way to have a debate.
Regarding the specifics and to clarify my earlier statement which thanks 
to your erudite criticisms I can see is unclear and could use refinement.
I should say that multi-port NTU probably won't create a "new" service, 
IE multi-port ntu wont spawn "HD video conferencing" (or service X), as 
you and others have said the market is too small for that.
However multi-port NTU (and ubiquitous fibre) allows for the reliable 
and in theory simple provisioning of any given service, which may be an 
attractive proposition to a service provider which may create a larger 
market for said service.

Do note the emphasis I place on reliable in there, (and in my earlier 
statement) as a key differentiator for the multi-port NTU.

I will say the current pricing model does not lend itself to doing this 
though which I feel reduces the utility of the offering.

>
>>> This is supposed to be a list of network operators, who understand this kind of stuff.  The rah-rah about the NBN lives on Whirlpool, right?
>> I would tend to agree, however my "understanding" and yours may well be different.
> Well, yes:  You aren't a network operator.  As an end-user, of course you're going to have a different perspective about these things.  You don't have to build them or make money off them;  it's best for you if it's all unlimited and free, right?
As somebody who has sat on both sides of the fence I can see both sides 
of the argument.
That is why I'll champion fttp, and hate on the pricing model they 
dreamed up to fund it.
(I'll also suggest that doing nothing may well be better than MTM, but 
with my operator hat on I'm less certain of that, much as it pains me to 
admit)
unlimited and free is of course good for an end user, however its not 
going to last very long.
So my argument for the pricing model is that it should be set to 
maximise the use of the network, whilst also earning all the players 
sufficient revenue to thrive.
The current system does not do this. Its not good for network operators 
or end users. Its expensive for everybody and is encouraging only 
marginal improvements over present speeds, not sufficient for "new 
services".
I'd much rather a system with 0 CVC (or nearly so), shift the pricing 
totally onto AVC (though I must caution you I am flexible on that so i 
will listen to arguments made against it by people with more data or 
more recent experience).
I'd also like provision right now for RSP's to be able to connect deep 
into the network, perhaps running their own wavelengths from the FSAM on 
out to do their own thing (dedicating a splitter in the FDH to a RSP is 
another option but one prone to complications), how you achieve this 
whilst maintaining funding for nbnco (and its cross subsidies) is a 
problem I haven't yet solved in my own mind.


>
> So rah-rah as much as you like. We saw how well that worked out back in September.
It seemed to work just fine for one Mr Abbot in September ;-P perhaps I 
should try doing it more ;->


I do wonder however, fun though it has been if further discussion may be 
best suited to being off list?