[AusNOG] ACCC pushes for consumer internet speed test, telcos aren't keen on the idea

Sun Sep 13 21:14:58 EST 2015

On 13 Sep 2015 7:58 pm, "Matt Perkins" <matt at spectrum.com.au> wrote:
>
> I think the whole DOD idea is a bit far fetched and with respect I think
the model was put tougher a bit quick to take things into account  like
network resilience.

I don't think it was rushed. The following shows that it occurred over a
two year period. There are no *public* submissions from any national
security agencies but that doesn't mean there wasn't any involvement of
them.

https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/communications/national-broadband-network-nbn/nbn-points-of-interconnect-pois

>The plane facts here are that to shrink the number of POI's would allow
Joe blogs ISP. China telecom or whomever to compete with Telstra. Now
Telstra has many mum and dad investors. But worse still it has many super
funds investing in it.  For a government to devalue Telstra in such a way
is not only political  suicide it would also require them to prop up some
people in retirement due to their ailing funds and their reliant on people
like Telstra.
>

If a network isn't available when its users want or need to use it, then
everything else about it (cost, performance, scalability) doesn't really
matter.

> The large number of POI models favours the incumbent carrier that happens
to have most of their exchanges co-located.
>
> Matt.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Sep 2015, at 5:59 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 13 September 2015 at 09:42, Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au>
wrote:
> >> The ACCC has created the mess.  They are stupid to push for this as it
will highlight their gross incompetence and/or negligence in removing all
non-NBN competitive last mile infrastructure (Telstra HFC, Optus HFC etc.)
from existing providers.
> >
> > I think ISPs are at fault too. They knew what the CVC charges were,
> > and could have calculated what their other increased costs would be,
> > yet they still blindly have tried to provide 100/40, 50/20 etc.
> > services at prices similar to or low multiples of ADSL ones, as though
> > the costs of providing them were nearly the same.
> >
> >
> >> It will more than likely show that TPG's FttB/N network will be
superior to every provider on the NBN because they are not economically or
technically constrained by either exorbitant backhaul costs to build to 126
PoI's and more specifically the $17.50 CVC charge.  How the ACCC approved
this charge as part of the NBN approval has burdened almost every consumer
in Australia with the most expensive broadband in the developed world.  I
say almost because those lucky enough to have TPG's FttN network will more
than likely have excellent value broadband.
> >
> > I think many more POIs was necessary to achieve the necessary
> > availability, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was the
> > Defence Department behind it, because in my opinion communications
> > services availability on a large scale becomes a national security
> > issue.
> >
> > To justify its existence (and in theory make a profit), the NBN
> > network needs to be used for as many services as possible -
> > residential and commercial Internet, EFTPOS/ATM, Mobile network
> > backhaul etc. As all of these services are provided externally to the
> > NBN, the POIs become points of failure for these services.
> >
> > In the 14 POI model, a POI failure (accidental or intentional
> > destruction due to fire or other causes I'm not going to mention,
> > power outage etc.) would impact literally millions of services and
> > their users. To have these services fail over relatively seamlessly to
> > the remaining POI would mean having huge amounts of extra resources
> > (close to if not 100% extra) sitting idle in the other nearby POI just
> > for that very rare event - and if recovering the failed POI takes any
> > significant amount of time, then there is now a single point of
> > failure for all NBN carried communications services in a city (or two
> > for the Adelaide POIs, as they were also to serve Darwin).
> >
> > To make this example more vivid, imagine how much worse September 11
> > would have been if those two buildings had also been the POIs for all
> > communications services for the state of New York.
> >
> > 121 POIs makes the consequences of a POI failure far less significant.
> > Switching 100 000 services from 1 failed POI to another near by POI is
> > going to be a lot easier to achieve than switching 2 million plus
> > services from one POI to another. With the smaller POIs, you can start
> > sharing your redundancy resources between groups of POIs, reducing the
> > amount of redundancy resources you need at each of the POIs. The
> > problems of performance and availability are easier to solve because
> > you're allowing the solutions to them to be scaled horizontally.
> >
> > It also allows more localised services and traffic - in the old 14 POI
> > model, the Adelaide POIs were also the Darwin POIs, meaning that it
> > wouldn't have been possible to put CDN nodes in Darwin. The costs of
> > sending individual, per-user video streams e.g., Netflix and similar
> > traffic, from CDN nodes in Adelaide to Darwin would have been colossal
> > compared to serving them from Darwin located CDN nodes.
> >
> > Cost is an important factor, but it needs to be balanced against the
> > service availability requirements, and I think the service
> > availability requirements become much higher when we're moving to "one
> > network to rule them all", carrying all services.
> >
> > More diversity usually results in more resilience and performance.
> > With many networks being operated by many organisations using many
> > vendors being delivered to many different locations, we've had a lot
> > of inherent resilience and performance in Internet and other services.
> > We're losing a lot of that with the NBN, and I'm not completely sure
> > that has been widely realised.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark.
> >
> >
> >> The ACCC have completely undermined their integrity and 20+ years of
facilities based competition in this country and are now seen by many who I
respect in this industry as a sock puppet for the Minister of the day.
> >>
> >> Disgraceful and incompetent.
> >>
> >> [b]
> >>
> >>> On 13 Sep 2015, at 6:40 am, ausftth at mail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "But Mr Sims added the program would cost "low single-digit millions
of dollars" with funding coming from either the government or
telecommunications providers."
> >>>
> >>> Seriously?!
> >>>
> >>> The whole thing is a pipedream anyways with CVC charges at $17.50 per
mbps. It's a complete waste of money, regardless if millions are spent or
not. If ACCC wants to know which circuits are congested they only need ask
NBNco.
> >>>
> >>> Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/accc-pushes-for-consumer-internet-speed-test-telcos-arent-keen-on-the-idea-20150911-gjkakd.html
> >>>
> >>> Jared
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20150913/41ec13b2/attachment.html>