[AusNOG] NBN Commsday Presentation

[Bevan Slattery]

Hi Mark,

What I'm saying/thinking is that if NBN Co. could provide a "safety net"
from a backhaul/CVC standpoint that could make sense.

For example you don't want to make this EXCLUSIVE 14 PoI's.  What you could
do is provide a CVC fee for accessing at the normal PoI but also say a
Aggregated CVC fee (local/121 PoI CVC + say $3/mbps) for hauling the
circuit back to the capital city.

This would:

(a) provide protection for those that have invested in backhaul
(b) provide a path for ISP's to build critical mass before building out to
a PoI (removing barriers)
(c) allow providers who build scale to do PoI capacity backhaul deals where
there is competing markets
(d) allow potential backhaul investment when a backhaul provider can get
enough business case up to support it
(e) provides tax payers/NBN users great choice of ISP providers

It should be both BUT it should ABSOLUTELY NOT BE ONLY 14 PoI's. That would
be a complete disaster.

Cheers

[b]


On 18 April 2017 at 20:32, Mark Delany <g2x at juliet.emu.st> wrote:

> > Happy for feedback on agree/disagree.
>
> Could you elaborate on your "Simple to fix..." slide?
>
> Specifically what do you mean by "going back to the 14 state-based
> POIs or directly at the local 121 POIs"?
>
> Pretty much every other part of your deck talks about the last mile
> and the economics of CVC and so on, but this part seems to refer to
> backhaul.
>
> Are you trying to say that backhaul to the 121 POIs will never be
> competitive so NBNCo should backhaul to competitive places - namely
> the 14 state-based POIs?
>
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170420/2193bbe2/attachment.html>