Internode "gobsmacked", iiNet welcomes FTTH network

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Dan Warne07 April 2009, 11:30 AM

Two high profile ISPs have welcomed the government's decision to scrap its fibre-to-the-node plans and build a fibre-to-the-home network instead.


Broadband customers will be the winners if the Federal Government delivers an eight-year project to build its own fibreoptic network covering Australia, says Internode managing director Simon Hackett.

"I'm gobsmacked,” he said – “In a good way!’. He continued: “If they do what they promise, they've actually got it right and Australia might just turn into a broadband front-runner country 10 years from now.

"This is exactly the outcome I’ve been arguing for, for ages – most recently at a national telecommunications conference in December 2008.

"So while I’m naturally pleased that the government has decided to opt for the right technical solution (a new FTTH network on a wholesale only basis, independent of Telstra), I’m astonished that they’ve been brave enough to do it. In these challenging economic times, such nation-building investment is exactly the right response to the telecommunications challenges Australia faces for the next decade.

“If they take industry advice and build the new network 'outside in' – fixing blackspots first and installing where ADSL2+ is present, later – then everyone wins, because people with no broadband get it, while people who already have broadband can use the ADSL2+ competitive landscape in the meantime.

“This allows companies that have invested in that landscape to recover their investment before the new network renders it obsolete. But even then, like dialup access, that old access technology may stay around for years – and no one loses.

“It is a great relief that the Government has abandoned the Fibre to the Node (FTTN) delivery model which would have cost it $4.7 billion without cutting the mustard. Rather than squander its cash on FTTN or do nothing, it has the guts to build a Fibre to the Home network that will cost more than $40 billion.”

Hackett said although the project could in fact take as long as 10 years to build, it would deliver a “future-proof” broadband service that could operate for decades. “Just as copper served Australia well during the 20th century, fibre will provide the country’s nervous system for the 21sth century,” he said.

“The project announced today is good news for Australian consumers. Firstly, Telstra has no grounds to stop or delay it as the wholesale network is completely separate to Telstra’s existing copper network.

“Leaving the copper network in place will maintains the current ADSL2+ competitive broadband environment, so that Internode and its rivals have many more years of useful ADSL2+ network building ahead. As the new network emerges, we'll have access to it on an equal footing with everyone else. Bypassing the copper network also avoids the need for regulatory changes – this means the existing access regime can continue unchanged while the new network is put in place, in parallel.

“Progressively replacing the copper network over that long period will allow the industry to recover its copper-based broadband investments in a smooth manner. Existing customer services will remain in place in parallel, providing competitive pricing tension, rather than cutting off ADSL2+ abruptly.

“Telstra can't complain because it has ignored the chance to be a nation builder by building its own FTTH network. Instead the Government will build a new, wholesale-only, end-to-end fibre network that every carrier, including Telstra, has equal access to.

“Significantly, although the Government will be the majority owner, it intends to privatise the network five years after building it, which I think is exactly the right idea.”

iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, also welcomed the announcement. Managing Director, Michael Malone, said the plan was the best news made for the Australian telecommunications sector in decades.
 
"This is the best of all possible outcomes and will ensure Australians have access to fast, affordable and competitive broadband,"  Malone said.
 
"In terms of the key criteria we were looking for in a National Broadband Network - open access, structural separation, fixing backhaul 'black spots' and regulatory reform - the Government has delivered.
 
Malone said not only would consumers benefit but the Australian telecommunications industry would be better off with increased competition, innovation and jobs.
 
"iiNet is well placed to continue our strong growth under the new world that will be created by the National Broadband Network.  We are a market leader in product innovation, customer service, content provision, backed by a strong brand, and will now be able to compete on a truly open high speed network. This is like Christmas for Australian broadband consumers!
 
Malone said he congratulated the Prime Minister and Communications Minister for their vision and said he looked forward to working with the Government on the implementation of National Broadband Network -- a small olive branch to the government after iiNet's strong attacks on the government's internet filtering plan.

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

agami (User):

No one should be opposed to this. Regardless of what they might think they are loosing, they need to think about what will be gained.

07 April 2009, 12:30 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting agami:
they need to think about what will be gained.

Gained at what cost? How is this $40Billion recovered? One way or another the consumer/taxpayer foots the bill. And we all know how efficient government is at building things.



07 April 2009, 12:36 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (User):

Quoting Raindog:
One way or another the consumer/taxpayer foots the bill

Off course we do, that's why we pay taxes. A national fibre network is the road network of the 21st century. It will bolster Australia's economic viability for decades to come. Effective communication is the linchpin of all systems.

Will there be a cost blowout, you bet, but I'd rather my government tackle large infrastructure projects like this one than offer token tax adjustments that make the average Australian houshold $26.00 per week better off.

OECD countries are moving to a service economy, we should've started this thing 5 years ago.


07 April 2009, 12:52 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting agami:
It will bolster Australia's economic viability for decades to come.

100Mb will be how viable in 2022?


Quoting agami:
A national fibre network is the road network of the 21st century.

That's a pretty good analogy, with the network likely incomplete, jammed to gridlock, riddled with potholes and crippled with toll booths.
Will you accept a level of network infrastructure commensurate with our national roads infrastructure?


Quoting agami:
Will there be a cost blowout, you bet

That's a pretty safe bet. Where are the costings? They do not have a clue.


Quoting agami:
but I'd rather my government tackle large infrastructure projects like this one than offer token tax adjustments that make the average Australian houshold $26.00 per week better off.

People prefer $900.00 handout too, until they work out it will cost them a lot more than $900.00 each to pay for them.



Quoting agami:
we should've started this thing 5 years ago.

Without doubt we should have been implementing solutions long ago. But is an unspecified commitment to heavens knows what delivered so far off into the future that actually a solution?
The reality is a level communications playing field should have been established 20 years ago.


07 April 2009, 1:15 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (User):

Quoting Raindog:
incomplete, jammed to gridlock, riddled with potholes and crippled with toll booths.

I don't want to argue with you and certainly this forum isn't conducive to our debate. You do make many valid points but I'd just like to comment on the above quoted.

The national road infrastructure may be described that way today, after decades of growth, evolution, in some places poor maintenance, and financial pressures. It didn't set out to be that, I'm sure each new piece of road laid or section renewed is a splendor to drive on and does improve communication.

My point is, if I had to choose between having the current road network and none at all, I'd choose the current one, even if some politician claimed they'd pave it with gold, I can read between the lines. The sheer undertaking is what matters, that we choose to do these things reveals what we're made of.

07 April 2009, 4:38 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting agami:
I don't want to argue with you and certainly this forum isn't conducive to our debate.

I'd always considered it debate rather than any form of argument and I'd have thought this forum to be an ideal place for presentation of points of view.


Quoting agami:
I'm sure each new piece of road laid or section renewed is a splendor to drive on and does improve communication.

Agreed but it goes nowhere towards explaining why this and so many other government run enterprises are allowed to decay into ruin, despite ever increasing revenue.


Quoting agami:
My point is, if I had to choose between having the current road network and none at all, I'd choose the current one, even if some politician claimed they'd pave it with gold,

Well that's where you and I differ, we have seen government promises on the Hume and the Pacific Highways for decades and yet each upgrade is delivered is wholly inadequate before its completion. Odds on a government run communications network will suffer the same fate.


Quoting agami:
The sheer undertaking is what matters, that we choose to do these things reveals what we're made of.

I hold a similar belief in forward vision, but vision without proper costing, planning or wisdom, is foolhardy rather than visionary. Grand plans require a little more than will to succeed.


07 April 2009, 6:52 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EggLet (User):

This sounds great and it's about time Australia gets some decent broadband but it does make me wonder when quantum communication would become available. Maybe the 21st century is the era of optical computing and communication and 22nd century quantum. At least quantum communications shouldn't require a roll out if it does what I think it does. However, it just depends how secure quantum computing and communication is in which case optical may coexist.

Quoting Raindog
100Mb will be how viable in 2022?

Due to the nature of optical computing it can expanded rather easily once the FTTH infrastructure is set up and it is likely this would be upgraded soon afterwards.

07 April 2009, 4:28 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting EggLet:
Due to the nature of optical computing it can expanded rather easily once the FTTH infrastructure is set up

That was the theory. And no question optical media is capable of much more delivery than current end devices can achieve. In the wild those upgrades have not proved so easy (or more importantly economical) to achieve.

Quoting EggLet:
and it is likely this would be upgraded soon afterwards.

Remember most of the drip feed of upgrade we have become used to have been due to Telstra opening the taps from time to time on it's market manipulation. All this new optical equipment will have to provide some real ROI before any thoughts of upgrade could be considered.

At a napkin level design all this stuff is good. Some actual costings including even some reasonable estimates of retail pricing would be good but none of it exists, that 100Mb ceiling could end up being in place for a very long time.


08 April 2009, 10:00 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EggLet (User):

Awh ok fair enough. I would assume the rest of the world would have similar trouble then so really it wouldn't be that bad and since the fiber-optic lines are already be inplace I would assume it would only require the hardware on the end of the nodes to be replaced. Considering that flash drives, which are being slowly adopted, would only be the type of harddrive which can really take advantages of anything higher than 100Mb/s then even still I don't think in ten years time when everyone has 500Mb/s flash drives that people would expect the internet to be just as fast. I can't think of any 'home' applications even in 10 years ten which would require typically more than 100Mb/s even streaming realtime 1080p footage unless 4K is the new rage in 2022?

10 April 2009, 5:57 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting EggLet:
I can't think of any 'home' applications even in 10 years ten which would require typically more than 100Mb/s

At one time Bill Gates couldn't think of how any application would use 640Kb of RAM. Forward prediction are a dangerous thing so is plowing blindly into the unknown.


10 April 2009, 10:25 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EggLet (User):

Quoting Raindog:
At one time Bill Gates couldn't think of how any application would use 640Kb of RAM.

I'm well aware of that but I'm looking at the global trends and overall levelling out of technology of this now establish computational field (something that Bill Gates was only just starting in an unknown field) I don't think it's a bad guest that 100Mb/s would be at least the minimum internet requirement by then.

Quoting Raindog:
Forward prediction are a dangerous thing so is plowing blindly into the unknown.

So if you are suggesting Australia should not do this major upgrade then what do you suggest which would overcome all the above problems you keep on mentioning then? If there is no change in this competitive information world we live in which demands more and more each day then Australia 'may' swap places with India and be the next generation third world country? It's about adapting to the environment we live in, I'm sure if our government was half-smart? it would have talked to many many IT professions before out laying $43 billion on this adventure for 20 million people.

Fair enough complaining about the problems and speculations is good but you will get no where if all we do is sit and talk about spilt tea. So come on what are your suggestions to turn this country around then in regards to the internet?

15 April 2009, 3:38 PM (6 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EggLet (User):

Quoting Raindog:
"In the wild those upgrades have not proved so easy (or more importantly economical) to achieve...All this new optical equipment will have to provide some real ROI before any thoughts of upgrade could be considered."

I was referring to upgrading after the initial infrastructure and yes ROI is obviously needed before any upgrade. I'm guessing that the upgrading would begin after the privitisation hence the telecom companies would be the ones paying for upgrade not through taxes, then in turn the consumers would be paying an extra fee for the cost of the upgrade if they want speeds faster than 100Mb/s. I'm only guessing but it would make sense that when this network becomes avaliable in 2022 the home user would then be purchasing a 1Gb/s or faster optical modem from the government as they would be cheap as in 13 years time and the telecoms would have access to cheaper higher speed and capacity modems and routers to then upgrade.

http://www.lafayetteprofiber.com/Blog/2008/09/upgrading-ftth-to-1-gig-in-amsterdam.html
"One of the best things about installing a fiber to the home infrastructure is that it makes substantial upgrades pretty trivial—the big sunk expense is in putting in the fiber infrastructure; future costs to stay abreast of newly available tech are, by comparison, cheap and can be done on an as-needed basis. Once you have fiber it is easy to stay ahead of the capacity curve and to supply vastly different needs. That is because the carrying capacity of light over fiber is theoretically unlimited; today the practical limits have to do mostly with economics: huge capacity routers and modems are costy and paying the interconnects to other networks can be pricy so providers have to charge more for such services than any but those with special needs want to pay.

But the one thing that is certain about life is that computer electronics prices fall"

16 April 2009, 10:14 AM (6 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (Senior member):

And I particularly like the bit where they say "Although,The Govt. will be the majority owner,it intends to privatise the network five years after building it,which I think is exactly the right idea" Good heavens are these people deluded enough to believe they'll still be in charge after the next election and where will their precious network be after that. I can't see the Liberals building it. And also you just have to see the muddle they went through with privatising Telstra. At least we've got rid of "The Mexican" or whatever he was.

08 April 2009, 10:27 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Halcon (Advanced member):

This fast broadband topic is just another supposition.
This government is misleading us, there is not guarantee this will be feasible, moreover, there is not real gains and provisions for these ambitious plans.
Many political observers see this as a complete failure.
So why we should trust in empty promises?

10 April 2009, 10:29 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

swordfish Bob (New user):

This is good. I don't think it's the single best option for developing data infrastructure, but definitely the most defensible approach the government could take from its position since the election.

FTTP is worth the higher cost as it will be useable and upgradeable for a long time. Compare this with mobile phone infrastructure that needs upgrading within a few years, and is completely scrapped and replaced within about 10 (apart from the physical towers). The useable life of FTTP means it doesn't have to fully recover costs within a few years, but decades. How long ago do you think the copper network was paid for, and the bulk of cost shifted to maintenance and upgrading the connected equipment?

How does Raindog expect to get beyond 100Mbps _without_ involving FTTP?

The one thing I'm not sure of is whether the new wholesale provider should be sold off - I just don't know either way.
I actually don't believe competition was the reason voice and data costs continued to drop; I believe it was technology. That seems counterintuitive, but remember without competition our national telco wasn't run by profiteers! We have the competitive environment now, for better or worse, and most of the options for an NBN were simply terrible in that context.

Telecom used to be run by engineers: people who like building things that work, things that work well, solving problems, providing a service.

Back when Optus first came in reselling voice services, it wasn't far from the migration of trunk lines to fibre instead of arrays of wires strung in the air on "telegraph poles", and the old electromechanical decadic exchanges were replaced with digital ones - with greater capacity and no moving parts. Better equipment, less maintenanace, higher capacity, call costs can come down.

Before ADSL was declared, Telstra was still regularly rolling out new technologies and dropping the price on each new generation of data connectivity. They even started deploying a kind of FTTN in rural areas - only 2Mbps total per roadside box, shared among voice, ISDN and Frame Relay services. My employer still has 3 sites attached to these, though only used for voice now that mobile data is much more affordable for WANs.
It's only since they started worrying about expansion of declared services, and competitors building their own infrastructure, that Telstra became really mean and guarded on investment. Arguably this is also why DSL prices have come down a long way while Frame Relay is still expensive - they have to put their best prices where the competition is.

I don't expect many politicians to appreciate all that - few of them are engineers but many of them are business people. Profits and competition are the world they live in, and the way they'll continue to attempt to control our national infrastructure.

Building a whole new network without commandeering Telstra's cables and ducts is a nasty case of government competing with business, but at least it's with provision that all telcos will have fair access - anyone whose own infrastructure is bypassed will be able to use the new. There should be no ruling against anyone building their own network (unlikely to be financially viable for a while though), but government action cannot favour or disadvantage any existing players without sending a very bad message to all businesses and investors operating in Australia.

11 April 2009, 8:01 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting swordfish Bob:
but definitely the most defensible approach the government could take from its position since the election.

And you think defending a government position is good reason on it's own for incurring massive debt do you?


Quoting swordfish Bob:
FTTP is worth the higher cost as it will be useable and upgradeable for a long time.

I do not disagree that fibre is a good technology, the suggestion that fibre is the only technology that is upgradable or capable of long life is simply a nonsense.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
The useable life of FTTP means it doesn't have to fully recover costs within a few years, but decades.

But it has to be paid for now doesn't, there is a finance cost, none of this stuff is supplied or installed for free. A fibre roll-out can be wholly self financing if access to premises issues are resolved. Kev & Steve's Bogus Network plan will have us paying to install that fibre in the most costly an inefficient manner possible.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
How long ago do you think the copper network was paid for, and the bulk of cost shifted to maintenance and upgrading the connected equipment?

More importantly you need to address how the copper network was paid for.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
How does Raindog expect to get beyond 100Mbps _without_ involving FTTP?

There are any number of technologies that can deliver those speeds. And there are many instances where fibre will not be the most sensible or cost effective option for delivery of service.

Quoting swordfish Bob:
Telecom used to be run by engineers: people who like building things that work, things that work well, solving problems, providing a service.

Yes Telecom once delivered a high quality service. It delivered those in a bureaucratic and cost ineffective manner. It was grossly over staffed and suffered the chronic inefficiencies only possible in a legislated monopoly.
Your glossy memories of the good old days forget the Telstra pricing of the day and a situation where it could take 1 to six months to get a voice service connected in suburbia.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
Telstra was still regularly rolling out new technologies and dropping the price on each new generation of data connectivity.

Dropping highly inflated and unrealistic pricing to slightly less outrageous levels may be a price drop, but it it's hardly affordable. Telstra pricing is based on what can be gouged from the consumer and still is to this day.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
They even started deploying a kind of FTTN in rural areas

Well whoopie doo, Fibre trunks are in widespread use and have been for many years. What does that have to do with reasonable and affordable broadband access? Why are those same rural centres for the best part still deprived of reasonable access?


Quoting swordfish Bob:
they have to put their best prices where the competition is.

And where will the competition be for Rudd Net? The only possible competition will be from an aging and asset stripped Telstra copper network and a wholly over hyped Telstra Next G network. Where will Rudd net see the need to be competitively efficient. Premises access will remain monopolised. The only competitive area will be the last grab for retail contracts. (Yes folks the pesky telemarketing and annoying Door to Door pressure selling will remain with Rudd Net.)


Quoting swordfish Bob:
I don't expect many politicians to appreciate all that - few of them are engineers but many of them are business people.

Politicians do not need to be engineers, but politicians that ignore the advice of engineers, financiers etc do so at the peril. All the advice of those most capable has been ignored for decisions made from the viewpoints of ideology and populism. chronology of the making of a hasty decision and ill considered announcement


Quoting swordfish Bob:
Building a whole new network without commandeering Telstra's cables and ducts is a nasty case of government competing with business, but at least it's with provision that all telcos will have fair access

Fair access where? Will it be the same level of fair access recently afforded to employment services contractors, where some of the best performing companies were replaced essentially by three overseas companies. One of which having a strong association with the prime ministers wife. Not a word has been said about how works contracts for Rudd Net will be delivered.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
There should be no ruling against anyone building their own network

But there is? It is still not possible for a new player to attain access for connection of an alternate network to customer premises.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
anyone whose own infrastructure is bypassed will be able to use the new.

As a retailer! Everything else has to written off with recovery pricing built into those retail margins.


Quoting swordfish Bob:
but government action cannot favour or disadvantage any existing players without sending a very bad message to all businesses and investors operating in Australia.

That bad message is out there loud and clear. There will be a good buck to be made in resale. There will be good contracts for those who grease the right palms. The incentive for other delivery players to competitively participate in Australia will be nil.



11 April 2009, 9:47 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags