kelso at internode.on.net
Fri Apr 20 11:05:22 EST 2012
We have yet to see the detail of the Coalition's plan, but if it is to include the continued existence of HFC-delivered broadband (which I guess it would since Turnbull frequently talks about the current broadband delivery of such infrastructure) then a possible plan could exclude FTTN from areas currently covered by HFC networks (Telstra/Optus) and hence there would be far fewer FTTN nodes required? This of course would necessitate a Coalition government leaning on the ACCC to 'declare' these HFC networks to be 'open' - in the current climate this should be a doozy, but for those who recall the mid 1990s the ACCC signally failed to do so, arguing that the (ISP) industry didn't ask them to act accordingly.
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:23:01 +1000
> From: Richard Chirgwin <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [LINK] FTTP/FTTN
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Message-ID: <4F909E55.7010004 at ozemail.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Let me think...
> 1. If Turnbull wants to get the fibre within 500-1000 meters of the home
> (which he has discussed publicly), there's an awful lot of active
> equipment required.
> There are around 70,000 Telstra Distribution Areas in Australia - that
> is, 70k of those brown wiring pillars that are the last connection point
> between exchange and home. Taking fibre to 70,000 DAs is a much smaller
> job than taking fibre to 8 million premises - so he's right there.
> However, that also means 70,000 (say) VDSL units at street level, each
> unit large enough to serve more than 100 premises, and street each unit
> will need power.
> 2. The criticism that FTTN is not automatically a pathway to FTTP comes
> from the numbers of premises served from a node. Short version: you have
> to change the topology of the network if you upgrade from FTTN nodes
> serving 100+ premises to GPON nodes serving 32 premises (or some other
> configuration, for that matter). In either case, as well as reworking
> the topology, you have to replace the active kit serving the FTTN topology.
> 3. Taking 1 and 2 into account, plus the constant maintenance required
> on the copper network, I suspect that the FTTN plan moves capex to opex.
> Is this a good idea? Without data, we can't assess that aspect - but we
> can say that the opex would end up in retailers' costs. Sure, the
> up-front is less; but in capex you're buying an asset, and in the case
> of fibre, it's an asset that costs less to maintain over the long term,
> uses less power, has a long depreciation life, and is more amenable to
> future upgrades without replacing physical infrastructure.
> On 19/04/12 11:04 PM, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> Opinions re this?
>> Given that current polls indicate that the Liberals could win the
>> next election, then, presumably, the NBN might become FTTN rather
>> than FTTP?
>> "Shadow Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has repeatedly
>> expounded the benefits of an FTTN broadband network as opposed to
>> a FTTP one as it would cost less and can be rolled out faster. He
>> echoed this thought at the Communications Day Summit on Wednesday"
>> Ramifications of a copper last mile?
More information about the Link