rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Sun Apr 22 17:04:11 EST 2012
Sorry for the delay, the weekend was busy!
To answer your first question: if the HFC passes about a quarter of
households (ie, 2 million out of roughly 8 million), we can assume that
something over 15,000 nodes would be saved. That still leaves a
I suspect that the ACCC was trapped by the process of declaration - it
cannot start the process without a complainant.
On 20/04/12 11:05 AM, Ross Kelso wrote:
> 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.
> Ross Kelso
>> 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?
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link