Subject: [LINK] Considering Fibre to the Home

[Kim Holburn]

On 2007/May/08, at 12:04 AM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:

> Addressing two posts in one...
>
> Stewart Fist wrote:
>> George asks:
>>
>>> My question to the Link Institute is whether Australia should be  
>>> also
>>> be considering the costs of an eventual fibre to the home network  
>>> that
>>> extends any fibre to the node development. If we are looking further
>>> to the future, I think we should consider the eventual  
>>> replacement of
>>> the copper last mile now and how this might affect this next
>>> investment and rollout.
>>>
>>> Have any recent costings on a long term migration to FTTH been done?
>>> If we are to spend $5-10b now, will that investment be wasted  
>>> when we
>>> come to the next upgrade. It would be excellent to have a 25 year  
>>> plan
>>> that took into account the current rusty copper, the intermediate  
>>> FTTN
>>> plans and where we really want to be compared with other emerging
>>> broadband economies.
>>>
> George, it's reasonable to ask: "Why should a mass rollout of a  
> consumer product be government-supported?" If (say) IP-TV can't  
> compete with renting a DVD on price, then why does the government  
> need to help pay for it?

Because if you don't have oversight of what has now become  
"infrastructure" you get ridiculous things happening like two  
companies cabling the same (lucrative) areas, ignoring other areas,  
and not allowing the other's programming on their network.

> Second: "I want it and I want it now", which is what too much FTTH  
> advocacy boils down to, isn't a good reason for government funds.
>
> I agree broadly with Stewart Fist's points...  chiefly this one:
>> Upgrading the last-100 can also be done progressively-on-demand if  
>> you use
>> FTTC-nodes as an interim stage. Not everyone needs (or wants) to  
>> swap over
>> to FTTH at the same time.  It is best done in stages.
>>
> The only problem is that any "staging" of the rollout inevitably  
> leads to a sort of bandwidth-as-penis-envy. "But they got hundreds  
> of megabits and I only get ten! Boo hoo!" So who's going to get the  
> new network first? I hardly think we need some sort of "planned  
> political economy" of bandwidth just to shut up the guy who's  
> getting the new service second instead of first.

Australians can keep arguing while other countries simply have far  
better bandwidth to the home.

> However, missing from the "gimme gigabits" argument is a simple  
> question of Internet transit. No individual - well, none except the  
> very rich! - can afford a gig of Internet transit.

Not with the charging models that are currently used in Australia but  
in some countries there are "really" unlimited accounts not just  
Telstra style "unlimited" accounts.

> So beyond what we can afford for our Internet access, what's  
> everything else going to be? Stuff "inside" the walled garden,  
> designed to keep us hooked to a service provider, mostly. Forget  
> the dreams of geeks: the reality would not be freedom to do  
> anything on the Internet really fast. It would be "buy more of our  
> bundled services! Only $99 a month to get TV that used to be free,  
> plus gambling!"
>
> Already, in the political side of the debate in other countries,  
> the cost of the infrastructure is the supporting argument behind  
> stealing what used to be free and making it cost money. It's a  
> simple exploitation of a cargo-cult mentality on the part of the  
> public.
>
> Richard Chirgwin

--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961