[LINK] Look, up in the sky! [Was: Lag will set our broadband back: expert]

[David Boxall]

It looks like Minchin was right: 
<http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200907/r407663_1922763.asx>.
One reason given for the delay in the NBN build in Tasmania is lengthy 
negotiations with the state-owned electricity supplier for access to 
poles, from which to string fibre.

So what are the potential impacts on reliability, durability, 
maintenance costs and value of the network, given that it seems much - 
if not most - of it will be overhead?

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 at 18:14:52 +1000 Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> This is just a ramble, not an analysis nor a professional opinion!
>
> I *suspect*, entirely without supporting evidence, that the overhead 
> cable issue exists at least partly because there's overhead fibre 
> already there. It's quite feasible that Telstra and Optus would both be 
> thinking about what's called "vending in" - that is, "here's some 
> network infrastructure, we want X shares in NBNco in exchange".
>
> If the NBN were to exclude overhead cable, it would also exclude this 
> "vending-in".
>
> If this were the case, Optus' statements about the price of buried cable 
> are not without self-interest.
>
> RC
>
> David Boxall wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 at 18:08:01 -0700 (PDT) David Goldstein wrote:
>>   
>>> Given that laying cable for broadband is a key piece of infrastructure, I'd have much more confidence in the government getting it right and at least managing the project than the private sector. The private sector's track record in such issues is pretty poor.
>>>
>>> David
>>>     
>> If senator Minchin is right, your confidence could be misplaced. 
>> Overhead cabling might have a role to play somewhere in the network. As 
>> far as I know, Telstra doesn't use it anywhere in the phone system and 
>> I've seen them apparently ploughing fibre into the ground, so I don't 
>> know what that role would be. Somewhere between in-ground fibre and 
>> wireless perhaps? Not in urban areas, surely.
>>
>> What impact would overhead cabling have on:
>> - maintenance costs and
>> - the value of the network, when it's eventually sold out -err- off.
>>
>> <http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/look-up-in-the-sky-theres-an-ugly-downside-to-labors-broadband-project-20090705-d93w.html>
>> Look, up in the sky! There's an ugly downside to Labor's broadband project
>> Nick Minchin
>> July 6, 2009
>>
>> The uproar sparked by the unfettered installation of unsightly aerial 
>> pay TV cables in the 1990s was the catalyst for the formation of lobby 
>> group Sydney Cables Down Under and others like it.
>>
>> This group now has a new fight on its hands with the Rudd Government in 
>> cahoots with the Rees Government moving to override the concerns of 
>> residents and NSW's 152 councils to roll out aerial cables as part of 
>> the proposed national broadband network.
>>
>> Despite planning to spend $43 billion on its half-baked "Ruddnet" plan, 
>> federal Labor is looking at ways to minimise time and to cut costs.
>>
>> Optus estimates that if 100 per cent of the network's cables are 
>> deployed underground, as I am sure most taxpayers will quite reasonably 
>> expect, the network would cost $60 billion.
>>
>> These figures give weight to the strong suspicion that the project's 
>> costings, which are little more than guesstimates, are based on a 
>> national network involving up to 70 per cent of the cables being strung 
>> between power poles.
...
 
-- 
David Boxall                    |  Drink no longer water,
                                |  but use a little wine
http://david.boxall.name        |  for thy stomach's sake ...
                                |            King James Bible
                                |              1 Timothy 5:23