[LINK] Ergas article in the Oz
Richard Chirgwin
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Jun 29 09:31:41 AEST 2010
Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 12:42 AM 29/06/2010, Tom Koltai wrote:
>
>> Budgetary considerations in paying for the NBN are not a good enough
>> technical reason to disconnect the copper.
>>
>
> I hope someone is raising this issue with them quite strongly, like
> maybe through the ACCC or possibly from AGIMO (I know we have some
> AGIMO lurkers on here). It's a stupid mistake *IF* decommission means
> take it out. Hopefully it just means unplugging and leaving the two
> cable systems in place. It would be a whole lot easier to replug than
> reinstall.
>
> I agree re the competition of the two/three systems to keep prices
> down.
I'm not so inclined to see this as an issue. We don't have a competitive
consumer access network today on the copper - with the limited exception
of HFC, every fixed customer network is a monopoly.
I am excluding the discussion of corporate-level fibre networks here...
1. Twisted pair network - Telstra.
2. HFC network - Telstra and Optus, but limited capacity for expansion
either of footprint or of customer base. No competitive service provision.
2a. Some localised HFC networks exist - Neighborhood Cable (owned by
TransACT), e-Wire in WA, and an Austar system in Darwin. That's all I
can call to mind.
3. Consumer fibre - only in new housing estates, and only as a local
monopoly.
So: the NBN replaces (1) and has a mechanism for incorporating (3) into
the architecture. The new deal excludes Telstra's HFC network from the
broadband market (timetable to be set), but doesn't involve removing the
HFC network completely.
At the moment, prices are regulated on the copper network by the ACCC;
there is no genuine competitive pressure on the access network.
Competition focuses on plan inclusions, which aren't a function of the
access network.
Regarding redunancy (raised by Tom), there is no redundancy between home
and exchange today. Nothing changes in the consumer network.
For business and carrier networks, redundancy is feasible under the NBN
architecture. For example, if a corporate customer required redundancy
to an NBN-served location, its retailer would be able to negotiate this
with NBN Co.
> But as we've seen with digital tv, a delay in switchover would
> last years due to the inertia of the households to take the
> initiative. We pride ourselves in being early adopters, but only if
> there is a seen benefit. 'Good enough' is just that, good enough.
> Change is hard without a definite return. I'm not convinced NBN fibre
> will come with that evidence to encourage the take-up that is required.
>
Take-up doesn't have to be "encouraged" on a monopoly network. As long
as your price and plans remain the same, why would you care whether
you're connected on copper or fibre? To the consumer, the ideal outcome
would be a seamless connection upgrade, after which you might find
yourself offered new and faster plans by your ISP, which you can take or
leave as you please.
The least-understood aspect of the NBN is that it is completely
wholesale. There's no "why would I buy fibre", because (given the
Telstra / NBN Co deal holds) you won't buy the fibre.
RC
> Jan
>
>
>
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
> business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
>
> Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or
> sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
> ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
>
> _ __________________ _
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
More information about the Link
mailing list