[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