[LINK] National Broadband Network - except it's not national.

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

Richard,

So is it a National Network or network components that those who want a 
National Network have to put together with components from other suppliers?

I don't have a problem with NBN not building a replacement long-haul 
fibre network. What I do have a problem with is them calling it a 
National Network if it isn't.

Why doesn't NBN Co buy services from whomever and put together a single 
National Network? Then it really would be a national infrastructure project.


On 8/05/2010 4:08 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>    
>> So, in this context, national means it exists in the nation of
>> Australia, not that it's a National Network?
>>
>> On 7/05/2010 1:21 PM, Paul Brooks wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> As seen by the ISP, its a totally different beast - a disjoint
>>> collection of 200+ finger-networks providing access from each POI
>>> location to the houses/businesses/schools/traffic-lights close to that
>>> POI location. The ISP has to figure out from the normal non-NBN sources
>>> how to link their systems and infrastructure to each of those POIs that
>>> they wish to serve - there won;t be anything in the middle.
>>>
>>> (Interesting problem - NBNCo will presumably need to lease low-bandwidth
>>> capacity from the existing long-haul transmission suppliers to carry
>>> their network management traffic at the very least from their NOC
>>> locations to their equipment at each of the 200+ POIs )
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> So NBNCo will need to create a National Network to manage its
>> infrastructure holistically, but won't offer a holistic data service to
>> ISPs?
>>
>>
>>      
> Bernard,
>
> The problem is that the NBN has to resolve so many conflicting
> requirements.
>
> 1. Provide high-speed access to end users.
> 2. Introduce competition to Telstra where there is currently no competition.
> 3. Don't compete with other fibre owners (ie, where there is a
> competitive market, such as the Sydney-Melbourne corridor, why should
> NBN overbuild it?)
>
> There are others, but this will do for now.
>
> Today, an ISP with a presence in Broken Hill has to buy backhaul to get
> from its DSLAM to Sydney. Post-NBN, the ISP will still have to get from
> Broken Hill to Sydney - but it will have a competitive provider; if not
> NBN Co, then someone else. So its backhaul should be cheaper than today
> (I selected Broken Hill because it's a one-horse town). So the situation
> is better for the ISP, not worse.
>
> And, of course, the ISP gets to access the fibre link to the customer
> instead of copper from a DSLAM.
>
> Another improvement from the ISP's point of view is that 200 local POIs
> is far fewer than (say) 500 exchanges (that's the number of exchanges
> currently running competitive DSL, by my rough count). So they will be
> buying fewer backhaul links and are guaranteed at least a minimal amount
> of competitive backhaul supply.
>
> Apart from the semantics - "it's not national" (actually, the *access*
> network will be national or nearly so. NBN Co is simply not briefed to
> build a replacement long-haul fibre network as well) - I'm not sure what
> the problem is.
>
> RC
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2859 - Release Date: 05/07/10 16:26:00
>
>    


-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra Australia
brd at iimetro.com.au