[LINK] Does the NBN bring redundancy?

[Fernando Cassia]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:21, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-link at layer10.com.au> wrote:
> Hope this helps.
>
> Paul.

Thanks Paul!

This gave me a nice idea of what the NBN does and what it does not.
However the paragraph "For long-haul fibre backbones (which is what I
see in my mental picture when I see the word 'backbone') the NBN is
not playing in that space" gave me doubts. Does that for city-to-city
links the NBN won't be a competitive player with existing fibres?.

When I wrote the question, I was thinking of the city-to-city WAN. In
other words if a -for example- Sydney-Brisbane fibre already exists
(say, from Telstra) if the NBN will rent space -dark fibre- on that or
build a second, NBN-owned city-to-city fibre link nevertheless and in
parallel, to bring competition to the private operator and hopefully
prices down.

I'm asking not only out of curiosity but also due to self-interest...
the local government down here is also engaged in a NBN, but playing
the long-haul backbone game, and they recently announced that they won
be building redundant links in parallel with existing infrastructure,
they will just use current fibre links whenever possible, and build
new infrastructure where there is none, which I think is a big
"surrender" flag to the incumbents, could be interpreted as a hand out
to the incumbent players (even if it's a peering agreement with no
money exchanged) and finally it also kills any hope of bringing down
rates, not to mention continuing with the current
single-point-of-failure network where often a whole State is connected
by a single fibre link owned by the private incumbent.

Thanks for your reply.

FC