15 comments:

At 10 August, 2009 08:37 Anonymous said...

Hi,

there are a couple of mistakes in your comment as well .

Firstly, TransACT doesn't own any ISP and secondly they dont have any links to other ISPs either. They're only providing the FTTH infrastructure as far as broadband is concerned.

 

At 10 August, 2009 10:26 Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 8:37 - You are uninformed. TransACT does own and operate an ISP: Grapevine.

TransACT even try to get their Broadband customers to bundle with Grapevine.

Now, the opening statement in the ITWire article IS technically true. TransACT probably will be the first to offer 100(20) mbit. That's because Internode are currently offering 100(5) mbit. It's all about the brackets!

That's not all of what's wrong about the ITWire article though:

"Allen said that TransACT at present has VDSL2 passing about 10,000 homes in the ACT.." Maybe he said that, but I don't believe that it's true - it might be true if he said VDSL (IE, VDSL1). The only people who have, or WILL get VDSL2 at this point are people in one of 15 apartment blocks here: http://www.transact.com.au/broadband/vdsl2upgrade.aspx

With regards to the Open Access Model: Not only do TransACT compete at retail, but they don't want anyone high-end to supply ISP services. They have repeatedly turned down Internode's requests to become a TransACT ISP. iiNet is only a TransACT ISP due to their purchase of WebOne.

"Without any other fixed network, Allan says the takeup of fibre is in excess of 90%" Well, duh! Of course people use it if they don't have any other decent choices.

Within weeks, I will move to Franklin. My only choice for wired broadband is TransACT FTTH .. of course I'm going to get it. However, that doesn't mean I'd choose it if there was any competition, like the ADSL2+ like I have now. Not because I believe that ADSL2+ is superior to FTTH - just to TransACT's lousy offering.

 

At 11 August, 2009 13:19 Anonymous said...

fyi, TransACT legally owns half of the ISP Grapevine, however Grapevine is operated and managed by local energy Utility ActewAGL... I don't believed they're linked in any way to any other ISP.

Given the current political climate around the NBN etc, why doesn't Internode ask very publically TransACT if it too can jump on TransACT 'open access' network ??

 

At 11 August, 2009 15:18 Anonymous said...

Steven, it amazes me how you can supposedly correct this article when you have no access to the facts yourself. Allow me to respond to some of these comments.

TransACT is the first to offer 100Mbps down and 20Mbps up. The Internode offer is 100bps down and only 5Mbps upstream.

TransACT do not use Zyxel VDSL2 DSLAMs. Their VDSL2 rollout is progressive with currently 15 Medium Density Units deployed and more under construction.

TransACT owns 50% of an ISP which they do not operate. This ISP buys access from TransACT under equivalent terms to other ISP's on the network. The network is open to any ISP to provide ISP services subject to agreed commercial terms.

You are correct in saying that TransACT deals directly with its customers for PayTV and Phone. What you didn't mention was that when TransACT attempted to wholesale these services to retail providers, there were no takers and were therefore forced to provide the retail services themselves.

The fact is that TransACT installed its first live GPON service in August 2007 - 2 years ahead of Opticomm and over a year ahead of Telstra. They run carrier grade voice, provide high speed data access for ISP access seekers, use multicast IPTV for their Pay TV service and utilise RF overlay to retransmit free to air TV on this network. It is by far the most experienced carrier in Australia with this technology.

Unlike Opticomm, TransACT actually responded to the Goverment's NBN tender and is well aware of what open access is and what the Government's requirements are.

 

At 11 August, 2009 19:11 Stephen Davies said...

Dear Annoynomus,

I certainly do have access to the facts, and let me present them to you.

You claim "TransACT is the first to offer 100Mbps down and 20Mbps up". As yet TransACT have not delivered a 100Mbps service, they are only considering/planning to implement it. Secondly the article say a 100Mbps service and in brackets 20Mbps upstream, so to claim the first to offer 100Mbps is incorrect. Opticomm has been delivering Symmetrical 100Mbps through the retail channel to a number of customers since the announcement back in February, they just haven't made a big noise about it.

"TransACT do not use Zyxel VDSL2 DSLAMs". I have not confirmed this first hand, but this is the information I have been provided, and I believe it to be accurate.

"TransACT owns 50% of an ISP which they do not operate. This ISP buys access from TransACT under equivalent terms to other ISP's on the network."

This just sounds so much like Telstra it's not funny. Telstra owns an ISP called Bigpond and we all know they buy access under equivalent terms from Telstra.

"The network is open to any ISP to provide ISP services subject to agreed commercial terms."

A quote from NWAT:

“Consumers still have the same choice of carrier for voice services in a Smart Community/Velocity estate. In relation to consumer choice for Broadband, Telstra is willing to consider any request for wholesale access to the Telstra Velocity network. Responses to requests for access will take into consideration the necessary investment required to provide the access and access will be provided to the extent that Telstra can obtain reasonable economic and commercial returns.” (Telstra Corporation, 2008)

Sounds so familar? You cannot leave it up to the retailer to come to you and through up your hands can say "commercial basis". And if any of the above claims by other posters on this article are correct, TransACT have rejected approaches from other large Retail providers to use the network. I do not know if this is correct I can only go by what has been alleged above.

continued...

 

At 11 August, 2009 19:12 Stephen Davies said...

Continued from above.....

"What you didn't mention was that when TransACT attempted to wholesale these services to retail providers, there were no takers and were therefore forced to provide the retail services themselves."

From the day TransACT launched they were providing the telephone and television services directly to the end-user. While TransACT may well have tried to wholesale these services, it is perhaps the range and capability of service providers operating over the network that they don't wish to offer or are unable to offer these services. Why does Grapevine not wholesale these services?

Irrespective of trying to offer these services wholesale, the fact still remains that TransACT is NOT and is dealing with the end-user directly on commercial terms. This is not Open Access under anyone's terms.

"The fact is that TransACT installed its first live GPON service in August 2007 - 2 years ahead of Opticomm and over a year ahead of Telstra."

TransACT was not the first to deploy an FTTH Passive Optical Network. Irrespective of technology used both Telstra and Opticomm deployed FTTH networks well before TransACT.

"It is by far the most experienced carrier in Australia with this technology"

This is the furtherst from the truth possible. Opticomm has been involved in the deployment of FTTH networks delivering FTA, PayTV, IPTV and Internet since 2004. Add this to the experience of the staff concerned, they all have at least 5 and some 10 years of deploying FTTH in both PtP and PON.

The technology is irrelevant. You might just as well say you are the most experienced in Australia with Alcatel GPON. While the underlying layer may present a difference between the PONS (GPON, BPON, EPON) at the service delivery layer and what a carrier sees there is little difference between the two.

"Unlike Opticomm, TransACT actually responded to the Goverment's NBN tender and is well aware of what open access is and what the Government's requirements are"

TransACT may well have bid on the now cancelled NBN tender, but we were realists in that we could have wasted a lot of time and money responding to something which was not the best.

As far of Open Access, when TranACT starts to deploy "Open Access, Wholesale only" as specified by the Government for the operating model of the NBN - a model which is well defined around the world - then you can consider being an open access provider. Until then, TransACT operates a Vertically Integrated business model offering wholesale broadband access to the network.

 

At 12 August, 2009 12:59 Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.  

At 12 August, 2009 14:09 Stephen Davies said...

Apologies, I have incorrectly deleted this comment. Can you repost your comment as once deleted it cannot be retrieved.

I wish to respond to a number of points you raised.

 

At 12 August, 2009 14:35 Anonymous said...

"I certainly do have access to the facts, and let me present them to you."

Well Steven, not the facts about TransACT you don't which is obvious from what you have written. You seem to want to rely on assumptions and misinformation and report that as facts instead.

I can confirm that TransACT do not and never have deployed Zyxel DSLAMS - again this is typical misinformation you have that you state as fact!

How many different ISP's utilise Opticomm's network? TransACT has stated 11 on theirs and they only operate in Canberra. If they didn't have an open access policy, how is it there are 11 different ISP's operating over their infrastructure when Telstra, Optus, iiNET, Internode, TPG etc run competing DSLAMs in Canberra as well?

You scoff at TransACT offering access on a commercial basis? How else is it done? Does Opticomm build networks and give them away for free? Why do you continue to quote Telstra - this is TransACT we're talking about. Which ISP do you know of first hand that TransACT won't allow on their network? None would be the answer - seems you choose to believe whatever suits your agenda no matter the source.

How would Grapevine offer TV and telephony services over TransACT's infrastructure when they do not have the capability? Ie, no video head-end, no softswitch, no telephone exchange.

The following is an extract from TransACT's regulatory submission for the NBN. The statement was actually extracted from Actew's RFP for the TransACT network way back in 1996. It's a public document, maybe you should read it some time - you might learn something about TransACT and its stance on Open Access.

The broadband network should "be as open as possible, with capacity being
made available to a range of providers offering telephony, video and data
communications services. The architecture of the network should be
independent of particular services and service providers so that new services
can be introduced as and when appropriate.
[Clause 3.13 of ACTEW RFP for TransACT network, 1996]

TransACT is the most experienced in running GPON in Australia - 2 years in front of Opticomm in fact and over a year in front of Telstra. This is a true statement! GPON is the latest PON based technology standardised and lends itself well to an NBN FTTH deployment. EPON is slower, less efficient, supports lower split ratios, does not include encryption as part of the standard etc etc. I'm not saying EPON is bad, it's just not as good as GPON - hard for you to argue against that or why has Opticomm now started to deploy GPON instead of EPON?

Oh, and for the record, TransACT began delivery of PON equipment into residential premises from 2001 - earlier if you want to count the suburb of Aranda where the live trial was run. The VDSL iFLX nodes operate using APON off the backhaul and many of these were and still are deployed in MDU's.

If you want to talk pt to pt fibre then TransACT has offered these types of ethernet services since 2004 (and point to multipoint) at rates up to 100mbps symmetrical. They actually offer up to Gigabit symmetrical these days. They have also run ATM and SDH networks over fibre since 2001. In fact they have deployed over 1,000km's of fibre throughout Canberra.

I'm disappointed you seem more interested in furthering Opticomm's agenda than reporting the facts regarding another fibre network provider's achievements. I would have thought it best that all the fibre network providers praise the technology and its capabilities in the interest of making the NBN move forward and provide better broadband for all.

 

At 12 August, 2009 15:18 Anonymous said...

Stephen - Don't you work for Opticomm ??

 

At 13 August, 2009 11:18 Consultant said...

Stephen,

I have been a FTTH consultant for many years and was involved in TransACTs FTTH project(though oddly we've never met bar some posts on whirlpool) I'm not sure I understand where your criticisms of TransACT comes from. TransACT compares very well to Telstra in terms of Open Access. Try getting approval to offer your Pay TV service on Smart Communities - I tried it with an estate I worked on in the Gold Coast and the answer was a very clear no . In contrast I'm sure you are aware that TransACT wholesaled Foxtel for some time until Foxtel withdrew due to Telstra pressure. If you are aware of any non-Foxtel Pay TV being run over Telstra wireline infrastructure of any sort let me know because that would be a landmark in Open Access.

TransACTs voice is indeed provided by TransACT only but the situation there is not at all like Telstras approach with data and Pay TV in Smart Communities - TransACT has been publicly stating that their voice network is open to other retailers for many years - I was at one of their presentations in 2003 that made the point very clearly. TransACT voice is just hard to compete due to their bundling with ACTEWAGL with so other retailers have stayed away. Thats simply Open Access with a tough competitor. In my opinion any suggestion that TransACT has made any attempts to discourage other voice retailers from coming onto their open access voice network is baseless. Do you have any evidence of anti-competitive/anto-openness conduct? In my years of engagement with TransACTs business I can honestly say I have never seen any. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary any fair minded observer would give TransACT the benefit of the doubt and not jump to the conclusion that their access policy is anything but as open as they claim. There is a gulf between TransACTs approach and Telstra approach to data access in the Smart Communities. I would equate Telstras policy here to the notorious "losing the keys to the exchange" incidents that they are currently being prosecuted for. TransACT do not lose keys, as I'm sure Optimcomm dont. Telstra are a serial abuser of their wholesale customers. You only have to look at the ACCCs competition notices to see that trying to equate TransACTs Open Access policy as being even in the same ballpark as Telstras "not-Open Access" policy is an unsustainable position. If TransACT was not as Open Access as they say then the ACCC would have complaints that would to be publicly reported. Where are those complaints? I have no problem finding them on the ACCC website regarding Telstra. TransACTs wholesale ISP community is a genuine one. One of my best friends started a tiny ISP out of his garage and ran it over TransACT for several years. Without evidence, your comments about big ISPs not being allowed on the network say more about you and Opticomm than about TransACT. Think Utegate.

I dont really want to buy into this Opticomm debate as comparing the two is a bit too apples and oranges for my liking - except to note that my sources report that Opticomm doesnt seem to be regarded by the minister or the department as a "real" carrier - really just a company making money by building FTTH using developers subsidies. I have been following Opticomms comments in the press and I guess you are pushing the message pretty hard as you can see that you are not being regarded as important by the NBN decision makers, and TransACT are. No doubt the appointment of Mike Quigley intensifies that fear as the TransACT approach is much closer to the type of network he has built in the past than the Opticomm model. I guess a mathematician like Quigley could find a geographically concentrated carrier like TransACT likely to fit his model, whereas a geographic patchwork quilt like Optimcomm might be put in the "too hard" basket. Experience in Australian business and politics suggests that it is always a better choice to simply promote your own virtues rather than attack your competitors as this has a long history of backfiring

 

At 26 August, 2009 14:33 Stephen Davies said...

Hi Consultant,

Sorry for the delays in respond. I have been in bed with the flu.

Again, the issue I have raised is on points of use of terms and statements which have been made.

Throughout your excellent response, you have continually used the term Open Access, and TRANSACT is Not Open Access by the government's definition.

Lets get this right once and for all, and you say it yourself in your own post.

To be open access you cannot compete at the retail level, hence why the government defined the term: Open Access, wholesale only because of the blatant misuse by some carriers.

In your post you say "TransACT voice is just hard to compete due to their bundling with ACTEWAGL with so other retailers have stayed away. Thats simply Open Access with a tough competitor."

Then that is not open access, because its not a fair and level playing field where all retailers can compete with each other. I believe ACTEWAGL is a major shareholder in TransACT.

"No doubt the appointment of Mike Quigley intensifies that fear as the TransACT approach is much closer to the type of network he has built in the past than the Opticomm model."

There is no fear on my employer's part of having the business model wrong, considering the business model already announcement by the government is so similar to the Opticomm model rather than the TransACT model.

"I'm not sure I understand where your criticisms of TransACT comes from."

My criticisms of TransACT are clearly articulated in the ordinal article; that there were not the first to be delivering 100Mbps fibre to the home as claimed, and that they are not Open Access as defined by international organisations and the Australian Government's model.

 

At 26 August, 2009 15:10 Stephen Davies said...

How many different ISP's utilize Opticomm's network?

That is for Opticomm to publicly announce in the appropriate forum, as being owned by an ASX listed parent, it has restrictions of certain announcements.

"You scoff at TransACT offering access on a commercial basis?"

I did not scoff at TransACT offering access on a commercial basis, please re-read the post. It was the comparison I was making between statements made by Telstra on Wholesale Access to Velocity and statements that TransACT made - almost verbatim.

"Which ISP do you know of first hand that TransACT won't allow on their network? None would be the answer - seems you choose to believe whatever suits your agenda no matter the source."

I have never accused TransACT of closing their network to ISPs' that was another poster on this list not me.

I have only questioned two points which seems to have got you bent and twisted.

a) that the original Article claims TransACT was the first to deliver 100Mbps internet, when in fact this is not the case and Opticomm has been delivering commercially 100Mbps (symmetrical) internet services to the residential and SOHO market since february.

b) that TransACT is Not Open Access is is actually a vertically integrated business model providing wholesale internet access.

"How would Grapevine offer TV and telephony services over TransACT's infrastructure when they do not have the capability? Ie, no video head-end, no softswitch, no telephone exchange"

Which is the point I had already raised. Why not when setting up Grapevine also moved the video and telephone functionality over to that company?

There are also other ways for Grapevine to offer voice. One of the providers on the Opticomm network, wholesales the voice network via MyNetfone.

GoTalk provides a wholesale access to their voice platform too. There are many ISPs out there who are buying wholesale voice services - some of them voip based - from third parties.

Just a few suggestions.

"The broadband network should be as open as possible, with capacity being made available to a range of providers offering telephony, video and data communications services...."

I completely agree 100% with this statement. There is absolutely no question about the issue "the network should be as open as possible", the question remains however it it open, and throughout this debate you have continued to go off on tangents about this and that but have not address the issue of the term "Open Access, Wholesale only".

"TransACT is the most experienced in running GPON in Australia".

A statement which again is irrelevant and not true, but clearly you are not willing to listen on that one.

"GPON is the latest PON based technology standardised and lends itself well to an NBN FTTH deployment."

Agreed 100%.

"I'm not saying EPON is bad, it's just not as good as GPON".

Dont agree with you there. They are different technologies that deliver the same end-user functionality.

cont...

 

At 26 August, 2009 15:10 Stephen Davies said...

"why has Opticomm now started to deploy GPON instead of EPON?"

Oppps, wrong again. Opticomm continues to deploy both GPON and EPON and in some cases will use PtP and VDSL2. They are not hell bent on technology, they are more focused on delivering functionality and service irrespective of the technology used.

"Oh, and for the record, TransACT began delivery of PON equipment into residential premises from 2001".

That was a Fibre to the Curb technology using APON in the backhaul from the curb to the exchange. By the way I was involved in deploying the same technology about the same time at Bright in Perth and in fact visited the TransACT installation on a number of occasions.

"reporting the facts regarding another fibre network provider's achievements"

I am happy to report the facts but claims of delivering the first 100Mbps service and Open Access is not two of them.

"I would have thought it best that all the fibre network providers praise the technology and its capabilities in the interest of making the NBN move forward and provide better broadband for all."

I agree. There is little point in squabbling over the differences in business models and I have complimented TransACT in their achievements for delivering 100Mbps FTTH.

But I will continue to dispute the issues of who delivered it first and the definition of Open Access and its misuse.

 

At 16 September, 2009 18:26 Stephen Davies said...

Consultant said .....

"No doubt the appointment of Mike Quigley intensifies that fear as the TransACT approach is much closer to the type of network he has built in the past than the Opticomm model."

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/155871,quigley-offers-isps-a-rough-sketch-of-nbn-architecture.aspx/0

Mike Quigley today just described the Opticomm business model as the model for the NBNco.

 

Post a Comment