Showing posts with label SIG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SIG. Show all posts
At last week’s FttH Applications Roundtable hosted by Paul Budde, we started to define a FttH Vision statement that can be used to move forward. The RFP process is a beginning rather than an end. In order to not to end up in a similar situation in a few years time we need to start more clearly defining the road forwards.
Vision Statement FttH SIG CEO Forum
Nation-building infrastructure
The National Broadband Network is one of the most important national infrastructure projects undertaken in Australia and the FttH SIG fully supports the government’s decision to include the NBN along with other infrastructure in its Nation Building Infrastructure Fund.
The NBN represents critical infrastructure for the delivery of healthcare, education, government services, commerce, media and energy managing and monitoring services.
The NBN is not the solution to the country’s problems in relation to health, education and energy, but without the NBN the ever increasing cost of delivery of these services will be more difficult to constrain.
Furthermore, as Australia cannot forever rely on returns from the resources industry, its economy will be largely based on services and the NBN will be critical to economic development, international competitiveness, growth and prosperity.
Future policies based on social and economic requirements
Current and future decisions in relation to the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure need to be based on the policy outcomes the government and the rest of the country want to achieve in the abovementioned areas. The policy outcomes need to be measured in the delivery of applications (eg healthcare, education, etc). It should then be left to the engineers to design the appropriate technologies, which will facilitate the delivery of these services. Government policies should be technology-neutral and based on policy outcomes (which can be measured in services and applications) and time frames.
An inter-departmental and industry stakeholders group could advise the government on the broadband requirements needed for the delivery of their applications (Departments of Broadband, Healthcare, Education, Energy, Climate Change and the Environment and businesses covering Commerce, Trade, Export, Media, Communications, Content, etc).
As the basic requirements of most of these organisations are very similar there is great synergy in aligning their requirements for the further development of the NBN.
This stakeholder group should be independent of the NBN provider(s), have influence over the strategic direction of the ongoing development of the NBN, and have a key role in the regulation of competitive access to the NBN.
Open Access, Innovations, Affordability
The government has already clearly articulated that it wants an open access regime for this infrastructure. This will be needed to facilitate competition and innovation and it can only be achieved if there is a clear separation between the infrastructure and the services.
Open access to the infrastructure will need to be based on a utility-based costing regime. This can be achieved through competition, but most likely significant parts will remain monopolistic in nature and require regulation to safeguard the Open Access Principles, previously presented by the FttH SIG to the government.
As Australia is running behind the rest of the world we also need to ensure that we establish a policy regime that will allow us to be on a par with the broadband facilities that are available through our major trading partners. In order to ensure this development in Australia needs to be linked to international benchmarks such as the ones developed by the OECD and the EU.
Vision Statement FttH SIG CEO Forum
Nation-building infrastructure
The National Broadband Network is one of the most important national infrastructure projects undertaken in Australia and the FttH SIG fully supports the government’s decision to include the NBN along with other infrastructure in its Nation Building Infrastructure Fund.
The NBN represents critical infrastructure for the delivery of healthcare, education, government services, commerce, media and energy managing and monitoring services.
The NBN is not the solution to the country’s problems in relation to health, education and energy, but without the NBN the ever increasing cost of delivery of these services will be more difficult to constrain.
Furthermore, as Australia cannot forever rely on returns from the resources industry, its economy will be largely based on services and the NBN will be critical to economic development, international competitiveness, growth and prosperity.
Future policies based on social and economic requirements
Current and future decisions in relation to the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure need to be based on the policy outcomes the government and the rest of the country want to achieve in the abovementioned areas. The policy outcomes need to be measured in the delivery of applications (eg healthcare, education, etc). It should then be left to the engineers to design the appropriate technologies, which will facilitate the delivery of these services. Government policies should be technology-neutral and based on policy outcomes (which can be measured in services and applications) and time frames.
An inter-departmental and industry stakeholders group could advise the government on the broadband requirements needed for the delivery of their applications (Departments of Broadband, Healthcare, Education, Energy, Climate Change and the Environment and businesses covering Commerce, Trade, Export, Media, Communications, Content, etc).
As the basic requirements of most of these organisations are very similar there is great synergy in aligning their requirements for the further development of the NBN.
This stakeholder group should be independent of the NBN provider(s), have influence over the strategic direction of the ongoing development of the NBN, and have a key role in the regulation of competitive access to the NBN.
Open Access, Innovations, Affordability
The government has already clearly articulated that it wants an open access regime for this infrastructure. This will be needed to facilitate competition and innovation and it can only be achieved if there is a clear separation between the infrastructure and the services.
Open access to the infrastructure will need to be based on a utility-based costing regime. This can be achieved through competition, but most likely significant parts will remain monopolistic in nature and require regulation to safeguard the Open Access Principles, previously presented by the FttH SIG to the government.
As Australia is running behind the rest of the world we also need to ensure that we establish a policy regime that will allow us to be on a par with the broadband facilities that are available through our major trading partners. In order to ensure this development in Australia needs to be linked to international benchmarks such as the ones developed by the OECD and the EU.
Clearly "a once in a generation opportunity" the Labour Party's National Broadband Network policy was an excellent strategy that could have provided individual benefit to millions of Australians but most importantly put our growing digital economy in a strong competitive position against the likes of Europe and Japan.
But being in opposition and putting up a policy in much easier than being in government and getting it implemented; particularly with an 800 pound Gorilla controlling the telecommunications landscape, and a hostile Senate blocking some of your key legislation required to make it work. While many strongly supported the Labour Party's policy, the implementation of that policy so far has left a lot to be desired.
The first thing that really bugged many has been the public consultation on the NBN. Many organisations (particular the FTTH Special Interest Group) made considerable effort to met the government's 3 week time frame to submit their views, only for the Expert Group to take little or no notice of the contributions made. The SIG compiled over 100 pages of issues and recommendations from 40 contributing members - an enormous effort which seems to have gone to waste as the Request for Proposal document was released only two weeks after the closure of the public consultation period. There is no way the tender was written after reviewing all those submissions, and it was most likely written in parallel (or even started before), making a mockery of the open process and value of the contributions from industry.
Secondly, and this has has been supported by many in the industry, is the extremely short time frame for the bid. As Bevan Slattery from Pipe Networks has said, the government gives more time for responding to a tender on photocopies than it has on the NBN. This is a $10billion investment, half of which is coming from government, and it requires detailed investigation to ensure a quality submission is made. So is the Government serious in making this an open process in which all players have at least a reasonably even chance of winning. At this stage, the only organisation who has committed to responding on time is Telstra.
I am a consultant to several companies (not the G9) wishing to form a consortium. The group already has commitment from two large international players (including a Telco), but they will not be making any submission unless the deadline is extended by at least 3-5 months, and only if the critical network information is released immediately. The disappointing aspect if this group does not get up due to time constraints; they are proposing to bid a predominately FTTH (rather than the Telstra or G9 FTTN) network.
Finally, the whole RFP has been widely criticised by the industry as a lost opportunity to fix a massive blunder by the previous government not to have kept the Telecommunications infrastructure within government (or structural separation if you wish) when selling off Telstra and deregulating the Telecommunications industry.
Lets hope the Senator Conroy does have second thoughts on the time frame and getting it right is more important than getting it quick.
But being in opposition and putting up a policy in much easier than being in government and getting it implemented; particularly with an 800 pound Gorilla controlling the telecommunications landscape, and a hostile Senate blocking some of your key legislation required to make it work. While many strongly supported the Labour Party's policy, the implementation of that policy so far has left a lot to be desired.
The first thing that really bugged many has been the public consultation on the NBN. Many organisations (particular the FTTH Special Interest Group) made considerable effort to met the government's 3 week time frame to submit their views, only for the Expert Group to take little or no notice of the contributions made. The SIG compiled over 100 pages of issues and recommendations from 40 contributing members - an enormous effort which seems to have gone to waste as the Request for Proposal document was released only two weeks after the closure of the public consultation period. There is no way the tender was written after reviewing all those submissions, and it was most likely written in parallel (or even started before), making a mockery of the open process and value of the contributions from industry.
Secondly, and this has has been supported by many in the industry, is the extremely short time frame for the bid. As Bevan Slattery from Pipe Networks has said, the government gives more time for responding to a tender on photocopies than it has on the NBN. This is a $10billion investment, half of which is coming from government, and it requires detailed investigation to ensure a quality submission is made. So is the Government serious in making this an open process in which all players have at least a reasonably even chance of winning. At this stage, the only organisation who has committed to responding on time is Telstra.
I am a consultant to several companies (not the G9) wishing to form a consortium. The group already has commitment from two large international players (including a Telco), but they will not be making any submission unless the deadline is extended by at least 3-5 months, and only if the critical network information is released immediately. The disappointing aspect if this group does not get up due to time constraints; they are proposing to bid a predominately FTTH (rather than the Telstra or G9 FTTN) network.
Finally, the whole RFP has been widely criticised by the industry as a lost opportunity to fix a massive blunder by the previous government not to have kept the Telecommunications infrastructure within government (or structural separation if you wish) when selling off Telstra and deregulating the Telecommunications industry.
Lets hope the Senator Conroy does have second thoughts on the time frame and getting it right is more important than getting it quick.
Another relevant (and timely) OCED report which has just been released is titled "Developments in Fibre Technologies and Investment".
The document is a balanced (although somewhat inaccurate in parts) view of the various last mile technologies that could be used in the building of a National Broadband Network. It includes evaluations of various technologies (FTTH, WiMAX, BPL, VDSL2, ADSL2+, HSDPA/HSUPA, DOCSIS) available to roll-out high speed first mile networks with speeds of up to 50 Mbit/s. It clearly indicates that though wireless technology will be important, it will not be the dominant technology to connect homes and businesses to broadband networks. Instead wired technologies have a distinct advantage in performance as well as economic investment.
As I have been discussing in a number of forums, the OECD paper supports my suggestion that both WiMAX and HSDPA/HSUPA will be a valuable technology to use in the regional/rural areas where FTTN or FTTH would be too expensive to deploy due to distance and housing density. It also suggests that FTTN (both VDSL2 and ADSL2) is a short term "step" technology to FTTH. However, the document does make one negative comment towards FTTH:
This comment is actually not orginal and is quite dated. It comes from a statement made by one of the investment houses (Goldman Sacks from memory) on Verizon's annoucement of their FTTH rollout in early 2004. Three years later in 2007 they admitted they were wrong in their conclusion and recommendation on Verizon. FiOS had been a great success and the turning point for the company. Furthermore if the Australian Government is contributing to the investment in a National Broadband Network, does this not significantly lower the financial risk to investors.
I read with interest the pricing model of their pilot projects on page 45, where the report suggests the cost per home passed will be AUS$1384 and the cost per home to connect will be AUS$1230. Interestingly the numbers mentioned in the SIG recommendations to the Governement where AUS$500 and AUS$1200 respectively. While we were very close on the cost to connect, there was a substainial difference on the cost to pass.
Why is that? Well one needs to carefully read both reports and understand the differences in modelling and deployment methods. To summarise those differences:
So in conclusion, the information presented by the SIG is consistant with that of the OECD report when one considers the savings of PON, Aerial, Amortisation, Interest, Depreciation, and staffing. This would equate to $850-900 ($500 aerial, $200 PON, $100 Amortisation/Int and Dep, $50 staff) in savings thus giving a price of about $485-$535 (the SIG estimated $500). So in all, the prices quoted in the SIG report are consistant to those quoted in the OECD report when considering the different parametres and application to the models.
One final point for those who have disagreed with my article "The Myth of FTTN". The OECD also draws the same conclusion in regards to VDSL2 technology; that it would require nodes placed less than 450 metres from the house to deliver the required symmetrical performance.
The document is a balanced (although somewhat inaccurate in parts) view of the various last mile technologies that could be used in the building of a National Broadband Network. It includes evaluations of various technologies (FTTH, WiMAX, BPL, VDSL2, ADSL2+, HSDPA/HSUPA, DOCSIS) available to roll-out high speed first mile networks with speeds of up to 50 Mbit/s. It clearly indicates that though wireless technology will be important, it will not be the dominant technology to connect homes and businesses to broadband networks. Instead wired technologies have a distinct advantage in performance as well as economic investment.
As I have been discussing in a number of forums, the OECD paper supports my suggestion that both WiMAX and HSDPA/HSUPA will be a valuable technology to use in the regional/rural areas where FTTN or FTTH would be too expensive to deploy due to distance and housing density. It also suggests that FTTN (both VDSL2 and ADSL2) is a short term "step" technology to FTTH. However, the document does make one negative comment towards FTTH:
"When examining the market from the point of view of investors, it becomes clear that the dynamic situation and the economics of an investment make it likely that many long-term investors will remain wary of investing in fibre to the home. The costs are substantial and the risk posed by competing hybrid networks can be substantial."
This comment is actually not orginal and is quite dated. It comes from a statement made by one of the investment houses (Goldman Sacks from memory) on Verizon's annoucement of their FTTH rollout in early 2004. Three years later in 2007 they admitted they were wrong in their conclusion and recommendation on Verizon. FiOS had been a great success and the turning point for the company. Furthermore if the Australian Government is contributing to the investment in a National Broadband Network, does this not significantly lower the financial risk to investors.
I read with interest the pricing model of their pilot projects on page 45, where the report suggests the cost per home passed will be AUS$1384 and the cost per home to connect will be AUS$1230. Interestingly the numbers mentioned in the SIG recommendations to the Governement where AUS$500 and AUS$1200 respectively. While we were very close on the cost to connect, there was a substainial difference on the cost to pass.
Why is that? Well one needs to carefully read both reports and understand the differences in modelling and deployment methods. To summarise those differences:
- Fibre to the home in Netherlands has been based on Point to Point (PtP) topology and not Passive Optical Network (PON) topology. The projects evaluated in the costing model where all PtP.
- The cost differential between PON and PtP topologies in the Passive components of the network (the fibre and its installation) is SUBSTAINIAL. The supply and installation of PtP passive components can be three to four times more expensive than PON. This is mainly to do with the loop lengths, the size of conduits and the much higher cost in splicing.
- A PtP topology also uses a seperate fibre for the MATV, thus adding twice the cost of fibre and installation on top of the already inflated passive cost.
- The pilot projects and financial models were based on the cost of undergrounded fibre, rather than 70/30 mix of aerial/underground deployment as suggested in the SIG recommendations. Underground is $500 per home more expensive than aerial.
- The financial model included Amortisation, Depreciation and Interest, which are operating costs not capital costs. The SIG recommendations where based on capital cost only
- The average price of 872 Euros (A$1384) is excessively high even when compared to Verizon and NTT, or the TasColt and Bright Trials.
- The average price of 872 Euros (A$1384) would be consistant with the use of PTP fibre optic infrastructure.
- These projects used a new leadin to the home, whereas the SIG recommended to reuse the existing leadin thus saving about $200.
- The projects where also rather small, and would not get the economies of scale such that NTT and Verizon currently enjoy
So in conclusion, the information presented by the SIG is consistant with that of the OECD report when one considers the savings of PON, Aerial, Amortisation, Interest, Depreciation, and staffing. This would equate to $850-900 ($500 aerial, $200 PON, $100 Amortisation/Int and Dep, $50 staff) in savings thus giving a price of about $485-$535 (the SIG estimated $500). So in all, the prices quoted in the SIG report are consistant to those quoted in the OECD report when considering the different parametres and application to the models.
One final point for those who have disagreed with my article "The Myth of FTTN". The OECD also draws the same conclusion in regards to VDSL2 technology; that it would require nodes placed less than 450 metres from the house to deliver the required symmetrical performance.
The OECD has just last week declassified a paper on "Public Rights of Way for Fibre deployment to the Home" - how timely considering the submission made to the Government by the FTTH Special Interest Group (SIG) on the National Broadband Network.
Quoting from the introduction "One reason why the pace of fibre investment in the local loop is relatively slow in many OECD countries is the cost associated with network construction, in particular for rights of way and ducts or poles, as well as the associated legal and regulatory difficulties in obtaining permits for access to streets, roads, and other public land."
The issue of rights of way in laying fibre in the last mile is a complex legal and technological problem and is closely interlinked with national, state and local government legal framework and policies. This was certainly identified by the SIG and it needed a regulatory intervention to smooth the process, particular when some local governments are so opposed to aerial infrastructure.
The report listed a number of recommendations which can improve access to rights of way and reduce the cost associated with deployment
Many of the points raised in this document where also touched on in the SIG report, so its great to get something from the OECD support the position of the SIG. Hopefully this will be viewed by the government in support of the previous recommendations
Quoting from the introduction "One reason why the pace of fibre investment in the local loop is relatively slow in many OECD countries is the cost associated with network construction, in particular for rights of way and ducts or poles, as well as the associated legal and regulatory difficulties in obtaining permits for access to streets, roads, and other public land."
The issue of rights of way in laying fibre in the last mile is a complex legal and technological problem and is closely interlinked with national, state and local government legal framework and policies. This was certainly identified by the SIG and it needed a regulatory intervention to smooth the process, particular when some local governments are so opposed to aerial infrastructure.
The report listed a number of recommendations which can improve access to rights of way and reduce the cost associated with deployment
- Reducing barriers associated with obtaining authorisation for access to and use of rights of way.
- Ensuring clarification of jurisdiction for both granting rights of way and settling disputes and coordination among the public authorities involved.
- Harmonising administrative procedures for access to rights of way and ensuring consistency in the application of these procedures across a country.
- Developing a reasonable system of compensation for access to and use of municipal public rightsof way.
- Ensuring that operators investing in ducts are subject to a minimum set of obligations for remediation and maintenance.
- Encouraging and/or obliging sharing of ducts and other rights of way both by incumbent communication companies and by other utilities that have infrastructure.
- Examining the role of public-private partnerships in the deployment of dark fibre and/or third party infrastructure providers for duct sharing.
- Examining the possibility of regulatory measures to facilitate the sharing of inside wiring between operators in multi-dwelling units.
- Developing policies to construct joint ducts by new entrants.
Many of the points raised in this document where also touched on in the SIG report, so its great to get something from the OECD support the position of the SIG. Hopefully this will be viewed by the government in support of the previous recommendations
Last Sunday was D-Day for public submissions to the Expert Group on the rollout of the National Broadband Network.
Several organisations have publicly announced the release of their submissions including the G9, Telstra and the FTTH Special Interest Group.
Telstra
Telstra wants the Government to impose an application fee and bonds on potential bidders for the FTTN tender, and set out other quantifiable benchmark criteria for the required technical and financial capabilities of the proponents.
According to their submission, Telstra expects every bidder to include a non-refundable $5m deposit with their Expression of Interest, followed by a $20m refundable bond with their RFP submission, and finally a $100m bond on short listing.
Telstra’s Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs, Dr Tony Warren, said "it is time for bidders to put their money where mouth is on FTTN. Our suggestions are for an efficient, objective, competitive RFP process which will fulfil the Government’s goal of commencing the National Broadband network build before the end of the year."
They also demand that bidders should have previous engineering and telecommunications experience; have a revenue base of $8billion; have invested at least $3billion in capital over the past 5 years; and currently has a minimum of 500,000 broadband subscribers - well that rules out Optus and/or the G9.
Telstra's submission focuses entirely on that the bidders' capability should be and how the RFP process should be conducted. They make not one useful suggestion or recommendation that could aid the delivering of this network.
The full Telstra submission can be viewed here.
Optus/G9
The submission by the G9 consortium of Optus, Macquarie Telecom, Primus, AAPT, Soul, iiNet, Internode and TransAct has asked Senator Conroy to adopt a two-stage process similar to that employed in Singapore's National Broadband rollout.
The G9 has suggested the Expert group consider flexibility in the technology used to deliver the Government's minimum speed requirements for the network. While in principal this is a good suggestion, the reality is DSL technology cannot deliver the required performance mandated by the Government.
The G9 also asked Senator Conroy to consider the terms of participation in the bid. In particularly whether bidders will be required to have structural separation between network ownership and network operations. Other suggestions included the use of the Government's $4.7 billion contribution; and the roll-out schedule for the network.
Of most concern by the G9 was the stranding of their investment in exchanged based DSLAMS. As voiced strongly at the FTTH round table in early march, iiNet are vehementy opposed to FTTN rollout. They even published a paper in 2006 ("The Myth of Fibre") which "debunked" FTTN as providing any additional bandwidth or feature than what iiNet currently offers.
FTTH Special Interest Group
Unlike the other two, the Fibre to the Home Special Interest Group did not have any agenda to push and had no vested interest in current investments. Instead they just wanted to ensure the $4.7billion is invested in a long term Network that provides the best outcome for the community and the country - not for a group of investors.
They make 24 key recommendations to the Government as to what needs to be done to ensure a successful deployment of a National Broadband Network that will rival anything else in the world. Some of those recommendations include:
The most suprising statement is the claim that a Fibre to the Home deployment reaching 98% of the community will cost only $9.8b. This is very different to the $30-$50b previously suggested by others to the Government. However the SIG back up their claims with supporting information that came from the TasColt and Bright projects which deployed FTTH into brownfield areas.
Several organisations have publicly announced the release of their submissions including the G9, Telstra and the FTTH Special Interest Group.
Telstra
Telstra wants the Government to impose an application fee and bonds on potential bidders for the FTTN tender, and set out other quantifiable benchmark criteria for the required technical and financial capabilities of the proponents.
According to their submission, Telstra expects every bidder to include a non-refundable $5m deposit with their Expression of Interest, followed by a $20m refundable bond with their RFP submission, and finally a $100m bond on short listing.
Telstra’s Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs, Dr Tony Warren, said "it is time for bidders to put their money where mouth is on FTTN. Our suggestions are for an efficient, objective, competitive RFP process which will fulfil the Government’s goal of commencing the National Broadband network build before the end of the year."
They also demand that bidders should have previous engineering and telecommunications experience; have a revenue base of $8billion; have invested at least $3billion in capital over the past 5 years; and currently has a minimum of 500,000 broadband subscribers - well that rules out Optus and/or the G9.
Telstra's submission focuses entirely on that the bidders' capability should be and how the RFP process should be conducted. They make not one useful suggestion or recommendation that could aid the delivering of this network.
The full Telstra submission can be viewed here.
Optus/G9
The submission by the G9 consortium of Optus, Macquarie Telecom, Primus, AAPT, Soul, iiNet, Internode and TransAct has asked Senator Conroy to adopt a two-stage process similar to that employed in Singapore's National Broadband rollout.
The G9 has suggested the Expert group consider flexibility in the technology used to deliver the Government's minimum speed requirements for the network. While in principal this is a good suggestion, the reality is DSL technology cannot deliver the required performance mandated by the Government.
The G9 also asked Senator Conroy to consider the terms of participation in the bid. In particularly whether bidders will be required to have structural separation between network ownership and network operations. Other suggestions included the use of the Government's $4.7 billion contribution; and the roll-out schedule for the network.
Of most concern by the G9 was the stranding of their investment in exchanged based DSLAMS. As voiced strongly at the FTTH round table in early march, iiNet are vehementy opposed to FTTN rollout. They even published a paper in 2006 ("The Myth of Fibre") which "debunked" FTTN as providing any additional bandwidth or feature than what iiNet currently offers.
FTTH Special Interest Group
Unlike the other two, the Fibre to the Home Special Interest Group did not have any agenda to push and had no vested interest in current investments. Instead they just wanted to ensure the $4.7billion is invested in a long term Network that provides the best outcome for the community and the country - not for a group of investors.
They make 24 key recommendations to the Government as to what needs to be done to ensure a successful deployment of a National Broadband Network that will rival anything else in the world. Some of those recommendations include:
- A national network topology standard based on open access principals
- A three layer model of seperate network owners, operators and retail service providers
- Sustainable funding for community and backhaul networks
- A centralised co-ordination office for development of technology and standards
- Reduction in regulatory obsticals
- Creation of a new network by overbuilding, thus creating true market competition.
- Use of technology (preferably FTTH) that can deliver a minimum of 100Mbps to every home
The most suprising statement is the claim that a Fibre to the Home deployment reaching 98% of the community will cost only $9.8b. This is very different to the $30-$50b previously suggested by others to the Government. However the SIG back up their claims with supporting information that came from the TasColt and Bright projects which deployed FTTH into brownfield areas.
According to the SIG, time is of the essence. OECD nations in Asia, America and Europe already have strategic plans for the deployment of National Broadband Networks. Some countries and regions such as Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, United States and Europe have significant rollouts of FTTP already underway. Australia has also started, but based upon experience to date, realises that a number of fundamental changes need to occur if Australia is to succeed and remain globally competitive in the emerging Knowledge Economy.
Their full submission can be viewed here.
Time is quickly running out and we only have one chance to get this right.
Carpe Diem!
Today 40 members of the FTTH Special Interest Group (SIG) which come from a variety of industries including telecommunications, power and housing met with The Hon. Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to present our collective vision for a National Broadband Network.
At a roundtable in October, Senator Conroy had promised the industry that if Labor were to win the election he would invite us to come back to him with an industry vision on his plans for a National Broadband Network. Today, that report was presented to the Minister.
The Minister clearly demonstrated his commitment to the industry and his interest in the group's input by providing more than 3 hours of his very scarice time. Getting any time with a government minister at the moment is difficult, let alone 3 hours.
The core of the report consists of seventeen recommendations that the SIG would like the Minister to consider for inclusion in the National Broadband Network tender to be released in the next few months. The single most important message the Group put to the Minister related to the need for regulatory clarity around the proposed open access model – this would allow companies to develop a serious response to the tender document.
The Minister invited the SIG to elaborate on the recommendations so that they can be considered by the "Expert Group" that will be appointed to guide the tendering process. The SIG decided to set up several working groups to this end, and the Minister has promised to assist us in contacting the people we should be talking to within Government. These working groups included:
Telstra (and G9) propose to install nodes to ensure every home is within 1500 metres of Fibre. At this range VDSL2 can offers a maximum of 25Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream using 24AWG cable. However Telstra currently deploys 26AWG (0.40mm) cable and as we well know there are many joints and bridge taps in the aging plant which cause further attenutation, thus reducing the speed further. These speeds are also based on transmitting at full power. Discussion within the ACIF working group on VDSL2 deployment has been around lowering transmit power levels at Remote Nodes to lessen the impact of midspan crosstalk.
When taking all these issues into account, it will be highly unlikely for the FTTN proposals of Telstra and G9 to meet the 12Mbps Symmetrical speed requirement set by the Labour Government. The only way to get the speeds higher (particularly the upstream) is to push the nodes closer to the homes and/or to replace the copper. This means more nodes, more cost and more problems (both technical and environmental). It is going to be very difficult to get any copper based technology to deliver the 12Mbps in a typical Australian suburban environment. Furthermore if we push the nodes close and replace the copper, then we might just as well install fibre all the way - particularly in Victoria where every home will have to be visited within the next 4 years to upgrade power meters to Smart meters.
The Minister was very open in speaking of the problems he is facing here, and we concluded that the industry should put more effort into educating and lobbying other departments about the benefits of the NBN in relation to current health, educational and environmental issues.
The NBN can be a catalyst in all of this. While there definitely is interest from other ministers and their advisors the opportunities created by the NBN around these issues are not yet fully understood by most of them. The synergistic effects of an NBN could be enormous if a whole-of-government approach could be achieved.
The full report can be viewed here http://www.budde.com.au/presentations/National_Vision_for_FttH_6March2008.asp
At a roundtable in October, Senator Conroy had promised the industry that if Labor were to win the election he would invite us to come back to him with an industry vision on his plans for a National Broadband Network. Today, that report was presented to the Minister.
The Minister clearly demonstrated his commitment to the industry and his interest in the group's input by providing more than 3 hours of his very scarice time. Getting any time with a government minister at the moment is difficult, let alone 3 hours.
The core of the report consists of seventeen recommendations that the SIG would like the Minister to consider for inclusion in the National Broadband Network tender to be released in the next few months. The single most important message the Group put to the Minister related to the need for regulatory clarity around the proposed open access model – this would allow companies to develop a serious response to the tender document.
The Minister invited the SIG to elaborate on the recommendations so that they can be considered by the "Expert Group" that will be appointed to guide the tendering process. The SIG decided to set up several working groups to this end, and the Minister has promised to assist us in contacting the people we should be talking to within Government. These working groups included:
- Open Access
- Greenfields
- SmartGrid/Applications
- Brownfields
"If it is within my power I will ensure even new home in a greenfield
development is connected to FTTH"
"The minimum bandwidth requirements for the National Broadband network is 12Mbps Symmetrical"The first is exciting to see a strategy being put in place for greenfield development which we all know is a "no brainer" when it comes to the future deployment of telecommunications. But it was the second statement which I found most interesting. Symmetrical internet services offering 12Mbps cannot be delivered by ADSL2+, nor can it be delivered using VDSL2! Contensious statement I know, but the former government and industry talk has always been about asymmetrical services. Delivering higher speed asymetrical services is pointless; we already have networks capable of delivering on average 10-12Mbps in the downsteam. In 2003/4 the government's own Broadband Advisery Group produced a report which defined "true broadband" as symmetrical 10Mbps. What is really needed to enable applications such as Teleworking, eHealth, HD full motion Video Conferencing (telepresence), and even take full advantage of the growing use of YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace is more upstream speeds.
Telstra (and G9) propose to install nodes to ensure every home is within 1500 metres of Fibre. At this range VDSL2 can offers a maximum of 25Mbps downstream and 5Mbps upstream using 24AWG cable. However Telstra currently deploys 26AWG (0.40mm) cable and as we well know there are many joints and bridge taps in the aging plant which cause further attenutation, thus reducing the speed further. These speeds are also based on transmitting at full power. Discussion within the ACIF working group on VDSL2 deployment has been around lowering transmit power levels at Remote Nodes to lessen the impact of midspan crosstalk.
When taking all these issues into account, it will be highly unlikely for the FTTN proposals of Telstra and G9 to meet the 12Mbps Symmetrical speed requirement set by the Labour Government. The only way to get the speeds higher (particularly the upstream) is to push the nodes closer to the homes and/or to replace the copper. This means more nodes, more cost and more problems (both technical and environmental). It is going to be very difficult to get any copper based technology to deliver the 12Mbps in a typical Australian suburban environment. Furthermore if we push the nodes close and replace the copper, then we might just as well install fibre all the way - particularly in Victoria where every home will have to be visited within the next 4 years to upgrade power meters to Smart meters.
The Minister was very open in speaking of the problems he is facing here, and we concluded that the industry should put more effort into educating and lobbying other departments about the benefits of the NBN in relation to current health, educational and environmental issues.
The NBN can be a catalyst in all of this. While there definitely is interest from other ministers and their advisors the opportunities created by the NBN around these issues are not yet fully understood by most of them. The synergistic effects of an NBN could be enormous if a whole-of-government approach could be achieved.
The full report can be viewed here http://www.budde.com.au/presentations/National_Vision_for_FttH_6March2008.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
