Showing posts with label iiNet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iiNet. Show all posts
TERRiA, the new name for the G9 consortium, today lodged its $5m bond with the federal government to qualify for bidding on the project.
However they still have a major hurdle to overcome and that is to bed down a financial backer for the project. The consortium members don't expect to inject substantial amounts of their own funds into the project (mainly because they dont have enough). iiNet, TransACT, Internode, SOUL and Macquarie are small players (in terms of the project) and it is only TransACT, AAPT, Primus, Soul and Optus who have any significant fibre optic (or Microwave in the case of Soul) infrastructure of their own. iiNet, Internode and Primus have invested heavily into exchange based DSL technology, but they have very little capacity (particularly Internode who is privately owned) to contribute to the five billion dollars needed [on top of the government's $5b] by the consortium.
They are a bit of a hodge-podge consortium:
TERRiA has also made an announcement regarding structural separation, something to which they are strongly committed. According to Mr Michael Egan, the recently appointed Chairman of the group (and former Treasurer of NSW government):
"Over the next few weeks, TERRiA will finalise a competitive broadband model where the vested interests of individual companies are structurally separated to protect the consumer. This model will include details of board membership, management, operations, accountability and ultimate ownership. TERRiA’s member companies have a proven history of rolling out new-age networks that have brought faster speeds and lower cost broadband to Australians. TERRiA’s NBN model is designed to ensure that the new network is properly structured from the start, providing an equal, accessible and affordable platform for all users."
All sounds exciting; but are they the White Knight for the poor suffering Australian broadband user?
However they still have a major hurdle to overcome and that is to bed down a financial backer for the project. The consortium members don't expect to inject substantial amounts of their own funds into the project (mainly because they dont have enough). iiNet, TransACT, Internode, SOUL and Macquarie are small players (in terms of the project) and it is only TransACT, AAPT, Primus, Soul and Optus who have any significant fibre optic (or Microwave in the case of Soul) infrastructure of their own. iiNet, Internode and Primus have invested heavily into exchange based DSL technology, but they have very little capacity (particularly Internode who is privately owned) to contribute to the five billion dollars needed [on top of the government's $5b] by the consortium.
They are a bit of a hodge-podge consortium:
- iiNet (who recently acquired Westnet for $81m) are the third largest Internet service provider in Australia, but lease all their fibre from third parties. Just over 40% of iiNet is owned by Amcom and AAPT. Perhaps the second largest exchange based DSLAM network in Australia, second only to Telstra.
- Internode is the darling of the Australian ISP community. A great small/medium business success story with private investment by Simon Hackett creating a national IP based Internet Service Provider. But other than exchanged based ADSL2+ DSLAMs (as opposed to MSANs which can also support voice - as opposed to VoIP), a bit of fibre around CBD Adelaide and a regional Wireless network in the Coorong and York Peninsula they dont have much to offer - other than great customer service.
- AAPT who recently merged with Powertel, have a national transmission network (on the back of the Optus National Fibre backbone), but very little suburban based infrastructure. Most of their network is CBD based, with some metro coverage through the Powertel acquisition, certainly not enough for a deep fibre project. However for some time now New Zealand Telecom has been trying to sell off its ownership of AAPT - and no one wants to buy.
- TransACT, a Canberra based FTTC operator who spent $500 million dollars connecting 30,000 subscribers and has been bailed out twice.
- Primus, an interesting company who fly underneath the radar most of the time. Has some fibre in the major CBDs, MSANs installed into various exchanges around Australia. A bit of a dark horse, but certainly limited capacity.
- Macquarie, who? No not the bank (bet the Tudehope's wish they were related though), but Macquarie Telecom a publicly listed company. Have been around since 1992 predominately as a network reseller. Voted several times as the leading Corporate Telecoms Provider. But they don't own much (if any) network infrastructure.
- Soul who recently merged with TPG Internet to become the forth largest ISP in Australia has a significant national IP network (formally the Commindico Network) built on leased capacity from Optus and Telstra. They have a fully interconnected voice network into all 66 (or there abouts) Call Collection Areas (CCAs) across Australia and with the TPG acquisition a large exchange based DSLAM network.
- Optus, really the only one of the consortium with the financial muscle and the network to make this bid a success. They currently pass some two million homes with HFC which could be used as the start of a FTTN/FTTH network. But does it have the backing of its parent SingTel?
TERRiA has also made an announcement regarding structural separation, something to which they are strongly committed. According to Mr Michael Egan, the recently appointed Chairman of the group (and former Treasurer of NSW government):
"Over the next few weeks, TERRiA will finalise a competitive broadband model where the vested interests of individual companies are structurally separated to protect the consumer. This model will include details of board membership, management, operations, accountability and ultimate ownership. TERRiA’s member companies have a proven history of rolling out new-age networks that have brought faster speeds and lower cost broadband to Australians. TERRiA’s NBN model is designed to ensure that the new network is properly structured from the start, providing an equal, accessible and affordable platform for all users."
All sounds exciting; but are they the White Knight for the poor suffering Australian broadband user?
NEWS RELEASE: APRIL 8, 2008
Broadband provider Internode wants indefinite retention of exchange-based ADSL2+ equipment to ensure competition keeps down prices on the Government-backed Fibre to the Node (FTTN) network.
In a submission to the National Broadband Network expert panel, Internode managing director Simon Hackett dismissed the “myth” that FTTN would make the current generation of ADSL2+ equipment redundant. “It is entirely possible – and for pro-competitive outcomes it is necessary – to preserve indefinitely the existing facilities-based investment framework, including ADSL2+, while building and operating a future FTTN-based National Broadband Network,” he said.
“If we start from the mistaken belief that we must do a full Node cut-over – that is, completely disconnect all of the copper wires leading back to the exchange from every area in which a new Node is deployed – the consequences for the industry and consumers will be detrimental and long-lasting.” These include:
Broadband provider Internode wants indefinite retention of exchange-based ADSL2+ equipment to ensure competition keeps down prices on the Government-backed Fibre to the Node (FTTN) network.
In a submission to the National Broadband Network expert panel, Internode managing director Simon Hackett dismissed the “myth” that FTTN would make the current generation of ADSL2+ equipment redundant. “It is entirely possible – and for pro-competitive outcomes it is necessary – to preserve indefinitely the existing facilities-based investment framework, including ADSL2+, while building and operating a future FTTN-based National Broadband Network,” he said.
“If we start from the mistaken belief that we must do a full Node cut-over – that is, completely disconnect all of the copper wires leading back to the exchange from every area in which a new Node is deployed – the consequences for the industry and consumers will be detrimental and long-lasting.” These include:
- Stranded investments: Massive investments made over many years in the existing ADSL2+ facilities-based access regime will be destroyed
- Stalled deployment: Regardless of who wins the tender, impacted parties will take legal action to recoup their lost investments or lost future earnings, substantially delaying the new network
- Less consumer choice: Losing access to ADSL2+ services and price points invites the risk that new services may offer worse price/performance and actually drive consumer benefit backward
- Higher prices: Replacing the current diversity of services with an FTTN monopoly will destroy competitive tension. Only the continued presence of competitive services in the market can provide sustainable protection against “monopoly rent” being extracted from consumers.
“VDSL2 is essentially the next incremental evolution after ADSL2+: By operating across a far wider range of frequencies ‘on the wire’, VDSL2 offers higher peak speeds than ADSL2+ with the potential of maximum copper-line based speeds in the order of 50-100 megabits per second,” he said.
“However the claim that it is technically necessary to remove exchange-based ADSL2+ services in order to deploy Node-based VDSL2 is simply not true. Strong technical evidence exists to show how this ‘hybrid’ mode of coexistence can work very effectively in practice.
"Indeed, the critical point of this entire submission is that exchange-based ADSL2+ services can coexist with Node-based VDSL2 services, with practically no performance impact to either service type.”
Node-based VDSL2 services, with practically no performance impact to either service type.”
Other “myths” challenged by Mr. Hackett’s National Broadband Network submission include:
- FTTN needs “overbuild protection”: If a network requires overbuild protection to survive, its existence is an “un-natural” one. Preserving current ADSL2+ investments will create a scenario in which overbuild is actually designed into the process
- The economic necessity of “full Node cutover”: Mr. Hackett disputes a claim that all copper lines from an exchange must be cut over to the FTTN cabinet simultaneously due to the high labour costs of one-at-a-time migration. He said ISPs currently pay per-connection fees to migrate customers to ADSL2+ ports and simply recoup these costs in their pricing model
- ADSL1 customers will be disadvantaged: By the time FTTN is fully deployed, very few customers will use a broadband router that is not ADSL2+ capable.
A public version the submission to the National Broadband Network expert panel is available here.
Editors Comment
While companies such as iiNet, Internet and Adam have done a lot for the creation of a competitive Broadband environment (for which I am very supportive and thankfull), I cannot agree with a number of points raised in the submission particularly the choice of VDSL2 as a viable technology to deliver the NBN. Read a article here on "The Myth of FTTN". Both iiNet and now Internode have rejected the suggestion of a monopoly FTTN infrastructure network as it strands the assets they have installed in Telstra exchanges at substainial cost to their shareholders.
It was for this reason that the recommendations of the SIG where to build an overlay network thus allowing the existing network to service customers until the new network is built and the customer decides to migrate over - if they want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
