Building a Fibre NBN on a Copper budget

formatting link

Watch the 20 minute video on that page.

On 17th July 2013 I delivered a talk at the CommsDay Wholesale and Data Centre Summit in Sydney about the NBN called ?The Ideal Wholesale NBN Market?. Simon Hackett, Internode founder

This talk proposes just a few of the many ways in which the build cost, build time, and operating cost of the FTTH NBN could be lowered (perhaps dramatically lowered) by auditing the entire existing design and by applying the fruits of some lateral thinking about what is really needed to make the network work ? and what the network can do without.

======================

--
Don McKenzie 

$30 for an Olinuxino Linux PC: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Don McKenzie
Loading thread data ...

Great presentation! Must-'watch' (listen/read) material for NBN proponents and opponents alike!

Very refreshing to see such a common-sense presentation about the financial, business, usage, technical, etc.. aspects, without a political agenda.

Be sure to also read the comments, especially the further comments from Simon Hackett.

Reply to
Frank Slootweg

Don McKenzie wrote

Trouble with that line is that Turdbull has decided to go for FTTN instead.

Some should take him out the back and put a bullet in the back of the neck.

Reply to
Rod Speed

For obvious reasons. Turnball's not in the business of dragging projects forever on top of budget blow outs. He's capable of creative thinking and come up with better solutions. And FTTN is nothing new. Turnball didn't invent it, he's promoting it. His idea is cost effective and doesn't hinder the future full fibre network layout.

On the other hand, you don't believe in FTTN, FTTC, FTTH etc etc. You believe in leaving the PSTN, POTS as it is, the same way you believe in leaving the climate change as it is.

The problem is you ain't gonna be around to get your arse kicked if you happen to be dead wrong, 'cos you will be already dead dead.

NBN FTTH has been a real white elephant giant tortoise so far, and I'm bit sceptical about the catch phrase of 'fibre on a copper budget'. Sounds way too optimistic and unrealistic, but can lead to real solutions on a much lower budget than the current white elephant.

Turnball's solutions aint' that bad, considering out current budget issues.

Oh, you violent violent man!!! :-)) I'm hoping to find a way to introduce you to Carl William's cell mate. :-)

Reply to
Damian

Turnbull is a money man not a techie which explains his priorities.

Reply to
keithr

He's a lot more than just a money man.

He's also a terminal f****it on climate change alone.

Nope. His priority in this case is to produce some marginally plausible way to bullshit the coalition's way out of their predicament now that someone has managed to get it thru his thick skull that his original claim that wireless can do anything that the NBN can do is complete and utter bullshit.

Reply to
Rod Speed

With the existing technologies, wireless won't get anywhere near a fibre NBN. But, where did he say "wireless can do anything fibre NBN can do:"?!! Sounds bit too futuristic to me.

Reply to
Damian

The author presents a good case based on his position as a major Retail Service Provider. He is advocating handing over a larger share of the cost, and therefore the profit, to RSPs. The current NBN Co Network Terminating Unit has four ports and can offer a choice of RSPs but Hackett wants to alter the system so that there is only a single RSP and even proposes that the RSP should supply the NTU. While Hackett is probably right and the extra ports will be largely unused they provide a unique opportunity for imaginative extra services. The provision of a free government (and other) services port seems an excellent idea. Eliminating the POTS ports would also channel the supply of telephone services via an RSP whereas the NBN Co design allows a telephone-only connection using the customers existing telephones.

His proposal to revert to the original 7 points of interconnect also limits competition. I believe the additional points of interconnect were added at the instigation of the ACCC because they would allow more localised service providers and to avoid making existing telco's fibre useless. They do increase the costs for a national RSP.

The costings that Hackett presents are alarming but he does not provide an estimate of any savings to NBN Co of his changes let alone an estimate of the added costs to the consumer. I agree that the cost of the NBN should be tax payer subsidised. I don't see that transferring a small fraction of those costs to the consumer via the RSP is a benefit especially if it limits access to the NBN.

Reply to
Gordon Levi

Huh!? I don't think he's advocating any such thing. Yes, he advocates to lower the costs (of *all* the steps/parts), but not by handing a part of the cost to the RSPs. *hich share of which cost(s) do you think he is handing over to the RSPs?

I think he gives excellent arguments why implementing an *additional*,

*very* costly, network, is a stupid idea. All current networks, happily carry non-RSP services. There is no reason to do it in another way for the NBN. As he says (have you read his further comments?), any service which does not go the [TCP/]IP route is brain-dead from the start.

Like any current network, the NBN can do "a telephone-only connection using the customers existing telephones". And yes, there will be a SP for that connection, but that that SP may or may not be called an "RSP", is just semantics.

He *said* that he could not give such an estimate, because the needed (NBNCo) information is not availale.

Again, he is *not* propopsing to "transfer[ring] a small fraction of those costs to the consumer RSP". The whole point of his proposal is to

*lower* *all* cost parts.

I think you should 'watch' (listen and read) the presentation again.

And notice the vendor (i.e. Alcatel) lock-in issue! Absurd!

Reply to
Frank Slootweg

Gordon Levi wrote

Not that large a share, actually. And he is actually talking about the very real problem that the cost to the RSP is supposed to dramatically increase over time too.

Yes.

I doubt it with PayTV and the net alone.

While operations like his and now iinet that he sold out to are certainly interested in providing that along with the net service, that isn't what Foxtel wants to see.

Yes, but with a significant cost in what ends up in the consumer's place as he points out.

Makes more sense to have that included in the PayTV side of things, but at no cost for those who just want the free to air channels.

Not necessarily with so many doing that stuff with the mobile phone system now.

Yes, but as he points out, at a very significant cost for those phone only connections, for what is as he points out something that is seen with fewer and fewer customers now.

Does it actually make any real sense to be ripping out all that POTS copper and replacing it with a much more expensive way of providing POTS services for those customers ?

The reason the NBN wants to do that is because you then have no choice but to use the NBN because the copper is gone and they then can claim that most use the NBN service.

But in reality most would just use a mobile phone if the copper is ripped out, most of them wouldn't bother with the NBN unless they are too stupid to work out how to use a mobile phone and just want someone to do everything for free and carry on regardless and in effect by grossly subsidised by everyone else for that approach.

But there are in fact f*ck all of those left anymore for various reasons.

Does it really make any sense to be forcing everyone who wants to operate nationally to be spending a hell of a lot more just so almost no one can do a local service more cheaply ?

And dramatically so too.

And its clear its only a small part of the total cost of the NBN even if he doesn't spell that out himself.

He did claim it wouldn't cost much more at and is likely right about that with the RSP provided NTU.

I don't when most of us already have a decent broadband service.

And it can only be a small fraction.

It doesn't.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Damian wrote

Its only fools like Turdbull that didn?t realise that.

Back in the days when the coalition were saying they would pull the plug on the NBN once they got elected, in the election after the Dud had been assassinated and even before that, just after the Dud had proclaimed that we would have a FTTP NBN when no one was actually stupid enough to tender for his stupid FTTN NBN. Even before the Dud had become PM the first time, in that election campaign too.

Just terminally pig ignorant on shared bandwidth alone.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Yes he is, particularly with the RSP providing the NTU with nothing in the home provided by the NBN at all.

The hardware in the home/premises.

Yes he is with the hardware in the house/premises.

No, his proposal does not lower the cost of running the fiber down the streets for example.

You too.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Hmmm...

I have the NBN pulling in cables at the top end of my street this morning.

Don...

--
Don McKenzie 

$30 for an Olinuxino Linux PC: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Don McKenzie

Welcome to the world of knowledge and modern civilization. A world of justice, freedom, liberty and democracy.

--
Petzl 
http://tinyurl.com/AbbottsPorkPies 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Petzl

I'd have to agree with Rod in this instance (yes, strange things do happen!).

Compare the coalition's rejigged-one-more-time-'cause-we've-got-NFI policy to that of roadworks. Let's take the example of majority of the M5 from Liverpool to Lakemba.

They had the ability to implement three lanes in each direction when it was being built, for nominally 15% more than the cost of building two lanes in each direction - but they chose not to. Now the widening of the road to three lanes each way is costing them 150% of the original building cost.

Let's pluck an exemplaery figure out of my arse - if the original cost of building the M5 from Liverpool to Lakemba was $1B, it would've cost them $1.15B to make it a six-lane road - but it's now costing them a total (including original woks) of $2.5B.

As financially painful as it might be in the short term, a complete investment in infrastructure will yield massive rewards going into the future without constantly "sticky-taping" costly improvements as the need arises for each.

That doesn't mean to say I fully agree with the way in which it was implemented; engaging contractors with NFI to do the job just because they said they can was an utterly idiotic decision to make, not at all different to the way in which the "free roof insulation" scheme was implemented.

Ultimately, we _do_ need this type of infrastructure if we're to even survive through the remainder of the century - we no longer have a viable manufacturing industry, most of our intellectual resources are being shipped out, and anybody who thinks we're getting a fair price for the ore that's being dug out of our land is an idiot.

Without providing technological infrastrucutre, it won't be long before we end up being another Greece. Why do you think India's booming? It's not because of their natural resources and definitely not because of their capable citizens - it's because their government was astute enough to realise that providing appropriate tools would allow even incompetents to flourish in the new world economy.

--
Bob Milutinovic 
Cognicom
Reply to
Bob Milutinovic

Nope. In his proposal, there will be *no* NTU. The RSP will supply a GPON *router* (10:54- in the presentation, the black box in the picture), which he says the RSP will probably supply anyway.

So there's less cost - no NTU, no battery backup, etc., the white stuff in the picture - and no extra cost.

See the presentation from 10:33-12:52.

[More of the same deleted.]
Reply to
Frank Slootweg

Frank Slootweg wrote

That?s not correct.

And he is saying that that will be the NTU.

Yes.

No, what the RSP supplies will cost a little more with his approach.

That?s where I got it from.

Reply to
Rod Speed

If all the facilities in an NBN Co NTU were deleted it made no sense to me (or Hackett) for NBN Co to supply the NTU at all. He argues that GPON routers, possibly with a POTS port, would best be supplied by the RSP according to the services on offer.

Well no, he merely argues that it would have been cheaper to omit the extra ports. He accepts that some consumers may have a need for the extra ports. Since NBN Co have already paid for the design of the complex NTU and if NBN Co are going to supply the NTU it seems unlikely that there would be significant savings in not supplying the complex ones to everybody.

I don't understand what you mean here. How can I obtain services over my connection that my RSP does not retail?

Would a mass market RSP provide the microsecond access to stock trading that a stock broker requires or would that require a separate port? They certainly don't offer that now.

I assume, possibly incorrectly, that when Telstra switch off their copper network they will be able to seamlessly plug my telephones into the NTU. I don't know of an [RI]SP that currently offers this.

I am reminded of the friends who say "you are not listening" when they mean "you are not agreeing".

No, no. It's not lock in, it is a "supplier partnership". That is variously regarded as a way to screw the supplier, screw the customer or as a genuine advantage to both. NBN Co have repeatedly used it as the first of those but Alcatel is big enough to look after themselves.

Reply to
Gordon Levi

But, you are not. Rod's against both governments and opposition's version of NBN. Where he stands is unclear. According to him, we already have decent broadband all around the country.

Reply to
Damian

I was only agreeing with "But his approach will cost even more than FTTP will." - I don't see anything from him unless someone else quotes it, and in this instance that's all I saw.

Decent broadband perhaps for 70+-year-olds using the 'net to send e-mails to their great grandchildren, but FFS, even Romania has better 'net connectivity than Australia. We entirely skipped VDSL+, a technology which could've bought us several more years of speed with zero cabling outlay (and relatively small equipment outlay at the exchanges).

--
Bob Milutinovic 
Cognicom
Reply to
Bob Milutinovic

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.