Chorus chosen as key partner for UFB rollout

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Chorus chosen as key partner for UFB rollout

1 | 2 | 3

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#473731 24-May-2011 22:40

Isn't this fibre doing to be different as in right to your door step?

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#473733 24-May-2011 22:45

marmel:
nickb800:
marmel:

Seems crazy to have two fibre networks installed in some areas. Competition though I suppose?

Whererabouts will have two fibre networks?

Both TCL an TCOM have FTTN in some areas, but FTTH/P isnt going to be duplicated

Thats what I am talking about, utilising the exisiting fibre where it has already been laid even if it is only FTTN as you have pointed out.

Given that every street in urban areas will have to be dug up/micro trenched anyway and fibre for a whole town can be served directly from the one central exchange, the few strands of fibre that make up the FTTN network are pretty much redundant. Even if they decide to serve the fibre from cabinets spread around a town/city, they will be digging up all the roads anyway so theres no advantage in already having fibre in place (assuming here that the cost of fibre is small relative to the cost of the civil works for laying it)

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#473735 24-May-2011 22:46

nickb800:
marmel:
nickb800:
marmel:

Seems crazy to have two fibre networks installed in some areas. Competition though I suppose?

Whererabouts will have two fibre networks?

Both TCL an TCOM have FTTN in some areas, but FTTH/P isnt going to be duplicated

Thats what I am talking about, utilising the exisiting fibre where it has already been laid even if it is only FTTN as you have pointed out.

Given that every street in urban areas will have to be dug up/micro trenched anyway and fibre for a whole town can be served directly from the one central exchange, the few strands of fibre that make up the FTTN network are pretty much redundant. Even if they decide to serve the fibre from cabinets spread around a town/city, they will be digging up all the roads anyway so theres no advantage in already having fibre in place (assuming here that the cost of fibre is small relative to the cost of the civil works for laying it)

Ok thanks for clarifying that.

Now I asked earlier about a new house build and what cables should be run from the telecom box to the dwelling? Cat 6 or will it need to be fibre now?

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#473737 24-May-2011 22:52

marmel:
nickb800:
marmel:
nickb800:
marmel:

Seems crazy to have two fibre networks installed in some areas. Competition though I suppose?

Whererabouts will have two fibre networks?

Both TCL an TCOM have FTTN in some areas, but FTTH/P isnt going to be duplicated

Thats what I am talking about, utilising the exisiting fibre where it has already been laid even if it is only FTTN as you have pointed out.

Given that every street in urban areas will have to be dug up/micro trenched anyway and fibre for a whole town can be served directly from the one central exchange, the few strands of fibre that make up the FTTN network are pretty much redundant. Even if they decide to serve the fibre from cabinets spread around a town/city, they will be digging up all the roads anyway so theres no advantage in already having fibre in place (assuming here that the cost of fibre is small relative to the cost of the civil works for laying it)

Ok thanks for clarifying that.

Now I asked earlier about a new house build and what cables should be run from the telecom box to the dwelling? Cat 6 or will it need to be fibre now?

Just follow the current telecom standards when you install the ducting from street to your house, and chuck a regular underground rated cat3 phone cable in there. When chorus figure out what they want to do, its up to them to install the fibre, which they will run into an ONT inside your house. The only thing you really need to do to future proof is run several runs of cat5e or cat 6 as well as RG6 from the ETP to your central distribution hub

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#473773 25-May-2011 06:27

nickb800:
marmel:
nickb800:
marmel:

Seems crazy to have two fibre networks installed in some areas. Competition though I suppose?

Whererabouts will have two fibre networks?

Both TCL an TCOM have FTTN in some areas, but FTTH/P isnt going to be duplicated

Thats what I am talking about, utilising the exisiting fibre where it has already been laid even if it is only FTTN as you have pointed out.

Given that every street in urban areas will have to be dug up/micro trenched anyway and fibre for a whole town can be served directly from the one central exchange, the few strands of fibre that make up the FTTN network are pretty much redundant. Even if they decide to serve the fibre from cabinets spread around a town/city, they will be digging up all the roads anyway so theres no advantage in already having fibre in place (assuming here that the cost of fibre is small relative to the cost of the civil works for laying it)

The existing FTTN infrastructure is a key component of FTTH deployments in areas where Telecom will be deploying the network. These cabinets were designed with FTTH in mind and have the baulhaul in place already to support this. The main work required will be the GPON network from the existing cabinets to the home which will require trenching or overhead cables.

GuessX

16 posts

Geek

#473777 25-May-2011 07:25

Just a quick question here.
I've only really been following this with half a mind, but I'm shortly to be employed again by one of the telco's, so am bound to be peppered with questions about this over the coming months, so I'd like to get my head screwed on right about this split.

I'm glad someone mentioned further up saying that it was a win for chorus, not a win for telecom. All the newspaper articles I've read are highlighting telecom as the big winner here, which made me incredibly confused.
Am I correct in saying that the government is giving the 900odd million to CHORUS when it is a seperate entity, and not to telecom?

Also, as one company is still holding the fibre and copper network, this is still a monopoly in my eyes. Whats to restrict chrous from holding the country to similar pricing ransom that telecom is currently?
I'd assume this is government regulation, and the fact that Chorus doesn't have a retail arm removes any bias to a singular telecommunications company, but I just wanted to ask the question anyway.

I was listening to talkback last night on the issue and one of the people interviewed (for the life of me I can't remember what company he was for, but it was something Internet New Zealand), was suggesting the wholesale price for fibre was going to be identical to copper, as set out by the contract. Due to this NZ is going to enter the market with relatively low prices, but will see only a small drop in prices over the coming years when comparing to overseas countries. Just something to keep in mind in 10 years time when we start to compare NZ to prices around the world.
But does this also mean a retail user, on rollout, should in effect pay similar prices to current broadband prices? Obviously there will be a slight premium on top due to high speed, but I've got hopes that we are going to see competition in play and not see ridiculous roll out prices.

Anyway, a couple of questions above.

Tl;DR, questions below
Whats to restrict chrous from holding the country to similar pricing ransom that telecom is currently?

Am I correct in saying that the government is giving the 900odd million to CHORUS when it is a seperate entity, and not to telecom?

does this also mean a retail user, on rollout, should in effect pay similar prices to current broadband prices?

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#473790 25-May-2011 08:52

GuessX:

Tl;DR, questions below
Whats to restrict chrous from holding the country to similar pricing ransom that telecom is currently?

Contractually UFB has a price ceiling (the $40 being bandied about) which Chorus or any other CFH Participant won't be able to raise prices above. Not sure what you mean by Telecom having a pricing ransom already, the UBA prices are controlled/regulated by ComCom, not Telecom.

GuessX: Am I correct in saying that the government is giving the 900odd million to CHORUS when it is a seperate entity, and not to telecom?

As far as I'm aware thats correct, although I'm sure there are arcane accounting arts involved around balancing debts as part of Separation which provide benefits to both new entities.

GuessX: does this also mean a retail user, on rollout, should in effect pay similar prices to current broadband prices?

The headline $40 Wholesale price is cheaper than the current naked UBA prices, significantly cheaper than the EUBA products with guarenteed channels (also cheaper than clothed UBA + POT's).

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

GuessX

16 posts

Geek

#473811 25-May-2011 09:48

Cheers for that.

What I meant by telecom holding to ransom was probably a little unfair.

I know they fight the comcom all the way on any sort of changes (the split included).
It kind of just gives me the impression they are saying 'These are my toys, I shouldn't have to share them if I don't want to'.

I'd probably be the same, afterall, they have their shareholders to look after.

Gigs

95 posts

Master Geek

#473845 25-May-2011 11:23

Wait, What?

How are they now fighting the concom on the split?!

That CAME from Telecom should they win their UFB tenders, if they didn't, they didn't have to split. (Though to be honest, I think they should have wether they did or didn't just to shut the rest of the retailers up about them having their network but that's probably a whole other debate)

I look forward to seeing how the Telco landscape changes in the future to be honest.

Zeon

3916 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#473849 25-May-2011 11:38

Does the UFB include any work for open access national backhaul fibre? I realize Telecom already has this (alongside other companies like FX, Telstra, Kordia etc.) so will this be transferred to Chorus2?

While bandwidth from the consumer to the handover seems pretty clear cut in terms of price what kind of costs should ISP's be looking at for example to get traffic from Invercargill to Auckland for APE or international transit?

Speedtest 2019-10-14

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#473852 25-May-2011 11:41

Zeon: Does the UFB include any work for open access national backhaul fibre? I realize Telecom already has this (alongside other companies like FX, Telstra, Kordia etc.) so will this be transferred to Chorus2?

While bandwidth from the consumer to the handover seems pretty clear cut in terms of price what kind of costs should ISP's be looking at for example to get traffic from Invercargill to Auckland for APE or international transit?

My understanding is that backhaul will go to Telecom Wholesale, as this would eventually place the new Telecom in a similar position to Telstra - reselling the last mile, delivering backhaul over their own network.

Good point about Kordia - with the high court ruling allowing them to upgrade their shared fibre network with Telstra, Kordia could become a major fibre backhaul provider

Ragnor

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#473887 25-May-2011 12:59

Domestic backhaul is not included in the wholesale UFB price.

In theory many regions have multiple options for back haul (vector, citylink, fx networks, kordia, telstraclear, telecom wholesale). However getting from a customer to the ISP's core network could entail travelling through several regions.

Telstraclear and Telecom have the major end to end national fibre networks so these guys will still be the biggest players in domestic transit.

It's going to be very very very interesting and important to see what stays with Telecom and what goes into Chorus in terms of assets.

Also what I would like to see a real focus on next is: IX or peering exchanges in each LFC and then a national peering / IX framework.

We all know the two biggest ISP's Telstraclear and Telecom Retail don't peer at APE/WIX and this impacts the cost of domestic transit massively.

We need to be doing what Singapore is doing here imo:
http://www.ida.gov.sg/Infrastructure/20090708173942.aspx

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#474065 25-May-2011 17:28

i'm surprised at how little noise there has been after this announcement. I thought there would be a lot more people openly abusing the govt & telecom....

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

DarkShadow

1647 posts

Uber Geek

#474695 27-May-2011 10:07

GuessX:
Am I correct in saying that the government is giving the 900odd million to CHORUS when it is a seperate entity, and not to telecom?

Chorus will need to pay it all back, so technically the government is not giving them money. But the repayment date is 2045 and they don't have to pay interest.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#474889 27-May-2011 17:48

The FTTN project where new fibre has been installed has pulled 140 core (or there abouts) to whereever it has gone and depending on the population density even more 140core cables have been pulled, plus where fibre has been layed either recently or historically its in duct so easy to pull more.

Therefore any effort in installing FTTN is directly benificial to Chorus's ability to move forward to FTTH/P

Cyril

1 | 2 | 3