Telecom Wholesale deploying VDSL2

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom Wholesale deploying VDSL2

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#197613 23-Feb-2009 23:25

Screeb:
Press releases would say "The OECD estimates New Zealand has the 6th cheapest broadband services in the world". Maybe you should do some reading of your own?

I've already discussed this with you. Price does not take into account speed, contention ratios, data caps, etc. So it's a completely useless metric when comparing quality of broadband. Sure we may be the 6th cheapest, but we don't get the same bang for our buck.

May I suggest that for your own reasons (whatever they are), you may want a 100 meg connection with no cap, but only want to pay $30 pm for it? In that case, it will never happen in NZ and I suggest you move to America.

I'm not expecting to pay $30/month for that. I would say $100 is a reasonable price.

OK, so $100 per month sounds like a reasonable price, but is it realistic? And how fast do you expect your international connectivity to be at peak times?

Lets say we get the all the current internet subscriber base of 1.5 million users on to an FTTH connection, what do we get?

("broadband reaches 891,000 subscribers": http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/news/2008/20080905.html )

Gross Revenue
1,500,000 subscribers * 12 months * $100/month = $1.8 Billion

Is this enough to pay for, and return an investment from, a nationwide FTTH rollout?

How about bandwidth?

Should international capacity be enough to cater for every user maxing out their connection at peak times?

Based on the numbers below the Southern Cross Cable doesnt have the capacity currently to supply even 512kbps (or roughtly 1/200th of the 100Mbps) to every subscriber simultaneously.

Bandwidth
1,500,000 subscribers * 100Mbps = 146,484 Gigabits/s = 143.05 Terabits/s
1,500,000 subscribers * 2Mbps = 2929 Gigabits/s = 2.86 Terabits/s
1,500,000 subscribers * 512kbps = 732 Gigabits/s = 0.71 Terabits/s

Southern Cross Cable Capacity (source: http://www.southerncrosscables.com/public/Network/default.cfm )
295 Gigabits/s (0.288 Terabits) currently delivered
1.2 Terabits/s proposed under current technology
4.8 Terabits/s proposed under new technology

Remember, were not in the United States where its cheap and easy to run interstate fiber trunks and we don't currently produce enough content of our own so we have to pull in most of our bandwidth via submarine cables which are not particularly cheap. Take the US, European and Asian countries from the stats and NZ doesnt look so bad after all.

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Ragnor

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#197622 24-Feb-2009 00:48

Screeb:

For once, Ragnor provides a well-informed, troll-free post (no offense intended). I agree with everything here.

I can add more biting sarcasm and trolling if you like?

Re: Regs

Thinking of bandwidth in terms of simultaneous peak usage is not realistic. Bandwidth is always provisioned with a contention ratio anywhere from 25:1, 100:1 etc. Lots of "traffic" is not very latency sensitive (excluding gaming and voip of course).

Have you read the InternetNZ reports on the costing and returns of FTH?

http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/newzealand/broadband-strategy-options-for-new-zealand/

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#197626 24-Feb-2009 01:54

teletek:
"Inter what?" "I'm never going to need that", "thats for nerds"

Hey, thanks for proving yourself wrong! (I thought everyone needed to want FTTH right now for it to be a worthwhile investment!?)

So don't you tell me that I don't know what people want or that I don't know anything about Internet.

I never once said that. Get over yourself.

FU!

How polite.

Internet access is moving to ADSL2+ then on to VDSL2 giving 10-50Mbps and then on to Fibre as a natural progression and that is what is suitable for the majority of users, manageble in the way of resources and possible with the few remaining techs that are left who can actually install and manage this.

If you want 100Mbps before then I suggest you move to AK CBD for Clear, Vector fibre or Wellington Citylink. All three are alternatives to Telecom BTW!!!!

If that don't suit you then set up as a Provider yourself and get a fibre pulled you your house and offer "Ultra Fast Broadband" to the others in your area to help share the costs.

But stop ramming your Fibre to everyone tomorrow BS and shooting down anyone who doesn't tow your anti Telco line on this thread. It aint going to happen kiddo no matter how much you screem and rant about future proofing or any other parrotted terms you repeat over and over again.

Dial Up -> ADSL -> ADSL2+ - > VDSL2 -> Fibre -> ????

Get it?

Thats the way it is and thats the way it's going to be and no amount of
whimpering by you or anyone else on this thread, which is about VDSL2 by the way, is going to change that, so live with it or FOFF!

And now over to Screem....for the final word!

Hah, wow. I suggest you calm down there, buddy. You're getting awfully defensive and angry. Anyway, why on earth should it be "Dial Up -> ADSL -> ADSL2+ - > VDSL2 -> Fibre"? NZ was very late to get ADSL2, so why can't we skip ahead? Why must we go through in the order Mr Telek prescribes? What about all the other countries where they didn't do that? Are those countries broken somehow? Oh, no, they're the countries with the best broadband - the ones that have had FTTH for years, since before VDSL2 was even invented.

Well, are you going to address my other points, or just ignore them so that you don't have to admit you're wrong?

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#197627 24-Feb-2009 02:16

Ragnor:
Re: Regs

Thinking of bandwidth in terms of simultaneous peak usage is not realistic. Bandwidth is always provisioned with a contention ratio anywhere from 25:1, 100:1 etc. Lots of "traffic" is not very latency sensitive (excluding gaming and voip of course).

i'm aware of the contention ratios. given that the argument for faster broadband assumes a higher takeup of services and more requirements for speed+data then the contention ratios we know now are not likely to be feasible in the future. internet connections will likely 'do stuff' while we're not there too. If that were the case then the main highway out of the country could be overloaded by computers whose users were not even using them i there were only 200kbps per node available...

Have you read the InternetNZ reports on the costing and returns of FTH?

http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/newzealand/broadband-strategy-options-for-new-zealand/

and in that report:

From our results we note that a full overlay FTTP network will cost more than $5.0 billion.
Government investment of about 75% would be required for an operator to obtain a
payback within 15 years at the ‘premium’ take-up scenario. A FTTN/VDSL2 network
based on Telecom’s copper network would require very little funding to achieve payback
within this period, but Telecom would require a much shorter payback period and as
already noted this type of service may not deliver the required speeds to many homes.

so its saying that there is no chance a company - even telecom - could deploy a fibre to the home network and make a return on it. if thats the case, how can we ever expect to see $100 all you can eat internet connections....

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#197628 24-Feb-2009 02:24

Regs:
OK, so $100 per month sounds like a reasonable price, but is it realistic?

Sure, why not? Other countries manage just fine with lower prices than that.

And how fast do you expect your international connectivity to be at peak times?

I don't know, and it's not relevant. It's the classic chicken and egg situation. Once we have a FTTH network that can handle high speeds nationally, international usage will subsequently shoot up, reducing prices, and thus improving international speeds.

Is this enough to pay for, and return an investment from, a nationwide FTTH rollout?

No, of course not. But absolutely no one is suggesting that the investment will be returned in one year. That's ludicrous. The return will be over many years, which is expected of a large scale infrastructure investment. Please read the report Ragnor linked to above, it goes through all of this in fine detail.

Should international capacity be enough to cater for every user maxing out their connection at peak times?

Again, of course not. That isn't the situation in any country in the world and never will be, simply because everyone maxing out their connections at the same time is ridiculously unlikely. Surely you've heard of contention ratios... Every user couldn't even max out their connections simultaneously in the local FTTH network. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Contention is a fundamental concept.

Based on the numbers below the Southern Cross Cable doesnt have the capacity currently to supply even 512kbps (or roughtly 1/200th of the 100Mbps) to every subscriber simultaneously.

Nor does any cable in the world...

Remember, were not in the United States where its cheap and easy to run interstate fiber trunks

Good thing NZ isn't made up of large states...

and we don't currently produce enough content of our own so we have to pull in most of our bandwidth via submarine cables which are not particularly cheap.

What does that have to do with a national network? There are already solutions underway to alleviate international bandwidth costs.

Take the US, European and Asian countries from the stats and NZ doesnt look so bad after all.

"Take almost all of the 1st world population from the stats and NZ doesnt look so bad after all."? I'm shocked.

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#197629 24-Feb-2009 02:32

Regs:

i'm aware of the contention ratios. given that the argument for faster broadband assumes a higher takeup of services and more requirements for speed+data then the contention ratios we know now are not likely to be feasible in the future. internet connections will likely 'do stuff' while we're not there too. If that were the case then the main highway out of the country could be overloaded by computers whose users were not even using them i there were only 200kbps per node available...

Contention ratios are likely to go down, yes, but not to 1:1, for crying out loud. 1:30 would probably be average, and even then that doesn't mean that it is being fully utilised at any given point in time. "Background stuff" is not going to saturate pipes from every house the moment FTTH is deployed.

and in that report:

From our results we note that a full overlay FTTP network will cost more than $5.0 billion.
Government investment of about 75% would be required for an operator to obtain a
payback within 15 years at the ‘premium’ take-up scenario. A FTTN/VDSL2 network
based on Telecom’s copper network would require very little funding to achieve payback
within this period, but Telecom would require a much shorter payback period and as
already noted this type of service may not deliver the required speeds to many homes.

so its saying that there is no chance a company - even telecom - could deploy a fibre to the home network and make a return on it. if thats the case, how can we ever expect to see $100 all you can eat internet connections....

Ugh, PLEASE read the WHOLE report. It is NOT saying that no company can deploy FTTH and make a return on it. The optimal solution presented in the report is for lines companies to deploy fibre alongside their existing lines (power lines along poles and underground, etc), since they have them in place already, which results in a return on investment after a number of years. Lines companies are very suitable for returns after a long period, for reasons explained in the report.

djrm

191 posts

Master Geek

#197664 24-Feb-2009 08:40

Screeb - Ugh, PLEASE read the WHOLE report. It is NOT saying that no company can deploy FTTH and make a return on it. The optimal solution presented in the report is for lines companies to deploy fibre alongside their existing lines (power lines along poles and underground, etc), since they have them in place already, which results in a return on investment after a number of years. Lines companies are very suitable for returns after a long period, for reasons explained in the report.

Exactly the point that the report made, which any Telecom employees don't want to hear. The power companies already have a ready made network which is far more reaching than Telco lines. This would be the best and cheapest solution for placing fibre into rural and underserved communities.

What people like to forget is how poor the telco copper lines really are - with copper stretching for km after km and of dubious quality in some areas. Moving home is not a solution, especially in these times.

What this country needs is for fibre expansion owned by the goverment and government investment in a new fibre link with Australia, free from Telco control. Without these two resolved we will always be at the mercy of overseas investors looking for a fast return.

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.

BazNZ

258 posts

Ultimate Geek

#197925 25-Feb-2009 09:17

Lack of INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH ! is the biggest problem facing NZ internet users particularly NZ gamers. Surely this should be the number one priority before faster connection speeds. Because all faster connection speeds do is get us to the bottleneck faster. International LATENCY/LAG is my biggest frustration with NZ Internet connections. WHAT are they doing to fix this major problem? WHEN and HOW?

cr250bromo

222 posts

Master Geek

#197926 25-Feb-2009 09:25

Screeb: I don't know, and it's not relevant. It's the classic chicken and egg situation. Once we have a FTTH network that can handle high speeds nationally, international usage will subsequently shoot up, reducing prices, and thus improving international speeds.

If the above were true then surely international bandwidth costs would have aready reduced from the increased use with ADSL2+ and soon VDSL2?

djrm

191 posts

Master Geek

#197930 25-Feb-2009 09:55

Interesting article about the need for a second trans Tasman cable.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/chris-keall/telecom-s-5-biggest-headaches-part-5-a-second-transtasman-cable

BazNZ

258 posts

Ultimate Geek

#197949 25-Feb-2009 10:59

djrm: Interesting article about the need for a second trans Tasman cable.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/chris-keall/telecom-s-5-biggest-headaches-part-5-a-second-transtasman-cable

Great article djrm! Thats is exactly what I'm talking about. The Governments 1.5 billion investment should be spent on another International Cable...linking us to the U.S and the rest of the world. That would give us true speed(faster broadband) and bring us up to International standards. Good on Kordia(Orcon) for going ahead with this proposal. I hope this happens sooner than later ! We are desperate for this in NZ.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#197952 25-Feb-2009 11:11

BazNZ: Lack of INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH ! is the biggest problem facing NZ internet users particularly NZ gamers. Surely this should be the number one priority before faster connection speeds. Because all faster connection speeds do is get us to the bottleneck faster. International LATENCY/LAG is my biggest frustration with NZ Internet connections. WHAT are they doing to fix this major problem? WHEN and HOW?

Latency/Lag and bandwidth are two different things.

There will always be significant latency between NZ and overseas servers. This can't be changed because it's a simple law of physics and the speed of light can't be increased!

There is plenty of bandwidth available, it's just the argument that this costs too much. Southern Cross is not at capacity but many would argue (as Chris Keallhas in that good NBR article) that competition would be a good thing.

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#198060 25-Feb-2009 19:34

portunus:
Screeb: I don't know, and it's not relevant. It's the classic chicken and egg situation. Once we have a FTTH network that can handle high speeds nationally, international usage will subsequently shoot up, reducing prices, and thus improving international speeds.

If the above were true then surely international bandwidth costs would have aready reduced from the increased use with ADSL2+ and soon VDSL2?

ADSL2+ hasn't been available widely for very long. Besides, international bandwidth costs HAVE gone down - it's just that most ISPs are still stuck with contracts with SCC with the original prices from years ago. Once these contracts expire, they can purchase the bandwidth at a lower price.

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#198111 25-Feb-2009 23:59

BazNZ:
djrm: Interesting article about the need for a second trans Tasman cable.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/chris-keall/telecom-s-5-biggest-headaches-part-5-a-second-transtasman-cable

Great article djrm! Thats is exactly what I'm talking about. The Governments 1.5 billion investment should be spent on another International Cable...linking us to the U.S and the rest of the world. That would give us true speed(faster broadband) and bring us up to International standards. Good on Kordia(Orcon) for going ahead with this proposal. I hope this happens sooner than later ! We are desperate for this in NZ.

I dont like the idea of kordia walking away with 'free cash' to build a competing cable - that seriously erodes the value and investment put into the existing scc cable. overseas investors who were nearly scared off by the govt meddling in telecom and auckland airport would probably never look this way again if this happened and that could cause some serious problems for our whole economy going forward.

I would, however, have no objection to the govt providing a loan to kordia so they can fund their portion if it cant find a bank/institution to offer finance in the current financial climate though.

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#198118 26-Feb-2009 00:52

Regs:

I dont like the idea of kordia walking away with 'free cash' to build a competing cable - that seriously erodes the value and investment put into the existing scc cable. overseas investors who were nearly scared off by the govt meddling in telecom and auckland airport would probably never look this way again if this happened and that could cause some serious problems for our whole economy going forward.

I would, however, have no objection to the govt providing a loan to kordia so they can fund their portion if it cant find a bank/institution to offer finance in the current financial climate though.

Yes, god forbid the Government spends less than $200M to save the country $1B over 10 years. Obviously this is just going to turn away all those overseas investors who've been rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of building NZ a second cable all these years. Wait...

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10