Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

294 posts

Ultimate Geek

#99366 10-Dec-2007 23:17

cokemaster:
Why should Telecom be lumped with the task of servicing rural customers? It smacks of cherry picking (that is going after the most profitable areas) to me...

cyril7: average urban line length in NZ is over 2km, with many lines exceeding the 5-6km reach of ADSL. For a network improvement that can be implemented to 80% or more of subscribers (the rest are in the rural loop) then the average line length needs to be brought down to around 800m, hence the cabinetisation program.

First of all, cyril7, I doubt your statement (partly). Yes, quite a few users (talking about those in the metro areas first), now being hooked up through tradition exchanges, aren't living right next to them. But I think it'll be quite fair to say that at least 85% of households in the urban areas do have access to broadband, at line speeds capable of more than 2Mbps/256kbps, am I right???

Basically, my point.....

Cabinetisation = Improvement for the network. In Urban Areas, you can get even faster speeds. In Rural Areas, you CAN get a fast speed. Compare this with...
Unbundling, allowing ISPs to install equipment in the old exchanges = In Urban Areas, you can get more competition, more choice, better prices......

SO... For Telecom, it's good! Users would appreciate how they are improving their network, and by doing this and extending their market coverage, they are "winners", and good on them for planning this as a next step forward....
Still, for other ISPs, it isn't exactly an "all lose" situation too! Although they might not have access to the cabinets directly, they still can use the unbundled exchanges, bring in their products, "cherry-pick" a large population living in urban areas, many whom will certainly be delighted that broadband prices are coming down, that they can enjoy better prices from more competition.....

On a last note.... I think it is fair to say, that "improving broadband for NZ" means not just "a better network", but also "better prices and cost for consumers".

Norton 360

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Norton 360 antivirus provides enhanced security for your connected devices, a secure VPN for online privacy, Password Manager, Firewall, SafeCam, PC Cloud Backup, Dark Web Monitoring, Parental Control, and more. An all-in-one cybersecurity solution backed by 100% Virus Protection Promise and 60 Day Money Back Guarantee.

cyril7

8756 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#99373 11-Dec-2007 06:46

Cabinetisation = Improvement for the network. In Urban Areas, you can get even faster speeds. In Rural Areas, you CAN get a fast speed. Compare this with...
Unbundling, allowing ISPs to install equipment in the old exchanges = In Urban Areas, you can get more competition, more choice, better prices......

Well maybe Im old fashioned and not really all that upto play, but there is no way Telecom can honour its government required provisioning of 80% of the population with a minimum of 10Mb/s with the current technology and loop length. Dont see anyone else (other than TCL who also dig incables) out there doing it with LLU.

UK has LLU, and many competitors have their DSLAMS in BT exchanges, I think Sky now quote they have DSLAMS in 85% of BT switches, but they can only provision around 40% of the population with reasonable ADSL2+ service as the loop length is too long (and their average is less than 2km), and somehow I dont think they all live in the sticks.

Cyril

Fraktul

836 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#99403 11-Dec-2007 11:15

cyril7: [

UK has LLU, and many competitors have their DSLAMS in BT exchanges, I think Sky now quote they have DSLAMS in 85% of BT switches, but they can only provision around 40% of the population with reasonable ADSL2+ service as the loop length is too long (and their average is less than 2km), and somehow I dont think they all live in the sticks.

Cyril

If thats in refference to my post your off target, I was reffering to KS/TSO. Network which is funded by this legislation is in non urban areas in the vast majority of cases.

cyril7

8756 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#99410 11-Dec-2007 11:49

If thats in refference to my post your off target, I was reffering to KS/TSO. Network which is funded by this legislation is in non urban areas in the vast majority of cases.

No sorry I dont even recall you post on that Frank, my comment relates to the fact that even with UK's shorter copper loop they have found that to effectively facilitate ADSL2+ to a reasonable level of subs they have still had to move to cabnetisation (ala BTs 21CN) and already gone through pretty extensive LLU.

Cyril

TinyTim

981 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#99503 11-Dec-2007 20:59

Fraktul:
cyril7: [

UK has LLU, and many competitors have their DSLAMS in BT exchanges, I think Sky now quote they have DSLAMS in 85% of BT switches, but they can only provision around 40% of the population with reasonable ADSL2+ service as the loop length is too long (and their average is less than 2km), and somehow I dont think they all live in the sticks.

Cyril

If thats in refference to my post your off target, I was reffering to KS/TSO. Network which is funded by this legislation is in non urban areas in the vast majority of cases.

TSO only covers voice (and dial up internet) - not broadband. To answer Cokemaster's comment, Telecom isn't 'lumped with servicing rural customers' [with broadband] - if they provide broadband in rural areas then it's a commercial decision they've made so presumably they expect to make a profit off them.

Fraktul

836 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#99526 11-Dec-2007 22:53

TinyTim:
Fraktul:
cyril7: [

UK has LLU, and many competitors have their DSLAMS in BT exchanges, I think Sky now quote they have DSLAMS in 85% of BT switches, but they can only provision around 40% of the population with reasonable ADSL2+ service as the loop length is too long (and their average is less than 2km), and somehow I dont think they all live in the sticks.

Cyril

If thats in refference to my post your off target, I was reffering to KS/TSO. Network which is funded by this legislation is in non urban areas in the vast majority of cases.

TSO only covers voice (and dial up internet) - not broadband. .

And? I am proposing that the existing money used for maintaining an outmoded access model for rural customer be replaced with a hybrid WiMax/Cabinet model which can meet and exceed what the KS/TSO were designed to provide, eg broadband as well as voice and narrowband access.

TinyTim:
To answer Cokemaster's comment, Telecom isn't 'lumped with servicing rural customers' [with broadband] - if they provide broadband in rural areas then it's a commercial decision they've made so presumably they expect to make a profit off them.

No offense intended but it might be slightly naive to suggest that corperations like Telecom have in the past been oblivious to the fact that it might just be a good idea to make a little less little money providing service to some of those where its marginal, or otherwise does not make a huge amount of commercial sense, to service in the interests of fending of some government regulation.

TinyTim

981 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#99547 12-Dec-2007 07:34

Fraktul:
TinyTim:

TSO only covers voice (and dial up internet) - not broadband. .

And? I am proposing that the existing money used for maintaining an outmoded access model for rural customer be replaced with a hybrid WiMax/Cabinet model which can meet and exceed what the KS/TSO were designed to provide, eg broadband as well as voice and narrowband access.

Fine in theory, but the TSO is calculated to allow Telecom to recover the costs of a voice network. If the total is actually enough to provide broadband as well then I'm sure the operators would love to hear about it. Particularly Vodafone who is taking the Commerce Commission to court over the matter.

EDIT: also the TSO calculation isn't solely based on a fibre/copper network. It also uses multi-access radio, wireless local loop and mobile where it's cheaper [1].

[1] Last draft determination

cyril7

8756 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#99548 12-Dec-2007 07:36

This is a bit off topic, but the rural sector being fed off cabnetised WiMax hubs is a good idea, but from experience in the mid 80s with TV translator rollouts in the Waikato, King country, Taranaki area. To cover some of the very dense hill terrain where folk seem to prefer to dwell in valleys is hard work, BCNZ essentially gave up on much of it, and now the advent of Satellite has made all those feeble attempts irrelivent as rural folk now have very high performance broadcast coverage in places where literally thousands of translators would have been needed, and still failed.

I recon there is good promise in High Altitude Blimps for rural coverage of much on NZ, .... look dad theres a cabinet in the air.

Cyril

davexl

13 posts

Geek

#99583 12-Dec-2007 10:56

Guys,

Getting back to minimising sub-loop RMA delays to competitive BB - how about providing alternate backhaul via fibred cabinet attached dishes (on adjacent home's roofs), beaming area street cabinets to a local high spot, then muxing the beams back to the local CO ? eg In Auckland - All the muxed beams would go back via Skytower to the CO.

2 benefits -
1. Copper sub-loop users would have the choice of a 'competitive' dedicated backhaul provider, and / or:
2. The provision of dual backhaul routing for high bandwidth / peak load needs ie backhaul 'bonding' taking advantage of TCP/IP's ability to route over alternate IP paths using load sharing to the specified ethernet ports on the new multiported DSLAMs. That would be an 'economic' way of provisioning to provide the step change capacity required for Videoconferencing / IP TV etc, Content Streaming...How about it ?
Has the new BCL revised it's costings yet (assuming area cabinets are fibred) ? Are local vendors like 4RF Communications ready to do the WiMax / Digital Radio backhaul in volume post cabinatization, are vendor consortiums being formulated with these options in mind yet?

In the future, with or without contestable backhaul, another alternate provisioning technique might be to relaunch an updated form of IHUG's Ultra service - lets call it Ultra II, where only the downlink is used for say 100/200 Megabits, with the uplink being provided by the fibre backhaul (instead of the old dialup of the original Ultra)

David

Old Grey Geek

140 posts

Master Geek

#99951 14-Dec-2007 14:39

Hi guys, I've been away for a while but I have been following this thread with great interest.
A couple of points. One of the great advantages of cabinetisation that I havn't seen mentioned is the decentralisation of the network hubs. With the large olde exchanges there as always a posibillity of large sections of the network "falling over" it is easier to service a small hub/cabinet that a large exchange, in fact in a localisd outage you could rout arond the problem (admitedly with some loss of QOS). An analogy would be ridged Stalinist state vs cornre shop (if you get that, let me know ;-) Folks like Vodafone should have seen this comming from a thech point of view if not a commercial view.
The other point I'd like to put out there is the fact that even though telecom has seperated its divisions it is still one big company as far as it's shareholders are concerned, it's retail division could run at a loss and as long as the wholesale arm is raking in the dosh then they wil be contented. The loser in this scenerio is the Govt. in less tax paid by the loss making retail end while the wh olesale arm avoids taxation by investing in infrastructure. I think in the end the consumer will get a fair deal through better infrastucture and cometition in the retail sector.
Just my 2c.
Cheers.

Lazoo

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

#99998 14-Dec-2007 19:27

This is a question mainly to answer, but everyone else is, of course, welcome to post their reply. Would you much rather have a fibre connection, 20mbit, with a 50gb data cap costing $200 a month (only telecom can provide service), or a 4mbit ADSL connection, no cap, for $50 a month (many companies can provide service)?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
74146 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#99999 14-Dec-2007 19:33

Lazoo: This is a question mainly to answer, but everyone else is, of course, welcome to post their reply. Would you much rather have a fibre connection, 20mbit, with a 50gb data cap costing $200 a month (only telecom can provide service), or a 4mbit ADSL connection, no cap, for $50 a month (many companies can provide service)?

This is a rethorical question I guess... You do realise there's no way you will find a no cap, 4 Mbps connection at $50/month soon, right?

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

cokemaster

Exited
4507 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#100003 14-Dec-2007 19:51

Geekzone; campaigning against better broadband since aaaaages ago

A better description for that the owner of the sig might be 'campaigning against reality', however thats just me...

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
74146 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#100007 14-Dec-2007 20:03

Lazoo, your current signature in the forum ("Geekzone; campaigning against better broadband since aaaaages ago ") is very offensive to myself and all moderators on Geekzone.

Everyone should know that of all people we here at Geekzone want to have better services and products available to users in this country.

The fact that we sometimes have to bring some people, like yourself, back to reality is just something that you cannot understand.

I have been accused of defending Vodafone, then later on the same day accused of defending Telecom. Once someone told me they thought Microsoft created this site, and last week someone told me they though we are all open source crusaders.

People in general don't have the full view of what's going on - and issue the most absurd comments.

I will stop here, short of going into a "web rage".

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

Lazoo

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

#100010 14-Dec-2007 20:07

freitasm:
Lazoo: This is a question mainly to answer, but everyone else is, of course, welcome to post their reply. Would you much rather have a fibre connection, 20mbit, with a 50gb data cap costing $200 a month (only telecom can provide service), or a 4mbit ADSL connection, no cap, for $50 a month (many companies can provide service)?

This is a rethorical question I guess... You do realise there's no way you will find a no cap, 4 Mbps connection at $50/month soon, right?

I also realise that it's unlikely to get 20mbit fibre any time soon. I'll rephrase the question. If, after two years from this point in time, you could choose to have one of these options, which one would it be?

During the course of writing this reply I note that I have completely screwed up the beginning. It was meant to be "this is mainly directed at cokemaster, but anyone else is welcome to answer". My apologies

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12