Vector's Fibre Network

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Vector's Fibre Network

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#304253 4-Mar-2010 05:45

sbiddle:
zCelicaDude: I would stump the funds required for fibre as yes, it adds value to your home...

I have finished networking my whole house with cat6 to every room... and people go thats a good feature that other homes dont have.. and if they have teenagers they go sweet ps3/xbox/pc/laptop will work faster in this house..

So, having fibre installed in your home, for a selling point of view is awesome!

Also, all new houses being built these days (atleast all the houses from 450-700k) have got these Signet ST2000 box's in the garage, which include telephone, tv, networking, power points... so this is where you would stick the OMT, so the post above about expensive installs, isn't a case for new homes/new subdevelopments.

Scott

And what about every other house? Retrofitting cabling isn't cheap. This is the fundamental issue with deploying fibre to an existing dwelling. It's not like ADSL where the customer can do a self install.

Structured cabling should be a part of *every* house that's built now. It should be standard in the building code, just like double glazing and insulation.

There is also a key difference between fibre adding value to a home and structured cabling adding value to a home. The simple reality is there are very few residential fibre developments anywhere in the world delivering more than 50Mbps to the household. Why? Because there is no need. Copper is perfectly capable of delivering this now.

That's not to say we shouldn't deploy fibre but you have to remember that the difference isn't necessarily one of speed.

Bang on. I would also argue that 930k homes in NZ with substandard or no insulation is a much bigger problem than whether they can get fibre and cat6 wiring in the walls.

Mind you if there was a programme to tear open the walls and insulate every house, we could put cat6 in at the same time.

Then add a high-quality ONT and Home Router with high power screaming fan (Cisco I'm looking at you!) to gently warm the house and replace those heat pumps....

________

Antoniosk

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304372 4-Mar-2010 12:54

Lets be honest.
There is no way there will be fibre to "every home". Also there is a downside of 90% of the population getting >50mbps. Our power situation is precarious already, and it dangerous, this constant push towards multiple devices that consume more and more energy.

In saying that, the current model needs overhauled, so roll it out to the exchanges, connect businesses within the CBD's (where the true economic value lies), and subside it for residential addresses that can afford it. Slowly over time it should become more and more prevalent in residential areas.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#304424 4-Mar-2010 14:35

MikeyPI: Lets be honest.
There is no way there will be fibre to "every home". Also there is a downside of 90% of the population getting >50mbps. Our power situation is precarious already, and it dangerous, this constant push towards multiple devices that consume more and more energy.

In saying that, the current model needs overhauled, so roll it out to the exchanges, connect businesses within the CBD's (where the true economic value lies), and subside it for residential addresses that can afford it. Slowly over time it should become more and more prevalent in residential areas.

There are already significant major fibre deployments in many cities. If you're in Wellington for example fibre is pretty much the norm for an internet connection within the CBD.

I would post the question as to why fibre for residential customers should be subsidised. Internet is a user pays system and until somebody can give me a single reason why a 50Mbps fibre connection will deliver significant gain to society over 50Mbps copper connection I don't see why residential users should be subsidised. To business and schools definately - but residential dwellings is a tottally different issue. We have far more compelling issues in this country to sort out including power, water and home insulation.

c3rn

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304437 4-Mar-2010 15:31

sbiddle:
There are already significant major fibre deployments in many cities. If you're in Wellington for example fibre is pretty much the norm for an internet connection within the CBD.

I would post the question as to why fibre for residential customers should be subsidised. Internet is a user pays system and until somebody can give me a single reason why a 50Mbps fibre connection will deliver significant gain to society over 50Mbps copper connection I don't see why residential users should be subsidised. To business and schools definately - but residential dwellings is a tottally different issue. We have far more compelling issues in this country to sort out including power, water and home insulation.

While I don't know too much with fibre I have to agree with you here. It seems fibre is a "nice-to-have" for residential properties. I'm sure Vector would disagree ;-)

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304479 4-Mar-2010 17:06

sbiddle:
No the installation charge is for running cat5e cable from the ONT which is typically mounted externally on the house to every PC in the house. If you have existing cabling in your house they will install cable to run to this but the reality is most people don't. They have a single PC with their ADSL modem next to it.

What kind of nonsense is this? Whether or not your house has catX wired throughout has ZERO to do with fiber. Verizon simply offer it as an extra service. Just connect it to a wireless router if you need to. The only extra cost is in cabling from ONT -> router, but that is a single small cost (or nothing if you just put the router where the ONT is). The whole "per PC" thing is irrelevant.

The government's long term plan is certainly to have fibre to the majority of houses in NZ within a 10 year timeframe. There is still life left in copper and any customer who is connected to a cabinet will be no further than 2km away, the majority within 800m. With bonded VDSL the current copper network is easily capable of delivering 50Mbps to a significant number of customers.

"Majority of houses" is NOT "every house" (you said "every house"). You also don't seem to appreciate how long 10 years is in internet time. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to you. If we don't do it now, we'll have to do it later. If we do it later, we might not be able to do it in time before we REALLY need it. So do it now, and we can rest easy.

AGAIN:

The simple reality is there are very few residential fibre developments anywhere in the world delivering more than 50Mbps to the household. Why? Because there is no need. Copper is perfectly capable of delivering this now.

I would post the question as to why fibre for residential customers should be subsidised. Internet is a user pays system and until somebody can give me a single reason why a 50Mbps fibre connection will deliver significant gain to society over 50Mbps copper connection I don't see why residential users should be subsidised.

Say it with me:

NOT NOW, IN 10 YEARS
NOT NOW, IN 10 YEARS
NOT NOW, IN 10 YEARS

In 10 years, those fiber developments WILL be delivering more than 50Mbps to the household. That's why we need to make sure that, in 10 years, we can do the same.

And what about every other house? Retrofitting cabling isn't cheap. This is the fundamental issue with deploying fibre to an existing dwelling. It's not like ADSL where the customer can do a self install.

Guess what? This will happen slowly over 10 years. No one is going to force people to wire their house at great expense the minute the network starts to be built. And then we get back to my earlier points about the fact that this high cost per house is not some unique problem to NZ that can't be overcome. Other FTTH projects manage perfectly fine. This "point" is just more nonsense.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#304492 4-Mar-2010 17:32

Nowhere am I saying fibre should not be being deployed. I think it should be. This has already been happening for the past few years with virtually every new subdivison in new Zealand.

The point I'm making is solely one of cost. People think fibre is going to deliver them super fast, super cheap internet.

It's not.

Right now an ONT is in the vicinity of $500 and OLT costs are a ballpark figure of around $100 per port. Even if somebody comes to the house to complete a simple physical installation it's a cost of $200 minimum. A ballpark figure of a $1k cost vs a $89 modem is very different. The only thing that is going to drop in price is the ONT - and even then it may not drop considerably.

People in NZ want fast internet but don't want to pay money for it. That $1k cost has to either be subsidised by the Government which doesn't make sence or paid for by the household.

Paulthagerous

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#304498 4-Mar-2010 17:50

brad_p: I have noticed that my house is within Vector's existing fibre network. Their 'fibretothedoor.co.nz' site it states:

What was more of interest to me was this:

"For example, a single strand of fibre (thinner than a human hair) could support every NZer making a phone call and browsing the internet simultaneously."

Does this mean that if they laid a new cable to sit next to the current Southern Cross cable that contained, say, 1000 strands of fibre, it would be thinner than a pencil (obviously protection aside) and would be able to support the whole country for easy the next 100 years or so for all their internet needs? Sounds too good to be true to me, but then I don't really know much about fibre...

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304500 4-Mar-2010 18:03

sbiddle:
The point I'm making is solely one of cost. People think fibre is going to deliver them super fast, super cheap internet.

It's not.

And I have simply shown that you are wrong about many of the costs, if not entirely misleading.

Right now an ONT is in the vicinity of $500 and OLT costs are a ballpark figure of around $100 per port. Even if somebody comes to the house to complete a simple physical installation it's a cost of $200 minimum. A ballpark figure of a $1k cost vs a $89 modem is very different. The only thing that is going to drop in price is the ONT - and even then it may not drop considerably.

People in NZ want fast internet but don't want to pay money for it. That $1k cost has to either be subsidised by the Government which doesn't make sence or paid for by the household.

These costs are for today, not for 10 years in the future. You're also still not taking into account that having your house wired for fiber increases its value. To compare the cost of wiring your house for fiber to installing a modem is disingenuous at best if you know this.

"Even if somebody comes to the house to complete a simple physical
installation it's a cost of $200 minimum."

https://www.telecom.co.nz/broadband/select?action=/option

How about that! It also costs that much to get wired for ADSL from Telecom. I guess no one can afford to get ADSL then.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#304502 4-Mar-2010 18:12

Screeb: [.

"Even if somebody comes to the house to complete a simple physical
installation it's a cost of $200 minimum."

https://www.telecom.co.nz/broadband/select?action=/option

How about that! It also costs that much to get wired for ADSL from Telecom. I guess no one can afford to get ADSL then.

Yip I know that. Even that cost is essentially a subsidised service as you are looking at an effective cost of $200 minimum every time a Chorus van/truck is rolled to a job. The key difference is that somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of ADSL installs are DIY so the effective cost is $0 to the home owner.

DIY fibre installs aren't going to happen though.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#304504 4-Mar-2010 18:23

The $200 central filter install is based on the fact that in 80% of cases the current wiring in the house can be re jigged to split out the pre and post filters circuits from the filter in the demarc to the location where the modem is located.

In the othe r20% of case's then the $200 pops the budget is when a complete new line is run from the demarc to the modem, which in most cases is the situation when a ONT is installed and any existing cat3 cables are not suited to take the ethernet line from the ONT to the homes PC.

Within the next few years you will find the next (and current generation of kids) will demand more from their broadband, its already happening believe me I see it every day in my work. So for those going on FTTH they are very likely to be the ones who demand more than just a single lan port from the ONT, they need every lived in room capable of fast internet resources.

Cyril

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304508 4-Mar-2010 18:48

sbiddle:
Yip I know that. Even that cost is essentially a subsidised service as you are looking at an effective cost of $200 minimum every time a Chorus van/truck is rolled to a job. The key difference is that somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of ADSL installs are DIY so the effective cost is $0 to the home owner.

DIY fibre installs aren't going to happen though.

You're still not addressing my base points that it only needs to be done once per house, adds value, is done regularly overseas, and will cost less over time. Everyone knows it's going to cost a bit to get fiber installed. You seem to think that this matters in the grand scheme of things and that it's somehow a reason to use VDSL forever instead of deploying fiber as soon as we can.

aionwannabe

147 posts

Master Geek

#304564 4-Mar-2010 20:35

If you where simply gonna push VDSL you'd then have to look at the price of putting a enough cabinets to get VDSL to work at its max speeds.
While a "fibre highway" through NZ and fibre between nodes, exchanges and what not, is very achievable FTTH would be like switching NZ to the left side of the road and making people purchase American cars along with it.

If there was some way of doing it there's still the issue of the people who simply don't see the need for it and therefore are in the way of progress.

also now that im on the thought track what about NZ phone services will they still run copper?

Edit: just had a look don't have a cabinet close enough to me for VDSL infact probably 100m :'(
I am only just close enough for adsl2+ speeds (i.e. 10mbs) (though we chose to run at adsl long story) the unfortunate fact is that we live in a gang related area and I guess they just don't want them vandalised. Still /cry I demand fibres now XD

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#304574 4-Mar-2010 21:04

Screeb:
sbiddle:
Yip I know that. Even that cost is essentially a subsidised service as you are looking at an effective cost of $200 minimum every time a Chorus van/truck is rolled to a job. The key difference is that somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of ADSL installs are DIY so the effective cost is $0 to the home owner.

DIY fibre installs aren't going to happen though.

You're still not addressing my base points that it only needs to be done once per house, adds value, is done regularly overseas, and will cost less over time. Everyone knows it's going to cost a bit to get fiber installed. You seem to think that this matters in the grand scheme of things and that it's somehow a reason to use VDSL forever instead of deploying fiber as soon as we can.

I do not think VDSL is the solution. I think fibre is the solution. I'm not sure how often I need to keep repeating that before you understand that.

The cost does matter in the grand scheme of things - there are estimates out there of $6-8 billion to roll out fibre to the majority of houses in New Zealand. Wth an estimated 1.6 million dwellings in NZ if 1 million of those were to receive fibre at a rough cost of $1000 that's another $10 billion. Where is that money going to come from?

Adding value to the house becomes a moot point, somebody has to pay for that cabling and hardware in the first place. Who is going to do that? Nobody is asking people who are saying "yes please" when they're asked about fibre if they're willing to pay the costs of the service. Most people don't understand that it's not a $89 ADSL modem. I've installed a large number of structured cabling systems into new houses for people telling them it's going to futureproof them - most don't care. There have already been issues in the existing FTTH deployments where people have simply told their builders/architects/electricians they don't care about structured cabling and simply want a working phone and not a $1500 bill on top of their new house for something they don't want.

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304620 4-Mar-2010 23:03

sbiddle:
I do not think VDSL is the solution. I think fibre is the solution. I'm not sure how often I need to keep repeating that before you understand that.

You attack fiber at every opportunity, always saying that VDSL is all we need, ignoring the fact that that isn't going to remain the case forever. If you truly believe that fiber is the solution and not VDSL, then you're not making a point - just pointless attacking of something that you apparently agree is great. "Pears are just too expensive - and who needs pears when you can have apples! Pears rule! Apples are sub-par compared to pears".

The cost does matter in the grand scheme of things - there are estimates out there of $6-8 billion to roll out fibre to the majority of houses in New Zealand. Wth an estimated 1.6 million dwellings in NZ if 1 million of those were to receive fibre at a rough cost of $1000 that's another $10 billion. Where is that money going to come from?

It doesn't come from anywhere, because it will not cost $1000 for 1 million houses. Firstly, that many houses are not going to get fiber installed any time soon. Secondly, as I have already shown, it will not cost $1000 when the time comes. Thirdly, $1000 times 1 million is $1 billion, not $10 billion*. Even then, if by some amazing chance that there is a change in the very constants of the universe, causing that to be the case, the cost will come largely from the homeowner if and when they want to install fiber. $1000 is not a gigantic sum of money that no one can afford. Many people would will be willing to pay that. Once more, you are ignoring the fact that this happens without a problem overseas.

*Seriously, if your maths is an order of magnitude out, then maybe you need to reevalute your position.

Adding value to the house becomes a moot point, somebody has to pay for that cabling and hardware in the first place. Who is going to do that?

How is it moot? The person that pays for it in the first place is exactly the person who benefits from it when they sell their house, meaning it's zero-sum, or close enough that it's not $1000 down the drain.

Nobody is asking people who are saying "yes please" when they're asked about fibre if they're willing to pay the costs of the service. Most people don't understand that it's not a $89 ADSL modem. I've installed a large number of structured cabling systems into new houses for people telling them it's going to futureproof them - most don't care. There have already been issues in the existing FTTH deployments where people have simply told their builders/architects/electricians they don't care about structured cabling and simply want a working phone and not a $1500 bill on top of their new house for something they don't want

Amazingly, different people value things differently. Yes, many people don't understand fiber right now, but not only are there plenty of people who do, that number is only going to increase over the next 10 years as people become more aware of what fiber is, and they as start to need better broadband. It shouldn't be any surprise that many people don't currently see the benefit - there hasn't ever been any real amount of residential fiber in NZ, so people don't know what it is. Again, that will change. And again, it works overseas.

insane

3240 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#304637 4-Mar-2010 23:58

Paulthagerous:
brad_p: I have noticed that my house is within Vector's existing fibre network. Their 'fibretothedoor.co.nz' site it states:

What was more of interest to me was this:

"For example, a single strand of fibre (thinner than a human hair) could support every NZer making a phone call and browsing the internet simultaneously."

Does this mean that if they laid a new cable to sit next to the current Southern Cross cable that contained, say, 1000 strands of fibre, it would be thinner than a pencil (obviously protection aside) and would be able to support the whole country for easy the next 100 years or so for all their internet needs? Sounds too good to be true to me, but then I don't really know much about fibre...

The actual fibres are shielded in layers of kevlar and insulation so they are not really bunched altogether with nothing separating the strands. Typical fibre cables do have many many pairs with the ones I'm familier with having 24 or 72 fibres.

I believe Vector are moving away from using ONT's in favor of the new managed CDN's so who knows what they cost per unit. On the bright side Vector do blow fibre where possible so they wouldn't have to dig up all the roads, just all driveways :D

1 | 2 | 3 | 4