Broadband really is progressing....but is it??

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Broadband really is progressing....but is it??

1 | 2 | 3

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#313110 30-Mar-2010 21:09

Cymro:
Charles000:

Auckland CBD, excellent quality line, ADSL2+ router, close to exchange. Fantastic.

And wireless?

That would have to be Woosh ADSL. Nobody gets speeds that fast on Woosh wireless!

uktuatara

149 posts

Master Geek

#313128 30-Mar-2010 21:27

From my perspective, and this is personal opinion so feel free to critique.

There are five big players in broadband in NZ, Slingshot, Voda, TCL, Orcon and TNZ.

Of these big players who is investing into the local infrastrucutre of NZ broadband?

Orcon - bit of unbundling
Voda - The Red Network a bigger amount of unbundling
TCL - Cable and some unbundling with more planned
Slingshot - ??
TNZ - i have heard the figure of 1.2 billion but that might be fiction from a poorly written and researched article :)

What does this investment go into;
- Backhaul
- Cabinets (bringing fibre closer to your doorstep)
- Kit in Cabinets
- Bandwidth
- CDNs (Bring the content to NZ)
- Caches (Bring the content to NZ)

When I look back at broadband 10 years ago I see players who were learning, making mistakes, and also making some great decisions. But I also see all thes eplayers beginning to learn, beginning to understand what it takes to provide a good service.

I would say all of them have a firm understanding of what they need to deliver to make their punters happy, balance that against the HUGE level of investment required for little return in the short term, you need cashflow to make this stuff happen, so yeah, it takes years.

NZ has a unique population vs geographic profile that requires thought and planning to ensure bang for buck, in the performance sense and the financial investment sense.

Take in account that the biggest player is learning to be operationally seperated (lets put aside the history of why this had to happen for the moment) the other players are learning to play in the new market.

Conclusion : Yes, things are 100% better than they were when I lived in London, our networks are providing top level technology and we are getting great speeds for our remote location.

To say that things are moving fast enough is to forget some of the important factors that are unique to NZ.

Is Fibre to the home the silver bullet, no. Is it the future, yes. Are there technologies that consumers use the can really utilise fibre, not yet, but soon.

We still have a ways to go, but we'll get there, and make mistakes along the way.

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313132 30-Mar-2010 21:29

Cymro:
Please explain how my statement is overblown, and that somehow justifies your use of hyperbole?

You used numbers given by Telecom and presented them as unbiased fact. You also claimed that up to 10 years in the future (when the network will actually be up and running) prices will be double what they are now, and with the same data cap. You offered no evidence or reasoning in your first post for this assertion.

Are you due to be cabinetised in the next 2 years? If not then sorry, maybe you are in the % who won't get the service, but then again I never claimed everyone would.

No, I'm not due to be cabinetised, because I'm already close enough to the exchange that Telecom has deemed it unnecessary - but I'm still 1.2km away. The area I'm in was already cabinetised ages ago.

Incidentally, care to comment on the potential for Bonded VDSL2 in those scenarios?

Has Telecom said they're going to use bonded VDSL2? Will they? Will it be ready before the end of 2011? What will it cost?

The numbers are open to discussion, the UFB network hasn't even had a design accepted yet so it's hard to guage the exact cost, but you can put it in the right ballpark (cost to build vs number of households vs % uptake vs ROI and margins).

You keep saying Vector want to offer something that people are willing to buy, have you considered they also might want $1.5bn of free assets?

They can't just take the money and run. They have to at least match it. What advantage is it to them to do that, and then run a service no one can afford? That would be a ridiculously bad move for a variety of reasons.

Lets put that to one side for the moment, what do you think the market is for ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand? What is the population demographic here, and how many baby boomers are you going to have to force into using a UFB Broadband connection they don't really want, need or understand it in order to make your network economical? (Incidentally, that wasn't hyperbole, do the math).

I don't need to justify it - the Government, many other governments, Vector, dozens of other companies in NZ, and hundreds of other companies around the world already have.

Sorry, I thought I had made my sources quite clear, I was asking on what factual basis you have formed such a strong opinion that you are willing to argue it so forcibly?

You had no such source for your statement that for fibre the cost will be double and the caps will remain the same.

Zabu

8 posts

Wannabe Geek

#313146 30-Mar-2010 21:36

cost does seem to be the clincher - there was something in Oz media recently about indicative pricing from iiNet for NBN service in tassie - AUD129 for 100Mbps so add 20% for exchange rate and it doesn't look flash. Maybe why the opposition party over there are now saying they'll can the project if they get elected

dimsim

848 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#313203 30-Mar-2010 22:21

Charles000:

Auckland CBD, excellent quality line, ADSL2+ router, close to exchange. Fantastic.

Ha, kind of what promtped me to comment in the offer my three cents worth in the first place.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#313213 30-Mar-2010 22:27

ArcticSilver: Yes its the way forward, but no it wont solve the current international problems we have.

We really need compeition for the southern cross cable.

Without it they regulate our international prices and since they are a business (and a monopoly) its going to be high.

Like Pacific Fibre?

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313235 30-Mar-2010 22:52

Screeb:
Cymro:
Please explain how my statement is overblown, and that somehow justifies your use of hyperbole?

You used numbers given by Telecom and presented them as unbiased fact. You also claimed that up to 10 years in the future (when the network will actually be up and running) prices will be double what they are now, and with the same data cap. You offered no evidence or reasoning in your first post for this assertion.

If you want to question the validity of published statements made by a listed company on how they are investing capital and why, then go ahead, you also might want to adjust your tinfoil hat.

As to my statement on costs, based on the fact that the majority of users are on a plan that currently costs less than $50/month for xGB, changing from a UBA input price of $22 to UFB of ~$65 (which is the best estimate I've seen published) takes the same plan (with xGB and the same support/margins) to $93/month, before you add in any install costs the ISP wants to swallow and stretch over the customers contract.

You also might want to think about the likely decrease in data costs, if xGB on UBA costs the same as xGB on UFB, then the wholesale access cost is always going to difference between the two, or to put it another way you could expect to have a choice of more data over UBA or higher speed via UFB for the same price.

I think you are also making an assumption that UFB wouldn't launch before the whole network is built, the metro area's where the greatest ROIC is will be built first and lit up and compete directly with UBA products in the next 5 years, the "in 10 years time" argument has it's limitations.

Are you due to be cabinetised in the next 2 years? If not then sorry, maybe you are in the % who won't get the service, but then again I never claimed everyone would.

No, I'm not due to be cabinetised, because I'm already close enough to the exchange that Telecom has deemed it unnecessary - but I'm still 1.2km away. The area I'm in was already cabinetised ages ago.

Incidentally, care to comment on the potential for Bonded VDSL2 in those scenarios?

Has Telecom said they're going to use bonded VDSL2? Will they? Will it be ready before the end of 2011? What will it cost?

Nice attempt to answer 1 question with 4 of your own, have you considered politics?
In an attempt to actually engage in honest debate though I'll answer (but probably regret it):
1. Not announced yet,
2. If they have any sense they will when there is a demand for it
3. No it won't be in place by the end of 2011, but I personally don't think the demand+applications will be there until 2015-ish
3. More than VDSL2, less than UFB 100Mbps.

The numbers are open to discussion, the UFB network hasn't even had a design accepted yet so it's hard to guage the exact cost, but you can put it in the right ballpark (cost to build vs number of households vs % uptake vs ROI and margins).

You keep saying Vector want to offer something that people are willing to buy, have you considered they also might want $1.5bn of free assets?

They can't just take the money and run. They have to at least match it. What advantage is it to them to do that, and then run a service no one can afford? That would be a ridiculously bad move for a variety of reasons.

They just bought a $3bn network asset for $1.5bn, based on that fact they can afford to make a poor ROIC for a number of years while they wait for the demand to grow and make it profitable (plus they just gave themselves a nice monopoly for a few decades once demand actually has kicked in).
If the investment is so compelling, why don't they put the full $3bn in themselves?

Lets put that to one side for the moment, what do you think the market is for ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand? What is the population demographic here, and how many baby boomers are you going to have to force into using a UFB Broadband connection they don't really want, need or understand it in order to make your network economical? (Incidentally, that wasn't hyperbole, do the math).

I don't need to justify it - the Government, many other governments, Vector, dozens of other companies in NZ, and hundreds of other companies around the world already have.

I'm talking about the NZ market, what value is comparing the situation in NZ with for example, Japan or South Korea?
And I'm sorry but the justification of a Government looking for popularist policies to entice the votes of the most fickle electoral demographic (that would be the 18-35's - biggest users of the internet) in the short term doesn't always stack up with stark economic realities.

But thats just my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own.
(Personally I'd rather they spend $500m on a 51% share in the new Pacific fibre and get it built asap, then they could spend the other $1bn on something useful straight away, like a number of fibre-fed high-tech business parks to actually encourage e-commerce and industry growth as well as grants for foreign firms to set up shop here, but thats not as sexy as Ultra fast broadband!).

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313256 30-Mar-2010 23:29

Cymro:
If you want to question the validity of published statements made by a listed company on how they are investing capital and why, then go ahead, you also might want to adjust your tinfoil hat.

You should speak to TelstraClear about that, because they've made dozens of promises about when and what they will offer over the last 5 years, none of which has arrived on time and in the capacity promised. So yes, it's entirely possible. No tin foil hat needed.

As to my statement on costs, based on the fact that the majority of users are on a plan that currently costs less than $50/month for xGB, changing from a UBA input price of $22 to UFB of ~$65 (which is the best estimate I've seen published) takes the same plan (with xGB and the same support/margins) to $93/month, before you add in any install costs the ISP wants to swallow and stretch over the customers contract.

That's wholly irrelevant, as the people who are currently on sub-$50 plans are not the target market for the first wave of UFB.

You also might want to think about the likely decrease in data costs, if xGB on UBA costs the same as xGB on UFB, then the wholesale access cost is always going to difference between the two, or to put it another way you could expect to have a choice of more data over UBA or higher speed via UFB for the same price.

You said the data caps would be the same as they are currently, not the same as they will be on UBA by the time the FTTH comes around. Two completely different things. And there is still room for fibre to have higher/no caps compared to UBA, as there is far, far less local congestion.

I think you are also making an assumption that UFB wouldn't launch before the whole network is built, the metro area's where the greatest ROIC is will be built first and lit up and compete directly with UBA products in the next 5 years, the "in 10 years time" argument has it's limitations.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm making the assumption that it's going to be the tail end of 10 years for most people. 5-10. 5 years is also a long time.

Nice attempt to answer 1 question with 4 of your own, have you considered politics?
In an attempt to actually engage in honest debate though I'll answer (but probably regret it):
1. Not announced yet,
2. If they have any sense they will when there is a demand for it
3. No it won't be in place by the end of 2011, but I personally don't think the demand+applications will be there until 2015-ish
3. More than VDSL2, less than UFB 100Mbps.

I answered with 4 questions because that's all I had to say about it until those questions were answered. And given your answers, which were what I expected, discussing bonded VDSL2 in this context is irrelevant.

They just bought a $3bn network asset for $1.5bn, based on that fact they can afford to make a poor ROIC for a number of years while they wait for the demand to grow and make it profitable (plus they just gave themselves a nice monopoly for a few decades once demand actually has kicked in).

Well, yes, but this is still only useful if they do end up making a profit, which relies on getting customers, which relies on it actually being worth it for those customers. It will still have to compete with Telecom's network. If it can't offer better deals than Telecom then it won't make money. In that sense it's not a monopoly.

If the investment is so compelling, why don't they put the full $3bn in themselves?

It just makes it more compelling. Or maybe it wouldn't be compelling enough without the money. Either way, they have determined that they will make a profit off running the network. Keyword "running", not building. Which, like I said, is determined by whether or not they can offer attractive services. They (along with all the other companies vying for the money) obviously think they can.

I'm talking about the NZ market, what value is comparing the situation in NZ with for example, Japan or South Korea?

Then you can take out the overseas stuff. You're still left with the government and NZ companies (and one Canadian company). Are they all wrong?

And I'm sorry but the justification of a Government looking for popularist policies to entice the votes of the most fickle electoral demographic (that would be the 18-35's - biggest users of the internet) in the short term doesn't always stack up with stark economic realities.

So you're suggesting that this is/was just a scheme for votes? What happens when in 10 years it's a disaster and everyone says "National just wasted billions of taxpayer dollars"?

But thats just my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own.
(Personally I'd rather they spend $500m on a 51% share in the new Pacific fibre and get it built asap, then they could spend the other $1bn on something useful straight away, like a number of fibre-fed high-tech business parks to actually encourage e-commerce and industry growth as well as grants for foreign firms to set up shop here, but thats not as sexy as Ultra fast broadband!).

Why should the money be exclusive? There's no reason why the government can't do both. Of course it won't, but $1.5bn is nothing compared to what the government spends on other things. Especially given this is a nationwide infrastructure.

ArcticSilver

729 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313272 31-Mar-2010 00:00

freitasm:
ArcticSilver: Yes its the way forward, but no it wont solve the current international problems we have.

We really need compeition for the southern cross cable.

Without it they regulate our international prices and since they are a business (and a monopoly) its going to be high.

Like Pacific Fibre?

Exactly.

Put 2 and 2 together and in a perfect world were set.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#313387 31-Mar-2010 10:19

dimsim: I was just reading this thread

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=49&TopicId=27322

I know its old but just thought I'd give me three cents worth

When I left London in '99 the small business i was working on had dual channel ISDN (128K!!! it was 64k unless we told it to open the other channel and bond for Turbo internet!) and we thought we were rocking!

Although I woke up somewhat upon arriving back in Auckland, where my friend had a new Jetstream connection (and an old Nokia M10) and was getting around 8mb/s

So in 2000 we had 8mb/s ADSL in central auckland, so now a decade later in 2010 I wonder how many ppl can put their handsup and say truthfully that they get a steady 8mb/s??

I think the point Im trying to make is that the other copper technologies VDSL etc are just another patch and that if we are truely to progress here and set ourselves up for the shorterm future, fibre to the door is the best way forward.

Is this the way forward??

the problem here is that you are comparing your friends individual expereience (which happens to be a huge outlier) with nationwide averages.

Back in 1999 if your friend really did have 8Mb/s then he would have been one of the tiny minority able to get it. He also would have been paying through the nose for it. (back then, pricing was determined by speed - an 8MB/s connection would have been about the most expensive you could get)
Back then the vast majority of broabdnad connections would have been 256k, maybe 1 Mb/s.

secondly, check the broadband penetration stats for then too. waaaaaay lower than it is now. hardly anybody had broadband compared to nowadays (and, as mentioned, most of them had <1Mb/s).

Also consider that nowadays speed is not limited by price - even the cheapo $30 plans go as fast as the line allows. In the parts of the country that have been cabinitised with ADSL2+ that is between 10 and 24Mb/s. Even where ADSL2+ cabinitisation has not happened, the vast majority of people get more than 3Mbps. I think the average speed is somewhere around 8Mb/s now.

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313508 31-Mar-2010 15:39

Screeb:
Cymro:
If you want to question the validity of published statements made by a listed company on how they are investing capital and why, then go ahead, you also might want to adjust your tinfoil hat.

You should speak to TelstraClear about that, because they've made dozens of promises about when and what they will offer over the last 5 years, none of which has arrived on time and in the capacity promised. So yes, it's entirely possible. No tin foil hat needed.

I'm sure that if Telstra is a publically traded company and made statements along the lines of "we are spending $$$ to deliver x outcome by dd/mm/yy" then they would stick to them or issues amendments if needed, those pesky people at the stock exchange tend to get grumpy if they don't.

To try and bring this back on track, we were talking about Chorus and you rubbishing their claims on cabinetisation. The big green boxes springing up allover the country and the detailed rollout schedule available online must be figments of my imagination then.

As to my statement on costs, based on the fact that the majority of users are on a plan that currently costs less than $50/month for xGB, changing from a UBA input price of $22 to UFB of ~$65 (which is the best estimate I've seen published) takes the same plan (with xGB and the same support/margins) to $93/month, before you add in any install costs the ISP wants to swallow and stretch over the customers contract.

That's wholly irrelevant, as the people who are currently on sub-$50 plans are not the target market for the first wave of UFB.

You might want to add an "In my opinion" to that statement, as it is clearly not a fact.
But lets run with your logic, customers on $50 and under plans are not in the target market for UFB, thats 80% of the NZ market, so your remaining addressable market share is around 320k customers.
Even with 100% conversion (you would be lucky to get 40%) you are only just over 50% of what has been estimated as the minimum to make UFB economical (at $65 a port).

You also might want to think about the likely decrease in data costs, if xGB on UBA costs the same as xGB on UFB, then the wholesale access cost is always going to difference between the two, or to put it another way you could expect to have a choice of more data over UBA or higher speed via UFB for the same price.

You said the data caps would be the same as they are currently, not the same as they will be on UBA by the time the FTTH comes around. Two completely different things. And there is still room for fibre to have higher/no caps compared to UBA, as there is far, far less local congestion.

I addressed my original statement on data costs in the piece above, this was another scenario to consider, where if you keep the price variable the same and just changed the access cost component, you are able to offer more data over the cheaper access type for the same price.
Data costs for ISP's are not related to the residential wholesale access component, so fibre and reduced congestion (multiple 100GE backhaul isn't going to be cheap at the point of ISP handover btw) has nothing at all to do with having more data available to the customer, the bottleneck on the ISP side will still likely be the international data they buy.

I think you are also making an assumption that UFB wouldn't launch before the whole network is built, the metro area's where the greatest ROIC is will be built first and lit up and compete directly with UBA products in the next 5 years, the "in 10 years time" argument has it's limitations.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm making the assumption that it's going to be the tail end of 10 years for most people. 5-10. 5 years is also a long time.

Vector have quite clearly stated they would have the whole thing built in under 8 years haven't they?
And you are right, 5 years is a long time, long enough for new technologies and standards to emerge that might suit NZ better.

Nice attempt to answer 1 question with 4 of your own, have you considered politics?
In an attempt to actually engage in honest debate though I'll answer (but probably regret it):
1. Not announced yet,
2. If they have any sense they will when there is a demand for it
3. No it won't be in place by the end of 2011, but I personally don't think the demand+applications will be there until 2015-ish
3. More than VDSL2, less than UFB 100Mbps.

I answered with 4 questions because that's all I had to say about it until those questions were answered. And given your answers, which were what I expected, discussing bonded VDSL2 in this context is irrelevant.

Sorry but how is it irrelevant? You started by discounting VDSL2 as it won't reach everyone, I suggested that you look at the evolution path for VDSL2 to see what bonded VDSL2 could deliver to pretty much 100% of urban customers if it was deployed in the next 5-10 years (which is your timeframe for UFB).

They just bought a $3bn network asset for $1.5bn, based on that fact they can afford to make a poor ROIC for a number of years while they wait for the demand to grow and make it profitable (plus they just gave themselves a nice monopoly for a few decades once demand actually has kicked in).

Well, yes, but this is still only useful if they do end up making a profit, which relies on getting customers, which relies on it actually being worth it for those customers. It will still have to compete with Telecom's network. If it can't offer better deals than Telecom then it won't make money. In that sense it's not a monopoly.

It's a fibre access monopoly, at some point in the future the copper will be dead, it's an unavoidable fact. The argument here is about spending $1.5bn of taxpayer money right now to build a brand new ftth network instead of looking at the problem statement and working out the solution that best fits for New Zealand. How about nationalising Chorus and expanding on their existing fttn network? How about designating zones for ftth where it makes the most economic sense rather than everywhere? How about delivering a hybrid solution of SHDSL and new wireless/mobile technology?
There are many solutions not even being talked about because the lobbyists working for the people who want to build a new ftth network are doing a very good job.

If the investment is so compelling, why don't they put the full $3bn in themselves?

It just makes it more compelling. Or maybe it wouldn't be compelling enough without the money. Either way, they have determined that they will make a profit off running the network. Keyword "running", not building. Which, like I said, is determined by whether or not they can offer attractive services. They (along with all the other companies vying for the money) obviously think they can.

Not sure what your point is here, building the network gives them the ability to run it, it also exposes them to the running costs and maintenance which will need to be built into their (government regulated) wholesale access prices on top of the ROIC.

I'm talking about the NZ market, what value is comparing the situation in NZ with for example, Japan or South Korea?

Then you can take out the overseas stuff. You're still left with the government and NZ companies (and one Canadian company). Are they all wrong?

I talked about why I think the governmnet are so hot on this below.
And for every company who wants to be involved, they all have their eye on that $1.5bn carrot of free assets.

And I'm sorry but the justification of a Government looking for popularist policies to entice the votes of the most fickle electoral demographic (that would be the 18-35's - biggest users of the internet) in the short term doesn't always stack up with stark economic realities.

So you're suggesting that this is/was just a scheme for votes? What happens when in 10 years it's a disaster and everyone says "National just wasted billions of taxpayer dollars"?

In reality, if National are in power in 10 years time and UFB is an albatross around their necks, they will blame the Crown Fibre board + partners (or god forbid another recession).
If Labour are in power they will gleefully point out National's failure and tell us how they could have spent that $1.5bn on making sure we all have the right lightbulbs or shower heads.
If the Greens are in power we won't have enough electricity meet our power needs in 2020, but we won't care as compulsory guitar sessions around campfires singing kumbaya will have turned our brains to mush.
If Winston Peters is in power then nobody will even understand what UFB is as the Grey brigade would have to have led an uprising and we would all be living under their surgical stockinged heels in a parody of the 1960's.

But thats just my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own.
(Personally I'd rather they spend $500m on a 51% share in the new Pacific fibre and get it built asap, then they could spend the other $1bn on something useful straight away, like a number of fibre-fed high-tech business parks to actually encourage e-commerce and industry growth as well as grants for foreign firms to set up shop here, but thats not as sexy as Ultra fast broadband!).

Why should the money be exclusive? There's no reason why the government can't do both. Of course it won't, but $1.5bn is nothing compared to what the government spends on other things. Especially given this is a nationwide infrastructure.

The national defecit is running at close to $23bn already, I think the government will have enough trouble justifying the existing $1.5bn to treasury.

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313549 31-Mar-2010 16:49

Cymro:
I'm sure that if Telstra is a publically traded company and made statements along the lines of "we are spending $$$ to deliver x outcome by dd/mm/yy" then they would stick to them or issues amendments if needed, those pesky people at the stock exchange tend to get grumpy if they don't.

TelstraClear is not the same as Telstra. They never said how much they were going to spend, just what and when they would offer, which never comes to pass. Whether or not that affected their stocks I can't say. It's besides the point. Go to the TelstraClear forum here and you will find many people who know this TelstraClear "promise and not deliver" cycle.

To try and bring this back on track, we were talking about Chorus and you rubbishing their claims on cabinetisation. The big green boxes springing up allover the country and the detailed rollout schedule available online must be figments of my imagination then.

I never rubbished their claims on cabinetisation. I'm sure they will try to meet their targets. Whether they will is a different story. My main point of contention however, is the claim about how many people will receive a VDSL service at XMbps before the end of 2011. Regardless of how the cabinetisation pans out, this is something much more variable as to whether it will happen.

You might want to add an "In my opinion" to that statement, as it is clearly not a fact.
But lets run with your logic, customers on $50 and under plans are not in the target market for UFB, thats 80% of the NZ market, so your remaining addressable market share is around 320k customers.
Even with 100% conversion (you would be lucky to get 40%) you are only just over 50% of what has been estimated as the minimum to make UFB economical (at $65 a port).

I said they're not the target for the first wave. The people who are already spending >$50 are far more likely to switch to fibre at the start. Over time, more people (those spending <$50) will switch. I also never said they would keep spending <$50. Again, over time, they will come to realise the benefits of fibre and will be willing to pay more.

I addressed my original statement on data costs in the piece above

Where? I still haven't seen your justification for data caps on future fibre being same as they are currently.

this was another scenario to consider, where if you keep the price variable the same and just changed the access cost component, you are able to offer more data over the cheaper access type for the same price.
Data costs for ISP's are not related to the residential wholesale access component, so fibre and reduced congestion (multiple 100GE backhaul isn't going to be cheap at the point of ISP handover btw) has nothing at all to do with having more data available to the customer, the bottleneck on the ISP side will still likely be the international data they buy.

There is plenty of local congestion. By the time Pacific Fibre is built, international data will be much cheaper, and thus much less likely to be a bottleneck, making local congestion the problem once more.

Vector have quite clearly stated they would have the whole thing built in under 8 years haven't they?
And you are right, 5 years is a long time, long enough for new technologies and standards to emerge that might suit NZ better.

Yes, let's wait 5 years to see if something better comes along. Then another 5 years because who knows, there could be something even better! Then another, then another...

Sorry but how is it irrelevant? You started by discounting VDSL2 as it won't reach everyone, I suggested that you look at the evolution path for VDSL2 to see what bonded VDSL2 could deliver to pretty much 100% of urban customers if it was deployed in the next 5-10 years (which is your timeframe for UFB).

It's irrelevant because it's complete speculation. What's the point in discussing a purely hypothetical situation that may or may not happen as an alternative to doing something about the problem now? This comes back to my last paragraph.

It's a fibre access monopoly, at some point in the future the copper will be dead, it's an unavoidable fact. The argument here is about spending $1.5bn of taxpayer money right now to build a brand new ftth network instead of looking at the problem statement and working out the solution that best fits for New Zealand. How about nationalising Chorus and expanding on their existing fttn network? How about designating zones for ftth where it makes the most economic sense rather than everywhere? How about delivering a hybrid solution of SHDSL and new wireless/mobile technology?
There are many solutions not even being talked about because the lobbyists working for the people who want to build a new ftth network are doing a very good job.

You talk as if as the FTTH network is built, Telecom's network is ripped out. You're complaining about a potential government regulated, non-vertically integrated open access local monopoly (like other countries have successfully done and now enjoy cheap fast FTTH) - what about Telecom? You know, the current vertically integrated (only recently regulated to mitigate this) nationwide monopoly who you are suggesting we should rely on wholly in the future instead. Also, FTTH lobbyists are behind this (never mind that any one of dozens of companies - including Telecom - could get the money if their bid is successful)? What was that about a tin foil hat?

Not sure what your point is here, building the network gives them the ability to run it, it also exposes them to the running costs and maintenance which will need to be built into their (government regulated) wholesale access prices on top of the ROIC.

You asked why they want or need the government money and I told you. It just makes the case better.

I talked about why I think the governmnet are so hot on this below.
And for every company who wants to be involved, they all have their eye on that $1.5bn carrot of free assets.

Again, it's not "free assets". They have to make a return on their investment regardless of how much they get to start it.

In reality, if National are in power in 10 years time and UFB is an albatross around their necks, they will blame the Crown Fibre board + partners (or god forbid another recession).

People won't care who they would blame. It was their idea in the first place, so in the public's eyes, they will be responsible.

The national defecit is running at close to $23bn already, I think the government will have enough trouble justifying the existing $1.5bn to treasury.

OK, let's see what the treasury does then. As for the national defecit - so? Should we stop spending altogether? Not to mention that our public debt as a percentage is considered low.

Charles000

78 posts

Master Geek

#313605 31-Mar-2010 20:58

sbiddle:

How sure are you that your line is OK? What is your sync rate? If this is significantly higher the problem lies with the ISP and you can't blame the broadband infrastructure. If you sync speed isn't much higher than your speeds then your line possibly isn't as good as you think it may be,

My line is fine (2.0/0.0 US/DS attenuation), sync rate is maximum possible. You're right, the issue is with the ISP, but I would consider the ISP to be part of the broadband infrastructure.

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313868 1-Apr-2010 13:42

Screeb:

Sorry but the internet just ate my response and I don't have the time to write another when I'm pretty sure it will just open another round of cyclic arguments and hyperbole.

Lets agree to disagree on the demand to build a brand new ftth network right now, and hope that people on both sides of the discussion got something out of the exchanges so far.

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#313945 1-Apr-2010 16:31

Cymro:
Screeb:

Sorry but the internet just ate my response and I don't have the time to write another when I'm pretty sure it will just open another round of cyclic arguments and hyperbole.

Lets agree to disagree on the demand to build a brand new ftth network right now, and hope that people on both sides of the discussion got something out of the exchanges so far.

I don't actually enjoy arguing so that's fine with me.

1 | 2 | 3