quickymart: Have you got a better solution to reach rural areas? Fibre to 100% of the population simply isn't feasible.

Going back to what we discussed earlier, previous governments got copper to nearly 100% of the population decades ago. Why isn't it feasible to do it again with fibre?

quickymart: Have you got a better solution to reach rural areas? Fibre to 100% of the population simply isn't feasible.

It pains me when people can't accept how economics works around services and that they should be able to cause X can or Y can do that or has this and is only X meters from me. Simple uneducated logic doesn't prevail in that department. 

DarkShadow:

 

quickymart: Have you got a better solution to reach rural areas? Fibre to 100% of the population simply isn't feasible.

 

Going back to what we discussed earlier, previous governments got copper to nearly 100% of the population decades ago. Why isn't it feasible to do it again with fibre?

 

Tell us when you find out please. No point us repeating ourselves. 

https://www.crowninfrastructure.govt.nz/contact-us/

evilengineer:

 

The fact sheet is pretty vague, to be honest.

 

Looks like most rural users (9% of total population) are supposed to be covered by RBI 1 already.

 

So how will that work if the definition of "fast broadband" is going to be 50Mbps when the original target for RBI was 5Mbps?

 

And what's the exact definition of this 50Mbps target anyway?

 

Is that 50Mbps at 05:30 or 20:00?

 

There could be a lot of drop off relying on cell towers in some of these more densely populated "rural" areas with lots of lifestyle blocks.  

 

I'd agree it's vague, they don't really have the answers.

It's the networks that support those specifications to set in place the right plan.

Realistically, no a cell tower wont do 50mbit to 200 homes on a 10K sector of B28 like some rural coverage is..  Not if we are talking unlimited service anyway.

Bandwidth caps, network upgrades, network management etc are a constant requirement.

i for one am pretty impressed with all the work going into sparks network. Massive amounts of capacity and it shows... Even on my CAT4 device, i speedtest over 50mbit 98% of the time... with 100+ being far more typical experience.

Lastman:

If they don’t extend then I would at least expect them to open up the field to self funded/community installs that don’t involve everyone with an interest trying to protect their patch.

i would both love and hate to see the likes of farmers build their own fibre internet schemes.

I think it's great for getting the service out there, but then you limit yourself in terms of RSP availability..

Further fragment fault resolution paths, levels of service etc

Lastman: Likely fibre will extend to the high density rural sector which is generally surrounding the cities.

I’m in this category with two fibre cables going past the gate but still don’t expect it for half a dozen or so years.

If they don’t extend then I would at least expect them to open up the field to self funded/community installs that don’t involve everyone with an interest trying to protect their patch.

The rollout (at this stage) is due to be completed by 2022. I would say if it's not available to you then as part of a standard connection, it probably won't be.

quickymart:

Lastman: Likely fibre will extend to the high density rural sector which is generally surrounding the cities.

I’m in this category with two fibre cables going past the gate but still don’t expect it for half a dozen or so years.

If they don’t extend then I would at least expect them to open up the field to self funded/community installs that don’t involve everyone with an interest trying to protect their patch.

The rollout (at this stage) is due to be completed by 2022. I would say if it's not available to you then as part of a standard connection, it probably won't be.

Personally, I can't see UFB being extended beyond 2022. There will barely be any votes remaining in the UFB bucket by 2022. Most people will already have their connection and they won't care unless they feel sympathy for those who missed out. But rich people can't attract a sympathy movement and they only get one vote each.

Problem is, there aren't a lot of really large-ish towns or cities left to roll fibre out to, are there? I'm not talking farming areas where neighbours are 4kms apart from each other (which would be a massive cost with next to no return), I mean towns of 100-150 or more.

quickymart:

Problem is, there aren't a lot of really large-ish towns or cities left to roll fibre out to, are there? I'm not talking farming areas where neighbours are 4kms apart from each other (which would be a massive cost with next to no return), I mean towns of 100-150 or more.

quickymart:

 

Problem is, there aren't a lot of really large-ish towns or cities left to roll fibre out to, are there? I'm not talking farming areas where neighbours are 4kms apart from each other (which would be a massive cost with next to no return), I mean towns of 100-150 or more.

 

to be fair 4KM+ apart, in those cases Fibre may actually be cheaper than a copper or cell tower alternative 

Cell towers over about the 10K radius mark don't often have nearly enough low band bandwidth to hold those customers.

Copper would be putting it at about the 2KM per customer mark (with only two ports utilized) in that usecase.

Realistically though the cheapest option might even be a tower on a hill, P2P links for those 4KM apart properties. 

More than likely one of them has a nice high hill..

Lastman:

quickymart:

 

Problem is, there aren't a lot of really large-ish towns or cities left to roll fibre out to, are there? I'm not talking farming areas where neighbours are 4kms apart from each other (which would be a massive cost with next to no return), I mean towns of 100-150 or more.

 

There’s still plenty of urban areas that aren’t in the last roll-out so you would have to think they will, eventually, be included out of fairness. And dense rural areas near cities are more like 50-100m apart and, arguably, not much more expensive to connect given that access can be via telephone/power poles.

Examples? I thought UFB2+ was fairly extensive, but I'd be interested to know where you think it could have gone further.

Delphinus:

 

 

1.  
2. A fairer costing. If the govt is fronting up to cover 100% of the costs for the denser housing areas (many who don't even want it), why do the rest of us have to pay 10's of thousands to get connected. I'd be more than happy to pay the difference between a typical residential install, and me who has a slightly longer run from the street to my house. 

 

You mean 

"govt is fronting up to Loan 100% of the costs"

The LFC still has to break even on that cost

hio77:

 

Needs to be closer than 3KM to be hitting 50mbit, ideally at that target you would want it about every 2km max with MDF layout being equal distance both ways (which really wouldn't happen)

 

Tricky thing with copper service is that a farmer with an electric fence along the roadside can induct into the parallel copper lines nearby which messes with dsl for other households further down the road making it hard to maintain sync (and is heard as a ticking sound on a phone call) 

Fixed wireless however can bypass that interference and works well for low density areas - Last week I did a speed test at a customer house and got 72down/8up and was 8kms from the transmitter site.