National FTTH Strategy

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › National FTTH Strategy

mushion22

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Topic # 22013 13-May-2008 16:39

Some general questions about people's opinions that was spaked by maverick from WxC posting about their FTTH pilot:

What is your opinion on the best high level deployment model in terms of multiple ISPs/lines companies/telcos deploying fibre?

It seems to me that there are some examples where fibre is being deployed by an ISP for their sole use (Telecom, other ISP pilots eg WxC and I'm sure others too), or in conjunction with a single ISP (eg Northpower & TelstraClear, although that seems to be just an initial agreement to get someone on board).

Has there been any/much dialogue over national deployment strategies? Seems as though there is a risk of ending up with a bunch of different networks all around the place with micro-monopolies and different technologies.

Fibre can be redeployed by changing the equipment at the ends and junctions I suppose, but what are your thoughts on companies just going for it gung-ho?

Particularly, do you favour a commercial open (ISP) access and peering model similar to Citylink or something else, like 'FibreCo' maybe?

Perhaps this is what political parties should be focusing on rather than making bold promises?

What are everyone's thoughts?

eXDee

4025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1076

Trusted

Reply # 130696 13-May-2008 20:33

Would be nice if it was govt owned completely, and the ISP's paid the govt to use it. That way its slightly more fair with more competition.

nzbnw

2365 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12

Trusted

Spark

Reply # 130699 13-May-2008 20:43

eXDee: Would be nice if it was govt owned completely, and the ISP's paid the govt to use it. That way its slightly more fair with more competition.

Don't mean to be a kill joy here, but Governments don't exactly have a track record of being efficient, when compared to the private sector. After all they usually invest where the private sector will not. In this case, a propsed PPP, the government would be better to sit back and leave the day to day business to the Telco's.

nzbnw

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Reply # 130740 13-May-2008 22:40

I'm always in favour of multiple wires into my house. It gives me the choice of really switching carriers, if one of them screws up.

It also isolates you from the shenanigans that carriers play with companies they are wholesaling to - ref: Canada and Bell Canada, Telecom and cabinetization.

My favourite way would be for government to say, "You know what? We're not going to play. You want customers, string some cable, Telecom doesn't have to give you access anymore. Quit lobbying us and build a network."

TCL stopped building a network as soon as they discovered it was cheaper to lobby for LLU. :)

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

stu28

239 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

Reply # 130741 13-May-2008 22:49

mushion22: It seems to me that there are some examples where fibre is being deployed by an ISP for their sole use (Telecom, other ISP pilots eg WxC and I'm sure others too), or in conjunction with a single ISP (eg Northpower & TelstraClear, although that seems to be just an initial agreement to get someone on board).

Other examples of FTTH are Wired Country & Telecom "First Media" network (which is no long working).

webwat

1984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Trusted

Reply # 132866 23-May-2008 19:40

Everyone is focussing on FTTH so I will repost some of this one. I also posted a better idea for government to install GigaPoPs around the country which all private providers can connect to so maybe i put that on the wrong thread?

www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=49&topicid=22268

Another issue with the various broadband proposals emanating from Wellington is that big business, or those "knowledge economy" businesses that need high quality synchronous connections to make NZ's IT industry more compeitive internationally, have been virtually ignored.

Many businesses are still limited to 2Mbps over expensive Frame Relay connections, and running a GPON fibre past their door — or giving a handout to somebody who proposes to connect lots of schools — is not going to be the ideal solution for businesses that need something else.

Qualified in business, certified in fibre, stuck in copper, have to keep going ^_^

eXDee

4025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1076

Trusted

Reply # 132901 23-May-2008 21:38

nzbnw:
eXDee: Would be nice if it was govt owned completely, and the ISP's paid the govt to use it. That way its slightly more fair with more competition.

Don't mean to be a kill joy here, but Governments don't exactly have a track record of being efficient, when compared to the private sector. After all they usually invest where the private sector will not. In this case, a propsed PPP, the government would be better to sit back and leave the day to day business to the Telco's.

nzbnw

Very true.

When i said that i should have mentioned that it would be preferred if it wasnt all owned by telecom or something, since thats caused quite a few problems over the last couple of years with the copper.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Reply # 133077 24-May-2008 23:51

eXDee:
Very true.

When i said that i should have mentioned that it would be preferred if it wasnt all owned by telecom or something, since thats caused quite a few problems over the last couple of years with the copper.

I'm not actually convinced it has. I think the problem was caused by the other carriers being convinced that they could lobby the government for regulated access for less money than it would cost to build out their own network. (Millions vs Billions, easy math)

When that is taken into account, you can see why any company would be unwilling to invest in laying fiber. The first company to do it would have to provide access to everyone else! So, no one's doing it. We also end up with silly games, like Telecom's cabinetization plans causing havoc with LLU.

It's not like the money isn't there. Telecom is spending upwards of 1B on a new mobile network. People are saying that FTTH would cost 1.5-2B (so probably around 4-5B). If Telecom can make back the cost of a 1B mobile network, they would be able to make back the cost of a new fixed network, with it's higher RPU (in a triple play TV/Internet/Phone).

So, you have to ask why aren't Telecom building it? Why isn't TCL building it? Why isn't Vodafone building it?

I know that in this environment, I wouldn't do _anything_ that my competitors would consider valuable, I wouldn't try to leapfrog them in any way. Everything I did would be "me too", with no huge investments.

Of course some of us argue that it makes more sense to have only one cable instead of 3 or 4 down the street. I've always preferred having more than one cable. It gives me the choice of switching technologies and providers. It also leads to oversupply, which has been argued is one of the reasons for the resurgence in the internet (bandwidth oversupply in the US and to Europe). A better counter argument is the Southern Cross cable. One cable, one supplier, higher prices.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca