Vector's Fibre Network

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Vector's Fibre Network

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1948 posts

Uber Geek

#304659 5-Mar-2010 07:51

Screeb:

"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:

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.

Try telling that to Japan. Ten years ago they started deploying fibre. It passes 90% of homes. Less than 30% are connected and the largest player is resigned to connecting less than 50% of homes as a final point. They thought they were future proofing. They were - and they still are. I bet they are regretting building then and not waiting.

For those funding a rollout it does make sense to spend tomorrow rather than today. It makes sense to build on a just-in-time basis when demand eventuates. Looking around the world the demand - at a residential end - is not there yet,

Cost is an issue for many households. Most cant or wont stump up with $$$ for an ONT and wiring. If you chat with people buying homes and asked them how much more they would pay for the house they are considering if it has fibre versus copper you'll get blank stares. Very few people will actually pay a premium for a house with fibre - spend some time asking them at an auction or two. It makes for fascinating conversations - especially in those areas where the household price is around the median price.

The fibre providers in the US dont offer internet speeds faster than 18Mbps - and most plans are around 12Mpbs. And they are priced around the same levels as copper based plans - cos thats the only way they can compete. Have a read of the Auckland Regional Broadband network report - their survey showed that people want superfast internet with calling and with television over fibre. And they want it for less than they pay for the same service now. The same report showed a 20 year breakeven with a 90% takeup - thats a long horizon even for a Government.

The builders of fibre networks are, however, future proofed which is your key point. I dont disagree with that and neither does SBiddle. But the majority of the public (and this can be seen the world over) arent willing to pay for it now.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

wjw

162 posts

Master Geek

#304771 5-Mar-2010 14:16

Screeb:
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 cost is not necessarily getting from the ONT to your router, its getting from the street to your house. At some point the owner of every house has paid for copper to be installed from the street to the house. Most existing copper ducts are full, or the cables are direct burial. So who's going to pay for your houses fiber duct? And who's going to pay for the splicing pit outside your house? If you don't have the ONT on a street facing external wall, who's going to pay for the internal building cabling?

Currently with the copper network, its the responsibility of the property owner to supply a duct from the Telecom demarc in the street to the house.

Screeb

688 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304816 5-Mar-2010 15:37

ockel:
Try telling that to Japan. Ten years ago they started deploying fibre. It passes 90% of homes. Less than 30% are connected and the largest player is resigned to connecting less than 50% of homes as a final point. They thought they were future proofing. They were - and they still are. I bet they are regretting building then and not waiting.

Yes I'm sure they're regretting the hundreds of millions of dollars they've made over the last 10 years. The only reason less than 30% of houses in Japan are connected to fiber is because the rest are connected to VDSL which, yes, is good enough RIGHT NOW as I have made clear.

For those funding a rollout it does make sense to spend tomorrow rather than today. It makes sense to build on a just-in-time basis when demand eventuates.

I'm not talking about whether it makes sense for the company that builds it, I'm talking about whether it makes sense for the country. (But given that many companies are eager to build it now, it obviously does make sense for them). You simply cannot build a nationwide fiber network "just-in-time". Again, as I have explained, if you wait until you REALLY need it to build the network, then you're screwed. It can't be built overnight.

Looking around the world the demand - at a residential end - is not there yet,

So? We're talking about 2020, not 2010.

Cost is an issue for many households. Most cant or wont stump up with $$$ for an ONT and wiring. If you chat with people buying homes and asked them how much more they would pay for the house they are considering if it has fibre versus copper you'll get blank stares. Very few people will actually pay a premium for a house with fibre - spend some time asking them at an auction or two. It makes for fascinating conversations - especially in those areas where the household price is around the median price.

I've already explained in a previous post why this is irrelevant.

The fibre providers in the US dont offer internet speeds faster than 18Mbps

Oh, I guess I must be imagining things when I see Verizon offering 25/25Mbps and 50/20Mbps plans.

- and most plans are around 12Mpbs.

Verizon's lowest speed fiber plan is 15Mbps.

And they are priced around the same levels as copper based plans - cos thats the only way they can compete.

No, not really - Verizon's higher speed plans are quite a bit more than typical lower speed cable and ADSL plans.

Have a read of the Auckland Regional Broadband network report - their survey showed that people want superfast internet with calling and with television over fibre. And they want it for less than they pay for the same service now.

You mean to tell me that people want things better and cheaper? Truly shocking. What someone would like to pay in a hypothetical situation is not the same as what they would be willing to pay, given the real opportunity and choice. This is also irrelevant, as we are talking about 10 years in the future, not today.

The same report showed a 20 year breakeven with a 90% takeup - thats a long horizon even for a Government.

It's not long for the construction of a nationwide infrastructure.

The builders of fibre networks are, however, future proofed which is your key point. I dont disagree with that and neither does SBiddle. But the majority of the public (and this can be seen the world over) arent willing to pay for it now.

Again, we aren't talking about now.

Screeb

688 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304819 5-Mar-2010 15:42

wjw: The cost is not necessarily getting from the ONT to your router, its getting from the street to your house. At some point the owner of every house has paid for copper to be installed from the street to the house. Most existing copper ducts are full, or the cables are direct burial. So who's going to pay for your houses fiber duct? And who's going to pay for the splicing pit outside your house? If you don't have the ONT on a street facing external wall, who's going to pay for the internal building cabling?

Currently with the copper network, its the responsibility of the property owner to supply a duct from the Telecom demarc in the street to the house.

1) This has happened and is happening overseas
2) "At some point the owner of every house has paid for copper to be installed from the street to the house." Exactly. You just answered your own question. Amazingly, someone was able to afford to do it for copper. Someone will do so for fiber.

ockel

1948 posts

Uber Geek

#304834 5-Mar-2010 16:05

Screeb:
ockel:
Try telling that to Japan. Ten years ago they started deploying fibre. It passes 90% of homes. Less than 30% are connected and the largest player is resigned to connecting less than 50% of homes as a final point. They thought they were future proofing. They were - and they still are. I bet they are regretting building then and not waiting.

Yes I'm sure they're regretting the hundreds of millions of dollars they've made over the last 10 years. The only reason less than 30% of houses in Japan are connected to fiber is because the rest are connected to VDSL which, yes, is good enough RIGHT NOW as I have made clear.

For those funding a rollout it does make sense to spend tomorrow rather than today. It makes sense to build on a just-in-time basis when demand eventuates.

I'm not talking about whether it makes sense for the company that builds it, I'm talking about whether it makes sense for the country. (But given that many companies are eager to build it now, it obviously does make sense for them). You simply cannot build a nationwide fiber network "just-in-time". Again, as I have explained, if you wait until you REALLY need it to build the network, then you're screwed. It can't be built overnight.

Providers of fibre in Japan are still making losses on their investment. They would love to have made "hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 10 years". Ten years of sunk investment and they still DONT REALLY need it. But for the other parts of the builders network subsidising the operation they would be screwed.

You want it to make sense for the country. Start lobbying your MP cos the $1.5bn committed by this Govt wont scratch the surface to reach the 70% of households it wants to pass (not connect thats pass). And it still expects that those companies, to which you dont care whether it makes sense for, to stump up $1.5bn in matching funds.

One country has ubitiquous fibre with good uptake. Thats Korea. And funded by the Govt. When Helen Clark came back from Korea she said thats what NZ needs. But a left-of-centre Govt wasnt going to commit public funds to do it. The left didnt think it made sense for the country. How ironic.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Screeb

688 posts

Ultimate Geek

#304850 5-Mar-2010 17:21

ockel:
Providers of fibre in Japan are still making losses on their investment. They would love to have made "hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 10 years". Ten years of sunk investment and they still DONT REALLY need it. But for the other parts of the builders network subsidising the operation they would be screwed.

If they're still making losses and will never make back their investment, then they would have sold it already. And again, this was during a time when ADSL->ADSL2+->VDSL was (and still largely is) sufficient. This will not be the case in 10 years.

You want it to make sense for the country. Start lobbying your MP cos the $1.5bn committed by this Govt wont scratch the surface to reach the 70% of households it wants to pass (not connect thats pass).

I agree $1.5bn is not enough, and that the Govt needs to commit more. It will just mean that 70% coverage won't happen.

And it still expects that those companies, to which you dont care whether it makes sense for, to stump up $1.5bn in matching funds.

No one is forcing companies to do it. If it makes sense for a company, then they'll do it - it's as simple as that. The fact that a bunch of companies have already expressed their desire to do it (just look at Vector's campaign after all - it's what this thread is about!) means it does make sense for them.

One country has ubitiquous fibre with good uptake. Thats Korea. And funded by the Govt. When Helen Clark came back from Korea she said thats what NZ needs. But a left-of-centre Govt wasnt going to commit public funds to do it. The left didnt think it made sense for the country. How ironic.

I agree. IMO, the reason it didn't happen under Labour and is only $1.5bn under National is that, as this thread has shown, many people in NZ simply don't "get" fiber. It would be political suicide to use multi-billions of taxpayer dollars to fund something people don't understand. They would rather spend it on less controversial things like Rugby World Cup, Auckland and roads. NZ needs to get rid of the "she'll be right" attitude. We're fast slipping behind the world on many economic factors, and we have been since the 70s. /derail

ockel

1948 posts

Uber Geek

#304953 6-Mar-2010 05:00

Screeb:

If they're still making losses and will never make back their investment, then they would have sold it already. And again, this was during a time when ADSL->ADSL2+->VDSL was (and still largely is) sufficient. This will not be the case in 10 years.

Who are they going to sell it to? An integrated telco can just hive off parts of its business with significant OSS and BSS development. Besides the sunk cost versus the perceived value is too hard for most companies to stomach. Telecom believes its network is worth $4+bn to replace but clearly the sharemarket thinks significantly differently (like sub $2bn). Telecom wont split off Chorus if it thinks that the market value is significantly less than its perceived value.

[No one is forcing companies to do it. If it makes sense for a company, then they'll do it - it's as simple as that. The fact that a bunch of companies have already expressed their desire to do it (just look at Vector's campaign after all - it's what this thread is about!) means it does make sense for them.

It makes sense for Vector as they just build it and wholesale it. They will get paid for the build by the Govt regardless of whether no household connects or 100% of households connect. Thats assuming that they wont contribute anything to the build under the LFC RFP formula. They only start buying LFC shares as households connect - so it relies on the retailers over which they have no control. They dont care, its a free option for the builder.

I agree. IMO, the reason it didn't happen under Labour and is only $1.5bn under National is that, as this thread has shown, many people in NZ simply don't "get" fiber. It would be political suicide to use multi-billions of taxpayer dollars to fund something people don't understand. They would rather spend it on less controversial things like Rugby World Cup, Auckland and roads. NZ needs to get rid of the "she'll be right" attitude. We're fast slipping behind the world on many economic factors, and we have been since the 70s. /derail

So let me understand this. All the Governments and think tanks around the world (thats plenty of intellectual horsepower) simply dont "get" fibre. All the analysis thats been performed to date over the last 10+ years and they simply dont have the foresight to build this fantastic asset. Many many people with lots more data and understanding than either you or I just dont have the foresight because they simply "dont understand" and dont want to commit political suicide.
But YOU do have the foresight. Is that right?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Screeb

688 posts

Ultimate Geek

#305056 6-Mar-2010 17:22

ockel:
Who are they going to sell it to? An integrated telco can just hive off parts of its business with significant OSS and BSS development. Besides the sunk cost versus the perceived value is too hard for most companies to stomach.

They can sell various assets and write off the rest. Someone will buy it at some price. If it's losing money, then that's the best option. You make it sound like it's a complete failure. The possibility of having 50% of houses in Japan connected to their own future proof network, and the current connection of 30% is hardly what I would call a failure.

Telecom believes its network is worth $4+bn to replace but clearly the sharemarket thinks significantly differently (like sub $2bn). Telecom wont split off Chorus if it thinks that the market value is significantly less than its perceived value.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Replacement value is not the same as asset value.

It makes sense for Vector as they just build it and wholesale it. They will get paid for the build by the Govt regardless of whether no household connects or 100% of households connect. Thats assuming that they wont contribute anything to the build under the LFC RFP formula. They only start buying LFC shares as households connect - so it relies on the retailers over which they have no control. They dont care, its a free option for the builder.

Vector isn't going to do this if they don't think it will make them money. They're not going to waste their time and resources for 7 years on the tiny hope that they might make a few dollars.

So let me understand this. All the Governments and think tanks around the world (thats plenty of intellectual horsepower) simply dont "get" fibre. All the analysis thats been performed to date over the last 10+ years and they simply dont have the foresight to build this fantastic asset. Many many people with lots more data and understanding than either you or I just dont have the foresight because they simply "dont understand" and dont want to commit political suicide.
But YOU do have the foresight. Is that right?

What? No, that's not right. Firstly, I'm talking about the NZ government, not every government in the world. Secondly, I didn't say it was the government that doesn't get fiber, I was referring to the voting public. It's not about whether or not fiber has been found to be a good thing, but whether or not the public understands it. I never claimed to have better foresight than people who do indepth research on the subject. I claim that I have better foresight and knowledge about fiber than the average NZ voter. The government appeals to the average NZ voter, which has meant that they have not been willing to spend much on fiber. Not a terribly crazy claim. You're either twisting my words or not bothering to comprehend them.

xplorer

3 posts

Wannabe Geek

#306192 11-Mar-2010 10:45

So you're sitting on your deck reading about the government's plan to replace all the existing dirt roads with seal, and this will mean in the future people will be able to drive cars rather than horses everywhere.

Your concerns are around;
-how much these cars cost (model T)
-how you might have to upgrade the barn to a "garage"

Some friends are unsure why you would need to go faster than the current 20kmph that a horse can do. Other countries are having mixed results on the road front.

The Government is saying that in the future cars will be the transport choice and we need to be a leader in this new technology to maintain any hope of competiting in world markets. It says it could be 10 years before all the roads are ready and by then lots more people would be buying cars.

This company called Victor recons they can build the roads quicker and better than anyone else right up to your door, and has worked hard with other company's in the country to ensure that their roads would connect up properly,

Fordafone, who you buy horses from at the moment, look keen to sell cars but haven't said how they would do it or what it would cost. Victor doesn't want to sell cars rather just build the best most suitable road it can.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, would you support Victor in the building of roads? Even if you are unsure of when or how you might get your first car?

DS248

1661 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#308194 17-Mar-2010 11:08

Not certain if this the right thread, but the article below is perhaps relevant to the FTTH debate

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62D0ZX20100316

"...

The five members of the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved on Tuesday a summary of the plan that will need action by Congress, the commission and the communications industry to become reality.
Its recommendations include boosting Internet speeds by up to 25 times the current average, freeing 500 megahertz of airwaves for mobile broadband services over the next decade and pouring billions of dollars into subsidized service for the poor and rural areas.

..."

Ragnor

8085 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#308348 17-Mar-2010 15:50

xplorer: So you're sitting on your deck reading about the government's plan to replace all the existing dirt roads with seal, and this will mean in the future people will be able to drive cars rather than horses everywhere.

Your concerns are around;
-how much these cars cost (model T)
-how you might have to upgrade the barn to a "garage"

Some friends are unsure why you would need to go faster than the current 20kmph that a horse can do. Other countries are having mixed results on the road front.

The Government is saying that in the future cars will be the transport choice and we need to be a leader in this new technology to maintain any hope of competiting in world markets. It says it could be 10 years before all the roads are ready and by then lots more people would be buying cars.

This company called Victor recons they can build the roads quicker and better than anyone else right up to your door, and has worked hard with other company's in the country to ensure that their roads would connect up properly,

Fordafone, who you buy horses from at the moment, look keen to sell cars but haven't said how they would do it or what it would cost. Victor doesn't want to sell cars rather just build the best most suitable road it can.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, would you support Victor in the building of roads? Even if you are unsure of when or how you might get your first car?

A bit one sided but still brilliantly put, I lol'd.

muppet

2387 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#308655 18-Mar-2010 10:46

xplorer: So you're sitting on your?deck reading about the government's plan to replace all the existing dirt roads with seal, and this will mean in the future people will be able to drive cars rather than horses everywhere.

Your?concerns are around;
-how much these cars cost (model T)
-how you might have to upgrade the barn to a "garage"

Some friends are unsure why you would need to go faster than the current 20kmph that a horse can do.? Other countries are having mixed results on the road front.

The Government is saying that in the future cars will be the transport choice and we need to be a leader in this new technology to maintain any hope of competiting in world markets.? It says it could be 10 years before all the roads are ready and by then lots more people would be buying cars.

This company called Victor recons they can build the roads quicker and better than anyone else right up to your?door,?and has worked hard with other company's in the country to ensure that their roads would connect up properly,?

Fordafone, who you buy horses from at the moment, look keen to sell cars but haven't said how they would do it or what it would cost.? Victor doesn't want to sell cars rather just build the best most suitable?road it can.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, would you support Victor in the building of roads? Even if you are unsure of when or how you might get your first car?

I might have to print this one out and stick it in my cube.

FibreFan

18 posts

Geek

#310755 24-Mar-2010 14:24

I support Screeb's posts about looking ahead and providing the support we will need in ten years time. Definitely a very real issue about the debate.

I don't see the cost as being such a big issue as Sbiddle has stated - don't get me wrong, its a massive issue and I definitely agree that the $1.5b won't nearly scratch the surface (but its a start), but when has anything so drastic or so key to a nations future ever come so cheaply...?

But as, in my opinion, the world enters a digital age where the need for instant access to the www are vital, safe proofing NZ now (rather than when it's too late seems to be the best option). Having the worlds best IT infrastructure enable consumers to move away from traditional and 'old school' means of living, i.e. the whole idea of transport will chage (people working from home with the top end lines of communication channels) social networking will change, the pass and flow of ideas and information will be immense (not saying it isn't right now), but think of where the world is heading and the capabilities we will soon be aware of - cable will won't nearly fit the requirements of this new age.
Matched will Pacific Fibres initiatives which will decrease the international bandwidth bottleneck, we are opened to endless possibilities.
More so, getting peoples heads around the idea of Fibre now enables a better approach to evolution - get people thinking of the possibilities of modern technology and not just sitting in neutral for the next ten years.

I enjoyed xploerer's take on the matter - but keep in mind, back then, the general public were very short sighted, now days (as more and more awareness for fibre surfaces) the ablity to 'get your car' is not a issue at all - by the tme the public have acces to fttd, there will be plenty of offers available on the market as Fibre will produce a large vacuum in the IT industry.

I'm no techincal expert on the matter and I apologise for my this, but I do believe in fibre for the next generation - why wait? The rest of the world aren't!

#fttd

cyril7

8949 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#310766 24-Mar-2010 14:44

I'm no techincal expert on the matter and I apologise for my this, but I do believe in fibre for the next generation - why wait? The rest of the world aren't!

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, far from it, but possibly the fact that the country is flat broke with pathetic levels of export to fund it is part of the problem. And yes I am aware that better BB is a way to help increase productivity.

Cyril

nziced

23 posts

Geek

#310770 24-Mar-2010 14:50

Just read some of screebs posts. Verizon are crap in regards to fast ISP's in the states. There are hundreds of countries around the world that offer speeds of up to 110mb over fibre. Japan and the US are even about to release 1gb fibre. Mmmmm how I wish Telecom would go into liquidation and GTFO of New Zealand.

1gbps connection here

1 | 2 | 3 | 4