Orcon and Vodafone comments on ComCom sub loop decision

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Orcon and Vodafone comments on ComCom sub loop decision

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#228083 24-Jun-2009 20:24

So each cabinet has 7 GigE links. That means with 196 suscribers they would get 32mb each.
Or 140 lines at 50mbp.
Does that sound right?

Antzzz

190 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#228087 24-Jun-2009 20:42

The bit that frustrates me about the whole issue is there are some of us for whom it is a case of connect to the cabinet or nothing - where I live getting an unbundled service to the exchange simply isn't possible (due to Telecom's massive underinvestment previously in the area). And I'm hardly in the wops, about 10k from the CBD.

Also my parent's in-law's line was cabinetised - the only way we found out was that when trying to migrate to an Orcon unbundled service we found that it wasn't possible due to the cabinetisation (after much mucking around by Orcon). Interestingly the line had been performing just fine before it was cabinetised, and Orcon never mentioned the possibility of it being 'uncabinetised' - some contributors to this thread appear to indicate that this is possible? Something I perhaps need to follow up with Orcon.

So we can't take advantage of the cheaper unbundled plans, and I'm simply not interested paying more for a faster connection that another ISP might be able to offer me from a cabinet - <ROCK> me <HARD PLACE>. As for BABAGOI - sorry, no, this decision is costing me money.

Telecom have made no secret of the fact that they see cabinetisation as the future of their network, so I'm guessing that the exchanges will continue to be run-down. So in 3 - 5 years or so the whole unbundling thing will have proved to be a pointless exercise since it will be a case of either a degraded (or non-existent) unbundled exchange connection, or a shiny fast, expensive, Telecom wholesale only cabinet connection.

And as for the argument that this is the only way to increase network speed - is that really an issue? What can I do with 24mbs that I can't do with 8mbs? Streaming video of a quality suitable to rival HD DVB-T is going to need a consistent 50mbs+ across a sufficient number of subscribers on the cabinet. And VDSL isn't going to cut the mustard there I don't think - unless the cabinet is only serving a small group of densely packed customers.

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#228104 24-Jun-2009 21:32

So each cabinet has 7 GigE links. That means with 196 suscribers they would get 32mb each.
Or 140 lines at 50mbp.
Does that sound right?

No, the ISAM system consists of a host shelf, that can accept upto 7GigE uplinks, this host shelf has 10 downstream GigE links, each extension shelf has a single GigE uplink from the host shelf. Each shell either host or extension can support 4cards x 48 DSL ports = 196.

So the reality is at best 1xGigE per 196 ports or if on a fully maxed out system 7GigE over 1960ports, this works out at 5Mb/s at best or 3.5Mb/s if fully fitted. Obviously Telecom could fit just one GigE to feed the whole 1960 ports, but as I understand it thats not whats provisioned. Exactly what is provisioned is the business of Telecom. So if we presume best case 3.5Mb/s full chat with a 10:1 contention ratio (which is a good business class) giving 35Mb/s (therefore exceeding ADSL2+ full line rate) then there is no reason why Telecoms new ISAM based system cannot provide first class performance.

Excatly what they provide is their business.

Nokia/Seimens and Huwaai gear used by Orcon and Voda give similar levels of access and port density.

Cheers
Cyril

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#228219 25-Jun-2009 11:36

Antzzz: The bit that frustrates me about the whole issue is there are some of us for whom it is a case of connect to the cabinet or nothing - where I live getting an unbundled service to the exchange simply isn't possible (due to Telecom's massive underinvestment previously in the area). And I'm hardly in the wops, about 10k from the CBD.

Can't understand your logic here are you really blaming Telecom underinvestment for Orcon/Vodafone/etc not installing their own equipment in your local exchange when it's actually Orco/Vodafone/etc underinvestment. Orcon/Vodafone/etc don't have their own network they are taking a fairly low risk approach and only installing equipment in the largest most population dense exchanges in Auckland and Wellingon.

Telecom on the other hand has legal obligations (as I understand it) to provide services to even the remote non profitable areas. I can't see Orcon/Vodafone/etc ever putting equipment in some of those exchanges or cabinets.

Also my parent's in-law's line was cabinetised - the only way we found out was that when trying to migrate to an Orcon unbundled service we found that it wasn't possible due to the cabinetisation (after much mucking around by Orcon). Interestingly the line had been performing just fine before it was cabinetised, and Orcon never mentioned the possibility of it being 'uncabinetised' - some contributors to this thread appear to indicate that this is possible? Something I perhaps need to follow up with Orcon.

If you are on a LLU connection to the exchange your "line" just passes through the cabinet and doesn't terminate on the equipment in the cabinet.

There is an interference problem from the higher strength cabinet terminated connections affecting LLU connections that pass through resuling in problems for some users. Presumably Orcon won't let you go on a LLU connection to the exchange via cabinet pass through until that problem is resolved.

So we can't take advantage of the cheaper unbundled plans, and I'm simply not interested paying more for a faster connection that another ISP might be able to offer me from a cabinet - me . As for BABAGOI - sorry, no, this decision is costing me money.

Have you compared the pricing for using Maxnet naked DSL (provided over telecom wholesale equipment) and 2talk for phone. It's pretty competitive imo.

Telecom have made no secret of the fact that they see cabinetisation as the future of their network, so I'm guessing that the exchanges will continue to be run-down. So in 3 - 5 years or so the whole unbundling thing will have proved to be a pointless exercise since it will be a case of either a degraded (or non-existent) unbundled exchange connection, or a shiny fast, expensive, Telecom wholesale only cabinet connection.

Generally the cabinets serve the people >2km from the exchanges, the exchanges still serve the people within 1-2km. I don't think there is any issue of exchanges being run down.

Sub loop pricing will come down over time, at some point it will be viable for Orcon to put equipment in some cabinets but only the high density ones where they have a lot of customers/market share. They will never put equipment in call cabinets even at much cheaper prices where as Telecom will.

And as for the argument that this is the only way to increase network speed - is that really an issue? What can I do with 24mbs that I can't do with 8mbs? Streaming video of a quality suitable to rival HD DVB-T is going to need a consistent 50mbs+ across a sufficient number of subscribers on the cabinet. And VDSL isn't going to cut the mustard there I don't think - unless the cabinet is only serving a small group of densely packed customers.

Cabinets are serving a small number of close customers, there are many uses for high speed internet. Take a look at South Korea or Singapore for working examples.

New Zealand is already far behind most countries in internet/networking, it's not going to improve by doing nothing.

Antzzz

190 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#228764 27-Jun-2009 12:48

Ragnor:
Antzzz: The bit that frustrates me about the whole issue is there are some of us for whom it is a case of connect to the cabinet or nothing - where I live getting an unbundled service to the exchange simply isn't possible (due to Telecom's massive underinvestment previously in the area). And I'm hardly in the wops, about 10k from the CBD.

Can't understand your logic here are you really blaming Telecom underinvestment for Orcon/Vodafone/etc not installing their own equipment in your local exchange when it's actually Orco/Vodafone/etc underinvestment. Orcon/Vodafone/etc don't have their own network they are taking a fairly low risk approach and only installing equipment in the largest most population dense exchanges in Auckland and Wellingon.

Telecom on the other hand has legal obligations (as I understand it) to provide services to even the remote non profitable areas. I can't see Orcon/Vodafone/etc ever putting equipment in some of those exchanges or cabinets.

Maybe I wasn't quite clear here. Broadband to the exchange in my area (Pt Chev) isn't possible. Just doesn't work - due to years of underinvestment by Telecom in the area. Nothing the competition can do about that - aside from building their own exchange and running their own cables - which even in a moderately dense suburb makes no economic sense at all. But I hear you say - Telecom has done it - well, actually the NZ taxpayer did it many years ago.

Regarding your second point, my understanding is that the competition pays their Kiwishare obligation to Telecom for this specific purpose. So while Telecom are legally obligated to provide the service, they receive a fairly decent chunk of money to do so.

Also my parent's in-law's line was cabinetised - the only way we found out was that when trying to migrate to an Orcon unbundled service we found that it wasn't possible due to the cabinetisation (after much mucking around by Orcon). Interestingly the line had been performing just fine before it was cabinetised, and Orcon never mentioned the possibility of it being 'uncabinetised' - some contributors to this thread appear to indicate that this is possible? Something I perhaps need to follow up with Orcon.

If you are on a LLU connection to the exchange your "line" just passes through the cabinet and doesn't terminate on the equipment in the cabinet.

There is an interference problem from the higher strength cabinet terminated connections affecting LLU connections that pass through resuling in problems for some users. Presumably Orcon won't let you go on a LLU connection to the exchange via cabinet pass through until that problem is resolved.

This is the bit that really annoys me - a network design decision by Telecom has essentially prevented us from properly taking advantage of the competitive environment. And it appears due to the aggressive rollout of cabinets this is not an unusual situation. As I said we had no issue with connection speeds or reliability prior to the cabinetisation.

So we can't take advantage of the cheaper unbundled plans, and I'm simply not interested paying more for a faster connection that another ISP might be able to offer me from a cabinet - me . As for BABAGOI - sorry, no, this decision is costing me money.

Have you compared the pricing for using Maxnet naked DSL (provided over telecom wholesale equipment) and 2talk for phone. It's pretty competitive imo.

I wasn't aware that naked DSL could be provided over non-unbundled lines? Will look into that, thanks for the tip.

Telecom have made no secret of the fact that they see cabinetisation as the future of their network, so I'm guessing that the exchanges will continue to be run-down. So in 3 - 5 years or so the whole unbundling thing will have proved to be a pointless exercise since it will be a case of either a degraded (or non-existent) unbundled exchange connection, or a shiny fast, expensive, Telecom wholesale only cabinet connection.

Generally the cabinets serve the people >2km from the exchanges, the exchanges still serve the people within 1-2km. I don't think there is any issue of exchanges being run down.

Sub loop pricing will come down over time, at some point it will be viable for Orcon to put equipment in some cabinets but only the high density ones where they have a lot of customers/market share. They will never put equipment in call cabinets even at much cheaper prices where as Telecom will.

I disagree - the economics of the situation are fairly clear here. Telecom have (successfully) argued that due to the lower number of subscribers on a cabinet, the cost of providing access for competitors is significantly higher. So how long before Telecom apply the same logic to the exchanges? If it gets to the point where an exchange is serving a similar number of customers to a cabinet then the exchange is nothing but a big cabinet. This looks likely as the density of most non-cbd suburbs is fairly consistent.

Also there is a chicken/egg situation here for the competition - putting equipment into cabinets will potentially increase their market share in an area. But the share won't be there at the start - so the business case doesn't stack up. This is the essence of the ComCom ruling IMHO - they see non-Telecom operators providing cabinetised services only to high-end customers.

And as for the argument that this is the only way to increase network speed - is that really an issue? What can I do with 24mbs that I can't do with 8mbs? Streaming video of a quality suitable to rival HD DVB-T is going to need a consistent 50mbs+ across a sufficient number of subscribers on the cabinet. And VDSL isn't going to cut the mustard there I don't think - unless the cabinet is only serving a small group of densely packed customers.

Cabinets are serving a small number of close customers, there are many uses for high speed internet. Take a look at South Korea or Singapore for working examples.

New Zealand is already far behind most countries in internet/networking, it's not going to improve by doing nothing.

VDSL apparently operates best when customers are no further than 300m from the exchange, and data rates drop off sharply after that (more sharply than ADSL2). Also my understanding is that if a VDSL termination point is serving both near (< 300m) and far customers cross-talk from the higher signal levels degrades the signal to the near customers, resulting in everyone's speed being dragged down.

As Auckland has significantly lower population densities than Seoul (where > 1/2 of SKs residents live) or Singapore, and given the values quoted above of ~196 subscribers (max) per cabinet, I would expect that VDSL will provide data rates significantly lower than what the technology is capable of in most of the installations.

And provision of the kind of services data rates > 50mbs are capable of requires numbers to make it feasible then I simply don't see them happening. As per my comment above, an average of 24mbs (what Telecom and others have mentioned as the potential speed for VDSL) simply doesn't enable these services.

Doing nothing won't help - quite right - but by Telecom putting all their energy into a technology that will not drive new services is worse than doing nothing as it sucks up potential future investment. Due to the density issue I've mentioned above, as I see it the only way to enable game-changing services is going to be fibre-to-the-kerb. And without all providers getting together (snowballs chance) that isn't gonna happen either...

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#228839 27-Jun-2009 20:29

Antzzz:

Maybe I wasn't quite clear here. Broadband to the exchange in my area (Pt Chev) isn't possible. Just doesn't work - due to years of underinvestment by Telecom in the area. Nothing the competition can do about that - aside from building their own exchange and running their own cables - which even in a moderately dense suburb makes no economic sense at all. But I hear you say - Telecom has done it - well, actually the NZ taxpayer did it many years ago.

Nothing to do with underinvestment, its simple physical limiataion on the length of the cable.

They have now invested so that broadband is now available via cabinets which is what had to be done in anycase

This is the bit that really annoys me - a network design decision by Telecom has essentially prevented us from properly taking advantage of the competitive environment. And it appears due to the aggressive rollout of cabinets this is not an unusual situation. As I said we had no issue with connection speeds or reliability prior to the cabinetisation.

Many 1000s of people in pt chev had massive issues with speeds and reliability of the connection prior to the cabinets going in. They are now much happier that they have inter net that doesnt crap out in peak times and can deliver more then barely above 200kilobit speeds when its working.

I wasn't aware that naked DSL could be provided over non-unbundled lines? Will look into that, thanks for the tip.

It is a wholesaled service so why not?

Doing nothing won't help - quite right - but by Telecom putting all their energy into a technology that will not drive new services is worse than doing nothing as it sucks up potential future investment. Due to the density issue I've mentioned above, as I see it the only way to enable game-changing services is going to be fibre-to-the-kerb. And without all providers getting together (snowballs chance) that isn't gonna happen either...

They want a cheap way to get data to customers without any capital, which they want regulation to make telecom provide them without telecom getting a proper return on their investment. Most telcos are just socialists that happen to sell internet.

Richard rich.ms

Samsung

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

Antzzz

190 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#230377 2-Jul-2009 18:50

Nothing to do with underinvestment, its simple physical limiataion on the length of the cable.

They have now invested so that broadband is now available via cabinets which is what had to be done in anycase

I disagree - it was clear to Telecom for a number of years that an entire suburb was pretty much unable to use Broadband (and I understand that even dial-up was a bit sketchy prior to that). But they only took the plunge and did something about it when taking that plunge allowed them to work around a regulatory decision. If the govt had not forced the unbundling issue would Telecom have undertaken this work?

This is the bit that really annoys me - a network design decision by Telecom has essentially prevented us from properly taking advantage of the competitive environment. And it appears due to the aggressive rollout of cabinets this is not an unusual situation. As I said we had no issue with connection speeds or reliability prior to the cabinetisation.

Many 1000s of people in pt chev had massive issues with speeds and reliability of the connection prior to the cabinets going in. They are now much happier that they have inter net that doesnt crap out in peak times and can deliver more then barely above 200kilobit speeds when its working.

I think you may have misread my original message - here I was talking about the situation at another family member's house (not in Pt Chev) where a connection that was working perfectly fine direct to the exchange was cabinetised, preventing us from later taking advantage of unbundling.

I wasn't aware that naked DSL could be provided over non-unbundled lines? Will look into that, thanks for the tip.

It is a wholesaled service so why not?

My understanding is that the wholesaled service must be sold by a provider bundled with a (POTS) phone line connection, hence providing a naked DSL service would be un-economic.

Doing nothing won't help - quite right - but by Telecom putting all their energy into a technology that will not drive new services is worse than doing nothing as it sucks up potential future investment. Due to the density issue I've mentioned above, as I see it the only way to enable game-changing services is going to be fibre-to-the-kerb. And without all providers getting together (snowballs chance) that isn't gonna happen either...

They want a cheap way to get data to customers without any capital, which they want regulation to make telecom provide them without telecom getting a proper return on their investment. Most telcos are just socialists that happen to sell internet.

Of course, Telecom's competitors are businesses just as Telecom is, and they have to look at their ROI as well. But everyone is looking at their 5 - 10 year corporate strategic plans where the real issue is NZ's ability to compete and innovate long term.

We are starting to see services in other parts of the world which simply won't be feasible in NZ in the foreseeable future - sure, they'll be possible and maybe even available to those who want to pay a premium. But due to our small size there won't be enough willing to pay that premium to make even looking at the service feasible. So there will be no opportunity for the local players to make any money out of them. Or for that matter develop our own innovations which take advantage of ubiquitous, fast data, so long term (beyond those 10 year strategic plans) everybody - including the Telcos - loses.

So unless a brave move is taken by somebody - and given the time horizons here the only one capable of this is central government - we'll keep getting the same outcomes and drop even further behind the rest of the world.

And given this decision and the govt's muted response I'm not optimistic about the chances of that happening under the current government. The previous govt with the unbundling/seperation process showed some reasons for optimism - but unfortunately got borked by Telecom with the cabinetisation program.

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#230379 2-Jul-2009 18:59

I cant be bothered with teh quoting, that's how so much confusion happens since its hardly intuitive the way it works on here, but the technology for telecom to cabinitize pt chev only recently became viable. There were also their problems with the RMA to get the cabinets in, which from what I have been told is most of the battle rather then anything technical.

As for a connection no longer working with the cabinet going live, for them to be putting a cabinet in then it couldn't have been a particularly good connection. I am stuck on the end of a 3 meg if I am lucky connection, and its apparently not bad enough to warrant cabinetization yet, which is a real PITA.

With NZ being a low wage economy then there isnt the ability to get a return on investment of this sort here. Thats just a fact of life. You cant compare places like south korea with nz because they are comparitivly very wealthy compared to nz, and have the density on their side as well.

Richard rich.ms

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#230380 2-Jul-2009 19:06

richms:

With NZ being a low wage economy then there isnt the ability to get a return on investment of this sort here. Thats just a fact of life. You cant compare places like south korea with nz because they are comparitivly very wealthy compared to nz, and have the density on their side as well.

This is why NZ is behind other countries, in terms of our internet speed and quotas. We are too poor, and these international mega companies such Vodafone and Telstra don't want to invest in building broadband fibre optic infrastucture, when there is a very low ROI.

Antzzz

190 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#230384 2-Jul-2009 19:21

Agreed - and I said as much in my earlier posts, NZ hasn't got the density (or the govt run Telcos...) that SK or Singapore has.

But we've gotta lose the cynical can't-do-anything-about-it attitude - otherwise we'll never be more than a low wage economy. Forget the rants about less tax or whatever that will magically transform us into a high-wage economy, it's the can't do attitude which holds us back.

Let's support some real innovation - eg Vodafone's proposal for a collaborative approach to providing fibre (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=95&topicid=34337).

Say the govt sets up an organisation called 'FibreCo' with equal opportunity for all interested parties to invest in - and restrictions on any 1 party dominating it. Or allocate investment shares by market share (across all telco segments - mobile, fixed line, data etc) to those interested. Then this organisation leads the development and reaps the rewards that fibre (or similar) could provide.

The alternative is business as usual - one player with deep pockets puts up the investment, but only on the condition that they take all of the customers. Then we end up back where we were 5 or so years ago...

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#230391 2-Jul-2009 19:36

I disagree - it was clear to Telecom for a number of years that an entire suburb was pretty much unable to use Broadband (and I understand that even dial-up was a bit sketchy prior to that). But they only took the plunge and did something about it when taking that plunge allowed them to work around a regulatory decision. If the govt had not forced the unbundling issue would Telecom have undertaken this work?

For me I still stuggle to understand your anti to Telecom, sure its dragged its heals for a long long time, but that has more to do with replacing the CEO with one with balls rather than one that did not and prefered to pamper to shareholder returns.

My views may be wrong, but I still see the current cabinetisation program is the only logical way forward. I have no delusion that it conflicts with competition for reasons discussed in this thread, but to not have taken a FTTN route would have left us still with 3rd world BB.

To suggest that FTTN is the wrong turn is also misguided, are you suggesting that we just drop it all today and invest in FTTH, well its just like me coming home from work and telling my wife to put the coon on the market as I am going to buy a spanking new Ferrari F430 tomorrow, yeah right!

I think the Comcom need to also grow some balls, and come to some middle ground, ULL and subULL are important from a commerical point of view, and FTTN is important from a technical point of view. As I see it, its the ComCom/Guvments role to see that these all work to a realistic end point, it would seem that this current ruling is a bit out of order.

Where your argument keeps falling apart is that you totally put the reason for Telecom to cabinetise is to foil competition, while this might seem an easy target without cabinisation a very large portion of the population would be left with poor service, and do really think Orcon or Vodafone would go spending to fix that?

Cyril

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#230398 2-Jul-2009 19:47

Actually with telecom being in such an uncertain position about what was going to happen to their network and the results of any investment in it, can you blame them for not spending much on it? Its like those houses in waterview that might have being getting seized for a motorway - noone in their right mind would spend anything on them since it may have just ended up being a waste.

You cant argue that now that telecom have some clear position on their ownership etc it hasnt being full speed ahead on upgrades. Some people in this thread are just bitter that their ISPs dont want to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the promised spending on network infrastructure that they were committing to before telecom was unbundled...

Richard rich.ms

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#236319 17-Jul-2009 00:24

Kyanar: Yes, and I hate the idiot who sold it in the first place. This iteration of the labour government was finally trying to put it right, and as soon as the Nats take over we get crud like this new SLU agreement shovelled on us.

When I say "to hell with return on investment" I don't mean that Telecom shouldn't be able to break even. What I DO mean is that Orcon, Vodafone, etc should get the same prices as Telecom gets for using the cabinet. When you see Telecom charging $150 wholesale per customer to other ISPs, and $50 to themselves, doesn't that seem just a little... anti-competitive? We're talking about a network which cannot be (and should not be) easily duplicated here, "build your own" isn't an option.

I think you forgot how inefficient Telecom was before privatisation. There was virtually no internet at all in those days and going back to an SOE model for fibre would be a mistake.

The problem for sub-loop unbundling is that Telecom spends bulk dollars to setup a roadside cabinet that improves broadband service (yes it does actually make the average connection faster) and then have to work out how to allocate costs when it resells just part of it. The main problem is lack of competition for fibre running to the cabinet, not so much the running cost of the cabinet or unbundled lines. No existing fibre ducts in residential areas so it has to be run out to a cabinet at huge cost. Lighting it up costs almost nothing, so the fibre is rented out at a proportion of the cost of ownership.

Fair enough. But its a sunk cost and wont be dug up if under-utilised, so why not just sell it at a price per strand instead of calculating a proportion based on number of strands available. If Telecom had enough spare fibre going to a cabinet, they would probably make more money from backhaul than from end users.

Time to find a new industry!

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#236322 17-Jul-2009 00:44

richms: Actually with telecom being in such an uncertain position about what was going to happen to their network and the results of any investment in it, can you blame them for not spending much on it? Its like those houses in waterview that might have being getting seized for a motorway - noone in their right mind would spend anything on them since it may have just ended up being a waste.

You cant argue that now that telecom have some clear position on their ownership etc it hasnt being full speed ahead on upgrades. Some people in this thread are just bitter that their ISPs dont want to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the promised spending on network infrastructure that they were committing to before telecom was unbundled...

I dont see Telecoms position as being secure at all, they are taking a massive risk to roll out FTTN cabinets when the international trend is FTTB ("fibre to the building" normally runs to a basement or outside wall instead of inside a house, but replaces all street wiring). Telstra tried pushing their fibre plans the wrong way in Australia and now face their government going ahead on FTTB without them. If Vector, Citilink et al start getting more interested in residential fibre they might get the promised government subsidies.

However, I am more interested in fibre to businesses and multi-user buildings that need higher quality connections than average home users. This means that a provider would want to be using "home run" fibre that can be moved onto the required technology whenever needed: GPON vs 100M vs 1G Ethernet. This means the fibre must run all the way to a central node instead of being split up at a roadside cabinet in high density areas. Its those business users (and the lost opportunities from staying with the status quo) that will be helping the country pull out of the recession.

Time to find a new industry!

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#236323 17-Jul-2009 00:59

Kyanar: I should also add, that when a customer is unbundled, Telecom should leave the line the heck alone. It should NOT be connected to a cabinet without the express permission of the freaking customers - Telecom is deliberately harming other networks' customers by cabinetising LLU lines.

Not possible. A whole area must be done at a time, otherwise the cabinetised lines would cause heaps of interference for your line that runs all the way back to the exchange, and users may not have had a great signal to start with since it was probably cabinetised due to distance in the first place.

Time to find a new industry!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5