FTTP/FTTH getting closer. Is NZ on the right track?

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › FTTP/FTTH getting closer. Is NZ on the right track?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

#331691 19-May-2010 00:17

richms: How is it any different then not expecting sky to sort out sending it to more than one TV at the moment? All that needs to happen is definitive boundrys be drawn up on where each service will and will not support to, and then a market of lower tier integrators will spring up to help sort out the lower end houses that have traditionally not had any form of automation or structured cabling in them.

Hell, even the likes of harvey normal would love to get in on that cash cow.

I personally find it quite different to the Sky TV example. Your proposal does not address the complexity of inter-service-provider dependencies and boundaries; quality of service issues that will result from the first issue; ip addressing conflicts; the fact that there could be multiple network CPE in the home; routing; management of devices; etc. It is no-where near as straight forward as today's models as right now there is a single IP access to the home, not multiple. I don't think most integrators will be able to resolve this very easily as it is a big, messy problem.

I eagerly await to see how this will be resolved - we should see very soon with the Singapore NBN due to turn up first real RSPs and customers at in the very near future.

NB: I'm not particularly pro an L3 FTTH/NBN/Wholesale infrastructure either as it has huge drawbacks, so you could call me somewhat ambivilent. However I really do want to see the home networking issues resolved for an L2 model with multiple IP service providers.

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#331717 19-May-2010 07:04

sbiddle:
richms: I would say that the CPE in that case would be managed by the customers smart home integrator, or by themselves.

That's where the whole thing falls apart!

Yes indeed.... remember the Government is aiming the BFI (Broadband Fibre Initiative) at everyone, how does the layman deal with this in this in their home, fine for geeks and such who love to play and cable, try explaining this to the general person non geek or to your Grandparents, you see by even some of the posts on this forum that a large number of people struggle with the basics of routers, home networking etc .... now throw in a Home distribution center and active electronics in the house and wow we now have a whole new ball game.

These are hard questions and facts that need to be dealt with, it's fine saying lets put 2 billion dollars in running fibre to the door but gee I tell you what there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the actual home deployments let alone the costs of putting the distribution wiring inside houses... So this is a large amount of Tax payers money going into something that has a lot of issues that need to be dealt with

Example 4

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#331734 19-May-2010 08:16

Phil, I see you still have not resolved the issue of getting WiFi out of the box :)

Cyril

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#331737 19-May-2010 08:22

It's not so much a matter of resolving, it just so happens that the device is capable of running WIFI, by default on install WIFI is turned off, having your WIFI in a sealed metal cabinet is not optimal for Radio transmission as you would be well aware Cyril

,

It just so happens that the RGW we deploy has has it built in, we don't recommend using it as a WIFI device though, if you want wifi for you house then would be up to the Home owner to install their own setup.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#331875 19-May-2010 14:41

PenultimateHop:

This is where it gets horribly complex, because you are effectively bringing multiple separate L3 domains into the home, which very likely need to converge and be accessible in a single common domain - this means a fairly intelligent edge device is required with lots of complicated and convoluted routing. Then the discussion becomes "who manages [that smart CPE]?".

Why can't we just do this:

TV, Voice and Alarm services don't need their own separate layer 3 services/domains and they don't need their own dedicated jacks (ie: a jack for tv, a jack for voice). That way lies madness, complex and inflexible.

TV providers (when they abandon satellite and uhf) and phone companies can get with the times offer their services over the internet (which will be fast and locally peered).

The smart devices for particular services (voip ata's, tv stb's, alarm hardware) call home to register their address/presence with a provider via your internet connection and use your internet connection for all traffic (just like vfx, italk, 2talk do currently).

The majority of households would have a single ISP connection delivered over the fibre to an ONT to an Ethernet jack

A minority of households (flats, working from home business) might have 2 ISP's connections over the same fibre, each ISP would have it's own Ethernet jack ideally.

The multiple ISP households can use a multiple wan Ethernet router OR one router per ISP (like they would now for multiple ADSL connections).

TV, Voice, Alarm service providers all peer at national peering exchanges and this traffic is cheap or free.

.... Is there some reason we can't do this other than government getting in the way with stupid laws/rules and legacy service providers lobbying to protect their obsolete business models getting in the way?

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#331885 19-May-2010 15:05

Oh were do I start ...... Well the start point is always the internal cabling, multiple ISP's and gateways may be an issue with best practices for installation and cabling, the photos shown above are from an installer company that provides quality work, what starts happening when we get people not following best parctices, I have a couple of those photo's as well but would be to embarrassed to show it

.

Have a read of Steve's Blog post shows a bit about the standards and practices we are trying to bring to the industry.

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/sbiddle/7252

In fact the Minister the other day was questioned on this costs where Industry players advised him the these costs could be up to $3000 per household, Comments were I believe "hopefully the Service providers would come to the party or wear some of the costs and that the costs may be on the high side"
Or something like that as I listened on the Radio .... my first thought as a SP was the old TUI classic ...YEAH RIGHT

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#331921 19-May-2010 16:47

Oh I agree with the structured cabling recommendations they basically make sense. Who pays is a huge problem, there is no way the service providers or consumers are going to spend $3k on rewiring the house that's a pipe dream.

However, more in response to PenultimateHop - I don't see why we need a complicated smart CPE that integrates multiple different layer 3 domains/services sent over fibre (different channels/wave lengths)... everything (phone/voice, alarm monitoring etc) should just work over IP/Internet connection then you can just use a standard router and have the specialised devices for what you need (ATA, STB etc).

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#331927 19-May-2010 17:03

Ragnor: Oh I agree with the structured cabling recommendations make sense.

However I don't see why we need a complicated smart CPE that integrates multiple different layer 3 domains/services sent over fibre (different channels/wave lengths)... everything (phone/voice, alarm monitoring etc) should just work over IP/Internet connection then you can just use a standard router and have the specialised devices for what you need (ATA, STB etc).

Sorry Ragnor, thats a pretty simplistic approx to services , "things should just work over IP" I would have to say not really, unless you apply QOS and seperate services you are going to run into issues, things like prirority for Voice for emergency services requirements etc may require different layer 2 / 3 techiques, each SP will have their own ideas on how they want to deploy their services over these links as well,

Basic routers don't handle multi level services delivered across layer 2/3 services that well, a look at the euba specs euba0, 1, 2, and 3 and the compatable routers will show you that, euba is a multi vlan DSL service designed to give 40k, 90k 180k CIR for VOIP Voice circuits. Now multiple that out to the FTTH and everyone wanting their services delivered over it, ie SKY, alarm monitoring, Voice , ISP ....who gets priority I'm sure you as a custy will get a bit annoyed if your SKY picture starts breaking up due to heavy downloading, but is it's the ISP's responsibility to give priority to SKY ....

Valid questions though and all discussion around this topic is valuable

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#331931 19-May-2010 17:17

I see what you mean but lets say we separate voice, general internet and tv into separate channels (for lack of a better word) over fibre.. then where does it stop? Do we also have specific channels for alarm monitoring, data backup services, other things we haven't thought of yet?

Is there even a CPE device that can actually do that?

What about people that have no interest in the tv or voip "channel" services do you still have to pay for that expensive and complex CPE device that really they don't even need?

I guess I'm thinking of Active Ethernet more where you have 1 fibre back to the CO, couldn't QoS largely be a complete non issue given the available bandwidth, I guess I'm forgetting about backhaul but if this is regional based should be a short trip to a peering exchange.

Isn't the whole point of this FTTH endeavour to tear up the status quo situation where we have extremely contrained backhaul due to underinvestment and profit maximisation of a incumbent monopoly.

richms

29100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10216

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#331991 19-May-2010 21:41

Another thing that worries me, is how much power do these optical nodes suck down when the UPS etc is accounted for?

Richard rich.ms

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#332047 20-May-2010 07:51

around 15W I seem to remember.

Cyril

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

JimmyLizar

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#333216 22-May-2010 09:22

Kyanar: That'll teach me for believing a technology story on Stuff.

Yep, not exactly know for their accuracy....the latest article here says:

"Chorus, recapitalised with $1.35 billion of taxpayers' money, will take responsibility for connecting three-quarters of the country with fibre-optic cable delivering ultrafast broadband."

Three quarters of the country??? I think this is misleading....surely they mean "three quarters of the population" or to word is slightly differently..."three quarters of new zealanders".

.....c'mon sucker lick my battery........
binary solo...0000110000110000111...

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#333221 22-May-2010 09:48

Three quarters of the country??? I think this is misleading....surely they mean "three quarters of the population" or to word is slightly differently..."three quarters of new zealanders".

I would suggest there interpretation is connections, which is closer equaled to dwellings.

Cyril

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 26

Trusted

#333224 22-May-2010 09:59

How realistic is this 100Mbps speeds on FTTH? Have been told by someone in the know that there is a high possibility that 100Mps may only be available to a select few based on location etc and that the majority of customers will be lucky with much more than 20Mbps

While 20Mbps is more than enough is the 100Mbps actually obtainable?

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#333228 22-May-2010 10:21

Hi, I sounds to me like your source is mistaken. If we are assuming GPON (which is what TelecomNZ and most other telcos are deploying) then the down link is 2.4Gb/s and uplink 1.2Gb/s, this is shared with upto 32 others, ie there is a passive optical splitter that splits the single GPON feed to 32 users. That 2.4Gb/s is therefore deliverd to all users, however as its a shared 2.4Gb/s then thats a 75Mb/s uncontested bandwidth to each user.

Current ONT's that the hardware on the side of your house that accepts the fibre and provides copper ethernet, only support fast ethernet, hence 100Mb/s max, so there should be no problem in real world use to get that full 100Mb/s with some contention (none really).

As for distance, current PON technologies have a 28dB link margin, so that means a 32way split network can go 20km, if there are less splits per GPON then it can go significantly more. 20km covers a bit area in reality you are going to have OLT's (head end bit) distributed closer than that. Unlike DSL it does not reduce in speed with distance, this is fibre technology.

Into the future there is 10GPON on the horizon which is 10x faster and other technologies past that being looked at.

Obviously this is just discussing the speeds and capabilities in the local loop, what is above that is another discussion.

Cyril

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7