Fibre to the Home under National policies

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Fibre to the Home under National policies

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

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#178713 18-Nov-2008 23:37

DonGould: [snip]
Telecom: Only 60% of the average speed of the fastest provider. The fastest provider is only 65% of the basic ADSL1 spec limit and 26% of the ADSL2+ spec limit. The Government has ordered a min of 10mbit - they're currently at 31% of that.

10mbit eh?

Was that 10mbit Internet, or 10mbit access speed?

It's access speed actually, but the media are interpreting it as 10mbit Internet. That's a wrong interpretation and while it's perpetuated everyone is going to be in for a shock when Telecom does in fact deliver 10mbit access speeds to the appropriate number of people via the FTTN project but then everyone realises that 10mbit access speed does not mean 10mbit Internet access.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

mcraenz

1140 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 222

#178741 19-Nov-2008 08:41

Certainly there is a general mis-understanding of network speed vs international bandwidth. But the term "internet" will become less and less relevant of over the next 10+ years. It's just a network, everyone is connected it to, it goes without saying; we use it for everything, communication, entertainment, business, everything! New Zealand needs a good one and now (or even a few years ago) is a good time to start building a really good one, one that will last us for the next 100++ years. The copper lines that were laid to my house have only lasted 40-50 years. We should be aiming 3 or 4 times that.

If we're in such a terrible recession, now is a great time to build, by the time we cycle back around we'll be ready to roll!

I don't know how much it's going to cost but we can't afford not to build it. If an Auckland central home like mine is still running 2.5mbps copper in 10 years that will be very sad.

Help me build a better way of doing politics in Aotearoa New Zealand

political.nz

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#178746 19-Nov-2008 09:06

DonGould:

TinyTim: This is going to come from providing the services to businesses - not homes.

...

See my point. The business market knows that investing in more net is just pointless as customers can't get to it.

There's a lot more to business broadband than business-to-consumer. Business-to-business is more important for non-retailers.

DonGould:

TinyTim:
Look at any of the fibre PPPs around the country, starting with CityLink in Wellington (tho that's now totally privately owned).

Yes I will grat you that CityLink is a runaway sucess. However it's not a government PPP. It's a council/private partnership. It was started with 17 investors who put in $5,000 each.

It shouldn't doesn't matter who the public partner is - the concept is the same.

DonGould:

TinyTim:

Satellite despite its latency certainly is an answer. Modern satellite systems can reduce the effects of latency.

You raised some good points. I wonder how much is being used out there now?

IPStar is popular, don't know how much it's being used though.

DonGould:

TinyTim:
Benefits to NZ:
value of exports rise, international debt decreases, we spend less tax servicing loans, taxes are cut or more is spent on health and education

I don't see the link between faster bb and value of exports rising. People keep suggesting this should happen, but I don't see the link. Can you suggest some examples like pistol has tried to do? (and no, I don't think his are correct either - I don't think he's heard of MAF or knows what a farm advisor is)

Benefits to farmer fall into three groups (1) let them spend less time on admin so they can spend more time on the farm, and (2) work more efficiently - identify trends earlier, target products with higher returns, etc (3) direct selling through an online market - directly match up specialist products (e.g. certain wool types, specialist crops) with buyers who are after those; better match quantities with demand.

Examples:

hosted farm management applications

Stock - buying and selling or direct selling of products (wool, grain)

immediate feedback from dairy coop re milk volumes, milk fat content, prices, etc. React immediately to improve if required or fix problems.

Farming information/farming consultants

vets (send photos/video clip for diagnosis - perhaps save a callout)

Reading any modern website that contains graphics (e.g. reading newspapers)

Better communication with buyers - e.g. producer can aim to have product ready when buyer want it - particularly for airfreighted perishable products
Banking

Supplies - ordering and purchasing supplies

(These last two can save hours in a day if saves a trip into town. And believe me they difficult over unreliable and slow dialup. )

A little less quantifiable: assist the farmers in value-added services and invest in niche markets (e.g. speciality crops) to help increase the value of exports and help NZ move away from a commodity market

DonGould:

TinyTim:
farmer spends more, we benefit because we sell them supplies

Hummm... are farmers spending more in ways that we're all catching the spend? What are they buying? Are they just buying more technology from overseas to reduce cost of production and sale price that they then pass on to the overseas buyer?

Sure, not all their earnings will stay in NZ, but they're going to buy new cars, TVs, redecorate their houses etc. And of course we're not *all* going to benefit, but we're all part of the bigger economy so will all benefit in the long term.

DonGould:

TinyTim:
farmer is more efficient, employees more staff, keeps unemployment down

Hummm.... ok, but are farmers employing more staff or are they going to use the net to employ less staff and do more with technology and less with people?

Good point, but we're probably better off with more technology experts than farm hands!

DonGould:

TinyTim:

farmer is more efficient, prices drop (wishful thinking when international commodity prices determine what we pay)

You're right, the thinking is wishful. Commodity prices are going to keep going up because the demand for good food is growing with the growing educated population.

Except Fonterra is receiving the lowest price in 18 months at the moment, and it's still going down!

DonGould:

TinyTim:

farmers don't need to farm marginal land, NZ keeps its green image, tourism industry benefits. Or it can be put to other use like forestry.

Hummm... see above, demand for food is growing. In the EU they've been putting more pressure on farms to grow bio-fuel. There's going to be a growing demand for good produce, I don't see how faster internet to farms is going to impact this down in any way.

Well ok, they could use the land for more produce... more income!

I agree that those things are great ideas, but how do you see faster BB tieing them together? If you see my arguments above, how do you tie the two together?

Hope this has given you some ideas!

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#178749 19-Nov-2008 09:14

Talkiet:
DonGould: [snip]
Telecom: Only 60% of the average speed of the fastest provider. The fastest provider is only 65% of the basic ADSL1 spec limit and 26% of the ADSL2+ spec limit. The Government has ordered a min of 10mbit - they're currently at 31% of that.

10mbit eh?

Was that 10mbit Internet, or 10mbit access speed?

It's access speed actually, but the media are interpreting it as 10mbit Internet. That's a wrong interpretation and while it's perpetuated everyone is going to be in for a shock when Telecom does in fact deliver 10mbit access speeds to the appropriate number of people via the FTTN project but then everyone realises that 10mbit access speed does not mean 10mbit Internet access.

Cheers - N

Wasn't the Commerce Commission looking into regional backhaul speeds? Will have to have a look if I get the chance. In the mean time here's an interesting read: How to spend $1.5 billion. Comments that the regional transport network is/was designed to 32kb/s per line!!

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#179060 20-Nov-2008 13:09

TinyTim:
interesting read: How to spend $1.5 billion. Comments that the regional transport network is/was designed to 32kb/s per line!!

Yes that was an interesting read. Thanks for posting it. :)

Also of great interest was his article on ADSL modem chip sets.

Cheers Don

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

#183777 12-Dec-2008 20:28

Verizona wired american homes for an avverage of $4,000USD each. Now they have brought the cost of deploying FTTH down to $760USD. Got that information from this link. Also the cost of deploying fibre is decreasing due to technological breakthroughs, see here. Also I am paying way to much for my slow broadband. My telecomunications bills are in excess of $300NZD a month. So yess I think they can make their money back. And then they can make profit. And profit for our government eqauls good news for us :D.

Anyway I would like to point out that their are many ways that they can use FTTH to generate revenue besides selling fibre to the people at the homes. E.g. They can rent gateways to their network to people who might want to provide services over it (e.g. tv broadcasters using iptv and freview to distribute their content without the expenses of building a broadcasting network to broadcast over the airwaves. This will encourage other media into invading us). They can allso generate revenue from companys like banks who want dedicated, premuim guaranteed services and are going to deploy it on a large scale comercial level as they will pay more.

And it has come to my attention that their is no other method or way of achieving 1Gbps speeds on a large scale to every household without fibre. Look in the U.S.A verizona is doing well. Their where many people who thought verizona would become a disaster after laying FTTH but they have not, infact their competition is suffering. And people are now starting to say that it is not a matter of weather it is affordable for a teleco to lay FTTH but whether or not they can afford not to lay FTTH.

Personally I want 20/20 or better speeds. (actual attainable speeds no matter what my line attenuation is). VDSL and other fastish but still snail speed compared to gigabit fibre only improve peoples internet who have low line attenuation. I live on blockhousebay rd and will see no benefit of vdsl with my current line attenuation. There is no alternative to FTTH.

And the speeds I currently pay for and can theoreticly obtain given my line attenuation are never obtainable. In otherwords I am saying that I can not reach my speeds I pay for even givven my theoretical maximum. Oh and my exchange allso has jitter ftl :(. And the current network was only ever desighned for cavemen. I am not a cavemen. I am better than a caveman and demmand better as such.

Oh and allso I would be intrested to find out who those "critics" or "anti FTTH" people are and where theyre "obtaining" their so called "faqs" from. To me it seems they are just spinningm lies because they have something to gain from it, they are complete idiots, or are completly mis-informed. Yes I can say that it is going to cost a 1000000000000000000000BILLION dollars to buy a metre of fibre cable to!!! doesnt make it true though -.-. And the .... that say it is going to cost more money than the government planed for are imbasles. Do they not understand that the government might have planned for this. Does PPP not mean anything to you. Does it not occur to you that they might spend 1.5B and borrow 9b more. Thats just me throwing random stuff out their to sit with their.... and...... You know what I can not belive those people...bye...

Oh and tiny tim about... "Wasn't the Commerce Commission looking into regional backhaul speeds? Will have to have a look if I get the chance. In the mean time here's an interesting read: How to spend $1.5 billion. Comments that the regional transport network is/was designed to 32kb/s per line!!" That is a bit old mate. Those statistics are from a few years ago. And since then the number of broadband users has increased, and they have refused to release new statistics, so logically it was concluded that it has decreased andnis noew under 32kbps. :D

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#183786 12-Dec-2008 22:23

pistolpower:
Anyway I would like to point out that their are many ways that they can use FTTH to generate revenue besides selling fibre to the people at the homes. E.g. They can rent gateways to their network to people who might want to provide services over it (e.g. tv broadcasters using iptv and freview to distribute their content without the expenses of building a broadcasting network to broadcast over the airwaves. This will encourage other media into invading us). They can allso generate revenue from companys like banks who want dedicated, premuim guaranteed services and are going to deploy it on a large scale comercial level as they will pay more.

None of that is really about growing economic benefit. It's all about economic change. For every new service there's one that gets closed down. Like, eg, iTunes grows, music stores die.

Freeview is already established on satelites and a new DV network. It doesn't make good economic sense to over build it again so soon.

pistolpower:
And it has come to my attention that their is no other method or way of achieving 1Gbps speeds on a large scale to every household without fibre. Look in the U.S.A verizona is doing well. Their where many people who thought verizona would become a disaster after laying FTTH but they have not, infact their competition is suffering. And people are now starting to say that it is not a matter of weather it is affordable for a teleco to lay FTTH but whether or not they can afford not to lay FTTH.

You make some good points here. What you're basicly saying is, if one provider does it then they all need to do it or they're out of business. Is that just a reason for none of them to do it?

1gb or 20mbit. Frankly I think most people have little real understanding of what does and doesn't make a speed difference.

I will grant you that I can't get my choice of HD movies at present. When I can, I guess I'll cancel my sky account.

However just this week I've been playing around with adblocker. I've been quite amazed just how much diffenece I can make to web sites like Geekzone just by blocking out all the unreqired crap!

On this page alone I've got 12 blocks. Mainly on scripts from forigen sites.

Personally I want 20/20 or better speeds. (actual attainable speeds no matter what my line attenuation is). VDSL and other fastish but still snail speed compared to gigabit fibre only improve peoples internet who have low line attenuation. I live on blockhousebay rd and will see no benefit of vdsl with my current line attenuation. There is no alternative to FTTH.

Sorry, I just don't follow why 50mbit VDSL wouldn't be good for you. BHB Rd is abotu 4.8km long. So it needs about 4 FTTN nodes on it to put everyone within 800m of a node. Nothing wrong with the technology. The problem is that you're just to far from the DSLAM.

pistolpower:
here's an interesting read: How to spend $1.5 billion.

Did you read his comments about DSL chip sets?

Cheers Don

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41052

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#183815 13-Dec-2008 06:54

pistolpower: And the .... that say it is going to cost more money than the government planed for are imbasles. Do they not understand that the government might have planned for this. Does PPP not mean anything to you. Does it not occur to you that they might spend 1.5B and borrow 9b more. Thats just me throwing random stuff out their to sit with their.... and...... You know what I can not belive those people...bye...

I take you meant "imbeciles", not "imbasles"?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#183845 13-Dec-2008 11:47

pistolpower: Verizona wired american homes for an avverage of $4,000USD each. Now they have brought the cost of deploying FTTH down to $760USD. Got that information from this link. Also the cost of deploying fibre is decreasing due to technological breakthroughs, see here.

The cost of fibre electronics is decreasing, as is fibre itself... and fibre jointing is especially dropping. However the cost of civil works (trenches etc) is increasing, and that can make up two thirds or more of the total cost (depending on where you are).

Also I am paying way to much for my slow broadband. My telecomunications bills are in excess of $300NZD a month. So yess I think they can make their money back. And then they can make profit. And profit for our government eqauls good news for us :D.

Most of that money will be going to the ISP or other retailer for providing you with data or other ISP services - very little will be going to the infrastructure provider (Chorus).

Anyway I would like to point out that their are many ways that they can use FTTH to generate revenue besides selling fibre to the people at the homes. E.g. They can rent gateways to their network to people who might want to provide services over it (e.g. tv broadcasters using iptv and freview to distribute their content without the expenses of building a broadcasting network to broadcast over the airwaves. This will encourage other media into invading us). They can allso generate revenue from companys like banks who want dedicated, premuim guaranteed services and are going to deploy it on a large scale comercial level as they will pay more.

Of course - all the FTTH proposals are wholesale open-access networks. Any retail provider will be able to use the network to provide whatever services they wish.

And it has come to my attention that their is no other method or way of achieving 1Gbps speeds on a large scale to every household without fibre. Look in the U.S.A verizona is doing well. Their where many people who thought verizona would become a disaster after laying FTTH but they have not, infact their competition is suffering. And people are now starting to say that it is not a matter of weather it is affordable for a teleco to lay FTTH but whether or not they can afford not to lay FTTH.

Personally I want 20/20 or better speeds. (actual attainable speeds no matter what my line attenuation is). VDSL and other fastish but still snail speed compared to gigabit fibre only improve peoples internet who have low line attenuation. I live on blockhousebay rd and will see no benefit of vdsl with my current line attenuation. There is no alternative to FTTH.

VDSL2 only increases the speed over short distances - over longer distances it only provides the same speed as ADSL2+. If Chorus were to roll out a VDSL2 network their cabinetisation plans would have to be extended to shorten the copper loop to 500m or less (for 100Mb/s). (But that doesn't solve the problems of using an old decaying copper network.)

And the speeds I currently pay for and can theoreticly obtain given my line attenuation are never obtainable. In otherwords I am saying that I can not reach my speeds I pay for even givven my theoretical maximum.

So the limits aren't the access network - so why will FTTH be any better?

Oh and my exchange allso has jitter ftl :(. And the current network was only ever desighned for cavemen. I am not a cavemen. I am better than a caveman and demmand better as such.

Oh and allso I would be intrested to find out who those "critics" or "anti FTTH" people are and where theyre "obtaining" their so called "faqs" from.

facts?

To me it seems they are just spinningm lies because they have something to gain from it, they are complete idiots, or are completly mis-informed. Yes I can say that it is going to cost a 1000000000000000000000BILLION dollars to buy a metre of fibre cable to!!! doesnt make it true though -.-. And the .... that say it is going to cost more money than the government planed for are imbasles. Do they not understand that the government might have planned for this. Does PPP not mean anything to you. Does it not occur to you that they might spend 1.5B and borrow 9b more. Thats just me throwing random stuff out their to sit with their.... and...... You know what I can not belive those people...bye...

No, the government hasn't planned for this. They have only been in power a few weeks, and their policy ($1.5b government plus $1.5b private) was based on back of the envelope calculations and inappropriate assumptions.

Oh and tiny tim about... "Wasn't the Commerce Commission looking into regional backhaul speeds? Will have to have a look if I get the chance. In the mean time here's an interesting read: How to spend $1.5 billion. Comments that the regional transport network is/was designed to 32kb/s per line!!" That is a bit old mate. Those statistics are from a few years ago. And since then the number of broadband users has increased, and they have refused to release new statistics, so logically it was concluded that it has decreased andnis noew under 32kbps. :D

So if it's under 32kb/s then it's worse than the design speed. But what's your point? What's FTTH going to do for us if it's regional backhaul providing less than 32kb/s per customer that is the bottleneck?

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

#184048 14-Dec-2008 16:29

Hey I looked up sweden, finland and new zealands population density. Sweeden and finland both have fibre networks. Their population densitys are:
Sweden — Population - Density: 20 /KM (185th)
Finland — Population - Density: 16 /KM (190th)
New Zealand — Population - Density: 15 /KM (193rd)
So it looks like our population density is realitivly the same. Allso FTTN is pointless as it costs almost the same as FTTH as stated here. And axia which is a company that lays fibre networks states here how FTTN is just dum which it is. And they will build a new network not an old one. Your idea that they should build FTTN which will essentially mean laying down fibre within metres of a house is pointless. Why stop. I mean while you have all the machines, people and are ordering on bulk you may aswell just lay a few more metres of cable. If we where to lay FTTN and latter on lay FTTH it would cost us twice as much. And the only difrence is that we will have bad speeds, pay for data usage and have to put up with this to we finish FTTH. Anyway FTTN is bad as it means that we need to use telecomes degrading copper network. They will charge us for the use of this network and we will allso be paying for the use of the fibre. And telecom will charge alot for bandiwidth so we will still end up paying per GB of data usage. That is just crap.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#184074 14-Dec-2008 17:38

pistolpower: Your idea that they should build FTTN which will essentially mean laying down fibre within metres of a house is pointless. Why stop.

See: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1096595&r=17371724#r17371724

See: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1096595&r=17372035#r17372035

How do you see us using data over the next 15 years?

FTTH made sense 10 years ago. There was no wireless technology to get the data in to the air in any capacity.

Vodafone NZ looked at LTE recently. Talking with Paul the other day, he commented that they topped it out at 50mbits, simply because they couldn't find enough applications to pump more in to it at once.

What do you see us doing over the next 15 years that's going to require 1GB?

Cheers Don

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#184622 16-Dec-2008 19:55

DonGould:
What do you see us doing over the next 15 years that's going to require 1GB?

Hmmm.....

DonGould, 1993:
What do you see us doing over the next 15 years that's going to require 10MB?

?

Incredibly shortsighted.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#185043 19-Dec-2008 00:00

Screeb:
DonGould:
What do you see us doing over the next 15 years that's going to require 1GB?

Hmmm.....

DonGould, 1993:
What do you see us doing over the next 15 years that's going to require 10MB?

?

Incredibly shortsighted.

I'm confused. How does your post answer my question?

In 1993 I could have given you a dozen answers as to what we might reqire 10mbit for over the next 15 years.

I can't give you that same dozen answers today.

However, since making that post I read some really quite interesting stuff posted on NZNog by Richard Naylor.

It would seem there may be more than enough scope for wanting 10Gb FTTH if you want really good quality live video.

http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2008-December/014877.html

"And the really challenging bit is that 1080p is now available, running at 3Gbps. So watch what you do when buying that new plasma or
LCD screen for Christmas."

Cheers Don

browned

636 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 36

#188166 8-Jan-2009 09:50

I also can't see the point of FTTH, it may be nice for new homes but there is so much more DSL technology under development and in use around the world that we haven't even seen yet. VDSL for example.

If Germany can get 50mbit over copper then why can't we, considering we are struggling with throttling and have data caps and have only recently pushed into ADSL2+ in some main centers I think the money would be better spent on international links.

Home Server: AMD Threadripper 1950X, 64GB, 56TB HDD, Define R6 Case, 10GbE, ESXi 6.7, UNRAID, NextPVR, Emby Server, Plex Server.
Lounge Media Center: NVIDIA Shield TV 16GB: Kodi18 with Titan MOD, Emby.
Kids Media Center: NVIDIA Shield TV 16GB: Kodi18 with Titan MOD, Emby.
Main PC: Ryzen 7 2700, 16GB RAM, RX 570, 2 x 24"

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#188186 8-Jan-2009 11:31

browned: I also can't see the point of FTTH, it may be nice for new homes but there is so much more DSL technology under development and in use around the world that we haven't even seen yet. VDSL for example.

Agree in principle... a correction first: New Zealand already has VDSL2 - on TelstraClear's own copper network in CBDs. More on the way.

The problem with higher and higher DSL speeds is the copper network was designed for POTS and is very old - both cause problems with high speed DSL. More and more copper lines will fail to deliver full speed DSL as its speed increases. Also interference between pairs increases which will also slow things down.

So as DSL speeds increase, the copper network will be less likely to deliver full services to all homes, which is one of the points of the whole exercise.

FTTH is going to be here one day, so the Government's view is why not bring it here now (and over the next ten years), and make us a leader rather than a follower, and let us get the most economic benefit out of it (views of others in this post notwithstanding!)

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