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

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#337193 1-Jun-2010 23:06

Some ONTs have facility for battery backup, although presumably the ISP or wholesaler that provided the ONT would then need a programme to replace old batteries.

I agree that its time to revisit the 111 requirement. To start with, should Telecom be managing it and should there be a bypass if their 111 system cant get through? Next, look at whether installed equipment at customer's premises (ONT) can be removed after say 2 weeks warning and some period of overdue payment. Otherwise some customer will switch back to Telecom and never tell the fibre co, and the ISP/retailer gets no cancellation notice but still isn't allowed to recover their expensive equipment.

Time to find a new industry!

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#337194 1-Jun-2010 23:13

Rubicon:
webwat: Thinking about the CFH requirement for local fibre co's to provide emergency 111 services... Is there a cheap ONT that can supply only POTS to the household? I presume Telecom wouldn't be interested in keeping phone lines going forever in case a customer gets disconnected when they cant pay their provider.

If the Fibre Co has an obligation to provide emergency telephone services, it seems unlikely that they would go to the effort of replacing a standard ONT (presumably 1-2 RJ11 POTS, 4 RJ45 Ethernet connections) with a POTS-only ONT. I imagine the value of the recovered ONT would be less than the cost of a technician's visit. The technician would probably need internal access to the premises to replace the equipment, which may be difficult to obtain if the customer is upset about being disconnected.

The Fibre Co may simply regard their ONTs the same way that a Power Line Company treats electricity meters - disconnect the service, but leave the equipment in place. In this regard, the Fibre Co may charge the cost of the ONT up-front as part of the installation cost, even though they retain ownership of the equipment.

As for supplying emergency phone services, it should be relatively easy for the Fibre Co to run a PBX system which allows the user to dial 111, even if they no longer have a phone number assigned by Telecom. Presumably, the Fibre Co would receive compensation from the Government for running such a service.

Oh, by the way... CFH did fix the proposed regime to require outdoor ONTs on single dwellings, and the ONT would not be cheap. It would not likely be owned directly by the fibreco either, being layer 2 or 3 equipment. Fibreco only provides dark fibre (ie. no phone service without an ONT) so the requirement for emergency service would make things really awkward unless customer has signed up with an ISP or some other retailer.

Time to find a new industry!

optimumtact

20 posts

Geek

#337302 2-Jun-2010 11:19

I like the debate going on here. It's good to see people actively engaging in discussion about how FTTH could be implemented. I would just like to chime in and say thanks to you guys for stimulating debate and providing all these useful links for information. Such material makes for excellent reading. I have to say I agree with the points raised about there being a need for star wiring to be a requirement for new homes. At the minimum I would say, as one other poster mentioned earlier, at least run ducting around the house that can provide easy access in to the wall for new cable to be run. I.E the builder is required to run the ducts and the homeowner can choose to install cable or not and can install cable only as they need it.

To the fibre problems, I personally would be prepared to pay up to 80$ a month for a decent plan (i.e solid up/down speeds and a reasonable data cap). IPTV sounds like an interesting idea, especially the ability to watch content on demand, I can't see why a ISP couldn't partner with a TV company to provide this service alongside the Internet connection, perhaps as part of a comprehensive home deal where the ISP, in co-operation with other partners and via the fibre network, provides all the services such as TV, Internet e.t.c. This would definitely be a tempting option.

Edit:Cleaning up some grammar and spelling.

richms

29100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#337304 2-Jun-2010 11:32

There are already too many requirements when building new houses. I dont think data/tv wiring should be one of them. I do think that the laws about not preventing tennents having stuff installed to the place need to be made clearer to people as I have just heard of someone who had all sorts of issues with more phonelines to their place because the LL was being a dick about it.

Richard rich.ms

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#337314 2-Jun-2010 11:54

optimumtact:

To the fibre problems, I personally would be prepared to pay up to 80$ a month for a decent plan (i.e solid up/down speeds and a reasonable data cap). IPTV sounds like an interesting idea, especially the ability to watch content on demand, I can't see why a ISP couldn't partner with a TV company to provide this service alongside the Internet connection, perhaps as part of a comprehensive home deal where the ISP, in co-operation with other partners and via the fibre network, provides all the services such as TV, Internet e.t.c. This would definitely be a tempting option.

Edit:Cleaning up some grammar and spelling.

I'd pay the $99 for 30mbit up/down on xnets fibre fusion plan, if I could get it :|
Oh well.

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#337315 2-Jun-2010 11:56

kyhwana2:
optimumtact:

To the fibre problems, I personally would be prepared to pay up to 80$ a month for a decent plan (i.e solid up/down speeds and a reasonable data cap). IPTV sounds like an interesting idea, especially the ability to watch content on demand, I can't see why a ISP couldn't partner with a TV company to provide this service alongside the Internet connection, perhaps as part of a comprehensive home deal where the ISP, in co-operation with other partners and via the fibre network, provides all the services such as TV, Internet e.t.c. This would definitely be a tempting option.

Edit:Cleaning up some grammar and spelling.

I'd pay the $99 for 30mbit up/down on xnets fibre fusion plan, if I could get it :|
Oh well.

Me too

...

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

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

Dell

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

Rubicon

29 posts

Geek

#337384 2-Jun-2010 14:26

Oh, by the way... CFH did fix the proposed regime to require outdoor ONTs on single dwellings, and the ONT would not be cheap. It would not likely be owned directly by the fibreco either, being layer 2 or 3 equipment. Fibreco only provides dark fibre (ie. no phone service without an ONT) so the requirement for emergency service would make things really awkward unless customer has signed up with an ISP or some other retailer.

In my opinion, the Government has dropped the ball by not requiring LFCs to provide an Ethernet (or other Layer 2) service in addition to a Layer 1 service. I think that this would significantly limit the options available to the consumer should they want to purchase services from different retailers. Take for example a consumer who wants to purchase a pay TV service from Telstra, an Internet connection from Orcon, and a phone service from Telecom.

If the Fibre Co only sells access to dark fibre, I see the following happening:
1) Customer arranges a fibre connection to their house from the LFC, costing $1500 ($1000 trenching, $500 to draw the fibre from the local cabinet).*
2) Customer arranges TV connection. Telstra lights up the fibre at the LFC's point of interconnect and provides the user with an ONT, costing $500.
3) Customer contacts Orcon. Orcon asks Telstra if they can share the same fibre only to get refused.** The LFC charges the customer $500 to connect another fibre, and Orcon charges $500 for another ONT.
3a) Customer contacts Telecom, only to find that they would charge the similar connection fees as Orcon. After all, they also only have the option of using dark fibre from the LFC.
4) Rather than pay additional installation costs to the LFC, the customer decides to purchase Internet and phone service from Telstra.

Instead, if the LFC was required to provide Ethernet transport services, the following would happen:
1) Customer arranges a fibre connection from the LFC, which also provides an ONT, cost $2000.
2) Customer arranges TV connection. Telstra patches into the LFC's equipment at the point of interconnect and provides the customer a set-top box to convert the Ethernet stream into a video signal suitable for their TV.
3) Customer contacts Orcon. Orcon patches into the LFC's equipment and a port on the ONT starts listening for PPPoE or DHCP requests. Orcon may send the customer a router.
4) Customer contacts Telecom. Telecom patches a VoIP service into the LFC's equipment and sends the customer an analogue telephone adaptor to convert the VoIP signal to POTS.

In the scenario where the LFC provides Layer 2 service, the customer can access new services quickly and cheaply requiring only a few minutes of patching work at the LFC's point of interconnect at a cost measured in tens of dollars. Where the LFC is only providing Layer 1 service, connecting additional services would require installation of new fibre at a cost of hundreds of dollars. In this respect, the Australian model, where the LFC is required to provide Ethernet transport, is much better than the New Zealand model.

* I don't know how accurate these costs will be. However, icepicknz has reported that Vector is charging $3000 for a FTTH install http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=95&topicid=62238. The Milner report http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/63958/FTTP-Cost-Study-Public-Version.pdf also suggests a price of $800 - $2400 per premise connected.

** This is currently happening with Local Loop Unbundling, where Telstra won't permit people to use their (Telstra's) phone service but another provider's broadband service http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=44&topicid=61051.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#337478 2-Jun-2010 18:06

@Rubicon

Have you seen the Singaporean model?

Refer to:
http://www.ida.gov.sg/Infrastructure/20060919190208.aspx

Rubicon

29 posts

Geek

#337523 2-Jun-2010 20:18

Ragnor: Have you seen the Singaporean model?

That model looks workable. Specifically, the Retail Service Providers don't have direct access to the Layer 1 level of the network. I've been looking at the MED's Invitation to Participate http://www.med.govt.nz/ultra-fast-broadband and to me, it seems that this separation of retailers from Layer 1 of the network isn't required. The Invitation provides for the LFC to offer Layer 1 services to Access Seekers. However, I can't find any requirement that there must be operational or structural separation between an 'Access Seeker' and a Retail Service Provider.

To me, it seems that a Retail Service Provider who is also an Access Seeker could monopolise the fibre connection to an end user's premise. A situation like this would stifle competition.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#337557 2-Jun-2010 21:19

Its good to see that people are looking at overall cost in comparing retail prices, I hope the general population will be able to add up the number too. I am paying slingshot $89 a month just for basic ph/internet plus a free (and temperamental) voip service that frequently cant make international calls. Also I dont think "star" home wiring is enough; there has to be enough spare cable in the comms box to break out phone and ethernet wires, and they must be clearly labelled so the next installer can see what's what. They should also be tidily installed in a cabinet within safe distance from a power supply so it can house a router/modem.

The debate about who should offer Layer 2 service is quite interesting. I think the dark fibre limitation on LFCs is the right way to go and we need to encourage competion at Layer 2. We also need competition and open access/peering at layer 3, and government may have dropped the ball by adopting a wait and see attitude. Letting the fibre owner operate a network on its own fibre creates an opportunity for that operator to not only capture users in smaller extremities of its region, but to design ducts and cabinets small enough to ensure minimum competition. FTTP proposals that place cabinets into small coverage areas (ie close to users) or few backhaul options are essentially attempting to design near monopolies for themselves.

Three ways to fix the Layer 2 conflicts as far as I can see, in addition to requiring peering at the CO by every ISP (Layer 3+):

Each Local Fibre Co required to contract an "Operator" to maintain the dark fibre and wholesale a Layer 2 network; could be a related company but not directly owned by the fibre co or by any retailer.

Government creates a Layer 2/3 wholesaler to ensure "open access" competition for every single location no matter how isolated. They would need some private shareholding (with % limits for retailers) and maybe a baseline wireless service to extend reach in fringe areas.

Several ISPs, telcos, and probably TV broadcasters get together independantly from government, bury their hatchets, and jointly setup a private Layer 2 provider for members of their group.

Time to find a new industry!

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#337581 2-Jun-2010 21:45

Rubicon:
Ragnor: Have you seen the Singaporean model?

That model looks workable. Specifically, the Retail Service Providers don't have direct access to the Layer 1 level of the network. I've been looking at the MED's Invitation to Participate http://www.med.govt.nz/ultra-fast-broadband and to me, it seems that this separation of retailers from Layer 1 of the network isn't required. The Invitation provides for the LFC to offer Layer 1 services to Access Seekers. However, I can't find any requirement that there must be operational or structural separation between an 'Access Seeker' and a Retail Service Provider.

To me, it seems that a Retail Service Provider who is also an Access Seeker could monopolise the fibre connection to an end user's premise. A situation like this would stifle competition.

Retailer and access seeker are likely to be the same thing unless enough retailers really do work out a joint venture to connect the Layer 2 stuff; there is not much history of industry joint efforts to suggest this would be possible on a large scale.

So yes, the first retailer into an area would tend to monopolise it. Was explained quite well by the HFN submission to the public draft. This would be especially the case for budget users who cant afford Active Ethernet as a point-to-point link, so the ISP/access seeker would need to install the first 32-way or 64-way splitter in that cabinet before connecting any users. They might be able to offer Active Ethernet in the main cities but only have budget GPON options in the high density areas, creating a "digital divide" even for suburban city areas. Home-run fibre for everyone would solve some of those problems, but perhaps government set minimum size of 800 users for splitter cabinets would be good enough. A new ISP with 5% market share should be able to efficiently setup a new splitter if competitors get too comfortable.

Time to find a new industry!

Dell

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

optimumtact

20 posts

Geek

#337779 3-Jun-2010 13:10

Instead, if the LFC was required to provide Ethernet transport services, the following would happen:
1) Customer arranges a fibre connection from the LFC, which also provides an ONT, cost $2000.
2) Customer arranges TV connection. Telstra patches into the LFC's equipment at the point of interconnect and provides the customer a set-top box to convert the Ethernet stream into a video signal suitable for their TV.
3) Customer contacts Orcon. Orcon patches into the LFC's equipment and a port on the ONT starts listening for PPPoE or DHCP requests. Orcon may send the customer a router.
4) Customer contacts Telecom. Telecom patches a VoIP service into the LFC's equipment and sends the customer an analogue telephone adaptor to convert the VoIP signal to POTS.

This seems like a reasonable model, I cannot see why the fibre company cannot provide equipment that filters incoming data into several ports that you can connect your equipment to. The cost of course would be a factor

optimumtact

20 posts

Geek

#337786 3-Jun-2010 13:22

richms: There are already too many requirements when building new houses. I dont think data/tv wiring should be one of them. I do think that the laws about not preventing tennents having stuff installed to the place need to be made clearer to people as I have just heard of someone who had all sorts of issues with more phonelines to their place because the LL was being a dick about it.

I would disagree with you here, The government wants to roll out a nationwide fibre network as soon as possible and to leverage the full potential of fibre we need to set the framework of a decent home network wiring system now. This will prevent the cost of a fibre hook up skyrocketing for new home owners later on, as there is no need to retrofit a Network to the house and this can be costly. Its better to prepare the home for the future to prevent the cost of retrofitting the house for a network from preventing someone from switching to fibre. We cannot avoid the fact that a networked home is becoming a standard and normal thing as the uptake of digital equipment and networking increases. It doesn't have to neccessairly be a full blown tv/data set up, The ideal solution would be to provide ducts to wall plates, creating a scaling platform on which a Network can be set up. I realise that this doesn't provide any help for those whose houses are already built but the idea is to future proof new buildings.

This need is further backed up by the global switch to Ethernet/Internet connections as the method of choice for communications (what with Telecom preparing to switch to VOIP technology). We don't want to be left behind due to the fact that our infrastructure in this area doesn't reach international standards. The governments plan is a great step, but there is no point them building a world class fibre network if the average home doesn't have the means to utilise it to its potential, especially with the huge increase in the amount of data flowing on networks.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#338266 4-Jun-2010 12:47

A question with ducts - what kind of pipe do people actually recommend? I have a heap of the corrugated plastic stuff that you use for outdoor wiring - would this do? And how do you actually get the cable through the duct, do you put string in it when your installing so you just tie the cable to the string and pull it through?

Also, The ducting is pretty big, when I drill through my studs they are gonna be pretty massive holes concentrated around my patch panel, won't this weaken the wall. Or do I have say 3 ducts going from he patch panel to each area of the house and have subducts that go off that?

Speedtest 2019-10-14

maverick

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

WorldxChange

#338453 5-Jun-2010 09:27

Some more thoughts around the internal cabling side of the discussion

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=95&topicid=62370

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

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

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