UFB in Christchurch and Wellington

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › UFB in Christchurch and Wellington

hamish225

1284 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 159

Topic # 79604 19-Mar-2011 16:01
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4786548/TelstraClear-says-UFB-plan-threatens-its-investment If telstraclear expect the government to not lay fibre in Christchurch and Wellington, what about the people in Christchurch, who's houses were built after telstra built their network and are therefore out of the network coverage area. for us telstra's cables end about 2km down the road. So we are stuck with telecom's equipment.

cyril7

6019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 153

Trusted

Reply # 449897 19-Mar-2011 16:26
I think Telstra's comments related directly to areas currently served by their HFC network, ie where it currently exists the need to overbuild is in their view not a good idea. So if their network does not exist in those areas then obviously there is a case for fibre, in their view, Cyril

Screeb

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10

Reply # 449946 19-Mar-2011 20:28
If TelstraClear's cable network is so great, then it should have nothing to worry about - it will surely be able to compete with UFB, just like any ISP who sells services over UFB would. If it can't compete, then clearly it's not as good, so it should be "replaced" with UFB. TelstraClear is obviously (and rightly) worried about having to actually provide competitive cable services. [Wellington and Christchurch] already have access to "UFB-like" services I'm not sure how a non-open-access cable network offering such blistering speeds as 15/2 Mbps and draconian data caps is "UFB-like" in any way whatsoever. If fibre was only built to non-cabled buildings, then it would have to go right past hundreds of cabled houses to access them (especially given how many long driveways are un-cabled, while the street they're on is cabled). That's incredibly uneconomic. Of course, TelstraClear could expand to fill these holes... yeah right! I also like the part about property rights. I'm not sure what building a superior competing network (directly because the existing companies like TelstraClear aren't doing a good enough job) has to do with property rights. No one's taking their network away. Would it be infringing on property rights if Telecom decided to build a FTTH or even a cable network in TelstraClear's cable areas? Of course not. Let it be known that TelstraClear's response to competition is complaints of unfairness. </rant>

sbiddle

24880 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4781

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Subscriber

Reply # 449953 19-Mar-2011 21:07
Joyce has already said that parts of Wgtn and Chch that don't have TCL cable will probably have a UFB rollout early in the program. I don't think "early" has been defined though, remembering that the vast majority of residential users in NZ won't be seeing fibre for 5+ years

Beccara

942 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 133

UberGroup

Reply # 450678 22-Mar-2011 11:42
Screeb: If TelstraClear's cable network is so great, then it should have nothing to worry about - it will surely be able to compete with UFB, just like any ISP who sells services over UFB would. If it can't compete, then clearly it's not as good, so it should be "replaced" with UFB. TelstraClear is obviously (and rightly) worried about having to actually provide competitive cable services. [Wellington and Christchurch] already have access to "UFB-like" services I'm not sure how a non-open-access cable network offering such blistering speeds as 15/2 Mbps and draconian data caps is "UFB-like" in any way whatsoever. If fibre was only built to non-cabled buildings, then it would have to go right past hundreds of cabled houses to access them (especially given how many long driveways are un-cabled, while the street they're on is cabled). That's incredibly uneconomic. Of course, TelstraClear could expand to fill these holes... yeah right! I also like the part about property rights. I'm not sure what building a superior competing network (directly because the existing companies like TelstraClear aren't doing a good enough job) has to do with property rights. No one's taking their network away. Would it be infringing on property rights if Telecom decided to build a FTTH or even a cable network in TelstraClear's cable areas? Of course not. Let it be known that TelstraClear's response to competition is complaints of unfairness. The main problem alot of people have is that any kind of overbuild where an existing network is running at UFB specs has UFB deployed it invalidates the private investment that has been put into it, The cost of building and maintaining the UFB network is less given the public money being put into it. It's hard to compete when the govt's giving you the cash to build. Your point about the cable network not being UFB-like is just wrong, UFB's still gonna have datacaps - they aren't going anywhere and the 15/2 speed can be bumped up as shown by the 100mbit trials. Keep in mind also that the initial fiber speeds for a price close to DSL is only 30mbit Most problems are the result of previous solutions... All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Byrned

443 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 21

Reply # 450715 22-Mar-2011 13:17
I would think if Telstra were willing to let competitors use the network that they have built, and split their network business away from the retail business, as Telecom is going to have to do, then they may have something to talk about.

Beccara

942 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 133

UberGroup

Reply # 450744 22-Mar-2011 14:46
Not really, The argument is that the govt shouldn't be funding network builds into areas where there is existing private investment. Company A builds their own network and if noone joins up Company A has to pay the price for it, If Company B uses UFB funds to build a network and noone joins then Company B has nothing to worry about. A government funded network is always going be able to undercut private networks Without even being open Telstra's cable network can meet the UFB goals, The price is good and speed is being boosted by 100mbit trials. Most problems are the result of previous solutions... All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Ragnor

8020 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 386

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 450834 22-Mar-2011 16:58
Basically Telstraclear are getting increasingly worried that if Telecom demerge and completely sell off their access network to a new company (Chorus2) and that entity wins CHCH or WLG that they won't get a deal (like Telstra did in AU) where the local CFC buys Telscraclear's fibre asssets in CHCH and WLG.

webwat

1889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Trusted

Reply # 451993 26-Mar-2011 11:14
Beccara: Not really, The argument is that the govt shouldn't be funding network builds into areas where there is existing private investment. Company A builds their own network and if noone joins up Company A has to pay the price for it, If Company B uses UFB funds to build a network and noone joins then Company B has nothing to worry about. A government funded network is always going be able to undercut private networks Without even being open Telstra's cable network can meet the UFB goals, The price is good and speed is being boosted by 100mbit trials. Company A realises its technology has become obsolete and starts bleating about the unfairness of technology that doesn't have the same limitations. Company B will happily sell to company A, and will even let company A install its own onto the fibre. Company A really just wanted the market to itself, and knows many of its customers will jump ship due to its famously terrible service and provisioning botch ups. Qualified in business, certified in fibre, stuck in copper, have to keep going ^_^