Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 108620	2010-04-05 04:05:00	Discussion: Why fibre to the door?	Chilling_Silence (9)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
873063	2010-04-06 01:58:00	Ive switched off, chill knows his stuff and seems pretty passionate about this subject :) But not enough not to need to ask the question.	Cicero (40)
873064	2010-04-06 02:11:00	But not enough not to need to ask the question . Yeah pretty much . I'm still keen to hear others thoughts, but you can understand why i'm not terribly thrilled by the idea of billions of dollars being thrown into an idea that ultimately doesn't look like it will provide any real tangible benefits . Just try being a content creator and having today's horrible bandwidth caps . They're the real enemy here, not the raw line speed . . . IMO at least . Do I get a medal for that post? I should really have proof read it but didn't have time before work :p	Chilling_Silence (9)
873065	2010-04-06 02:47:00	Yeah pretty much . I'm still keen to hear others thoughts, but you can understand why i'm not terribly thrilled by the idea of billions of dollars being thrown into an idea that ultimately doesn't look like it will provide any real tangible benefits . Just try being a content creator and having today's horrible bandwidth caps . They're the real enemy here, not the raw line speed . . . IMO at least . Do I get a medal for that post? I should really have proof read it but didn't have time before work :p I doubt we find the answer here,but fingers crossed . When you are spending billions,you need more info than I have to hand .	Cicero (40)
873066	2010-04-06 03:44:00	Need Fibre to the door to break Telecoms monopoly, be it through there "so called" wholesale division or retail. Un-bundling the local loop has done little as most providers don't have the funds to put there own equipment on the loop (and forced to use Telecoms wholesale with no alternative). Secondly DSL2 is far to inconsistent with drop off and old copper to provide future residential capacity needs even with cabintisation which is a patch job at best. Why spend 100's of millions on a second rate old technology (DSL2). Lastly DSL2 upstream is far to slow to encourage small business growth from homes where a lot of businesses start. I personally know where upstream has been a major issue. Everything is going digital media days are numbered, what international clients want to wait 5 days for DVD to show up snail mail? Hope this clears it up for you Chilling_Silence, are you 100% sure you don't work for Telecom? because I fully understand there resistance lol	Battleneter2 (9361)
873067	2010-04-06 04:37:00	I expect Telecom will be putting in higher capacity fibre to their cabinets than is needed for DSL so they can upgrade the last mile when they need to, but there is little incentive for them to do an expensive fibre to the home rollout at this point in time. Hopefully they won't delay their obligations to put in rural cabinets in return for the government money. Rural phone lines are shocking - telecom doesn't maintain them because they are not profitable.	Greven (91)
873068	2010-04-06 04:46:00	I remember in the not so distant past some researchers were able to get fibre speeds over existing copper with new transmission techniques.	Netsukeninja (13296)
873069	2010-04-06 05:07:00	I expect Telecom will be putting in higher capacity fibre to their cabinets than is needed for DSL so they can upgrade the last mile when they need to, but there is little incentive for them to do an expensive fibre to the home rollout at this point in time . I expect your right, however that still keeps the status quo of Telecom largely in control which is really where the problem has been for the last 10 years . Telecom wholesale = Smoke screen monopoly .	Battleneter2 (9361)
873070	2010-04-06 05:08:00	Need Fibre to the door to break Telecoms monopoly, be it through there "so called" wholesale division or retail. Un-bundling the local loop has done little as most providers don't have the funds to put there own equipment on the loop (and forced to use Telecoms wholesale with no alternative). True, but the main "cost" of broadband is not the base-fee, but the data charges, so it's pretty irrelevant if you buy from Telecom, somebody such as Orcon on their own equipment, or the Govt on a Fibre connection. Base fees are still going to be around the same (In theory for the new Fibre rollout at least), but data charges are still going to be the thorn in our side. Secondly DSL2 is far to inconsistent with drop off and old copper to provide future residential capacity needs even with cabintisation which is a patch job at best. Why spend 100's of millions on a second rate old technology (DSL2). Why not? You still use your telephone line to make calls, right? It's not the latest, VoIP is, and it potentially has much greater call quality with a higher range of frequencies. What about the Vodafone 3G or Telecom XT network. Definitely not the latest and greatest technologies, but they're still implemented, XT only just very recently. Just because Fibre is supposed to be the latest and fastest doesn't mean that's a good reason to use it and invest 20x the funding into it. Lastly DSL2 upstream is far to slow to encourage small business growth from homes where a lot of businesses start. I personally know where upstream has been a major issue. Everything is going digital media days are numbered, what international clients want to wait 5 days for DVD to show up snail mail? True, you're right, and that's the pure reason as far as I'm concerned why you'd want Fibre at this present point in time. However, if you wanted, you can get the likes of HSNS Lite which is synchronous speeds. Seen the price of that though? Hope this clears it up for you Chilling_Silence, are you 100% sure you don't work for Telecom? because I fully understand there resistance lol Nope, but I fail to see why the Govt should waste so much money when it's not going to have the desired effects. Realistically, it's not going to do diddly squat of what they're hoping it will. I expect Telecom will be putting in higher capacity fibre to their cabinets than is needed for DSL so they can upgrade the last mile when they need to, but there is little incentive for them to do an expensive fibre to the home rollout at this point in time. You're right there, the idea being if you want Fibre rolled out from a node, you pay the cost yourself from the Node to your Home. In my case, Fibres not too far from my premises apparently and it'd be around $400 to get it installed. That's not the preventing point though, the ongoing costs are, and a second Fibre network won't reduce that. Hopefully they won't delay their obligations to put in rural cabinets in return for the government money. Rural phone lines are shocking - telecom doesn't maintain them because they are not profitable. Telecom Chorus are providing access to 80% of the country, whereas the Govt Fibre rollout is only expected to be available to 75%. If I was rural, I'd be hedging my bets on Telecom Chorus putting gear in my area more-so than the Govt. I remember in the not so distant past some researchers were able to get fibre speeds over existing copper with new transmission techniques. Yeah apparently, but I don't know anything about it.	Chilling_Silence (9)
873071	2010-04-06 09:06:00	Lots of interesting discussion here . . . Firstly, I think it's appropriate for me to say make it clear that I'm not out to bash Telecom . They've done a fantastic job with their $1 . 4b cabinetisation programme which has allowed us to catch up to much of the developed world in terms of download speeds, and provide reliable broadband to hundreds of thousands of NZ homes and businesses . While Chill makes it sound like high speed symmetrical broadband is readily available, it is not . The cost of the last mile (or two, or ten) is where the biggest expense is; and even then, it's not just the cost of the fibre itself, it's the cost of putting it in the ground . Recent estimates place the "cost per premise passed" - i . e . the cost to get fibre running to the curb outside your property - to be in the region of $1700-2400 per household if it is done at scale ( . med . govt . nz/upload/63958/FTTP-Cost-Study-Public-Version . pdf" target="_blank">www . med . govt . nz) . For a company like Telecom, or any other telco or utility company, trying to recoup that cost at a pace which will keep their investors happy is simply not possible - assuming a 3 year period to recoup the costs, that's between $47-67 per month just to get that back . This doesn't include the cost of getting fibre from the street into the customer's house/office . This sort of cost, on top of data, backhaul, and other expenditure would put the price outside the reach of a lot of households - and of course, they need to make a profit too! With government support, you could stretch the time needed to recoup the costs out to say 10-15 years since there wouldn't be the requirement for a short term return, making the per month cost to recover the capital investment down to less than $10 a month for a household - a much more palatable number, which will place it within the reach of many more households and businesses . These costs are only achievable with a large scale deployment; today's costs are many times higher . If we then look at the cost of data, I think it's important to remember that nobody is suggesting that FTTH on its own is going to decrease the cost of international bandwidth . Since a lot of the content we consume now is served out of the US, our geographical distance puts us at a disadvantage . Short of picking up the country, and moving it closer to the US, there's not a hell of a lot you can do . What FTTH does do is it enables more local content delivery opportunities, and completely different business models to exist domestically . Things like the remote backups mentioned earlier, on-demand media, content exchange between businesses . In the education sector, it allows access to a national (and international - via KAREN + research links) pool of experts, content, and resources . With a real, open-access network via LFCs, and not just a regulated Telecom one, it gives ISPs and content providers greater opportunities to come up with innovative new offerings . We need these offerings to shift the consumption away from being US-centric, to being NZ-centric . In terms of SCC, and alternative international links, it really is an area which doesn't require government intervention . Backhaul is always the most attractive to the private sector - we have a ton of domestic backhaul capacity from organisations like Telecom, TelstraClear, Vector, FX, to name a few - because it's a safe, cheap investment . In the last 18 months, SCC has halved its per-GB international data costs - and the govt barely did anything . We can just continue to nudge SCC, but it's not something which requires much effort, or financial contribution from the taxpayer . We will never get close to the per-GB costs for US-bound data that ISPs in the US can get - primarily because we're thousands of kilometres away! The biggest cost for broadband is in the last mile . That's the area in which the private sector is least willing to invest, because the time it takes to recoup the investment is just too long . The cost of civil engineering (i . e . digging the trenches) isn't going to drop any time soon, and if anything, with inflation and increases to the minimum wage will actually go up . That's where government support has the most impact - not subsidising or otherwise supplementing the profitable backhaul networks . Finally, a small point about serving rural areas . The last 20-25% of the population is unprofitable to reach . That's why Telecom isn't bothering to cabinetise those areas, and that's why it's not part of the initial FTTH push . However, as part of the wider broadband strategy, funding has been set aside to push high speed broadband into those communities through MUSH networks . These MUSH networks will make a big difference to schools and other public services in these areas, and also helps provide access to homes and businesses in those communities . There is no silver bullet - what we do need to do is look at the long term, and look at where taxpayer funds will have the most impact .	somebody (208)
873072	2010-04-06 19:24:00	In time I suspect the vast bulk of internet traffic will be TV. Once the 'providers' establish how to manage a subscription (money) stream from it (and prevent copying and redistribution) then it'll be pretty much every home sucking TV from the interent, and only complete dross available over the few remaining unencrypted (free) airways. Sky TV has already proven that if you make something available at a premium, there'll be suckers who will line up to pay for it. Going to the cinema will become a thing of the past - you'll simply cough up a few bucks directly to the likes of Columbia / Universal / Sony and get your new release movie streamed to your home. While we might not need fibre to the house for this, we will certainly need an awesome backbone to the net to handle so much data.	Paul.Cov (425)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14