Friday, February 4. 2011'NBN2' UpdateJohn Linton For those readers of this blog who did not attend yesterday's NBN Co briefing (which included me) these are the observations of someone who did: 1,000 Fibre access nodes will be deployed each · Fixed wireless technology for next 4% will be based on · Satellite services for the last 3% will be based on 2 · I assume the same NTU will be used for · Future Gpon technologies include “4NGpon” which can · Network is Layer 2 only BUT they are using IGMP for · Developing full B2B now with various discussion papers · They have about 1,800 FTE staff now · We need to get a copy of the “Wholesale Broadband · POI capacity is shared amongst all WSP/RSP – the more · 120 POI’s – 80 Metro and 40 Regional · Aerial fibre will represent 18% of deployment · NBNCo is now responsible for Greenfield/New Estates as · All services will have a consistent POI, Interface, · NO VOLUME DISCOUNTS FOR ANY CUSTOMER…. · Each UNI-D (4) and UNI-V (2) on the ONT can be · The Connectivity Virtual Circuit is where the · Class of Service o 1 = Real Time = o 2 = Interactive = o 3 = Transactional = o 4 = Best Effort = Web · Recommended reading · Product roadmap has 5 releases every 6 months o 1 – Broadband and o 2 – IPTV o 3 – Business o 4 – Enterprise o 5 – Enhancements · CVC backhaul circuit is $20/Mbps · Sydney POI is in Global Switch · Migration of services has been studied in detail – So you can see how one 'industry participant' saw the various presentations. Another view is expressed here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/avoiding-a-monster-70-is-the-magic-number-20110203-1afg6.html Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2011
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Sydney POI is in Global Switch???
No carrier has Global Switch as a single handoff point in Sydney for wholesale services - the place is simply too hard to get space in these days if you're not already established. Any carrier with half a brain seeking to sell wholesale services would be calling in any favour they could to get space in Equinix, surely! I see nothing is mentioned beyond layer 2 above. Personally, I would like to see peering at a major IX in a given state as a condition for accessing any NBN POIs in that state to break this stupid Gang of Four business that's still going on. Comments (4)
I have simply reproduced the contents of the email sent to me.
Comments (2)
Not at all intended as a criticism of you John.
My statements are intended to highlight the short-sightedness of such thinking on the part of a network builder (such as those behind the NBN). Comments (4)
I'm glad to see nothing above layer 2. They are providing a simple carrier service with points of access at each end. As a monopoly (to some extent) at least it look like they are providing a level playing field. They ought not restrict any company wishing to provide a service over that layer 2. A condition like "peering" would restrict access.
Comments (3)
And the idea of the Gang of Four leaves everything nice and open?
Why should a company like AAPT who has lower traffic volume than many non Gang of Four carriers be entitled to the benefit of a government misstep back in 1998 that genuinely disadvantages companies such as Exetel by holding domestic transit prices much higher than they should be? The condition I mention makes an awful lot of sense to anyone who understands how the transit market works in Australia and goes further to address the anti-competitive behaviour that the NBN attempts to address through replacing the predominantly Telstra-owned access network. Comments (4)
NBN acts in a market where it will be a monopoly. There are tight controls on it and it looks like it will treat all customers equally and openly. It is right and proper to keep its operation simple and straight-forward and in particular only operating in the area in which it has a monopoly. So for example it is important NBN does not have a retail ISP arm.
Whether or not the problem Chris mentions actually is a problem, the NBN is not the correct instrument to address that problem. It corrupts the separation of the market in which the monopoly operates. Comments (3)
It's exactly your basis I base my argument of compulsory peering on, believe it or not.
Every ISP has costs in providing access to their customers, unless they're a member of the Gang of Four in which case they have one less cost. The Gang of Four is a real problem, and many persons other than myself have stated as such (and persons who have every basis to). The cost the Gang of Four do not need to bear is the cost of Domestic Transit. As a result AAPT, Optus, Telstra and Verizon have a lower operating expense profile for bandwidth. This arrangement is the result of a government decision in 1998, and only one company has come close to joining as a fifth member in all that time (Comindico, if you're interested). The promise of NBN's business structure is to treat all access seekers equally - why should any company be given additional government-mandated benefits, effectively creating a two-tiered market which you would clearly advocate against. Further, the NBN is exactly the right instrument given that the current GoF situation is one of government design. Comments (4)
I think you miss my point. I'm not denying an issue (though it would be no different to other businesses using market dominance). I'm saying that the NBN is not the instrument to correct that problem. The NBN isn't even delivering IP. So your suggestion is actually to force a segment of NBN's customers (ISPs) to peer. NBN shouldn't be concerned with WHAT any customer is doing on its network beyond what is necessary to deliver the layer 2 service. It is at the heart, a layer 2 carriage service. Anything that complicates that complicates the market.
What's more your solution doesn't extend to ISPs who deliver services apart from the NBN - wireless for example. This also demonstrates that your suggestion is not a true solution. If the government wanted to change the Domestic Transit situation, it could do so with many other tools - including legislation. However the situation is no different to any other market with dominant players. Comments (3)
Glad to see Business Data is a class below "TV" and treated equivalent to Gaming.
Comment (1)
....but there is a 4 hour response time for any business user.....
Comments (2)
Thank you for putting these details up for comment.
I comment only from the outside, but a requirement for "peering" sounds like it could be of worthwhile interest for the public's stake in this project and of import to 'network neutrality' (between Aus ISPS) from a business POV. Similarly, quoted backhaul "$20"p Mbps, did not escape me: undoubtedly a result of a gangrene_Group-of-4' lobbying for 'protectionist money' (an abysmal TAX) be installed and thus insulating their empires from those outside forces. Comment (1)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |