Are we getting the right deal?
Is New Zealand getting the right deal? Well there’s no question we’re doing a better job than Australia at the moment, but beyond that it is hard to know. The process is not transparent and the CFH has not released any of the standards that partners are expected to meet (if there are any). Worst of all, there is no set of national regulated services that LFCs must provide, and the Government has declared that the LFCs will be exempt from regulation.
Rather than expand again on the principals of such networks, I’ll do the reverse and list some of the things that I believe would be a failure of CFH to get us the right deal. I believe the following will result in less economic transformation, less social benefit, less competition, worse service, and — what everyone cares about — higher prices.
- Sporadically connecting homes on demand as opposed to connecting all homes in a structured manner as part of the roll out.
- Not requiring an open access network offering the basic wholesale layer 2 services.
- Not having a well defined set of wholesale layer 2 services and cost model for these.
- Not having a framework for how these wholesale layer 2 service will be enforced and enhanced over the following decades to meet the evolving requirements of service providers and their customers.
- Permitting cross subsidization of wholesale services.
- Not using a network architecture that recognises the importance of aggregation for manageability, throughput, and cost efficiency.
- Using home-run fibre.
- Running drops all the way from the cabinet as opposed to a NAP in the street.
- Using blown delivery from the cabinet (see above).
- Encumbering any LFC with any of the partner’s legacy investments. For example if Telecom were to propose the establishment of an LFC that took ownership of Telecom’s existing copper outside plant, existing cabinets, or existing equipment, this would be bad. These have next to no value once you’ve decided to build a new FTTH network. Doing this is only a way for the partner to try to architect extra return from these prior investments.
- Deploying outdoor ONTs as opposed to indoor ONTs.
- Installing battery backup for all ONTs. Only necessary for those requiring lifeline services for which mobiles are insufficient, and even then this is really a larger subject: should we even bother with a POTS service on the UFB networks?
- Permitting any LFC to operate non-access services in competition with service providers. LFCs must only offer services between recognised service providers and their clients, not between subscribers. This applies to both the layer 1 and 2 services.
- Having more than two POIs for the wholesale layer 2 services within any 30 km radius. (Roughly speaking that is. Varies with circumstances.)
- Encumbering the LFC with the requirement to provide housing for service provider equipment at non-POI sites. Roughly one cabinet in each 5 km radius is all that is needed to house the MSANs.
Hi Kris
Like both your posts found them through a linkedin group ultra fast broadband by Dean Tuck and would like to understand more on your comments about:
– PSTN (or equivalent service) as this has impact on regulatory: TSO, Kiwi Share (for today anyway); technical (numbering plans, connectivity standards – assuming VOIP equivalent);
– use of air blown fibre technologies compared to others (which others) and the JIT connection assumed by ABF
– using the existing telco physical infrastructure (not the copper network) to reduce costs as being worked on in Australia now
cheers
Gaz
Hi Gaz, thanks for your comment.
I’m not too fussed about the future the Kiwi Share, I don’t think there is one post UFB. Instead we need to put more regulatory effort these days into ensuring our wireless networks are competitive, offering good value for money, and are highly resilient.
A bit of context and elaboration regarding my air blown fibre comment. I had just been shown an air blown system that a major bidder for the UFB was touting (at least so they told me). This involved building microducts from the local convergence point/fibre distribution hub all the way back to every premise, and then blowing dedicated fibre from there to those premise. Apparently the benefit of this was that you can blow copper (so they said) and then swap it for fibre. This is just overly elaborate and very wasteful. There is no advantage. Now blowing fibre indoors in MDUs or for the drop from the NAP in the street to the house I don’t necessarily have a problem with. As for JIT connections, well I think everyhome should be connected as part of the deployment, but nothing stops JIT connections from the NAP in the street using preconnectorised drop cables.
I haven’t been following the NBN in Australia, I occasionally see some really alarming news like they will only have 16 POIs (two per state) and will do all of the backhaul. If that’s still accurate then I think they’ve gone mad and are trying to do far too much in Australia, and unecessarily so. In New Zealand there is some existing infrastructure that could be useful and this is where Telecom should’ve had the advantage, if they weren’t encumbered. Take the example of Northland, if we do the stats we find that Kaitaia, Keri Keri, Kaikohe, and Dargaville should all have FTTH also (they’re within the top 75% of areas in NZ based on density) so if we deployed to these towns then Telecom’s fibre between those towns and Whagarei would be very useful for backhauling those OLTs to Whangarei (or wherever) for handover to the retail service providers.