Commerce Commission - bitstream etc.
I was having a look though the documents here: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/localloop.cfm I was a bit disappointed at the lack of Local Loop access but there seemed to be some positive talk about the Bitstream service. However the last three pages (Appendix 5) of the Final Report Appendices basically define this as a 128up/256down service with VOIP, video and similar functionality specifically excluded. In other words Telecom will only have to open up a minimal level ADSL service slightly faster than Jetstart (with a recommended provisioning cost of $185 ) . I also see nothing about removing the requirement for all home customers with DSL to also have a voice phone line so I presume it's still in there which means that their be no option to replace home customer's main phone line with a VOIP system (like some people are doing in the US) or for people just to use their cellphones. Which overall looks like at least another couple of years of "more of the same" with respect to high speed Internet for most people. Or have I misinterpreted the recommendations? -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Simon Lyall wrote:
Or have I misinterpreted the recommendations?
What makes you think you have? The Commissioner's volte-face based on the rather thin and non-commital offer by Telecom is rather inexplicable. I've tried to make sense of the lot, especially the formulae, but so far, failed. I have a feeling that it would be more honest for everyone involved if the government came clear and said that it is not interested in NZ developing any sort of Internet connectivity that is not provided by Telecom NZ in one form or the other. If you think that that is corporatist policy, well... I can't fault you. It is. -- Juha
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:48:13 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote
I have a feeling that it would be more honest for everyone involved if the government came clear and said that it is not interested in NZ developing any sort of Internet connectivity that is not provided by Telecom NZ in one form or the other.
The foundation stones have been set... As geeks we need to pick up out tools and start building community networks. Community competition is the only way we're ever going to see change in New Zealand. If as New Zealanders we're not prepaired to pick up where the corporations leave off then why should we expect the telephone companies to? Cheers DiG -- Don Gould The technology exists to give every home 10mbits per second for $10 per month!
At 07:48 p.m. 26/12/2003 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
I have a feeling that it would be more honest for everyone involved if the government came clear and said that it is not interested in NZ developing any sort of Internet connectivity that is not provided by Telecom NZ in one form or the other.
I'm a bit sleepy and may be reading this wrong, and I haven't read the full report, but my understanding is quite the opposite. I understand the Commissioner is saying "don't rely solely on Telecom's infrastructure (its old legacy stuff with no future) focus instead on making the NZ Broadband Internet using newer stuff". Personally I agree with him. NZ has had the *best* deregulated environment for the past 12 years and has largely squandered that advantage. I believe there are plenty of alternatives such as fiber, wireless, cat-5 (a personal favourite) with alternative architectures that are perfectly viable, scalable etc. Accept the fact that Telecom's local loop is based on older cable which doesn't meet many requirements other than a phone and DSL, and is of diminiuishing value for real broadband. Every effort overseas (and remember is all about economic development NOT communications) is where countries are building new networks. In terms of business models look back in time and see how little NZ got power to its smaller towns and cities. They were build by community owned power boards. Its a very effective way of raising the capital as well as providing lots of local employment. They weren't build by NZED/transpower/etc and Telecom won't invest in real broadband in those areas while its share price/value slides to zero. And as for why Telstra would want to build dsl over copper networks today with new plant, well I can only think of Lemmings...... Sorry for the rant, I'm a bit passionate about broadband and how NZ was WASTED the chance it had. Better go mow the lawn and take it out on the grass...... BTW - Happy Christmas everyone. rich
Richard Naylor wrote:
I'm a bit sleepy and may be reading this wrong, and I haven't read the full report, but my understanding is quite the opposite. I understand the Commissioner is saying "don't rely solely on Telecom's infrastructure (its old legacy stuff with no future) focus instead on making the NZ Broadband Internet using newer stuff".
If he was, why then is he so keen on cementing Telecom's already firm position as the roadblock on the "Information Superhighway"?
Personally I agree with him. NZ has had the *best* deregulated environment for the past 12 years and has largely squandered that advantage.
Therefore, new initiatives are needed. The commissioner equates broadband with 256/128k ADSL with several service limitations and no guarantees as to performance. It's almost 2004... we should be looking at tens of Mbps services, if not faster.
I believe there are plenty of alternatives such as fiber, wireless, cat-5 (a personal favourite) with alternative architectures that are perfectly viable, scalable etc. Accept the fact that Telecom's local loop is based on older cable which doesn't meet many requirements other than a phone and DSL, and is of diminiuishing value for real broadband. Every effort overseas (and remember is all about economic development NOT communications) is where countries are building new networks.
In terms of business models look back in time and see how little NZ got power to its smaller towns and cities. They were build by community owned power boards. Its a very effective way of raising the capital as well as providing lots of local employment. They weren't build by NZED/transpower/etc and Telecom won't invest in real broadband in those areas while its share price/value slides to zero.
Although I agree that community networks are probably the only way out of this mess, your analogy doesn't quite hold. To start with, there were no existing electricity grids in the past, and they didn't have to link up with one another. With Telecom in place, anyone wanting to build a community network would have to contend with a national giant with deep pockets that is allowed to offer predatory street-by-street pricing and charge hair-raising fees for interconnectivity.
And as for why Telstra would want to build dsl over copper networks today with new plant, well I can only think of Lemmings......
Well, DSL is a known technology with lots of off-the-shelf products available for it. (So's Ethernet, but it's not widely deployed like DSL, and certainly not by telcos.)
Sorry for the rant, I'm a bit passionate about broadband and how NZ was WASTED the chance it had.
No kidding.
BTW - Happy Christmas everyone.
It's been already. Check your clock ;-) -- Juha
<RANT> ( <-- Precursor warning :) On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:29:49 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote
Richard Naylor wrote:
I'm a bit sleepy and may be reading this wrong, and I haven't read the full report, but my understanding is quite the opposite. I understand the Commissioner is saying "don't rely solely on Telecom's infrastructure (its old legacy stuff with no future) focus instead on making the NZ Broadband Internet using newer stuff".
If he was, why then is he so keen on cementing Telecom's already firm position as the roadblock on the "Information Superhighway"?
Reading between the lines I see things as quite different... perhaps I should shutup but the troll in me says "bite!"... Do you want to live in a world dominated by the telephone company? Many regulators around the world seem to be making moves at present to prevent this. Read between the lines and see what they're really doing. Ask now that your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your boradband internet community!
Personally I agree with him. NZ has had the *best* deregulated environment for the past 12 years and has largely squandered that advantage.
Therefore, new initiatives are needed. The commissioner equates broadband with 256/128k ADSL with several service limitations and no guarantees as to performance.
The commissioner is attempting to light a fire under the ass's of the geeks to push them to do something more than sit on our fat asses, get busy and start putting CAT5 in the streets along with a bit of fibre to hoke the nodes together! (Someone did that once then they sold the interest to a bloody telephone company... now no one gets full advantage from it!!!)
It's almost 2004... we should be looking at tens of Mbps services, if not faster.
Actually it's 2003 (as you seem to want to correct people on the date - see below)... but yes I agree we should be using the technology that we've spent years developing! (I warned you this was a rant! :)
I believe there are plenty of alternatives such as fiber, wireless, cat-5 (a personal favourite) with alternative architectures that are perfectly viable, scalable etc. Accept the fact that Telecom's local loop is based on older cable which doesn't meet many requirements other than a phone and DSL, and is of diminiuishing value for real broadband.
Every effort overseas
(and remember is all about economic development NOT communications)
Thank you Richard... That's what we all needed to be reminded... I've spent some of the last few days looking at web sites talking about why Linux is so important and they're all so hoplessly out of date it's annoying :)
is where countries are building new networks.
In terms of business models look back in time and see how little NZ got power to its smaller towns and cities. They were build by community owned power boards. Its a very effective way of raising the capital as well as providing lots of local employment. They weren't build by NZED/transpower/etc and Telecom won't invest in real broadband in those areas while its share price/value slides to zero.
FANTASTIC point!
Although I agree that community networks are probably the only way out of this mess, your analogy doesn't quite hold.
To start with, there were no existing electricity grids in the past, and they didn't have to link up with one another.
With Telecom in place, anyone wanting to build a community network would have to contend with a national giant with deep pockets that is allowed to offer predatory street-by-street pricing and charge hair-raising fees for interconnectivity.
This is actually a good thing from out point of view if our aim is get faster bb access - if on the other hand your aim is less altruistic (hope I sp that right) and your interest is in building a high value commerical entitiy that you can then sell to a telephone company in the furture then I agree it's not good...
And as for why Telstra would want to build dsl over copper networks today with new plant, well I can only think of Lemmings......
Well, DSL is a known technology with lots of off-the-shelf products available for it.
Rubish... everyone's clambering over each other to develop new hardware at present that will deliver what Ethernet can already do and it's still costing 5 times the price!
(So's Ethernet, but it's not widely deployed like DSL, and certainly not by telcos.)
Sorry for the rant, I'm a bit passionate about broadband and how NZ was WASTED the chance it had.
I wouldn't say the chance has been wasted. Why do you feel that way? Sure we haven't picked up the 8 ball and run with it yet but we still have the chance to do that don't we? My question to you guys is 'is there enough geek support to bring change'?
No kidding.
BTW - Happy Christmas everyone.
It's been already. Check your clock ;-)
Cheers DiG -- Don Gould The technology exists to give every home 10mbits per second for $10 per month! Sounds to me like it's time we started actually building?!
At 10:29 a.m. 27/12/2003 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote: <snip>
In terms of business models look back in time and see how little NZ got power to its smaller towns and cities. They were build by community owned power boards. Its a very effective way of raising the capital as well as providing lots of local employment. They weren't build by NZED/transpower/etc and Telecom won't invest in real broadband in those areas while its share price/value slides to zero.
Although I agree that community networks are probably the only way out of this mess, your analogy doesn't quite hold.
To start with, there were no existing electricity grids in the past, and they didn't have to link up with one another. With Telecom in place, anyone wanting to build a community network would have to contend with a national giant with deep pockets that is allowed to offer predatory street-by-street pricing and charge hair-raising fees for interconnectivity.
OK- now I have to confess Juha. I spent 14 years in teh power industry in both Wellington and London. The model I'm talking about does work. You know only a power system with standard plugs and 110 or 230v AC - I know a different one that sells/sold commercial DC - that has/had ties so that when teh state generator wasn't there, things still work (inter ties with other boards) that had its own genies - remember the coal station on Evans Bay ? I'm too young to remember the one on Harris St where the Michael Fowler Center is now, but the cables going into teh Duxton Hotel substation go back to where it was. The lines companies have hugely deep pockets, already own poles and lines, GIS systems, crews (or contractors) and use a different non-telco architecture. They are community owned and know about community development. They also talk to each other. But focus on the ARCHITECTURE. (I could be cheeky and say don't bother - you're in Auckland, but that would be unfair) The problem with them so far (ie United Networks, and perhaps a few others I won't name) is that being too conservative they keep hiring "telco" engineers to tell them how to build a comms network. What they're really building is a new comms utility. Thats why some of them sell kbps instead of Mbps as they should be. This "telco" thinking leads to prices around the same order of magnitude as Telcom. They will always compete with the 5% discount technique. In reality if you want major change you have to do something major. So you have to come out with a compelling price/performance that just blows them away. That is talking megabits not kbps or be 25% of Telecoms prices. That way customers will make the change because its just so obvious. You WON'T get this major change by using Telecoms infrastructure because the architecture and technology is WRONG (and Telecoms prices would have ensured just a marginally better deal - remember the 5% discount). LLU just encourages more of the same crap we have now. We have to forget it and move on.
And as for why Telstra would want to build dsl over copper networks today with new plant, well I can only think of Lemmings......
Well, DSL is a known technology with lots of off-the-shelf products available for it. (So's Ethernet, but it's not widely deployed like DSL, and certainly not by telcos.)
I disagree - ethernet IS widely deployed, just rarely in outside plant situations. But look at the economics of ethernet (GigE nics for half the price of a 56k modem) and you can see why we have to get rid of the old copper plant. DSL technology is the best it can do - and that ain't good enough in 2003/2004 (for those worried about the date or time). After all most dsl modems have an ethernet port on them, so theres gotta be more ethernet than dsl. But you're right a telco sees only dsl - because thats what telcos do. Someone looking at the bigger problem sees a different solution - ethernet. What is it that the customer wants ? high speed low cost reliable networks. Doesn't sound like dsl to me. Compare a dslam with an ethernet switch and remember the KISS principle. Then look at the architecture behind DSLAMS, SDH, et al - and its just old school and doesn;t scale into massive gigabit networks. (in the 100,000s of nodes). Asynchronous data networks like ethernet DO. So the telco industry has just got it all WRONG. So the Regulator got it right. Telcos can use the Telecom network, people looking for real networking solutions can innovate (and leave them to wither and die). Siesta time - back soon. rich (who has some rare time to answer emails)
/me steps back up onto his soap box, draws breath... ponders... steps down,
grabs a beer and settles in for some real conversation! :)
The lines companies have hugely deep pockets, already own poles and lines, GIS systems, crews (or contractors) and use a different non- telco architecture. They are community owned and know about community development. They also talk to each other. But focus on the ARCHITECTURE. (I could be cheeky and say don't bother - you're in Auckland, but that would be unfair)
When they put the power underground in Auckland did they not put it in conduit? They've just spent the last year putting conduit underground all around Perth so that power can be pushed thur. They 'say' they have a pilot running there to push fibre thru to the front door at the same time. The reality seems to be a bit different... fibre has already been run to all the cablinets and agrigation has been done all over perth.
The problem with them so far (ie United Networks, and perhaps a few others I won't name) is that being too conservative they keep hiring "telco" engineers to tell them how to build a comms network. What they're really building is a new comms utility. Thats why some of them sell kbps instead of Mbps as they should be. This "telco" thinking leads to prices around the same order of magnitude as Telcom. They will always compete with the 5% discount technique. In reality if you want major change you have to do something major. So you have to come out with a compelling price/performance that just blows them away. That is talking megabits not kbps or be 25% of Telecoms prices. That way customers will make the change because its just so obvious.
You WON'T get this major change by using Telecoms infrastructure because the architecture and technology is WRONG (and Telecoms prices would have ensured just a marginally better deal - remember the 5% discount). LLU just encourages more of the same crap we have now. We have to forget it and move on.
Agreed. Richard would you care to comment on Telstra/Clear/Saturn thou? Looking around Chch there's lots of plant gone in all over the place but people seem to be just using it for telephones and a bit of pay tv. Perhaps you know more? It strikes me at present everytime someone gets busy and builds something decent a phone company comes along with deep pockets, buys it out then does bugger all with it. If we spend time lobying power companies to do something useful with that just go the way other initives seem to have gone?
I disagree - ethernet IS widely deployed, just rarely in outside plant situations. But look at the economics of ethernet (GigE nics for half the price of a 56k modem) and you can see why we have to get rid of the old copper plant. DSL technology is the best it can do - and that ain't good enough in 2003/2004
(for those worried about the date or time).
You had tears in my eyes over that bit... hummm... :)
After all most dsl modems have an ethernet port on them, so theres gotta be more ethernet than dsl.
But you're right a telco sees only dsl - because thats what telcos do. Someone looking at the bigger problem sees a different solution - ethernet. What is it that the customer wants ? high speed low cost reliable networks. Doesn't sound like dsl to me. Compare a dslam with an ethernet switch and remember the KISS principle. Then look at the architecture behind DSLAMS, SDH, et al - and its just old school and doesn;t scale into massive gigabit networks. (in the 100, 000s of nodes). Asynchronous data networks like ethernet DO. So the telco industry has just got it all WRONG.
I 100% agree... I've been following DSLPrime for some time where Dave talks about ADSL2 technology quite a bit of the time... they're feeling good about them selves when they manage to get 50mbits on the line.... and here we are talking about 1gbit.
So the Regulator got it right. Telcos can use the Telecom network, people looking for real networking solutions can innovate (and leave them to wither and die).
Agreed again... Why should the regulator push the telco to innovate? They have enough money to do research and development but they seem to focus on just milking the oldest cow they can!
rich (who has some rare time to answer emails)
Yes... and it's proving interesting as well... I'm learning lots about the NZ sceene. Cheers DiG -- Don Gould The technology exists to give every home 10mbits per second for $10 per month! Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your broadband community!
Richard Naylor wrote:
OK- now I have to confess Juha. I spent 14 years in teh power industry in both Wellington and London. The model I'm talking about does work.
I see, I thought you were referring to 60-70 years ago.
(I could be cheeky and say don't bother - you're in Auckland, but that would be unfair)
Humm. Auckland seems to be the cash-cow for the rest of the country...
The problem with them so far (ie United Networks, and perhaps a few others I won't name) is that being too conservative they keep hiring "telco" engineers to tell them how to build a comms network. What they're really building is a new comms utility. Thats why some of them sell kbps instead of Mbps as they should be. This "telco" thinking leads to prices around the same order of magnitude as Telcom. They will always compete with the 5% discount technique. In reality if you want major change you have to do something major. So you have to come out with a compelling price/performance that just blows them away. That is talking megabits not kbps or be 25% of Telecoms prices. That way customers will make the change because its just so obvious.
Now you're making sense. And I don't disagree. If there is no equivalent Telecom technology, then the predatory price cutting they've done in the past is irrelevant. The next question then is, why hasn't anyone done it already? In theory, your vision sounds great. Hope it'll come into practice outside Wellington (Wired Country anyone?).
I disagree - ethernet IS widely deployed, just rarely in outside plant situations.
Which is what I meant.
But you're right a telco sees only dsl - because thats what telcos do. Someone looking at the bigger problem sees a different solution - ethernet. What is it that the customer wants ? high speed low cost reliable networks. Doesn't sound like dsl to me. Compare a dslam with an ethernet switch and remember the KISS principle. Then look at the architecture behind DSLAMS, SDH, et al - and its just old school and doesn;t scale into massive gigabit networks. (in the 100,000s of nodes). Asynchronous data networks like ethernet DO. So the telco industry has just got it all WRONG.
So the Regulator got it right. Telcos can use the Telecom network, people looking for real networking solutions can innovate (and leave them to wither and die).
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I think I'll be withered and dead long before there's an affordable alternative to DSL outside the Auckland CBD. -- Juha
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 03:29:31PM +1300, Juha Saarinen said:
The next question then is, why hasn't anyone done it already?
There are two major issues that, if solved, would ease the construction of new community networks. 1) the abolition of the KiwiShare. It's got to go, it's a massive disincentive for anybody wishing to setup voice services in competition with Telecom. For better or worse, you need to be able to offer voice and teev and data to cover the cost of your fibre rollout - the KiwiShare makes this pretty difficult. 2) the support of local territorial authorities - access to ducts, mandating trench sharing, and so forth. Local councils can make it very easy, or impossibly difficult, for new network operators to invest in infastructure.
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I think I'll be withered and dead long before there's an affordable alternative to DSL outside the Auckland CBD.
<shrug> Stand for your council, and make a difference - if you could get 1% of the cash spent on Auckland roads spent on Auckland fibre to the home, you'd be awash in high speed data. Cheers Si
WOW! This list just keeps on comming with really great comments! I spent a lot of time following some lists overseas only to get over run by kids and spammers. On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:16:11 +1300, Simon Blake wrote
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 03:29:31PM +1300, Juha Saarinen said:
The next question then is, why hasn't anyone done it already?
There are two major issues that, if solved, would ease the construction of new community networks.
1) the abolition of the KiwiShare. It's got to go, it's a massive disincentive for anybody wishing to setup voice services in competition with Telecom. For better or worse, you need to be able to offer voice and teev and data to cover the cost of your fibre rollout - the KiwiShare makes this pretty difficult.
Simon can you explain why this is so?
2) the support of local territorial authorities - access to ducts, mandating trench sharing, and so forth. Local councils can make it very easy, or impossibly difficult, for new network operators to invest in infastructure.
Hummm.... Isn't that why getting community to invest in it and own it them selves is a beter idea?
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I think I'll be withered and dead long before there's an affordable alternative to DSL outside the Auckland CBD.
<shrug> Stand for your council, and make a difference - if you could get 1% of the cash spent on Auckland roads spent on Auckland fibre to the home, you'd be awash in high speed data.
Now that makes sense! How often to councils have elections? Cheers DiG -- Don Gould The technology exists to give every home 10mbits per second for $10 per month! Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your broadband community!
WOW! This list just keeps on comming with really great comments! I spent a lot of time following some lists overseas only to get over run by kids and spammers.
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:16:11 +1300, Simon Blake wrote
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 03:29:31PM +1300, Juha Saarinen said:
The next question then is, why hasn't anyone done it already?
There are two major issues that, if solved, would ease the construction of new community networks.
1) the abolition of the KiwiShare. It's got to go, it's a massive disincentive for anybody wishing to setup voice services in competition with Telecom. For better or worse, you need to be able to offer voice and teev and data to cover the cost of your fibre rollout - the KiwiShare makes this pretty difficult.
Simon can you explain why this is so?
2) the support of local territorial authorities - access to ducts, mandating trench sharing, and so forth. Local councils can make it very easy, or impossibly difficult, for new network operators to invest in infastructure.
Hummm.... Isn't that why getting community to invest in it and own it
Shows how many geeks are online at this time of the day :P
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gould - BVC"
selves is a beter idea?
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I think I'll be withered and dead long before there's an affordable alternative to DSL outside the Auckland CBD.
<shrug> Stand for your council, and make a difference - if you could get 1% of the cash spent on Auckland roads spent on Auckland fibre to the home, you'd be awash in high speed data.
Now that makes sense! How often to councils have elections?
Cheers DiG
-- Don Gould The technology exists to give every home 10mbits per second for $10 per month!
Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your broadband community!
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
At 03:29 p.m. 27/12/2003 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I think I'll be withered and dead long before there's an affordable alternative to DSL outside the Auckland CBD.
Start tomorrow Juha. Go to Dick Smiths, buy some cat-5 cable and run a link to your neighbour. Encourage them to do the same. As the old Chinese proverb goes "The network of a thousand nodes begins with a single link" rich
Richard Naylor wrote:
Start tomorrow Juha. Go to Dick Smiths, buy some cat-5 cable and run a link to your neighbour. Encourage them to do the same. As the old Chinese proverb goes
"The network of a thousand nodes begins with a single link"
Hmm... think I have about 300 or so metres left of the last roll I bought. (And yes, I have actually been trying to get a few neighbours networked...). -- Juha
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 06:33:18PM +1300, Richard Naylor wrote:
At 03:29 p.m. 27/12/2003 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
I don't want to sound defeatist, but I think I'll be withered and dead long before there's an affordable alternative to DSL outside the Auckland CBD.
Start tomorrow Juha. Go to Dick Smiths, buy some cat-5 cable and run a link to your neighbour. Encourage them to do the same. As the old Chinese proverb goes
"The network of a thousand nodes begins with a single link"
Inspired largely by this thread and in particular (at least for me) this post, a couple of us got together and set up this webiste and list to facilitate discussion of this kind of community network. http://www.nzwired.net/ It needs plenty of work, but then it's a wiki :-) All welcome. Thanks, Richard
On 26 Dec 2003, at 20:15, Richard Naylor wrote:
You WON'T get this major change by using Telecoms infrastructure because the architecture and technology is WRONG (and Telecoms prices would have ensured just a marginally better deal - remember the 5% discount). LLU just encourages more of the same crap we have now. We have to forget it and move on.
Here in Canada the local loop is unbundled. Bell (in Ontario, where I live) appears to do a reasonable job at selling wholesale ADSL access to other ISPs: they provide either a PPP over ATM or a VLAN-per-customer on gigabit ethernet hand-off direct to ISPs, for example, with no visible layer-3 topology. There are also ISPs who provide niche services directly over the copper (e.g. lower-speed DSL services to rural areas where the wire-line distance to the subscriber exceeds Bell's limits, or includes load coils). There's legacy CATV plant in most Canadian cities which has also been widely upgraded with sufficient back-channel to provide internet services. This competition (together with the competition from unbundled local-loop) might help explain why the ex-incumbent's wholesale services don't suck too badly. In any case, the general availability of good-quality, affordable ADSL has led to widespread uptake. Even though the local-loop has been unbundled there are still plenty of people doing fixed-wireless, two-way satellite and fibre builds where there is a market for their services, all at speeds beyond the minimum that which Telecom NZ would call broadband. It is reasonable to think that those alternative access infrastructures would find a larger potential catchment if they didn't have to compete with cheap 4M ADSL services in the same areas, but it also seems reasonable to think that without the groundswell of appreciation for broadband services in general those (more expensive) alternative high-speed access media might be a lot harder to sell. [Canada is number two on the 2000 OECD broadband penetration list, after South Korea. In terms of physical logistics per population it's not too dissimilar to New Zealand (small population, large country, unpleasant terrain to deal with in many places). New Zealand is number 16 on the list, with 14 times fewer lines installed per 100 people than Canada. 4 out of 100 homes in Canada are served by CATV or ADSL broadband internet access. It is substantially cheaper now to become a broadband ADSL or cable modem customer on an existing phone or cable connection than it is to order a new phone line and use a $10/month dial account at 56k. So, it seems to me that it's much easier to sell someone on the idea of fibre-to-the-home if they're already of the mindset that they can't live with anything less than multi-megabit internet access, and don't have to be taught that 56k access is pathetic.] So maybe good and affordable ADSL in New Zealand is a prerequisite to widespread deployment of innovative Internet access, and not just a poor-quality alternative. Joe
In my analysis the recommendations are going to be largely irrelevant. I have come to the conclusion, as others have, that LLU now has little to offer and indeed maybe a danger in that it could hold back desirable developments while all in sundry work to get the last bit of bandwidth from an old set of technology. I've dipped into the reports and the appendices and they show a pre-occupation with the past - I guess this is not surprising because it is about potential sharing of legacy infrastructure. The analysis of pricing seems to miss the major point that the current pricing is not linked to the cost of provision of the various services. The pricing is of course what Telecom and the other telcos believe the market will bare. We are fiddling at the margins here. In my view the vision must be to provide at least 100Mbit services to the household. Tables that purport to show the 2009 uptake of bitstream services of 256K down/128K up, are just a quaint curiosity. Rich wrote: "You WON'T get this major change by using Telecoms infrastructure because the architecture and technology is WRONG (and Telecoms prices would have ensured just a marginally better deal - remember the 5% discount). LLU just encourages more of the same crap we have now. We have to forget it and move on." I entirely agree and agree with his later remark: "Telcos can use the Telecom network, people looking for real networking solutions can innovate (and leave them to wither and die)." Almost daily we now see reports of initiatives aimed at fibre to the home or 100Mbit services to the home. For example: "Growth of the Internet May Take Nothing Short of a Revolution" Wall Street Journal (12/22/03) P. B1; Gomes, Lee Upgrading the Internet so that 100 million U.S. households can access it at 100 Mbps--over 100 times faster than most high-speed home connections today--is the goal of the "100 by 100" consortium organized by four major universities and other research centers with a $7.5 million National Science Foundation grant. But achieving such a scheme hinges on a contentious debate about whether Internet technology should follow a "revolutionary" or "evolutionary" path. Carnegie Mellon University Professor Hui Zhang argues that an evolutionary strategy cannot be supported by the Internet's current fundamental design set: At the root of this problem is the increasing complexity of the network, which is mostly invisible to average users. Zhang says the complexity of the Internet's routers has become so great that only a small number of companies can build them, while maintaining the operations of a large-scale network is becoming a costlier and more difficult proposition. The outcome of the evolution vs. revolution debate will determine how these problems are handled, and while the current Internet functions on a "connectionless" scheme, there is advocacy for a future Internet with a "connected" architecture similar to telephone networks. Though Zhang thinks there are plenty of fiber-optic lines in the U.S. to support the backbone of even the swiftest Net, bridging the "final mile" between homes and the Internet is pricey and difficult, though new methods of using wireless communications could be helpful. Those who espouse the revolutionary Internet developmental path will also have to face networking companies' resistance to making technical changes that may hurt their competitiveness. See http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2003-5/1222m.html#item2 I believe we need to lift our sights. We know that the technology is up to it - and it is affordable. When we focus on data networking, rather than specialised legacy voice networks, it becomes clear that bandwidth should not be a scarce resource. Neil -- _____________________________________________ Neil James, Assistant Director (IT Policy), Information Services Division, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tel (03) 479-8594 Mobile 021 393-123 FAX (03)479-8577
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:48:55 +1300, Neil James wrote Neil those were some good words...
_____________________________________________ Neil James, Assistant Director (IT Policy), Information Services Division, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tel (03) 479-8594 Mobile 021 393-123 FAX (03)479-8577 _______________________________________________
Recently I followed some conversation on the CLUG mailing list where one of the cant uni guys pointed out in no uncertain terms that the Uni was not in the business of providing internet. They are looking at setting up proprietary systems that only people who are either a student or staff have access to. What is the policy of your university? In Australia the universities have just signed a 15 year contract with NextGen for 10gbits of national links. What capacity do NZ unis currently have in place? Cheers DiG -- Don Gould The technology exists to give every home 10mbits per second for $10 per month! Ask not what your telephone company should do for you... ...but what you can do for your broadband community!
I believe we need to lift our sights. We know that the technology is up to it - and it is affordable. >When we focus on data networking, rather
At 05:48 p.m. 27/12/2003 +1300, Neil James wrote: <big snip> than specialised legacy voice networks, it becomes
clear that bandwidth should not be a scarce resource.
Amen !! - thats my whole point, lets just get on with it NOW. rich
participants (9)
-
Barry Murphy -
Don Gould - BVC -
Joe Abley -
Juha Saarinen -
Neil James -
Richard Hector -
Richard Naylor -
Simon Blake -
Simon Lyall