Step 2 (later, on an incremental basis): Fibre to the home
Why do we need to do both steps at the same time? The last mile is incredibly expensive and difficult (as the slow rollout of Labour's scheme has demonstrated). Doing fibre to the node now doesn't stop us from having it to the home at a later point in time, as demands increase.
Why do we need to do both steps at the same time? The last mile is incredibly expensive and difficult
Well, it does work out cheaper in the long run, doing FTTN now involves buying the copper from Telstra, then later on pulling it out and replacing it with fibre. This article does a nice job of going into more details on the costs of it: http://theconversation.com/can-australia-afford-the-coalitio...
as the slow rollout of Labour's scheme has demonstrated
A good mate of mine owns a fibre splicing business and has been doing predominantly NBN work for the last couple of years. He's fairly ambivalent because about the prospect of FTTN because much of the copper network is in such poor condition that it will need to be replaced. In essence he doesn't regard the FTTN plan as cheaper or more deliverable -- and he'll quite happily bid for the work.
NBN Co allegedly signed a an awful lot of new contracts prior to entering caretaker mode. During the election campaign Turnbull promised that these contracts will be honoured. I'm more concerned that this will result in a two-tier NBN, with over a million homes with FTTH, and the rest left behind on a 2nd tier system.
Please do not be misinformed. The last mile is a very contentious issue. What incentive does Telstra have to share the infrastructure to the last mile with some scrappy upstart?
Telstra won't be sharing it, NBN Co. will be purchasing the copper network.
One of the benefits of having an NBN Co. is you don't have the retailer/wholesaler conflict of interest as we did with Telstra and as the UK did with BT
The solution in the UK was to mandate open access in regulation with BT OpenReach. The solution in Australia is NBN Co.
Comments
Step 1 (now): Fibre to the node
Step 2 (later, on an incremental basis): Fibre to the home
Why do we need to do both steps at the same time? The last mile is incredibly expensive and difficult (as the slow rollout of Labour's scheme has demonstrated). Doing fibre to the node now doesn't stop us from having it to the home at a later point in time, as demands increase.
Well, it does work out cheaper in the long run, doing FTTN now involves buying the copper from Telstra, then later on pulling it out and replacing it with fibre. This article does a nice job of going into more details on the costs of it: http://theconversation.com/can-australia-afford-the-coalitio...
I can't really comment as I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the rollout progress, but this may be worth a read: http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/05/factcheck-will-nbn-take-a...
A good mate of mine owns a fibre splicing business and has been doing predominantly NBN work for the last couple of years. He's fairly ambivalent because about the prospect of FTTN because much of the copper network is in such poor condition that it will need to be replaced. In essence he doesn't regard the FTTN plan as cheaper or more deliverable -- and he'll quite happily bid for the work.
NBN Co allegedly signed a an awful lot of new contracts prior to entering caretaker mode. During the election campaign Turnbull promised that these contracts will be honoured. I'm more concerned that this will result in a two-tier NBN, with over a million homes with FTTH, and the rest left behind on a 2nd tier system.
Perhaps Ziggy will set the Government straight...
Please do not be misinformed. The last mile is a very contentious issue. What incentive does Telstra have to share the infrastructure to the last mile with some scrappy upstart?
Telstra won't be sharing it, NBN Co. will be purchasing the copper network.
One of the benefits of having an NBN Co. is you don't have the retailer/wholesaler conflict of interest as we did with Telstra and as the UK did with BT
The solution in the UK was to mandate open access in regulation with BT OpenReach. The solution in Australia is NBN Co.
For one, because the nodes aren't exactly cheap. For two, because the maintenance cost in the meantime is large.