Telecommunications Policy

Policy
21

I have counted every one of your statements with facts that didn’t come from Wikipedea and your replies have consisted of ad hominem and links that don’t support your argument.

I worked for Telstra as a key accounts specialist support and was personally involved with the role out of NextG and 4G, the decommission of the CDMA network and the conversion of the South Brisbane Exchange from copper to Fibre (real Optic not HFC).
This means I know how mobile data coverage works and I know how FttN would work if implemented as the SBX was converted to be compatible with the NBN once it reached the metro areas of Brisbane.

You wanted to open a dialogue and I made a few counter points to which your opening line and most of them since have been “Well Urrrrrh, what would you know?”.

I officially leave you to live under your rock in peace and hope that anyone who has read any of this has learned from my mistake.

#VotePirate

22

Risibly, the article to which you’ve linked shows that the HFC network in question is to be used for the NBN. :stuck_out_tongue:

23

A Question:
Why this discussion about fixed line NBN when it could be that the younger generations simply don’t want it? It appears that the stats that ACMA (google this) has shows this, whereas, people over 65 prefer fixed lines. Over the weekend I talked to my 40 something friends about this and nearly all of them say that if the mobile network was less expensive/GB they would ditch fixed lines.

Are we setting up a future for the younger generations or are we hanging onto (and upgrading and spending lots of money on) an infrastructure to meet older people’s needs?

Perhaps, the discussion should be about the future of communication in Australia that meets the usage trends of the younger gens. They’re the ones who will be leading by the time I’m retired and you may not even be here; will they look back upon us and think - were we not rather incompetent and not forward thinking? Do we want to leave this sort of legacy?
Marty

24

[quote=“Isaac, post:5, topic:770”]
Any services provided by Fibre, including audio and video is purely IP based and will only work over the internet connection …[/quote]If you care to read the document to which I linked, I think you’ll find that it belies your assertion in relation to video. That document doesn’t refer to the original plan, but does mention several operating modes for video over fibre, none of which relies on the Internet.

As for audio over fibre, that’s so fundamental that it’s assumed knowledge. References are therefore difficult to come by. To quote from one media release:

Each telephone port is called a UNI-V (user network interface, voice). This port provides an analog telephone adapter (ATA) which is used to connect standard analogue telephones to a digital telephone system.
Since the launch of commercial fibre services on the NBN, retail service providers have had the option of providing a telephone service over one UNI-V port, or as a VoIP service using a data port.

So; separate ports for different types of telephone service (audio, although limited video is probably possible).

VoIP is an acronym for “voice over Internet protocol”. It involves transmitting audio over Internet Protocol networks; commonly, but not necessarily, the Internet.

The UNI-V port provides a standard telephone service over optical fibre. Subscribers who choose this type of service can, if they wish, remain with their customary telephone service provider. No Internet required; no Internet Service Provider required.

25

Depends what you want to run over it. I could care less about having a landline for phone, but the mobile network is presently no good for my day-to-day work (I need a reliable, stable connection with plenty of bandwidth), and I’m dubious about it ever being better than a fixed connection for things like high quality streaming media.

1 Like
26

Dubiousness aside - if the demographic says it wants something, business will find a way, as business will always go where the $$$s are - and if that’s the trend (and if the trend continues) then fixed line may end up a dinosaur (like netbooks remember those?). If this become the reality, no level of dubiousness or bias or prejudice or stubborn-headedness will stop it.
I thought it would be pragmatic if, when we do have a comprehensive Telecommunication Policy, that this be taken into consideration. We are a progressive technology Party and should have the expertise to be able to anticipate this somewhat better than the fax powered ostriches in Canberra.
Marty

1 Like
27

ACMA Research Snapshot June 2015

28

Oh I wish I saw that earlier and I wouldn’t have wasted my time responding. I’ll probably not continue with this discussion as someone got accused of Trolling when they clearly haven’t…very disappointed. I thought we were more grown up than that…

29

Sorry for the delayed response Marty. Dealing with Isaac’s steaming pile of --err-- unsubstantiated assertions is proving remarkably time-consuming

Wireless is a meme derided by some as “the magic wireless fairy” (because, from a technical perspective, it’s somewhat fanciful) and a zombie meme (because it’s been buried often, but keeps rising from the grave).

Group peculiarities notwithstanding, overall demand is rising exponentially. In the very near future, no wireless technology will cope with forseeable demands. Wireless has a place, but it’s not a universal panacaea. In some high-value markets, it might be possible to maintain performance by increasing the number of base-stations but we’d eventually end up increasing the field strength to the point that you could use it to cook lunch (slight exaggeration there). Of course, each base-station would need a fibre feed.

To quote from the ABC’s dated, but excellent, coverage:

As more people use smartphones, laptops and tablets to access their emails and the net, the argument that we don’t need to upgrade to fixed-line broadband because “the future is wireless” has sprung up.

Few experts agree. The consensus is that fixed-line broadband and wireless broadband are complementary technologies and we will need both.

“Wireless use will continue to increase but it is limited by the fact that it uses spectrum and the spectrum is a very scarce resource,” says Mike Quigley, the CEO of NBN Co.

“This is why we’re now seeing a huge shift in countries overseas of getting data traffic off the mobile network and on to the fixed-line network.”

The problem is that the spectrum that supports wireless is limited and the more people who use it, the slower it gets. It’s not a substitute for a good fixed-line broadband network.

People typically find that a couple of children in the family bring home the limitations of wireless. Mobile data is expensive and several users trying to (for example) access video for education or entertainment quickly overloads the available bandwidth. Wireless may be cheap to establish, but it’s very expensive to operate and maintain.

Try not to confuse mobile broadband and WiFi. Both rely on the fixed-line network. If you’re on WiFi, then you’re probably not far from a fixed-line access point. If you’re on mobile broadband and getting reasonable performance, then you’re unlikely to be much further from a base station. Mobile broadband is a function of the mobile 'phone network, which also relies on optical fibre for backhaul.

In infrastructure terms, wireless is an add-on to the fixed-line network. Without fixed-line foundations, you don’ got no wireless.

1 Like
30

If you look at the ACMA Communications report, figure 2.5, you’ll see total volume of data downloaded by type. Fixed-line broadband is about 92%; its share is dropping a little bit year on year but total overall volume is growing so much it overwhelms it…

31

Doing a super-naive projection by looking at the growth rates 2011 to 2015 for fixed-line and mobile, then projecting forward, we find that mobile should catch fixed-line by about 2026. At about 140 exabytes per quarter-to-June each. Make of that what you will.

Edit: as expected, this is a terrible analysis, considering when I do the projection on total data the line is a hair above fixed-line.

32

Good point and I understand what you are saying - but there’s the consideration that the cost/GB ratio may be a factor with fixed vs mobile data volume usage.
Pay by the month plans…
Telstra works out to be around $8.00 per GB for mobile wireless for 15GBs per month (Alas! Regional areas, where I am, need to use Telstra cos all other mobile wireless networks are really really crap!)
And a Middle of the Road NBN Plan from Internode (not the cheapest) is $0.15 per GB with 500GB per month.
$8/GB @ 15GB/mth vs $0.15/GB @ 500GBs/mth - mmm makes one wonder why data volume is significantly skewed towards fixed-line. Especially poignant if you want to see the latest House of Cards in 4k. I hope you can see this line of reasoning and make your own deductions/conclusions whatever that may be.

But that being said, this is all speculation as I’m sure the future will throw us another curve ball and send us in another unanticipated direction whether we like it or not… Me screaming, yelling and gnashing of teeth into the abyss that I want my old Blackberry back!!!
Cheers
Marty

33

I believe there is too much talk of last mile technology when there are still problems getting back haul in any non-metropolitan areas. In my opinion NBN shouldn’t really be building anything, it should be a market operation and not technology focused. Having worked in both telecommunications and energy sectors I’ve come to think that the energy sector is way ahead in terms of it’s operation as a ‘market’. This is what I think NBN needs, it’s simply too big of a job and it needs to be broken up into smaller chunks.

If the national broadband market was structured something like electricity we’d have the following entities:

Regulator - compliance, regulation and pricing. (AER in energy sector, Government entity)

Market Operator - manage supply, demand, planning and forecasting through a market (AEMO in energy sector, Government entity)

Service providers - Wholesale Internet Service providers (Generator in the electrical sector, public/private entity)

Back haul providers - provide connection between service providers and last mile interconnect (transmission operator in electrical sector, public/private entity)

Last mile provider - provides the last mile consumer to the customer. (distribution operator in electrical sector public/private entity)

Retail provider - the entity that bills the customer. May or may not be the service provider (e.g. virtual service provider)

There are fees, charges and public money incentives across all levels to make the market work. I believe setting it out this way opens up the build to more players. E.g. Local councils may be given first right of refusal as the last mile provider, in towns they are already coping with power, gas, sewer, water etc and could always use the extra revenue directly or by selling the rights on. The choice in last mile technology would largely be set by subscriber demand overseen by the regulator and market operators.

Disclaimer: I’m not an economist and this is the first time I’ve written this down, keen to know how it sounds.

1 Like
34

This is part of an account of the 25 May Regional Leaders’ Debate that I posted to Facebook:

Tony Walsh (hard to hear over Barnaby Joyce, rabbiting on)
Why do telecom’s providers charge about $100 for a terabyte of data in capital cities and regional cities like Tamworth & Geelong, while in small towns like Collector, Gunning and Dalton, they charge nearly $10,000 for a terabyte (if we could get it).

According to Joel Fitzgibbon, Labor’s plan was to equalise the price regardless of location or mode of access. According to Barnaby Joyce, nothing’s changed; if you’re accesing via satellite, it will cost the same no matter where you are, fibre - it will be the same wherever you are, wireless - it will be the same. See the sleight-of-hand? Satellite will not be the same price as FttP, FttN or wireless. Equalisation of price across different modes of access has gone.

Perhaps wholesale price equalisation could feature in the Party’s policy.

35

A fine précis of the complexities. I disagree with your reliance on market solutions. The market has failed comprehensively. It’s more rational to discard the private sector as a possible answer and concentrate on the public sector.

There’s undoubtedly a problem with lack of backhaul. I attribute that to a lack of centralised planning. What we have has built up ad-hoc as various wheels squeaked.

The monolithic model is far from perfect, but I believe your fragmented model would be worse. Far better to keep it as simple as possible.

Given the abject failure of the private sector, Australia needs a single infrastructure provider, incorporating planning and forecasting, with government oversight. There may be scope for private sector competition in the wholesale space, but I really can’t see how.

The retail sector does lend itself to private enterprise. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a public sector provider is needed in some markets; to provide a little unfair competition and keep the privateers honest.

36

When John Howard completed the privatisation of Telstra, while leaving the network under Telstra’s ownership, he created a monster. The optimum for effective retail-sector competition is not to have the majority of the infrastructure owned by the dominant retailer. For the good of the nation, that beast must be neutered.

The broader issue is conflict of interest arising from association of a retailer of services with a wholesaler of such services and/or an owner of relevant infrastructure. One obvious remedy is legislation against such associations.

The effect of separating wholesalers and infrastructure owners from their retail arms would be to open up the retail sector. Deprived of in-house retailers, wholesalers and infrastructure providers would have little option but to provide product to any retailer. Sadly, history has shown that it would probably be necessary to legislate that this be done on fair & equitable terms. It would also open avenues for resuming public ownership of infrastructure assets.