Australia's low-fibre diet

commentary It is a truth universally acknowledged that a first-world country in possession of a good economy must be in want of a nation-wide fibre-optic communications network.

Renai LeMay, ZDNet Australia This is certainly the case in Australia.

As it becomes increasingly clear the nation's needs are growing too large to be served by existing last-mile copper infrastructure, most industry players are eagerly plugging fibre as a replacement.

Just yesterday your writer received an invitation from the industry's self-regulatory body the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) to a public discussion on that very topic.

Of course, the usual suspects will attend the meeting. The nation's dominant carriers Telstra and Optus, vendors such as Alcatel, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will all be there.

This forum will come just one month after a similar event being held yesterday by local broadband evangelist and telecommunications analyst Paul Budde.

These events are obviously helpful, as ACIF put it in the invitation, in helping the industry to explore "the operational, technical, regulatory and commercial issues surrounding fibre".

But given how long the industry has been talking about fibre it's likely a lot of people are thinking along the lines of Elvis Presley's classic song "A little less conversation".

For those not familiar with the lyrics, the follow-up line is: "A little more action please ... come on baby I'm tired of talking."

The King's sentiments are particularly appropriate when you consider the lengthy and ongoing talks between Telstra and the ACCC about the terms under which the telco would build its proposed national fibre network.

The network appears to be no closer to construction than when Telstra initially announced it last November.

And according to rival Optus, a decision on the network will not even be made before the final quarter of this year.

Nobody's saying the talks aren't necessary ... but couldn't Telstra have discussed the idea with the ACCC BEFORE it went public with the plans back in November?

Telstra's network is not the only one behind schedule.

A smaller trial effort in Tasmania is likely to make it to the market some 12 months after the timeline originally flagged by the state's government.

Meanwhile, over in Perth, efforts to extend Bright Telecommunication's existing fibre network are gaining pace, but the telco still needs equity partners and a further network rollout is likely to be some way off.

There are patchy fibre access networks in other places around the nation, especially in central business districts of capital cities -- but most businesses and homes are literally not in the loop.

Fibre to the home and business may, as Budde often puts it, be unstoppable, but perhaps a more accurate word to describe the situation in Australia would be "halted".

Would you like to see "a little less conversation" on fibre? How would you stimulate fibre developments? Drop me a line directly on renai.lemay@zdnet.com.au or post a comment below.

Advertisement

Talkback 20 comments

    Fibre speeds Anonymous -- 23/06/06 (in reply to #120136488)

    If I remember correctly, Telstra is talking about 12 Mbps download speed for Fibre-To-The-Node (FTTN)? Why bother with the cost and time of that rollout when the technology exists for double the speed via ADSL 2+? WOuldn't the investment be better spent in DSLAMs in all exchanges?

    Re: Anonymous -- 23/06/06 (in reply to #120136489)

    ADSL2+ is only available to those who have a phoneline distance of approx 1.5km to their phone exchange. Some people like me cannot get over 2mbps!

    A bit further than 1.5KM Anonymous -- 29/06/06 (in reply to #120136508)

    Obviously this chart is "best conditions" but it shows a lot further than 1.5KM

    http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/graph/index.htm

    Speed vs. Latency Anonymous -- 26/06/06 (in reply to #120136489)

    I would be very happy with a 12mb FTTN connection if they can provide it at a very low latency. Currently the ADSL netowkr is very laggy. I have ADSL2+ and i get about 15 - 18mbs, but with ping time ranging from 40 - 60ms round trip to various sources in Australia i find that slow. I'd like to see 10 - 20ms round trip times in the next gen of broadband. Not to mention better response times to serverrs in the US.

    Speed vs Latency Anonymous -- 26/06/06 (in reply to #120136624)

    I'd love 20 ms RTTs to the US too. I think someone really needs to do something about increasing the speed of light, it's been the same for sooo long now...;)

    Renai LeMay Renai LeMay -- 26/06/06 (in reply to #120136624)

    Latency certainly is a problem ... copper is just not that fast :( Everyone who's ever played PC games online realises this fact very quickly.

    Cheers,

    Renai LeMay
    News Journalist
    ZDNet Australia
    renai.lemay@zdnet.com.au

    Re: Fibre speeds Renai LeMay -- 26/06/06 (in reply to #120136489)

    Hi there,

    as others have pointed out, the fibre to the node rollout actually incorporates ADSL2+ technology.

    What happens is that Telstra would rollout fibre from telephone exchanges to streetside "node" cabinets.

    Then the existing copper cable would provide ADSL to houses and businesses.

    This would avoid a lot of the problems that currently exist whereby a lot of people can't get any ADSL services at all because they live too far from their exchange.

    In addition, a lot of people that currently only get low speeds like 2Mbps would suddenly get enhanced speeds like 16Mbps.

    Hope this helps,

    Kind regards,

    Renai LeMay
    News Journalist
    ZDNet Australia
    renai.lemay@zdnet.com.au

    Backhaul Brendan -- 23/06/06

    Operaters like Bright and Amcom in WA have started rolling out fibre to exchanges and metro in direct competition to telstra. Allowing ISP's to reduce their backhaul charges. As ADSL2+ usage and download limits increase for cost control it will be increasingly necessary to avoid tesltra's data fee's to existing exchanges.

    To encourage semi-regional (small city) roll outs of ADSL2+ technology the government should place incentives for long distance fibre roll outs to semi-regional centers. Reducing the cost to the ISP and comsumer of the additional data. Whilst also encouraging fibre to radio tower points for radio derived broadband and VoIP phone delivery (with no $140p/month line rental).

    Incentives may either be direct cash handouts (with the government obtaining ownership of the fibre should the business collasps). Or alternatively the government smoothing all the buracy that must be dealt with the lay fibre. Similar to a department of industry, ie. a one stop fibre regulator handling all dig permits and environmental requirements.

    Re: backhaul Renai LeMay -- 26/06/06 (in reply to #120136494)

    hi Brendan,

    very interesting post, thanks for your thoughts.

    You're right in that one of the main problems for regional areas is backhaul ... I have heard a lot of ISPs complaining about this problem.

    The government is providing some cash (in the $878 million Broadband Connect program) towards bringing broadband to regional areas, but so far it looks as if the funds are mainly slated for access networks rather than backhaul.

    Some other fibre owners such as the electricity utilities have also started putting their fibre up for backhaul use though, so this may help in some regard.

    I've been watching what the UtiliTel group of utilities has been doing in this area with some interest.

    I like your idea about giving the assets back to the government if the business collapses though - seems just plain common sense.

    This sort of measure would help people realise that telecommunications assets like fibre should be in the same class as things like water, electricity and gas - utilities that communities need to keep their geographical area alive.

    Kind regards,

    Renai LeMay
    News Journalist
    ZDNet Australia
    renai.lemay@zdnet.com.au

    Backhaul Brendan -- 04/07/06 (in reply to #120136667)

    Renai, with the likely increases in line rental charges in the bush from the ACCC decision. I think it's only a matter of time before these guys start using data over powerlines for the lastmile.

    It makes perfect since in this country, the infrastructure is existing and high speeds can be achieved at considerable distance. I haven't seen anyone realise that this sort of bridge in technology would be a excellent cross over point. For a low initial and hopefully low continuing investment.

    There are interesting times ahead.

    AAAA Anonymous -- 06/07/06 (in reply to #120137145)

    Test

    Latency Anonymous -- 27/06/06

    Can you tell the difference between a 40ms ping and 60ms ping during gameplay?

    If so, perhaps you should contact Guinness World Records.
    The speed of light isn't going to change anytime soon.

    re: Latency Anonymous -- 28/06/06 (in reply to #120136717)

    I think people are being short sited here, as soon as someone mentions latency or ping times they assume that you are talking about gaming. Latency effects everything. For example Skype, Skype wont use 12mbs of bandwidth, it wont even use 1mbs of bandwidth, but if you want real time communications you had better have low latency otherwise you will get nothing but troubles. Commercial VOIP providers generally try and push for getting QOS on wan links to ensure 99.9% of packets are returned in under 10ms. Doesnt mean it wont work , its just not as acceptable as 40ms. Plus imagine how much this is hampering progression in technology. Look at what you can do over a LAN compared to a WAN link.

    Yes it is had to increse response time to our distant neighbours but it can be much improved on what it currently is. But locally we can improve response times signifigantly by simply gettin rid of this ancient system we use and move into the 21st (20th as well!) century.

    Re: Latency Anonymous -- 28/06/06 (in reply to #120136769)

    QoS starts dropping lower priority packets once the link is reaching saturation, this provides adequate bandwidth for your given application, but has no effect on latency.
    Latency is a function of a number of things, including carrier routing decisions, switch and router queueing and processing, and not least distance. On inter-continental links the speed of light in copper is a real factor.
    Latency will not be reduced by increasing the size of the pipe.

    Latenacy Brendan -- 04/07/06 (in reply to #120136771)

    Hopeful consumer level equipment will have QoS enabled in the next generation of networks.

    2Mbps Slow? Mame du Bois -- 27/06/06

    I think its hilarious that some people regard 2mbps slow.

    I have friends who live between Gatton & Toowoomba in south east Queensland (hardly outback Australia) who have a wopping 14kbps if they are lucky. Despite repeated requests by the community to have the exchanges upgraded they still have nothing but drip fed internet access. As it stands, they could literally drive to Toowoomba and buy a music CD long before they could download a single song from iTunes.

    Something seriously needs to be done about bandwidth speeds and pricing in this country. I currently have a 256K connection as that is all I can realistically afford - $39.95 plus the $30 a month line rental which I ONLY have because I want/need broadband. If the monthly download limit of wireless was more than the measly 200 - 500 mb/month then I would have changed to that long ago and just used a mobile phone.

    It's criminal that ISP's treat the Australian public as morons when they use advertising sales pitches like 'a generous 200mb download limit' and 'a massive 1GB of downloads each month'. Considering modern game demos currently sit at around 600MB, 1gig is hardly massive. Although, the fact is many Australians treat themselves as idiots by not making an effort to learn even the most basic concepts. I asked a friend the other day who her ISP was and she looked at me like I just spoke Chinese. I also found out this same woman was using internet banking on a computer with Windows XP without ANY service packs and no anti ad-ware software. All said and done its a vicious circle. "We act like idiots, we get treated like idiots..."

    If ISP's keeps it up it is going to be counterproductive to the industry as it makes the internet an expensive proposition for small businesses who are still trying to come to grips with the concept of e-commerce. If you want to create jobs then open up the internet - you do this by making it cheaper.

    Just my thoughts.

    Low fibre Peter Cameron -- 30/06/06 (in reply to #120136744)

    I agree with you mate about this fool claiming that is slow. If he lived in most country areas hw would be used to it. I bet he is from the city where they expect everything to be perfect, work all the time and never be inconveinenced. Yes we are getting ripped off!!

    Latency Anonymous -- 28/06/06

    I don't quite get the fuss about latency... I'm using Skype for an overseas call and it's better than a standard (fixed line) phone call.
    And I have ADSL 1.5mbps with iinet. During gaming to a US server I get around 200-300 ms latency. Not sure a direct ping what it returns, but surely it's not under 50ms.

    FTTN Why would we want it? Rex Alfie Lee -- 06/07/06

    I don't get it. Here we are arguably on the verge of the greatest telecommunications charge in the history of civilisation & the Telecommunications Industry want to lay down optic fibre.

    What for? With wireless of varying versions, including WiMAX, CDMA's update & many others coming in the forseeable future, I don't get the point. Once these wireless Internet connections become standard & stable & download limits launch upwards bcoz of new high bandwidth standards increase there to me seems no bloody reason at all.

    Wireless also travels at the speed of light being that it is an electromagnetic radio wave so how does fibreoptic connection make things better? It's already cheaper & easier to install a wireless network at home if there are more than a couple of IP gadgets involved & to my way of thinking the security side of things will improve as experience comes into play.

    Why does anyone want this?????????

    FTTN Anonymous -- 07/07/06 (in reply to #120137327)

    Because FTTN provides the scale to service EVERY business and residence with sufficient bandwidth for the telecoms triple play holy grail (voice, video, data). Wireless cannot provide bandwidth on this massive scale. NIMBY syndrome (rightly or wrongly) is alive and well in regards to new wireless stations also, but that's a whole other story.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Phil Dobbie Is wholesale-only backhaul just a pipedream?
    The potential acquisition of Pipe Networks by SP Telemedia has raised the question about whether vertically integrated backhaul providers will mean higher wholesale prices for ISP customers.
  • Array Get extensions going in Firefox, redux
    Previously on Null Pointer we looked at getting extensions working in Firefox betas, and that was great until the fine folks at Firefox changed their minds.
  • Array How reliable is IP telephony?
    Have you ever heard a weird kind of hissing, crackling or popping noise when calling someone on an IP telephony line? How rare is the phenomenon these days?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured