It was requested recently, that those interested, send submissions to Conroy’s panel of experts on his proposed $4 billion waste of tax payer funds.

FTTN isn’t the way of the future. Look at the potential of returning back to a monopoly, the reduction and lack of interest in investment and competition. How will that improve, if the only access to a customer is via a DSLAM port owned by one provider who can charge whatever they like?

How will they invest, if either:
a) The price is too low for the competition to want to invest?
b) The price is too high, but investing is impossible due to limitations such as high cost of cutover, or technological unviability?

Either of those scenarios are very likely should an FTTN network be built. The owner of the FTTN network is unlikely to want to allow access to specific customer wires for a competing node, or, the nodes or cutovers will either be financially or technologically unviable. There isn’t anything that is impossible, it’s just not viable.

Then there is the other scenario. Who will want to invest in competing infrastructure if they can get it dirt cheap and don’t want to put any more out for the future, when it comes to either, node access, or backhaul access?

I did lodge a submission to them, I do hope they consider it in detail, I mentioned points about having a competitive marketplace. This is a marketplace where there is an interest in investment, so the prices can’t be excessively low, as well as a market where there is a interest in competition, so the prices aren’t excessively high, or unfair terms are forced onto competitors to the FTTN network owner.

I also mentioned in my submission, that FTTN is much more expensive, and will not deliver the fastest possible speeds that technologies like WiMAX will. FTTN is a band-aid solution, it’s a big expensive band-aid. They should consider going directly to a competitive framework for FTTH in metro areas, or, investing in national backhaul, or investing in wireless technologies.

FTTN whilst will bring some places up to speed, wireless technologies will be needed in nearly all areas to fill competitive blackspots, or technology blackspots, so that everyone has access to a reliable, speedy service.

I do not believe FTTN is the ultimate answer, and I think they should step back from that idea and consider all other alternatives to encouraging competitive investment, or doing the job for them with a technology that is future looking, such as WiMAX or FTTH.

WiMAX is technologically, and financially ideal for this nation. It fits our population density, and is not expensive to deploy, and doesn’t leave blackspots if deployed (and blackspots can be filled with an extra tower anyway) correctly.

FTTH is technologically not sound for regional areas, and financially doesn’t match a business case for Australian demand. The average customer is deemed to be wanting to spend $40 - $60 for a internet service. The cheapest of which spend $30 or less.

FTTH will force the prices higher, and so will FTTN. WiMAX will maintain prices, or even reduce them due to lower maintenance costs. WiMAX will acheive the speeds, and in the future acheive even better speeds, and can be deployed anywhere there is a tower setup. There’s no ‘fixed line’ requirement, like there is with all other technologies.

FTTH is the ultimate technology, for a government with money pouring out of its ears to invest in. Judging by the razors slicing up and down the commonwealth, I’m amazed they haven’t sliced their own pay packets, but, there isn’t spare funds to build a national FTTH network, so that would probably be scrapped unless it were for private investment, in which case, loop back around to monopoly and competition issues.

My submission to the panel was more focused on the importance of both, competition and technology choice, so we don’t burn $4 billion on a waste. Australia doesn’t need anything for broadband, except regional and rural backhaul, and a cat o’ nine tails to use on Telstra.

Enjoy!