A problem that is identified with Labor’s broadband plan is they plan to use FTTN technology. So, the government has chosen a technology to deploy.
FTTN isn’t the best technology for providing services to users. In fact they might have chosen a technology that limits the service availability to those who decide not to get a fixed phone line installed.
The best technology, nation wide, for broadband will more than likely be better off with WiMAX based technology, so that there’s no path issues for installing a cable, they simply place a tower up and users much like they do with TV, contact a nearby tower.
WiMAX technology will be cheaper to deploy in that sense.
This issue, that they don’t seem to be calling on providers with any technology to provide services in any way possible, is a problematic issue.
Why on earth limit the nation by a cable if you can get good results out of spending a combined $8 billion in WiMAX (which will reach a HUGE mass of the land (and not just the population)).
Or why not ease the pain on the taxpayer? FTTN isn’t required for Australia, and more than likely won’t be required for sometime when you think seriously about it.
$8 billion would get you plenty of towers to ensure every man and his dog might get strong levels of coverage, and the speeds being cell driven, well more towers, more cells, more bandwidth. Plus it doesn’t really take a lot to add more cells to the network on the same tower even.
If OPEL with a combined total of $2 billion can roll out ADSL2+ and WiMAX technologies to reach around 98% of the population (after metro areas are removed), then you can see $4 billion being plenty to do much more than just WiMAX and ADSL2+ in regional areas. Such a network can easily be deployed in the cities, and get penetration where some phone lines just can’t go, such as caravan parks, and other forms of accomodation, or new housing where the owner might not want a phone socket at all.
The flaw is there, they want to limit themselves to FTTN needlessly. HFC could do the same deployment at a cost effective price. Why go with FTTN?
It limits competition? Is that the drive behind it? It hurts the consumer? Perhaps the only real motivation here for FTTN from Telstra when you consider the thesaurus of technologies they have available to them to deploy the speeds they keep claiming they want to give the nation.
No one is holding Telstra back, they’ve had the ability to roll out HFC or FTTH using power poles, or .. any technology they like.
They focus on FTTN because LSS / ULL ADSL2+ technologies are hurting, and the battle is just getting started.
Enjoy!