Hello Andrew, On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 19:27 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 5/08/2015 12:49 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > You appear not have understood what Mark was saying, in most rural > > Australia one simply has no choice, you have Telstra or nothing. As > > far as I am concerned these other Telco's you are defending are as > > guilty of gouging the public as Telstra, as they will ____ONLY____ > > provide services where they can get a large return on as small an > > outlay as possible. Telstra's performance is poor, but at last its > > there you mostly cannot get support from anyone else. > > That is absolutely not true.
Yes, you have misunderstood. Telstra are very substandard, but so are the rest, if they were available. Telstra have the best coverage, patchy though it is. NBNCo taking over the copper network will deepen problems, not fix them. For all the previous government's incompetence, the current one makes them look competent. > There are lots of reasons why providers cannot put equipment in to > Telstra owned exchanges; even the city ones are expensive to do so. Two mobile towers near me, side by side, Telstra, and possibly Optus, and signal vanishes now and then, through trees. It is independent of wet weather, signal can disappear when dry, not always when wet. > Besides getting equipment in to exchanges, some of which have been > artificially classified as "full" ... you need to have bandwidth back > to the POP of the ISP. As Telstra owns a lot of that back haul, it is > prohibitively expensive to provide services. We only need one network, properly implemented and maintained, then not having overpaid executives bleeding the system. > Even in city areas, Telstra takes a huge chunk of the fees paid for TW > services; there is very, very little margin for the ISP when using TW > and there is huge risk as Telstra charges very expensive back haul > costs, even in cities. So, if an ISP is able to use their own > infrastructure as much as possible, then it is the only way they can > provide services at the right cost. Simple fact, the less Telstra is > involved the cheaper the solution will be, period. They have to pay shareholder dividends, to the private shareholders. When it was a dividend to the Federal Government, and made public in the Budget, it could be seen and assessed, and usually a lot smaller than what bleeds out now. > I fully accept that remote locations are difficult for all providers, > including even Telstra; that is why we have CSO (community service > obligations). Telstra is still a huge winner and they really don't > deserve to win as much as they do at the expense of a fair and > competitive environment. Cross subsidies do not come for nothing, but properly done, they do build and maintain community. That is essential in such a large country with such a spread population. > > I am somewhat luckier than Mark as my rural house is just below a > > hill that has both Telstra and another carriers (Optus) mobile > > towers on it so I can get a half decent although from in town > > standards very expensive fast internet (I use Virgin), even then > > its NOT reliable. The nearest town around 5 kilometres away has > > both ASDL and fixed radio, neither of these will reach me. NBN will > > not be availible at my location for at least another couple of > > years and then it will be via satelite. Note: I am not complaining > > just making a point. services will _____ALWAYS______ be poorer in > > rural areas, something most town and city folk do not always > > understand, one lives in such an area to get a quite life. > > There are some areas where the NBN was fast tracked, Armadale for > instance. The best I'm going to see with the NBN is via cable, not > via fibre; that will limit my speeds, but that is not new to me. VDSL > will be good for some, but FTTN is the only real solution that isn't a > waste of money and resources and it will be far cheaper to maintain > once it is in place -- unfortunately this LNP government is preferring > to cost the tax payer much, much more given their waste to date and > waste in the future (particularly with running costs of the bad network) > . Fiber to the premises is the correct implementation. it is affordable if the executives and greedy wealthy are cut off. > Telstra will be very happy to be rid of their /responsibility/ for > copper and they have been paid handsomely for that benefit too. The copper dates back to the start of telephony, most has been refurbished and replaced in that time, sometimes more than once or twice, but it still has the history, even back to the Telegraph. A good installed fiber network the whole way makes sense. It can be "improved" when better termination equipment is developed, and has a decent life. > > Lindsay > > You once had your own WISP .... didn't you? Times have changed, but > some challenges, like being able to compete with Telstra, will remain, > perhaps forever in at least IT terms if not in human life terms. I would happily see a local Telco Co-Op if I could. I gather that there are some major stumbling blocks of legal nature. Regards, Mark Trickett _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
