NBN blogger predicted FTTN congestion seven months ago

177


news A prominent blogger about the National Broadband Network appears to have predicted significant congestion problems with the Coalition’s preferred Fibre to the Node technology about seven months before early FTTN adopters started revealing them in the past week.

Last week, former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy revealed Labor had received about 60 complaints from early adopters of the Fibre to the Node technology which the Abbott and Turnbull Governments have introduced to the National Broadband Network rollout.

The complainants typically see initial solid speeds through their new FTTN connections, but eventually, as their neighbours also start adopting the new platform, speeds start slowing to unusable levels during peak periods such as after business hours and on weekends.

A number of the complainants have directly called for the return of their previous ADSL broadband service, which was delivering them more consistent speeds.

Following the revelation of the issue, a number of readers have contacted Delimiter highlighting the fact that NBN blogger Kenneth Tsang had predicted the speed problems on his popular jxeeno blog in July 2015, before FTTN officially launched as a technology. Delimiter recommends readers click here for Tsang’s full article.

At the time, Tsang had conducted an analysis of the FTTN network architecture which the NBN company had developed, concluding that users of the NBN company’s FTTN and Fibre to the Basement networks “may find themselves left with slow and congested speeds for decades because of short-sighted network design decisions made by the company”.

The issued raised in Tsang’s analysis are believed to be different from the issues which are causing problems amongst early FTTN adopters, but with similar ultimate effects.

Delimiter believes that many of the current FTTN complaints stem from the fact that retail telcos such as Telstra and Optus have not provisioned sufficient backhaul capacity to each neighbourhood ‘node’ to allow customers to access the full speeds they are paying for.

Tsang’s analysis found that this trend may be exacerbated over the long term, because the NBN company has not allocated sufficient fibre cables at sufficient speeds to neighbourhood nodes to allow for many customers to simultaneously use the associated backhaul connection.

In other words, the FTTN congestion at the moment appears to being caused by a ‘soft limit’ stemming from retail ISPs not provisioning sufficient levels of backhaul to nodes. Tsang’s analysis shows that over the long term, customers may suffer the same issues due to a ‘hard limit’ in the physical amount of capacity the NBN company can provision to each node.

“If a mere 21% of all premises connected to a node starts streaming a 4K stream on Netflix (21% of 384 at 25Mbps), the node will exceed its capacity. This will leave zero bandwidth for the remaining 75% of customers potentially connected to the node,” wrote Tsang in July.

“While it can be expected that NBN’s QoS (quality of service) management will balance the load to prevent a small number of customers hogging the entire link, all customers across the board will suffer from congestion issues because of it.”

This means that even if the NBN company and retail ISPs are able to resolve the current issues, down the track they may actually face the same issues again as the NBN company’s network architecture will not handle Australia’s long-term bandwidth needs.

The issue, according to Tsang, appears to be both that the NBN company’s FTTN roadmap does not provision sufficient fibre cables to each node, as well as the fact that the terminating electronics on each end of the cables do not allow a high enough speed.

In response to the issue, NBN chief executive Bill Morrow told a Senate Committee last week that he was certain that the problems were real for the customers concerned. The executive said he did not want any customers to have a poor experience on the NBN.

Morrow stated that it was his belief that the similar teething problems would have been seen when the NBN company first started deploying its original Fibre to the Premises model, and said there were a number of issues that could come into play to create congestion, especially the amount of capacity which each retail ISP (such as Telstra or Optus) had purchased to aggregate customer connections back to their backbone networks.

Morrow said the NBN company was working very closely with the retail ISPs to resolve the issues.

opinion/analysis
Thanks to all the readers who sent me Tsang’s article to be highlighted on Delimiter — it is a very worthy yarn to be highlighted and debated in the context of the current FTTN congestion being seen in early stage rollout zones.

What Tsang’s article highlights is that even though it is likely that the current FTTN congestion issues on the NBN can likely be addressed by retail ISPs provisioning more CVC backhaul (fixing the ‘soft limit’), there may a larger issue lurking beneath the surface of the NBN company’s FTTN architecture — a so-called ‘hard limit’ which may dramatically limit the amount of backhaul that retail ISPs can provision in future.

I have been a bit dismissive about the FTTN issue in my thoughts about it … because I knew the issue was not related to the copper cables the NBN company was using, but rather was much more likely to be decisions made by retail ISPs behind the scenes that were neutering their customers FTTN connections.

However, the issue highlighted by Tsang is much more serious. If the blogger is correct, the congestion issue is likely to return down the track and be much harder to resolve.

If I am reading Tsang’s article correctly, the NBN company does have some leeway in terms of lighting up additional fibres to each node — fibres it is not technically using today. It may also be able to upgrade the fibre electronics in each node and at the other end, to be able to support higher speeds.

However, this will involved the NBN company going back in to ‘fix’ nodes that it has already deployed, as they become congested. This is not an ideal situation for anyone, and would have been avoided had the NBN company merely continued to follow Labor’s original FTTP model and not switched (under the Coalition’s guidance) to a model partially based on Telstra’s copper network.

I hope Tsang’s wrong and that the NBN company is indeed provisioning more than sufficient backhaul fibre support to each FTTN it builds out. Because if it is not, then we will eventually start to see websites tracking (nationally) which FTTN nodes are congested and which are not … similar to the way that there are already websites tracking which telephone exchanges have no ADSL broadband ports left.

It will be a ridiculous situation if we get to that point. But that may just be the future that Malcolm Turnbull’s MTM has delivered us.

177 COMMENTS

  1. “The executive said he did not want any customers to have a poor experience on the NBN.”
    The irony.
    “I hope Tsang’s wrong”
    Probably unlikely when he wrote the blog, maybe now the NBN might be planning for some upgrades.
    NBN may contract the work out to…. Telstra.

  2. Chickens are coming home to roost.

    All the experts warned against FTTN except Turnbull’s hand picked cronies who were paid to talk it up in a positive light. Now we are starting to see the failure of this policy..

    • “except Turnbull’s hand picked cronies”
      Even Turnbulls cronies were against FTTN when it was Labor policy. That all magically changed when Labor rightfully listened to the experts and switched to FTTP – exactly what the Coalition were arguing in favor of.

  3. “It will be a ridiculous situation if we get to that point. But that may just be the future that Malcolm Turnbull’s MTM has delivered us.”

    It’s happening now. It won’t get better. It’s all a horrible nightmare that the majority on wp were predicting since mtm started. Nothing surprising here. Whatever Morrie and turnbuckle do from here on , will only be a patch at best. The fttn design architecture is an all wrong . Wrong medium ie copper, wrong redundancy provision , wrong upgrade path, wrong wholesale pricing method etc. Need I go on.? It’s flamin disaster.

  4. CVC congestion occurs in exactly the same way on all NBN technologies because it is a bottleneck at the POI, not the node. NBNCo is responsible for connectivity from the premises to the POI, so RSPs have nothing to do with “provisioning sufficient levels of backhaul to nodes.” I’m thinking you’re deliberately ignoring this, just so you can beat up on FTTN and hide the fact that this still would’ve occurred on a FTTP NBN. It really is a time of universal deceit.

      • Has anyone looked at the FTTP performance through the same ISPs through the same POI as the FTTN problems?

        It was my understanding that ISPs bought their bandwidth from NBN for the POI, not smaller areas covered by the POI, meaning if there’s problems with FTTN/B now but not FTTP then it isn’t a soft limit problem at all but a hard limit problem in the nodes as per blogger’s article.

        2Gbit / 384 customers is 5.2Mbit each, even if only half are using their connection in a meaningful way everyone’s limited down to 10Mbit each. Aren’t people complaining about results like that?

        • I dunno. Theres been plenty of stories of folks on ftth where speed crashes in prime time.

          Would nice to see a more formal studybthan just anecdotal reports.

          • Only appears to be a single anecdotal report of a FTTP connection crashing into single digits during prime time; Optus unsurprisingly.

        • Well it’s purely anecdotal I’m afraid but my 100/40 fttp connection seems fine. Last night between 7pm and 8pm I downloaded a new game and it averaged 10Mb/s over the full 30Gb download. Given some leeway for overhead and such that’s pretty close to top speed.

        • neither of the FTTP suburbs i have been in – and i ordered in both at RFS – have had the issue, either in the first days nor as people ordered more services and put more load on the links. i get the ordered speed at nearly all hours – hell after school hours to 10 PM is supposed to be the netflix crunch hours, and i have no problem reaching my ordered speed (50/20) minus transaction overheads (checked a minute or two ago, just to test it… http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5087293481).

          so i concur… and yet it hasn’t. FTTN as a technology clearly is not fit for service; certainly not in its current guise and operation. you want to make it work? then expect another blowout from 56bn. far better to have sucked it up and stuck with FTTP.

          • I absolutely concur with this comment. I am one of the lucky few with 50/20 FTTP and I have never seen any slowdown at any time (and believe me, I have checked multiple times for my own peace of mind!) I consistently get the 50/20 I pay for from iinet (bought before TPG took over and removed that speed tier……). It’s not scientific; the sample size is terrible – but I have a gut feeling that FTTP just does not suffer in the same way that the bastardised FTTN does.

          • I wholeheartedly agree that FTTP should’ve been rolled out. The issue is that people are pointing the finger at FTTN, when FTTN isn’t the problem. The problem is congestion. I’ve not seen anyone complaining about the sync speeds attained on FTTN. For example my modem syncs ~100mbps, yet I get 3mbps during peak times. Whether this is caused by congestion at the node (which is a possible explanation of why it’s mainly affecting FTTN users) or the POI really is irrelevant. It comes down to under provisioning of backhaul. iiNet have indicated that it’s the latter (WP link below), which leads me to believe that RSPs underestimated the amount of CVC needed for FTTN because everyone expected the copper to be useless. The fact that Renai thinks that “retail telcos such as Telstra and Optus have not provisioned sufficient backhaul capacity to each neighbourhood ‘node’” is an example of just how little he knows about the technicalities of the NBN.

            https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2491460&p=5

          • “i have no problem reaching my ordered speed (50/20)”
            And nor should/could you. FTTP network was set up for 2Gbps backhaul per (less than) 32 people. At worst, that’ll cap you out at 62Mbps. FTTN with 2.5Gbps backhaul servicing 200 (up to 400) people? That’ll cap you at 12Mbps…

        • I can confirm it happened to my own FTTP connection with a carrier other than optus. It was being caused by contention issues at peak hour.

      • “retail telcos such as Telstra and Optus have not provisioned sufficient backhaul capacity to each neighbourhood ‘node’”

        RSP do not have the ability to determine the amount nor speed that the fibre between the Node and POI is lit at!!

        As much as I don’t like those operators and their methods if this is an issue at the node Renai its 100% MTM’s fault not the RSP’s.

        • “As much as I don’t like those operators and their methods if this is an issue at the node Renai its 100% MTM’s fault not the RSP’s.”

          Unless there is evidence that it is affecting ALL RSP’s on those PoIs, then you cannot say it is the infrastructure.

      • “this still would’ve occurred on a FTTP NBN”

        And yet it didn’t.

        +1

        Doesn’t seem to be an issue with satellite or wireless either…

        • I have fibre to the premise as one of the early suburbs rolled out. I can assure you we get massive congestion too. The end point is not the issue, hence both the labour and coalition plans suffer the same problem, cheap ass telco’s that won’t pay for sufficient backhaul

        • I would not say that, plenty of examples of congestion on the FW service as well. I was actually going to comment directly below that the same engineers (more likely, same bean counters) must have decided what back haul was required to our tower.

          We are on the 50/20 tier, mainly for the upload as one person in our house does print publishing work and large uploads are the norm. When the service was first activated we saw about 24/4 on the 24/5 tier, now the best we see is about 23/14 in the dead of morning, peak times, more like 8/10, farewell to reliable HD video streaming!

          All work done to date indicates a bandwidth constraint between us and the POI, hard to prove though when the network is so opaque. A tracert shows my router, then the RSP in the Bendigo POI, no mention of the NTU, nor the local tower, nor the one, perhaps two microwave hops from there to fibre or anything else in the roughly 100km journey from my router to the POI.

          My brother in laws metro Melbourne FTTH service however was blazing away at about 89/38 at the same time as mine gives single digit downloads. The only way I can see to prove if my RSP or NBN are the bottleneck is to get a second service provisioned from another provider and test them back to back.

        • It’s very much a problem with wireless. My daughter and her husband borrowed my unused Vivid Wireless modem while waiting to be connected to ADSL and found it unworkable during the times people were trying to download video. They couldn’t even open websites.

        • There are a large number of very unhappy wireless customers who are experiencing the same issues as FTTN customers. I know someone who does not have a phone line at home but is paying to have one installed so he can have ADSL2+ installed because his FW connection is so bad, even after the NBN saying they have upgraded the tower he is connected to.

          • You are desperate to see too, aren’t you…? Or even claim to see, regardless, just to distract from the topic, as usual…

            *sigh*

      • @Renai: “And yet it didn’t.”

        As I posted on the original article before this, it sure did. People had the same issue in July, well before FTTN was launched and the symptoms were identical to today.

        https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2413856
        “From about 4-5pm to 12 midnight, my speeds drop from 99Mbps to around 12Mbps, then pings are around 150 – 200ms which makes gaming online pretty difficult.”

        Oh and the unthinkable! Someone wants ADSL back instead of FTTP:
        “Yeah I’m done with TPG nightly speeds make me wish for adsl2.”

        https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2373215
        “I have had the NBN installed today… Was getting 60Mbps when installed around 2pm…
        I am paying for 100/40
        Now its down to 1.79Mbps. 9:50pm (Calamvale QLD).
        Their service is crap, called tech support and the just said network congestion and there’s nothing they can do, this is normal during peak periods.

        NOT HAPPY.
        Wish I stayed on ADSL. Better speed (during so called peak periods) and ping.

        Going to call iinet or TPG and see when I can get this changed over.

        STUFF U OPTUS. Long time customer…. NOT ANY MORE”

        • @dc of course you’re right. This is a non-issue, fanboys don’t get it.

          RSP’s say backhaul underprovisioned, NBNCo says same, technology choice (worked out by some of us) pointed out first article demonstrated the obvious cause.

          Yet still they go on. The blog linked is error ridden.

          The 7330 nodes with NANT-E used by NBNCo have a maximum uplink capacity of 20/20GE. The fibre required is already laid and reserved. It is trivial to expand up to max, today nowhere near that is required (across any tech).

          Only complete tools can’t grasp this (yet still they come). Most tech illiterate website on the net, even when given details it isn’t comprehended.

          • And yet Turnbull did say a min 25Mbps but as you have shown the current sustained rate is half that. But then he did promise it would be faster thanks to you MTM rollout for 3 years compared to BT or 6 years the MTM should be at 8M by now lol. Not cheaper is it Richard lol. Not more afordable is it Richard what was Turnbull FTTN price $16.

          • I am glad you brought up BT, while many in Australia are myopically focused on FTTN bashing FTTN enhancements like G.Fast are leading to new exciting developments in other areas.

            BT says copper is capable of carrying cellular data after G.Fast trials, making it cheaper for operators to rollout 4G and 5G

            http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/networks/voip/bt-5g-copper-gfast-185645

            I am sure Telstra, Optus and Vodafone could make good use of such a enhancement for future 4G and 5G rollouts here, especially in regional Australia.

          • Lol Devoid of reality how is g.fast going to work when it requires 200M of copper and the average length of just node to pillar is 350M lol that for bring up g.fast lol

          • Quick get on the next plane to London, BT needs to be saved from itself.

            from the link above:

            BT is holding trials of G.Fast in Huntingdon, Gosforth and Swansea with the intention of rolling out the technology to ten million homes by 2020 and the majority of the UK within a decade – boosting speeds for consumers without laying more cable.

            BTW I have booked you a ticket to this while you are in Europe.

            http://www.terrapinn.com/conference/gigabit-copper/

            :)

          • @jk up steps the first. You need to learn about peak vs sustained. Residential RSPs running with 30:1 contention or much higher.

            Last week 40k premises passed. Let’s compare that to Quigley’s time. TAS only half completed, yet NBNCo formed in Apr 2009 (200k passed by election). No answer to MDUs, over a third of “RFS” premises unable to order a service nor any workable plan (FTTB rejected). CPP of alternatives half (FTTN) or third (HFC) of fibre.

            G.fast extended to 500m last year. Continues to improve.

            Perfectly illustrating my post.

          • Yes R peak NBN during transition is only required to deliver a 12Mbps after that 25Mbps doesn’t matter if your paying for 100Mbps service great value there isn’t it. But then maybe after the policy you could have writen you could have told Turnbull min 25Mbps isn’t possible lol.

            But Richard after 6 years BT done 16M (cough 60m lol) when comparing to FTTP. But the MTM using your own reference is failing poorly isn’t it. But you don’t want to talk about that do you so you ref Quigley showing your fan boy status again lol.

            Oh no Devoid of reality compare long BT to Australia when we can’t lol. as always fail to answer the question lol.

          • Are you seriously comparing a BT FTTN rollout of six years with a NBN Co FTTN rollout of five months and asking why aren’t they the same?

          • Lol Devoid of reality MTM bee rolling out since the end of 2013 not 5 years. But then you like to compare FTTP 2010 lol just following your standards devoid of reality lol. But then still fail to answer the original question lol

          • Wow…

            So you the copper intelligentsia are telling us the bleedin’ obvious, that BT are trying desperately to wring every last cent out of their err, copper network…

            Gee, who would ever have thunk it eh..? Fancy a company trying to maximise their profits for as long as they can, unheard of.

            So let’s blindly follow them then…

            Why, well because a few rusted on, visionless tragics here say so…that’s why.

            Well I for one am now convinced… while we’re at it, show of hands, who thinks we should have just kept the iron wire profits going too, eh…?

            Oh wait if we did that the copper knuckle draggers (HC™) wouldn’t now have their prized and precious copper would they… ooh what a conundrum for them.

          • Jason K,

            MTM bee rolling out since the end of 2013 not 5 years.

            5years?? I never mentioned 5 years, and if you are going to compare a BT MtM rollout with a NBN Co MtM the major component of BT MtM is FTTN which they have been rolling out for six years, the FTTN component of the NBN Co MtM didn’t start until September last year.

            But then you like to compare FTTP 2010 lol,

            I don’t know what this means, (which is the intent eh?) compared to what?

            But then still fail to answer the original question

            Richard did, ‘G.fast extended to 500m last year. Continues to improve.’

            You must have blinked, you also furiously blinked at thought of BT getting it so seriously wrong for all of the UK, get over there quick and ‘show them the way’, their shareholders will be eternally grateful.

            oh lol

          • Rizz,

            Fancy a company trying to maximise their profits for as long as they can, unheard of.

            Heartened you agree with that principle, so you don’t mind the NBN Co maximising their profits from the two in place fixed line infrastructures they own, copper and HFC?

          • Who said I agreed… you and your backwards logic?

            Once again clearly demonstrating your complete ignorance (I didn’t say stupidity, I was only thinking it whilst guffawing) and confirmation bias… But what’s new?

            Anyway, how do you feel about being FORCED onto MTM, I bet you are pissed off with this fucking government forcing you onto MTM?

            ***** WARNING LOADED QUESTION…ROFL****

            Hence *crickets* yet again.

          • Lol devoid of reality you have been saying FTTP started in 2010 so I am just following your example since MTM started at the end of 2013 it’s now in its 3rd year of rolling out. It’s not BT fault that they have rollout out more than what MTM has lol.

            So let’s see 500 – 350 = 150m for premises to get g.fast how many home will be in that 150m lol. But then they should already get decent speeds lol.

            Poor devoid of reality when using your own standards the glacial pace of the MTM rollout but keep trying to deflect the argument saying I can’t compare when you have lol.

          • The major component of the BT MtM rollout is FTTN, which is faster and cheaper to rollout than FTTP by BT’s own admission, a crucial reason they chose it in the first place, and they have been doing this for six years.

            The major component of the Coalition MtM is not the faster to deploy and cheaper FTTN, not yet, because it was only released five months ago, so it is physically impossible to be any where near BT’s figures after five months, because the main concentration from 2010 for Australia’s NBN was the slower to deploy and more expensive FTTP.

          • Lol again devoid or reality it’s not BT fault that the MTM FTTN is rolling out slower than FTTP. Do again in its third year of rolling out according to BT standards it should be hitting 8m lol. It’s not BT fault that they only “started” 5 months ago. Ah but what is your usual exuse CP change lol. So now in reality it will talk NBN 7 years to connect 4M to FTTN which took BT 6 years to connect 16M lol. Again not BT fault for the glacial pace of FTTN lol.

            Or if we go by by your standard of just 5 months ago for 4m homes on FTTN with take 5 years which again BT completed 16M in 6 years lol.

          • JasonK,

            The BT FTTN rollout is to much higher density areas than here, so it is quicker to get the premises passed metric up.

            You really want to compare the population densities of FTTN launch sites like Bundaberg Qld or Belmont NSW to inner London, Manchester or Birmingham and say ‘hey that’s the same’?

            The NBN MtM mix, that is the intended percentages are vastly different to BT, the current MtM mix from CP 16 has our higher density suburbs targeted for HFC at 34%, so once they kick start that infrastructure the ‘premises passed’ will really fly.

            The rest is FTTP 20%, FTTN/B 38%, FW 5%, and satellite at 3%.

            At end of rollout the FTTN/B premises figure is 4.5M just a bit higher than HFC at 4.0M, the total target figure at end of rollout here is 11.9M premises.

            Other than all those stark differences the BT deployment and the NBN Co MtM deployment are the same.

          • Lol devoid of reality changing the goal post again and try defection with oh wait they are doing HFC.

            But thanks you your own excuse BT higher density. But we can now easily see how Tirnbull could get his 2016 date do wrong lol. Plus it’s the same reason why g.fast would work better there as more people are closer to the node compared to the 150M from the pillar to use g.fast lol.

            Bit like I said it’s not BT fault that MTM taking just as long to connect 4.5M to FTTN as it took BT to connect 16M. If you remember it is surprise to be faster than FTTP which arm it’s still slower lol.

            But it’s funny and shows how desperate you are with mentioning HFC even though BT isn’t doing HFC lol.

      • FTTP is designed as a contended service – so will suffer congestion. Claiming otherwise is incorrect (and arguably deceitful). Fiber does deliver superior performance (i.e. attenuation, noise/interference) to copper – it is still subject to the same rules.

        On a technology & longevity basis FTTP is the superior solution. My issue is with people stretching the truth – fibre is not a universal panacea for broadband woes.

        • Yes, at the local loop level its 2.5Gbps contended between potentially 32 customers. FTTN however is currently 2x1Gbps links per node shared between 385 customers…which is more contended? What is hilarious is that “back in the day”, when FTTP was about to be rolled out, the usual suspects were all up in arms because of the “harsh contention” “you won’t get what you pay for”…now the shoe is very much on the other foot, the chickens are coming home to roost and the usual suspects are “there’s nothing wrong””it’s just good planning””it’s a soft limit, they’ll be able to manage it”…ideology not only masking intelligence, but taking it out the back and putting it down with a .22

    • FTTP has pretty much stabilised as more areas have been activated as most Providers are finally managing that “happy middle” for CVC. Most of the congestion happened to bigger ISP’s who oversold and under provisioned.

      And you missed the most important part of the article.. FTTP congestion is merely a “soft limit” congestion ie. the congestion is easily solved w/ proper CVC provisioning. FTTN however will hit a “hard limit” where in a node just cannot sustain the same speed anymore because of the copper part.

      Come back in say 5-10 years when FTTN starts hitting that tip of the “hard limit” and tell me how great an investment it was to spend so much on something that needed replacement in a relative blink of an eye in terms of investment spent and life of system.

      • This article is about current congestion issues. I’m just pointing out that it’s incorrect to blame the current issues on FTTN. This is about getting the facts right.

        FWIW I was a huge supporter of an all FTTP NBN and am a paying Delimiter subscriber.

        • Actually it’s not. This article agrees that it is likely the current issue is simply under provisioning etc
          “Delimiter believes that many of the current FTTN complaints stem from the fact that retail telcos such as Telstra and Optus have not provisioned sufficient backhaul capacity to each neighbourhood ‘node’ to allow customers to access the full speeds they are paying for.”

          However the article also specifically talks about the prediction of a potential “hard limit”, and it is this hard limit that is of primary concern. If there is a hard limit, then the only way to resolve would be to upgrade the physical infrastructure which of course adds additional labour and management costs, as opposed to a soft limit, where you are simply upgrading the “backhaul” that you make available to your customers.

          If you are going to attack an article, perhaps you should read it first.

        • Except it isn’t. The article specifically says that it believes the current issues are likely due to lack of provisioning to support the client base.

          From the Article
          “Delimiter believes that many of the current FTTN complaints stem from the fact that retail telcos such as Telstra and Optus have not provisioned sufficient backhaul capacity to each neighbourhood ‘node’ to allow customers to access the full speeds they are paying for.”

          It also then discusses the potential issue of a “Hard limit” that may also raise its head later on down the track as more people move onto the system and the soft limits we are seeing above are resolved.

          THAT is the key element here. Because that will result in revisit to resolve the issue. Unlike the soft limit issue.

          • So how do you classify a G.Fast upgrade to a FTTN cabinet, a soft limit upgrade or a hard limit upgrade?

          • A moron limit grade, when the copper had to be reacquired after privatisation by our government, with a HUGE maintenance bill of $b’s paid over the ensuing years, all for a vastly inferior product, when we already had FTTP rolling out.

            Not to mention them reusing the FAILED HFC. FAILED was the word you used yes?

            I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting what you said, alain.

            You’re welcome.

          • Hmm I thought I had already posted on this, must of been a delay in publishing. You can kill one of them if you want Renai.

            Reality. Way to miss what I am saying. Conflate an upgrade with ongoing service issues. Your comprehension appears to be flawed.

            Let me break it down again.
            SOFT LIMIT by RSP’s can be fixed will be sorted out by normal competitive practise. As in if you don’t improve a competitor will provide a better service and take your customers.
            HARD LIMIT is something that is infrastructure based, and not associated with the RSP’s. The only way to fix it is to physically upgrade the nodes.

            Does that make more sense for you? I am aware that effective communication requires me to break this down to the lowest common denominator to make it understood. I had assumed the above was easy to follow, but clearly you are a lower common denominator?

          • The nodes become mostly redundant – you’d decommission most of them because they cost money to run and arent required for an FTTdp roll-out using GPON as the “backhaul” to each micro-node. The micro nodes are reverse powered from the Customer modem.

          • “So is a FTTdp upgrade physically upgrading a Node?”

            No, because as Derek said, you decommission the Nodes in a FTTdp rollout.

            Removing of something is not upgrading it.

            You don’t upgrade your phone when you buy a new phone (despite nomenclature changing to say “I upgraded my phone last year”).

          • Reality. Still confused aren’t you.
            I have not looked at the physical requirements of the FTTdp tech, because at the moment we don’t have it in our environment.

            And again, as I pointed out previously this has nothing to do with the article at hand. The issue I am pointing out is the EXISTING service.

            I am talking about PLANNED vs UNPLANNED. Unless you are suggesting that NBN has throttled on purpose, bandwidth and performance issues are UNPLANNED. These need to be addressed. If it is something that can be addressed in a soft methdology, IE increasing the amount of backhaul a specific RSP has, then that is easy, and NOT NBN’s fault.
            If however the issue requires people to go and upgrade the cabinet itself, then that IS NBN’s fault.

            Is that clear enough for you o Lowest of the Low.

      • FTTP does have hard capacity limits. The technology is based on science, not magic :-)

  5. Morrow said the NBN company was working very closely with the retail ISPs to resolve the issues.

    Probably telling them not to encourage take up of speeds higher than 12mbps lol.

  6. As far as I know the FTTN ISAM’s support 8x 1Gbit links. If node backhaul was an issue you could up the backhaul fibre to 10gbit and run the 8x 1gbit links over the one 10gbit fibre….

    • Yes but only if multiple line cards are installed, as was pointed out to me, they aren’t using the nant-a cards, they are using the newer nant-e cards which support 2x 10 gbps and up to 4x 10 gbps (so 10/10 or 20/20 gbps).

      It certainly seems as tho they’ve only installed sfp’s to support 1/1 gbps tho which would have saved them about $1k per node max!

  7. That is what happens when you stack the dumb on 2.5gbps backhaul purely to defend Murdoch and Foxtel.

  8. I guess I was wrong when I called Malcolm’s NBN a circus….it’s actually a three ring circus!

  9. Given they are dragging fibre through the streets to the node points, and already anticipate a requirement to upgrade to FTTP in future.
    Would it be absurd to expect they lay large enough fibre cabling to enable that future upgrade? Then again, answering my own question, if they had broad enough vision for that, they wouldn’t be implementing FTTN in the first place.

    • Then again, answering my own question, if they had broad enough vision for that, they wouldn’t be implementing FTTN in the first place.

      Nailed it.

    • > Would it be absurd to expect they lay large enough fibre cabling to enable that future upgrade?

      Umm… I thought the magic of fibre was that you changed the transceiver at each end and instant speed boost.

      • The other magic is almost no signal degradation over long distances, so you don’t need the damn node between the home and the exchange. The node just adds more complexity, more points of failure, more maintenance, more latency, more bottlenecks, less security and resilience, all for little or no benefit.

      • Mathew as jxeeno points out a standard core FTTP is 32 which each core can be split to 32 premises. The FTTN core is 4 for the node with 8 spare for later upgrade which only covers alittle over half a fully used node.

    • At more cost alain?

      So OVER $56B?

      Perhaps they should just roll out HFC… oh no sorry that’s a failed network isn’t it..?

      Or roll out FTTN.. oh no that’s FRAUDBAND isn’t it?

      How about FTTP, after all thats the end goal isn’t it… ?

      *crickets*

      • The end goal is FTTP cheerleaders need to provide modeling that unequivocally shows that FTTP CPP has fallen to FTTN levels, or another model that would be interesting is if and when FTTN is required to be upgraded to FTTP it will never have a lower upgrade CPP than brownfield CPP pricing currently sitting at $4,400.

        Now that’s *crickets* multiplied.

        • FTTP end goal cheer leaders such as Morrow and Turnbull you mean?

          ROFL.

          Another own goal.

          • Oh I thought you had some figures for us, but nvm, the ‘Detour this way’ option will have to do.

          • Wow what a surprisingly new reply… NOT, from the king of detours (and pointless detours).

            Yes I thought the fact of Morrow and Turnbull both claiming FTTP being the end goal would be a bit awkward (read: humiliating for you). But then you must be used to it with all of those ridiculously, contradictory comments of yours.

            I guess at least it wasn’t your all time gem…

            “Before roads there were no roads”

            You’re welcome.

          • Devoid of reality
            Defection again I see getting desperate you ask for what page I gave it twice.

            As to the 2nd question when you keep posting the FTTP figures from the CP16. Are you claiming option 1 or 2

        • What matters Reality is not what the CPP of FTTP is now, but what the CPP will be by putting FTTN in between getting to FTTP.

          Even with an incredibly conservative figure of $2500 for FOD (much lower than currently available from BT in the UK) per property, that puts the CPP of FTTN -> FTTP at $2300 + $2500, or $4800.

          Which, if my calculations are correct, is $400 more than the CPP of FTTP…. I might be wrong though, maths is hard and all.

          • FoD costing is no guide to what a large scale FTTN upgrade to FTTP might cost, Fod’s are ad-hoc on a case by case basis, which is not the same as costing cities like Bundaberg for a upgrade when required.

            But it is not simple as that because in the meantime some FTTN areas may have been upgraded to G.Fast, so in such a scenario the supposed need for a FTTP upgrade blows out to even a longer time frame.

            Using FTTP or FoD costing in 2016 and saying this is what it will be in 2030 or whatever year you want to pick out of a hat for a FTTP upgrade to FTTN is ludicrous.

          • “But it is not simple as that because in the meantime some FTTN areas may have been upgraded to G.Fast, so in such a scenario the supposed need for a FTTP upgrade blows out to even a longer time frame.”

            Except G.Fast (even if what Richard said is true above about being 500m of copper capable now) cannot be used concurrently with VDSL. So as long as there are copper lengths longer than 500m from a node that require VDSL, G. Fast cannot be used in said node.

            Please stop spreading FUD.

          • It’s just the same tired old argument of “something else will come along and fix everything for us”.

          • Indeed R0ninX3ph…

            We don’t need the best topology FTTP, because we will never utilise such speeds and anyway something better and faster may be just around the corner.

            More in depth stupidity for the illogically ideological.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            So as long as there are copper lengths longer than 500m from a node that require VDSL, G. Fast cannot be used in said node.

            I never said G.Fast can be used in lengths greater than 500m.

            Please stop spreading FUD.

            Seeing I never said it in the first place I have nothing to stop.

          • ROnin…

            Well, well, well…

            Think back weeks or months ago, when alain was harping on about g.fast and you, after many comments (and head/wall) educated him on where and where not, g’fast could be utilised, as he was sprouting typical BS about it.

            I said at the time, as you were frustrated at his childishness, that he’s no fool (although on the surface it seems blatantly apparent) and that over time he would use your very info, in reverse to try to better his blind ideological crusade…

            Well looky here, not only has my prophesy come true but he has taken audacity and hypocrisy to a new level of using your very info, against you, and claiming that you are the one spreading FUD…

            *slow clap* alain.

          • “I never said G.Fast can be used in lengths greater than 500m.”

            Read the rest of the god damn comment Reality, you cannot use G.Fast AND VDSL together, meaning that if you have any copper lines longer than the maximum length for G.Fast, they MUST keep using VDSL for them (without constructing MORE nodes to reduce their copper line lengths).

            THUS because you cannot use G.Fast and VDSL together because of crosstalk, you cannot talk about G.Fast being used in the MTM FTTN rollout.

            But, logic never seems to be your strong suit.

            The FUD you are spreading is suggesting that G.Fast can be used in the MTM rollout without significant spending.

          • I never said there was no extra cost involved in upgrading to G.fast.

            Obviously BT have crunched the numbers and have concluded it is still more cost effective than jumping to FTTP in FTTN areas, they should know, they are rolling out both.

          • “I never said there was no extra cost involved in upgrading to G.fast.

            Obviously BT have crunched the numbers and have concluded it is still more cost effective than jumping to FTTP in FTTN areas, they should know, they are rolling out both.”

            Are you fucking serious right now? Are you fucking reading what I am saying?

            You CANNOT use VDSL and G.Fast at the same time in a single node? IF you have customers still using VDSL in a node serviced area “AKA further than 500m” you CANNOT use G.Fast.

            Talking about using G.Fast in the MTM when maximum line lengths are 1200m is irrelevant.

            It doesn’t matter what BT are doing regarding G.Fast, discussing BT’s G.Fast as if it makes any difference to the MTM is spreading FUD.

            Rolling out FTTN currently costs $2300 per premises, with maximum line lengths of 1200m. To have the line lengths needed for G.fast that means we need more than DOUBLE the current amount of nodes to be able to run G.Fast to all properties.

            So, suddenly the CPP is a MINIMUM of $4600 to be able to run G.Fast to everyone using FTTN. Which is MORE than the CPP for FTTP.

          • No one has made any costing predictions for G.fast in Australia, distances from a cabinet to a residence would vary, to just simplistically double the current FTTN figure and say that what it would cost as a minimum CPP in [pluck a year out of a hat] for everyone to get G.fast is ludicrous.

            It certainly does matter what BT is doing with G.fast, if they thought a FTTP upgrade was less cost and faster why would they even bother with G.fast let alone live trialing it.

            Some more pertitent reading for you and others.

            BT FTTN rollout shows what Australia could have had

            https://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/31/bt-fttn-rollout-shows-what-australia-could-have-had/

          • Well devoid of reality Turnbull has costed g.fast upgrade. In the SR there is an upgrade to g.fast in 2025 and FTTP in 2030. Now the saving was only $2B lol. But now with the $15 blowout and cost CPP in the CP16 showing cost of FTTP lower than what was claimed in the SR. That $2B claimed saved has completely bern wiped out lol.

          • @Reality, you still aren’t understanding the main fucking point.

            G.Fast has a limit on the length of copper it can be used on, as long as the nodes are servicing premises with copper line lengths longer than that, you cannot use G.Fast in that node, as you cannot use VDSL and G.Fast together due to crosstalk.

            So talking about BT and G.Fast in relation to the MTM is pointless, if a large number of their nodes are servicing line lengths shorter than the maximum length servicable by G.Fast then of course they could roll it out affordably.

            nbn™ are going to be servicing properties up to 1.2km from the nodes, well outside the range of G.Fast. MIGHT there be SOME nodes where this isn’t the case? Maybe. But, if the average is an 800-1200m radius around the nodes, it would require more than double the current number of nodes to bring the average for the fixed line segment to within the range at which G.Fast can be used.

            Thus I used a BALLPARK figure, if it is $2300 CPP currently with the current number of nodes, it will be AROUND double for more than double the number of nodes required to bring the average copper length loop down to a number where G.Fast is able to service all premises on a node.

            Even though you’re going to ignore what I say again anyway…. Here is the TL;DR version: If you can’t give all premises on a single node G.Fast and some still need to be connected via VDSL, you cannot use G.Fast because of crosstalk.

          • In the SR there is an upgrade to g.fast in 2025 and FTTP in 2030. Now the saving was only $2B lol.

            The SR is a 134 page document, what page states that?

            I am so glad you brought up FTTP costs, is that the one that has a predicted finish date of 2026-2028 with a peak funding of $74-$84B?

            I actually have a reference for that it is Page 39 of the NBN Co Corporate Plan 2016, which as you know updates the SR estimates of 2013.

          • “BT FTTN rollout shows what Australia could have had”…

            Of course that was an article from 2013, where Renai goes on to talk about had we circa “2005 via Sol etc”… then we may have had a successful FTTN network.

            Of course conjecture looking at the current complete fuck up, but I agree, had it happened in 2005, it could have been great and better still, we would now logically be all looking at FTTP.

            But here’s another take, but from someone “hands on” with BT…

            https://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/

            Don’t forget too, when in government previously the Coalition could have implemented FTTN or better still listened to Barnaby and Fiona, and gone with FTTP.

            But they did neither and simply wanted to talk it all down (yes that infamously now embarrassing word beginning with F and ending in raudband).

            You’re welcome

          • R0ninX3ph,

            Before proceeding further where are you sourcing your average NBN Co FTTN copper line lengths and maximum line lengths from?

          • Devoid of reality
            Page 101

            And for that 2026-28 $74-$84
            Is it
            1. What labor original rollout was going to be
            Or
            2. If they stopped MTM and move back to FTTP

          • “R0ninX3ph,

            Before proceeding further where are you sourcing your average NBN Co FTTN copper line lengths and maximum line lengths from?”

            It has been linked to in the past, I can’t find it right now, but it is well known that the average copper run between nodes and the pillar is 350m, evidenced multiple times when discussing the copper bought by nbn™ for rolling out 6 months worth of FTTN.

            That is from the node to the pillar alone then adding distance from pillar to homes.

            Example: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2464648

            Someone there has a copper length of 750m from the pillar because the copper loops around their home despite being 200m as the crow flies to the pillar.

            So, even if the Node were right next to their pillar, they would still be outside the range for G.Fast to function, and would need to be serviced still by VDSL. THUS not being able to use G.Fast in that node.

            Another example of people living outside the G.Fast range: http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-fibre-to-the-node-trial-reveals-slower-speeds/

            AAAAND before you start deflecting by saying those in the article are happy with their connection, that isn’t the discussion here.

            The discussion is that you cannot use G.Fast and VDSL concurrently due to crosstalk, so if you still have customers on a node that require VDSL, you cannot use G.Fast in that node, and thus talking about a supposed G.Fast upgrade is pointless as it CANNOT be performed.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            The discussion is that you cannot use G.Fast and VDSL concurrently due to crosstalk, so if you still have customers on a node that require VDSL, you cannot use G.Fast in that node,

            Really?

            Together with industry partners, ESK researchers have demonstrated that VDSL and G.fast technologies can operate adjacently over an existing copper wire infrastructure, from the distribution point to the on-premise modem. Simulation analyses and tests revealed that these existing and future broadband tech-nologies suffer no significant loss of quality.

            http://www.esk.fraunhofer.de/en/media/press_releases/pm1509.html

            and….

            It should be noted that G.fast is capable of interoperation with VDSL by choosing to limit the G.fast deployment bandwidth to commence above the 17 MHz or 30 MHz VDSL profile band.

            http://telsoc.org/ajtde/2014-03-v2-n1/a26

          • Then I stand corrected. They can be used together, though G.Fast suffers from not being able to provide as high speeds because you have to limit the frequencies it is used on.

            But are we not back at the same problem as FTTP from FTTN node cabinets, that there isn’t the space to house both sets of hardware? Unless Alcatel has released hardware that supports both VDSL and G.Fast in a smaller package (which would still require going back to rebuild all the nodes not built with that hardware in it).

            See Reality? This is what it looks like when someone adjusts their world view based on evidence. I am willing to admit I was wrong. Instead of just deflecting and ranting.

            Though it is incredibly ironic you link an article discussing FTTdp for use with the nbn when previously shouted down people suggesting FTTdp is a better solution than FTTN because it provides very high speeds using G.Fast (whilst using less power than FTTN because it can be reverse powered from homes) and also a very cost effective way for people who would pay for FOD to actually do so….

          • Though it is incredibly ironic you link an article discussing FTTdp for use with the nbn when previously shouted down people suggesting FTTdp is a better solution than FTTN

            I did ‘shout down people’, where? and I don’t have a problem with rolling out FTTdp.

          • Jasonk

            Page 101

            Page 101 of the CP 16 outlines a costing example of a future upgrade scenario that might happen, not a statement of fact of what will happen.

            Is it
            1. What labor original rollout was going to be
            Or
            2. If they stopped MTM and move back to FTTP

            You are confusing me with the company that produced the NBN Co CP16 document, ask them, let us know what they said.

          • Devoid of reality
            Page 101 of the SR lol

            They have already been asked and it’s no. 2. But then we already told you that

          • Page 101 of the SR lol

            What does that mean, with lol added?

            They have already been asked and it’s no. 2. But then we already told you that

            So if you already know the answer why did you ask the question?

        • The end goal is FTTP cheerleaders need to provide modeling that unequivocally shows that FTTP CPP has fallen to FTTN levels, or another model that would be interesting is if and when FTTN is required to be upgraded to FTTP it will never have a lower upgrade CPP than brownfield CPP pricing currently sitting at $4,400.

          You’ve totally missed the point.

          It’s not about cost, it’s about capacity.

          Bandwidth requirements go up 50% a year (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/) and FttN is pretty well done, any other icreases in it’s speed mean you need to put nodes closer and closer to the end point.

          They are building a network that won’t be fit for purpose within the next few years, that’s not money well spent…

          • Indeed Tinman,

            It’s a trait with these people.

            They screamed CBA in the past… but then “always” ignore the B and hone in on the C regardless

            Forever conveniently ignoring the future B’s stemming from rolling out FTTP and also ignoring the future C’s of rolling out FTTN, with the end goal still being FTTP (according to even Morrow and Turnbull).

          • Tinman_au,

            So what’s going to happen in the UK and other established FTTN areas in other countries in the next few years?

          • @ alain,

            “I never said there was no extra cost involved in upgrading to G.fast.”

            So MTM is now UPTO $60B, $70B or more ???

            You may not have said those exact words regarding added g.fast costs, but of course, you incessantly (completely disingenuously) claim that the Telstra and Optus deals made by NBNCo and NBN are like/like, refusing to factor any added maintenance, renewal, rework or… wait for it, add ons (such as g.fast for copper) costs, in any comparison.

            So which is it?

          • No one knows when G.Fast will be rolled out in Australia and to what extent as a percentage of FTTN residences what areas will get it, G.Fast might not be used at all.

            That’s the advantage of a MtM model, you have so many options if the need arises.

            So therefore no one knows what the cost will be in the xx year it starts to be rolled out, you can speculate all day and night what it might be but it’s a dice throwing numbers game exercise in futility in 2016.

          • @ alain…

            “No one knows when G.Fast will be rolled out in Australia and to what extent as a percentage of FTTN residences what areas will get it, G.Fast might not be used at all.”

            So you are flapping your gums and frothing at the mouth about g.fast that “might not be used at all”…

            Wow…

            The advantage of the MTM model you say…

            Well the only advantage of the FRAUDBAND model seems to be for people like you, who can talk complete shit all day about stuff that MIGHT (your favourite word to argue over) or MIGHT not happen and sob, but they, but they… instead of focussing on what IS happening right now, which is a construction fuck-up unsurpassed in Australia’s history.

            Fire sale anyone?

            You’re welcome

  10. “Morrow stated that it was his belief that the similar teething problems would have been seen when the NBN company first started deploying its original Fibre to the Premises model”

    Not in my experience.

    On the contrary, in the first trial the only teething issue was congestion for a day or two. That’s how long it took internode to up their quota of back haul to meet the demand. The capacity to expand was built in to the Quigley and Co design.

    • That’s why Internode was and maybe still is the most popular ISP with the tech community, because their tech team was on the ball and their transit links both here and overseas were the tops, with very good redundancy built in.

      How fast Internode reacts to load problems (for any reason) is not indicative of how all ISP’s react.

  11. The whole thing is a total balls up and heads should roll ,but as per normal there will be shouting and finger pointing $80 mill inquest and guess what,NOTHING the dick heads will go dancing up the street heading for their banks to check how much dosh they made out of it. the bastards should go to jail and all personal moneys and assets made from this be striped away. GOD I AM ANGRY .
    grrrrr

  12. > This is not an ideal situation for anyone, and would have been avoided had the NBN company merely continued to follow Labor’s original FTTP model and not switched (under the Coalition’s guidance) to a model partially based on Telstra’s copper network.

    Sure under today’s demand profile where 79% on FTTP are connected at 25Mbps or slower this is possibly true. However the NBN FTTP architecture is using GPON2.5 and the Corporate Plan notes that upgrading to GPON10 will be required if and when demand for higher speeds / data occurs.

    • Because FTTN is going to provide infinite speed increases into the future!

      To infinity and beyond!

  13. This grabbed my attention from the blog post:

    “Without causing massive disruption to all customers connected to the current node, it may not be possible to transition to FTTP on high-capacity nodes other than by rolling out the network from scratch again.

    This means that even if nbn™ decides to upgrade the network, they will likely continue using copper-based technologies for the years ahead to avoid large capital costs again.”

    They have not only screwed us now, but well into the future.

  14. I’d rather Netflix, Presto etc. offer 720p streaming with the shows presented at their original frame rate, instead of what seems to be half their normal frame rate (Very noticeable if you turn off your TV’s interpolation system that Netflix, Presto etc. don’t broadcast shows at their native frame rate. Compare them to free-to-air, cable or satellite broadcasts).

  15. It would be good to get some more data on what ISP’s are being most affected at the CVC level. Also if the node does hit its hard limit I wonder how long it would take for NBN to light up additional fibres.

      • But Alain, they shouldn’t need too. The idea of the FTTP was to do it once and do it with Fibre. Extrapolating that to the FTTN, wouldn’t you light up enough fibre capacity for 5 years growth or at least to the end of the FTTN deployment so that during the entire deployment you wouldn’t need to come back and double handle a node (since, you know, we already know how much speed and capacity will be needed)?

        If 75% of nodes don’t need some level of upgrade from 1/1 in 5 years, I’d be stunned based on the demonstrated growth of Internet traffic seen today – or is that the idea?

        This demonstrates a total waste in opportunity cost. Not only do we have to wait (and then pay) for NBN or Telstra to actually perform the upgrade, we have to divert the people doing deployments in other areas to do the upgrade.

        There is no way you can convince anyone that the cost to return to the node to commission new fibre/SFPs would be in excess of the $1000.00 it would cost to deploy 10/10 SFPs today or to have commissioned more than two fibres as they commissioned the first.

        So, slower Internet for longer (hard congestion and delays to light new fibre), more cost (because of double handling at the node) and longer deployment (opportunity cost to redo nodes instead of deploying them) – yep, that’s what Turnbull sold us on the MTM – Right there!

        Economic madness, bordering on corruption.

        • The ‘double handling’ of a node as you put it is no big deal, if it is required as the NBN Co explanation outlines is quite quick.

          Back haul upgrades for FTTN is a no more a complex job than FTTP, Fixed wireless, HFC, or out of of Telstra exchanges with ADSL2+ DSLAM’s.

          • Rubbish. You know very well, that anything that involves labour going to the node site is a significant cost. Backhaul isn’t as complex indeed, another reason why FTTP was the better option, as you could remove the expense of revisits.

          • another reason why FTTP was the better option, as you could remove the expense of revisits.

            Indeed Woolfe, but don’t expect the copper fanboy knuckle-draggers to comprehend that. So long as their precious copper is used any amount of expense and convoluted inefficiencies in building the patchwork is justified to them.

          • If only we’d have kept the iron wires HC, just imagine how great Australia would be (as we will be in the future with copper in a fibre world).

            Oh wait…

          • Woolfe,

            From the NBN Co link I posted above.

            The reality is that we can quite easily upgrade our FTTN cabinet backhaul capacity whenever we need to do so by simply installing a new optical interface – there is no need whatsoever to run any new fibre.

            Doesn’t sound like a ‘costly’ Labor problem to me, and it is only done if required.

          • Reality,

            Does someone need to visit the cabinet?

            If so then that is a greater cost than someone upgrading the software on a piece of infrastructure further up the stream.

            If you have to visit the cabinet AT ALL, in a secondary rollout type fashion, then that will be a blow out, and further justifies the argument that FTTP was the better technology, as your operating costs are again lower.

            You know that labour costs are one of the big issues, you are being disingenuous by arguing otherwise.

          • A beat up about nothing Woolfe,

            The Wireless Base Stations, FTTP Optical Terminals and FTTN cabinets serve vastly different numbers of people, our largest FTTP Optical Terminal serves around 3,000 premises and has 10Gbps of backhaul available – but the reality is that we are usually only using around 15% of that capacity at the moment.

            By contrast an FTTN cabinet will serve only around 384 premises so we don’t need anything like the same amount of capacity as we do for an FTTP Optical Terminal.

            Try as hard as you like, it’s no where near the damming costing evidence that shows us rolling out FTTP in the first place is way to go, because a tech may have to visit a FTTN cabinet.

          • Reality,

            What are you talking about? You appear to have lost any sense.

            How many Cabinets existed under FTTP? How many? Hmmmm
            Now how many exist under FTTN? Hmmm

            Any rework is now ADDITIONAL COST..DUHN DUHN DAAAAAAHH

            I still have yet to see any of you prove your “damning costing evidence” without resorting to political ranting, or the “You would understand if you knew finance”. You may be right, but I’ll never know based on the tripe you spout.

            Again showing you are the Lowest of the Lowest Common Denominator.

          • What are you talking about? You appear to have lost any sense.

            You can’t lose something you never had ;o)

  16. “Morrow stated that it was his belief that the similar teething problems would have been seen when the NBN company first started deploying its original Fibre to the Premises model” so then we should expect “teething” problems when nbn releases its HFC products. And then again when/if they release a FTTdp product.
    Or if we had stuck with FTTP no more teething problems as they have already been resolved.

    So many problems/headaches/issues/complexities/etc are solved by having ONE technology choice. If only..

  17. So all I gather is if you go with a cheap provider like Dodo you’ll get congestion whether you’re on FTTN or FTTP, nothing to do with the NBN…

    So really if the end user wants to be a tight-ass and go with Dodo then yes you’ll get congestion…

    All the FTTN customers with Telstra would be the ones not complaining and are enjoying max speeds…

    What is the issue? Like everything, you get what you pay for…

    Technology being FTTN here does not seem to be the issue… Same as with 4G, the technology works, but if there is congestion and data is at a crawl you blame the Mobile provider for skimping out of backhaul and/or spectrum, you don’t blame the 4G technology itself…

    You yourself Renai have said you’re on FTTN but have minimum congestion issues, and that would be cause you’re with a decent ISP that has decent backhaul..

    • “You yourself Renai have said you’re on FTTN but have minimum congestion issues, and that would be cause you’re with a decent ISP that has decent backhaul..”

      I’m not on the NBN — I’m on TransACT’s FTTN in Canberra.

  18. Virtually all (with exception of large expensive custom built ones) data networks are built around a contention model. It should not come as a surprise to people that FTTN architecture will has hard capacity limits. The fact it is there doesn’t stop the technology from working (and in my case – working well).

    To sell a nbn service a provider needs to have internet transit capacity, domestic transit capacity, domestic infrastructure, operational processes, nbn NNI, nbn CVC & a nbn UNI/AVC connection. Add into there a provider needs to make a bit of profit. Given that, I don’t see lack of available backhaul from a FTTN cabinet as being an issue for some time.

    • I think that the emergence of VOD and streaming data is going to challenge the contention model in the network space in a very real way over the new few years.

      Yes, not everyone is going to use there connections at the same time but there is a reason they call it prime time in TV and why we are having so may issues at the moment.

    • Indeed there are 2 issues here. The first is the Soft issue, whereby it appears the RSPs have underestimated what they require to service their clients. Easily fixed.

      But then there is the potential hard limit that Renai references, which is an issue, because if we hit it, then it may require physical changes to the node, essentially double handling, for something that should have been able to be left alone for several years at least. This is the worry, because that is an additional cost again on top of what was there.

      What Renai, and I, and many others would like to know is why does it appear that this is affecting the FTTN more than FTTP. Despite the protestations here, most references I have read regarding the FTTP have been primarily positive. There certainly was no large volume of complaints about the performance.
      It does appear however that there are a large number of FTTN complaints occurring. Now even assuming confirmation bias, and people who would be dissatisfied with anything, that is still a significant bump.

      If it is just the provisioning issue, it should resolve itself in time, either because the RSP increases its provisioned offering or by people churning to different services.
      The problem I have is that due to the redactions and general dishonest feeling I have from Morrow, NBN and anything related to it, until it is proven otherwise, I will err on the negative towards this.

      • Two observations.

        First you should get better actual performance over fibre (better latency and less active electronics) so that may explain some of it.

        Second is I would question the science around the observations. MTM is not a popular policy by any stretch, so people (and Labour) will do whatever they can to shoot holes in it. It’s one thing to fairly call limitations in the approach, it’s another to slide into a strongly biased, potentially attempting to mislead others viewpoint.

        • MTM is not a popular policy by any stretch, so people (and Labour) will do whatever they can to shoot holes in it.

          No need to shoot holes in it. MTM flaws are self-evident.

        • Hence Confirmation Bias.

          As in if you think it is shite, then you will find every little problem with it.

    • @ Michael R

      “It should not come as a surprise to people that FTTN architecture will has hard capacity limits. The fact it is there doesn’t stop the technology from working (and in my case – working well).”

      And it should work Michael, otherwise why TF are we spending UPTO $56B on it? I don’t think people are questioning whether it will work or not, per se`, we are questioning the validity of MTM when the superior FTTP network was already underway.

      Now we have the “vastly lesser” so called cheaper, faster MTM in complete tatters with 4 year hold ups, UPTO $$15B blow outs (or $27B more than the fully costed pre-election plan) and the question the MTM fans can never quite grasp… considering the blowouts, at what point do they admit MTM is no longer cheaper and faster vs. the “benefits” of FTTP, and we just do FTTP.

      BTW that wasn’t meant to be derogatory towards you or your comment :) Just sayin’.

      • My view is FTTP is the technically superior solution that will provide for far better longevity than copper/HFC. That aspect is not in doubt (at least in my mind)

        Disadvantge I’ve seen with FTTP is some deployments are trickier to manage (getting ATMs connected to a NBN service was fun). I don’t think people realise how complicated some sites are (and how much cost it is to fully fibre them). The FTTB delivery model makes this significantly easier to address.

        Second disadvantage is potential for added end user cost after you have a standard FTTP install done at a house. I know at my home I would have been up for extra internal cabling if I had FTTP installed, getting FTTN sidesteps that additional cost and simplifys the deployment approach. Arguably the MTM approach aligns more closely with what is at a house (and makes the lines of demarc a little clearer)

        Last disadvantage I see is the slow pace FTTP would have in building scale (active services). While FTTN/B has taken a while to get off the ground it now appears to be progressing at a good rate. The faster NBN can build subscriber numbers the faster they grow cashflow the easier it will be to raise the remaining capital to finish the build.

        • So your 2 first disadvantages are the same thing. All about the delivery to the premise.

          End user cost still exists under FTTN. Modems etc. Can you confirm that internal cabling would have been a cost and why? From what I understood there was room to ensure that you controlled where the Fibre entered the property, its just that most people didn’t know that.

          Slow pace of FTTP rollout vs FTTN/B are claims you can’t make yet. Once a few months have passed and FTTN/B gets to normal rollout speeds (they had been doing substantial work before “turning on” the service which is why you had that initial spike), and the FTTP rollout was ramping up, had experimental process that were yielding rewards (project fox), and in every other place in the world following this process the timing got better. We will never know unfortunately.

          As to subscriber rates, unfortunately the guts has been ripped out of the profitable parts. The original plan assumed majority on 12mb plans with extra profit coming from the 25 and above plans. This is not possible under the FTTN.

  19. With respect Rene, most of your articles are well researched and pretty much on the money, and I enjoy reading them. This one however is way off track.
    RSPs do not provision any capacity to the node. The network links being discussed here are:
    RSP back haul – the link between the retail service providers core network and NBNs POI. The physical medium is either leased capacity as is the case with many smaller providers, or owned by the RSP, eg Telstra’s own fibre cable. Capacity is more likely to be an issue with the smaller RSPs paying for bandwidth on a 3rd party link.
    CVC – is the link within the POI between the RSPs router and NBN’s aggregation switch. Bandwidth depends on how much is purchased from NBN. Depending on how much CVC and/or backhaul a provider has provisioned, this is a possible source of contention, but the is independent of the access technology.
    Node to POI – this link is comprised of two main components:
    1 the DWDM transit link from POI to FAN. This is the same architecture regardless of the access technology (FTTN/FTTP/wireless), and is unlikely to be the cause of any discrepancy between technologies.
    2 the distribution network. In FTTP this is a passive fibre link, and its capacity is set by the GPON OLT. In the FTTN architecture it is an active link, with a bandwidth limited by the electronics at each end. NBN are currently provisioning a single 1GE link to each node. This is the only FTTN specific aspect of the network that has been raised in these discussions. Incidentally, there have been many comments as to the actual/potential capacity of this link. Tsang has also misinterpreted the architecture. Yes, there are 12 fibres to most nodes, but each node is fed via a branch MPT, so there are actually only 4 fibres available at each node, and in some cases the 12 DFN fibres service 3 separate nodes (with 4 fibres each). The uplinks are dual fibre working, so each 1GE link requires a pair of fibres. As far as I can tell from the specs, the 7330 does not support 10GE uplinks (http://www.netnordic.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ISAM_7302_and_7330_AP1_.pdf), but happy to stand corrected on this if anyone has more info.
    Therefore each node (approx 200 EUs) are serviced by a single 1GE link. This does have the potential to be a serious source of contention in the network.

    • +1

      The 7330 spec sheet does mention “Up to eight electrical or optical Gigabit/Fast Ethernet network links” and “GigE, coarse wavelength division multiplexing (CWDM) SFP” support so throw in a MUX and you can get 8Gb/s.

      Now I’m not saying that’s a good thing and CWDM optics and MUXs aren’t cheap (I use them at work over out dark fibre inter campus link) but 8 is better than 2!

      • In theory using a separate Mux is possible. The problems will be physical space in the node housing, which has been designed to be as compact as possible to minimise visual impact, and also the electrical supply. In most regions NBN have negotiated an unmetered supply, (incidentally the power companies are making a killing on this as the projected usage is based on the theoretical maximum power consumption of the equipment, which is way higher than actual). In any case power companies will want to re-negotiate this if they get wind that NBN is adding additional active equipment. Also the additional network element will increase maintenance and management requirements.
        Incidentally it seems a bit of a shortcoming of the 7330 that a device which has a 100Gbps switch matrix, and a total aggregate customer demand of up to 19.2Gbps (384 users @ 50 Mbps), only has a maximum of 8x1GE uplink capacity.

    • Great post earl however your information is out of date (i initially had the same info).

      NBN are using the nant-e line card (not the nant-a which only supports 1GE links) which has 4x sfp sockets which each support 10GE for a combined total of 20/20GE.

      However the evidence to date does strongly point to nbn only using 1GE sfp’s with 2 fibres for 1 gbps of bandwidth to the node in each direction.

      • @do being pedantic 4 x SFS+ supporting 4 x 10/10ge with 1+1 redundancy (max 20/20ge NT-NT). Needless to say (well should be) such capacity is MASSIVE.

        @e 10ge support acknowledged in the very datasheet linked to. NBN’s FDN guarantees 12 fibres to each node, not multiport as claimed. Congestion conclusion destroyed.

        Perhaps Renai can write a technical article covering the NBN technology choices, maybe including background on ISP design considerations;-) ROFL

        • Agreed, however NBN currently have ZERO back-haul redundancy to each node which imo is pretty poor form! 1 single SFP (of 4 per bi-directional link) failing would take the node down for all users, residential and business alike!

          Not acceptable imo.

          • @do right, new mgmt made many changes including FDN from ring to star topology to speed deployment and reduce costs (at the expense of redundancy). Given star topology and non-redundant control cards there’s little benefit from fibre redundancy, ie same cable.

            No serious business will be using NBN offered services (any tech): residential and the odd SME. We’re the 1.5% of premises identified in all the CPs. Tragic when you realise how little tens of billions buys in the hand of govt isn’t it?

          • All true, except for the “serious biz” claim.

            Back when I was Biz CDM at Adam, we had Business customers that would have crawled over broken glass for Skymesh style 100/100 mbps NBN Fibre link to their premises. I’m not talking about home business either, I had customers ranging from service station chains, construction companies, architects, service providers and even a full size stadium all squeezing the last few drops of blood from Bonded SHDSL links because they had no viable alternatives.

          • “No serious business will be using NBN offered services”
            A ridiculous travesty given the income that would provide and the so called national broadband network this was supposed to be.

          • “No serious business will be using NBN offered services…”

            Exactly, Dick…

            Because they will ALL want FttP not OBSOLETE copper or failed (according to your mate) HFC.

            Glad you are finally opening that other eye.

            So… fire sale any one?

        • @ R, DFN architecture provides 12 fibres to the multiport. The branch multiport has the first 4 fibres appearing as single fibre connectors on the MPT itself, the other 8 fibres, in two groups of four appear on two separate 12 fibre connectors (remember NBN cable uses 12F ribbons). Although there is a 12F cable to each node, only 4 of these fibres are connected through the MPT. The rationale for this architecture is to allow up to 3 nodes to be connected via each ribbon.

          Happy to stand corrected on the potential uplink capacity of the 7330. If all that capacity were being provisioned, then I agree there should be no congestion in this part of the network. However I am pretty sure that a single 1GE link is all that is currently being provisioned. NBN would have all the link contention data available at their fingertips. They would know exactly where any bottlenecks lie within their own network. Whether the would disclose any issues, if indeed there are any is another matter. Is there an FOI request in this?

          Absolutely right on the lack of a geographically diverse path between FAN & node. Just another reason why comparing FTTP with FTTN costs is apple with oranges. The DFN now has only around 30% of the fibre as in the previous ring architecture. And dont get me started on the amount of unused fibre that was being installed in the LFN (3 fibres per SDU). There were significant cost savings to be made with the FTTP deployment, much of which could be achieved with a relaxation of the architecture. A star network was always the sensible architecture for a consumer grade network. A business grade network to 94% of premises in the country and their two imaginary neighbors is just not economically viable. You may remember a revised FTTP architecture (known as type 2.1) was released just before the NBN management reshuffle, which went part way to addressing this, but it was withdrawn a month later before it could be implemented.

          Absolute

  20. “I have been a bit dismissive about the FTTN issue in my thoughts about it … because I knew the issue was not related to the copper cables the NBN company was using, but rather was much more likely to be decisions made by retail ISPs behind the scenes that were neutering their customers FTTN connections.”

    It’s significant that as the change over to Turnbull’s MTM/FTTN solution and even in opposition he was saying that 20Mbps would be all a household could ever need. Around the same time 4K TVs were being advertised on all the digital signage around the playing fields during the World Cup, it’s not like 4K was a secret, Japanese networks are already playing with 8K broadcast tv technology. And Turnbull new all along 20 Mbps was sufficient for a family of five, or a building of a dozen apartments, for the foreseeable future (by which we don’t mean a decade ago). That’s the kind of specification that screws backhaul planning irrespective of whether it’s to the node to the premises or even some other non-fibre solution.

  21. Fraudulent activity by government employees who are surpose to be serving the good of the country and its people, my question is when are these politicians going to jail for one of the biggest frauds committed in Australia’s history. The evidence is undesputable, there are loafs of bread, not just bread crumbs if it was a murder investigation they’d been put away a long time ago.

    Defrauding the commonwealth is a crime and all involved need to be served justice no matter what their position past and present

    • Nah, Fttn wont. Most Aussies just want a decent internet, they don’t really care how, or if it’ll need to be upgraded as soon as the one before is done, which will cost a lot more.

      Being a pack of greedy fuckers that are willing, and keen, to screw working Aussies over to make a few extra bucks will be what costs them the election.

Comments are closed.