Posts

Overbuilding networks is not on

/1 Comment/in /by

Let’s talk about overbuilding of networks.

Several years ago I visited the telco regulator in Hong
Kong. His biggest challenge was keeping out of the way of telcos, because over
there the market really does rule the roost. Why? Because with six or seven
copper networks, three or four fibre networks, six or seven 3G networks and at
least four proposed LTE networks, there was plenty of competition at the most
basic level.

Overbuilding is good.

However, as he said to me at the time, that’s fine once you’ve
got build out to every customer. Prior to that, overbuild is a waste of time
and resources.

New Zealand is not in that situation. We don’t have a
ubiquitous network built out to cover every building or every customer. We don’t
have competition at the lowest level, and indeed the government’s decision to
fund what are, in effect, four regional monopolies would suggest there’s little
chance we’ll ever have the population to support multiple networks overbuilding
each other. With only four million customers (in a variety of guises) the costs
far outweigh the benefits.

Except that we are already overbuilding.

In central Auckland I have my pick of fibre providers for
business grade, point to point fibre. There’s FX Networks, TelstraClear fibre
(now owned by Vodafone), Vector and of course Chorus to name the first four
that come to mind.

In Wellington there’s CityLink as well, plus there are any
number of other providers.

They’re typically not offering the same kind of fibre
service that the Ultra Fast Broadband (UFB) project will build. It’s very fast,
it’s uncontended (that is, it isn’t shared in the way the UFB’s G-PON network
will be shared) and it’s expensive as a result.

For most CBD dwellers (I’m thinking businesses here, not
residential) the move to UFB will be a cost-reduction move that means more
contention for a lesser charge. They’ll figure out what that looks like in
terms of their own risk profiles and everyone will get along.

However, there are pockets of fibre deployment that are
already in service and which Chorus and the LFCs should be taking into
consideration as they build out the UFB.

Nelson, for example, has had The Loop for around a decade
now, and at the launch of the Chorus UFB deployment the mayors of both Tasman
and Nelson were at great pains to ensure everyone knew about it. It certainly
came as something of a surprise to the Minister whose speech revolved around
bringing the future to a corner of the South Island. We’ve got the future
already, Minister, they told her.

The explanation from Crown Fibre and Chorus at that point
was that the UFB requirements wouldn’t be met by the fibre network in Nelson
but that hopefully the UFB pricing would help reduce the cost of The Loop’s
fibre to its customers as well. Competition is good and healthy, but there’s no
overbuilding going on, I was told.

The Loop tells me its prices are already lower than the UFB
prices, and that yes in fact overbuild is going on.

Inspire.Net is another ISP that’s been laying fibre for many
years in the lower North Island. Because it’s not a national provider,
Inspire.Net wasn’t considered for the UFB or RBI deployments, but it already
has a large tract of the country fibred up and operating today.

Surely there won’t be overbuilding going on there, right?

Sadly, that’s not the case. UFB fibre is being deployed in
Palmerston North right over the top of existing Inspire.Net fibre and alongside
TelstraClear/Vodafone fibre. The UFB and RBI fibre is required to be deployed
to schools in and around the country so they’ve gone so far as to put a pit
outside a school which already has fibre delivered by one of the existing
operators. This despite Chorus telling an audience in Whanganui that fibre won’t
be deployed to the farms because the cost of putting a pit in and breaking out
the fibre is just too expensive, despite promising just that a year ago.

The UFB project is supposed to provide fibre to 75% of the
population. Chorus has won the lion’s share of the project and is claiming to
be overspending to the tune of around $400m. Something’s got to give, and
apparently that pressure means the government will run over the top of the
Commerce Commission decisions around copper pricing so as to make sure Chorus
doesn’t lose any more cash.

I have an idea. How about we not overbuild existing
networks. How about instead of trying to squash these smaller players we
require the UFB fibre network companies to work with existing fibre operators
and so avoid spending money to deliver a second or even third fibre network to
these places where existing services already operate.

Instead, why not lease capacity from these existing network
operators? Why not work with the other network providers, instead of
overbuilding them – at least until we have full coverage.

Chorus, UltraFast, Northpower and Enable could then get on
with building fibre to new parts of the country, places where there is no fibre
today and where new customers will be able to connect up. It will cost less to
deploy and we’ll save Chorus its $400m, or a goodly chunk of it, without having
to favour one operator over another.

Once we have the whole country covered we certainly can look
at overbuilding. In the long run I’d be more than happy for
infrastructure-based competition to take off. But publicly-funded network
deployments should not be used as a way of quashing competition and certainly
not at the expense of operators who have already put in the long hours and hard
yards delivering the service. I don’t want my money being spent on that – quite
the opposite.

 

Chorus goes mainstream with VDSL

/2 Comments/in /by

Chorus has announced it will introduce VDSL to the mass market
as part of the wholesale bundle currently available to retailers.

That means instead of the niche, pricy product we see on the
market today, VDSL will cost the same to the retail ISPs as ADSL products do
today.

This is a fantastic move and one that TUANZ has been backing
for quite some time for a number of reasons.

Firstly, most residential users won’t see fibre for several
years to come. In order to help drive demand for fibre, TUANZ has long
maintained that VDSL is the perfect introduction to faster broadband services.
If I can get 30Mbit/s down and 10Mbit/s up on copper, when fibre finally does
arrive in the market I’ll be more interested in the 100/100 plan than the entry
level stuff. This is great for the retailer (better margins) great for the
network provider (better uptake) and great for the economy because we’ll have
more people keen as mustard to take up the fibre offering.

Secondly, it’s a way out of the copper wholesale price
debacle foisted on the industry by the government’s clumsy intervention in the
Commerce Commission’s wholesale price determination.

The Commissioner is required under the Telecommunications
Act (introduced by the current government in 2010) to in effect review the
wholesale price of ADSL services and move from a “retail minus” model to a “cost
based” model. That move would see the wholesale price of ADSL services slashed –
something that Chorus screamed blue murder about and which the government
foolishly accepted would hurt uptake of fibre.

As we discussed in our submission on the copper pricing,
VDSL is an unregulated service and the simple answer to Chorus’s woes is to
move as many customers over to that unregulated offering as possible, because
the margins for Chorus would be much better than under the regulated scheme.

EDIT: Chorus tells me it has not matched the regulated wholesale price but rather, added VDSL to the regulated price list. That means whatever the Commerce Commission decides for copper pricing VDSL is included alongside ADSL. This intrigues me – more on this in future I expect.

Thirdly, this should be great news for the retail ISPs, who
have a pent-up demand for faster broadband but a lack of opportunity to deliver
it in the market. By offering faster broadband today, the retail ISPs will be
able to build the products and services that we all want – content,
predominantly, for home users, but also cloud services for SME businesses and a
range of other things we don’t know we need yet.

Once they’ve built that customer base they will have a much
easier time of it moving them over to fibre once the network is deployed.

Chorus appears to be having a bob each way on the whole
question of migration – VDSL will only be offered until the middle of 2015 and
will stop selling it as fibre is deployed (where Chorus has the UFB – I wonder
if it will continue to offer VDSL in areas where it isn’t the UFB operator),
but by then we should be well on the way to migrating to fibre. We’ll have to
keep an eye on that – if the rollout slips then we’ll need to talk about
keeping VDSL on, but I have high hopes that we won’t need it. It’s a useful way
of “encouraging” customers to migrate – either go back to ADSL speeds or swap
to fibre. I know what I’ll be doing.

Of course, VDSL has its limitations (one of the reasons why it is not a
competitor to fibre). It’s only better than ADSL in a very short-run scenario
(less than 1000m as the copper lies) which means some customers won’t see any
difference at all and so won’t be encouraged to move over.

Ironically, given the Australian situation at the moment, we already
have in place a “fibre to the node” network that means most of us are a lot
closer to fibre today than we’ve ever been in the past. The upcoming Australian
election is likely to see a change in government and the chances are they’ll
scrap the NBN deployment in favour of the same kind of network that we already
have today.

This is great news, and now I’m left with just two questions – how much
will it cost and when can I have it?

'>

Broadband is an adjective

/in /by

Dylan Reeve and I were arguing about fibre uptake and the
role of television content as driver. Dylan doesn’t believe IPTV will drive
uptake of fibre as there are too few customers to drive a provider to deliver
and there’s a problem with our retail ISP market – too many resellers of
connectivity to make a fist out of offering a service. There’s also the small problem
of our content market and the limited choice in that market.

I don’t disagree with him on those points. There are only a
handful of customers using fibre today so anyone setting up in business
offering service to those customers will have a pitiful return on investment
for year one. The ISP market is fragmented and most do, indeed, resell Chorus
wholesale so unlikely to have the margin to buy content. And as we’ve noted
elsewhere, Sky dominates the pay TV market in New Zealand and the deals it has
with ISPs are under review by the Commerce Commission for potentially breaching
the Fair Trading Act.

All of which really tells me that IPTV is vital for a
successful fibre rollout and for the future of paid content in New Zealand.

Let me explain.

I’ve just been to Kuala Lumpur courtesy of Huawei to have a
look at its fibre to the home rollout (we also talked LTE in Hong Kong but I’ll
cover that elsewhere). Uptake of FttH services has been good – around the 30%
mark, which is among the best in the world, and customers get free national
calling, relatively fast internet access and 100 channels of television (many
in HD) for around NZ$100 a month.

The competition has come in with the same deal but has 250 channels
of TV.

Malaysia is very damp – it rains a lot every day – and because
of that, rain fade on satellite TV is a real problem. Moving TV on to a fibre
makes perfect sense, and the way it’s provisioned by Malaysia Telekom,  a 10Mbit/s channel is allocated for TV and
nothing else. The picture is crystal clear and there’s no hesitation or
buffering, even when changing the channel.

The speeds customers get are relatively low. Entry level is
20Mbit/s and it goes up from there, but that’s after you’ve taken out the
10Mbit/s channel for TV, which changes things somewhat.

What is clear is that customers aren’t signing up for broadband,
they’re signing up for television that is delivered over broadband. Many years
ago I met a chap from Ericsson Australia who talked animatedly about how we
should all stop talking about broadband as if it were a thing and start
treating it as an adjective – broadband describes something else, so broadband
internet access, broadband television and so on. I suspect he’s right.

A quick Google for “triple play drives uptake” reveals a
wealth of stories and releases from around the world on this subject. BskyB’s
May 2012 financial update points to the triple play package as delivering
increased customer numbers in the UK:

“The telco noted that the number
of triple-play subscribers on its books had risen to 3.2 million, up 24%
compared to end-March 2011, while adding that triple-play penetration had
reached 31%”.

Dutch telco Ziggo also reports higher growth which it puts
down to offering a triple play package.  Year on year from 2009 to 2010 it saw an
increase of 67.5% in subscriber numbers as a result.

Even our own Commerce Commission has concluded that
differentiated video content will help drive demand for UFB services.

For a customer like me, running a business from home with a
media-bent and a desire for faster access to all things electronic, moving to
UFB is a no brainer. I won’t see it in my street for the next five or six years
but I’ll leap at the chance.

For the average mum and dad sitting at home, there has to be
an incentive, a reason to move. Faster internet access isn’t it – but 250
channels of television and free national calling (for which you need UFB) might
just do it.

DISCLAIMER: I travelled to China and Malaysia courtesy of Huawei

'>

Guest Post: UFB for Dummies

/in /by

Steve Biddle likes to describe himself as a former trolley boy but nobody believes him about that (it’s true, I swear) so we’ll just call him a network engineer with a passion for explaining things simply.

Steve posted this to his blog over on Geekzone but kindly allowed me to republish it here.

Unless you’ve been living on another planet you’ll be aware that New Zealand is currently in the process of deploying a nationwide Fibre To The Home (FTTH) network. This network is being supported by the New Zealand Government to the tune of roughly NZ$1.5 billion over the next 10 years and is being managed by Crown Fibre Holdings (CFH). Work is presently underway deploying fibre nationwide, with several thousand homes now connected to this new network.

Much has been made of UFB retail pricing, and for many individuals and businesses the price they will pay for a UFB fibre connection could be significantly cheaper than existing copper or fibre connections. What does need to be understood however is the differences between fibre connection types, and pricing structures for these different services. There have been a number of public discussions in recent months (including at Nethui in July) where a number of comments made by people show a level of ignorance, both at a business and technical level, of exactly how fibre services are delivered, dimensioned, and the actual costs of providing a service.

So why is UFB pricing significantly cheaper than some current fibre pricing? The answer is pretty simple – it’s all about the network architecture, bandwidth requirements and the Committed Information Rate (CIR). CIR is a figure representing the actual guaranteed bandwidth per customer, something we’ll a talk lot about later. First however, we need a quick lesson on network architecture.

Current large scale fibre networks from the likes of Chorus, FX Networks, Citylink and Vector (just to name a few) are typically all Point-to-Point networks. This means the physical fibre connection to the Optical Network Terminal (ONT) on your premises is a dedicated fibre optic cable connected directly back to a single fibre port in an aggregation switch. Point-to-point architecture is similar to existing copper phone networks throughout the world, where the copper pair running to your house is dedicated connection between your premises and the local cabinet or exchange, and is used only by you. Because the fibre is only used by a single customer the speed can be guaranteed and will typically be dimensioned for a fixed speed, ie if you pay for a 100Mbps connection your connection will be provisioned with a 100Mbps CIR and this speed will be achieved 24/7 over the physical fibre connection (but once it leaves the fibre access network it is of course up to your ISP to guarantee speeds). Speeds of up to 10 Gb/s can easily be delivered over a Point-to-Point fibre connection.

The core architecture of the UFB project is Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON). Rather than a fibre port in the Optical Line Terminal (OLT) being dedicated to a single customer, the single fibre from the port is split using a passive optical splitter so it’s capable of serving multiple customers . GPON architecture typically involves the use of 12, 24 or 32 way splitters between the OLT and the customers ONT on their premises. GPON delivers aggregate bandwidth of 2.488Gb/s downstream and 1.244 Gb/s upstream shared between all the customers who are connected to it. 24 way splitters will typically be used in New Zealand, meaning that 100Mbps downstream and 50Mbps upstream can be delivered uncontended to each customer. The difference is architecture is immediately clear – rather than the expensive cost of the fibre port having to be recovered by a single customer as is the case with a Point-to-Point network, the cost is now recovered from multiple customers. The real world result of this is an immediate drop in the wholesale port cost, meaning wholesale access can now be offered at significantly cheaper price points than is possible with a Point-to-Point architecture. GPON’s shared architecture also means that costs can be lowered even further since the architecture of a shared network means dedicated bandwidth isn’t required for every customer like is is with a Point-to-Point connection. The 2.488Gbps downstream and 1.244Gbps upstream capacity of the GPON network instantly becomes a shared resource meaning lower costs, but it can also mean a lower quality connection compared to a Point-to-Point fibre connection.

Now that we’ve covered the basics of architecture we now need to learn the basics of bandwidth dimensioning. Above we learnt that a CIR is a guaranteed amount of bandwidth available over a connection. Bandwidth that isn’t guaranteed is known as an Excess Information Rate (EIR). EIR is a term to describe traffic that is best effort, with no real  world guarantee of performance. The 30Mbps, 50Mbps or 100Mbps service bandwidth speeds referred to in UFB residential GPON pricing are all EIR figures, as is the norm with residential grade broadband services virtually everywhere in the world. There are is no guarantee that you will receive this EIR speed, or that the speed will not vary depending on the time of the day, or with network congestion caused by other users. With Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) replacing analogue phone lines in the fibre world, guaranteed bandwidth needs to also be available to ensure that VoIP services can deliver a quality fixed line replacement. To deliver this UFB GPON residential plans also include a high priority CIR of between 2.5Mbps and 10Mbps which can be used by tagged traffic. In the real world this means that a residential GPON 100Mbps connection with a 10Mbps CIR would deliver an EIR of 100Mbps, and a guaranteed 10Mbps of bandwidth for the high priority CIR path.

Those of you paying attention would have noticed a new word in the paragraph above – tagged. If you understand very little about computer networking or the internet you probably just assume that the CIR applies to the EIR figure, and that you are guaranteed 10Mbps on your 100Mbps connection. This isn’t quite the case, as maintaining a CIR and delivering a guaranteed service for high priority applications such as voice can only be done by policing traffic classes either by 801.2p tags or VLAN’s The 802.1p standard defines 8 different classes of service ranging from 0 (lowest) to 7 (highest). For traffic to use the CIR rather than EIR bandwidth it needs to be tagged with a 802.1p value within the Ethernet header so the network knows what class the traffic belongs to. Traffic with the correct high priority 802.1p tag will travel along the high priority CIR path, and traffic that either isn’t tagged, or tagged with a value other than that specified value for the high priority path will travel along the low priority EIR path. Traffic in excess of the EIR is queued, and traffic tagged with a 802.1p high priority tag that is in excess of the CIR is discarded.

For those that aren’t technically savvy an analogy (which is similar but not entirely correct in every aspect) is to compare your connection to a motorway. Traffic volumes at different times of the day will result in varying speeds as all traffic on the motorway is best effort, in the same way EIR traffic is best effort. To deliver guaranteed throughput without delays a high priority lane exists on the motorway that delivers guaranteed speed 24/7 to those drivers who have specially marked vehicles that are permitted to use this lane.

There are probably some of you right now that are confused by the requirement for tagged traffic and two different traffic classes. The simple reality is that different Class of Service (CoS) traffic profiles are the best way to deliver a high quality end user experience and to guarantee Quality of Service (QoS) to sensitive traffic such as voice. Packet loss and jitter cause havoc for VoIP traffic, so dimensioning of a network to separate high and low priority traffic is quite simply best practice. Performance specifications exist for both traffic classes, with high priority traffic being subject to very low figures for frame delay, frame delay variation and frame loss.

UFB users on business plans also have a number of different plan options that differ quite considerably to residential plans. All plans have the ability to have Priority Code Point (PCP) transparency enabled or disabled. With PCP Transparency disabled, traffic is dimensioned based on the 802.1p tag value in the same way as residential connections are. With PCP Transparency enabled, all traffic, regardless of the 802.1p tag, will be regarded as high priority and your maximum speed will be your CIR rate. As the CIR on business plans can be upgraded right up to 100Mbps, GPON can deliver a service equivalent to the performance of a Point-to-Point fibre connection. Business users also have the option of opting for a CIR on their EIR (confused yet?). This means that a 100Mbps business connection can opt for a service bandwidth of 100Mbps featuring a 2.5Mbps high priority CIR, a 95Mbps low priority EIR, and a 2.5Mbps low priority CIR. This means that at any time 2.5Mbps will be the guaranteed CIR of the combined low priority traffic. The high priority CIR can be upgraded right up to 90Mbps, with such an offering delivering a 90Mbps high priority CIR, 7.5Mbps low priority EIR, and 2.5Mbps low priority CIR.

You’re now probably wondering about 802.p tagging of traffic. For upstream traffic this tagging can be done either by your router, or any network device or software application that supports this feature. Most VoIP hardware for example already comes preconfigured with 802.1p settings, however these will need to be configured with the required 802.1p value for the network. Downstream tagging of traffic introduces whole new set of challenges – while ISP’s can tag their own VoIP traffic for example, Skype traffic that may have travelled from the other side of the world is highly unlikely to contain a 802.1p tag that will place it in the high priority CIR path, so it will be treated as low priority EIR traffic. ISP’s aren’t going to necessarily have the ability to tag traffic as high priority unless it either originates within their network, or steps are taken to identify and tag specific external traffic, meaning that the uses of the CIR for downstream will be controlled by your ISP.

It is also worth noting that all of the speeds mentioned in this post refer only to the physical fibre connection. Once traffic leaves the handover point, known as an Ethernet Aggregation Switch (EAS) it’s up to the individual ISP to dimension backhaul and their own upstream bandwidth to support their users.

As part of their agreement with CFH, Chorus dropped their Point-to-Point fibre pricing in fibre existing areas in August 2011 to match UFB Point-to-Point pricing, which means customers currently in non UFB areas will pay exactly the same price for a Point-to-Point fibre access as they will do in a UFB area if they choose a Point-to-Point UFB connection. UFB GPON fibre plans won’t be available in existing fibre however areas until the GPON network has been deployed, either by Chorus or the LFC responsible for that area. In all UFB areas both GPON and Point-to-Point connections will ultimately be available.

I hope that this explains the architecture of the UFB network, and how connection bandwidth is dimensioned. It’s not necessarily a simple concept to grasp, but with the misinformation that exists I felt it was important to attempt to write something that can hopefully be understood by the average internet user. The varying plan options and pricing options means that end users have the option of choosing the most appropriate connection type to suit their needs, whether this be a high quality business plan with a high CIR, or a lower priced residential offering that will still deliver performance vastly superior to the ADSL2+ offerings most users have today.

And last but not least I have one thing to add before one or more troll(s) posts a comment saying fibre is a waste of time and complains about not getting it at their home for another 5 or 6 years. UFB is one of NZ’s largest ever infrastructure projects, and to quote the CFH website:

“The Government’s objective is to accelerate the roll-out of Ultra-Fast Broadband to 75 percent of New Zealanders over ten years, concentrating in the first six years on priority broadband users such as businesses, schools and health services, plus green field developments and certain tranches of residential areas (the UFB Objective).”

Residential is not the initial focus of the UFB rollout, and never has been. Good things take time.