NBN For The Future Of Our Region

Dear All,

I'm sure all are aware of the gross failings of the NBN fixed wireless proposal to provide for reliable broadband (the 0.66 Mbps full contention rate is likely to be closer to the real performance than the 25 Mbps headline rate).

The obvious question is then what are the options? FTTP is an expensive option in anyone's estimation, but this is particularly true in the local context where property distances increase. It is reasonable to expect FTTP would provide comparable roll-out costs to city suburban areas for the core areas of towns such as Harcourt and Newstead (and others). There are actually some reasons to suggest local FTTP roll-out can be significantly cheaper than the national average. However, if we assume about half of the premises in our shire slot into these immediate township zones (a crude assumption, but perhaps not too far from the mark), then the obvious question is how we ensure sensible NBN connection for the half of our smaller communities outside this boundary.

Here it is likely that FTTP costs will make this option a challenge even with the full gamut of community-driven support options that are likely to be available within the shire. (Partial community funding, direct physical production of pit and pipe infrastructure, etc.). Hence it makes sense to hold the FTTP thought while considering FTTN in more detail.

FTTN provides a very quick route to the provision of real broadband for the core areas of communities such as Newstead and Harcourt (I haven't ignored other areas such as Taradale, Guildford, Elphinstone, etc, for any reason except brevity -- where there is a cluster of development FTTN would seem to make perfect sense). VDSL2 provides for 50 Mbps at copper distances of up to 1km (100 Mbps for far shorter distances). A quick survey from satellite imagery shows a couple of hundred premises in this range from both the Harcourt and Newstead exchanges. A very simplistic analysis thus suggests installation of a node at both exchanges and the problem is "solved" for much of the townships, and certainly those areas likely to see continued in-fill development in coming years. The Harcourt exchange building is presumably large enough to house such equipment internally. In comparison the Newstead exchange is tiny, but there is plenty of space to house an attached cabinet.

Outside of these core township zones there are clusters of development that lend themselves to fibre delivery to a nearby node. The added complication is that these would be nodes with a small number of connections. For the central township nodes we can expect node equipment in the "one size fits all" category. The smaller market for "micro nodes" undoubtedly restricts equipment choices. However, these problems are universal to a large extent, so equipment choices are sure to exist. (I plan to research this if I get a chance.)

There are still likely to be a number of properties past the 1km mark even with small 'micro' nodes. However, the fact that a network of micro nodes is present, means that the overall copper distance for the most remote properties is likely to be significantly reduced in all but extreme cases. Certainly compared to the lack of promise for fixed wireless, all but a very small proportion of users within the shire can expect to receive practical broadband through the FTTN approach. Note that loop extender technology (repeaters) do exist for ADSL, and we should expect as a nation that all feasible options are used to provide real broadband to all (satellite is an absolute last resort due to application-limiting latency and contention issues).

Just by way of sanity check, if we assume 200 premises in the central node regions of Harcourt and Newstead, then with fixed wireless these users would share perhaps a total of 120 Mbps if we assume they are spread over two or three sectors (if foliage factors allow connection at all). With the lower VDSL2 rate of 50 Mbps, this is less than the data rate provided to 1.5 percent of the community under the FTTN approach. It is not hard to imagine calling this a 60-fold increase in overall bandwidth provision to the community. I wouldn't push that point too far as there are lots of assumptions, but it is illustrative to some extent. FTTN can do 60x better than fixed wireless for a similar spend (or less?).

The above comment also needs to be considered in light of the fact that utility does not scale linearly with bandwidth. This is a point noted by the coalition in reference to the promise of up to 1 Gbps bandwidth by FTTP. However, in the local context the non-linear nature of the relationship between bandwidth and utility acts in the other direction. By this I mean that fixed wireless bandwidth provision is effectively worthless, while the FTTN offering allows all users a real broadband experience. The comparison in utility terms is far greater than a 60-fold numerical comparison.

I have a number of technical questions/concerns about FTTN, both in terms of general applicability to the 93% of the nation previously (sorry the election result isn't guaranteed yet -- I could be jumping the gun here) slated for FTTP, and in terms of specific applicability to the local context. I hope to progress these concerns both through my own investigations and through contact with the coalition camp. However, I do believe that FTTN provides options for the local community (and many others around the nation) that are simply not on the table under the government's FTTP.

There is a small chance that the stink that is about to emerge on the national stage in relation to the complete lunacy and inadequacy of the fixed wireless offering will force labor to revise their thinking. If we assume that they have a chance of holding government in September, then they may even be big enough to take the politically indigestible step of suggesting that FTTN has a role to play above the 93% mark. While I am doubtful on both political points, it does seem clear to me that FTTN must be fully considered as an alternative for many existing fixed wireless service areas.

I note that I have recently received a reply from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to my letters of the 5th and 24th of March. It is safe to summarise the reply I have received as a cut-and-paste of large amounts of existing material with little direct relevance to the points I attempted to raise. I will send yet another letter to the Minister in an attempt to draw attention to the very real issues present. I am sure that national media attention will eventually turn to this matter, and the Department will be forced to take action eventually if the government is lucky enough to prevail in September.

The issue of allowing individual fibre connections to the coalition's FTTN proposal is addressed in the policy document and supporting material released this week. Also addressed is the issue of possible eventual upgrade to a full FTTP roll-out. In the local context this sort of thinking and flexibility is crucial in the sense that fixed wireless effectively provides zero upgrade path options. If a fibre route is running down my street (or someone else's) to a satellite micro node, then should I have a future need (certainly not in the immediate future as 50 Mbps will be ample for quite a while), I should be able to pay to upgrade my connection (perhaps I decide to host that cloud data centre in my back paddock after all).

With all such concerns, technical details are absent at present. I hope that many of these technical questions will be answered prior to September, although this is a tough ask of a small team in opposition.

A final point to make is that we must not underestimate the percentage of the country that this fixed wireless/satellite debacle impacts. We are not talking about a mere 7% of the country. If we look at the local shire we see it is a real concern for the entire shire even though a significant portion of the shire is in the 93%. We look up the road to Bendigo and we see similar concerns with fixed wireless in the surrounding areas. Again the whole region is impacted. The same is true if we look South, East, and West. This is a major issue impacting a substantial portion of the country. How much? 30%? Whatever the figure you determine here, it is clear that it is significant enough to leverage a substantial impact to the entire nation.

It is easy for city dwellers to forget about those outside the cities, but with increasing growth problems in the cities we can't ignore the provision of basic services to those outside the city limits. Teleworking is a reality for many and will increasingly become a reality. Broadband makes it possible to have tele-presence. It is possible to share a virtual office environment with a distributed team with the same level of presence and connectivity allowed by sticking your head in someone's office door or raising your head above a cubicle wall. This technology will become useful to others such as students, the elderly, and social types, in addition to small and large companies. Ultimately the pervasiveness of the technology will enable small community meetings without having to drive half an hour across the shire. This last option may be a little way out and too speculative for many, but the point is that we can't cut ourselves off from the reality that the future is likely to bring.

Teleworking is ultimately likely to be of far higher significance in regional areas than in cities, as for many it is work ties that keep people in cities. (Educational ties for families are also a big issue, and this too will ultimately be reduced by functional regional NBN service.) We can thus expect an increasing percentage of growth in our regions coming from those who are able to work remotely. A quick unscientific poll of recent arrivals to the Harcourt and Kyneton areas shows this to already be the case even with relatively poor ADSL service (Kyneton people at this week's meeting were speaking about 16 to 22 Mbps on ADSL2+, but I know that port limits at the Harcourt exchange ensure that 6 Mbps is a more common peak rate here.) We simply can not afford to fail to support this future for our shire.

As I said very early in the piece, we must embrace the NBN for the future of our local regions. We must get it right for our children and grandchildren. We MUST build a nation.

Cheers,

Craig