a902154 writes...

I just don’t “understand”.

I don't understand either.

What's the problem in Tasie?

Major ISPs are represented in the area aren't they?

How much of a price difference exists between Tas prices and Syd prices per month for a basic 20gb plan?

Cheers WTW

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Mark I get that... but is that being reflected in the prices ppl in Tas are paying?


No, it's reflected in the prices everyone pays. Just like the cost of backhaul to other non-metro areas. It's also reflected in the fact that ISPs can't economically support ADSL2+ in the state, and that companies like Netspace have at times limited plans to Tas customers to 512kbps or less.

Better, cheaper backhaul to all locations = win for all consumers, not just those in the locations who will benefit from actually being able to fully utilise their connections for a change...

zephyr writes...

Better, cheaper backhaul to all locations = win for all consumers,

Brings me back to blaming customers again really...

So many Australians going with BigPond.

How many Tas ppl are signed with BP?

I don't get why ISPs aren't offering up contracts to build more back haul.

eg- Offer a 36 month Tas plan that has a customer quota on it. If 50,000 customers sign up for the plan then contract is signed with a provider to build a new link. If Internode could get 50,000 connections in Tas I wonder if they'd build a new link just for those customers. I know Telstra would.

Cheers WTW

RIM Demand Register! writes...

How many Tas ppl are signed with BP?

but... isn't Bigpond "the Internet" ? :-p

Sad, but we can only educate a few at a time.

I don't get why ISPs aren't offering up contracts to build more back haul.

the problem isn't even getting the infrastructure built. That's been done (Basslink), quite some time ago in fact.

The problem is actually getting it lit and online for the ISPs to use, so there's a competitive impetus to get Telstra to lower its prices to somewhere approaching reality.

I really hope that Aurora talks to any and all FTTN proponents, so we don't have the situation where Federal Govt money is used to duplicate existing infrastructure paid for by State Govt money, just because Aurora can't get their act together and get a network online in this decade.

And it is almost a decade since the state fibre network was initially conceived, I remember getting ADSL in 2001 and thinking that I'd probably only be on it for a few years until FTTH was deployed.

7 years later, I'm a hell of a lot more cynical and bitter about anything that involves governments, optical fibre and promises of bountiful bandwidth. And I'm still stuck on ADSL (1, not 2+!)

RIM Demand Register! writes...

but is that being reflected in the prices ppl in Tas are paying?

No thank god. ISPs like Internode aren't charging us a premium although some ISPs have declined to offer their products in Tassie because of high costs and some have threatened a Tassie backhaul surcharge.

Tassie is a perfect example of how a Telstra Monopoly holds communities hostage. If a community is unfortunate enough to only be serviced by Telstra backhaul, Telstra can charge whatever they like for data. OTOH, of course Telstra doesn't have to charge BigPond the same as it charges other ISPs for data. So, Telstra can drive up competitors costs to provide product and doubly reap the benefits - from inflated data charges and from customers seeing no difference in cost between BigPond and it's competitors. Neat trick eh?

What that means in real terms is we don't get ISPs rolling out DSLAMs other than in one or two CBD exchanges, we don't get as wide a coverage of ISPs to choose from, we won't get ADSL2 unless from Telstra, we won't get naked DSL and if IPSs like Internode get screwed enough by Telstra they will up their prices for Tassie users.

My point is that the whole BassLink project is a disgrace. Intelligent island my arse. Our state leadres as as dumb as a lamp post and I'm doing the lamp post an injustice. We have had the chance to get alternative backhaul for the state and as the title of my thread says - it has been squandered.

A902

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Mark I get that... but is that being reflected in the prices ppl in Tas are paying?

Of course not. But it's rolled into the operational cost of our network, such that customers in WA, SA, NT, Vic, NSW, ACT and Qld all end up subsidizing the cost of servicing Tasmania. And not just a little bit of subsidization, either. The impact of the Melb-Hobart link is a massive distortion in our cost structures.

Or, to put it another way: If we didn't offer the same price scale in every state in Australia, and instead adjusted each state's prices to reflect the cost of offering services in that State, prices would go up to unaffordable levels in Tassie and would drop to hitherto unknown levels of cheapness everywhere else.

- mark

RIM Demand Register! writes...

What's the problem in Tasie?

Where to start:
1): Small, diverse population. Most decentralised population in the nation.
2): Lowest socio economic base in the nation except perhaps NT
3): Oldest average population
4): Lowest educational standard except perhaps NT
5): Lowest average wage
6): Highest unemployment
7): Possibly the worst, most corrupt political system in the nation with the smallest parliament.
8): In all communications Telstra has has a massive market share due to limited competition. Little Optus, No 3, No Virgin, little Vodaphone...just Telstra.
9): In Broadband we have just the one supplier that charges exhorbitant monopoly rent.
10):.....

9):

RIM Demand Register! writes...

If Internode could get 50,000 connections in Tas I wonder if they'd build a new link just for those customers. I know Telstra would.

50,000 customers is, what, one eighth of Tassie's population? Considering that households usually have several people sharing one internet connection, you're probably talking about something like 25% market penetration to get that kind of business.

The only ISP that gets anything like those numbers is BigPond.

If it was actually possible for ISPs to get that kind of customer base in Tasmania, I'd expect all kinds of companies lining up to build transmission capacity back to Victoria. But it ain't happening.

- mark

Mark Newton writes...

If it was actually possible for ISPs to get that kind of customer base in Tasmania,

Not possible. Full stop. Amen!

Mark Newton writes...

50,000 customers is, what, one eighth of Tassie's population? Considering that households usually have several people sharing one internet connection, you're probably talking about something like 25% market penetration to get that kind of business.

Actually, it's worse. Leaving aside businesses, the figures are pretty bad. Only 54% of households have any form of internet access and less than 30% had broadband according to an article from November last year. www.news.com.au/mercury/...935-3462,00.html

So even if you managed to convert those current dialup households to broadband, given the figure of 200k households from the 2006 census, you'd be looking at about 110k households with any form of internet access and only 56,000 with broadband.

In percentage terms, 50,000 customers accounts for 45% of the total home internet market or 89% of the current home broadband market.

Mark Newton writes...

Or, to put it another way: If we didn't offer the same price scale in every state in Australia, and instead adjusted each state's prices to reflect the cost of offering services in that State, prices would go up to unaffordable levels in Tassie and would drop to hitherto unknown levels of cheapness everywhere else.

Don't tell them that Mark - people already hate Tassie enough already :-/

Mark Newton writes...

you're probably talking about something like 25% market penetration to get that kind of business.

The only ISP that gets anything like those numbers is BigPond.

What about Internode + the rest of the G9?

Chuq writes...

Don't tell them that Mark - people already hate Tassie enough already :-/

Quick, let's point to other regional areas with backhaul problems to distract them!

Mark Newton writes...

Or, to put it another way: If we didn't offer the same price scale in every state in Australia, and instead adjusted each state's prices to reflect the cost of offering services in that State, prices would go up to unaffordable levels in Tassie and would drop to hitherto unknown levels of cheapness everywhere else.

Mark if it's really that bad then why do you bother?

Why penalise 19.5m people for the sake of .5?

Why not just leave the place to them selves?

Cheers WTW

zephyr writes...

Quick, let's point to other regional areas with backhaul problems to distract them!

Yea, well look at the post just below yours. Already one nimnull took the bait.

Of course Mark and Simon’s comments in the past indicate exactly what you are referring to. And that is, everywhere Telstra have a backhaul monopoly the problem is the same; ridiculously high costs for backhaul that stop the competition from roiling out competitive DSLAM infrastructure. Tassie may be the largest single area being held to ransom by Telstra, I don’t know, perhaps Mark might comment.

A902

Coops1 writes...

I have to add, the comments by Netspace regarding the additional capacity projected by OPEL not being needed is nearly as bad. Shame !

I agree, which is why I posted this thread in the Netspace forum - /forum-replies.cfm?t=953113

Mark Newton writes...

prices would go up to unaffordable levels in Tassie

I agree, a fair statement.

and would drop to hitherto unknown levels of cheapness everywhere else.

Stretching it a little bit I reckon, actually a lot...backhaul is just part of the cost, and your saying Tas is 5 times the cost of other regions (USA actually). That means Tassie would make up 95% of your Aust customer base, to make up for such a significant reduction in plan costs for the other 5% of users ? I don't think so...

- Coops

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Mark if it's really that bad then why do you bother?

I don't know about other ISPs, but I know why Internode bothers.

Firstly: One can't credibly claim to be a national ISP if one doesn't service one of Australia's states;

Secondly: Look at Internode's history. We have a strong, long-term involvement in the reform of Australia's competitive telecommunications. We are one of the handful of ISPs who directly engage the ACCC about competitive issues instead of hoping that the rest of the industry kinda sorts it out like most other ISPs do (when was the last time you heard of, say, TPG making a case for telco competition?). Regulators aren't generally sympathetic to arguments about competition and competitiveness unless you have some skin in the game, meaning that the most effective way to demonstrate anticompetitive market distortions is to participate in the marketplace as an effective, efficient operator while gathering documentary evidence of how much money that kind of behaviour loses.

We did that with ADSL before the first competition notice was issued; We did it in the run-up to the second competition notice; We did it when the ACCC was deliberating about its LSS/SSS charges; And we're doing it in Tasmania right now.

Why not just leave the place to them selves?

Because that argument, taken to its extreme, leaves huge parts of Australia without effective broadband. Tasmania isn't unique, it's just an extremely obvious glaring example. But Darwin is exactly the same, and at a more micro level virtually every regional and country telephone exchange, with its monopoly Telstra backhaul that's impossible to buy at economically viable prices, is another instance of the same problem.

- mark

/forum-replies.cfm?t=952633#r15

Bevan writes...

If we interfaced it into our cable out of Sydney and used our landing station, about $40M. That's Sydney to Hobart.

Cheers

[b]

Does anyone have any numbers as to what ISPs pay, per year, to Telstra for transit across Bass Strait? Then we could do some sums. (No doubt many companies already have, but it's nice to do it ourselves :P)

mauried writes...

I wouldnt think it would cost anything like $40 M to go this way.

Spending $40M to get to Hobart on Microwave would deliver you at most a few Gigabits. Spending $40M on getting there with a submarine cable might get you 150Gbps (depends a little). The microwave option would be full by day 1.

mauried writes...

You dont have to go to Tasmania via cable .
Its perfectly possible to go via Microwave Link.
Telstra do exactly this and the links have been in service long before
any cables were laid across the Strait.
I wouldnt think it would cost anything like $40 M to go this way.

I thought about this last week and was going to post something about it!

The problem is capacity - these links were in use back when about 5% of people used the internet and they were at 56k speeds.

Nowadays a 100mbit link could potentially be flat out with five ADSL2+ customers (although I'm aware realistically this doesn't happen). What sort of capacity can point to point microwave links provide?

I remember an Optus tech on these forums giving details of the route used - one went from Wilsons Promontory, to Deal Island (tiny island 2/3 of the way from Vic to Flinders Is), then Mt Strezlecki on Flinders Island, then to somewhere near Scottsdale. The other went from Cape Otway, via 2 sites on King Island to Smithton.

Map for those unfamiliar with the locations - maps.google.com.au/?ie=U...763,5.141602&z=8

It's interesting that you can do this without any individual hop being more than about 100km. Does anyone know the fastest speed point-to-point links that can be run over this sort of distance?

Mark Newton writes...

Of course not. But it's rolled into the operational cost of our network, such that customers in WA, SA, NT, Vic, NSW, ACT and Qld all end up subsidizing the cost of servicing Tasmania. And not just a little bit of subsidization, either.

Does that mean that the reason Melburnians can't get unlimited internet at a reasonable price is not our remoteness from the rest of the world and our small population density, but the fact that Tasmanian broadband is really expensive to provide?

Mark Newton writes...

Because that argument, taken to its extreme, leaves huge parts of Australia without effective broadband.

Not to mention the fact that if the major problems with Tassie broadband get fixed up, Internode would be well placed to have a strong customer base. I reckon they need to think long term and that's what they're clearly doing by providing services there.

taylorwass writes...

Why do you ask so many questions? Are you compiling a report and just trolling?

Neither... I simply find the whole issue really interesting. I have done for years.

I find it interesting to ask questions when things just don't make sense to me...

For example I find it nuts that Internode are providing services to Tas if it's causing them to jack up the prices to the rest of AU...

I find it even more nuts (and perhaps I've got it wrong) that a new cable has been built by the TAS govt but Internode can't purchase reasonable cost capacity on it.

Cheers WTW

a902154 writes...

is getting broadband delivered to Cradle Mountain Lodge

Did that actually happen?
we have a site just down the road from there and we are stuck with frame or isdn

RIM Demand Register! writes...

I find it even more nuts (and perhaps I've got it wrong) that a new cable has been built by the TAS govt but Internode can't purchase reasonable cost capacity on it.

Why is the reason for the Basslink cable not being available for use by commerical operators at this time?
And what timeframe is being talked about for when they can?

clout77 writes...

Why is the reason for the Basslink cable not being available for use by commerical operators at this time?
And what timeframe is being talked about for when they can?

www.australianit.news.co...73-15306,00.html

There's your reason right there. The Tas govt stuffed up.

/golf clap

Bravo! No one does ineptitude quite like us.

Oh how I wish I could just yell "Pack the bags honey, we're leaving..."

zephyr writes...

There's your reason right there.

Yes that is just nuts isn't it.

Time we lobby Mark and Bevan to build a link that's not in the hands of the SG govt and or a power company!

When are people going to learn that ISPs deal with data and not power!

Cheers WTW

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Time we lobby Mark and Bevan to build a link that's not in the hands of the SG govt and or a power company!


Feel free to try...
but when $40million is 20% of the cost of building an international cable, that is capable of supplying the whole Australia population with a better broadband experience, I highly doubt they will take such a risk to supply such a small population with a better broadband experience.

as ive said before. the fact that there is unused fibre already laid is to much of a risk. The potential is there that if the Tas Gov actually get that turned on, then whatever business plan you have goes out the door, and 40mil down the drain.. ( or at least takes WAY longer to recover )...

if your going to lobby someone, why not lobby the Tas Gov to actually use the asset that they already have !?

Jay Binks writes...

if your going to lobby someone, why not lobby the Tas Gov to actually use the asset that they already have !?

because it's starting to turn out that they don't actually appear to have what they thought they had!

So now, what they do have, is a lot of "fibre to nowhere" - I'm sure most Tasmanians will realise that sounds awfully familiar when applied to other infrastructure projects ;-)

zephyr writes...

So now, what they do have, is a lot of "fibre to nowhere"

so SURLY it would be a lot better to build more fibre from nowhere to somewhere.. ?

zephyr writes...

Oh how I wish I could just yell "Pack the bags honey, we're leaving..."

It's tempting. Very tempting..

Jay Binks writes...

but when $40million is 20% of the cost of building an international cable, that is capable of supplying the whole Australia population with a better broadband experience, I highly doubt they will take such a risk to supply such a small population with a better broadband experience.

The Tas Govt could attempt to save face by offering to contribute, say $10m to the cost of building a new link and getting the federal government to match it. That would halve the $40m cost as given by PIPE Networks, and make it more economically feasible.

So long as Telstra doesn't try to sue (which is their usual response to any decision that doesn't benefit them).

The problem is, a single link doesn't have physical redundancy - capacity may still need to be purchased from Telstra.

Chuq writes...

The Tas Govt could attempt to save face by offering to contribute, say $10m to the cost of building a new link and getting the federal government to match it. That would halve the $40m cost as given by PIPE Networks, and make it more economically feasible.

Sorry, the govt won't fund private infrastructure like that... unless it benefits Gunns of course. :-p Maybe we could build a water pipeline to the new mill from Victoria, and lay some cable with it? :P

Look, I can see where you're coming from, but the govt isn't in a position to need to save face yet - at least in the eyes of the general public. And even then, you're hard pressed to get them to recognise the fact.

Even if they were to fund it, who would end up actually running it? Not PIPE, they'd give it to Aurora, after having a long, drawn out and ultimately futile tender process.

This is all stupid. Aurora need to stop being dicks and get this thing going, the longer they haggle over money, the more it's going to cost them in the long term. CitySpring are getting paid either way, so the only ones at a disadvantage are we taxpayers of this "fair" isle...

Jay Binks writes...

if your going to lobby someone, why not lobby the Tas Gov to actually use the asset that they already have !?

If I read that news article properly... the TAS govt don't own the asset any more. They sold it to CitySpring.

"The cable was purchased late last year by CitySpring"

In which case the State Govt don't really have a say in the matter.

You did make me realise one point though...

Why isn't Mark talking to CitySpring? After all they own the cable now. Who cares about what the State Govt are trying to do with the power company?

Should we be talking to Mark about power supply in the state?

Chuq writes...

a single link doesn't have physical redundancy

Does the power company for power?

The point about risk is right though...

I did some quick figures, have a look and tell me what you think I'm missing.

www.bowenvale.pointclark.net/bowen/wp
Cheers WTW

zephyr writes...

Aurora need to stop being dicks and get this thing going, the longer they haggle over money, the more it's going to cost them in the long term.

No, you're not thinking about monopoly distortions on the economic situation.

It's in Aurora's best interests to hold out for as long as possible in the hope that the financial outcome will be more beneficial to them.

It's not like it's costing them anything or losing them any business if they wait; And the long-term benefits to them arising from a favourable outcome will more than adequately make up for any short-term disadvantage they could conceivably suffer by not pushing ahead with it.

Tasmania isn't a competitive marketplace, so expecting normal competition rules and processes to work isn't going to reflect reality.

CitySpring are getting paid either way, so the only ones at a disadvantage are we taxpayers of this "fair" isle...

Quite. And disadvantaging taxpayers has no negative impact on CitySpring whatsoever; Meanwhile, they're getting income. They'll be sitting around their boardroom table punching the air and going, "Yay, we rock!"

How do you present them with an incentive to solve the problem? Work that out, and it'll be solved. But meanwhile, everyone is getting paid without solving the problem, so why should they work hard on making you happy?

- mark

RIM Demand Register! writes...

If I read that news article properly... the TAS govt don't own the asset any more. They sold it to CitySpring.

Technically they didn't own it and never have - It was built and previously owned by another private company, National Grid. The Tas govt had an agreement with National Grid, but not with CitySpring.

Why isn't Mark talking to CitySpring? After all they own the cable now. Who cares about what the State Govt are trying to do with the power company?

I think the Tas govt tender was for the "Connect Tasmania Core" - ie. the Basslink fibre AND the state government owned on-island fibre, connecting Hobart, Launceston, George Town, Devonport and Burnie - as a bundle. Of course when the Basslink fibre changed hands that screwed things up.

Does the power company for power?

No, but if the link goes down we generate our own power (we mostly use our self generated power anyway, and buy from/sell to the mainland depending on many factors). Data is different for obvious reasons :P

Mark Newton writes...

CitySpring are getting paid either way,

Who's paying CS?

I understood that CS purchased the cable. But who's paying them for what?

Cheers WTW

Chuq writes...

Data is different for obvious reasons :P

Sure... just so I can understand the risk, how often has the power cable failed so far?

Cheers WTW

RIM Demand Register! writes...

I understood that CS purchased the cable. But who's paying them for what?

They're getting paid for the electricity that's carried along it, as well as a $2m/pa payment from the govt for the fibre until it's "commercialised"

Basically, they have every reason to shoot for the moon on this one, as anything more they make on data transmission is cream.

RIM Demand Register! writes...

I understood that CS purchased the cable. But who's paying them for what?

My understanding is that the state Government is paying City Spring something like $2 million for fibre that they can't currently use.

Quite frankly you can lay the blame at incompetent public service lawyers who draw up these contracts.

Time and time again well intentioned idea are turned into stuff ups because these stupid people don't know how to draw up contracts that have meaning when circumstances change and then they hand them to Ministers that have even less of a clue.

Surely any "change of ownership" conditions should have been written into the original contract with Basslink.

zephyr writes...

$2m/pa payment from the govt for the fibre until it's "commercialised"

Oh, opps... I'm sorry... I read that bit of the article to mean that the StG will pay them $2m to do it... I assumed (clearly wrongly) that they weren't being paid anything at present. I thought that bit was a carrot.

Which case you're back to lobbying the StG to stop making $2m of public money for something that no one's getting.

Seems fairly simple to me.

Cheers WTW

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Sure... just so I can understand the risk, how often has the power cable failed so far?

Well that depends, what determines a failure - stopping for 10sec, 1min, 15min?

I work in the electricity industry in Tasmania and we have a display in our foyer which shows the flow of electricity across all the interstate interconnects (Basslink and all the others). Every time I have looked at it (several times a day) it has been working fine. But if it wasn't for a few minutes, it wouldn't be a big deal - if it was a big deal, we (the whole company) would know about it.

If it was out for several hours, it would be a big deal, but as far as I know that hasn't happened.

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Is Telstra's link protected?

They have two of them, and since all PSTN, mobile and internet traffic in the state use them, I would say there is some serious redundancy going on there!

RIM Demand Register! writes...

If Joe Smith wants a cheap connection then he signs up with Internode using their new Pipe Cable.

We have capacity on both legs of SXC, AJC (and two cable systems to the US as well as a Tokyo POP soon) as well as future capacity on the PIPE PPC-1 cable.

Which bit is unprotected?

Is Telstra's link protected?

Via AJC and the northern Pacific cables.

If Joe Smith wants reliable net with redundancy then he signs up with Internode and BigPond and gets a load balancing router.

I don't think you've got a clue about what you're talking about.

We run capacity (pretty much equally) across all the cable legs out of Australia. That's about as protected as you can get.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

Which bit is unprotected?

I think he was asking about "protected" links across Bass Strait.

Matthew Moyle-Croft writes...

I don't think you've got a clue about what you're talking about.

More correctly... you don't have a clue what we're talking about!

We were talking about redundancy in and out of TAS to AU. Not AU to the rest of the world.

The point being made was that if Internode purchase capacity on the 'new Pipe-TAS-AU' link (that doesn't exist... yes we get that) then they would also have to have capacity from Telstra or the link isn't protected.

My point that I was making was:

1. Do Telstra even have protection for their link.

2. If a 'Joe Bloggs' wants a protected link then he should purchase 2 links rather than make everyone pay for protection.

MMC it's all hypathetical stuff anyway... there is no PIPE-TAS cable.

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Have a quick look at the number of people that are on unprotected links on Internodes network alone.

If on the other hand you're referring to that comment (which you didn't quote)...

Then I was drawing attention to small parts of the Agile network where you're running microwave out to small towns in the middle of no where. Are those all protected? Do you run a link in and out of each of those towns in case one goes down? Ok, if the answer is "YES!" then I apologise for suggesting something other :)

Cheers WTW

RIM Demand Register! writes...

1. Do Telstra even have protection for their link.

Yes.

We only have one POP in Tasmania, so all our Hobart services are non-diverse. But we have a form of "flex-protect" on our link to the mainland, so a cable cut won't kill it.

- mark

Mark Newton writes...

"flex-protect"

We really are getting OT here... but you've got my interest.

What is Flex-protect?

Getting a bit back on topic...

Assume that pipe did put in a cable, that we assume wouldn't be protected, would a company like Internode keep capacity with Telstra for protection as well?

What do you guys typically do in inland areas? Do you run capacity into Telstra as well so you can protect the links?

How much of a risk is this stuff anyway? (in the real world)... I mean, we don't really hear much/anything about ppl complaining that their town has lost the net.

* For those who might be wondering... I'm not picking on Internode... I'm asking them the questions because unlike others, they actually do stuff and talk to us on WP. People shouldn't take anything from comments or questions.

Cheers WTW

3x0dus writes...

Was opel even going lay a new back haul to Tasmania????

Yes - they were going to use the Basslink one, and construct their own (from the Smithton area to Apollo Bay).

3x0dus writes...

Was opel even going lay a new back haul to Tasmania????

They sure were.

"OPEL will establish two undersea links to Tasmania (including utilising Basslink), to ensure a fully redundant link to that state"

Edit: beaten

Coops1 writes...

OPEL will establish two undersea links to Tasmania (including utilising Basslink)

Ironically, it's beginning to look a lot like we just missed the chance for Optus to commercialise Basslink, since it's now owned by CitySpring in Singapore. :-/

3x0dus writes...

perhaps the other half the money they where putting towards the Funding agreement with the gov. then can now go and do just the tasman link

Do you know where the Tasman is? I'll give you a hint, we're not trying to get connected to NZ here... although in the long term that might be easier than going through Telstra :-(

RIM Demand Register! writes...

We really are getting OT here... but you've got my interest.

What is Flex-protect?

On an SDH network, when you build a circuit you describe a "working" path and a "protect" path for the dataflow.

The protect path isn't used unless the working path is unavailable.

That essentially means that you only get to use half of your bandwidth. The protection capacity needs to be reserved so that it's there when you need it, so when you don't need it you can't use it.

It's possible to obtain unprotected circuits too; they just have a working path, no protect path.

"Flex-protect" is what you end up with when you create a protected circuit that's configured to pass data on the working path and the protect path at the same time. If there's a failure on either path, you still get to use the one that's surviving. So you get to double the amount of capacity you can use under normal conditions, on the understanding that if there's a fault you'll lose half of your capacity. It's middle-ground between protected and unprotected.

would a company like Internode keep capacity with Telstra for protection as well?

Same reason that we buy AJC and SCCN capacity now. Cable systems inevitably fail, it's nice to maintain connectivity when it happens.

What do you guys typically do in inland areas? Do you run capacity into Telstra as well so you can protect the links?

Nextgen have geographically diverse cables up the East Coast, so we build protected circuits on their bearers between mel, cbr, syd and bne.

They only have one cable between adl and mel, so we protect that with some capacity from another network operator between adl and syd.

per runs as a spur out of adl.

- mark

a902154 writes...

this thread has truly wandered well past it’s original topic and should be closed. thanx

Quite the contrary this thread is only just starting to get on topic.
Squandered opportunities, what's wrong, & how to fix it are the most important issues. Once all the facts are clear we can then move on to the bigger question of what us, our learned Whirlpudlians are, going to do about it.

The simple fact is if we are content to sit on our hands and do nothing then nothing will happen.
As Mark alluded to, no one apart from consumers has any vested interest in getting this fixed.

scarytas writes...

Quite the contrary this thread is only just starting to get on topic.
Squandered opportunities, what's wrong, & how to fix it are the most important issues.

I agree, there have been a couple of tangents, but it isn't screamingly off-topic.

scarytas writes...

Mark alluded to, no one apart from consumers has any vested interest in getting this fixed.

He made an interesting point that I didn't know.

All consumers should be interested in lobbying to get this problem fixed promptly.

Everyone is paying for this mess not just the people in TAS.

I'd like contact details for the people involved so we can shoot them an email pointing them to the growing discussion on the topic.

Cheers WTW

scarytas writes...

The simple fact is if we are content to sit on our hands and do nothing then nothing will happen.
As Mark alluded to, no one apart from consumers has any vested interest in getting this fixed.


scarytas you better than that. You’ve been around in these discussions for a long time. You would be aware of all the lobbying, letter writing, phone calls that have happened. Contrary to its name, Whinge Pool, that’s not what we’ve done in this case. We have taken action. It’s just not resulted in anything positive. What are we going to do about the problem, man it beats me. Let me know if you see anything we need to do after reading the remainder of my post to RIM.

RIM Demand Register! writes...

Everyone is paying for this mess not just the people in TAS.


Get serious – it is a Tassie problem. Even at 5 times the backhaul costs the puny traffic to/from Tassie couldn’t possibly distort costs, to any great extent, for the million city dwellers on the mainland. Mark was taking literary license saying costs would drop to zero.

RIM Demand Register! writes...

All consumers should be interested in lobbying to get this problem fixed promptly.

Look, respectfully you obviously don’t live in Tassie, know nothing of the history, don’t comprehend the issues (this won’t be “fixed promptly”) so why are you even posting in this thread? What, you think we haven’t actively lobbied for this problem to be resolved? Do some searches for WP posts about BassLink, and Tassie backhaul.

Over the last few years many of us, and I have personally, lobbied the state government, the state opposition, federal communications ministers both before and after the election, written letters to the editors of both the Mercury and the Examiner, contacted Win, phoned the state Infrastructure Department, put information into posts about who/what to write and even updated the WP Wiki with the relevant contact details for various Tassie lobbying targets. Very early on we even made sure Internode was aware of the BassLink operational tender. So, yes we have been active and not simply whinged about the problem here at WP..

Now, the result of all that lobbying is zero, zip, nothing. In fact the state opposition in so many words told me there isn’t much that can be done when the state government simply refuses to answer their questions. And I can tell you that speaking with the department head of the “Infrastructure Department” was less than a rewarding experience.

In addition it’s obvious from the Mercury’s latest article they still, after many letters, still don’t have a clue about the problem – hence my original post in this thread. So writing letters to the local fish wrapper is flogging a dead horse.

Respectfully, we know a lot more about the problem than you, have taken action, know the players and have a vested interest (that is, we live here and suffer the consequences) in getting competitive backhaul into this state.

a902

a902154 writes...

Mark was taking literary license saying costs would drop to zero.

I never made any such claim; You have misquoted me.

What I actually said was that the prices for mainland customers would decrease to hitherto unknown levels of cheapness if not for the need to subsidize Tasmanian customers.

I stand by that claim. To put it in perspective, our Tasmanian capacity all by itself accounts for nearly half of the monthly bandwidth bill for operating our domestic transmission network. If the only factor we gave a damn about was the bottom line, we'd drop Tasmania like a hot stone and just walk away.

- mark

Mark Newton writes...

Oh please, give us some credit.

What do you mean by that? I know you aren't going to do it, but doesn't the maths stack up? What I'm trying to say is that by mainlanders subsidising Tasmania, they are not really being greatly disadvantaged (because there are so many of them in comparison)?

I just noticed your previous comment about the cost of Tasmanian transmission being 50% of the entire national network! That's shocking, not sure how it aligns to Simon's "$20 a customer" statement though.

Chuq writes...

I just noticed your previous comment about the cost of Tasmanian transmission being 50% of the entire national network! That's shocking, not sure how it aligns to Simon's "$20 a customer" statement though.

When I quizzed Simon on this at the SAGE-AU conference last year during a QnA session, Simon mentioned that Tasmania represented about 3% of Internode's customer base, yet was responsible for 16% of monthly spend on domestic transmission costs. And that didn't include any of the bandwidth orders since July 07. Nor the recent repricing imposed on Internode by Telstra (Simon posted earlier on this - can't find the entry now).

So Mark's figures sound like they're close.

Mark Newton writes...

I stand by that claim. To put it in perspective, our Tasmanian capacity all by itself accounts for nearly half of the monthly bandwidth bill for operating our domestic transmission network. If the only factor we gave a damn about was the bottom line, we'd drop Tasmania like a hot stone and just walk away.

He's not making it up people.

[b]

a902154 writes...

scarytas you better than that. You’ve been around in these discussions for a long time. You would be aware of all the lobbying, letter writing, phone calls that have happened.

a902154... Hey, I am well aware of that, and have also played my small part in it. At least to published letters to the editor of the Mercry and Examiner.
What I was alluding to was that issue this is a local problem which WE all have to get resolved. In order for that to happen WE all have to get off our collective butts and work collectively to make things happen.

Bevan writes...

He's not making it up people.

I'm not saying he is! Nor saying that Internode is doing anything wrong by "averaging" the costs, nor saying anything bad about Internode for servicing Tasmania either; the opposite, we are extremely greatful!

I'm just trying to calm the concerns of mainlanders who may skim this thread and think that, if Internode dumped Tassie, their plans would go down by $10 a month each.

scarytas writes...

For all those interested perhaps it is about time we resurrected the lobby group/s to devise a common strategy.

Resurrection in progress. Please check back again soon :-)

Coops1 writes...

I cannot believe how friggin stupid the government is in letting Telstra get away with this pricing structure.

I can.
Telstra have got away with a monopoly on frigging everything for bloody years. They are, simply, a pack of money grabbing bastards who go out of their way to make money. Examples? Apart from cost of capacity over that bit of water, there's NextG's pathetically small quotas for a lot of money (which a lot of people use and a helluva lot of them get charged more because email is apparently THAT important for paper pushers... bullcrap, total utter waste of time and resources, they'd achieve a shitload more if they WEREN'T constantly emailing, I'm sure), 25c SMS is a flat out joke, blah blah blah.

I have one Telstra service here and that's only the home phone line, which is used purely for ADSL. I'm with Virgin for my mobile after the appallingly bad handling by Telstra of my brother's mobile phone contract after he died, and the majority of the family since switched to Virgin as well. Yes, less coverage, but Virgin isn't Telstra.

I will also point out they're pretty useless when it comes to billing - this home line was changed from my father's name to mine in late October, same address and all. He did recieve a finalisation bill for the month or so between the last bill and the change, but since then this home line hasn't cost me or him a cent...

/rant

Know1 jots down...

LinuxConf AU.... There will presumably be many media types...in attendance.

Sorry to be way off topic, but as a dedicated Linux user this made me cack myself.

It sounds like you think mainstream media knows what Linux is, let alone is interested!

(oops this is probably going to be my first deleted post on whirlpool in about two or three years, c'est la guerre as they say ;))

Chuq writes...

Does anyone have any numbers as to what ISPs pay, per year, to Telstra for transit across Bass Strait? Then we could do some sums. (No doubt many companies already have, but it's nice to do it ourselves :P)

Last I heard (about 9 months ago) was that a 50Mbit circuit Mel-Hbt set you back $0.5M/yr.

So let's say a Syd-Hbt fibre costs $40M. Let's say it's a 10Gbps circuit. Let's also say we run it at 100% utilisation.

At the above rate costs would be recouped in 5 months.

OK, charge a fifth. Repayment in just over 2 years.

OK, run it at 50% utilisation. Repayment in under 5 years.

Make it redundant - run another fibre. 10 years.

Granted, simplistic math, naive assumptions, etc. but it warrants further investigation.

The stumbling block is how low Telstra can undercut you, as the T1 fibre should a fully realised asset and T2 should be close. Which means Telstra's target of an 18% return on assets can literally wipe you out of the water as they're not paying off the asset anymore.
Timing might be the thing though - NBN funding would go a long way to making it a viable proposition for PIPE and co.

stryqx writes...

The stumbling block is how low Telstra can undercut you, as the T1 fibre should a fully realised asset and T2 should be close. Which means Telstra's target of an 18% return on assets can literally wipe you out of the water as they're not paying off the asset anymore.

Excuse the pun, but another cable is a pipe dream in the short term, especially while basslink sits idle. If basslink is up and they turn out to charge at Telstra-10% rates so we go from monopoly to duopoly, then sure, there may be a biz case for a new cable, but at the moment, I doubt you're going to get anyone to invest on commercial terms.

NBN funding would go a long way to making it a viable proposition for PIPE and co.

It may, and indeed, we may need a redundant path when the NBN gets here. That is of course if it's a non-Telstra NBN. If Telstra gets the job, you might as well hand them the keys to the island.

mauried writes...

Telstra do exactly this and the links have been in service long before
any cables were laid across the Strait.

...are they of the same quality of the troposcatter system they used to have for country exchanges on their way from Alice Springs to Darwin? If so, sign me up for a tin can and some string, I'll probably get better throughput.