Attachment 1 - Comments, Answers and Recommendations to
OANO = FTTP Open Access Network Operators Group
Delivering FTTP technology in greenfield developments
1. What are the relative merits of the models outlined? Which is the preferable approach? Why?
OANO Response: OANO recommends that the Government adopt Model 2,
where the Australian Government recognises and leverages off the existing
planning role of Local and State Governments in the approval of land use,
including utilities and services in greenfield developments.
Model 1 could require heavy handed and novel legislative enactments to compel
developers to ensure services are available to consumers. Developers are not
carriers and do not deliver service and whilst they are currently capable of
requesting a carrier certify to planning authorities that a particular carriers can
deliver voice and data services, ensuring that services are available in their
developments could be beyond their power during and, certainly after completion
of the development of a community. It is unclear how developers can undertake
continuing and permanent obligations envisaged in Model 1. It is also arguably
unnecessary for this legislation to be enacted. State and Local Government
planning authorities can be encouraged to require FTTP in developments (as
Model 2 suggests) because some planning authorities are already doing so and
others would follow if resources are made available by a NBN.
In any case, the models for greenfield and brownfield communities should be
those which the OANO has advocated in its submission.
Role of government
2. Is any action required by the Australian Government to facilitate local councils and planning
authorities requiring the installation of FTTP facilities?
OANO Response: Yes. The Australian Government should set the guidelines for
State & Territory Governments who are ultimately responsible for the legislation of
Local Government planning laws and their town plans. State Governments should
mandate FTTP planning rules to reflect the Models and principles recommended
by OANO be included in all Local Government plans and policies.
3. Would the preparation of model laws, templates and/or national specifications or guidelines
assist local councils and planning authorities with implementation?
OANO Response: Yes. Federal Government should provide the model laws to
the State and Territory Governments.
4. Would the development of educational tools for industry assist? If so, what?
OANO Response: Yes. The Federal Government should provide information
packs and seminars for local and State government as well as builders and
developers to explain the minimum standards, policies and principles of
telecommunications services within new greenfield estates as well as brownfield
communities. That is the role of the ACMA.
5. Would the introduction of a certification system for the installation and performance of FTTP
networks be beneficial?
OANO Response: Yes.
OANO recommend that:
there should be a minimum design guidelines pits, pipes, fibre and active equipment;
there should be minimum performance specification in relation to FTTP network;
there should be Australian Standards for the installation pits, pipes, fibre and active
by industry body such as the Communication Alliance for certification of the above.
6. To what extent is a nationally co-ordinated approach preferable to one where state and
territory or local governments take the lead?
OANO Response: OANO considers that the Australian Government should take the lead by
recognising and certifying Open Access Network Operators, but beyond that, Local
Governments and Territory Planning Authorities should be responsible to ensure that only
certified Open Access Network Operators are appointed by Developers to operate networks
in their greenfield developments to meet the development application conditions imposed by
the Local Government and Territory Planning Authorities.
This would then be setup as a panel of certified providers from which developers can choose
to use and be assured they are all NBN compatible.
The panel can be reviewed each year to admit new providers and remove any provider which
is not conforming to appropriate service standards and the principles for open access. As the
provider of Open Access must contract with retail carriers and service providers and
potentially private backhaul service providers for at least fixed term contracts it is both
impractical and unreasonable to remove the open access provider from the panel without
evidence of serious breach.
Other roles and responsibilities
7. If the Australian Government were to place obligations on developers and builders, at what
stage of development should obligations be placed and on whom?
OANO Response: OANO agrees with the Figure 2 except that:
in relation to the Wholesale Services the Carrier should be an Open Access Newtwork
Operator (who under the current law must be a Carrier); and
in relation to the Retail Services the source of the obligation should not be the
Developers Contract but rather should be the Open Access Network Operator.
In Figure 2 the obligation to comply on a party does not mean that the nominated party
contributes moneys or funds which is an independent issue and we refer to the FTTP Open
Access Network Operators Model in its submission.
Summary of roles and responsibilities in Figure 2 should also provide that builders should
be responsible for the lead-in conduit from the common access conduit network in the
street to the NTD enclosure on an accessible position on or in the dwelling.
8. Is there scope for the provision of lead-ins in greenfields to be made contestable?
OANO Response: OANO believe the lead-in conduit and NTD enclosure from the
street to the house should be contestable but not the fibre and ONU.
At this point in time OANO and Telstra Fibre to the home estates require the
installation of the lead in conduit to be performed by the builder/owner. In the case
of Telstra however the ownership of the lead-in conduit is then vested with Telstra.
OANO says that ownership of the lead in conduits may remain with the NBN CO
or the home owner and open to use by other carriers.
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 2
9. What is the appropriate number of lots or premises required for a development to qualify as a
greenfield development requiring FTTP? What other issues or factors should inform the
OANO Response: For the determining what is a greenfield, the first test is
whether there is a dwelling house or premises on the land in question. A
greenfield lot, lots or community does not have a dwelling house or unit upon it
with an existing connection to a telelphone network.
All developments irrespective of size are required to provide FTTP as per the
proposed NBN. The funding arrangements will depend on the model as
discussed in the FTTP Open Access Network Operates submission. Backhaul
costs are to be paid by NBN. Other costs are covered by the recommendations in
our main submission.
The only issue is whether a greenfield estate requires its own head end active
equiment and whether the developer wants to extend the network active
equipment to include value added services such as FTATV, PayTV and
10. What mechanisms could be used to achieve a consistent approach across large
developments involving multiple developers and/or over an extended period of time? For
example, what provision should be made in relation to estates in which lots are released over
a number of years?
OANO Response: OANO recommends that the first developer contributes to the
construction of the headworks. A subsequent developer of further greenfield
estates and the NBN in relation to any Brownfield community using that head end
equipment in the Greenfield should contributes a fee to the first developer to
compensate the first developer for sharing the network and paying a contribution
for the initial capital cost of the network. The first developer cannot unreasonably
deny access to adjacent developers in greenfield or brownfield communities. See
the OANO Model.
Multi-dwelling units and office blocks
11. Are there any special requirements for multi-dwelling units or office blocks?
Multi Dwelling Units (MDU) typically need a Master-Antenna TV (MATV) system
for their free-to-air and Pay television and it is economically viable to install a fibre
based MATV system that is FTTP ready.
OANO recommends publishing an Australian Standard for MDU cabling and
delivery of FTTP to the dwellings which provide the current 100Mbps standard but
has capacity to have extended network speeds without the need to change core
Internal office cabling in office blocks should have a mandatory standard similar to
external FTTP deployments to deliver and extend open access dark fibre and
managed services within a maximum distance of 25 metres to each tenancy.
12. Should the threshold for the connection of FTTP for new multi-dwelling units be lower than
other estates or should all new multi-dwelling units be connected with FTTP? What threshold,
if any, should apply?
OANO Response: There should not be a threshold for multi-dwelling buildings or
office blocks for deliver of FTTP to the dwelling/apartment and the tenancy space.
The issue is how the local building infrastructure connects back to an appropriate
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 3
headend and where this is integral to a greenfiled catalyst community or adjacent
to a greenfield catalyst community or alternative feed, direct from an NBN node.
Fibre to the premises
13. What specified characteristics should be considered for the purposes of defining FTTP for
OANO Response: In greenfield communities there is the potential to not only
deliver core infrastructure for residential and business broadband and telephony
but as there is no infrastructure to support the management or controls of utility
services such as power, water, sewage, traffic signal, and other community based
services such as security, then rather than the traditional method of planning and
deploying independent infrastructure, the OANO model allows the FTTP base
conduits, dark fibre and IP network to be accessed by these authorities under
“cost recovery terms only” or alternatively these authorities could contribute to the
capital build and minimise the recurrent costs.
OANO considers that FTTP in greenfield estates should essentially be about 3
tiers of open access:
Another key consideration is the developers need and or right to extend the
capabilities of the network to offer other value added services.
The need to deliver free-to-air, community and Pay TV services, need for security and/or
access control, the need to deploy smart utility metering are all key differences to brownfield
deployments. FTTP in greenfield need to support a bitstream open access model to comply
with the intent of the new NBN rollout.
With respect to the preferred topology, it is clear from the deployments around the world and
in Australia that a Passive Optical Network (PON) topology is the only real choice as it is
more scalable, more serviceable, more cost effective, and certainly more power efficient (i.e.
more green) than any other topology. The PON technology tdelivers both 100Mbps and
1000Mbps services to an individual residential dwelling today and soon ther will be 10GE
It is also recommended that for some customers point to point services will be required and
therefore the community access network is required to be capable of supporting both PON
The design of the outside fibre optic distribution network should be designed to cater for
PON splitting; and
Point to point services.
It should have sufficient fibre capacity to deploy a percentage of point-to-point connections
(typically in business zones, but as home businesses florish, also in residential areas).
14. Are there particular issues in relation to backhaul between the greenfield estate and point of
interconnection to a national network that need to be considered?
OANO Response: As many of the greenfield estates are on the fringe of
metropolitan or regional centres, availability of competitive backhaul is a
significant issue. While the area may be serviced by Telstra Inter Exchange Fibre,
the cost of acquiring such services from Telstra is extremely expensive.
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 4
As the coverage area of these networks are much smaller, OANO usually is
required by developers to build many kilometres of backhaul from the estate to the
nearest point of interconnect to these networks. This cost is often shared with
developers who are very reluctant to fully fund this build which usually costs many
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
OANO proposes one or more of the following approaches to backhaul:
The government should closely regulate the price of backhaul so Telstra fibre
backhaul prices are bought into line with competitive backhaul providers or
otherwise ensure that national backhaul prices are uniform and flattened to enable
retailers to price the applications and products for all Australian users without
differential pricing to accommodate regional backhaul capital and operating costs.
The NBN Co funds the build of these backhaul links, retains ownership and
provides services them on a competitive, national basis to operator(s) of FTTP
network within the estates (ie greenfields and brownfields).
The size of backhaul connections are scaled to deliver much higher levels of
capacity to communities at lower contention rates at an affordable cost for retail
service providers and at a rate which is independent of distance (so that regional
centres can be treated equally to metropolitan zones ensuring equity and equality
in the cost of services)
The NBN utilise OANO greenfield communities as a catalyst for adjacent
brownfields which would enable high bandwidth backhaul to be delivered faster
due to quick customer uptake.
Access to affordable backhaul is the single most important and potentially costly aspect of
greenfield FTTP deployments.
15. What exemption arrangements, if any, would be appropriate and how should they be
OANO Response: There should be no exemptions. The model needs to define
how each greenfield can be connected to the headend. Furthermore, the
deployment planning should contemplate that particular greenfields can be a
“greenfield catalyst” community for the brownfields nearby or feasibly connectible.
If exemptions are made then rollout will not be ubiquous and there will be
inequalities in the services available is some developments when the expectation
of a dwelling buyer or tenent is that “all” new premises will have the latest
16. Are there any particular circumstances under which developments should be exempt from the
Australian Government’s requirements for FTTP in greenfields (for example, for large area
subdivisions in rural and remote Australia)?
OANO Response: FTTP can be provided in the last mile network for a community
development irrespective of location if the backhaul solution is flexible. It may not
be necessary to utilise fibre based backhaul in all cases. Backhaul or
interconnect to some remote communities for broadband and voice service may
use wireless or satellite links.
If a development is not a community or is a single dwelling in remote location,
then service delivery may need to be via wireless or satellite directly and to that
extent some level of exemption on a case by case basis is a sensible step.
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 5
17. Are there any factors that the Australian Government should be aware of in relation to the
commencement of FTTP requirements?
OANO Response: Some developers may not be ready or sufficiently skilled to
implement or comply with the NBN mandatory requirements in July 2010. OANO
has been able to build FTTP networks in less than 6 weeks (where pits and pipes
were already available) so the time to plan a FTTP from the Developer’s
perspective is not onerous.
Developers must needs to do to deploy a FTTP in their estates is to decide who to
select as an Open Access Network Operator (OANO). To fund the network, the
Developers contribution to the FTTP build can be pass onto the purchaser of the
land. If all developers are required to provide this then the impact on increased
cost of land is equal to all developers.
The key issue for developers is backhaul and interconnect and provided this is
funded by the NBN and fast tracked in line with the timing needs to connect
developments then a July 2010 should remain.
OANO would recommend that the current Open Access Network Operators be
indorsed as meeting the technical, performance and in particular the open access
principal and operations which would allow Developers choice.
18. Under what circumstances, if any, should transitional arrangements allow for the installation
of copper–based infrastructure?
OANO Response: The government should make a clear statement to encourage
the building of FTTP networks from now on and that the funding arrangements will
be no different prior to July 2010 than it will be after this date. OANO would also
like to see a clear statement from the Government on who will fund the backhaul
link from and estate to the backhaul provider’s point of interconnect. These
measures will deliver a level of certainty to developers who are currently holding
off FTTP decisions.
The resolution of backhaul and interconnect funding would eliminate the need to
rollout any further copper based infrastructure.
19. Should the FTTP requirement apply to developments approved before 1 July 2010 but for
which telecommunications infrastructure has not yet been contracted or provided? What
transitional arrangements may be appropriate in these circumstances?
OANO Response: Yes. All further stages of a developments even if approved
should have the requirements for FTTP infrastructure if these stages have not
commenced construction or have not been put to sale to the public. Where a
stage or stages of a development have not commenced construction of the civil
works ie pit and pipe and roads then these should be required to provide FTTP
As a minimum development under design and not commenced construction form
the 1July 2009 should make provision as a minimum of common open access pit
and pipe network and no specific carrier permitted to deploy pit and pipe
infrastructure unless it is “true” open access.
Competition and regulatory framework
20. Is the Australian Government’s intention that the NBN company not overbuild existing FTTP
developments in greenfield estates appropriate?
OANO Response: Yes. It is important to encourage FTTP competition in
greenfield estates and not allow NBN Co to overbuild. The existing FTTP
providers, such as OANO, have investment, commitments and business plans
that have long term return on investment and must have a level of protection
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 6
against overbuild. It is however important that the greenfield FTTP network
comply to build and operational standards administered by ACMA.
21. Are there any specific issues that should be considered in relation to the role of the NBN
company in greenfield estates?
OANO Response: The key objective of NBN Co should be to deploy FTTP in
brownfield areas and until the 90% target is achieved OANO would recommend
that NBN Co not be permitted in bidding for FTTP in greenfield estates. In the
event that a Developer cannot engage a suitable greenfield FTTP provider, then
and only then should NBN Co be given an opportunity to build the network within
By recognition of the value of greenfield developments as catalysts for brownfield
and partnering with OANO to facilitate rollout in adjacent brownfield communities:
the cost of the network roll out will be more cost effective for both brownfield
provide equity between greenfield and brownfield communities,
provide brownfield development which have recently been complete and still a
relatively “new community” receive comparable services to the neighbouring
greenfield and in many cases it is these communities which have copper
congestion and lack of DSL or too far form exchanges for DSL2+ services.
Speed up the rollout of FTTP to communities
NBN Co can play a significant role in assisting greenfield FTTP providers in
providing fair and reasonable access to backhaul links, carrier hotel co-location
facilities, Headends co-location facilities contribution and the like.
Competition to service greenfield estates
OANO Comment:: Note point that the “Government considers that customers are
keen to have a choice of retail providers..” this is in contrast to earlier statements
saying that a FTTP deployment should have “at least one provider”. The OANO
support multiple retail service providers and through the utilisation of a greenfield
development as a catalyst this will provide retail service providers with faster period
to achieve the threshold for the number of connected dwellings to offset start-up
backhaul recurrent costs.
OANO Comment: We do not believe it is a good idea for FTTP providers to also
operate as a retail providers. The Telstra and TransACT example provided is
exactly an example of why this should not be the case.
OANO Comment: A comment has been made in this section in relation to FTTP
OANO having access to current carrier pit and pipe and other access networks
under the current access regime. This is neither practical nor cost effective and the
incumbent carrier or utility provider looks to maximise return on this access rather
than provide it at a cost plus basis. It is recommended that the access networks of
pits and pipe especially in residential areas simply be nationalised as an asset of
the NBN and provide to allow backhaul to be delivered to greenfield and adjoining
brownfield communities at a nil rental cost as operations and maintenance is
negligible and the capacity of fibre services that can be generally provided would
have little impact of the access capacity.
22. What measures could the Australian Government introduce to facilitate competition for the
provision of FTTP infrastructure in greenfield developments?
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 7
OANO Response: To encourage competition in greenfield FTTP provisioning the
Australian Government should:
Resolve the issue of backhaul to the greenfield estates by:
Government co-funding of the backhaul links; or
NBN Co funding, operating and owning these backhaul links.
Define the requirements of open access wholesale FTTP providers / operators,
through certification of such providers/operators for developers to select and appoint
to deliver network services to their greenfield communities. Potentially the same
arrangements could apply to proximate brownfield communities.
23. Could the competitive provision of FTTP in greenfields be facilitated by a national online
database of proposed developments accessible either publicly or to licensed carriers? Could
this also assist with the planning of telecommunications infrastructure in such estates?
OANO Response: Yes A database of proposed developments would be useful.
However a published list of recommended OANO providers would also be very
useful. OANO recommends certification of the current true open access providers
who adhere to the open access principals previously stated and have a process
for registration and certification of additional OANO providers that meet technical,
performance, pricing and operational standards.
Competition at the services layer: access and equivalence
24. Is it sufficient for access to wholesale FTTP services in greenfield estates to be delivered
through the telecommunications-specific access regime in Part XIC of the Trade Practices
OANO Response: Yes.
25. Should the ACCC conduct a Part XIC inquiry into the specification/definition of the access
service to be supplied over FTTP networks, with particular reference to greenfield estates?
OANO Response: Yes. As a new range of open access service delivery
mechanisms need to be defined such as open access bitstream services, open
access conduit, open access dark fibre and open access lit fibre. These services
would apply equally to NBN Co
For enhanced services within greenfield networks which are outside of the scope
of service delivery for the NBN it would be recommended that an industry body
would define standards for interconnect and service standards for FTA TV, Pay
TV, security, utility monitoring and other value add services.
There needs to be a determination in respect to content service providers such as
Foxtel and Austar when delivered over a community FTTP network to require
them to contribute to the cost of interconnection and/or access service fee to
cover maintenance and support of local Headend equipment and the television
service segment of the community network.
OANO Comment: FTTP operators/providers must not also operate as a retail
providers of commercial services in competition with any service or content
providers. Telstra, Allegro Networks, and TransACT demonstrate why this should
not be the case because they lack competitive retail services on any of their
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 8
As with the NBN Co the OANO must be a wholesale only carrier in that the OANO
must not offer commercail services in competition against any access seekers and
provide access to those parties on equivalent pricing, terms and conditions.
26. Should an alternative approach to providing access such as mandatory access to FTTP
networks in greenfield estates be adopted? If so, what? Why?
OANO Response: If open access and the conditions we recommended in the
answer to question 25 are mandatory then, mandatory access is unnecessary.
Normal market competitive pressures will enable access to greenfield FTTP
networks. If greenfield networks are developed in isolation they must
nevertheless have multiple service providers available to customers to select
from. Hence only FTTP open access oerators that can deliver that competitive
choice of services should be encouraged.
With the proposed model of having greenfield communities as a catalyst for a
much wider adjoining community, access should be provided on a non
discriminatory basis and all retails providers whether large or small should have
access on an equal basis. This can be achieved as the backhaul costs can be
shared on an equal basis. also This is more cost effective than individual retail
service providers having to have their own backhaul and thus making entry for
small niche retail service providers a barrier.
27. Should it be mandatory that new FTTP networks in greenfield estates after 1 July 2010 be
wholesale-only networks? If introduced, should there be exceptions to this type of rule and if
so how should they be administered?
OANO Response: All new greenfield estate should be mandated to be FTTP
Open Access networks. Network operators/providers who do not have open
access networks may take advantage of NBN benefits (such as better backhaul
capacity or flat regional backhaul rates) if they adopt an open access model and
either cease providing retail services or appoint a certified open access operator
to run and operate the FTTP local network on a wholesale only basis so that they
become retail service providers on their own networks.
All future networks in greenfield developments commenced after 1 July 2010
should be mandated to be FTTP Open Access networks.
Where a community FTTP network operation has been commenced on or before
1 July 2010, the current operator should be allowed a transitional period to move
to an Open Access model; cease providing retail services or appoint a certified
open access operator to run and operate the network on a wholesale only basis
and move their business to a retail service provider model.
There should be exceptions where open access is not appropriate. Age-care or
Hospitality community networks where the operator is the manager of the
communities and required to run and operate each community network as a
service to a group of common interest parties.
28. What are the minimum equivalence arrangements that should be put in place to ensure
wholesale services are provided on equivalent price and non-price terms and conditions in
OANO Response: None. Normal competitive market forces should determine the
wholesale price for network services. NBN Co will set a benchmark and Retail
Service Providers will negotiate with the greenfield FTTP providers to offer
equivalent or cheaper pricing to NBN Co. Otherwise they may decide to not offer
their particular retail services over that operators open access community FTTP
network. It would be in the interest of the FTTP open access provider to offer a
broad range of Retail Service Providers.
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 9
Where a greenfield community is nominated as a catalyst community for adjoining
brownfield communities and funding is provided by the NBN then there should be
a collaborative means by which wholesale rates for base services are determined.
29. Would it be appropriate and workable to have different access and equivalence
arrangements for greenfield FTTP networks depending on whether or not they were
operating before 1 July 2010?
OANO Response: No.
Obligations to supply retail services
30. Should Telstra continue to be the universal service provider in greenfield estates where FTTP
is deployed by an alternative provider and retail providers are able to use these networks to
supply voice services?
OANO Response: No. The USO obligation should be taken on by the local open
access service provider and the NBN Co should become the default USO provider
in the absence of any alternative open access service provider.
Whilst the OANO or the NBN Co are the USO provider they can only deliver the
access for standard telephone services and broadband service via a retail service
provider that agrees to interconnected with them.
The USO may therefore require some legislative changes to address this, such as
The USO should remain for the provision of a Standard Telephone Service;
Consideration should be made to include a minimum standard for a broadband
service for the USO;
Where the designated USO provider for an area is a wholesale only, open
access operator, then that provider should be obligated to ensure at least one
retail provider is delivering the services to the consumer that meet the USO;
The Retail Service Provider’s installation charge for an STS service and base
broadband service will need to be regulated as it is now;
USO could be delivered via a number of access technologies including FTTP,
wireless (including 3G mobile) and satellite services.
31. If Telstra should continue as the universal service provider in greenfield estates, would it
continue to be appropriate for Telstra to determine the technology it uses to fulfil its USO in
OANO Response: Irrespective of the identity of the USO service provider, that
carrier should be at liberty to determine the technology used to fulfil its obligation.
32. If Telstra were not to continue as the universal service provider, what, if any, obligations
should be imposed on whom to ensure that consumers continue to have access to basic
telephony services in greenfield estates?
OANO Response: See response to Question 30 above.
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 10
33. Will the proposed greenfields model deliver satisfactory retail pricing outcomes? If not, would
new mechanisms to regulate prices in greenfields be necessary and workable? What form
might such mechanisms take? What would be the implications for such mechanisms on the
OANO Response: Normal market competitive forces will determine satisfactory
The key to delivering competitive retail service pricing is to fast track the number
of connected homes within a greenfield community and the OANO proposal to
utilise greenfield developments as catalysts for both adjoining brownfield
communities and other smaller greenfield and in particular greenfield infill, will
allow economies of scale , more economic use of backhaul capacity, faster uptake
of larger backhaul capacity and thus a faster period for each retail service provider
to reach the key threshold markets within the wider community via a single
Other safeguards and requirements
OANO Response: In a wholesale only, open access network, the fundamental
service delivery is the access network. However the other services including the
Customer Service Guarantee must be maintained. Indeed, the Customer Service
Guarantee should be extended beyond voice services to include base broadband
services. Other services, such as emergency call services, are delivered by the
retail voice carriers and carriage service providers. It it should be a condition of the
certification of OANO access providers that their standard form of agreement with
the retail voice carriers and carriage service providers must oblige those parties to
provide those extended and important services.
34. How would progress in delivering FTTP in greenfield estates be best monitored and
OANO Response: Annual reporte by all FTTP providers to the ACMA should be
continued. However, this reporting should be expanded to include performance
reporting of Broadband Internet services. Local Authorities or the NBN Co or
such other registering authority as the NBN deems appropraite should also be the
record keepers for the FTTP infrastructure (including pits, pipes, conduits, fibre
cores and cable, active equipment, communications rooms, shelters and pillars)
and the existing and postential capasity of all network units should be included in
the reporting requirements. That will enable and accellerate planning and rollout
of the NBN as well as, backhaul and greenfield development FTTP networks.
OANO Response: A hybrid between option 1 and 2 is recommended, with local
council (being the approval agency for a development) able to apply development
conditions which include the mandatory provision of FTTP open access networks.
Provided all developers are treated fairly and equally in relation to the financial
contributions, requirements and assistance for FTTP open access networks
servicing their development communities, then there should be no unfair
disadvantage against or bias towards particular developers of greenfields or
manifested in the comparative prices or services in the greenfield or brownfield
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 11
35. What further steps should be undertaken to support this initiative?
OANO Response: OANO recommends the formation of a consultation group or
working party to examine the options and solutions for the various issues
concerning the NBN and the effect of the NBN on greenfield developments.
36. Would the establishment of a stakeholder group assist with the implementation? If so, how
many members would be appropriate, and who should be represented? What should be its
terms of reference?
OANO Response: Yes. OANO recommend a Special Interest Group with the
FTTP Open Access Network Operators – OPENetworks/Fujitsu and Opticomm
Retail Service Providers
Developers – including Lend Lease.
Local Government – 2 members
State Government – 1 member from each State
Terms of reference would be as follows:
Define “Open Access”
Determine minimum wholesale access service requirements on FTTP
Agree on the specifications of a tender for a panel of open access FTTP
Review regulatory reform recommendations in line with the OANO business
Response to - National Broadband Network: Fibre-to-the-premises in greenfield estates 12