Singapore – NBN is launched with the prospects of price and speed wars between providers
September 2nd, 2010 | 
Author: [asia one] CONSUMERS can enjoy faster, cheaper and more stable broadband connections with the commercial launch of the Next Generation National Broadband Network by Nucleus Connect yesterday.
Nucleus Connect is a subsidiary of StarHub, but is operationally separate from the telco.
It will be selling bandwidth to service providers.
For a start, prices for consumer 100Mbps broadband plans offered by home-grown firm SuperInternet, which is new to the consumer market, go for $49.80 per month, nearly 43 per cent cheaper than the rate for the most expensive residential 100Mbps plans now.
M1 also unveiled 100Mbps plans at $59 and $39 for home users and students, respectively.
Thanks to the high-speed fibre-optic network, initiated by the Government, new players will find it easier to provide broadband services. The network will cover 95 per cent of homes and offices by 2012.
Previously, service providers had to buy bandwidth from private broadband networks built by SingTel and StarHub.
Mr Benjamin Tan, managing director of SuperInternet, said that previously it was “not commercially viable” to buy bandwidth from SingTel if SuperInternet had fewer than 5,000 customers.
But with the new network, bandwidth is sold at a flat and transparent fee, which will encourage new providers to enter the market.
SingTel and StarHub together now own about 86 per cent of broadband subscribers, says research firm Frost & Sullivan.
Mr Adeel Najam, senior industry analyst with Frost & Sullivan, estimated that broadband prices are already falling annually by 3 to 4 per cent. With the new competition, prices could fall by 7 to 10 per cent.
SingTel, which unveiled yesterday a new 150Mbps plan for $85.90 a month and assorted services tapping on the new network, said it did not know if a price war could be triggered.
Commenting on other cheaper plans in the market, Mr Allen Lew, SingTel’s chief executive for Singapore, said: “When you say…cheaper, you have to figure out what they’re providing, what speeds, and exactly how much the plans would cost.”
With this network, broadband speeds here could catch up with those of Asian markets, such as South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and might surpass them, said Mr Najam.
Media reports last year suggested that broadband speeds here lagged behind those of the abovementioned markets because Singapore did not have a nation-wide broadband network.
When asked about broadband speeds here, a spokesman for the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore said that according to its website, “current broadband plans here have generally delivered reasonable speeds to their customers within the service plans of their choice”.
Mr David Storrie, chief executive of Nucleus Connect, said that with the advent of the new network, broadband speeds could be 12 times faster than what is offered now.
He also said that the broadband experience and speeds would be more “stable and consistent”.
He added that Nucleus Connect would commit a minimum data-transmission rate of 25Mbps with the new network.
M1 will have the same committed rate, while SingTel consumers will enjoy a speed of at least 40Mbps with the network, the telcos’ spokesmen said.
Posted in 
Singapore – NBN is operation with several competing ISPs making retail offers
[rapidtvnews] Singapore’s next-generation national broadband network (NBN) is up and running, with wholesaler Nucleus Connect, a wholly-owned subsidiary of pay-TV operator StarHub, commencing commercial operations.
Nucleus Connect is the official operating company of the NBN, providing access to Retail Service Providers (RSPs) which have the contact with consumers. It was appointed by the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA Singapore) in April 2009 to design, build and operate the active infrastructure of this super highway.
In a statement, Nucleus Connect said: “[Our] advanced and best of breed Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) and Optical Ethernet (OE) technologies will enable RSPs to develop innovative services at competitive prices for all businesses and homes in Singapore.”
David Storrie, Chief Executive Officer of Nucleus Connect said: “Nucleus Connect will continue to play a key role in the development of Singapore’s Next Gen NBN eco-system through our world-class active infrastructure, reliable service delivery and open access approach to the RSPs. We are confident that businesses and consumers can enjoy rich and innovative content, applications and services from a variety of RSPs in the near future.”
At launch, there will be five RSPs, including StarHub itself. The other operators are all also established players – SingTel, M1, LGA and SuperInternet. RSPs will also be able to purchase appropriate service levels to suit their customers’ requirements. For example, an RSP which primarily serves IPTV and online gaming customers may purchase wholesale bandwidth services with minimal delay (or latency) so as to enhance the gamers’ playing experience.
But access to the network will not be offered to consumers just yet, with some work still to be done, including interoperability testing. That allows RSPs to test and validate their services over a simulated NBN environment to ensure proper interconnection between the RSPs’ and Nucleus Connect’s network.
When it is ready to be offered to homes and businesses, the network should offer speeds of up to 1 Gbps. Services slated for the new network include internet protocol television (IPTV) and high-definition video surveillance as well as high-speed internet access.
Nucleus Connect is offering a wholesale price of S$21 a month for a 100 Mbps residential end-user and S$121 for a 1 Gbps connection. Non-residential premises will cost S$75 a month and S$860 respectively.
Neil Montefiore, CEO of StarHub, said: “The Next-Gen NBN marks a major turning point in Singapore’s telecoms and broadband industry. It will undoubtedly offer us significant opportunities to deliver new and enhanced next-generation multimedia services for businesses and consumers across the island… It will also give us an additional platform to deliver pay TV content that will meet the high- standards that we have already established with our quality video broadcast on our proven cable infrastructure.”
Karen Kooi, Chief Executive Officer of M1, said: “We are excited to play a role in the development of a vibrant and competitive infocomm market in Singapore. M1 has been working closely with Nucleus Connect towards the launch of Next Gen NBN services and we look forward to continuing our partnership. Supported by Nucleus Connect’s reliable service delivery and open access approach, we will continue to develop new and innovative services on the new fibre network for homes and offices.”
Allen Lew, CEO Singapore, SingTel, said: “The availability of an ultra high-speed fibre network through the NGNBN and our own fibre infrastructure presents SingTel with significant opportunities to break new grounds in terms of service innovation and value creation. We will leverage our reputation of a reliable network operator, astute customer insights and an effective partner ecosystem to deliver personalised customer-centric applications, which will pique the imagination of consumers and increase the productivity of businesses.”
SingTel is promising, among others, two packages offering pay-TV – exCite Home and exPlore Home. ExPlore Home Sports will offer “the best of” the Mio TV Sports package while ExPlore Home will offer 15 free movies from Mio’s offering as part of that package. Consumers can, of course, just opt to take Mio TV over SingTel’s network as they can currently.
Australia – Continuing debate over the roles of governments and markets in the roll-out of broadband
[arnnet] Analysts have provided lukewarm responses to an open letter from senior telco executives that criticises the Government’s National Broadband Network.
The letter, which is signed by several telco bosses such as AAPT CEO, Paul Broad, and BigAir CEO, Jason Ashton, claims the Government “has failed to convince” Australian on the need for a national fibre-only NBN solution.
“For the short to medium term we see, globally, no demonstrated mass requirement for the “up to 1Gbps” speeds to homes and SOHO,” the letter said. “We believe… markets are better managers of capital and technology risk than government.
“In Australia, you might expect to cover 98% of our 22 million people… for $3 billion or less with a large part of this delivered by private investment.”
Ovum research director, David Kennedy, said the open letter made some very good points and that the division in the industry was in part caused by the lack of research-based analysis.
“I think the reason this is starting to happen is because the Government hasn’t clearly articulated a rationale for the NBN and the current implementation approach,” he said. “Because they haven’t adopted a research-based approach the NBN has now become a bit of a political football.
“The situation we’re now in is that because Labor has lost its majority in the Parliament the entire project is up in the air. This announcement today reflects that underlying lack of consensus about the way forward.”
Although Kennedy acknowledged the timing was good for the Coalition, he said he didn’t think it was a partisan statement at all and claimed the ideas expressed were “probably as good as anyone else’s.”
“We’re heading into what will be an extended debate about the NBN and how Australia’s future broadband needs will be met,” he said. “There are a lot of complexities underlying what’s proposed by the NBN that aren’t addressed by the current policy.
“Sophisticated thinking about how the market will work in the new arrangement and what the investment incentives are and so on has been absent from the debate so far,” Kennedy added. “There’s a lot of cost here, not just to the taxpayers but also to the industry in terms of disruption and writing off of old infrastructure.”
Telco analyst, Paul Budde, said he was happy to see the telco executives support the concept of a national broadband network. But he also claimed the telcos involved were not representative of the industry as a whole and that the major players all backed Labor’s NBN.
“The only real large scale operator [on the letter] is AAPT, which we know is also in disarray,” he said. “It’s not that these are the leading lights in the industry at the moment. They’re good people, but if [AAPT CEO] Paul Broad had it all right, why is his company in such a bad shape.”
“These are industry players so… they think about themselves,” he said. “Obviously, they have their own agenda regarding the future of their businesses and I think that’s part of it.”
Australia – Telco CEOs argue a national fibre-only NBN solution has failed to convince
[computerworld] 1. We believe that national broadband capability is as important to the 21st century as railways and roadways were to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We believe the Federal government?s primary role is setting policy frameworks that incentivises markets to build this infrastructure. We acknowledge markets fail to deliver universal service, and where they do governments should assist or directly invest.
2. We believe, generally markets are better managers of capital and technology risk than government. We believe in infrastructure based competition – not infrastructure monopolies with retail competition – as the path way to deliver affordable broadband with a great customer experience. We believe in preserving existing infrastructure competition where it is assisting in the delivery of affordable fast broadband today – such as the metropolitan HFC networks – and we oppose stranding or crowding out such infrastructure assets.
3. We believe the argument for a national fibre-only NBN solution has failed to convince. For the short to medium term we see, globally, no demonstrated mass requirement for the “up to 1Gbps” speeds to homes and SOHO. Instead, we see the greatest priority is giving broadband to those who don?t have any, not faster broadband to those that have.
4. We believe a competitive National Fibre Backhaul Network (NFBN) platform is critical to the development of broadband in Australia.
5. We believe the case for “100Mbps to Gbps” connectivity to schools, hospitals and businesses is convincing. This is for reasons of both current need and future productivity gains. We believe that further balanced research will support this as well
6. We believe that it is important for Government and Industry to create a sustainable, affordable and socially responsible „fibre future? strategy.
7. We believe that the Government still holds or has access to the best telecommunications infrastructure asset in Australia being the spectrum capable of carrying a national ubiquitous 4G network able to deliver up to 100Mb/s to 98% of Australians. We believe this spectrum is a nationally significant asset.
8. We believe that next generation 4G technologies are the best fit for purpose for the vast majority of consumers and SOHO clients currently without other broadband delivery options. This technology combined with the spectrum listed in item 7 above is capable of delivering a ubiquitous, integrated national broadband baseline network and is the most affordable deployment technology able to be rapidly deployed throughout Australia within a single term of Government.
9. In short, we believe that a mix of technologies and a market based approach will deliver the best outcome. We believe that an alternative national broadband network, let?s call it NBNv3, could look something like this:
- 4G national wholesale network coverage, to 98% of Australians, at up to 100mbps;
- Fibre or equivalent high speed broadband for backhaul, school, hospitals, and most businesses, at speeds up to 1Gbps;
- A fibre based solution (whether that be FttP or FttN or combination of both) for areas of demonstrated need via commercial return, or where there is a demonstrated and justifiable improvement in productivity and/or social equality to justify tax-payer contribution
- Satellite for remote areas, at speeds up to 12Mbps.
10. We believe a public/private model should be explored for NBNv3, which, where practical or endeavours to include and recognise the existing investments of competitive fibre and wireless operators, and incentivises markets to solve the problem. For example, in wireless, consider offering the 4G spectrum asset with the obligation to build a national wholesale only 4G network, delivering 100Mbps over say 98% of Australia, and to start and finish within a term of government, with government incentives where the build is uneconomic. Existing 3G operators and spectrum holders are free to continue to exploit their asset, and compete, without the burden of national carrier and universal service obligations, and with the benefit of reach on the national wholesale 4G network. Of course, this is not the only public/private model.
11. We believe that a well-informed Independent member of parliament might wisely favour an NBNv3 public/private model on a mix of technologies, with deliverables within a term, over a more costly and more risky 8+ year NBN 2.0 rollout.
12. The cost of all this? In the US, a privately funded group is building a national 4G wireless network that is wholesale only to meet Obama administration objectives of affordable access for all. The network will cover 93% of 300 million people, over an area roughly the same land mass of Australia. Total cost, $US7 billion (which includes operational costs for first 7 years). In Australia, you might expect to cover 98% of our 22 million people who occupy a much smaller portion of the landmass than is the case in the US for $3 billion or less with a large part of this delivered by private investment. We believe further research should be undertaken on such a proposal.
13. The cost of the government stimulus required to complete an NBNv3 national fibre backhaul and high speed access networks can be delivered for a fraction of the cost of the current NBN proposal.
14. We believe that any substantial investment by the tax-payer for any National Broadband Infrastructure (whether it be NBN 2.0 or the examples above) must be subject to serious investigation and independent cost estimations, cost-benefit analysis, genuine industry and public consultation as well as a review of its impact on the Australian competitive telecommunications landscape.
David Waldie, CEO – Allegro Networks
Bevan Slattery, Founder – PIPE Networks Ltd
Jason Ashton, CEO – BigAir Ltd (ASX: BGL)
James Spenceley, CEO – Vocus Communications Ltd (ASX: VOC)
Paul Broad, CEO – AAPT
Paul Wallace, CEO – Polyfone
John Lane, CEO – EFTel (ASX: EFT)
NBN 3.0 from the Alliance for Affordable Broadband: Open Letter
Australia – a response to the "failure to convince" case made by some Telcos
[computerworld] Dear Alliance for Affordable Broadband signatories,
We are grateful for your letter and suggestions. Indeed it is pleasing to see individuals of your repute publicly join the broadband infrastructure discussion and to provide alternative suggestions. We would encourage this from more people in the ICT industry.
To help kick the conversation along we thought we’d give you a quick response with some (but not all) of our questions. To get to the point, though, we really wish you were already at release 3.7, because the NBN 3.0 plan, like a lot of first releases, leaves a lot to be desired and really doesn’t use the good parts of 2.0 or even 1.0.
At first read it sounds grand: Give 4G wireless to almost everyone through a public/private national wholesale-only network, fibre to the hospitals/schools and “most” businesses, and encourage investment through market competition. All for a bucket load cheaper than Labor’s $43 billion national broadband network (NBN).
And I think we can all agree right now that everyone wants “a competitive National Fibre Backhaul Network (NFBN) platform”, and it is something all parties have put forward plans on.
At second glance, however, the plan seems to fall into the same Conroy/Rudd mistake of being hastily pulled together, missing some key elements and arguably introducing a contradiction or two – although perhaps the points just weren’t explained in enough detail. So we have a few questions:
1. Do you have any suggestions as part of your plan for changing the current fixed line market structure, which is dominated by a vertically integrated Telstra as is sought by many players in the industry? Would you agree this needs to be addressed as part of any broadband infrastructure plan?
2. Are you suggesting the history of the rollout along with the current circumstances with the HFC networks – high prices, limited coverage and no open access – are good examples of infrastructure-based competition?
3. How is creating a national wholesale-only 4G wireless network where you will have to choose between competing technologies – WiMAX and LTE – while at the same time introducing tough competition to 3G players and potentially forcing them to give up on their considerable investments to migrate to your network, any different from the NBN Co situation with fibre? Isn’t this also “crowding out” other wireless infrastructure (i.e. if you choose LTE, what happens to WiMAX?) and existing competition (i.e. between the Optus and Telstra wireless networks)?
4. What spectrum will you use for the 4G network and why? When is it available? Have you done an analysis of the opportunity cost of using this spectrum for other purposes?
5. How did you come to the 98 per cent figure for the 4G network? Have you worked out how many towers will be needed and whether you will connect them by fibre or microwave?
6. Please explain how you came to the $3 billion figure. Is this the total cost of your plan or just the 4G wireless portion?
7. Can you really guarantee a “ubiquitous” service with this plan when it is next to impossible to provide a committed level of service (both in terms of bandwidth and geographic coverage) with existing broadband infrastructure and the wireless technologies you suggest? You mention “up to 100Mbps” but what is the minimum download speed all Australian organisations and individuals should receive? Shouldn’t we all get at least the same level if any tax payer money is going to be spent?
8. The Coalition’s alternative broadband plan sees the majority of action enacted after the first term of government, yet you mention that the solution could provide deliverables within one term. What exact deliverables would this be?
9. How long do you expect the “serious investigation and independent cost estimations, cost-benefit analysis, genuine industry and public consultation as well as a review of its impact on the Australian competitive telecommunications landscape” to take to complete? What assumptions will you use in this?
10. You say in the short- to medium-term there is no demand for up to 1Gbps – and that is entirely accurate with qualifications – but how do you define these time frames? And in the long term? If you do forecast more than the 4G networks can provide, why not aim higher then your plan and get the competitive advantage by investing early in a technology we know will support that, thereby encouraging participation in the digital economy and leap-frogging competitor nations?
11. If schools, hospitals and “most” businesses need the better speeds, why wouldn’t others, including SOHO and consumers? Doesn’t suggesting they won’t go against the history of technology adoption and internet usage?
12. What kind of plans and data caps would be reasonably expected for both businesses/organisations and consumers as part of your plan?
13. What about Defence and government agencies? Will they continue to pay more to private companies for connectivity as a result of this plan?
14. What upstream speeds will you guarantee to incentivise businesses and individuals to become participants in the digital economy?
15. How does your plan support other areas of economic activity and how exactly will it be integrated? What impact would it have on our competitive edge in the global economy as opposed to alternatives?
16. Why settle for 12Mbps for the satellite portion of your plan?
17. What about Greenfield estates? Do you suggest continuing with mandating they roll out fibre?
18. On R&D – do you recommend rolling out existing technologies or investing in the development of new varieties as is being pursued by the CSIRO?
19. Have you considered that some people may not want to have a 4G wireless network in their area, but would prefer fibre services? Is there scope to let communities or councils choose on a case by case basis what they want?
20. What provisions would you recommend for improving our international links and the price paid by ISPs for IP transit?
These are just some of the questions we seek answers and clarification on. We have plenty more (including your motivations as individuals for putting this letter out now) but figure it is best to stop here as this might take a bit of time to respond to.
In your letter you mentioned that the Labor NBN plan has “failed to convince”. That may be the case for some who hold similar views as yourselves, but until you are able to answer the above questions (and those we haven’t included) the same accusation can and should be levelled against your suggested plan. Your plan may simply be a proof of concept to show that an alternative to the NBN is possible, but we look forward to seeing mature, formulated business plan that can replace Labor’s current rollout as it stands from day one.
Thank you in advance AAB and we look forward to your detailed response.
