Quigley slams “futile” wireless NBN debate

By
Renai LeMay
-
105

NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley has again expressed his frustration with what he described as the “futile” ongoing debate about whether wireless technologies would make the mainly fibre-based National Broadband Network obsolete, arguing that both fixed and wireless technologies will be needed in the nation’s future.

The debate flared up again over the past few weeks as the United States Government committed to a wireless-based national broadband network and locally, Telstra revealed it would bring the Long-Term Evolution mobile broadband standard to Australia, in a move which will boost wireless speeds dramatically. A number of households already prefer wireless against fixed-line broadband for reasons including the flexibility of relocating a service.

However, Quigley told a Senate Estimates Committee hearing tonight that there was a great deal of “misinformation circulating in some sections of the media” about the potential for wireless to make fixed-line broadband obselete.

“The fact is they are complementary,” he said, pointing out that both 802.11 Wi-Fi and 3G or LTE mobile broadband services required fixed broadband links backing them to be effective. “Mobile networks alone will not provide all of the telecommunications [services] that Australians will need in the years ahead,” he said, noting there was much “ill-informed” commentary on the matter.

The NBN Co chief said he had spoken to many international experts about the matter, and noted that each recognised the advantages and limitations of mobile networks as well as the advantages and limitations of fixed networks.

For starters, he said, he had spoken to Randall Stephenson, chief executive of giant American telco AT&T, who had described a situation where the same mobile base station could be taken out to Western Texas and to downtown Manhattan, and get two extremely different results due to the different population densities — 20Mbps in the first case, and 2Mbps to 3Mbps in the latter.

“LTE will be the same thing,” Quigley quoted Stephenson as saying. The difference occurs because mobile broadband networks share their network capacity between users — whereas fixed fibre networks such as the NBN substantially do not. Quigley also quoted Telstra chief technology officer Hugh Bradlow as saying that Australia couldn’t wait another eight years for fixed networks to be upgraded.

And the NBN Co chief also picked up a quote from a media outlet which Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has attacked publicly as being too harsh on the National Broadband Network project — the Australian newspaper — prompting Conroy to start up from his seat and say “What?! No!”

Quigley pointed out that in an article in The Australian this morning, Telstra director of network and commercial planning Anthony Goonan had stated that LTE would be fine for moderate use, but would not necessarily be suitable for “heavy duty bandwidth applications”; Telstra would need to use quality of service technologies to deliver such applications through wireless.

International telcos such as British Telecom and France Telecom were “amused” about the wireless versus fixed debate happening in Australia, Quigley said — because of the complementary nature of the two types of technologies.

“I do hope that now this rather futile debate will come to an end,” he said.

Image credit: NBN Co

Related posts:

  1. Quigley openly slams Coalition’s broadband policy
  2. Conroy wades into wireless NBN debate
  3. Quigley clarifies Senate NBN profit ‘misconceptions’
  4. NBN wireless latency ‘the same as 3G’
  5. Turnbull wireless complaints getting “tedious”: Conroy

105 COMMENTS

  2. The reality is with 50% (page 118 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan) connecting at 12/1Mbps, wireless is not going to be almost comparable for speed (especially when advertising). Each premises which doesn’t connect to the NBN means higher prices and/or lower quotas (page 132).

    I really don’t understand why there are such low speed caps on the NBNCo, as it makes it easier for wireless to compete.

    • It’s irrelevant what options the NBN are offering wholesale to the RSP’s – the RSP’s are the ones who will select what they believe consumers will want and pay for. So far every indication is that your worst fears of such ‘low’ speed caps are nothing to worry about as not one RSP is even offering 12mbit on a NBN fibre service so far.
      The market will dictate, as it has been doing with what limited resources it’s had access to for the past 20 or so years.

    • I would say the reason for the 12/1 mbps plans is for people who just want cheap basic reliable access. There’s nothing wrong with having it as an option, even though most people wouldn’t bother with it.

    • You conveniently left out the word ‘projected’. You also conveniently left out the fact that these were described by Quigley himself as conservative (http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=554260&vId=)

      Further, you’re making it out as though NBN is limiting people to 12/1 – As in you -have- to use 12/1 or else. That’s not true. It’s based upon what the RSPs offer and what price it’s offered at.

      Every single post I see from you is quoting this – Yet you don’t address the arguments against it. If this is your only argument it’s rather weak.

      • So the figures are conservative. Let assume they are out by 20%. That still means 40% will be connected at 12/1Mbps beyond 2028. I keep reading people’s opinions that “most people won’t connect at that speed or RSPs won’t even offer the plan”. If the forecast was 20% then I might agree, but that would make the forecasts out by 60%.

        If you look at the chart on page 116 of the NBNCo Business Plan, it gives the reason for leakage to wireless as price sensitivity. Wireless plans (<$20/month) are already cheaper than the NBN plans ($53-$58/month). Sure the quota is not much (6GB) and the quality is likely to be less than a fibre connection, but if all you want is basic email and web browsing then it will probably be okay. Remember these are people who won't pay an extra $5-$10 a month to double their speed. Every person who chooses to go wireless only means higher prices and/or lower quotas (page 132).

        If you are thinking about the fast connections, then the chart on page 101 is worth looking at. It shows the decline in AVC prices based on network average speed. At 210 Mbps/end-user, a 1000/400Mbps connection has fallen from $150 to $90/month. This probably explains why the chart on page 118, doesn't show 1000/400Mbps connections until 2026.

        Finally, as people have faster connections they tend to download more. NBNCo could drop the speed tiers and make up the lost revenue in CVC charges.

        • You’re claiming that these people are price sensitive, but the prices right now for wireless are cheaper than most available internet connections – Why haven’t we seen a mass exodus away from fixed line internet, if this is the case? As I pointed out with the ABS report, both fixed line broadband and wireless broadband connections have increased.

          Further, in the NBNCo report on page 23 it states:
          1) In Telstra’s FY2010 update to the market, Telstra indicated that 12% of Australian households were now mobile only;
          2) Roy Morgan’s research indicates 13% in FY2010 per Exhibit 2.4 above; and
          3) Ovum estimates that the rate is 10.8% with 4% of that amount having fixed broadband and mobile telephony, e.g.: naked DSL and cable broadband subscribers.

          So the number bandied about that’s 13% wireless only at the moment seems to be a lot lower than what NBNCo report, conducted by Ovum, have given.

        • “Wireless plans (<$20/month) are already cheaper than the NBN plans ($53-$58/month)."

          First, there are no NBN plans on the current wholesale model so your comparison is nonsensical. Second, these ultra-cheap wireless plans you speak of are also cheaper than ADSL plans, but has this destroyed the business case for ADSL? To the contrary, ADSL is thriving, with total fixed-line broadband connections on the rise. So why should it be any different for fibre? If wireless isn't cannibalising fixed-line growth now, what's going to change when the NBN comes along? Your position is weak.

          I've noticed you peddling the same argument, almost word for word, on practically every NBN-related article/discussion on the web. I think everyone knows where you stand now – time to move on?

          • > First, there are no NBN plans on the current wholesale model so your comparison is nonsensical.
            I’m quoting the figures direct from the NBNCo Corporate Plan. Until we see actual RSP plans that is the best source we have.

            > Second, these ultra-cheap wireless plans you speak of are also cheaper than ADSL plans, but has this destroyed the business case for ADSL?
            Inertia stops most people from changing suppliers. When the NBN arrives it will bring change and wireless operators will have the opportunity to capture market share.

            > I’ve noticed you peddling the same argument, almost word for word, on practically every NBN-related article/discussion on the web. I think everyone knows where you stand now – time to move on?
            I want the NBN to be the best it can be. I think tiered pricing for speeds is wrong. It was wrong when Telstra introduced speed tiers for ADSL1. The only argument I’ve heard supporting speed tiers is that RSPs will need to pay too in backhaul to avoid congestion. Everyone else (like yourself) says don’t worry it’ll be okay or the estimates are conservative – the RSPs won’t even offer 12/1Mbps plans.

          • “I’m quoting the figures direct from the NBNCo Corporate Plan.”

            As you well know, those figures are a guess at average retail prices. It remains nonsensical to compare them against the cheapest known retail plans and try to draw some sort of conclusion from that.

            “Inertia stops most people from changing suppliers. When the NBN arrives it will bring change and wireless operators will have the opportunity to capture market share.”

            I’m willing to bet the majority of people will stay with their current provider when the NBN rolls through their street – the transition from ADSL/cable to fibre will be near seamless for most users. You can bet ISPs will be trying hard to make it so and are likely to offer all sorts of deals (eg free/subsidised NBN-ready routers etc) to retain their customers. I don’t see this being a major opportunity for wireless ISPs to take over, especially when you consider how many people are on a contract these days. All else being equal, people will always take the easiest option.

            “I want the NBN to be the best it can be.”

            As do we all, but spamming the same tired argument across the internet is no way to achieve that. However if you want people to dismiss you as a crank, do carry on.

          • First, there are no NBN plans on the current wholesale model so your comparison is nonsensical.
            Yeah, all the current NBN plans are with no AVC/CVC (wholesale prices), so the real NBN prices are going to be a lot higher. That destroys your argument, not helping it

            Second, these ultra-cheap wireless plans you speak of are also cheaper than ADSL plans, but has this destroyed the business case for ADSL?
            Thats because you can already get ADSL for ~$30 a month. Check exetel for example http://www.exetel.com.au/a_plan_pricing_new.php

            Under NBN that won’t be possible, since the ULL/LSS for ADSL is a lot lower then NBN’s AVC, and there is no CVC charges

            As you well know, those figures are a guess at average retail prices. It remains nonsensical to compare them against the cheapest known retail plans and try to draw some sort of conclusion from that.
            And due to CVC pricing and set AVC prices, they can’t get any cheaper then that. This is what happens when you have a mandated monopoly, everyone is forced to pay those prices, and as stated in the buisness case, they have only allowed a 15% profit margin and excluded other costs

            I’m willing to bet the majority of people will stay with their current provider when the NBN rolls through their street – the transition from ADSL/cable to fibre will be near seamless for most users. You can bet ISPs will be trying hard to make it so and are likely to offer all sorts of deals (eg free/subsidised NBN-ready routers etc) to retain their customers. I don’t see this being a major opportunity for wireless ISPs to take over, especially when you consider how many people are on a contract these days. All else being equal, people will always take the easiest option.
            No the issue is when all the mobile people are running off in the city with Telstra’s LTE 4G and won’t move over to fixed line (NBN) because the wireless happens to be cheaper and mobile

            The number of people going wireless only is rising rapidly (in Australia and overseas), and as stated by the report evaluating the business case, it is a major risk, even moreso due to the fact that NBN is overpriced for the lower speeds compared to ADSL.

          • “Yeah, all the current NBN plans are with no AVC/CVC (wholesale prices), so the real NBN prices are going to be a lot higher. That destroys your argument, not helping it”

            Actually I didn’t mention current NBN plans at all. But since your brought it up, ISPs were charged a higher connection fee which amounted to $25/month over 12 months. They didn’t get free access to the NBN as you seem to imply. Argument remains intact. :)

            “Thats because you can already get ADSL for ~$30 a month. Check exetel for example http://www.exetel.com.au/a_plan_pricing_new.php”

            So still more expensive than wireless plans (especially when you realise Exetel’s cheap plans charge on a per GB basis), and yet Exetel remains in business and fixed-line broadband connections continue to increase? Once again there is no evidence that wireless is taking over from fixed today, and there’s no reason to believe that situation will change in an NBN world.

            “Under NBN that won’t be possible, since the ULL/LSS for ADSL is a lot lower then NBN’s AVC, and there is no CVC charges”

            Admit that you don’t have any idea what is and isn’t possible. Michael Malone doesn’t seem to think iiNet’s plans will be any more expensive under the NBN, why would I believe you over him?

            “This is what happens when you have a mandated monopoly, everyone is forced to pay those prices”

            Yes. If you want to use NBNco’s network you have to pay the price they ask. And if you want to use Telstra’s copper network today (the only national fixed-line carrier, or “monopoly” if you will) you have to pay the price they ask. So, what makes it so much worse under the NBN? I can think of several reasons why it will be better, not least being NBNco isn’t allowed to play in the retail space.

  3. They forget that many applications, eg realtime, Internet TV, MMOs, do not support wireless protocols as per minimum & recommended requirements specifications. They are obsessed with the infrastructure only ignoring global traffic protocol statististcs.

    Universally, the choice is completely up to the Internet user, dependent on what Internet applications they wish to use. The developers of such technologies will not be dictated to either.

  4. The shame is the NBN could have incorporated all this and LTE, but Quigley let us down.
    If Quigley had more skills, and would have done a proper job and not have been so pnwd -we could have had the NBN we deserved – composite, flexible, innovative, adaptive,evolvable, inexpensive.
    Today the NBN images as another ripoff and failure, the worlds worst rated NBN, in cost, mgt, foi, public interest, support, timeframe to benefit or usefulness.

    Quigley not matter how he spins or postures, is branded as part of that failure.
    In fact to many, anything else other than the NBN (even what we have today !) looks better by comparism.
    It was a shame the politics of it all compromised the people and the design and outcomes.
    But that also a reflection of whether the right people were selected and up to it. Quigley despite all his possible technical skills doesnt have the other skillls required to make of it what it should have been.

    The current NBN in Australia is dead, just waiting for the excuse needed to kill it so they can blame it on that.
    It wasnt killed off with the floods etc, coz labor knew it was already dead so hollow log until they need it.

    • What are you talking about Rebecca? The NBN is rolling out fibre, satellite, and LTE wireless. (Taken from what I’m sure is your favourite news source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/tender-decision-close-on-nbns-wireless-component/story-e6frgakx-1226009698156 )
      Quigley is extremely competent and I’m glad that they chose him to head up the company! Please, less politicising, less ‘one line quotables’ (I’m sure there’s a term for this) and more facts.

      The NBN has a take up rate of 87% in Armidale (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/pipe-dreams-of-a-faster-future-20110218-1azqa.html), 75% in Kiama (http://www.zdnet.com.au/election-result-boosted-kiama-nbn-opt-in-339308325.htm), and has a national average take up rate of 71%, with places like Brunswick (High in rented apartments/townhouses with slow body corporates) dragging the rate down (Last I heard it was 40% or so?)

      It is far, far from dead.

      As for you claiming that anything else looks better than what we have today – That’s laughable. The average speed of Australian internet connections is <8Mbps, with a very few getting a higher level. (I myself will be one of those lucky few soon, but I'm still waiting with bated breath for the NBN to roll by)

      So as I said, facts, not politics.

      (By the way to the Delimiter people – Sorry for linking to other news outlets, I couldn't find any others)

      • You’re right – average broadband speeds are less than 8Mbps…I believe it is actually currently – (according to latest Akamai reporting) – 5.8Mbps…

        When you factor in all speeds – (include non-broadband, ie: dialup, ISDN, etc) – it falls just below 3Mbps.

        http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/01/australias-fastest-average-broadband-speed-is-5-8mbps/

        I’d have to dig them up, but the last set of ABS statistics – (October?) – had it less than 2Mbps.

        As for upload, the FASTEST available anywhere in Australia is 2Mbps.

      • She is talking about the fact that NBN’s time frame is so ridiculous, and its cost is so high, that by the time it finishes it would have created more problems then it would have solved.

        • Complete and utter conjecture with no basis in fact.

          No where in the world has a telecommunications project of this scale been done, so we have no way of knowing what a ‘normal’ timeframe should be, what a ‘normal’ cost should be.

          No, wait, I lie. Over how many DECADES was the original telecommunications network, as laid down by PMG, built? Considering we’re getting this done in less than 10 years, across the entire continent/country, I’d say that’s pretty damned good.

          Also, she barely mentions that. Her whole post is filled with unsubstantiated rhetoric. Defending it is not going to help your case.

          • No where in the world has a telecommunications project of this scale been done

            Yeah I wonder why… (Hint: probably because its a stupid idea)

            so we have no way of knowing what a ‘normal’ timeframe should be, what a ‘normal’ cost should be.
            Right, so we are stabbing in the dark? Thats good to know

            No, wait, I lie. Over how many DECADES was the original telecommunications network, as laid down by PMG, built?
            Comparing timespans on projects being built 50 years ago to ones being built now with technological advancements (among the other numerous factors I could provide) is sheer stupidity. Stop doing it.

            Next you are going to say that the timespan of NBN is really fast because caveman took hundreds of years to build roads, give me break

          • I’d say it’s more that Australia is in an extremely unique position, so there’s no way to correctly compare us to any other country in the world.
            We are a low population, low density island continent with no land borders. Most of our population is in certain areas, but we also have a proportion of people spread out all across it.

            No idea how you can claim it to be a stupid idea when the NBN Business Case, with it’s conservative predictions of take up, makes the case that it will be profitable, and in fact some articles go so far as to say they might make too much: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-study-warns-on-monopoly-profits-report-pd20110219-E83SX?OpenDocument&src=hp16

          • I’d say it’s more that Australia is in an extremely unique position,
            The only unique thing about our position is a labor government saying it will build the network completely themselves

            We are a low population, low density island continent with no land borders. Most of our population is in certain areas, but we also have a proportion of people spread out all across it.
            Sweden has a low population density (in fact, they are less urbanised then Australia, taking into account the 90% of Aus population in 1% of our land mass)

            So again, complete bullocks. The difference with Sweden is they don’t have numnuts running the government

            No idea how you can claim it to be a stupid idea when the NBN Business Case, with it’s conservative predictions of take up
            Conservative to who, NBNCo? Lol, give me a break. Thats like the Bank CEO’s in America saying that their borrowing patterns were ‘conservative’. Yeah right….

            makes the case that it will be profitable, and in fact some articles go so far as to say they might make too much: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-study-warns-on-monopoly-profits-report-pd20110219-E83SX?OpenDocument&src=hp16
            Yeah and I can find another 10 articles that say the opposite. Having all the assumptions happen in the NBN buisness case has about the same odds as Slash coming together with Alex Rose in guns and roses (I love that ‘conservative’ prediction about wireless only, NBNCo assuming that wireless only will suddenly start growing at like 0.2% per year when it actually has been growing at 1-2% per year for the past few years)

          • Actually, the difference between Sweden and Australia is that they have a private industry that works without government incentives. Sweden has the highest number of users connected to FTTP in Europe.

            Can you please provide a link that backs up your claim that wireless only has been growing by 1-2% per year? And by wireless only I mean true wireless only. If you look at Telstra’s claims you need to realise that they’re talking about homes without a home phone, but are quite likely to have a naked internet connection.

          • Again, that doesn’t show anything. I’ve checked back to 2008. It doesn’t show anything in regards to wireless only homes. It shows the growth of wireless broadband, but it also shows that fixed line broadband is growing as well.

    • “The shame is the NBN could have incorporated all this and LTE, but Quigley let us down.”

      I disagree with this — I have a high degree of respect for Mike Quigley. I think he’s doing a fantastic job within the constraints he has been handed.

  5. Call me old fashion but everybody I see on the street using their iPhone and iPad are nowhere near a fixed line/wifi connection, they are using one of the carriers.
    For me it’s not about speed, it’s about being connected anywhere anytime – not tethered to my brand new fibre connection at home!!!

    Shaun, if by takeup you mean having the connection installed in a home, then of course the takeup will be high. The residents are told if they don’t take the offer of a FREE connection while NBN are in the area, they will have to pay to have the connection installed at a later date. That cost would be anything from $300-$1000 depending on the work the cablers have to do!!!

    Give me a break people, you guys are being hoodwinked!!

    • Indeed, they’re no where near a fixed line connection, but there are two things I can think of off the top of my head:

      1) What are they using the connection for? According to the latest statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics ( http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/ ) that between the period of December 2009 and June 2010, while the number of mobile wireless connections rose by around 600,000, the amount downloaded via Wireless Broadband has fallen by nearly a thousand terabytes! This seems counter intuitive but I’ll talk about that soon.
      To keep it in perspective, the total number of fixed line broadband services (Only including ADSL services in this figure as we don’t have the numbers for the others) went up by around 60,000 and the usage on fixed line services went up by 28,000 terabytes.
      What this indicates to me is while more people are using wireless connections, they are using it less often and for only simple things. I’m willing to bet that number is inflated by the number of services that receive emails only.

      2) A wireless connection still, at some point, goes through fixed line infrastructure. Improving this infrastructure will improve wireless.

      So how, exactly, are we being hoodwinked? We are debating on facts, not politics and ideologies.

    • “For me it’s not about speed, it’s about being connected anywhere anytime – not tethered to my brand new fibre connection at home!!!”

      Uh yeap … and what sort of backhaul connection do you think that mobile connection is eventually connected to? Wait … could it just be fibre? I think it could. This is exactly what Quigley is saying — wireless and wired infrastructure are not competitors — they are complementary. You can’t have any wireless access without wired backing it up.

  6. There is no debate. The NBN is all about announcements and creating a vast bureaucracy. They havent actually done anything !!

  7. Facts:

    At least $1B spent so far.
    600+ new public servants, with a great marketing arm (to reply to posts etc)
    Two years + in operation so far.
    … and 300 customers.

    NBN simply is doing a great job, its the definition of the “job” which is the issue.

  8. Mr Quigley had better start listening, and soon.

    There are many, far more qualified experts on this subject matter, all with a valid contribution.

    Take some advice or pay the price might be appropriate here.

    • What exactly does Quigley need to start listening to? He hasn’t dismissed wireless – He’s admitted it’s a complementary service! The NBN is even rolling out wireless LTE (The same thing that Telstra is!), to which I’ve provided a link earlier.

      Which experts are expressly saying that a wireless only network is the future? Please provide your sources and links where appropriate.

      Also, want to hear an interesting thing about ‘4G’, which is apparently the future of wireless at the moment? It’s not real 4G: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-wireless-generation-gap-america-in-the-slow-lane.ars
      The ITU, who are responsible for these naming standards and such, changed the definition from a more advanced technology (not due to be available for rollout till end of 2012) to a currently available one. Why? I don’t particularly know. I suspect (This is not a fact) that it’s due to industry pressure.

      • “Which experts are expressly saying that a wireless only network is the future? Please provide your sources and links where appropriate.”

        Where else but The Australian? ;)

    • “Mr Quigley had better start listening, and soon.”

      I won’t say Quigley is right about everything, or entirely non-partisan. He’s human, after all. But after attending quite a few press conferences, I have to say I respect the guy a great deal. He knows what he’s on about — and I think we should listen to him a great deal more.

  9. We wouldn’t be having this debate at all if not for Telstra and News Ltd running a propaganda campaign and buying political influence. It’s a reflection of the power of large corporations to influence policy and public opinion, like the mining tax.

    Notice how the mining companies just banked massive profits and the taxpayers missed out on billions in revenue, even though they’re selling our resources. What’s it to them to throw a few million in a FUD campaign against the government when they stand to make billions?

    They’ll win eventually, notice how climate change went from an indisputable fact accepted by virtually everyone to a contentious issue within a couple of years? That’s despite increasing evidence and certainty of scientific opinion. History is full of similar examples.

    The arguments against the NBN based on cost or technology are as utterly vacuous as the idea mining companies would go broke, and the Australian economy would collapse if they paid more tax. The people making these claims for reliance on wireless, or say the NBN is too expensive, are either inexpressibly stupid suckers for propaganda, or simply shills trying to sabotage its development for selfish reasons.

    • “Telstra and News Ltd running a propaganda campaign”

      I won’t comment on what News Ltd is up to at the moment … but on what basis are you saying that Telstra is running a propaganda campaign? Since they got a new CEO — David Thodey — the company has been remarkably up front and honest about whatever it’s been involved in — I haven’t seen much evidence of propaganda.

  10. My thoughts:

    Stop wasting money on this NBN bureaucracy.
    Divert a small portion of the funds to subsidise the private sector to actually provide services, not announcements.
    If the Labor dream is to nationalise and control the Telecommunications network, then they are being very successful. Fixed line telecommunications investment stopped two years ago.
    In five plus years time when we finally come out of this socialist experiment the country will be crippled except for the LTE+ installations. Be it good or bad, we had better get used to wireless. There wont be anything else around. (Apart from a huge bill for the bureaucracy.)

  11. So I accept your view that investment has increased in Korea, and in the UK. This is, however Australia.

    The Market did fail from about 2002 onwards because of government interference (yep Liberals). No spectrum was released to enable any regional development. Go ask the ACMA boys why. Since the 2007 elections, not only has the market failed, it has given up trying (Yep Labor).

    The private sector will build efficiently into areas, and where the business case is lacking, generally a normal government will assist.

    Right now, there is no regional subsidy.
    There is no business case.
    There is nothing, and current systems are being slowly turned off.
    Like I said — Its LTE+ or nothing.
    The excuses are already appearing. Labour shortages apparently.

    The crapo that comes out of the mouth of the NBN people just doesnt cover the truth: They have have pretty well stuffed Rergional telecommunications.

  12. In the pecking order:
    Best is fttp
    Next is Fttn
    Then Fixed Wireless (post 2009 systems)
    Then Adsl2+
    Then Satellite
    Then Dialup
    Then Aust post.

    The armidale residents are privileged to now have a great system on its way. Its not there yet, but it will arrive eventually. For $70-$100 per month they will have access to one of the best systems in the world. Some may stick with their cheaper connections however.

    The mob outside Armidale are in deep trouble however. They will just have to trust that the government will get to them in the next 12+ years. ( Plus extra for labour shortages).

    Just what sort of numskull actually thinks that this grand socialist experiment will actually deliver ?

    • $70-$100 per month, huh?
      http://www.internode.on.net/residential/fibre_to_the_home/nbn_plans/
      http://www.iinet.net.au/nbn/

      I fully realise these are ‘trial’ prices, but Internode has said that the prices will be close to what they will charge post trial – And keep in mind, Internode are considered a premium ISP.
      Even the NBN in it’s business case states the lower end will be ~$54/m. That being said, that’s not taking into account budget providers such as TPG.

      As for ‘the rest of them’, everyone will be covered at some point by one or more of the NBN’s networks, be it fibre, satellite or wireless. The wireless will be delivered with LTE standards, which is what everyone is so congratulating Telstra about.
      As for ‘the rest of them’, the rollout schedule goes till 2021. I suspect I will be on the tail end of that, but I’m not complaining – It will come.

      • Even the NBN in it’s business case states the lower end will be ~$54/m. That being said, that’s not taking into account budget providers such as TPG.
        Of course TPG hasn’t released, or even commented on NBN pricing, they won’t be able to support their $60 unlimited on NBN without making a substantial loss on the NBN

        Those CVC prices are a real bitch for any ISP that actually wants to provide large quotas (and its users actually using these quotas). Not surprising only internode,iiNet,Telstra support the NBN, they are the only companies that overcharge for their quota and have a massive market share of light users to leverage CVC costs

          • Uh, nothing got addressed there. Maybe you should read what was talked about before just referencing the articles stupidly

          • Yes it did. It addressed your ‘CVC prices are a real bitch’ by pointing out the fact that the CVC prices are actually not that bad. What was it, a 10/10 connection peaking up to 25, with 150gb of quota, costing something like $28/m wholesale? That’s -inclusive- of the port cost. I’d say that’s pretty damned good.

          • No it didn’t, Micheal (or that ‘brochure’) from NBNCo, used examples, and didn’t reference actual CVC costs to the ISP’s I am talking about (i.e. TPG)

            So please, just stop replying. There is a big difference between an ISP that completely overcharges for quota (need to pay $110+ for a TB of quota) that has a market share full of light and medium users and an ISP like TPG that has unlimited for $60 that has a market share full of heavy users

            Both Michael (and you) are being deliberately mis-representative, at least NBNCo said that they are examples and not real prices for certain ISP’s

            Thank you, come again

          • They are examples of CVC pricing. Why, exactly, would they be different per ISP? From my understanding the NBN is designed to provide ubiquitous wholesale access at the same costs to all access seekers.

          • Because CVC is a contention ratio, its like a resource, ISP’s have to purchase it before the users ‘use’ the internet, and then the contention being created by those internet users is payed for with CVC

            If you have an ISP that has a lot of light/medium users as their market share (i.e. iiNet or Internode) then their CVC costs aren’t that high, because even though they have a lot of people, on lets say 25/25 gig quota download, most of those people will only do basic browsing or downloading, so they won’t take up much CVC. The examples that Michael provided (of some mystical wan setup) is the same

            However with an ISP like TPG, who has unlimited for $60, they have horrifically high contention. In fact these were the reasons why TPG has had so many complains about contention of heavy users constantly downloading during peak hours. Of course, ever since TPG bought PIPE, and due to the fact that they use ULL/LSS, they don’t have any contention at all to pay for, its all ‘free’ for TPG internally. Put in CVC costs, their business model goes upside down. They get heavily taxed because they happen to be an ISP that has a business model of providing as much internet at great value

            CVC costs are different from ISP to ISP because different ISP’s provide different quotas, different prices and have different market shares. So far the only ISP’s that support NBN are the ones that undercharge for quota (iiNet, internode,Telstra), ISP’s that undercharge for quota, have a lot of light/medium users to leverage CVC costs, and have far more expensive costs for the plans

    • “The mob outside Armidale are in deep trouble however. They will just have to trust that the government will get to them in the next 12+ years. ( Plus extra for labour shortages).”

      If you’re referring to regional areas, the NBN’s LTE rollout is scheduled to begin next year. They’re likely to have access to proper broadband much sooner than they would have if left to “the market”, which has little or no interest in the regions (not enough profit).

      “Just what sort of numskull actually thinks that this grand socialist experiment will actually deliver ?”

      Ignoring your apparent confusion about the meaning of “socialist”, the NBN is currently on schedule and within budget. What sort of numskull looks at past success and predicts failure?

  13. And while I’m at it, perhaps Tony Windsor could actually assist here. Unleash a bit of spectrum to the private sector with a use it or lose it clause Tony and see what happens. Now that would actually help the regional areas. The great mother government would then have some real competition, and it would be built rapidly.

    You may not realise it but the current NBN plan is for a MAXIMUM of 12Mbps. Then will not commit to a minimum speed, despite spending many troughs full of your tax money to build it.

    Like I said eariler, divert a small portion of the funds to subsidise the private sector to actually provide services, not announcements.

  14. The Tasmanian prices used a ZERO cost wholesale model – ie the NBN gave it away free. Maybe the NBN will give it away for free too in Armidale, in which case those prices will hold.

    The real prices will add a minimum of $25+ to these prices, and that is only after a considerable user base has been somehow created (read 15000+). Huge risk here.

  15. Conroy and Quigley speak differently to different audiences:
    Current NBN plan is to build to supply regional wireless services to a planned 40% takeup rate.
    The Max speed is 12/1 Mbps.
    They have not committed to a min speed.
    If you are not one of the chosen 40% you will be offered satellite. It gets worse every announcement.

    The others (like satellite only) I guess are “collateral damage” with zero hope for the future.

    Comrades I just dont accept that the Government knows best.

  16. Hi Jeremy
    “What’s stopping the private sector from doing that today?”: Good question.

    We are doing it. We are just stuck with 7 year old gear and we hate it. No Spectrum at any cost is being released and without it we cant modernise these systems.

    We are in the regions now and we arent asking for handouts – just get out out of our way. :)

    • So you’re a wireless operator who has a vested interest in promoting wireless products? Imagine that.

      Ignoring that, aren’t they selling the freed up analog TV spectrum? That seems to be what you’re asking for.

    • “We are doing it. We are just stuck with 7 year old gear and we hate it. No Spectrum at any cost is being released and without it we cant modernise these systems.”

      So the problem is NOT a lack of funds, as you seemed to be claiming earlier (asking for the govt to “subsidise the private sector”, aka govt handouts).

      “We are in the regions now and we arent asking for handouts”

      Wait what?

      • Some towers have a lot of customers and they are self funding. Others only have a few and they need help.
        It doesnt help when the ACMA has a license fee of $600+ PA to service two or three customers. So a subsidy may be simply not bushwacking us with large fees. This is all theroetical anyway, the spectrum is proposed to be released at this cost – it actually hasnt happened after some five years of the ACMA “working hard” to make it happen: but thats another story.

        The (lack of) spectrum crippled the regions: We just dont know why. Someone should tackle Chapman (acma chair) and ask him why.

  17. Shaun you are full of it. If you has attended the NBN commercial presentations you would take note that the 12Mbps is now a max speed, and no minimum speed has been offered. Has this changed since early February ?

  18. Yes Shaun I am one of those low life running dog capitalists in the private sector. Dirty word these days. I do hope to retire one day to a real job in the public service :)

  19. Page three of NBN Industry Wireless preso.:
    Wireless: “UP to 12Mbps”
    Satellite: “UP to 12 Mbps”
    Fibre ” “Up to 1000MBps”

    This was questioned at two preso’s to ensure it was NOT a typo. I’m surprised you have neglected to quote the true source instead of hearsay type articles. Forgive me for the “full of it ” comment. Your posts are bs.

    • So you’re calling the article by The Australia hearsay, huh? Nice to know.

      When was that presentation given? This article and quote was taken from 18/02/2011 – Last Friday as of todays date.

  20. Ostrich Quigley. The Birdman of Alcatel, now as NBN Head Chook.
    He doesnt help himself much does he.
    This Australian NBN is compromised beyond any salvage
    NBN RIP OBLTE basically

  21. NBN released the papers on 21/2/2011- supercedes your data.
    My quotes are accurate and taken from their papers. I havent provided the link in case they dont want it provided to the great unwashed. (You know about secret stuff comrade). I also cant find it on their website from the front menu.
    Anyway — ring them and ask for the customer collabration wireless forum Industry presentation link.

  23. Quigley said discussion on LTE v Fixed ‘is futile’ – because they are complementary. ie you use one for one thing and the other for something else but will still need both. He has it wrong right there.
    They are totally competitive and there is plenty of evidence of wireless ONLY and happy large user populations never needing, wanting or using fixed. Its why fixed and ARPU per fixed is falling thru the floor.

    If the NBN model is mostly fixed, with only small user scope that could be wireless, it will be eaten aliive.
    It if fully accomodates wireless (like the USA) to be both fixed and wireless, it would have to be total monopolistic overbuild and all competition removed to make it viable. That isnt going to happen.

    This is also a global debate about emerging and alternative forms of networks that can be full service for most and are highly competitive and displace each other. So to try and shut down the debate here because Quigley is the expert, everyone else iis not, is him being futile.

    These are the exact behaviours that have lead most to not trust the NBN and a loss of confidence in him.
    We are not allowed to state the obvious, and discussion is ‘futile’.
    Seems like Quigely is really out of touch, and the NBN in big hole of his own making.

    • “Its why fixed and ARPU per fixed is falling thru the floor.”

      Do you have a link for this? ABS stats show fixed broadband connections are going up and usage (ie volume of data) is going though the roof. I haven’t seen any hard numbers showing fixed “falling through the floor”, unless you’re talking about fixed telephony which is a different discussion.

      “So to try and shut down the debate here because Quigley is the expert, everyone else iis not, is him being futile.”

      Not sure how any debates are being “shut down”, but Quigley very much is an expert on telecommunications. A quick glance at his resume should tell you what you need to know.

      “We are not allowed to state the obvious, and discussion is ‘futile’.”

      Once again I don’t understand how you are “not allowed” to state whatever you like. Has someone issued you a gag order? If not, stop your whining.

    • Please provide sources to back up your claims that a fixed line operator with a small proportion of wireless assets will be ‘eaten alive’. Also please provide sources that show experts expressly stating that a wireless only network is the way to go.

      I’m not going to address the fixed line falling through the floor, as that’s already been done by Jeremy. (And myself on this page, somewhere.)
      What I will point out that Jeremy missed is a bit more interesting: He pointed out that data usage for fixed line connections has surged. Interesting thing about the ABS figures is it shows that wireless data consumption has fallen: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/

  24. Our wireless assets are not being eaten alive, they are rusting out. The problem is that there is nothing to replace them. A huge vacuum is forming through the absolute stiffling of any competition to this NBN. Not good comrades.

  25. Fixed line in the NBN assumption of what its intended to replace (voice/FIXED PC to internet) is falling.
    The reason perhaps that broadband usage is up, wireless usage is down, data usage (per user) is down
    is 1 million or so new smart phones and users – able to roam across a choice of connnectivity seamlessly..
    Including but not dependent on wireless thru a fixed line at home, or at work or a community access point.
    +
    So about a billion additional Gb being suddenly used in quite new and different mobile/fixed line consumption would show quite new and different characteristic… sigh. It just shows how out of touch the NBN rent boys here are with what is happening across the world, or even here under their noses in Australia.
    +
    With smart devices, they are built to the lowest common demoninater in access.
    They have a completely different price structure and consumption model.
    A user on a smart phone can quite easily get 100% of full service voice, data and interactive services for a total cost of $49 or less. 3gb data limits easily suffice per month for full 100% needs for many.
    Apps are built increasingly to absolute lowest common demoninators of low or medium speed connectivity,
    A 14 year old in china or india on a smart device but low speed or congested network is the design point.
    The assumption the NBN will bring a new generation of intensely heavy bandwith dependent apps is wrong.
    (or TV or anything for that matter, ITV is not going to be a fixed point network dependent service at all).
    +
    A fibre to home loop fixed point only NBN provides no special value or service worth paying for.
    Once a service provider has ‘locked’ up the demographic on the smart mobile device, there is no wallet or interest in paying for any alternative fixed connection for many.
    So it is NOT complementary but competitive & cannabilistic to the NBN assumption of fixed voice & fixed PC.
    Quigley looks foolish when he selectively uses information and spin that it is complementary and people will increasingly have both. That is not supported by the facts or global trends to ‘wireless only mobile devices’.
    +
    The NBN does not provide complementary wireless services to fixed, it provides one or the other.
    The demographic that is wireless is small. If the NBN provided wireless to all, then its entire fixed plan would have to be binned completely. So thats another set of lies and spin from the NBN.
    +
    Quigley is trying to gag and mislead the debate (read the article). The article was about Quigley blatantly telling mistruths to the Senate Estimates Committee when the facts are otherwise.

  26. @Jeremy re ‘a quick glance at Quigleys resume will tell you what you need to know’. Yes unfortunately.
    The SEC statement public record included a statement [edited …]
    The kindest view is that Quigley was unable as COO to manage that company correctly.
    The mess the NBN is in, its recent worlds worst ranking, the community division and hostility to the NBN shows that Quigley is not a leader or business man and the same is happening again.
    He is polarising and politicising the NBN rather than getting consensus and support for it.
    Quigley may have technical skills in a limited domain to a techie audience, but he is not employed as a CTO. The NBN requires a proper CEO and leader who can lead, demonstrate vision, build public confidence.
    Quigley does not have those skills.

    [Renai here. I edited this comment to remove a personal attack which was factually inaccurate and may have constituted defamation. Cheers.]

    • Yeah.

      Under budget and ahead of schedule – this Quigley guy shouldn’t be involved. Government projects are supposed to run over budget and behind schedule aren’t they?

      What were they thinking?

Comments are closed.