Conroy’s fibre claims “absolute tripe”, says Turnbull

68

Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has labelled the idea that the next generation of consumer services could only be delivered over fibre-optic cable “nonsense” and “absolute tripe”, in a fiery interview in which he highlighted the strengths of rival wireless technologies.

Just yesterday, NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley 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 would be needed in the nation’s future and that they were complementary.

However, asked about the issue tonight on the ABC’s Lateline show, Turnbull said the idea of his rival, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, that only fibre could supply Australia’s next generation needs was “nonsense, absolute tripe”.

Turnbull said he was “baffled” as to why Conroy had a “fixation with fibre to the home”, arguing that the Government’s broadband policy should be “completely technology agnostic”. “You do it over a variety of platforms,” he said. “This one size fits all approach that the Government is taking is reckless.”

The former Liberal Leader’s comments came as the debate over fixed versus wireless broadband has recently been stoked by Telstra’s revelation that it would shortly be upgrading its flagship Next G mobile network to the Long-Term Evolution standard — which has the potential to dramatically boost the speeds available to end users.

Turnbull said there was no doubt wireless “will be a significant competitor to the NBN … significantly more competitive with the NBN than the NBN’s management thinks”.

The Liberal stalwart used one of the globe’s most-hyped technology companies to make his case that wireless was key to the nation’s future — claiming that iPhone and Mac manufacturer Apple, “probably the leading technology company in this area in the world”, was pulling in three times as much revenue from its wireless-based products as it was from its wired ones. Turnbull himself has been a frequent user of Apple’s iPad device for some time — and recently ditched his BlackBerry in favour of an iPhone.

However, Turnbull did acknowledge at one point that wireless and wired technologies were complementary. “Yes, they do overlap,” he said. “A lot of people use both.”

“But a lot of people use wireless only.”

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

68 COMMENTS

  1. Hi Renai,

    You don’t seem to express an opinion in this article.
    Could it be your reconsidering your support for Conroy’s extravagant waste of a work it out as you go along plan ?

    • It’s a news article, Reality Check. I’m still in favour of the NBN technically, but I don’t agree with the creation of a new national telco monopoly. However, see my thoughts here — people need to acknowledge that the NBN is now inevitable:

      http://bit.ly/ejzLkk

      • You’d like us to acknowledge its inevitable to shut down debate, but it most certainly isn’t. Its a line of thinking most tech writers take, as the NBN will commercially benefit tech writers massively and don’t want people asking questions that will take away the cash cow.

        Personally I’ve been waiting a decade for the time I can finally ditch the landline and go fully wireless – I want the net where I am, not have the net require me to be where it needs for me to access – that’s the future.

        The NBN will take 10 years to roll out – do you really think Labor can hang onto power that long?

        • I’m sorry, what? Tech writers, especially independent small ones like Renai, will benefit from LTE more than FTTN GPON because LTE would allow them to function sans office, despite the huge data cost associated.

          And good luck with the net comes to me wherever you are idea. Using EM to do that gives to many limitations, due it part to complicated topology and also the tendancy for users to cluster (creating contention).

          Out in the middle of the outback? You’re off grid. In a double brick house in a valley? You’re off grid. At an impromptu political rally with over 50K people? You’re off grid there too.

          I envision one day you’ll always be connected, but that will involve some as yet unobtainable technology like wormholes or an unprecedented level of cooperation from many individuals. As it stands you’ll still have to go too the network. You’ll still need to get to where it needs you to be Scotty.

        • Yes, I, the owner of a site on which the NBN is debated daily, would like to shut down debate. Of course, how rational.

          I don’t want to shut down debate — I want the debate to move on and progress — I am tired of it staying stuck on the same subjects which we have discussed endlessly and achieved resolution on.

          • ” I am tired of it staying stuck on the same subjects which we have discussed endlessly and achieved resolution on”

            Me too. It reminds me of the tiny percentage of vocal lunatics that still argue argue for Creation, when there is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution and 95% of all scientists agree with it. Yet as always, people just believe what they want to believe and ignore the data.

            It’s the same with the NBN. Every IT expert I know is in favour of the NBN and has explained incredibly clearly to the world why wireless is a complimentary technology to the NBN, not in any way an alternative. Why is that people can’t trust the word of experts that work in IT for a living?

        • Wireless needs a fixed connection in order to be successful, it is a complementary, not competing infrastructure. It only works if a bulk of your data goes over the wired network. Wireless (via the phone network) is really only good if you want to send small amounts of data wherever you are.

          I think the biggest misleading factor is when people think of large volumes over wireless, they think of a wired network with a wireless router. This won’t change, other than you will have a bigger pipe going to your router.

          The wireless sector (over the phone networks) is working well, the fixed line part is the issue. NBN isn’t a threat to wireless, they will work together. Not having the NBN is the biggest threat to wireless, as the wireless networks will never cope with everyone sending the bulk of their data over the air.

  2. I’m baffled by Mr. Turnbull….I thought he was smarter than this. It appears that he is banking on the general public not gaining a true understanding of the technology involved here. I hope his hopes prove to be very wrong and the message gets out there. ie. following/using the U.S. as an example is stupid and putting your argument firmly in the wireless-only basket is plain old bloody-mindedness and then to have the gall to claim that the NBN is fixed-line only. Malcolm, sir, when people come home with all their whiz-bang wireless products do you think they will continue to be linked to that distant tower OR (in the NBN world) do you think they will switch over their device to their home wireless LAN (that’s Local Area Network Malcolm) running off their home fiber connection……I know what I would be doing. Just like you when you go to your office Malcolm….onto the wired connection (that’s what the blue cord is!!!):
    http://delimiter.com.au/2011/02/16/turnbull-secretly-loves-the-nbn-claims-internode/

    NBN & wireless…..the unbeatable combo!!!

    Wireless only….like the failing U.S. example
    http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2011/01/26/26gigaom-obama-mobile-broadband-wont-save-us-16268.html

    no thank you!

    Where is your actual policy Malcolm?

    FAIL.

    • He is smarter than this.

      His boss has asked him to shoot it down at all costs, so he takes every attack angle possible – whether they be weak angles, or strong angles.

    • As for his “blue cord” – you’ll find that photo is an old one taken in his parliament house office, where the secure network is not available wirelessly. Having defence security clearance myself, there are significant restrictions about what can and cannot be made accessible via wireless connectivity.

  3. “This one size fits all approach that the Government is taking is reckless.” So, was the one size fits all for the orginal copper lines reckless? Or was it better to do it over a variety of platforms? Sorry, but this is just nonsence. Look at what is happening because they didn’t use one size fits all in the rail network!

    Wireless will only be used for small data usage. Twitter, Facebook & Email etc…Fibre for the REAL data usage. Just look at the statistics at the ABS….

    141892 TB of data for fixed line UP from 113410 TB in 6 Months.
    13330 TB of data for wireless DOWN from 14251 TB in 6 Months even after an INCREASE of 400,000 extra users!

    This data represents alot.

  4. Wow so a secure network has restrictions over wireless. Wow stop the press! Michael there as most on the wireless side of the debate say there IS a place for fibre connecting Government departments would be one example and to my knowledge an example of what HAS been done in many cases. The main problem most of us have is location with under 5 people. over 5 people will have the funding required to foot the bill but under 5 ie homes I can’t see there being that ability. Just because we want something doesn’t mean we should have it. Especially when we as a country need to borrow for it!

    • No no no…the poster was trying to suggest that Malcolm using a wired connection in the photo is a tacit rejection of wireless technology – I was just pointing out that it’s most likely not permitted for the secure network in parliament house.

      Most facilities have under government security restrictions have multiple networks: the “restricted network”, the “secret network”, the “top secret network”…etc…

  5. …arguing that the Government’s broadband policy should be “completely technology agnostic”. “You do it over a variety of platforms,” he said. “This one size fits all approach that the Government is taking is reckless.”

    What so 3 platforms depending on population density is enough variety for you Mr Turnbull?

    And I don’t understand the problem with one size fits all, the only problem with Fibre is limited range of wireless communications via WiFi, which is addressed by a healthy wireless market. So some people should be given an inferior technology just because it’s cheaper?

    You don’t want agnosticism. You want them not to spend all that money. Be honest.

    • arguing that the Government’s broadband policy should be “completely technology agnostic”. “You do it over a variety of platforms,” he said. “This one size fits all approach that the Government is taking is reckless.”

      “What so 3 platforms depending on population density is enough variety for you Mr Turnbull?”

      Beat me to it. That’s the part that really got under my skin too.. Fibre to 93% of homes (with the possibility of more) plus LTE/HSPA+ and satellite for the remainder of the population where fibre isn’t possible or practical. That sounds rather “technology agnostic” to me.

      • And people who just want to use wireless in fibre-serviced areas can. Nobody is stopping any company from rolling out anything – wireless or fibre.

        Some people act as if the wireless networks are being turned off in the fibre areas.

  6. How can a Government broadband policy be “completely technology agnostic”? If the Government does not focus on a technology, then the result will be the cheapest possible technology being used ie. wireless.

    The “variety of platforms” approach means no improvement for people who already have cable or ADSL2+.

  7. Renai,

    Your previous articles state clearly you positively support the NBN2.0 and not just view it as a plan that is now underway and inevitable to reach its conclusion. e.g ANTI NBN junkies.

    So I’ll take your current expressions as a weakening of support for the NBN2.0 but not an abandonment of it.

    But you should keep in mind that NBN2.0 is a plan that even now is still not finalised ! And even if it was, in the next 10 years before completion hopefully a sense of reality, a sense of viability will reshape it.

    p.s.
    As per the Hayman Is. conference attested to by Prof Coutts (gilligan coutts actually). It concluded the NBNco would split into 2 entities. To give 1 of the entities the only and small chance of being attractive enough to raise investment interest ! !

    • “I’m still in favour of the NBN technically, but I don’t agree with the creation of a new national telco monopoly. However, see my thoughts here — people need to acknowledge that the NBN is now inevitable:”

      My view is clear.

      • @Renai, You need to look outside the square. Would you rather a Monoploy (Telstra) who sells wholesaler and retail or NBN Co which sells Wholesale only?

  8. Why are they bothering to argue the merits of Wireless over Fiber? They’re two completely different technologies with a completely different space to fill in the market!

    While I accept that the promise to roll fiber out to every household in Australia is unnecessary and excessive, the roll-out of it to create a better internet backbone between towns to cities, and to provide it to the node in built up areas is essential! The copper & ADSL infrastructure is quite literally rotting away, and the current infrastructure design featuring the horrible split pair cabling makes availability and stable internet connections a nightmare to achieve.

    The proposed 4G wireless systems will never realistically be able to compare with the achieved bandwidth which can be provided by fiber. Yes, the capability for a 4G tower is there to achieve a 1gbps connection… But only if you’re the only person connected to that tower… standing next to the tower… Using only one device. Connect 1000 people to this single tower, providing each of them with a Telstra mobile phone and a laptop using the service and you’ll see POTENTIAL internet speeds of 1gbps, while realistically only achieving 10-20mbps, max.

    Current Telstra NextG wireless speeds are promised with a POTENTIAL internet speed of 42mbps. Meanwhile if you’ll look at the results shown by customers over at whirlpool (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/943314) – you’ll find that the people in the best areas rarely get more than 2mbps.

    In terms of justified speeds, Telstra is simply boosting their Wireless network in relative speeds from ADSL to ADSL2+. Politicians need to get a clue, stop arguing about matters which they’ve been poorly informed about purely to gain political power, and focus on actually rolling out the solution rather than costing it more money by delaying it.

  9. Turnbull, you’re way better than this.
    Just hurry up and knife Abbott in the back already.
    Revenge is a dish best served cold, after all.
    Then you can stop arguing a case that you in your heart don’t even believe in.
    Nor do the Nationals. Wasn’t it Barnaby who produced a paper recommending a fibre network for Australia?
    Just because it’s Labor policy does not make it a bad idea.

    You know it. We know it. Your party knows it.
    Ditch Abbott and put this nonsense behind you.

  10. Ahh Malcolm, with every passing interview and article you are just proving to all of us how little you actually know about the technologies involved. Just because you were a Money Man in Ozemail doesn’t mean you know anything about the industry technically. Just as if I had banking shares it wouldn’t make me a finance expert.

    Maybe Malcolm could actually technically explain his bullshit claims about wireless?

    Hey Malcolm, tell us exactly know how 4G wireless – with a theoretical maximum of 100mb in a lab, but has a real real world performance of around 1-12mb when factoring in environmental conditions, distance from towers, load on network etc, and even then Telstra has announced it will be CBD only AND they will be throttling ALL 4G connections just so it can maintain that 1-12mb, lets us know how thats going to compete with the 100Mb Fibre, when 100Mb is the STARTING POINT of what fibre can do and it already does 1Gb and 10gbe already in real world conditions. Please Malcolm, explain it to us how wireless even gets a sniff in terms of comparison with fibre? You’re the Opposition technology expert. You and your party pimped your Ozemail ‘expertise’ now prove to us why its viable instead of just pouting like a little girl and saying ‘Just cause it is’.

    Further, why are more technology focused news sites not challenging Turnball on this? Why are you giving him a free pass? Everytime he pops his head up with these utterly fraudulent remarks he should be stomped on and shown for the utter fraud that he is. I know The Australian and wider News Ltd press isn’t going to so it behooves the other publications to pick it up and put actual FACTS out there and not more FUD.

  11. Renai,

    If your for 93% of the pop. to be provided with fibre. Then you for extravagant waste.
    If you are for $37 B (over $50 actually, it can be proven) being spent, then your for extravagant waste.
    If you dont recognise 3.5 million homes use fix wire for voice only. Then your for extravagant waste.
    If you dont recognise over 200,000 fixed wire services are being terminated every year and LTE isnt even here yet, then your are a bigger fool than Conroy.
    If your for stoping 2 HFC networks which can service 2.6 million homes with 100 Mb/s TODAY, your a fool.
    If your for paying off the owners of the networks to do so, your a fool, possibly a criminal, but definitely immoral.
    etc etc etc.

    Conroy now recognises his stupidity but cant face addressing his mistake for obvious reasons.

    Others will definitely stop the NBNco with its current wasteful agenda, that is inevitable.
    The question is when will they get the chance to do so? And what will the changes be.

    My guess is when a few more first release sites get fibre and the towns that get 5000 sites available to NBNco fibre but only 3000 or so choose to take the free connection but only a few hundred actually pay to subscribe to it.

    You may like to reference the Tassy trial with the below cost introductory offers that got 263 subscribers out of approx 5000 premises with access to the new fibre. 5 % ! ! ! NOT 1 at that time took 100 Mb/s !!!

    Quigly advised the senate this week that figure was now 554. 11 % ! ! ! !

    • >If your for stoping 2 HFC networks which can service 2.6 million homes with 100 Mb/s TODAY

      HFC does not do this reliably. It cuts corners with upload speeds and can have congestion issues.

      Also, the networks are not being “stopped” until the fibre is in place to replace them.

      >3000 or so choose to take the free connection

      Most people are not yet aware of the benefits of the network. Also, Australians tend to be suspicious of anything “free”.

      >NOT 1 at that time took 100 Mb/s !!!

      I have heard otherwise.

      Even if that was true, so what? As their usage expands over time, they can switch to faster plans, all the way up to 1000/400Mbps.

    • Reality Check: From 5% to 11%…hmm, so it’s more than doubled in a few months – good result for a trial deployment.

      Reality Check: Uptake figures beyond 70% in most mainland first release sites – excellent result.

      Reality Check: Brunswick up to 50% uptake – lower figure mainly due to huge proportion of rental properties within the boundaries of the site requiring more complicated body corporate approvals.

      Reality Check: When the copper network is decommissioned, people who haven’t “uptaken” NBN services will need to do so to maintain any kind of service – (unless they choose wireless) – this will drive uptake massively.

      Reality Check: When new service types are added to the product suite – (NBN Co have a rolling six-monthly plan for additional service types) – many homes will have more than one service. Imagine if in an area with 80% uptake for a base data service, half take up another service – (eg: IPTV) – now you have 120% uptake in that area. Kinda smokes 11%.

      Reality Check: If you’re going to call yourself “Reality Check”, start being realistic about the figures, instead of focussing on a trial deployment in Tasmania, where RSPs are not yet forced to move people away from the copper. If they are getting 70s and 80s in terms of uptake numbers on the mainland under the same circumstances now, well…the sky’s (almost) the limit.

    • If your for 93% of the pop. to be provided with fibre. Then you for extravagant waste.

      The obvious typo aside, this is how infrastructure works. You decide that we’re going to provide something, and being the federal government, you try and provide it to as many people as possible. It is as much waste as the nationalised original copper pair telephone network was.

      If you are for $37 B (over $50 actually, it can be proven) being spent, then your for extravagant waste.

      The obvious misunderstanding from you on how the NBN is financed aside, you’re forgetting how much the government spends on other things that could be considered waste. Why are they investing billions in the JSF program when buying another squadron of F/A 18s could be done cheaper to name one example?

      If you dont recognise 3.5 million homes use fix wire for voice only. Then your for extravagant waste.

      The HFC networks run out by Telstra and Optus were run out with an expected uptake of way less than 70%.

      If you dont recognise over 200,000 fixed wire services are being terminated every year and LTE isnt even here yet, then your are a bigger fool than Conroy.

      Considering the number of fixed line internet connections is actually going up I am curious as to where you got this figure, and if it is actually a valid statistic, what it actually represents?

      If your for stoping 2 HFC networks which can service 2.6 million homes with 100 Mb/s TODAY, your a fool.

      They aren’t being stopped, they are being upgraded to a better technology.

  12. To Mike K

    Actually if you project far enough into the future say 1000 years then Im sure your way to conservative with your 1gb/s forecast I think terabytes per second is what we will need! in other words you forecast for a 1gb/s is totally irrelavant.

    Just like the lane cove tunnel and countless other projects, what matters is the demand, the paying demand that will support the project to viability. NOT whether it gets built then fails commercially, gets bought for a fraction of its cost and then finds a commercial base to support it viability.

    And dont be fool, stay in your appropriate depth of propaganda. Docsis 3.0 for the HFC networks is not contended like ADSL. In a commercial reality HFC’s limitations can even be less than fibre, if other parts of the network are not sized appropriately. ie. TODAY a 100 Mb/s service form Telstra on their HFC is of considerably greater performance that 100 MB/s fibre from NBNco via internode, primus etc etc.

    • If the HFC networks are so viable, why did both Telstra and Optus stop building them years ago? That’s right, because they are not financially viable while there is a cheaper path into each premise.

      The copper network.

      Turn the copper network in HFC’d areas, and what would happen? People would move onto the HFC network, and suddenly they’d be viable.

      Simple really.

      And if you think that Docsis 3.0 suddenly makes a HFC uncontended, it’s time for another reality check, Reality Check.

      You are still sharing the cable once your drop reaches the street, with everyone else – (not just everyone in your street, but everyone else in every other street connected to the same cable headend).

      In an HFC network, only the high level distribution layers of the network are built with fibre. The street level network is just a coaxial cable, which is muxed out through separate coaxial cables to individual premises.

      Ever wondered what those evenly-spaced pieces of equipment are along the cable in the street? Yup, those are the muxes. Wander down your street and count them.

      Under the NBN, every single premise has a single uncontended fibre path back to the central concentrator in its FSA (Fibre Serving Area). Everyone gets a guaranteed amount of bandwidth from NTU to POI.

      No HFC network can hope to meet that specification. Ever.

    • >Actually if you project far enough into the future say 1000 years

      There is no need to be silly. Current projections show 1Gbps being useful for households within the next 10 years.

      >Docsis 3.0 for the HFC networks is not contended like ADSL

      Docsis 3.0 is contented at the physical layer. In most current deployments, only a single user per distribution area (could be 1000 customers) can get the full 100mbps at a time. Once again, upload speeds (arguably more important) are very limited.

      >TODAY a 100 Mb/s service form Telstra on their HFC is of considerably greater performance that 100 MB/s fibre from NBNco via internode, primus etc etc.

      That sounds completely made up.

      I have seen speed test results close to 100Mbps from both HFC and fibre networks, but with fibre having superior upload performance.

      • In pure “bandwidth” terms, I too fail to see how “100Mbps on cable” is any different in speed from “100Mbps on fibre”. But if you do want to compare, latency is going to be far improved on the fibre solution.

        (You know, that whole “speed of light” thing?)

        But saying “100Mbps on cable” is better than “100Mbps on fibre” is like saying a tonne of bricks is heavier than a tonne of feathers!

        • Technically the signal propagation (the “speed of light thing”) is faster in copper than fibre (glass), however this extra “speed” is offset by two, very important factors:

          1) amplification and/or repeaters. In order to propagate a signal over copper, because attenuation you need to amplify by a very large amount. This amplification takes a considerable amount of time to achieve (in relative terms). With fibre you don’t need to amplify the signal because the attenuation is much better (the single travels further).

          2) Noise. In simplest terms, in a fibre single, there is none. Noise means that although you might be able to get the singal that far in copper without it being cut off cable acting as a low pass filter, there is a very high chance that when it gets there, it will become gibberish.

          So the net result of this is that fibre can get better latency (less time from A to B) and can also push more data (higher bandwidth) than a copper or hybrid (FTTN/HFC) based technology.

          • I just hope we never see someone using two 5 metre lengths of fibre and copper pairs, whacking a complex signal through them, and then saying “Hey look everybody! Copper is actually faster! How you like them apples?”

            I wouldn’t put it past a few people through.

        • “It’s a super-dense substance known as dark matter, each pound of which weighs over ten thousand pounds!”

        • To Mike K and Michael W,

          Are you guys really this thick, its a good impersonation if your not.
          But actually i don’t think its act. anyway ;-)

          Yes 100 Mb/s on fibre is just as “heavy” as 100mb/s on HFC, NOMINALLY.

          Just like you can subscribe to ADSL 2+ 24 Mb/s, NOMINALLY and HSDPA 42 Mb/s, NOMINALLY.
          But in practical terms you will not get those speeds.

          But as I said, in the real world, the commercial network connected world, subscribing to 100 Mb/s last mile tail on Telstra’s HFC is giving a real world faster upload and download speed as compared to subscribing to 100 mb/s fibre tail from the NBNco via Internode or Primus.

          Hey Mike K whatever happened to those claims of fibre being symmetrical and nominal speed equalling real world speed. I see the symmetrical claim is dropped.
          When will NBNco confess to people that the tails maybe uncontended but further in the network their is absolute certainty the traffic will be contended.

          Just like the tiny Tassy trial is already highlighting.

          • Only one thing to do with me is thick.

            (OMG – oh no he didn’t! oh yes he did!)

            Yes, that was a stupid comment. Apples for apples.

            When’s your birthday? I’d like to buy you a new shovel…I’m sure your current one is worn out by now.

          • Back to serious discussion:

            You’ll remember that somewhere in this thread I mentioned NBN Co’s rolling-six-monthly product release plans?

            At rollout, the only product available will be basic data and voice. 12/1, 25/1, 25/10, 50/20 and 100/40. Not symmetrical, no…

            The first additional product set – (six months from start of main build) – will provide for IPTV services, once the multicast functionality is developed, tested, and installed at the POIs.

            Six months later again, services specifically designed for small businesses will be available. Six more months, and then it’s services focussed on corporate customers.

            Including symmetrical.

            If you think about it, it’s completely logical. Symmetrical will be available approximately 18 months after the main build commences. Reason? Well, after 18 months the critical mass of the backhaul infrastructure will be built up enough to support symmetrical services.

            You cannot expect symmetrical services in the beginning. I’m sure if you’re as knowledgeable as you make out about the ins and outs of how these things happen, you’d know that.

            And if you want 10/10Mbps symmetrical from the start? No worries.

            Get a 25/10 and you’ve got your 10 up and 10 down.

            40/40Mbps…get a 100/40 and you’re covered for 40 up and 40 down.

          • But as I said, in the real world, the commercial network connected world, subscribing to 100 Mb/s last mile tail on Telstra’s HFC is giving a real world faster upload and download speed as compared to subscribing to 100 mb/s fibre tail from the NBNco via Internode or Primus.

            What the…? Okay have you actually looked at some speed tests to see what you get on those two nominal 100Mb/s connections? Especially your claim about better upload speeds on HFC, which is absolute bull.

            When will NBNco confess to people that the tails maybe uncontended but further in the network their is absolute certainty the traffic will be contended.

            They haven’t hidden this fact, and this problem is common across all network designs. Uncontended doesn’t exist in networking. Even dedicated links that offer a CIR are contented up to 5 to 1 with the exception of running your own fibre (or using dark fibre).

          • >Yes 100 Mb/s on fibre is just as “heavy” as 100mb/s on HFC, NOMINALLY.
            >Just like you can subscribe to ADSL 2+ 24 Mb/s, NOMINALLY and HSDPA 42 Mb/s, NOMINALLY.

            Fibre lines always run at their nominal speed. The system being installed by NBNCo runs at 2500/1250 (approx) Mbps. This is not a variable speed, every single GPON line in the country will run at this speed. This speed is shared between groups of 32 or less customers using time slicing. PON-level congestion is almost never encountered. Hence a “nominal” 100Mbps is really a 2500Mbps nominal with a 1/25 share.

            DOCSIS (over HFC) attempts to work in a similar fashion, except that it uses channels running at ~20mbit, and each channel is shared using time slicing. Bigpond’s Ultimate Cable bonds 8 channels together to increase the speed. These same 8 channels may be shared by 500 or more people. Some channels may be unusable by some devices if the signal is poor. In most cases, a 100Mbps+ rate is achieved but this must be shared. Congestion is very common.

            ADSL and HSDPA differ because they don’t operate using a fixed rate. ADSL involves adapting the line rate to match the line quality, and hence the nominal speed is almost never achieved.

            With HSDPA, the tower continuously decides which channels to allocate to which users, but it must maintain constant communication with every device. It is therefore impossible to achieve the nominal speed if more than a single user is connected.

            My point is that, out of all of these technologies, fibre is the most likely to achieve the advertised speed.

          • @ Mike K

            You really are dense and like to peddle your propaganda.

            Its not that anything you wrote in your last comment about the technical distinction between fibre, HFC or DSL is wrong. (Although you may want to check some Telstra HFC facts with Hugh Bradlow)

            All these guys incl. me know all things being equal, Fibre carries traffic better.

            But that doesnt change the fact that the 100Mb/s NBNco service bought via internode and Primus operating in Tassy was not providing 100 mb/s, was not providing what people where paying for.
            In fact to really highlight how bad a fibre service can be, there was customer documented on the 7.30 report taking 2 minutes to download a local page!

            The NBN critics exist because NBN is an extravagant waste.
            And to the fools who think its fine for the govt to half arsed embark on NBN2.0 because of pure speculation about the future, need to look at some facts about how and why NBN2.0 came about.
            ie. the failure of NBN1.0, and the stalemate between Telstra and Govt before that, over wholesale access pricing and industry concerns of stranded DSLAM investments. Nothing but Nothing to do with demand for 100 Mb/s . . . . or over fibre . . . . . in the way of distant future.

            NBN2.0 is a foolish extravagant keynesian economic stimulus measure.
            That is being built on braking so many perfectly good windows that it would have Henry Haslett starting a riot.

          • Except of course the issue with inadequate speeds being delivered turned out to be not enough backhaul which both ISPs mentioned quickly rectified.

  13. Michael Wyers,

    Silly man the figure your referring to as “uptake’ is not the figure thats meaningfull.

    i.e. you can have 100% of premises connecting to the fibre but if only 60% actually pay to subscribe,
    the network is NOT VIABLE. . . . . . . . . . .
    And the longer it takes to get to just that threshold they greater the loss’s that will accumulate.

    Tassy had 47% connection to the fibre and it was free.
    Only 11% subscribed and they had a below cost special offer !!!!
    THAT result is spectacularly bad, fool.

    If and when the copper gets decommissioned, providing fibre to 3.5 million homes who only use their fixed line for voice will GUARANTEE to send the NBNco loss’s skyrocketing.

    This is the lane cove tunnel commercial failure times 10 Billion.

    That introductory offer wont be available to the other sites . . . . . once the ACCC ruling comes out.

  14. >THAT result is spectacularly bad, fool.

    ADSL had a very low take-up rate in the first few months.

    >Only 11% subscribed

    You speak of this using past tense. The network is STILL operational, and people are signing up every day.

    Many people are locked in to contracts of up to 24 months, so don’t expect everyone to cancel their ADSL immediately and jump onto the network. As their contracts expire, they will move over.

  15. Yep 65% to subscribe to broadband gives a “targeted” 7.05% ROE

    ie. Guaranteed to FAIL commercially.

    Ludicrous value destruction from the outset.

    • Commercial entities expect 10 to 15% (or more) over a three-to-five year period.

      Good thing NBN Co isn’t a commercial entity. They’re looking for 7.05% over – (checks notes) – oh yes, 7.05% over THIRTY YEARS.

      Really appreciate your passion for your message, but when you get so many, well known, in-the-public-domain facts completely wrong, your message is a little on the weak side.

    • How can anything you say be guaranteed ?

      Speaking in absolutes can only lead to one place, a stalemate where nobody listens. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you aren’t listening to a single detail that Michael has gone to great lengths trying to educate you on? You concede nothing, but want us to listen to your repetitive inane financial dogma?

      It’s obvious your only desire is to troll in opposition to anything about the NBN whatsoever.

      The only thing that is guaranteed to FAIL is your username.

      • Thanks for your support Simon, but this isn’t about me. It’s about facts that “Reality Check” seems to be deliberately getting wrong.

        I wonder if Renai can compare IP addresses amongst some of these “knowledgeable” people?

  16. Reality Check, if you keep going you are bound to get something right…even a broken clock is right twice a day……I admire your pluck. Repeating Coalition garbage, being shot down with actual facts but still coming back with more garbage regardless.

  17. To Mike K,

    Im sure also the NBNco will get more customers than the 554 the have now. Thats not the point fool.
    As has been previously pointed out, Its whether they get enough customers to be viable.
    Approx. 7 million households !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the longer it takes the loss’s grow exponentially.

    I cant wait for laugh when the fibre gets rolled out to all my friends holiday homes !
    But it wont be as big a laugh as when it gets rolled out to all the elderly people places. You know ones who dont have computer !!!

  18. I don’t understand Turnbull, he openly agrees that FTTH is great, granted only in conjunction with wireless, then claims Telstra’s wireless is going to be better, then complains the government is not investing in wireless?

    If Telstra’s wireless is going to be so fantastic, what’s the issue? We will get good wireless from Telstra, and good FTTH from the government.

    I don’t get it, opposition for the sake of opposition.

  19. “Reality Check”, you seriously need to do some research.
    The NBN is roughly on target.
    They’re not expecting instant uptake rates.
    Nor did PMG in 1950 when they installed the copper for roughly the same cost per premises (inflation adjusted).
    Obviously the copper didn’t turn out to be an expensive white elephant. It took a while to pay for itself, but it was well worth it in so many other ways.
    If it wasn’t for the bold actions of whoever pushed it way way back then, there’s a reasonable chance you wouldn’t be on this site now.
    I’m certain there were detractors pointing out the massive expense, back then even.

    There are people in every generation who try and fight back the future based on wild claims that never eventuate. Even the bible mentioned them. “The end is nigh” they would write on placards.

    For some reason the line from the Matrix reloaded comes to mind.
    “I stand here, before you now, truthfully unafraid. Why? Because I believe something you do not? No, I stand here without fear because I remember. I remember that I am here not because of the path that lies before me but because of the path that lies behind me. I remember that for 100 years we have fought these machines. I remember that for 100 years they have sent their armies to destroy us, and after a century of war I remember that which matters most… We are still here! ”

    And we are still here. The end is not nigh.

  20. He’s right that they overlap. Take the ipad or a laptop – they’re wireless, but what are they wirelessly connecting to? The local antenna mast owned by Telstra/Vodafone of course, and that receives its connectivity from the next mast along. However, at some point, the wireless capacity of the masts get full and you have to connect them with a fibre backbone which will join cities, states and ultimately countries together.

    I agree that digging fibre to every house/office in the country is a waste of money – wireless can be used for the consumer last mile, but at some point you will need fibre to aggregate the total traffic as well as being able to carry large volumes (greater than 10Gbp/s) for extended distances.

    Regards, Michael

Comments are closed.