Fibre to the node would do 60Mbps: Turnbull

By
Renai LeMay
-
322

Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday claimed about half the cost of the Government’s flagship National Broadband Network project could be chopped and comparable broadband speeds of 60MBps could be achieved through proceeding with a fibre to the node approach, instead of the planned fibre to the home model.

In the early stages of the NBN project’s development, it was primarily discussed as a FTTN project, which would have seen fibre extended from Telstra’s telephone exchanges to neighbourhood cabinets, with the existing copper cable making up the rest of way to houses and business premises.

The model was promulgated by then-Telstra chief executive Sol Trujillo back in 2005 as a cost-effective way of upgrading Telstra’s ageing copper network to higher levels of speed and reliability. However, the model was dumped in April 2009, with the Government pledging instead a much more costly FTTH model which would allow higher speeds and – in effect – the structural separation of Telstra through the replacement of its copper network.

However, in a major speech in Parliament yesterday, Turnbull suggested the idea still had legs. An affordably priced NBN, the Liberal MP said, would see a mix of technologies used – including FTTH in greenfields estates, but also FTTN.

“With a fibre-to-the-node configuration like that, if the last segment of copper was 750 metres or less—and we had this confirmed only today by one of the leading telecommunications companies in the world—a download speed of 60 megabits per second would be very achievable, along with an upload speed, depending on whether it was 750 metres or closer, of five to 10 megabits up to an effectively symmetrical speed of around 50 to 60 megabits per second,” he said.

“That type of bandwidth is more than adequate to cater for every conceivable application that a residential user would need. To go from 50 megabits per second to 100 megabits per second in a residential context would be imperceptible; the user experience would be no different. You would not be able to tell the difference because there are simply not the services and the applications to take advantage of that higher speed.”

Most of the applications which currently require high-speed broadband are applications such as videoconferencing and high-definition internet video, however individuals are also increasingly looking for higher speeds for multiple users to use the same household broadband connection simultaneously, or to upload large files online.

Turnbull said the cost differential between rolling out a FTTN network instead of using the FTTH model would be 50 percent, according to US telco equipment supplier ADTRAN.

“ADTRAN, one of the leading American telecommunications equipment suppliers, effectively have a fibre-to-the-node product where the fibre runs down the street and connects to the various existing copper pairs through one of their fibre termination nodes,” said Turnbull “They say that the cost differential, where they have deployed this in America, is in the order of 50 per cent—that is to say, you can halve the cost with a different network design.”

The Digital Economy
Turnbull’s comments came as a large number of different companies, non-profit organisations and politicians – including state and federal representatives – were highly engaged in the CeBIT trade fair and conference series in Sydney this week.

At the keynote speech on Tuesday morning, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy launched the Government’s Digital Economy Strategy – a document which will guide the nation on how best to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the rollout of the NBN and the high-speeds and capacity it will offer businesses, governments and individuals.

The areas the Government wants to focus on are participation in the Internet by households, businesses and non-profit organisations, smart management of the environment and infrastructure, improved health and aged care, expanded online education, increased teleworking, improved online government service delivery and engagement, and greater digital engagement in regional Australia.

By implementing the strategy, Conroy promised this week, Australia would become “a leading digital economy” by the year 2020, when the NBN construction is slated to be finished. Australia has not typically been seen as strong when it comes to creation of new technology, with international markets more associating countries such as the US, Germany and Japan with such strengths — and Australia with mining, farming and tourism.

However, in a lengthy statement following the publication of the strategy entitled ‘Conroy’s Digital Economy Con’, Turnbull went to lengths to critique the Government’s eight goals that it will seek to achieve through the strategy. Overall, the MP argued that while the goals were sound, they could all be achieved by spending much less than the NBN would cost.

For example, Turnbull noted that statistics from the Organisation for Economic Development showed 96.6 percent of Australian businesses with 10 employees or more were already using broadband. “So this is hardly an argument for completely scrapping out existing competitive broadband market,” he wrote.

Another goal of the Government is that four out of five Australians will eventually choose to engage with the Government through the Internet or other type of online service. “It is difficult to think of any Government service that requires 100mb/s bandwidth to residential premises and it is worth noting that none of the services referred to by the Government in this paper require such high bandwidth to be delivered to homes,” replied Turnbull.

“Senator Conroy’s National Digital Economy Strategy is simply a thinly-veiled spruiking of the NBN,” he concluded. “It does nothing to reassure the Parliament or the Australian people that there is any likelihood the NBN will be delivered on schedule, on budget, or amounts to the best use of taxpayers’ funds.”

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Related posts:

  1. Fibre to the node: Turnbull to meet with Quigley
  2. Coalition NBN policy shifts to fibre to the node
  3. 330Mbps: BT extends fibre from node to premise
  4. Fifield praises “superfast” Fibre to the Node rollout
  5. Conroy slams Turnbull’s “half-baked” NBN plan

322 COMMENTS

  1. Didn’t the whole FTTN concept fall apart because Telstra put a non compliant bid in.

    This was all explained really well in that 4 Corners story which explained all of the reasoning around why things ended up the way they did.

    • I seem to remember that Telstra never put a bid in at all. They send a polite letter saying that FTTN could not be done for the price that was being offered.

      • Call it what you will, a letter (polite or otherwise), a bid, a joke (as was Telstra under Sol) or bruce… it didn’t comply!

        D’oh Telstra…!

  2. Well Renai – you really do like giving Turnbull a good run.

    There are two problems with FTTN. Firstly Telstra was never prepared to offer up an acceptable deal on FTTN. Under Trujillo they demanded an access holiday and no separation. That got us from 2005 to 2009.

    That gets to the second point that while FTTN will do up to 50 or 60 Mbps no one is yet prepared to call an end to the ongoing exponential growth of broadband. That means that sometime soon after 2020 you get to a point where FTTN is no longer sufficient. That’s the magic of FTTP – the speeds you are building the fibre infrastructure for (90% of the cost) is not the speed it is capable of which is 1 Gbps ten years later.

    The problem with FTTN is that a lot of the investment (in nodes) is dead investment. That was the conclusion of the expert panel that as FTTN was only an interim technology and FTTH prices have dropped, the financial case is to go straight to FTTP rather than FTTH.

    The pity is that this would be provable as a really simple Cost Benefit Analysis comparing FTTH and FTTN if we take an acceptance of exponential demand growth as given (and not assume it away as Henry ergas did in his CBA).

    • “Well Renai – you really do like giving Turnbull a good run.”

      He’s the opposition, he has interesting ideas, and he counters Conroy’s constant pro-NBN spin. I’m unapologetic about it ;)

      • Yes but shouldn’t you be ANALYSING what he, and Conroy, say? And giving us some informed and unbiased opinion. ie cutting through the spin and giving us the FACTS?

        For example:
        how does copper do 60Mbps when the current real world speed maxes out at 24Mbps, and over 750m it is more like 20Mbps? Will he magically triple it?
        What compensation would be paid to Telstra for the cutting of the lines, which was the biggest reason for the switch from FTTN to FTTP? $20 billion was the reported figure at the time, which took a $14 billion network to a $34 billion total price, therefore the extra $5-$9 billion was a small price to pay for the future-proofing of using FTTP from the start.
        How much would he REALLY save by using FTTN, and putting, using his own figures, a Node within 750m of EVERY premise in Australia. That is still one helluva huge Fibre rollout!

        • Moving from 1.5km to 750m between nodes quadruples the number of nodes required to cover the same area – moving the price closer and closer to that of an FTTP solution. I think Malcolm is trying to hit the middle ground, and rely on the fact that the average Joe doesn’t know much about it to make it seem better than it is.

    • @David Havyatt

      “There are two problems with FTTN. Firstly Telstra was never prepared to offer up an acceptable deal on FTTN. Under Trujillo they demanded an access holiday and no separation.”

      ‘No separation’ was never a condition of the Telstra deal, and as far as the access holiday is concerned the other major bidder for the FTTN the G9 consortium lead by Optus also required a access holiday.

      “That gets to the second point that while FTTN will do up to 50 or 60 Mbps no one is yet prepared to call an end to the ongoing exponential growth of broadband.”

      In reality the MAJORITY of users today are quite happy with ADSL2+ speeds or even 1500/256 or less, by far the biggest exponential growth in BB is wireless, which has nothing to do with the need for FTTH, also it’s best not to mention the incredible wireless growth relative to the almost static growth in fixed line BB.

      “That means that sometime soon after 2020 you get to a point where FTTN is no longer sufficient.”

      That amazing conclusion is based on what, rolling some dice, gut feel? – or something more substantial?

      “The problem with FTTN is that a lot of the investment (in nodes) is dead investment.”

      Hmm really? – better tell one of the biggest and successful Telco’s in the world Verizon in the USA that they have got it all wrong.

      “and FTTH prices have dropped, the financial case is to go straight to FTTP rather than FTTH.”

      What report indicates the cost of a FTTH rollout is either the same as or less than the cost of a FTTN rollout?

      “The pity is that this would be provable as a really simple Cost Benefit Analysis comparing FTTH and FTTN if we take an acceptance of exponential demand growth as given”

      Yes it is a pity seeing we have not had a CBA for the FTTH let alone a CBA comparison of FTTN vs FTTH, obviously you have come to the amazing conclusion that in the absence of any sort of CBA you can safely conclude FTTH is the way to go anyway!

      • Oh dear alain…

        You do realise that David Havyatt, isn’t just a comms enthusiast/facetious FUD buster like me (who you can’t handle anyway)… don’t you?

        David is indeed someone who (from hands on) knows exactly what he is talking about…!

        Good luck… if David decides to fire back…!

      • @alain

        Okay. Let’s go through all of this.

        1. No separation
        Telstra as late as a week before putting in their non-compliant bid for NBN Mark 1 was still stating publicly that they wouldn’t bid without a commitment that separation didn’t have to be an outcome. In their short submission (http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls650-nbnproposal.pdf) they said
        “As the Commonwealth is aware the issues of: the further separation of Telstra; secure confidentiality… have all raised significant concerns for Telstra. Unfortunately these issues have not been able to be addressed in a manner that would enable Telstra to submit its fully detailed bid ynder the RFP today”. The fully detailed bid would have included the SME element the non-inclusion of which had their bid excluded.

        2. Access holiday
        Actually the G9 did not request an access holiday, it was an open access FTTN proposal. They submitted a Special Access Undertaking to the ACCC which Telstra never did. My reference to access holiday was in relation to Telstra’s opening bid to the Commonwealth (finally released in September 2005 http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls339-briefingpaper.pdf) in which they proposed a differential service for access seekers.

        3. Exponential growth
        The exponential growth to which I refer is to speeds not number of connections. The original graph came from Alcatel-Lucent and has appeared in many NBN Co presentations since. When Malcolm ran Ozemail all the customers had 300 bps connections and I bet he never thought they’d want 1 Mbps download. I’ll concede that the majority of Australians are happy with the speeds they get now. But they won’t be if that’s the best they can get in ten years time (when the NBN is finished). FTTN would bridge that gap to that point, but hits a wall.

        4. The 2020 point
        The point above is my reason for believing that FTTN hits a wall. The onus is on people who want to disagree with the future projection of a trend to explain why it won’t continue. The ever expanding speed requirement is in part driven by the ever expanding processing capacity (known as Moore’s Law) and the consequence was identified over a decade ago by George Gilder.

        5. The costs of FTTH have dropped
        I never asserted the cost of an FTTH build are cheaper than the cost of an FTTN build. What I asserted is that the drop in FTTH prices is such that an FTTH build now is more cost effective than an FTTN build now followed by a subsequent FTTH build.

        6. There has been no CBA
        I’d point you to the two columns I wrote for iTnews that explained the pros and cons of a CBA. There has been one done by Henry Ergas that fudged the demand by assuming no need for faster speeds ever. The problem with a CBA is that the Benefits are largely unquantifiable. If however you make the trend line assumption about speed requirements and then model what investments you ca make when you come to the conclusion that FTTH is the right investment. It is my understanding that that is what the Expert Panel for NBN Mark 1 did.

        Challenge me hard enough and I’ll go off and do the formal calculation. Just remember that about half of the cost Malcolm is quoting as the cost of FTTN is not recovered when you upgrade to an FTTH.

        I note somewhere later someone makes reference to the fact Verizon is doing FTTN as a justificatio of why it must be right. Read the FCCs Seventh broadband progress report (referenced at http://davidhavyatt.blogspot.com/2011/06/i-hate-to-do-global-comparisons-but.html) and tell me if you think the US is a rol model.

        • in addition to the above but as an armchair punter, not someone who does it for a living, i would add the following – Using the Verizon case as an example is flawed. last i looked AT&Ts U-verse offering and Verizons FiOS offerings are currently on hiatus, much like how HFC has been on hiatus since Optus and Telstra deemed they had spent enough… in any case the US market is a special case, a rather addled case at that. there are many more hurdles to go through from the federal level down to the local one in terms of any rollout compared to Aus., and the rules and niceties there vary from state to state and in some cases from city to city.

          The ‘infrastructure competition’ market the FCC has to work with has generally meant that the market as it stands now is a fractured one, and beyond that there are those who argue the FCC has no power to regulate the internet at all anyway – that the free market should build as it sees fit. what with the municipal or state planning rules, cherry picking and no coherent coast to coast plan, the resultant ad hoc, hodgepodge nature of the US market makes it very difficult to do more than slices at a time. theres a reason the fibre operators cheaped out for FTTN, and theres a reason the two operators mentioned are stalled in the teens of households passed with their respective high speed networks.

          If youve been a reader of Ars Technica for the better part of a decade like i have i can see why Woz is extremely skeptical that a fibre network of the quality and scale built here will ever appear in the US – FTTN or FTTH. suffice to say it would take far too much tiime and space to articulate all the bits and pieces why – something like a board of snakes and ladders is probably the closest analogy i can think of atm. Bringing up the FiOS example as a ‘way to do things’ is an extremely flawed argument and leaves out far too much about the when where and why that network has been rolled out the way it has – and has very little comparability to the situation we have here.

          in the confines of the US and the market as it stands FTTN is an understandable choice for Verizon to pursue, but as i say Verizon last i saw (1y ago) isnt planning on opening up any new areas until served area uptake increases – at the time AT&T and Verizon were at 17 and 12 % respectively of the US market for ‘super fast broadband’ – and that verizon fttn rollout was a 20bn spend, when the AUdollar was in the 80s-90c.

          in that light a governmental superfast class FTT*H* network spend of 27bn for 93% coverage, including a fixed wireless net, and a satellite or two to catch the rest is a damn good spend all things considered, without many of the negatives the american companies have to wade through just to get a network built to *some* of their nation, let alone all. Not what i regard a good comparison at all.

          • Well put, nonny-moose, and I would add that the $27b gets us not merely fibre to 93% (whose build cost is budgeted at $10-12 billion), but also two redundant satellites capable of sustaining as many as 300,000 12 Mbps services anywhere, plus an awful lot of fibre backhaul, plus Ericsson’s LTE wireless of 12/1 Mbps (actually tests suggest perhaps 25/2+ Mbps according to NBNCo’s Jim Hassell at the CeBIT NBN Conference last Tuesday) to as many as possible of the 7% premises outside the fibre footprint. And the satellite and all the wireless will be in place by 2015, which is just around the corner.

          • Correct. The NBN design is actually based on the Verizon FIOS network, and Verizon consulted to NBN Co at the design stage due to that experience.

          • Verizon’s rollout only reaches like 5% of the American population, their FTTN rollout however is going to be in excess of 30%.

            This is outlined in the American broadband plan.

          • Who cares about the American broadband plan, or how much coverage Verizon’s plan covers? Why does what the American’s do have to have anything to do with what we do? Are we suddenly the 51st state?

            However, since you want play this game:

            – At the last United States census (2010), the population was: 308,745,538.
            – Five percent of this is: 15,437,277.
            – At the last Australian census (2006), the population was: 19,855,288.
            – 15,437,277 is 78% of 19,855,288.

            Yes…78%…the Verizon FTTN network is not much smaller than our NBN plan, so they are completely comparable, particularly since they are using more or less the same technology and design.

          • He used Verizon as an example

            I was putting things into context, I did not bring it up.

            Please go whine somewhere else

          • Well in that case if we follow Verizon, then we should only roll out FTTH in the high density, high demand areas and use FTTN in the other areas (because that is what they did, they in fact had to stop their FTTH rollout due to cable competition, and now they are investing it in, you guess it, wireless)

            Oh wait….

          • …oh wait…this brings us back to why does what works for a COMMERCIAL entity in the United States have anything to do with what a GOVERNMENT entity in Australia?

            If America jumped off a cliff, would you?

          • Then don’t god damn use Verizon as an comparison if you are going to dismiss any of their reasoning due to commercial reasons

            You cant just cherry pick what you like (ooh like, Verizon did FTTH) and then dismiss everything else that you don’t like (they are a commercial entity, they only rolled out FTTH to 5% of America, they also halted the rollout)

            Unfortunately there is no comparison at all for the NBN, because no other country is god damn stupid enough to do such a thing

          • It is perfectly valid to compare the Verizon network and the NBN in size, complexity and technology, not the least because they’ve consulted on it.

            You’re the one bringing the financial side of it into it. I only brought the commercial vs government comparison into it because that’s the angle you’ve tried to twist this towards. Again.

            They are many aspects to this (any other project) – and I – (and the original poster to bring Verizon up) are talking about the technological aspects.

            Facts, and not FUD.

          • It is perfectly valid to compare the Verizon network and the NBN in size, complexity and technology, not the least because they’ve consulted on it.
            Yes and ignoring the other side of the coin which has details that you don’t like is not perfectly valid

            You’re the one bringing the financial side of it into it. I only brought the commercial vs government comparison into it because that’s the angle you’ve tried to twist this towards. Again.
            Twist?

            I didn’t twist any of his words, I just added information ontop to put it into context.

            Also I take into account everything, financials, technology and engineering. If I only took into account for financials I would argue for no upgrade, which I definitely am not doing

            Facts, and not FUD.
            I didn’t say he was spreading FUD, I said he only cherry picked the details which he liked about Verizon

          • deteego. tell me what is the point to send a man to the moon? no other country is god damn stupid enough to do such a thing?

            if our government is controlled by people like you and Abbott. we would still be in stone age. Space age would be a dream and god would still live in the cloud.

          • Uh… WTH is everyone talking about with Verizon FTTN? Verizon is NOT doing FTTN. I’m living in America and I have never, ever heard of Verizon doing FTTN. They have only have done FTTH. That’s what FIOS is- fiber to the house. So far Verizon has expanded FTTH to ~50% of their footprint.

          • wikipedia:

            “As of June 2009, FiOS Internet had 3.1 million customers (up 31% in last year), and FiOS TV had 2.5 million customers (up 46% in prior year) with FiOS services offered to over 11 million premises nationwide.[14]”

            that’s less than 30% take-up rate.

            “Verizon announced in March 2010, that they were winding down their FiOS expansion, concentrating on completing their network in areas that already had FiOS franchises but were not deploying to any new areas, which included the cities of Baltimore and Boston, who had not yet secured municipal franchise agreements.”

            they stopped roll-out at ~10% of premises.

        • David Havyatt you got no idea what youre talking about.

          firstly the FTTN plan would never and could not be agreed to by Telstra as the govt’s RFP was a joke, where is the $11Bn compensation that they ‘think telstras network is worth today’ in the FTTP NBN?

          Was the govt going to trick or rip off Telstra and its shareholders of 11Bn dollars if Telstra put in a complying Bid? What would it say? Yes, we agree to your terms to gouge the value of our company and hand over our investors/shareholders money to competitors of G9, so we can build on our OWN NETWORK? ARE YOU HIGH MAN??

          sure go away and do your ‘calculations’ but first get a CLUE, if you look at this from first principles, it has been nothing more than a long running joke in the telco industry, im just waiting for NBNCo to be dissolved, lets see, how much money have they spent already? nearly $1Bn? what have they achieved?

          people who buy into this type of BS are those who read the mainstream press and think they have a clue as to what its all about

          • Huh?

            “…where is the $11Bn compensation that they ‘think telstras network is worth today’ in the FTTP NBN?…”

            Telstra will be getting between $9b and $10b as compensation for losing their network, and around $2b for ongoing USO obligations under the deal between Telstra and NBN Co that is about to reach final terms.

          • huh?

            Why was this NOT in the original RFP for FTTN ?

            eg. with FANOC, G9, ACACIA, AXIA etc. etc.

            What happened to the ‘compensation’?

          • Um… you’d think an Engineer @ Telstra would know the RFP’s was not strictly for FTTN…?

            Funny too, alain calls it the exact same thing and he seems to have disappeared since being torn apart by David Havyatt…

            Yet you, a n00b (to me anyway) has magically appeared, now carrying the FUD baton…how convenient?

            Keep up the great work [sic]!

          • The original proposal never got past the RFP stage.

            In case you don’t realise, RFP stands for “Request for Proposal” where only indicative financials are typically required – it was not an RFT (Request for Tender), where more solid pricing is required.

            If Telstra had bothered to actually respond to the RFP – (instead of acting like brats) – they would have had every opportunity to make their case for compensation. They might also have been shown to have been in the best position of all the respondees to build the FTTN network.

            Since every other proposal was rejected, theirs might have gotten a chance if they’d actually submitted it! And as you say elsewhere, it might have been built already and be fully operational.

            It’s not – and that might just well be Telstra’s fault.

            But if it was built, what they built will be stretched to capacity within five to ten years anyway, when more than 12Mbps is required.

          • And thats why one of the tender processes was flawed

            No sane company would even consider submitting a proposal unless they have any idea of compensation, since it IS Telstra’s copper.

            No other company doing a tender process had their infrastructure’s value at stake, Telstra did

          • Yet all those other companies put in proposals…tsk tsk. Naughty them.

            You probably don’t care to remember that Telstra was kicked out of the process BEFORE it had closed, so flimsy was their “response”.

          • Yeah and I stated the reasons why Telstra didn’t take the process seriously. There was no talk at all of any type of compensation for Telstra, and Telstra was a special case since it was copper. If I had the government taking away our assets value and not even consider such a thing, I wouldn’t be too “serious’ in my proposals either

            The reason why Telstra is playing ball now is the current Labor government spoke of compensation before any kind of deals or tenders went underway.

          • And like I said – Telstra had every opportunity to make their case for compensation in their RFP response, but chose not to.

            That’s not anybody’s fault but Telstra.

          • An RFP is put out to the market so that the company seeking the responses can get the feel of who is interested, what they believe is possible – (including offering alternative solutions), and for indicative pricing towards achieving the goals.

            That information is used to prepare a formal RFT with specific functional requirements based on the RFP responses.

            If Telstra wanted the work, the RFP was the time and place to make their argument. Instead they threw the rattle out of the cot and got themselves chopped.

            They should actually be grateful that the plan changed and that they are now in line for at least $11b, and the chance to bid for work packages. They should be over the moon in fact.

            I wonder if that’s why they are striking this deal with the government?

            I wonder.

          • Telstra is not the one to make a case for compensation, the government is, this is government intervention, its their onus to provide a compensation package

            its even in the law that they need to be compensated, as was seen on four corners.

          • Why? The government would be seeking the cheapest possible deal. Telstra should be telling them that they can’t do it without compensation. The government doesn’t have a bat-phone to Telstra’s accounting department to know what their financial position is!

            They can’t read minds and the future.

          • Telstra thus did the right thing and gave them the middle finger and walked… and that was a nice waste of money for all the parties who stayed and played…

            Again, the government stayed and played, now its $43Bn, isnt this getting tiresome?

            Will Telstra play? It will be it knows NBNCo’s time is limited, and so is Labor, hence, it merely has to ‘play along’ … Turnbull sorry mate, remember “STOP THE BOATS” now its you guy’s turn to dance to their tune, but it will be over in time :)

          • Not only did all 6 (from memory) submit, they were so keen they all paid the $5m bond (non-returnable I believe) to do so…!

          • I go out to do Saturday morning shopping and chaos reigned.

            To try to address what I can figure out from engineer@telstra.

            1. Where was the compensation in NBN Mark 1
            The NBN Mark 1 model involved an investment of $4.3 in a new vehicle to build the FTTN network. If Telstra had put in a compliant bid and won, they would have owned (or their shareholders would) the asset still. A stock split was a perfectly effective way to achieve the structural separation without harming shareholders.

            The problem for the Government was that they couldn’t award the FTTN tender to anyone else because it created a uge valuation problem – the one Conroy aluded to on 4 Corners.

            And the $4.3B was what Telstra themselves estimated was the cost to build FTTN beyond the five mainland capitals – which was the footprint in the “pre-trujillo” plans you mention.

            2. Does the number stack up
            Can the NBN be built for the price stated? Actually haven’t heard anyone doubt the price. The McKinsey/PMG implementation study did a reasonable job, and that was a costing outside of the Telstra deal. That study by the way was effectively the “business case” as one would know it inside a telco as opposed to a CBA which is a public policy toll and is all about consumer and producer surplus, not ROI.

            3. We shouldn’t choose a technology now.
            You must be the smartest engineer in Telstra, because no one has pointed to any technology that they think has any chance of matching a fibre based technology in the future. Telstra’s own CTO Hugh Bradlow says that so the engineer should go have a chat with him.

            4. FTTN was simple to deploy
            Street furniture every 750 metres or so is not really simple. Firstly you have an environmental issue of the size and number of cabinets – replace every DA pillar out there folks (the grey bullet shaped things) with a cabinet the size and shape of one to three filing cabinets.
            Secondly you have a massive power management problem with FTTN – and the reason why GPON is the winning fibre technology – you only have to manage power at the fibre serving centre and in the home.

            I’m happy for someone to demonstrate errors in my analysis but not to simply have it asserted that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

          • 1– rubbish, why should telstra pay for their network, ask for PERMISSION by RFP to building on their OWN NETWORK ….and be structurally separated all free of charge, they own 95% of the network and what? hand over a big market share to competitors for free? they gave them the middle finger to the govt and the consortium of telcos, they did the right thing. so why do people here think Telstra was in the wrong? I considered it very arrogant in the gov and these group of parasitic telco consortiums to want to rape telstra of its value, and to then turn around and say to telstra you must separate your business and hand over your market share and dominance to us to share, because we want a fair playing field, but we did not invest a cent, or do we want to, but we would take it thanks very much.

            So I do appaud telstra for being a snide little b*stard and putting in that bogus non complaint ‘BID’ if you could call it a BID, since the whole thing was built on a ridiculous premisis, as stupid as mid point injection.

            so then all thse net geeks think its somehow Telstras fault they they turned around and said sc*ew you and hold the nations infrastructure hostage just to show how with such an arrogant government they would prefer to do nothing at all.

            so what does Conroy do, he comes up with the 43Bn plan, initially note , as stupid as he is, he wants to build a PARALLEL network that not even want to use Telstra – and…. he THINK IT CAN ACTUALLY BE DONE! but he came to his senses and now wants to deal with Telstra and offer them some compensation, so Telstra okay plays along again….otherwise the shareprice might for even further through all this meddling.

            Im not defending Telstras action , they should have built FTTN ages ago, but were too greedy, I hate competing ISPs as they are holding the nation back because they want money for nothing, and finally these people who are pro NBN anti Telstra just need to think about it, if they were a shareholder, would they want the company ripped of its value.

            2– “The McKinsey/PMG implementation study did a reasonable job” — are you high?
            oh and lets listen to Alcatel-Lucents report, the same guys supplying the equipment to NBNCo.

            and you are basing your arguments on these rigged figures and ‘business cases’?

            3- why would ANYBODY in their right mind want to decomission an entire nations network when no other country anywhere else in the world has….unless it is all just a scam

            4– why would street furniture be a problem? What are pillar and cabinets? are they problems?

            and do you realise that GPON requires every house maintain power charged in the backup battery, in addition to throwing it out every 4-5years, thats10s millions of batteries constantly charging and being thrown out.

            turnbulls model offers better robustness as an ACTIVE node which is smaller means its not as vulunerable to being knocked off by a car. The active nature of it also allows it be use for other applications, eg. smart metering, wifi hotspots, mobiles, telemetry etc.

          • and do you realise that GPON requires every house maintain power charged in the backup battery, in addition to throwing it out every 4-5years, thats10s millions of batteries constantly charging and being thrown out.

            Actually it requires nothing of the sort. And I think it was personally a stupid idea to provide a free backup battery to everyone, but that’s politics for you, and on look, another convient angle of attack, “Look at all the expensive batteries.” Only people who require an non-interupted service should get a battery, like the elderly on some from of MediAlert system, or a small business with their servers on a UPS.

          • @ Engineer @ Telstra…

            In relation to your point #1 in reply to David Havyatt (I won’t worry about your other points, as they are basically all regurgitated FUD and waffle, imo)…

            Part of the March 2008 High Court ruling against Telstra trying to stop accessors was – that Telstra had an “assumption that it has greater rights over the PSTN than it actually has”… (as you clearly do too)!

            Legally you are wrong…

            Which is why Telstra had to gain permission, because they were vested the PSTN with clear access laws, pertaining to other ISP’s/Telcos…Their competitors are legally allowed to access (HIRE FROM TELSTRA…ffs) the network… which is why Telstra can’t just ***k with it willy nilly and why Telstra should have just played the game and benefitted accordingly, but no!

            They also received an $18m fine for disallowing access, which could be argued, by breaking their legal binding, they therefore forfeited their rights of ownership – but that’s a bit of a legal minefield, so…

            As for the shareholders… I feel pity for retirees caught up in all of this, but I certainly don’t feel pity what-so-ever for those who believe Australia’s comms policy should revolve around their own portfolios. The Telstra tranches prospectuses clearly spelled out, on top of the standard risk clauses, “regulatory risks”, so… perhaps you should have read the prospectuses, not simply said, it’s a monopoly, ya can’t lose”…!

            Anyway… just thought I’d ask… how exactly do your claims 1 & 2 (from above) outlined below, relate to 3…? They sound typically (as anti-NBNers do) contradictory…

            1. They (Telstra) gave them the middle finger to the govt and the consortium of telcos, they did the right thing.

            2. So I do appaud telstra for being a snide little b*stard and putting in that bogus non complaint ‘BID’

            3. Im not defending Telstras action, they should have built FTTN ages ago…

            Cheerio…!

          • engineer@telstra

            Okay. The first thing I’ll do is concede the point that Telstra owns its network. I’ll even concede the point that taxpayers never paid for it – from 1959 the Australian Post Office was self-funding. I’ve previously shown (and David Quilty also once wrote on NowWeAreTaklking) that the carrying value of Telstra to the Government at sale was exactly $0. That is their total unrecovered investment was zero. They sold it for $80B – a good deal.

            But as RS points out the High Court ruled that what the public bought was an asset that had always been encimbered by the right of Government to set retail and wholesale prices. The view of unencumered rights” is like claiming that when you buy land to build a house you are also buying mining rights – you aren’t.

            The other little fact Telstra’s shareholders conveniently forget is the other concessions they receive from Government – rights of land access and low impat facilities.

            Telstra’s position on NBN1 was never based on not being paid “compensation”. They weren’t giving anything away.

            On the investment point, Telstra made this to the NBN Senate committee (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12544.pdf) saying they make 70% of investment off 62% of revenue. I delightflly pointed out to Senators that what repays capital is EBITDA not revenue – Telstra makes 90% of industry profit. That means they UNDER-INVEST copared to competitors.

            I’m not going to engage on the merits of the implementation sudy. I will note that when Al-Lu has the tender to build the FTTN for Telstra they are suppsedly wonderful, but anything they say for NBN Co is tainted by commercial effort. Where does that place the KPMG report that Al-Lu paid for to promote Telstra’s FTTN ambitions in 2006?

            I’ve written elsewhere about the household power issue. I’ve not figured out the value of powering the ONT when the Wi-Fi router and the computer aren’t powered. Let alone the TV and radio.

            I’m happy to have you make assertioons that the active network can be used for things a passive network can’t – but we both know that it is just about where you provide power to make the application work. I really don’t get “mobiles” there – cauise the mobile needs a powered base station which can feed the active element.

            Anyhow as a good little monopolist believing engineer you should be very happy to go work for NBN Co.

          • David – the ONT/NTU is only backup-powered to keep power up to the UNI-V1x (voice) ports to provide continuity for voice services in emergency situations – much as your phone on the copper network stays running with backup power from the exchange currently. The UNI-Dx (data) ports are not supplied power from the backup battery under any circumstances.

            (NBN NTU port concepts: http://michaelwyres.com/2011/02/nbn-end-user-services-taking-shape/ )

            It is interesting that the Victorian Government is “concerned” that the NBN won’t provide voice services in a blackout because the NTU would power down, while still acknowledging the existence of the battery backup. ( http://www.itnews.com.au/News/259404,victorian-govt-raises-nbn-design-concerns.aspx ).

            They also express concern that the wireless and satellite served users won’t get that backup – but since there are no native voice services to be provided on these platforms – (and indeed those areas keep their copper) – battery backup is not required, rendering their entire submission on this basis basically irrelevant.

            Ample demonstration that some of the people/bodies complaining about how the NBN is designed and built just don’t know or understand what is being designed and built anyway.

          • Merlin: I have done a little reading on PoF in recent times, and while it is possible – (after all, light is just another form of energy) – and may be looked at one day, I don’t envisage that that would currently be on the roadmap for the NBN. It adds a layer of complexity that just isn’t required, given that electricity supply in Australia is a very stable medium in its current form. Never say never, but I can’t see it at this stage, and may be prohibitively expensive for a consumer device.

            NK: Strictly speaking, with PoE as it stands now (802.3af), you are correct. I’ve always had a problem with 3af being called “Power over Ethernet”, because ethernet does not have to be copper, and 3af is a copper-based standard. The conversion of light energy into a electrical energy may or may not be economically feasible a consumer device (as mentioned above) – so in concept it is quite possible, but from what I have read – (and I’ll admit that’s not much so far) – there’s a long way to go, and I don’t think NBN Co are in a realistic position to allow for it at this stage.

        • @David Havyatt

          “1. No separation”

          The separation issue was not the reason Conroy and his department rejected the Telstra RFP bid, it was because ‘it did not include a plan to involve small and medium enterprises’ trivial in the extreme, but that’s what they said.
          Keep in mind all RFP bids were ultimately rejected, from Acacia Australia, Optus (partnered with other ISP’s calling themselves TERRiA), TransACT and the Tasmanian Government.

          “2. Access holiday
          Actually the G9 did not request an access holiday, it was an open access FTTN proposal.”

          I disagree, part of the G9 SAU stated under’ Investment Certainty’ that ‘The SAU would be for 12 years from the commercial launch of the service in order to provide investors with appropriate long term certainty in relation to return on this significant long term asset.’

          G9 also required that no one was to overbuild their rollout, Telstra made no such request.

          I don’t call that by any stretch of the imagination ‘not a request’ for an access holiday or even close to a definition of ‘open access’.

          “They submitted a Special Access Undertaking to the ACCC which Telstra never did.”

          Yes I know G9 did, and the ACCC rejected it.

          “3. Exponential growth
          The exponential growth to which I refer is to speeds not number of connections.”

          You mean speed as in what customers are satisfied with or speed as in this is what FTTH is capable of so therefore you need it?

          ” I’ll concede that the majority of Australians are happy with the speeds they get now. But they won’t be if that’s the best they can get in ten years time (when the NBN is finished)”

          The point is of course as you agree is that many Australians are happy with with their ADSL, ADSL2+ and HFC speeds to the point that even though where the highest speed option at the moment HFC is available most residents that it passes have decided they don’t want it.

          “. FTTN would bridge that gap to that point, but hits a wall.”

          I think the so called ‘wall’ is a figment of your imagination, you assume most customers are rapidly reaching that wall which only FTTH can solve.
          Increasingly many customers have put your wall on permanent bypass by going wireless, and being satisfied with wireless BB as their ONLY BB solution.
          Further technical developments in wireless which the Telco’s the world over are pumping billions into (investors know which comms sector the $$$ are to be made) research will only accelerate this migration.

          Note I am not talking about a pure tech comparison of wireless vs FTTH, FTTH wins hands down, it is stating where the communications market is heading and what the market wants, which is dictated by the end user devices the likes of Apple, HTC, Blackberry, Samsung, Acer,LG etc etc are swamping the market with every month.

          “4. The 2020 point
          The point above is my reason for believing that FTTN hits a wall. The onus is on people who want to disagree with the future projection of a trend to explain why it won’t continue.”

          Well that’s a interesting proposition, it also makes the basic assumption that ADSL, ADSL2+ and HFC have already reached that ‘wall’ , to then extrapolate that to FTTN ‘meeting that wall’ at some nefarious point in the future that only FTTH can solve is really grasping at straws.

          How do quantify this ‘meeting the wall’ measurement in any meaningful way?
          Tell me why ADSL2+ and HFC has or will meet the wall very soon for example?

          ” The ever expanding speed requirement is in part driven by the ever expanding processing capacity (known as Moore’s Law) and the consequence was identified over a decade ago by George Gilder.”

          Does the Law as you put it have in its equation do the majority of the end users of fixed line BB need FTTH speeds?, and does it factor in that pulling out existing working infrastructure to ensure the NBN has a somewhat viable customer base is the best way to achieve the result of FTTH ‘success’ you are after as a Government owner with a political agenda to push?

          “5. The costs of FTTH have dropped
          I never asserted the cost of an FTTH build are cheaper than the cost of an FTTN build. What I asserted is that the drop in FTTH prices is such that an FTTH build now is more cost effective than an FTTN build now followed by a subsequent FTTH build.”

          Yes but if you assert there is a drop in the build cost of FTTH you could also justifiably assert there is also a drop in the build cost of FTTN , they share many common components, the major one being the cost of fibre itself, your assertion theory reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. :)

          “6. There has been no CBA”

          Good we agree.

          “If however you make the trend line assumption about speed requirements”

          The key word in that phrase being of course ‘assumption’, you seem to use it a lot, the problem with assumptions is that opposite trend assumptions can be made.

          Historical trends assumptions on the need for speed assumes we have reached a point in time where the current maximum speeds is inadequate and can only be solved by a multi billion dollar taxpayer fed FTTH build and the need to pull down existing infrastructure, which is indicated by what exactly?.

          “Challenge me hard enough and I’ll go off and do the formal calculation. Just remember that about half of the cost Malcolm is quoting as the cost of FTTN is not recovered when you upgrade to an FTTH.”

          Go for it, don’t forget to factor in the underlying justification of the FTTH ROI in the NBN Co business plan is based on the somewhat fantasy prediction that there will be 70% uptake of NBN FTTH services .
          It will be interesting to see what happens to any justification about FTTH if this only reaches 50% or less for example.

          “I note somewhere later someone makes reference to the fact Verizon is doing FTTN”

          Well it is not just Verizon being the only Telco in the world rolling out FTTN, the point about FTTN is that it is faster and cheaper to rollout into a infrastructure like Australia totally dominated by copper.

          Overseas Telco’s realise that ripping out all the copper is not cost effective smart in every instance, that’s why FTTN has been used by customers in the world for years.

          Australia half way through 2011 is still ‘piloting’ the NBN FTTH as if it is some sort of new wonder invention fresh out of the research labs, and by election time 2013 the vast majority of Australian residences will still be on copper (or wireless!), interesting what will happen post 2013 if the Coalition win don’t you think?

          • @alain

            OK once more with feeling

            1. On separation I never asserted that Telstra’s bid was rejected because they didn’t embrace separation. I said Telstra didn’t bid properly because of their concern over separation – it is what their document says. The Government would have been in more mess accepting a bid that did not comply with the non-negotiable requirements than any other. Telstra had a full bid that had been through five sets of lawyers that they didn’t submit because of the separation issue.

            2. Access holiday
            The definition within the regulatory framework is an exemption from the obligation to provide third party access to your network. My assessment is correct. The reference to twelve years in the SAU was to establish pricing princiles for the whole term of the investment.

            As the public was never privy to any undertaking by Telstra in respect of FTTN we cannot know what they offered at that stage. In what they offered to the Commonwealth in July 2005 they required differential access. In wjhat they offered in October 2005 they qualified everything with “subject to satisfactory regulatory outcomes”.

            3. Exponential growth
            Of course I mean the speed customers expect, and use. I think it is irrelevant that I agrere with what speeds people are happy with now. If I had told you ten years ago when DSL services were first offered at 256Kbps would you have said you were happy? Yes. Would you be happy now if that was the best you could get? No.

            The wireless example is stupid and spurious. Firstly there is little evidence of anyone cancelling a fixedband service for mobile. Secondly there is no one getting more than about 1.5 Mbps on a consistent basis from wireless. Not one of the three mobile operators – Telstra, Optus or Vodafone – has come out in support of the idea of wireless as an effective alternative.

            If you went to RadComms 2011 you’d note that everyone there says the game is about spectrum scarcity and the need to use spectrum only for services that need mobility and to offload to fixed networks wherever possible. Many iPads are WiFi only – using home WiFi or WiFi mobile hotspots.

            4. I simply don’t need to respond because you haven’t….

            5. The cost drop I referred to was in the GPON and active fibre components. I won’t go into the costs of technology, but just ask you whether when you buy a new POC you buy the best (most powerful processor and amount of RAM you can) and hold it for a while or buy the entry level machine and the buy a new one every year to upgrade?

            6. CBA
            Well you ant a CBA then get upset when I talk assumptions. Anything about the future is an assumption – even that the sun will rise tomorrow is an assumption.

            The critical point is that there is an existing trend line – the assumption that the trend will continue is the one I rely on. What is your justificatyion for believing the trend won’t?

            The 70% uptake of FTTN services exists in a world of no copper access network and the wholesale price of $24 including the full equivalent value of voice line rental and a 12/1 Broadband service … it is a robust assumption.

            Finally – overseas Telcos are being allowed to get away with building FTTN for exactly the same anti-competitive reasons that Malcolm’s parliamentary colleague Paul Fletcher (Member for Bradfield) wrote about in Wired Brown Land.

            I’m happy to say Ausralia is right, the rest of the world wrong, just as we were when we gave women the vote!

            And I will not respond here again…..

            BTW If the coalition wins – they will finish building the NBN but go much much slower and wate more money.

          • David… welcome to the world of the FUDster… a place where facts/history are of no consequence!

            Imo, poor old alain and his contemporaries have a real problem accepting reality, but have even more of a problem considering (heaven forbid) that they may actually ever be wrong… Rather than accepting any error on his part, alain will sadly twist turn and even blatantly contradict himself…

            I found it interesting that following your first lesson, alain didn’t know and had to go off and research, LOL. So he had argued initially sans research and when found out, raced for any justification he could find. In alain speak that is ignore 99.99% of everything you factually say and find that .01% that he “may” just be able to twist into vainly justifying his incorrect comments…

            Enjoy a frustrating time trying to debate rationally with the irrational, David…

          • yes okay thanks all the ARMCHAIR EXPERTS for entertaining this NBNCo / NBN concept, do any of you actually work in Telecoms at all?

            Take a big step back, a deep breath, clear your head, and have a think about it from first principles…

            remmeber when Labor first trumpted their ridiculous RFP for FTTN, putting together a whole load of steaming BS, like things like mid-point node injection, getting outfits like AXIA to come in a tell us how we should build our network etc. etc.

            And then top that up with a bigger steaming turd, of $43Bn?

            did you first not gasp and think, are these imbeciles serious? did your practical judgement not kick in, to say that something was not right?

            But the Govt know that if it keeps bleating abut somethng long enough, that people will believe the BS. Come the election and gillard, and the independents, another propaganda PR boost to NBN, but… how much of this was real? All the ‘BUSINESS CASE STUDIES’ the Tenders, consultants , contractors, WHAT HAVE THEY DELIVERED?

            i just laugh at all you people who think yourself as intelligent and want to tell the WORLD how you think you know more than the strategists at Telstra, the only companie that actually has real assets and longevity, long after the labor government is gone…. Just dont forget what nonsense youve spouted here now, and what idiots you were….

          • The fact that you keep referring to the RFP for FTNN… when it wasn’t strictly for FTTN, shows you have NFI…!

          • Oops typo… FTTN.

            Plus to clarify, my above comment was in reply to the “Telstra Engineer (LOL)…”

            Just wanted that to be clear!

          • what can i say, telstra called their bluff, they knew they had nothing….in fact, everybody knew, the white elephant in the room they are all ignoring…

            NBNCo is just deja vu. Im just waiting on how the govt will wriggle out of this one.

            The fundamentals are stronger than people realise, and even with legislation, telstra has the power to make a lot of these things fail.

            but the beauty of NBNCo is all the studies and the tenders, the govt is foricibly dragging everybody into their game. because the problem with telecoms in so great given telstra, this will never be fixed.

            finally, im not a fan of telstra, but why should competitors who own less than 5% of the network be handed a large % share of the market?

          • Yes… a vertically integrated Telstra, who could have had a renewed FTTN monopoly with hefty ROI and offloaded the bush to OPEL and thus offloaded the USO too… called their bluff and look where it got them….

            Idiots…

            Then you say “everyone knew about the white elephant in the room”…WTF are you talking about?

            Back to work now “the help”, chop chop, my lines a bit crackly…!

          • @David Havyatt

            “I said Telstra didn’t bid properly because of their concern over separation – it is what their document says.”

            The fact is the Telstra bid was rejected because it ‘did not include a plan for small and medium enterprises’, Telstra was a surprised as anyone that reason was given as the excuse to boot out their RFP, they were also totally surprised they could not resubmit another RFP addressing those concerns.
            I don’t see what the link is between the so called Telstra ‘concern over separation’ affecting their bid in anyway which was rejected on the excuse of the ‘medium and small enterprises plan’ omission.

            “2. Access holiday
            The definition within the regulatory framework is an exemption from the obligation to provide third party access to your network. My assessment is correct. The reference to twelve years in the SAU was to establish pricing princiles for the whole term of the investment.”

            You cannot get a exemption from the obligation to provide third party access because irrespective of who the owner is and what type of infrastructure you build it still is monopoly infrastructure under the legislative jurisdiction of the ACCC who determine pricing and access conditions for competitors.

            I also stated the G9 consortium also wanted override protection for a period of time on their rollout which Telstra did not, you didn’t mention that at all in your response.

            ” In what they offered in October 2005 they qualified everything with “subject to satisfactory regulatory outcomes”.”

            Well Telstra were not the only one, all the RFP bidders were worried what the ACCC could do to their investment ROI.

            “3. Exponential growth
            If I had told you ten years ago when DSL services were first offered at 256Kbps would you have said you were happy? Yes. Would you be happy now if that was the best you could get? No.”

            I notice you let it go through to the keeper the fact that high speed HFC is available today as a choice for many residences, if the majority of residences choose NOT to sign up to a HFC Plan indicates that the need for high speed BB is not high on end users agenda as the FTTH proposers like to believe.
            The fact that a residence that has HFC passing the front of the house is happy with 256Kbps, 512, 1500 or 8000 ADSL1 in 2011 obviously tells us being happy with the ‘best you can get’ is in the eye of the beholder.

            “The wireless example is stupid and spurious. Firstly there is little evidence of anyone cancelling a fixedband service for mobile”

            Really? I know plenty of people that have dropped fixed line for wireless BB and wireless telephony, the initial motivation for giving Telstra line rental the flick is the increased use of mobiles for all telephony instead of PSTN on capped plans, many keep the line active for ADSL, many do not.

            Telstra stated in their last financials that about 13% of their customers do not have a fixed line connection at all, this trend will increase markedly in the next financials reporting period as the full effects of the IPhone etc avalanche flow through.

            ” Secondly there is no one getting more than about 1.5 Mbps on a consistent basis from wireless. Not one of the three mobile operators – Telstra, Optus or Vodafone – has come out in support of the idea of wireless as an effective alternative.”

            I never stated wireless is a alternative for fixed line on a pure speed basis and latency, in fact I know it is not and acknowledged that fact, that’s not why wireless BB is popular, speed is not the overriding factor in the decision if portability and having the latest IPhone, HTC Desire model etc is the overriding factor.
            The pure fact is new wireless BB SIO’s are swamping fixed line SIO’s, read the Telstra and SingTel Financials to see where there highest BB revenue is coming from.

            “If you went to RadComms 2011 you’d note that everyone there says the game is about spectrum scarcity and the need to use spectrum only for services that need mobility and to offload to fixed networks wherever possible. Many iPads are WiFi only – using home WiFi or WiFi mobile hotspots.”

            Yes I know, but that is stopping the demand for wireless BB how?

            “4. I simply don’t need to respond because you haven’t….”

            Yes I thought defining your so called ‘wall’ in any meaningful quantifiable way would be awkward to say the least.

            “5. The cost drop I referred to was in the GPON and active fibre components. I won’t go into the costs of technology, but just ask you whether when you buy a new POC you buy the best (most powerful processor and amount of RAM you can) and hold it for a while or buy the entry level machine and the buy a new one every year to upgrade?”

            So that’s a yes then, FTTN costs can drop in the same way as FTTH costs can drop, which was the point of my response, stating that everyone ‘needs’ FTTH instead of FTTN is spurious to that point.

            “6. CBA

            The critical point is that there is an existing trend line – the assumption that the trend will continue is the one I rely on. What is your justificatyion for believing the trend won’t?”

            The justification is the consumers are not using anywhere near the capacity of their fixed line BB speeds today, the trend is for increased data downloaded, but if I download 20 gig a month on ADSL2+ or HFC it doesn’t immediately follow that if I had FTTH I would download more.
            FTTH for email and browsing uses the same amount of data as for example 1500/256.

            “The 70% uptake of FTTN services exists in a world of no copper access network and the wholesale price of $24 including the full equivalent value of voice line rental and a 12/1 Broadband service … it is a robust assumption.”

            I and many others do not agree, I think it is a overly optimistic assumption, even taking into account that your robust assumption depends on residences having no choice.

            Interesting way to justify spending $43 billion if the ROI totally depends on eliminating infrastructure competitors don’t you think?

            “I’m happy to say Ausralia is right, the rest of the world wrong, just as we were when we gave women the vote!”

            Oh ok, that seals it then . LOL

            “And I will not respond here again….. ”

            Oh ok, that was easy – bye, nice chatting with you.

          • LOL…alain

            I find it most humorous that you keep but, but, but, trying to keep up with David, yet you don’t even understand the basics, as clearly demonstrated by HC, with the various FTTx

            Oh dear…!

          • @alain

            I now see why these conversations so usually degenerate into abuse. I’m only responding because you had the impudence to suggest that your subsequent post in any way addressed anything I had said.

            1. Telstra was omitted because the 14 page letter omitted the SMB plan. The letter replaced a full sized bid which included the SMB plan. Telstra did not make the full bid – as the letter says – because separation was not taken off the table. The failure to lodge the full bid resulted in their exclusion. Pretty straight causal link.

            2. You are right the ACCC can’t grant an access holiday – which is why Telstra’s request was for legislation to change that.

            3. Three points in one. First theoretical 100Mbps for HFC. I’ve had HFV (BigPond) since about 1998 and ridden the upgrades. I’m not hearing anyone talk beyond 100 Mbps and the 100 Mbps is shared across the node – not per user. Second again I’ll repeat the point of comparing speed demands todat versus speed demands in ten and twenty years time. Third I know there are lots of people who don’t get a fixed line connection and usejust mobile – but I don’t know many who cancel.

            I also never argued that demandfor wireless would slow – the future is demand for wireless and fixed – it is the only way to meet user demands on speed and ubiquity.

            4. I will repeat the original statement. There is a trend line of expoential growth in user requirement for the speed of their broadband connection. There is no evidence of that changing. Anyone who thinks the trend changes needs to expolain why. Saying you can’t see the app or that is just entertainment is not an answer.

            It is like the design of the Totanic, which was unsinkable – except by design from a major hole created by hitting an iceberg. It really makes sense to plan for the likely events.

            5. I’m sorry yes parts of the FTTN cost decline at the same rate as FTTH. The cost elements that don’t are civil engineering costs – notable the cost of powered cabinets. That is the wasted investment and the bit rendered redundant by the falling fibre component costs.

            6. CBA. You see the problem with any planning exercise is that you have to forecast the future. I and NBN Co think 70% take-up is a reasonable forecast, you don’t. I see the significance of speed of connection in responsiveness of an application (e.g. two -way HD ideo conferencing) whereas you measure it in how fast it needs to be to do a bulk download. A so-called Cost Benefit Analysis fails on that point.

            I’m lie engineerr@telstra and happen to believe that monopoly infrastructure should be built that way. We don’t have two electricity didtributio networks, we don’t have two gas networks. We have one of each. They can be used to supply “competition” in energy but people often get both because they are better for different purposes (lighting and motors = electricity, heat=gas), just as fibre is better for speed and wireless is better for mobility. The fibre is an upgrade of the fixed network.

            Finally as a simple note another reason telcos are moving to either FTTN or FTTH is that they ned to move their voice platforms from circuit switched exchages. So the existing copper structure was never going to survive.

            The choices are;
            A. FTTN now and assumeyou never have to do FTTH (I don’t see a future where FTTN meets all our needs)
            B. FTTN with a later FTTH build (this is the one the Govt exert panel concluded is dearer than FTTH now)
            C. FTTH now.

            PS I don’t think in any sense I’ve “chatted” with you. Chatting would imply I enjoyed the experience.

          • @David Havyatt

            “I now see why these conversations so usually degenerate into abuse. I’m only responding because you had the impudence to suggest that your subsequent post in any way addressed anything I had said.”

            Oh I see, placing the word ‘impudence’ in your response indicates you don’t like anyone disagreeing with you, bad luck about that and not that you addressed any of the questions I put to you, but that’s ok I take it, many pro-NBN pundits love a one-way street.

            “1. Telstra was omitted because the 14 page letter omitted the SMB plan. The letter replaced a full sized bid which included the SMB plan. Telstra did not make the full bid – as the letter says – because separation was not taken off the table. The failure to lodge the full bid resulted in their exclusion. Pretty straight causal link.”

            I stated the reason for the Telstra RFP rejection as stated publicly by Conroy’s Department at the time, separation was not mentioned at all in that reason.
            Telstra was not allowed to resubmit anymore bids, full, separation conditions included or otherwise, that’s the real ‘ Pretty straight causal link’.

            “2. You are right the ACCC can’t grant an access holiday – which is why Telstra’s request was for legislation to change that”

            Well it wasn’t just Telstra.

            “3. Three points in one. First theoretical 100Mbps for HFC. I’ve had HFV (BigPond) since about 1998 and ridden the upgrades. I’m not hearing anyone talk beyond 100 Mbps and the 100 Mbps is shared across the node – not per user.”

            Well thanks for the technical discourse on BigPond cable speeds and how the nodes work, but my point is all about user satisfaction with those speeds and why if you have HFC running past your residence most residences don’t sign up for it.
            Of course it is all about need, FTTH is being forced down residents throats when they don’t even make full use of the speed capacity available to them today!

            “Second again I’ll repeat the point of comparing speed demands todat versus speed demands in ten and twenty years time.”

            If consumers are not availing themselves of the top speed capacities available to them today, how can you make predictions about what speeds they in fact (won’t) need in 10 – twenty years time?

            ” Third I know there are lots of people who don’t get a fixed line connection and usejust mobile – but I don’t know many who cancel.”

            Really?, read the Telstra financials on fixed line cancellations then, they have been rapidly increasing for at least the last 6 years.

            “I also never argued that demandfor wireless would slow – the future is demand for wireless and fixed – it is the only way to meet user demands on speed and ubiquity.”

            But you said my wireless argument was I quote ‘The wireless example is stupid and spurious’ – you having a bet both ways now?

            “4. I will repeat the original statement. There is a trend line of expoential growth in user requirement for the speed of their broadband connection. There is no evidence of that changing. Anyone who thinks the trend changes needs to explain why. Saying you can’t see the app or that is just entertainment is not an answer.”

            Yes but your argument asserts that ONLY FTTH can fulfill that exponential growth, you also ignored my requests for you to define your ‘ wall’ in any quantifiable way, I asked you why HFC and ADSL2+ has or will have hit your wall, you stated that FTTN was not a solution because it will hit the wall soon anyway and will have to be replaced with FTTH.

            Define that famous wall of yours, and how we will all know when we have reached it, I assume those countries like China that are rapidly rolling out FTTTN/FTTB will meet that wall (Great Wall of China perhaps?) then their economy will come to a grinding halt! :)

            “5. I’m sorry yes parts of the FTTN cost decline at the same rate as FTTH. The cost elements that don’t are civil engineering costs – notable the cost of powered cabinets. That is the wasted investment and the bit rendered redundant by the falling fibre component costs.”

            Oh here we go the ‘wasted investment theory’ is introduced, first all of you assume FTTN is wasted investment because we will need faster speeds than what FTTH is capable of very soon (not that you have defined soon), you also totally disregard that FTTN utilises investment already laid, that is the copper link between the Node and the residence.
            Also the FTTN powered cabinet has not fallen in cost relative to a FTTH GPON cabinet why?

            While you are at it pass it by me again how much it costs to put a powered UPS FTTH box in each and every home in Australia that must be serviced and maintained as distinct from the cost of a powered FTTN Node cabinet that services 100’s of homes?

            “6.I see the significance of speed of connection in responsiveness of an application (e.g. two -way HD ideo conferencing) whereas you measure it in how fast it needs to be to do a bulk download. A so-called Cost Benefit Analysis fails on that point.”

            I see a two-way HD video conferencing application as being used by a almost immeasurable minority on the pie chart of national internet use.

            I see the the vast majority of internet use being browsing and email, Facebook, Twitter etc, which is adequately serviced by 1500/256 to make a point.

            Pro NBN pundits would love to see the majority of residences using HD video conferencing, so would the video conferencing hardware/software suppliers, but actual consumer need and marketing spin motivated by the need to flog product and that includes FTTH are often not even in the same room.

            ” The fibre is an upgrade of the fixed network.”

            Yes I understand how it works, how we do it and who pays for it and why need to rip out the existing infrastructure to ensure the taxpayer funded upgrade has a viable customer base are the points of contention.

            “Finally as a simple note another reason telcos are moving to either FTTN or FTTH is that they ned to move their voice platforms from circuit switched exchages. So the existing copper structure was never going to survive.”

            Well you mention FTTN which uses copper, so most of the infrastructure beyond the pillar survives in that scenario.

            “The choices are;
            A. FTTN now and assumeyou never have to do FTTH (I don’t see a future where FTTN meets all our needs)”

            Not that you have defined the needs that FTTN cannot meet and in what time frame, but never mind.

            “B. FTTN with a later FTTH build (this is the one the Govt exert panel concluded is dearer than FTTH now)”

            The stark difference being we would have FTTN NOW instead of just piloting in very small selected areas of Australia NBN FTTH, the very same product used by about 180,000 residences in Greenfield estates all over Australia for years, for some reason the NBN FTTH needs long term piloting, I think it has lot to do with giveaway pricing to ensure some degree of uptake (not that it is working too well).

            “PS I don’t think in any sense I’ve “chatted” with you. Chatting would imply I enjoyed the experience.”

            Fine, most pro-NBN proponents hate being challenged ‘ we know what’s best for you’ attitude, as I said at the beginning, bad luck about that.

          • @alain

            I do not mind being challenged in the slightest. I do at least expect the person who wants to challenge me to understand the basics of logical syllogisms. I also expect them to understand basic concepts of law.

            Tenders have closing dates. Everyone knows that. No one ever expects to be able to submit a full tender later than the closing date … other than perhaps you and Telstra. Imagine the outcry if, say, Optus hadn’t met the cut-off time or had left out a critical element and had been invited to make a late bid. Telstra was excluded entirely because of actions Telstra took – the primary one being not to submit the full bid they had prepared.

            I am very happy that you Alain see no need for higher speeds of internet connection into the future. I happen to think you are wrong. We can shout at each other as much as we like about this. We have different bases for making our assessments. I base it on trends, you base it on the simple fact that not every user currently uses all they have.

            The point that annoys me the most though is that when in one post you try to correct me by saying Telstra couldn’t get an access holiday because it is the law, and in my next post I point out that they were trying to change the law, you try to fall back to the different earlier point about them not being the only ones – carefully avoiding the initial point that the way the two proponents wanted the law changed was different. In case you didn’t know the Howard Government’s response together with OPEL was the one I dubbed “the tender for regulatory policy” where in effect Telstra amd the G9 were being invited to “bid” for the regulatory changes to get their proposals up. This was the exercise for which the very first expert panel was chosen … but thankfully an election intervened.

            The whole power bit I do find interesting. A distinction between power for nodes versus houses is that at least in houses there is a degree of direct supervision and personal responsibility. But I still think we ask the wrong question – it shouldn’t be about UPS for the broadband connection in the house but UPS for the house. Look at places like Christchurch and the cyclone hit areas of Queensland. Power takes a long time to restore and power provides a lot more than comms.

            Now my only problem is that you are the kind of guy who likes to have the last word. And do so with some kind of triumphal flourish that you have proven your case and defeated your foe.

            Guess what? I’m prepared to concede that I’m not going to convince you. But it isn’t you I’m trying to convince. I’m trying to convince other peiople who read this stuff – of which I think there are blessed few after the first day.

          • Gee after that, the verdict… who was the winner and who ever should we believe?

            David Havyatt, a highly regarded comms exponent, with hands on experience/expertise at the absolute highest level of both business (as CEO) and politics (attending Senate hearings to assist politicians from all sides better understand comms), who has posted here simply to explain to people (with enough sense to listen/heed) the NBN, from a top level POV! Who supplies bonafide facts and figures to support his comments.

            Or…

            alain, a person who posts incessant negativity at multiple sites, under multiple names (without reason). Who, will blatantly lie and contradict him self… for example arguing that the RFP WAS a FTTN tender, but now, arguing it wasn’t. One who also says the NBN will be successful then says it won’t be successful, dependent upon his “no win” debating position at the time. One who when given information which doesn’t adhere to his biased agenda, spends hours Googling, totally ignoring hundreds of entries which supports such information, until he finally finds vague, ambiguous rubbish, he considers backs his opposition, then says there…sigh! One who blurts out complete and utter rot, but when confronted has no answer, so to avoid scrutiny, accuses the questioner of moving goal posts, etc? Who uses nothing but his own bias to support his claims and depends upon “because” as his entire argument!

            What a hard choice [sic]…(shakes head, while simultaneously… literally LOL)!

          • @David Havyatt

            “I do not mind being challenged in the slightest. I do at least expect the person who wants to challenge me to understand the basics of logical syllogisms. I also expect them to understand basic concepts of law.”

            You don’t always have to open with a attempt at a put down, the last response was ‘impudence’, by inserting the phrase ‘ basics of logical syllogisms’ and hoping everyone that reads that says wow I don’t what that means, or even how it applies to a argument it sounds impressive so therefore he must know what he is talking about.

            “Tenders have closing dates. Everyone knows that. No one ever expects to be able to submit a full tender later than the closing date … other than perhaps you and Telstra. Imagine the outcry if, say, Optus hadn’t met the cut-off time or had left out a critical element and had been invited to make a late bid. Telstra was excluded entirely because of actions Telstra took – the primary one being not to submit the full bid they had prepared.’

            Yes I know, there is no need to fill out with ‘stating the bleeding obvious’ superfluous filler, it doesn’t change in any way the reason stated why the Telstra RFP was rejected, and why they were not allowed to re submit anything.

            “I am very happy that you Alain see no need for higher speeds of internet connection into the future. I happen to think you are wrong.”

            I happy to be proved wrong, I asked you about defining your ‘wall ‘although I noticed you don’t use the term anymore in subsequent responses let alone any attempt at defining it and where your wall is at in June 2011 for example and what decade FTTN max speeds will reach it and why.

            ” We can shout at each other as much as we like about this. We have different bases for making our assessments. I base it on trends, you base it on the simple fact that not every user currently uses all they have.”

            Trends on the need for speed are based on assumptions that products that can utilise those speeds are going to be in high demand in the future,the one you mentioned was HD video conferencing, of course that assumes for starters on a pure technical basis SD video conferencing is just not good enough, and the majority of NBN FTTH residences are crying out for HD video conferencing and only a FTTH rollout will cut it.

            Look for more consumer pertinent application examples rather than corporate conferencing to justify FTTH speeds than that.

            “The point that annoys me the most though …. ….. This was the exercise for which the very first expert panel was chosen … but thankfully an election intervened.”

            Yes I know all about G9 and what they wanted which was rejected by the ACCC in their SAU submission and the ongoing seemingly never ending talks between Telstra and the ACCC on regulatory change with Telstra finally pulling the plug on those discussions.

            That has nothing to do why the Telstra RFP much later on after Rudd won the election from Howard was rejected though does it?

            “The whole power bit I do find interesting. A distinction between power for nodes versus houses is that at least in houses there is a degree of direct supervision and personal responsibility. But I still think we ask the wrong question – it shouldn’t be about UPS for the broadband connection in the house but UPS for the house. Look at places like Christchurch and the cyclone hit areas of Queensland. Power takes a long time to restore and power provides a lot more than comms.”

            err right ok, I am not sure where you are going with this unless you are asserting that the NBN ONU UPS battery capacity should be upgraded to provide power for back up lighting and the microwave oven, which has nothing whatever to do with the point I was making re FTTN Node power requirements vs FTTH, but it was a somewhat interesting side diversion introducing earthquakes and cyclones into the equation.

            “Guess what? I’m prepared to concede that I’m not going to convince you. But it isn’t you I’m trying to convince.”

            Well no if you refuse to answer basic questions that underpin your assumptions on trends, especially about ‘walls’ I guess not, as for me me I’m off to visit a relative to try and convince her to upgrade to 1500/256 at the same price as 256/64, even though she is quite happy with what she has, but I know what’s best for her.

          • @RS

            “Gee after that, the verdict… who was the winner and who ever should we believe?”

            Well for a start anything you have to say on the matter for a kick off, even other pro-NBN posters that have something rational to say give you a serve, you are one of the best things the anti-NBN argument has going for it.

            What’s really funny is you don’t even know it.

          • It is most obvious that you have NFI about comms alain?

            You are imo, more than likely an ultra conservative voting/Telstra shareholder who started voicing his greedy NWAT like opinions at NWAT?

            You know little and rely upon blurting out BS and when replied to, you Google around the facts to find just enough BS, to get you by at the time? As you said to David H, “I’ll research and get back to you”!

            The fact is you previously called RFP a FTTN tender (and argued using a journalist’s headlines at ZD as your star witness vs. my URL to the actual .gov URL of the RFP announcement). But now months later you refer to it as RFP, ignoring exactly how you learned this…!

            The fact you thought Coonan had Telstra switch on ADSL2+?

            The fact you still do not know anything about FTTx. Demonstrated when HC kept saying FTTB=FTTP and you kept saying FTTB is not FTTH, we all knew what HC was doing (making a bigger fool of you…easily) and could see you had NFI. That’s why I made fun of you (again) about you building FTTB (not FTTP… LOL) for the price of FTTN… and that you had my vote! Yet it went straight over your head, because you know no better!

            And the fact you CAN’T answer questions, if you can’t Google someone else’s answer, demonstrates clearly that you are winging it and the deeper you dig that hole the more FUD/BS you need to accumulate to try to slither out of said hole!

            I’m not giving you ***t because you don’t know per se`, I’m giving you shit for being FOS (gee I’m not alone there). As such, I think this line of your’s actually explains you and what you stand for, completely alain…

            “there are no winners or losers in a blog like Delimiter, Whirlpool, ZDnet etc, there is just a mass of opinion with no independent arbitrator, you read it and agree or disagree and move on”.

            You use the above motto as an excuse, to justify your uneducated mistruths, contradictions and out and out BS…. whilst forever pushing and desperately hoping others will believe your selfish agenda! Alas, we all know what you are… so, sorry tiger.

            Better find another name advocate/alain and start again!

            Oh and feel free to ignore this, because you always do… IGNORE THE TRUTH/FACTS…!

          • BTW alain, I almost forgot…

            I must commend you on closing remarks above, in relation to ones comments being the other sides best ally… Nice comment, very clever…

            Well of course it is… because it’s one of mine, which I previously said to you (proves you can’t think for your self, exactly as I said)!

            Of course I also sarcastically started with, please keep ‘em coming and ended with keep up the good work tiger…!

            Sigh…!!!!!!

          • Renai… there’s been a bit of a communication breakdown, me thinks!

            My above comment wasn’t directed at you or the comments closing, what-so-ever…It was in regards to alain’s closing/final remarks (comments) above…..

            Typo on my part accidentally omitting the word your, before the word comment…sorry for the confusion!

            Cheers.

          • @dean

            Thanks. That’s the graph – originally from Al-Lu then used by the Fibre to the Home Council Asia-Pacific and since adopted by NBN Co. No one has ever challenged the historic elements or given a reason why the trend line ceases.

            Things that could possibly take up all that bandwidth? I don’t know…but then again ten years ago I didn’t know of YouTube, Facebook, ….. etc

          • @David… without ****ing in your pocket, thanks for the insight from one who is there and involved at the highest level, as opposed to one like myself who is simply a comms hobbyist/enthusiast…or alain, who is a “selectively negative researcher” (that’s the kind description)…

            Interesting you would mention YouTube etc though…

            I made a similar comment over at ZDNet sometime ago, mentioning the two you did, as well as others such as Twitter and eBay, as examples of technology we couldn’t have even envisaged 20 years ago (in some cases just 5 or 6 years) ago.

            Of course the eternal naysayers scoffed and said, “but we can get those now, we don’t need a (add the naysayers inflated figure for today) NBN”… ignoring of course the obvious – had the technology we now enjoy not been available then, we wouldn’t have the aforementioned organisations. I was thus trying (obviously in vain) to forward a direct analogy, asking these people to look past their noses and biases, to see what could be just around the corner, once the technology is available…

            Of course then I received the “build it and they will come” gibe, with the same people again ignoring the laws and trends universally recognised (such as Dean’s example above, Moore’s, Nielsen’s etc) and instead of the correspondence subsequently going from A-B, it jumped from A-R (R as in ridiculous) as someone then said yes, but YouTube etc weren’t government funded…and with that odd comment they suggested as such, my entire premise flawed!

            Seriously… you can lead the proverbial horse to water…!

        • Challenge me hard enough and I’ll go off and do the formal calculation. Just remember that about half of the cost Malcolm is quoting as the cost of FTTN is not recovered when you upgrade to an FTTH.

          You don’t have to do a formal calculation, back of the envelope is good enough.

          Consider a $40 billion investment in infrastructure, if you can just defer that investment for 10 years, you immediately save yourself $38 billion in interest payments (at 7% return). If you can defer that investment for 20 years you save $114 billion in interest payments.

          The mere fact that FTTN is better suited to incremental rollout (and thus it pays for itself at each and every step, not requiring a single massive injection of funds) puts it way ahead.

          Beyond the economic argument, where is the technical argument that FTTN will reach a speed bottleneck? How fast can you run data over copper? Depends very much on the type of copper and the length of the wire. As you add more nodes to the system, you add more bandwidth by making the copper shorter. If you want to gradually add fiber, you can do that too.

          The real problem with FTTN was an ideological problem that the ALP had with the idea. The ALP want to deliver a one-size-fits-all strategy which is easy to centrally manage, and delivers equity in the form that all parties get an identical product. Following an incremental upgrade path would deliver a better product to some people than others… the politics of envy makes such a path unviable.

  3. Malcolm is quite right that a FttN with nodes positioned 750 metres apart *might* achieve the speeds he is talking about, both in terms of upload and download.

    His plan might even cost half as much as the current FttH version of the NBN – this would not surprise me either.

    For many people – (if not most) – 60Mbps would be quite satisfactory for the time being. Unfortunately it is still a near-sighted vision.

    If it cost $18b to build – (half the fibre version) – fantastic, but what happens when 60Mbps becomes not enough? What cost will it be to upgrade the network to give people, say, 200Mbps? Another five or ten billion to rip the copper out and replace it with fibre in 10 years from now?

    What happens in 15 years from now when 1Gbps is the “norm”? Another few billion?

    As the research well-publicised by our friend Alan Jones over at 2GB recently, potential fibre speeds are many magnitudes of scale higher RIGHT NOW than copper *might* be able to offer in the future.

    GPON (the NBN technology) can already deliver 40Gbps over the fibre we are laying *right now* – we’ll have spent many more dollars than $36b before copper ever delivers that speed.

    • i really wish id bookmarked the speed/data growth curves i saw in the last couple of days – i suspect it was in one of the 26tbps KIT threads. those curves are the primary reason why i feel a peak 60mbps over a FTTN part fibre part copper net simply are not going to cut it for the dollars sunk.

      and as far as that goes – i have to wonder what malcolms figures are for landing node cabinets every 1.5 km (750m each way apart). resumptions, easements etc etc etc. what tech is he talking to reach 60mbps? is it one of those requiring twice as many copper pairs as most households currently have? thats further expense. there isnt any real upgradability to the nodes either – if you need to lay in extra copper pairs to gain greater speeds using the extremely short run hundreds of megabit copper runs that will likely wind up costing as much to upgrade down the track as the full ftth deploy does here in the first instance. theres no real good reason to spend on a halfway house and then have to spend again when it can be all done first time around, with a much better upgrade path available to boot.

      • ooops the extremely short run hundreds of megabit copper tech thats meant to be…

        • i do not believe the NBN is achieveable. The cutover of brownfield estates to fibre in totality is a nightmare, as you can see, NBNCo have problem even delivering 1 dense metropolitian site in brunswick.

          The calcuations and studies are incorrect and the details glossed over, the reality in the real world is very different. I dont think the NBN’s goal is achievable and looks very poorly conceived.

          Operators like Silcar are also know to extort their contractors and staff…many times their ex-staff have sabotaged their offices because they are treated like trash these days and paid minimal wages

          • NBNCo does ‘not’ do anything, it simply passes it own to whoever won the tender for it, imo. this is a bit of a joke, and sad to say that this is how telecoms works today, its about passing the buck.

            and yes i was dissappointed that NBNCo chose to not take more responsiblity in the building of the network, remember that in old world telstra, the people who built the copper network were Telstra employees.

            these days its a tendering process, often awarded to operators who will do it for the cheapest, as we already seen with Silcar.

            What NBNCo would do, is inspect it and tick it off, but this model has failed in telecoms, and i was not surprised that NBNCo basically did what Telstra does, it tries to extort their contractors. Only it took much longer for telstra to figure that out. Hence why, Telstra no longer cares about its network, its got a budget for its upkeep, but its someone elses problem, which then become someone else’s and someone else’s etc…

            You will see this type of garbage happen, and I predict it it will happen with NBN, why? Because NBNCo is run by the same has-been a*rshles that ran Telstra ;) or any Telco for that matter.

          • They pass the physical work to the tenderers, yes. In the case of Brunswick where you say THEY are struggling to do it, it’s actually Telstra doing the work. So, who exactly is having trouble finishing the work in Brunswick?

            You may or may not be an engineer at Telstra, but you certainly have little concept of project management or the legislative environment if you think that nothing has been achieved in 18 months.

          • @Micheal Wyres

            The only ‘struggle’ they are having in Brunswick is getting residents to sign up, too many competitive alternative options.

          • Customer sign-ups aren’t even open.

            If at the time a customer wants to sign up when they do open, and they haven’t had the fibre lead-in installed, I’m sure there will be no problem having it installed.

            It’ll cost the customer around $300.00 to do so, when they could have had it for nothing during the build phase. If people are stupid enough to let that happen, that’s not the government or NBN Co’s fault.

            Now – lets ask YOU a hypothetical question.

            Assuming the NBN is rolled out, and it comes to your area, will you or will you not EVER get a service on the NBN from an RSP?

          • I won’t, my ISP isn’t even providing a service on the NBN because with the proposed pricing its not affordable for them to do so

          • http://technologyspectator.com.au/nbn-buzz/tpg-snubs-mainland-nbn-trials-optus-joins

            A TPG spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for comment on the issue today, but the company’s general manager of sales and marketing Craig Levy has previous responded to the issue by stating that TPG already sells services based on the GPON standard – which the NBN network uses – in the corporate space on its PIPE fibre network, and TPG is becoming more familiar with GPON-based rollouts.

            “Just like other carriers, we have had talks with NBN and will engage with them more closely as there becomes more clarity about their timing,” he said in late March.

            I don’t see anything to suggest they are staying away due to pricing concerns.

            *shrug*

          • Full commercial NBN pricing as distinct from NBN pilot giveaway pricing is supposed to start in July, what will be interesting is to see what the uptake will be in those areas that already have adequate fixed line and 3G high speed choices already.

          • Actually alain there’s nothing to “wait” for. Given the NBN will be the monopoly, everyone with a fixed line connection will be shifted over to them as the copper is simultaneously pulled out.

          • Engineer@Telstra, you must hate Telstra, too, since all their maintenance and installation work on the copper is subcontracted out, just like the NBNCo construction work. From what we’ve seen, NBNCo is getting the job done properly. For instance, the Kiama-Minnamurra rollout (I don’t have data for the others) saw not a single Lost Time injury, which to me shouts responsible contractor management. If the contracted workers hated their job this would inevitably be reflected in lost days being taken for minor scrapes, falls and bumps, which was not the case.

          • you obviously dont work in the industry if you are dumb enough to think that lol

      • You do realize that the expense of placing those extra nodes are also calculated i that cost

        Also you do realize that the nodes (since they have fiber cores installed up to them) can be used to upgrade for a FTTH? You simply remove all the FTTN equipment from the node, replace the last mile with FTTH and put in splitters and whanot in the cabinets.

        And the tech is called VDSL2, its not some ‘magic’. Its in fact what South Korea uses everywhere with FTTB

        So your post was essentially FTTN FUD, glad to hear

        • from what i understand VDSL2 requires 2 pairs of copper ‘bonded’ to get those high speeds, and it is subject to all the issues copper has today – bridge taps and moisture for instance. neither of which are issues with using fibre.if a place needs an extra pair of copper hauled to get the 60 MBPS again, why not just roll the fibre in the first instance?

          even if the cost for all those extras has been calculated in, i havent seen any figures for at all with a breakdown for FTTN costs, and certainly havent seen anywhere suggested that it includes extra copper haulage. so rather than FUD im asking you for pertinent details – is is just using existing pairs (in which case it wont be nearly as fast) and if it is hauling copper to achieve its speeds why is that a better use of funds than hauling fibre, all things considered.

          you want to make the case that FTTN is a better spend, thats fine. but id like a little more detail on some of the finer points – rather than FUDDing on FTTN i simply believe that if to make the FTTN option work, you are hauling copper, you are paying money to haul a second rate tech when you could be hauling fibre first go around – so let me know why FTTN is the way to go?

          also wondering how much you envisage paying telstra for cut-over of their copper, regardless the number of pairs used. the Four Corners report argued out that a 5bn fttn build would inflate to nearly the cost of the governments share of the FTTH build anyway, with compensation being paid to Telstra. where do you peg the figure, and again why is it a good spend vs the FTTH option?

          FWIW i believe there were good economic and technical reasons for doing an end run around the FTTN proposals even had telstra fielded a compliant bid. for those reasons i feel the FTTH was the right way to go. in different circumstances i would be perfectly happy with a FTTN build – say at least a decade ago. but there are different options and considerations doing such a build today, and i dont feel the argument for FTTN meet those considerations – hence why i ask.

  5. So here we are nearly a year after Mr Turnbull was tasked with destroying the NBN and he finally mentions upload speeds. Typically and I guess this was to be expected we get a few vague numbers and not much else.

    50mbps symmetrical? ok great, but only if you are in the magic circle and the planets and non-planets are aligned right. If I am lucky enough to get that speed I still have to worry about the user at the other end that may or may not have the same upload capacity…

    I really dont need to state the obvious about the price do I? The Liberal party really think it is OK to waste taxpayers money on this when it will be redundant as soon as it is built? Their stupidity is concerning, voters should think twice before allowing these clowns to ruin the progress we are making.

    btw before someone accuses me of moving goalposts the goalposts have never moved, they are set in concrete. Malcolm Turnbull has failed dismally on this occasion he just needs to kick the ball a bit harder next time.

  6. With FTTN we can get a MAXIMUM of 40-100 Mbit (distance dependant), perhaps another 50% or so and then we reach the physical speed barrier. With FTTH we get a MINIMUM of 1000 Mbit with no distance limitations, and we’ve barely scratched the surface with possible fibre speeds.

    Mr Turnbull, you seriously need to get a better and quick!

  7. “The Liberal party really think it is OK to waste taxpayers money on this when it will be redundant as soon as it is built?”

    It’s not ‘redundant’ just because you say it is, FFTN has been successfully rolled out overseas, FTTN has also been rolled out with a view to upgrade to FTTH later, FTTN has many 100’s of thousands of satisfied BB customers all over the world, but your manic obsession with upload speeds overrides any other value considerations.

    Australia is the only country in the World that is going to pull down its working HFC and copper infrastructure to ensure that there is no choice for fixed line other than the taxpayer funded NBN FTTH.

    • “It’s not ‘redundant’ just because you say it is”

      That’s right it wont be redundant because I say it will be, it’ll become redundant because that is the natural affect of setting the bar so low to begin with.

      “FFTN has been successfully rolled out overseas”

      Because other countries make mistakes and shoot themselves in the foot Australia should follow suit?

      “FTTN has many 100′s of thousands of satisfied BB customers all over the world”

      LOL, do we really have to go through this crap again? It is irrelevant, FTTH is the future not FTTN, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country (there is NO Fiber_to_the_node_by_country entry btw)

      “but your manic obsession with upload speeds overrides any other value considerations.”

      Upload speeds are more important than download speeds, everyone can work this out it’s not rocket science, your attempt to play it down doesn’t change that.

      “Australia is the only country in the World that is going to pull down its working HFC and copper infrastructure to ensure that there is no choice for fixed line”

      I demand the government build a dirt road in front of my house along side the asphalt road so I can have a choice which one to drive on… boo hoo hoo the poor rotted out copper and HFC. You are boring…

      “other than the taxpayer funded NBN FTTH.”

      We’ve been over this too but your manic obsession with taxpayers overrides any other logical consideration… they will be paid back.

      • @HC

        ” it’ll become redundant because that is the natural affect of setting the bar so low to begin with.”

        Redundancy is not a term solely defined by HC’s need for upload speed, HFC is not redundant if customers are happily using it, pulling it down and forcibly migrating those customers onto the NBN is not because the infrastructure is redundant it is because Telstra and Optus are being giving taxpayer billions to prop up the NBN customer base.

        “Because other countries make mistakes and shoot themselves in the foot Australia should follow suit?”

        Sorry HC you a one eyed pro-NBN casual blogger in Delimiter just saying that is not sufficient, I assume the large Telco’s in the USA, Korea, UK and Europe know what they are doing.

        You see the stark difference with Australia, customers in those countries are ACTUALLY USING IT! because FTTN can be rolled out much quicker and at a lower cost, half way through 2011 in Australia and we are STILL stuffing around with NBN ‘pilot sites’ like FTTH has never been done before – what a total JOKE!

        “LOL, do we really have to go through this crap again? It is irrelevant”

        It’s not irrelevant just because you don’t like reading it!

        “Upload speeds are more important than download speeds, everyone can work this out it’s not rocket science, your attempt to play it down doesn’t change that.”

        Once again your obsession with uploads speeds doesn’t translate into everyone in Australia seeing it that way, or even the taxpayer footing the multi-billion dollar bill so you have your upload speed.

        “I demand the government build a dirt road in front of my house along side the asphalt road so I can have a choice which one to drive on… boo hoo hoo the poor rotted out copper and HFC. You are boring…”

        Err yeah ok , that makes no sense whatever in reponse, but anyway……

        “they will be paid back.”

        Neatly summed up with the well used accounting term – complete and utter BS!

        • “Redundancy is not a term solely defined by HC’s need for upload speed”

          Not sure why you think this has anything to do with me, newsflash: it doesn’t, this has to do with what the country needs.

          “HFC is not redundant if customers are happily using it”

          You are talking about HFC now? Turbulls plan: FTTN remember? FTTN will be redundant. So will HFC but stick to the topic please.

          “pulling it down and forcibly migrating those customers onto the NBN blah blah blah boo hoo hoo”

          You really are a repetitive bore…

          “Sorry HC you a one eyed pro-NBN casual blogger in Delimiter just saying that is not sufficient”

          Once again not sure why you think this has anything to do with me, you seem to be fixated and obsessed with my needs, why is that?

          “I assume the large Telco’s in the USA, Korea, UK and Europe know what they are doing.”

          I assume the countries on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country know what they are doing too, oh look Australia is on that list. Bring on the fibre.

          btw do you think you could provide a list of those telcos rolling out FTTN? Specifically the ones rolling it out in Korea.

          “You see the stark difference with Australia, customers in those countries are ACTUALLY USING IT!”

          And???

          “because FTTN can be rolled out much quicker and at a lower cost”

          So quicker = better?

          “half way through 2011 in Australia and we are STILL stuffing around with NBN ‘pilot sites’ like FTTH has never been done before – what a total JOKE!”

          The build time is 9 years why does this surprise you? Do you expect the whole network to be built in a day?

          “It’s not irrelevant just because you don’t like reading it!”

          Once again has nothing to do with me, it’s not relevant because FTTH is the future not FTTN. Pay attention.

          “Once again your obsession with uploads speeds doesn’t translate into everyone in Australia seeing it that way”

          Once again has nothing to do with me, faster upload speeds are needed ADSL2+ & FTTN simply both fail in this area.

          “or even the taxpayer footing the multi-billion dollar bill so you have your upload speed.”

          Once again has nothing to do with me and the taxpayers will be paid back.

          “Err yeah ok , that makes no sense whatever in reponse”

          It makes perfect sense, unfortunately you are just unable to comprehend it.

          “complete and utter BS!”

          Sums up most of what you write, thanks for stopping by.

      • Yeah the Wikipedia article says it all. That industrial powerhouse Lithuania claims to be number one in Europe with 18% uptake. Sweeden also claims to be number one in Europe with 8% uptake (and thay even have gigabit… at the planning stage). Slovenia is also supposed to be a European leader offering massive 20M links, and Moldova are so awesome. Woo bloody hoo.

        Amongst the real countries, France has what? A few trial sites. Germany is not even listed. Canada has a bit here and there, the USA has a scattering of small trials plus Verizon.

        The only places where FTTH is getting large uptake and showing maturity are the very high density Asian countries like Taiwan and Japan. Internet in Japan is cheap and fast, primarily because Japanese consumers will buy anything gadgety, and also because Japan chose the practical choice of putting everything above ground in residential areas.

        http://www.dannychoo.com/slide/en/24258/Japan+Optic+Fiber+Internet.html

        That sort of thing would not be allowed in Australia. We chose esthetics over and above practicality and so we pay much more for rollouts. That’s just how it is, talk to your parents about it.

        • Read what you want into the wiki entry Tel (as you did and will) but for those interested in the substance… So speaking of France…

          For example in 2003, the French were already looking at 100Mbps and started rolling it out in 2006, WITH PLANS BACK THEN (as I read it) OF 2.5G/1.2G… Whereas our opposition (who were previously happy with 12M) will now be happy with 60M 8 years later (and forever more)..You will note too the citations for France do not appear to have been updated for about 4 years… so just what has occurred since and how much further ahead of us they are again, is anyone’s guess?

          And had you actually read what it says about the “industrial powerhouses [sic]” you would also see… that of the 2 companies in Slovenia, one is already offering plans with speeds of up to1G and the other has speeds “from” 20M (and when was this written 2006 or 2007 maybe)?

          Moldova also has 2 companies already (2010) offering 100/100M…

          Plus whilst highlighting Germany’s omission, you conveniently overlooked the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Finland etc, etc. And even the poms… all progressing, while we (well you) procrastinate!

          So Tel (although I feel a HFC spiel coming on) seems while you smugly laugh at these “industrial powerhouses”, if your naysayers ever gain control, the “industrial powerhouses” will be laughing even harder and longer, at us…!

          • If you want to live in Moldova I’ll drive you to the airport.

            If only Australia could be more like Greece. You know, government forty fathoms deep in unpayable debt, people pulling their cash out of the bank and hiding it because the currency is on the verge of collapse. Oh and regular general strikes, riots in the streets, but I’m sure those guys are finding their high speed Internet very helpful amongst all that excitement.

            Hmmm, I just had this idea, maybe those budget numbers might mean something.

          • Gee you just clinched it for me… thank you!

            Greece can’t afford it, but still see the benefits and forge ahead for the future (as does, primarily the rest of the world)…

            Yet here we are in Australia, where we can afford it, but those like you are too blind to see…sigh!

            As such, please do not drive me (I’ll spell it out – you being blind) to the airport, so that I can toddle off to Moldova to speak with rational people with foresight (pun intended)…

        • “Yeah the Wikipedia article says it all blah blah blah”

          Actually it doesn’t, it says all that was needed to be said however.

    • This has become a ‘STOP THE BOATS’ campaign again….

      im sick of this political BS.

      When the pollies latch on to a political football they seek to use it for all its worth.

      This will just be another game of up-the-ante. Who says we need 100mbps or 1Gb to begin with at all? Have we lost touch with reality and how much this thing costs? $43Bn or more?

      Malcolm i feel sorry for ya mate, but then again its ‘a taste of your own medicine’, remember when you liberals had labor by the balls in your STOP THE BOATS campaign, you had labor playing on your field, your game and using your ball. Now, you have to answer to Labors great NBN fluff, and the only way you can do this is slowly play catch up, now you are offering 50mbps at 50% of the cost…

      The rational way to do this is go back to pre-trujillo days, telstra were going to build fttn at about $4bn, this would provide somewhere between 12-24mbps…for todays needs it is a good solution, and would incur cost only to telstra ie. 4bn, why has this number blown out to $43bn to the taxpayer?

      if Telstra and the govt agreed back in 2006 , the FTTN network with guaratees this perform would have already been finished by now.

  8. Mr Turnbull’s half price FttN presumably intends to use existing copper for the last 750 metres. This assumes the copper is in very good condition. It isn’t. It has also been loaded up with pair gain systems so for a successful FttN we will need substantial copper investment as well. If we are going to install copper cable why not install fibre instead.

  9. Well thanks Turnbull, now you actually try to raise you game since your 12Mbps FTTN line doesn’t seem to be cutting it with those following the debate, so you decide to up your game plan.

    Did you notice how the costs went up to “half the cost” of the NBN when you did this? So now you need to convince the population that the savings you can make by doing this are worth it. And since the people who are actually following this debate are deeply vested in the sector for various reasons, sprouting bullshit like this isn’t helping your cause much.

    That type of bandwidth is more than adequate to cater for every conceivable application that a residential user would need. To go from 50 megabits per second to 100 megabits per second in a residential context would be imperceptible; the user experience would be no different. You would not be able to tell the difference because there are simply not the services and the applications to take advantage of that higher speed.

    I mean seriously, who precisely are you trying to fool. Yes, you could say there would be very few people who would actually need the extra bandwidth, just like right now where you can cope with slow ADSL, however there are still people who will find the difference perceptible. And then you get into the problem of that you are talking about users right now. Will your blanket statement still apply in 10 years time?

    Also, the denser you put the fibre nodes, the longer the roll-out will take. A rollout to 1.5km to give everyone 12Mbps may take 2 years, but to do that to 750 meters, that’s going to take what, 5 years? I’m not convinced the increased opportunity and savings of rolling out FTTN is justified. But I’ve been saying that for long before you started talking about uploads, which is the one thing in your recent statements I will give you kudos for.

    • NightKaos,

      the went to 50% of NBN because the length of the copper loop shortened from 1.5Km which would guaratee 12Mbps and max of 24Mbps ADSL2+, to 50% x 1.5Km which is 750metres.

      750metres of copper using VDSL of some kind would achieve a minimum of 50Mbps , but if you are < 500m, you can get quite high rates, eg. 100Mbps -300Mbps.

      This is a bad solution anyway because just like NBN , it is overkill, and although at half the price, I doubt its business case would be any more feasible than conroys NBN.

      At least, FTTN is a much easier thing to build than FTTP/NBN, which is just ridiculous if you actually think Conroys plan is possible in reality.

      To replace and entire network would take twice the time NBNCo put forward, look at their progress, its been 1.5 yrs what have they achieved? And how much is already spent?

      • If you’re an engineer with experience in rolling out infrastructure projects, you should know that you don’t just wake up one day and decide to build an FTTN or FTTH network, and start building it that same day.

        It takes time to plan, design, and test. It takes time to draft legislation, introduce it, debate it, and pass it through both houses of parliament. It takes time for commercial agreements to be negotiated, signed, and – (in the case of Telstra) – ratified by shareholders.

        The only thing holding up the commencement of the main build is the finalisation of the agreement with Telstra.

        • @Micheal Wyres

          Of course MW you overlook that the FTTH is being used by about 180,000 homes in Australia in Greenfield estates, and of course there are the millions using it world wide a lot of it rolled out by the very same firm that is being used by the NBN Co in Australia.

          Your ‘touchy feely let’s go carefully’ attitude doesn’t wash on a infrastructure that is well beyond a pilot phase.

          I read also that there will be FTTH networks rolled out into local council facilities (taxpayer paid for of course) so punters can get a hands on feel for the NBN.

          WTF?? “Oh look I can do my email and browsing on the NBN just like I can with ADSL and wireless, isn’t it great – sign me up”. LOL

          • So alain, ain’t you going to respond/debate David Havyatt or haven’t you got the testicles to challenge him?
            After all he has offered to do the formal calculations if you challenge him. NOW COME ON LET’S SEE YOUR METAL

          • He can’t/won’t even answer simple questions like “how many tender processes have you been involved with?”, so don’t hold your breath.

        • Telstra could have this stuff rolling out tomorrow, they used to claim that , remember? that was because back when Trujillo took control, they had already signed an agreement with Alcatel to supply the units, they have all the workforce to do it, and its a known technology and relavtively simple to build.

          You can compare it to their NextG network, the one that DID HAPPEN. They had an agreement Ericsson, and they built that in 1-2 years, today Optus and 3/Vodafone as still taking about it.

          The same would have happened if they built FTTN, the trucks were literally ready to roll. Of course, I have to say, Telstra and the Govt/ACCC really f*cked up on that one. This was like 6 years ago. They couldve completed it in 4yrs, if they worked hard at it.

          • Mind you….look at this and compare it with NBNCo.

            Telstra claims that with all its readyness for FTTN it would take it 4 years to build, and this is a rather simple job, you just put boxes on the street, everything else is mostly unchanged, do you believe NBNCo starting from literally NOTHING can do a complete overhaul of Telstras network in 8 years?

            joke right?

          • So NextG doesn’t exist?

            Its funny the one area where Telstra didn’t receive massive government interference is the one area where they massively invested in, and we now have one of the best wireless networks in the world to show for it (yes NextG is considered one of the best wireless networks due to both coverage and speed for its time in 2007)

            And whats more, it didn’t cost the government anything

          • NextG exists because it is profitable for Telstra in commercial terms – (probably in the order of 25 to 30%) – and has probably already paid for itself within a period of time acceptable to Telstra shareholders.

            That’s Telstra’s job – to deliver the expected value for their shareholders.

            Telstra would never build an FTTH network for themselves because it does not deliver those same high returns. It would be more risk than the shareholders are prepared to take, for only around 7%, over a longer period of time.

            The same would be true 5 years from now. Or 10 years from now. Or 20 years from now. They need a significant commercial return over a short timeframe – possibly even three to five years, that a massive infrastructure project like this would not be able to deliver for them.

            Might I remind you that the network they currently use to pillage the market with their last-mile monopoly was actually paid for by the Australian taxpayer also?

            If we relied on the commercial marketplace to deliver the improvements, it would never happen. And we’d be so far behind the rest of the developed world.

          • And why is it profitable?

            Because they don’t have the government and ACCC dictating their pricing and how they should run their network

            You honestly think Telstra’s NextG would be profitable if the ACCC did the same thing to their NextG network as they did to their wired (that is force universal access and basically a cost of nothing, our ULL/LLS prices are actually one of the lowest in the world, $16 for practically everywhere unless you are in woopadidoop)

            The wired network is not profitable for Telstra because the don’t even run it or have full control of it anymore.

          • Why is it profitable? Oh perhaps because there’s competition in that market, and the ACCC don’t need to intervene much, because market forces are proving to be enough to keep the prices about right?

            I get a better package for $49 a month from a mobile carrier other than Telstra, than I used to get from Telstra for more than twice as much. Funny how Telstra have now dropped their prices to match the others pretty closely.

            Yup, market forces.

            Now, tell me who is in competition with Telstra for last mile copper access? Oh yeah, nobody. The ULL price of $16 is one of the lowest in the world because the ACCC has intervened against that monopoly, to stop Telstra artificially outpricing competitors in the retail space by charging others lots, and themselves very little.

            What price do you think Telstra would be charging if the ACCC hadn’t stepped in? I bet you any amount of money it would be a lot more than $16!

          • Yeah, and that price of $16 means Telstra is making no money to be able to actually upgrade their wired network, which is why they haven’t been doing that since ACCC started intervening. Telstra just has enough money to maintain their network.

            If you look at their profit documents, all of their money is being made from wireless, because they dictated the pricing.

          • That profit is mainly from wireless and other areas (foxtel as example). They are not going to invest that many into wired because they would get no return of that money due to the fact that they cannot control their own pricing. A lot of Telstra’s money is also chewed up by the USO

          • Deteego, your argument is straight out of the American neocon playbook. The telecoms in the US don’t have to share their lines with anyone, and do you think they’ve upgraded to fiber because they made more money? NO. The amount of profit they make doesn’t make a difference. Building out new infrastructure is too expensive and has far too low of an ROI. Stop lying through your teeth.

          • “Zip your fly up – you’re Telstra bias is showing.”

            Oh dear, you are really struggling more than you normally are.

          • Haha…someone as intelligent as yourself should surely be able to see that someone proclaiming to be a Telstra engineer and loudly supporting Telstra’s position doesn’t exactly seemed unbiased, no?

          • No…Engineer @ Telstra. Telstra f****d up…TWICE, no one else…

            The previous Telstra (mis) management wanted FTTN, a renewed monopoly and accompanying maximum ROI and “Telstra” withdrew from negotiations, because the ACCC wouldn’t cede to their unrealistic, terms (threats).

            Then we had the RFP (Telstra’s life line) and what did the previous (mis) management do… they submitted a non-complian bid… They would have won, imo… it was designed to give them another chance…and they were too dumb to grab it!

            That’s what happened, that’s why we are here now, that’s why we are getting the current NBN… Telstra shot themselves in the foot…(in fact each foot…)!

            Thanks Sol, without you and your greed, we wouldn’t be receiving such state of the art technology as FTTP etc, you are a true Aussie hero…!

          • you my friend are -a moron-.

            First, the failure began when the gov. sold off ALL of telstra.

            Second, failure, when government tried to bring in competition in a monopoly.

            Why should then the private investors of telstra have to subsidise its competitors?

            Why should competitors who own < 5% of the infrastructure/captial/assets in australia be entitled to more than that market share/profit?

            Why should taxpayers then have to pay for competitors to make profits for us the consumers by paying for the NBN?

            Why is it that in NBN1 (FTTN) that the gov. requirements for the RFP was so unjust towards telstra, and would mean that telstra destory its value in the company, and hand over its market share to competitors who do no own the assets, by structurally separating it, so that competitors will be able to get incredible ROI at the expense of Telstra.

            The failure comes for poor privatisation model, and competitors wanting to carve up telstras market share by claiming that there needs to be more competition. Their idea of competition is if everybody else pays for it, and hands a large % of the market to them in a platter, IF YOU CAN CALL THAT COMPETITION – ID SAY, GIVE THEM THE MIDDLE FINGER.

          • Why should taxpayers be on the hook for a corporate monopoly that wants to reward its executives and foreign shareholders with bonuses every year?

            With NBNCo no taxpayer money will be used, and any and all excess subscriber revenue will go straight back into the network.

          • Full agreement on your first statement.

            Partial agreement on your other statements. I think everyone accepts that Telstra should have been cut up before it was sold, not much to do about that in retrospect though.

            Why should then the private investors of telstra have to subsidise its competitors?

            Those shareholders did buy their shares with knowledge that Telstra was saddled with the responsibility of USO and as monopoly custodian of the last mile. It must have occurred to them that this made Telstra a bit of a special case in the industry.

            The failure comes for poor privatisation model, and competitors wanting to carve up telstras market share by claiming that there needs to be more competition.

            I agree with this, the ducting should be considered public property and owned by local council authorities around the place. They in turn should offer access to the ducting such that technology companies can offer services as the consumers might want to buy. Local council rates would go to repairing pit covers, etc and private investment would go into putting fiber into those pits.

            However, we are sort of stuck with the model we are in at the moment, you can’t turn back the clock. For that reason we need to look for a way to smoothly transition to a new model. The NBN is an expensive brute force transition back to a national government monopoly… worst of all worlds really.

    • “I’m also glad to see Turnbull appears to have starting talking about more than 12/1 Mbps.”

      imo it’s all talk, I don’t think they have any intention of delivering more than the 12/1mbps, they are just trying to increase their chances of winning the next election with this. The coalition baboons think the NBN is all about the magical 100mbps number so when Turnbull offers 60mbps which just happens to be more than half of that for half the price they are trying to tell us it is a bargain. Not sure who they are trying to fool with this.

  10. Renai, sometimes I despair when I read your op-eds (not to mention some of your sillier tweets at the CeBIT eGovernment Forum on Wednesday).

    So, Mr Turnbull has “interesting” ideas? Well, suggesting FTTN again isn’t interesting, simply disingenuous.

    As we learned from the horses’ mouth on Four Corners, Telstra is constitutionally entitled to compensation of many billions if the NBN forcibly acquires the last-mile copper between FTTN cabinets and premises. Telstra even began constructing a few fibre cabinets at the time of the NBN Mark I tender from which it planned to overbuild the FTTN with its own FTTP in high-revenue suburbs, leaving the NBN the higher-cost and less-affluent customers.

    It seems a stretch in my experience, but it may indeed be possible to just eke 60 Mbps out of 750m of copper by first running new fibre out to 20,000 electrified cabinets equipped with switches and cooling fans that will need maintenance and periodic replacement, but it couldn’t be done as cheaply as $12 billion worth of fibre to 93% of premises, would constitute environmental vandalism compared to the sustainable all-fibre solution, and would never deliver faster speeds than on the day it was commissioned. And in fact it is far more credible that it will only be capable of around 25 Mbps like today’s ADSL2 if you live next door to the telephone exchange.

    Malcolm Turnbull’s only idea at present is to waste vast parliamentary resources – paid for by our taxes – to retard the progress of the NBN, in the hope of harming Labor’s re-election chances.

    Yet just like Robert Menzies’ strident opposition to Ben Chifley’s white elephant of a Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme, he would be delighted to be on hand to dedicate it when completed.

    When reporting Mr Turnbull’s rhetoric, please include a few facts from time to time … or perhaps you are seeking work at The Australian.

    • … Francis this isn’t an op-ed — I simply reported what Turnbull said. I report both his side and Conroy’s equally … and you’ll note that I tend to praise them equally when they do well and damn them both equally when they don’t ;)

      • As Francis Young put infinitely more eloquently than I ever could, not all sides are equal. You shouldn’t give such credence to Turnbull’s claims by avoiding corrections or not noting the fallacies in his logic as you report them.

        To the average, tech-inept Australian 60 mbps at *half the cost* sounds so incredible. But the reality is it’s a complete dead end and will require extremely high maintenance costs for the entirely of the network’s existence. The inevitable subsequent upgrade to FTTH would require a complete rebuild of the network, wasting billions.

        • The reality is that you are spreading FUD

          FTTN is used and being deployed in factors multitudes higher then FTTH. The main area of FTTH deployment is in new estates where copper doesn’t already exist (because from scratch there isn’t a massive price difference between fiber and copper)

          South Korea’s internet is actually a form of FTTN (FTTB to be more precise, uses exact same technology its just that the node is in the basement)

          I don’t hear anything about their internet needs being unmaintainable due to cost

          • You beat me to it, Merlin complains about inaccuracies in the Turnbull report (not that he pointed them out) but it is much easier to point out the inaccuracies in the Merlin report.

          • FTTB = FTTP. That is a fact. Deal with it.

            btw you avoided the question I asked earlier: do you think you could provide a list of those telcos rolling out FTTN? Specifically the ones rolling it out in Korea.

          • HC, you are correct about FTTBuilding being equivalent to FTTPremises for speeds up to at least 100 Mbps, but it requires ongoing maintenance of the DSLAM and will eventually hit the ceiling as customer expectation rise.

            In the case of unit blocks, NBNCo plans to deploy fibre to each unit from day one where feasible. A fibred basement VDSL mulitplexor running up to units on the existing copper is one of the less-than-optimal option that will be available should great expense, heritage considerations, etc., preclude the routing of fibre to all units in the present project.

            And yes, FTTP deployments are now exploding worldwide, but Asia has absolutely led the way for the past decade:

            “In the leading technology markets of Japan and South Korea and Taiwan in 2011, FttX has been displacing other forms of high speed internet access. Asia accounts for around 85% of global FttX subscriptions and China dominates the lead with over 30 million subscribers.”
            Paul Budde, 9 April 2011 – http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/the-road-to-closing-the-digital-gap-and-embracing-fttx-in-asia/

            And back on 1 March 2011 Paul Budde wrote
            http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/1gbs-residential-connectivity-for-south-korea-in-2012/

            “Into 2011 South Korea still had the seventh largest broadband subscriber base in the world. The country has over 16.9 million broadband subscribers, making it the third largest broadband market in Asia behind China and Japan. Of the broadband subscribers, 2.8 million are Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) subscribers and there are over 9 million FttX (Fibre-to-the-Home (FttH) and A-LAN) subscribers.

            Having already completed a BcN or Broadband Convergence Network with speeds of 50-100Mb/s per household, the plan moving forward is for a UBcN or Ultra Broadband convergence Network with 1Gb/s speeds on fixed lines or 10Mb/s on wireless. This is expected to be complete by 2012/13.”

            Yes, folks, within 24 months South Korea will be a gigabit fibred nation, despite annual incomes being half of ours!

            From memory I think the government built the 100 Mpbs fibre to premises since 2004 for around $26 billion, which permits the gigabit upgrade (which doesn’t need to touch the fibre, only the switches) to be seeded by a couple of billion from the government but mainly funded by the private sector. [Please correct if I got any details wrong there.] Australia’s 10 million premises could have been fibred long ago had we also gone with fibre when John Howard launched the idea of universal broadband in 2004.

          • @HC

            I will pull out the relevant part of that report I linked which you have trouble reading.

            “The market that sticks out the most is China, which is heavily investing in FTTB/FTTN, rather than FTTH, to lower the cost of deployment while providing reasonable access speeds. We expect FTTB/FTTN growth to accelerate significantly in China from 2010 to reach 58m subscribers by 2014.”

            Got it? good, now go away and go to China as the Delimiter super guru armchair FTTH consultant and tell them you know what’s best for them and they will suffer with their ‘uploads speeds’ which will turn their economy back decades and they have got it all wrong.

            LOL

          • You’re not seriously pointing to China as an example of how to build a broadband network?

            Try using the Internet in China and you will soon understand that they don’t much care about how neutered the network is.

          • Great… we got it!

            you (alain) can build us a FTTB (not FTTP…LOL) network, for the price of FTTN/so half of the current NBN price… so please do, you have my vote!

          • “Got it? good, now go away and go to China”

            What China is doing is their business and their problem, I don’t know what is best for them and I don’t care, I live in Australia not China, if they are doing FTTB and/or FTTN it makes ABSOLUTELY no difference FTTB is FTTP not FTTN it’s as simple as that, get it? I didn’t think so…

            By your logic I guess we can call the NBN a FTTN network too, the NTU is a node, how does that sound? You should be happy, isn’t this what you wanted; a FTTN network? The nodes will just happen to be inside houses… lol indeed.

            “Delimiter super guru armchair FTTH consultant blah blah blah”

            What does that make you? The armchair FTTN consultant? So you should be telling Australia and NBNco what’s best for them right? Seriously, I sense a bit of jealously here, like or not I know what I’m talking about and clearly you do not, you have proven your ignorance on this subject many times not only on Delimiter but iTnews & ZDnet as well.

            btw can you provide that list of telcos doing FTTN you wrote about previously?

          • @HC

            You totally ignored the link which defined FTTB/FTTN and FTTH as two separate classifications, the reason FTTN/FTTB is not FTTN is that the fibre link terminates at some point before it reaches the residence whether that be a house or a unit and the link is then either copper or co-axial cable, but then you know that.

            You then went off onto the usual off topic rant diversion tactic about me being proved wrong in other web sites, no specifics of course, there never is, just mindlessly stating it over and over is deemed sufficient.

          • “You totally ignored the link which defined FTTB/FTTN and FTTH as two separate classifications, the reason FTTN/FTTB is not FTTN is that the fibre link terminates at some point before it reaches the residence whether that be a house or a unit and the link is then either copper or co-axial cable, but then you know that.”

            Wow, you really aren’t getting this are you? FTTB = FTTP. I’ve never said FTTB = FTTH, they are two different things in the same category (FTTP) and neither of them are FTTN. It’s pretty simple. You can cut it up, put any FTTx in whatever category you like for “the collating of statistics” but it makes absolutely NO difference whatsoever.

            “You then went off onto the usual off topic rant diversion tactic about me being proved wrong in other web sites, no specifics of course, there never is, just mindlessly stating it over and over is deemed sufficient.”

            If you want me to provide specific urls I can do that (there is no shortage) but before I do that can you provide that list of telcos doing FTTN you wrote about previously?

    • they are interesting to me, as in, “*thats* what the coalition thinks is a quality, futureproof, bang-for-buck spend?”

      the FTTH proposal as Labor offers in a vacuum is all very well. having something to compare and contrast it to is much more instructive.

  11. Hmm. Allowing factually wrong assertions about FTTN by Malcolm Turnbull to go uncorrected in your article, when you know perfectly well that they are factually wrong, makes this effectively an opinion piece, though I concede that you may not have intended this exactly, especially if you were pulling the article together at an ungodly hour (good heavens, is that the time?).

    The effect of the article was to present Mr Turnbull’s comments in a credible light, and even to employ them (without any suggestion they were mischievous) to counter the government’s (extremely belated in my view) plans for educating the populace about the enabling nature and limitless capacity for future growth of fibre laid to premises.

    As you heard from the UK and Australian government presentations, the clearly preferred channel for government interaction in both countries is the internet, followed by the phone, in person, and finally mail. 8.7 million Poms and seven million regional Australians without broadband are denied access to the preferred channel and forced to listen to elevator music for fifteen minutes to do what you and I can do in two minutes online.

    All Australians deserve reliable broadband, and Mr Turnbull knows this means fibre to premises wherever possible. Look at the red areas on the NBNCo fibre roadmap and you see that 93% of premises cover far less than 1% of our geography, and can be built for $10-12 billion.

    It is mindless and foolish of the coalition to perpetuate this charade that there is a better or cheaper solution than FTTP, and any journalist who lets them get away with it year after year at great taxpayer expense is unworthy of the journalistic tradition of exposing fraudulent polticians which is their inheritance, not to mention very satisfying when the penny drops with the public.

    My sympathies lie on the conservative side of politics, but it is shameful that the Liberal and National Parties continue this transparent abuse of parliamentary time and resources. We also have a Green-ALP government today because Tony Abbott failed to listen to reason and promise fibre broadband and Telstra separation before the August 2010 election, or even during the suspended animation of the following weeks’ negotiations. Unless they begin to change ther tune now, they will be unable to do so with any credibility at the eleventh hour before the 2013 election, and who knows which way that might go when half a million satisfied NBN customers are a testimony to the correctness of the decision to build it once, right, and with fibre.

    So I now look forward to some great articles from you, Renai, keeping the goal in sight as you report the often mediocre pronouncements along the way.

  12. I’m also glad to see Turnbull appears to have starting talking about more than 12/1 Mbps.

    If he wants to save money how about running the fibre into the distribution rooms (MDFs) in unit blocks and using the existing copper from there. That style of Fibre to the premises (which is what Japan initially rolled out I might add) would give unit dwellers 100Mbps Full duplex which is all that a lot of home users have between their routers and home computers anyway.

    As it would avoid the cost of running fibre all through unit blocks I imagine the savings would be impressive. I believe most people would be very happy with 100Mbps full duplex at this stage of the game. Hell I’d be very happy with it and that’s all the NBN was offering last year anyway.

    • This is the problem with the liberal’s policy. It is a constantly changing game! First they proposed that FTTH is terribly expensive and propose to do wireless across Australia for 6 billion dollars. They jump up and down proclaiming wireless is the panacea of broadband for a few months and then when they are repeatedly attacked by industry and experts alike they slowly go quiet on wireless!!!

      Then, to address speed concerns, they magically switch to FTTN and quote vague figures of speeds “depending on distance”. Now they go from 6 billion they initially planned to “we can do it for half the cost of the NBN”!

      It is clear they are making it up as they go along but ultimately the line they are constantly pushing is “vote for us, we can do it cheaper”.

      I am amazed that there is so much debate over this. Yes FTTN is cheaper….just like a 10 year old car is cheaper than a new one and will still get you from A-B today. The reality though is when you make a massive investment in something like the NBN, spend almost a decade to build it, you BETTER make it as future proof as possible….there is nothing worse than building FTTN, spending 50-60% of the FTTH cost to then in 10 years time be barely adequate and spend even more upgrading….

      It reminds me of some road infrastructure. Spend billions to add 1 extra lane to an extremely congested road based on data from 6 years ago when the initial study was done to only have that extra lane be completely obsolete by completion date…..then spend more billions later ripping up the work done during the first construction!!!

      Do it once, and do it well!

      • You didn’t even know what their initial policy was

        FTTN would save even more then 50% of the money because FTTN wouldn’t have to be deployed everywhere,its an upgrade, unlike the NBN

        There are a lot of areas (like in Sydney) where the exchanges are already that compacted, in which case you just need to upgrade the infrastructure to support VDSL2

  13. Turnbull must be the only person on the planet that can consider 60Mbps with upload speed 5-10Mbps comparable to 1Gbps/400Mbps and beyond.

    I don’t agree with Turnbulls claims 50-100Mbps would make no difference, whatsoever, streaming a HD video can use up to 25Mbps, if you have two IPTV’s streaming stuff, oh woops, you have already used up all your bandwidth – many houses these days have a computer and TV in each bedroom, then another TV and computer in the lounge room then you can throw in a few iPhones iPads and automated backup solutions on top of that, if used to even a slight portion of their potential these things can chew hundreds of megabits of bandwidth.

    In the grand scheme of things, 60/10 really isn’t much at all, the only problem is because so few have speeds that fast already, very few especially the politicians can see the benefit in it.

    And before someone says ‘herp derp entertainment network $43bn CBA plx?!?’ take a look at how much of our economy is made up of entertainment, you may be quite surprised.

    Turnbull claims the cost difference between FTTN and FTTH only 50%? WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THEN? Look at it from a cost per megabit basis, and not a cost in general basis.

    If someone said we can build a 100 lane highway for $10bn, and adding extra lanes should cost nothing then someone said NO, WE SHOULD BUILD A 6 LANE ROAD FOR $5bn which can NEVER be upgraded I’m pretty sure most people would tell the 6 lane proposal to get stuffed, there is no need to only build for what we need today, especially when the cost is so small for something infinitely better.

    • I don’t think he’s saying that 60Mbps/10Mbps is comparable to 1Gbps/400Mbps – more that he is seeking to position it as comparable to people’s needs, and he is correct that it is comparable to most people’s needs *right now*.

      But it is the *right now* argument that is the flaw in his thinking. Do you buy a car because it suits your needs for the next week? No, you buy a car to suit your needs for the next 5 or 10 years. Before my daughter was born 5 years ago, my car at the time wasn’t really suitable as a family car. I loved that car, but parted with it because it would not be appropriate for use in the longer term.

      It would have been okay for a couple of years, but I planned ahead.

      Malcolm’s FTTN plan is NOT thinking/planning ahead. It does not negate the need for the Telstra deal, because an FTTN network will necessarily still see the existing copper cut to connect it to the various nodes spread all over the countryside.

      Telstra will still lose their network capability even if they still owned the physical pipe and pits, and would still deserve the compensation for losing that capability that they will receive under the FTTN plan.

      How much is the Telstra deal worth? $12b?

      If his new idea is half the FTTH plan at $18b, does that include the $12b for Telstra? If it doesn’t, his plan is really $30b. If it does, he still thinks it’s only going to cost $6b to physically build his FTTN network.

      Just before the election – (remember, their policy was announced on about the Tuesday or Wednesday before the vote) – $6b was his price to give everyone 12Mbps/1Mbps.

      Suddenly it’s now the price to give everyone 60Mbps/10Mbps – who’s figures are rubbery now?

      Even at $30b, it’ll still be the “biggest infrastructure project in Australia’s history”.

      The bottom line is, that the Coalition know that once the Telstra deal is signed and sealed, the plan to stop the NBN becomes a hell of a lot harder.

      • Thinking long term is the wrong approach.

        Putting fibre in today is not what youd want to do mainly because at present there are a lot of technologies out there for data, voice and broadband. This will change very rapidly in the next 10 years, it will be unified.
        What you dont want is a GPON network that does not fit in with what the future direction is. The technology needs to figure itself out before we decide to build anything, thinking that anything can be projected 20 years in advance in the future information driven economy is totally flawed, and is in fact old world thinking, which ironically what NBNCo is doing

        Secondly the costs of these things will drop. There are manufacturers who are looking at new ways of manufacturing and deploying this stuff cheaper, even in the past, the new stuff that telstra puts in is often already obsolete. I would hazard to guess that the equipment that has been sold to NBNCo is already obsolete

          • He is correct, thinking about the long term with such an expense is idiotic, because no one has the ability to predict what will happen at such far periods of time (so if you were going to do something, it would be of low risk)

            You end up sending the country backwards, its like a form of gambling

          • So, in suggesting that nobody has the ability to predict what will happen “so far ahead”, you’re saying that you have the ability to predict what won’t happen “so far ahead”?

            What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

          • Exactly, thats why I call it gambling

            The further out you go into the future, the much less accurate anyones predictions can be.

            Thats why most countries are using sane approaches, that is medium term solutions that have upgrade paths to what could possibly happen in the long term

            This is FTTN, not FTTH. FTTN can upgrade to FTTH. FTTN nodes can also be used as wireless base stations, which could provide basically ubiquitous wireless coverage (an area in broadband that is seeing actual growth)

            As with many other areas in technology, things don’t increase “forever” on a user level. For example, its unlikely video resolutions that are more then 1 level higher then HD will ever end up being adopted, simply because the human eye already has difficulties noticing quality difference higher then HD. What happened with MP3’s vs high quality audio formats such as SACD, DVD-Audio and CD’s are already indicative of this. What actually happens is technology diverges into another area, and thats what we are seeing with wireless

            Clearly many people value mobility much more then high speeds

          • Who’s to say your prediction is more valuable than theirs?

            The fact that all the relevant statistics point to an continued exponential increase in data requirements, like many others, I’m more inclined to accept a recommendation with supporting data than a weak argument formulated by a team of astro-turders.

          • Nothing, didn’t you read what I said before? Thats why its called gambling.

            You cannot predict whether speeds higher then 100mbit will be anywhere close to universally required by people (not business’s). It might, it might not. I was simply stating that there is plenty of logical reasons as to why broadband needs would start petering out in the near future, simply because we are currently reaching the limits of both video and audio, something that wasn’t the case in the past 30 years or so when broadband growth was increasing.

            Audio files have stopped increasing in quality, most people still use MP3’s at 320 or the equivalent. We have just recently hit the video quality with HD. This leaves us with 3D, and thats probably about it for the future of this generation. Yes this is a prediction, but its a valid one. Also note this is all entertainment, even though I am heavily involved in IT, my internet download/upload speeds haven’t increased for the past 6 or so years if I remove all the entertainment use.

            Which is again why FTTN is smarter choice, it does have an upgrade path to FTTH should such high speeds would ever be required by society. A lot of the cost involved in FTTN is reused for FTTH, its not a complete waste like all the people that are spreading FTTN FUD out there are claiming.

            FTTN also wouldn’t raise internet prices for the people actually planning to use such bandwidth like this FTTH would. The ~1.6 billion already spent on NBN could have already increased most of the major capital city speeds to 50 mbit synchronous.

            Instead that money is now being used by a few thousand people in remote areas.

          • Yes, I read your thoughts – I just happen to disagree with them.

            Yes this is a prediction, but its a valid one.

            Your prediction is a valid one, but nobody else’s is?

          • My god are you slow, do you know what the concept of gambling is

            You could lose a lot of money, or you could gain a lot of money. I am not saying that my prediction is any more valid in terms of what would actually happen, it is however more valid then the alternative predictions that have no explanation, i.e. “we can’t even imagine the possibilities” which is just empty rhetoric.

            BTW a CBA is an attempt to actually research and quantify these benefits

            Remember that things could happen in the future, such a technology coming out in 7 years or so that would halve or quarter the cost of FTTH deployment. Then the government basically just wasted billions and billions of dollars (this is already happening with i3, although its in pilot stages). Or again another progression in DSL technology

          • I already answered your remark, regarding if my prediction is valid then anyone elses, 3 times. Would you like to ask again why my prediction is more valid then others?

          • deteego says – you can’t predict that 100Mbps will be required…and as MW suggests you can’t suggest it won’t…!

            Well, I think you can comfortably predict that 100Mbps will be needed “at some stage” whether that be sooner or later… it WILL be required… historical trends and industry standard laws (such as Gordon Moore’s and Jakob Nielsen’s) suggest so and have been pretty correct thus far…!

            Sadly deteego, you are of opinion, let’s ignore these laws (funny for one studying CSE at Uni to ignore) and predict 100Mbps won’t be required, “under-invest” and cross our fingers.

            Bit like building a ground level house (just to save a few dollars) next to a river and ridiculously saying the rains won’t come… brilliant [sic]!

          • deteego says “because no one has the ability to predict what will happen at such far periods of time”

            WRONG as I can predict the future in say 20 years from NOW. Let me say now for a FACT that the sun is still going to rise in 20 years from now. Would you like to have a money wager bet on that prediction? Now wasn’t that easy!

          • What expense you pedantic moron? The network will be built through subscriber fees. Building future proof infrastructure is infinitely cheaper than basing a network on old tech.

          • Umm, as for ridiculous comments that’s a beauty.. however, still don’t know if it beats alain’s…

            “before roads, there were no roads”!

        • You’re not actually an engineer, and if you are you’re supremely deluded, so why don’t you shut your mouth?

          The technology “needs to figure itself out”? Are you a moron or a complete liar? Verizon has been using GPON in the US for years. PON networks have been rolled out across the world. Your arguments about voice and data protocols is completely illogical. Everything has become digital and can be sent over fiber far more easily than copper.

          GPON is already upgradeable to 10 gbit XGPON, and after that 40 Gbit. Maintenance of a PON network is infinitely cheaper than FTTN, inherent in the *passive optical* part. Stop spreading FUD you liar.

          • Engineer @ Telstra says “The best approach is to put it in and get it up and working”

            Yes FTTH ALL THE WAY. Put it in and get it up and working. As for you being an engineer at Telstra let me guess, a maintenance engineer (think cleaning toilets) is more like it as what you are saying (from an engineering point of view) is quite frankly FULL OF SH**T

  14. We need to remember that as a politician Malcolm can only see as far as the next election. Like most politician’s he has a very short term view. What might be satisfactory today will become outdated by tomorrow. One only has to think of the advances in technology to establish that fact.

    The reason the Lib’s hate the NBN is because the Labor party thought of it. So as the opposition they must oppose it on principal. They couldn’t be called the opposition if they agreed with it.

  15. The CLP would still have my vote they could think beyond the next election. It was that kind of thinking that resulted in the sale of Telstra to get a “surplus”. One persons surplus is another’s $36billion infrastructure debt you need to repay to the Australian people.

    • Here’s an idea for Tony Abbott. He knows how to reach me to discuss it. What do readers think?

      No-one actually disputes that fibre to premises is the very best broadband infrastructure (provided they understand that universal fibre also means universal Wi-Fi for mobility). The cost argument over FTTN vs FTTP has also been soundly answered by Telstra’s Four Corners revelation that if the taxpayer builds FTTN, Telstra will overbuild 70% of it with FTTP in all profitable markets using the constitutionally-guaranteed compensation it gets for last-mile copper access. So FTTN costs as much as FTTP to build, far more to operate and maintain, then recovers less revenue.

      So here goes.

      1. The coalition has spent the past year opposing the NBN because it improves Labor’s electoral prospects, since it is increasingly recognised by the electorate as both nation-building and cost-effective.

      2. But by opposing this popular and inherently good policy, the coalition is unwittingly alienating many of its traditional supporters and not picking up Labor votes either.

      3. So why not take away Labor’s electoral advantage by adopting the same NBN policy in plenty of time to take it to the next election?

      Right now, Labor is in a pickle with its island-hopping immigration itinerary, has no idea what it is doing with the increasingly hated carbon tax idea that even the Greens aren’t satisfied with, and looks like delivering very little this term except some NBN rollouts, caps on poker machines, and plain cigarette wrappers.

      It was the seemingly insignificant NBN issue which saw the unloseable 2010 election, and the negotations with the independents, put a Greens-Labor government into power.

      Now, if the coalition adopts the NBNCo project and its sensible funding arrangements, then it takes away Labor’s point of policy difference, its sole electoral advantage and incidentally delivers the best possible broadband infrastructure for Australia’s future.

      Joe Hockey actually took the first step when he telegraphed last week that the coalition might choose to deliver contractual obligations of NBNCo rather than face public expense greater than the cost of finishing the work.

      But this policy reversal would be met with well-earned suspicion, so it would have be explained as an outcome of changed commercial goalposts and recognition of changed public opinion, and must include an extremely credible iron-clad guarantee that it intended to honour the new electoral commitment. If there was any whiff of insincerity or exit loopholes in the policy change, it would of course be just as devastating to the coalition’s prospects as Tony’s benighted broadband announcement six days before the 2010 poll was.

      So what do you think?

      • Unfortunately this is flawed due to one reason.. (please note my sarcasm in this post)

        People like to debate. Having the Liberals change their tune, will just annoy what seems alot of the commenters in this article as they will no longer have a reason to have their debate.

        I mean really, at the end of the day, it comes down to Labor’s policy vs Liberals. We arent discussing options like keeping what we have, or expanding HFC because its on neither parties agenda.

        The Liberals supporting the NBN is just like killing the head vampire.

        • Spot on with that analysis sarcasm or not Tun, what the Liberals are stating in June 2011 will probably bear no relationship to a Coalition communications policy announced a month or so before the 2013 election, that’s assuming for starters Turnbull is still in charge of that shadow portfolio then.

          They will just wait and see how much of the NBN FTTH is built before that date, how many electorates are still on copper, how many ‘forcibly migrated’ punters are not happy with their NBN ISP plans on a cost per month relative to what they had on ADSL2+, HFC and Naked DSL for example and weigh up their options on the way forward when those quite substantial voter mood variables are measured in 2013.

          Keep in mind if the electorate is in a ‘let’s get rid of Gillard and Labor’ mood for many other reasons between now and 2013 the NBN will be a total irrelevance, the Coalition may not even have to have a BB policy!

          • “how many ‘forcibly migrated’ punters”

            Currently I am forced to use copper can you guarantee that under a coalition broadband plan I would have access to ADSL2+, HFC & fibre, I’d like to swap between them on a whim.

          • LOL.. a semi-backflip with tuck and double pike…from poor old downtrodden alain! Still smarting at the belting he received at the hands of David H, eh?

            Already hinting the NBN won’t, as he has claimed previously, actually be scrapped after all…

            not only that, admitting that the opposition are simply (as he is) spreading absolute NBN FUD until they get serious… about 1 month before the next election…

  16. FTTN is just another name for Telstras rim/cmux’s, and we ALL know how crap they really are.

    • *beeeeeep* Wrong, try again!

      RIM’s were designed in the 90’s, and only for extended voice services (not ADSL2 services). There are many technological (and also physical, RIM’s are quite small) reasons for these issues

      Furthermore FTTN node is literally just a steel box with power running into it, you can put anything in there, its meant to be modular in design (look at the NZ chorus cabinets as an example)

      • And then they started putting mini-DSLAMs into them.

        To say they are just a steel box with power running into it and that they can put anything in there, it is therefore actually quite reasonable to say they are just like an FTTN node. A steel box they originally just put a voice mux into, and later put DSLAMs into.

        Same thing, different name.

        • Yes, and again as an example, the chorus NZ FTTN cabinets have GPON FTTN as an option in their design, so its no worse then the FTTH proposed by Labor (if it was a direct fibre which wasn’t shared, then yes that would be different)

    • Yes… there’s plenty more anti-NBN FUD floating around…

      So probably prudent not to meaninglessly and ridiculously, attack “one on your side again”, eh NK?

      Cheers!

      • RS, I have been here long enough to know the way you post and respond to people, and you should know the same about me. I object to your posting style sometimes, but I tolerate it because you are allowed to have your own opinion on things. You may have objections to my posting style as well at times.

        In that instance I made my objection know to you because I could see that particular thread would turn into a chain of insults and personal attacks. When that happens, Renai often steps in and puts you and whoever else was involved in the Sin bin. I thought it was a good idea to divert your attention away from the thread. It worked didn’t it?

        It’s unfair for you to bring that back here, and to hold that as a grudge against me. I apologise for doing it but I considered it necessary.

  18. Or perhaps not prudent…!

    Apparently it was quite fair (necessary in fact) for you to have brought it up initially, but it’s “unfair of me to do likewise, now”…que?

    I reiterate regardless of your attack, I still respect your views but remind you, this isn’t a kindy forum where everyone holds hands. Sometimes with some, we need to call a spade… a spade and I will contu=inue to do so…

    Anyway, no grudge held and no more needs to be said, imo.

    Apology accepted.

  21. For those nah sayers of FTTN did they ever actually look at the technology that is at the heart of the Turnbill comments? I know it was glossed over in the article but you could just google Adtran and find it.

    the main reasoning about the technology is to save on the street to house installation cost. No matter how cost effective you can say FTTH is the big cost blow out could be in the premise lead in. There can not be any denying that surely?

    FTTN tech in question can provide 1:1 contention ratios of 100Mbps symetrical today without having to rip, replace or overbuild copper lead in to the premises. This could represent a significant saving and compares very, service offering, favourable to a GPON based FTTH installation.

    GPON is asymetrical (hence 100/40 speeds on NBN). FTTN can be symetrical per Adtran @ up to 100Mbs/100Mbps over 200 metres. GPON is oversubscribed to make it cost effective (eg 2.5Gbps GPON as planned with 64 or 128 splice/customers on a PON equates to 40 or 20Mbps max if fully contended. upstream is worse). FTTN can be built, easily, where 100Mbps is non contended.

    if you were to compare active ethernet, where the access tail is 100% non contended you get a different picture. The fact of the matter is that we are paying for GPON not active ethernet and the fibre design will not allow for any easy migration to active etherent. Of course there will be 10Gbps GPON in the future which if it was adpoted would likely mean they would need to replace every CPE (ONT). Cost many $$s

    Before posting FTTN comments please take the time to be informed. Traditionally FTTN is considered VDSL2. In this case turnbull was referring to something else that provides all the, well established, cost savings of FTTN with active ethernet like service.

    You have to consider our governent when announcing NBN policy did so by saying they would deliver FTTH, not speeds. You have to think how the hell did a bunch of politicians make such a technology decision? Shouldn’t they just be setting service goals and leave the technology selection to someone else like NBN Co, expert advice or not. If such was the case it would be hard to argue for say 100/40 @ say $3000 a house vs FTTN @ 100/100 for $1500 per house. please don’t flame on these numbers as I made them up to get a point across. The point being is better service for less $$s.

    • FTTN tech in question can provide 1:1 contention ratios of 100Mbps symetrical today without having to rip, replace or overbuild copper lead in to the premises. This could represent a significant saving and compares very, service offering, favourable to a GPON based FTTH installation.

      No technology in existence for Broadband delivery provides 1:1 contention. An uncontended pipe for a FTTN installation with 64 customers per node will require a minimum of 12.8Gbps combined bandwidth to the node, and I can sure as hell tell you that no Telecom are not going to bother installing such a massive pipe that at any given time will only be lit approximately 5%.

      PON is asymetrical (hence 100/40 speeds on NBN). FTTN can be symetrical per Adtran @ up to 100Mbs/100Mbps over 200 metres. GPON is oversubscribed to make it cost effective (eg 2.5Gbps GPON as planned with 64 or 128 splice/customers on a PON equates to 40 or 20Mbps max if fully contended. upstream is worse). FTTN can be built, easily, where 100Mbps is non contended.

      Actually the maximum contented bandwidth as devised by the technical model of the NBN is 78Mbps/39Mbps assuming they keep to their design of 32 users per PON and also don’t upgrade to the newer XGPONs. This is well documented, and the NBN can provide symmetrical services up to 400/400Mbps. It can provide any configuration you need up to 1000/400Mbps.

      The FTTN technology in question is also asymmetric in that, when the copper is unable to support the full 100/100Mbps service it is usually configured to degrade the throughput the the upstream before downstream. This is glossed over in the article above. Symmetric services to residential users are overrated, in that we download far more than we upload, however the current definition of asymmetric which gets as bad as 50:1 is not good enough considering the amount of content we are uploading is increasing.

      if you were to compare active ethernet, where the access tail is 100% non contended you get a different picture. The fact of the matter is that we are paying for GPON not active ethernet and the fibre design will not allow for any easy migration to active etherent. Of course there will be 10Gbps GPON in the future which if it was adpoted would likely mean they would need to replace every CPE (ONT). Cost many $$s

      Active Ethernet with no contention to every single household in Australia is not going to happen. We cannot afford the kind of backhaul you are suggesting at all. But your assertion that FTTN will be provided without contention at the node is complete and utter bullshit. The reason you deploy PON is that it requires much less space and power at the node because you do not need to use active measure to switch traffic between the spurs and the transient backhaul to the POIs.

      It’s a trade off. You can move the contention away from the node, and into the nature of the technology itself in exchange for reducing the size of the size of the street-side cabinets you need as well as power requirements, or you can use more power and have a slightly more flexible design. That is the advantage of FTTN, not that it is uncontented. Not that it is symmetrical. All it is a cheaper, and more flexible alternative. That isn’t enough to justify using it over GPON.

      If such was the case it would be hard to argue for say 100/40 @ say $3000 a house vs FTTN @ 100/100 for $1500 per house. please don’t flame on these numbers as I made them up to get a point across. The point being is better service for less $$s.

      Get your facts straight, it’s actually 1000Mbps/400Mbps for about $3000 per house. And better service for less? Doesn’t exist. You want a better service, you pay more for it. AON as you suggested will cost more than GPON, just like GPON costs more than FTTN.

      • NightKhaos,

        you dont know what ur talking about mate, cos everything u learn is from the internet…

        Look, at a loop length of 0.75Km vs 1.5Km the number of subscribers is lets say halved PER BOX.

        if each box uses DWDM technology, you can conservatively use 100Gbps.

        Even say we use NBNCo’s 300 customers per BOX, this means the contention rate for NBNCo would be twice that of Turnbulls FTTN, and you see how it becomes pointless when you have double the contention rate in backhaul? You can offer people 100mbps, but at PEAK, you will do no better than turnbulls FTTN, because it has HALF the number of customers/CPE’s per box, because there are MORE BOXES!

        in effect, what turnbull says is correct, in PEAK times which is NBNCo will do not much better than FTTN, and those are the times that matter, not at 3pm on a tuesdays….when taht is the only time u can get 100Mbps on FTTP/

        Understand that, NBNCo can also boost up the contention rate if it wants to cut cost, since fibre has long distances it will just put 500 customers on a box.

        The beauty of the small FTTN Box, which was some I suggest to Telstra back in 2007 is that it is a good way to platform LTE/WiFi mobility off. more boxes mean more access points.

        I actually propsed also a smart node technology to distribute traffic because these boxes are ACTIVE and POWERED, as opposed to a large PASSIVE FTTP network….

        • think of it like this

          NBN = 300 customers per box (fibre backhaul = 10Gb) = effective peak speed 10,000/300 = 33.3mbps
          FTTN = 1.5Km loop = 300 customers per box (fibre backhaul = 10Gb) = 33.3mpbs
          FTTN V.Turnbull = 0.75km loop = 150customers per box (fibre backhual = 10gb) = 66.6mbps

          hence… at realistic backhauls today of 10Gbps….without going too costly DWDM, the turnbull FTTN can get 1:1 ration, as 66.6mbps is above the lower bound guarantee of 50mbps, give or take that many customer will be much closer to the box…

          NBN will only guarantee LESS than turnbull NBN -unless- the backhaul was 30Gbps, which gives it a 1:1 @ 100mbps…

          • Engineer@Telstra, the NBN’s GPONs come in two bandwidth sizes, 2.5Gbps and 10Gbps, and they each have 32 ports. Only 28 ports will be used in order to provision four spare ports per GPON for speedy handling of port failures and to reduce contention. This makes an average of 80 Mbps of dedicated bandwidth available per customer, which is far more than realistically necessary in the early years when most customers are taking up 12 or 25 Mbps services, and they are not running at full throttle very often.

            When a particular 2.5 Gbps GPON’s customers are nearing capacity it will be swapped for a 10 Gbps unit, upping the average bandwidth to 240 Mbps, which is now 2.4 times the capacity of your FTTN idea. Then 40 Gbps GPONs will start appearing, and the fibre in the ground will never need to be touched.

            But the fact remains that energy-hungry FTTN costs more to build than superior FTTP (and it does because Telstra owns the copper to premises), why on earth are you persisting with this folly?

          • Why am i persisting with this folly? Well maybe its because I actually know what Im talking about ? and you are just spewing sewerage and have no idea what youre on about

            Your GPON will be 1Gbps split by 32 …which is as i said around 30Mbps each
            at 2.5Gbps x 32 that will give 78Mbps, which is already pretty stupid in terms of cost..and wont happen
            at 10Gbps – dont be stupid.

            if you look at NBN’s pricing they have a minimum plan of only 12Mbps, assuming enough people go on this plan that means that there is space for 100Mbps plans in the capacity. This is the reason why NBN does not have 1:1 contention.

            FTTN via turnbulls system should be able to do 1Gbps x 8 / 150 users , which is approx 50Mbit, ie 1:1

            its always been obvious that NBN will be restricted to backhaul cost, although the fibre can do 100Mbit, the backhaul capacity will be the same as FTTN, hence, it only boasts PEAK speeds, when you factor in lower plans.

            given the same backhaul constraints, I would prefer a network with 1:1 contention with a base speed of 50Mbps , that one that relies on contention with speeds varying from 12-100mbps.

          • Why am i persisting with this folly? Well maybe its because I actually know what Im talking about ? and you are just spewing sewerage and have no idea what youre on about

            Given the quality of your posts I doubt that very much.

            Your GPON will be 1Gbps split by 32 …which is as i said around 30Mbps each
            at 2.5Gbps x 32 that will give 78Mbps, which is already pretty stupid in terms of cost..and wont happen
            at 10Gbps – dont be stupid.

            So in the worst case you get 30Mbps assuming they don’t provision the full 2.5Gbps/1.25Gbps pipe to each PON? And you’re going to assert here that they will provision the full and required bandwidth to take advantage of the technology in FTTN? Don’t make me laugh.

            if you look at NBN’s pricing they have a minimum plan of only 12Mbps, assuming enough people go on this plan that means that there is space for 100Mbps plans in the capacity. This is the reason why NBN does not have 1:1 contention.

            I don’t think you know what 1:1 contention even means do you. 1:1 contention means that while in the network, the bandwidth does not at any point conflict with any other bandwidth in the system. That is to say that between points A and B you can get the full PIR you’re entitled. So, if you say someone has 1:1 contention, you better qualify it with a B point.

            The NBN has 13:1 contention via hardware up to the GPON, this could be increased further to about 32:1 if they only provision 1Gbps physical transient fibre. This contention is likely to be higher than that as ISPs may not provide the nessicary CVC bandwidth to achieve this contention, or they do not have enough backhaul bandwidth.

            With me so far? Okay. So then, now we’re talking about contenton that is specific to RSP, and in turn what bandwidth you provision from that RSP. That’s usally as far as people take it when they talk about contention in a general case because it get’s very complicated as you now have multiple redudnant routes between places and the method of data transmitting from A to B gets complicated.

            So then, a physical network contention of about 32:1 on a network designed to deliever 1Gbps PIR to each home, and you, being a residental user will likely order far less than this. Hmm. Explain to me again, how is this a problem?

            FTTN via turnbulls system should be able to do 1Gbps x 8 / 150 users , which is approx 50Mbit, ie 1:1

            I’m sorry what, do you seriously think an Telecom will provision 8Gbps of bandwidth to each node? And if a Telecom is willing to do that, why can’t they provision 3Gbps to each GPON? Why is there a x 8 in there as well? What does that signify? Is that the number of active fibre spurs they’re going to put to each node? Why don’t they just run a single 10Gbps and be done with it? Or 1Gbps, I mean that’s only a contention ratio of 7.5:1, users will hardly notice that, and it’ll reduce your equipment cost.

            its always been obvious that NBN will be restricted to backhaul cost, although the fibre can do 100Mbit, the backhaul capacity will be the same as FTTN, hence, it only boasts PEAK speeds, when you factor in lower plans.

            How many times does it have to said to you, the fibre can do ONE GIGABIT PER SECOND. So stop quoting 100Mbps. I know, it’s convient, if you keep people thinking it’s 100Mbps you can do the nice “we can do half the speed for half the price” line and then all you have to do is show that users won’t need that extra bandwidth come 2020, isn’t that right?

            But it isn’t that, it is one 20th the PIR, isn’t it? And the CIR we can get on both technology is very much dependent on backhaul, so much so, that I’m going to assert right now that given the same investment in backhaul, the NBN and FTTN are likely to give similiar CIRs as each other. Cause if I’m reading that argument correctly, that’s what you’re saying isn’t it?

            given the same backhaul constraints, I would prefer a network with 1:1 contention with a base speed of 50Mbps , that one that relies on contention with speeds varying from 12-100mbps.

            You want an uncontented connection, you pay for it like everybody else. That’ll be a couple of thousand a month with an inital cost of about $20,000 to get active ethernet fibre laid to your home. Otherwise you get a connection with a 20:1 or worse contention ratio like everybody else.

            How do I put this? Every single Residental Broadband connection in the developed world is contented. At some point within the network, somewhere, there is going to be contention. The fact that your little FTTN network happens to not have contention up until the node is irrelevent, because somewhere along that pipe, it’s going to be contended.

            If you were an engineer, you would actually know this. You would futher know that the NBN GPON network having a hardware contention ratio of around 13:1 is pretty good. You would further know that there is probably going to be far greater sources of contention than the fact it’s GPON.

            Further, how is the NBN “relying on contention”. That seems like an odd turn of phrase, and doesn’t make any sense. And wait, you don’t want a network that allows you to only buy as much bandwidth as you require? You’d prefer we just get dumped with the same plan, regardless of our budgets and usage patterns?

          • i think youve been fooled by the NBNCo slight of hand..

            see, you have two options, consider the core network capacity for FTTN and FTTH is the same…

            BUT if FTTN offers 50Mb and FTTH offers 100Mb, you can given the core capacity is the same, one would be more achieveable than the other, which is the ppoint of difference.

            The NBNCo plan requires various plans from 12-100Mbps, and hence it talks about its peak speed. While in FTTN it can talk about its non-contention speed of 50Mbps.

            There is nothing wrongg with this statement. FTTN could offer 100Mbps if you are 100m from the box, but being able to put down a real throughput bandwidth is much better than why NBNCo and Conroy keeps ADVERTISING to the public about his 100Mbps broadband, when there is a degree of statistical averaging involve in the contention ratio, which is similar to the current model todays ISPs use, but it is an averaging.

            Turnbull if he wants to spend the same dough as NBNCo in the backhaul network, could provide a network with 1:1 that would be awesome , no capacity planning needed, this is the type of QUALITY that is sold only to BUSINESS GRADE customers, but it will be available to everyone, that is a quality service in my books

          • Turnbull if he wants to spend the same dough as NBNCo in the backhaul network, could provide a network with 1:1 that would be awesome , no capacity planning needed, this is the type of QUALITY that is sold only to BUSINESS GRADE customers, but it will be available to everyone, that is a quality service in my books

            That’s a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, big if you’re talking about there.

            A politican who’s primary goal is to save money, spending extra money to give us 1:1 contention in backhaul? Isn’t going to happen.

        • Look, at a loop length of 0.75Km vs 1.5Km the number of subscribers is lets say halved PER BOX.

          Bwhahaha…halved? Really? Fail maths did you?

          An area that is 750m x 750m covers 562,500 sq-metres. An area that is 1500m x 1500m covers 2,250,000 sq-metres.

          Sounds like a quarter to me, not half. You halve the distance between “boxes” and you quadruple the number needed to cover the same area.

        • The point being made about FTTN being an active network is a good one, and its one of the reasons why I massively prefer FTTN over FTTH (or to be more accurate, a passive FTTH GPON network).

          With FTTN and powered nodes, you can literally place a wireless base-station every 1.5km or so, which allows for basically ubiquitous wireless broadband coverage and also at very high speeds.

          At least if the FTTH was a direct fiber from a powered node to an exchange, you wouldn’t have this issue

          • i actually suggested this to telstra a long while ago. When the FTTN proposal came out, we were looking at integrating femtocell like technology

            I also suggested they look at intelligent data routing and distributed networks, building intelligence into the network for a variety of reasons to get better performance, in the same way exchanges today talk to eachother but only in a smaller and less intelligent level.

          • Oh so the do the same thing with GPON you need to run a power cable to the cabinet where as in FTTN there is already power in the cabinet? Well diddums.

          • Let’s also conveniently ignore that FTTH requires EACH residence to have a powered FTTH box running 24/7 with a rechargeable battery that will require replacement at some point like all rechargeable batteries do, and the extra carbon footprint produced by the extra fibre production of FTTH instead of using copper which is already there.

            Other than that the GPON box looked at in isolation without looking at the total network FTTH link to the residence is indeed a passive device.

          • It will be compulsory for NBN Co to SUPPLY a battery. That doesn’t compel people to seek them to be replaced later when they fail.

            As for supplying power…I beleive most homes already have the electricity connected, whereas thousands upon thousands of FTTN nodes will need to have power cabling laid and connected, increasing maintenance and operating costs.

            OPEX vs CAPEX.

          • Yes most houses that I know of too, have electricity connected… good thing the FUDsters weren’t around (or at least, weren’t listened to) back when, promoting electricity opt-in and suggesting white elephants etc…!

          • Homes have power connected and electricity companies charge money for that power. All the GPON does is offload the opex onto the customer instead of the network provider. Since ultimately the entire network must be paid for by the customer (given that no one else would be offering to pay) it makes no difference.

            There is some stealth involved seing that very few households individually itemise their electricity, so many people will just see their electricity bill go up and shout at the kids for leaving the lights on.

          • Oh Tel… is see you are now vying for “Australia’s silliest comment”…?

            “Homes have power connected and electricity companies charge money for that power”! Phew.

            Sadly however, albeit a worthy, silly comment, you still fall a distant 3rd behind yesterdays real threat…

            “Thinking long term is the wrong approach”… by Engineer @ Telstra

            And still undisputed champion…

            “Before roads, there were no roads”… by alain

            But keep trying… having read your comments, you certainly have real potential, to jump straight to #1…

          • @Micheal Wyres

            “It will be compulsory for NBN Co to SUPPLY a battery.”

            lol, well that is a given when the unit is installed, I was referring more to greenhouse gases produced in battery manufacture relative to you rabbiting on about the passive GPON box.

            “That doesn’t compel people to seek them to be replaced later when they fail.”

            Oh right so when the battery fails in your UPS running your PC’s and network you don’t bother replacing it taking a punt the electricity supply will not fail, which really defeats the reason of buying a UPS in the first place.
            I must do that for my next UPS purchase ‘Can I have one without a battery’, I should be able to get it much cheaper.

            I am sure there will be boom market in the NBN box battery replacement business, but the tech geeks will no doubt source then from Dick Smith or Jaycar and get it for much less, unless there is a warning sticker on the NBN box ‘Opening this unit invalidates the warranty given by the Australian people and their elected Government’. :)

            ‘As for supplying power…I beleive most homes already have the electricity connected,’

            Yes I realise that but unless each box is powered by NBN Co supplied solar cells sitting on the residents roof it will draw power from the customers electricity account.

            “whereas thousands upon thousands of FTTN nodes will need to have power cabling laid and connected, increasing maintenance and operating costs.”

            Yes but each Node box feeds 100’s of homes, factoring in the other extra carbon footprint features of FTTH outlined above instead of taking the myopic view of one chain in the long FTTH link the passive GPON box , FTTN doesn’t look too bad.

            “OPEX vs CAPEX.”

            err yes – ok, what that has got to do with any of this discussion on power requirements beats me.

          • Well, if few people are replacing batteries, battery manufacturers won’t need to make so many, will they?

            As for CAPEX vs OPEX…well, installing 4 times as many cabinets – (to go from 1.5km to 750m separation) – is a CAPEX item. Paying the power bill for 4 times as many cabinets – (presuming FTTN) – is an OPEX item. These costs would be passed onto the user.

            With cabinets with no power requirements for an FTTH solution, it doesn’t see them needing to pay a power bill to operate them. No power costs, no power cost passed onto the user.

            Since you and your buddies are constantly bleating about the pricing structure of the NBN, I’d have thought you’d be happy to see something that places less pressure on pricing – no?

            How Malcolm expects the Coalition’s 1.5km plan, costed at $6b during the election campaign to remain cheaper is a mystery. If he’s quadrupling the number of nodes, he’s quadrupling the number of fibre connections running to nodes, and quadrupling the amount of work.

            Stands to reason that it approximately quadruples the cost…to $24b. Add the $10-12b compensation for Telstra – (who would still lose their network) – and it costs $340-36b.

            $36b – isn’t that the current pricing for the FTTH plan?

          • A FTTN box uses about 1200 watts and services about 300 homes, a FTTH ONT consumes about 5-8 watts, the problem on power usage is what (excuse the pun) exactly?

          • Whatever the power requirements are, someone pays for that power. If it’s 20,000 node cabinets, that’s 20,000 x 1200W (your figure), and a power bill that has to be paid. Regardless of what that bill is, it has to be paid.

            It is also a more complicated build – because you have to run power to the cabinet, hook it up, have it tested and electrically certified – (and periodically test and recertified) – and that costs money.

            If people at home are worried about the power consumption at their end, they can turn the thing off when they don’t want to use it. NBN Co wouldn’t be able to just turn the nodes off when nobody is using them, they have to be running 24/7.

            You’re simply over-simplifying things to suit your argument.

          • “Whatever the power requirements are, someone pays for that power.”

            Yes and?

            “If it’s 20,000 node cabinets, that’s 20,000 x 1200W (your figure), and a power bill that has to be paid. Regardless of what that bill is, it has to be paid.”

            The power consumption comparison is of course vs multiplying out 300 x ONT’s vs one FTTN cabinet, and let me ask you a question, think about it before rushing in feet first, you are definitely certain there is no power requirement whatever in the distribution of FTTH from street distribution points to a residence or business?

            “It is also a more complicated build – because you have to run power to the cabinet, hook it up, have it tested and electrically certified – (and periodically test and recertified) – and that costs money.”

            Well so does the ONT at each residence require all of that, I just had a smart meter installed ( well it’s smart for the electricity company anyway in getting the usage quicker for billing via wireless!) which consisted of a switchboard qualification check and test, which cost the electricity company $$, I assume it will be reflected in the quarterly connection charge in all subsequent bills!

            So there is nothing uniquely complex about the FTTN cabinet power installation, it didn’t bother Optus and Telstra with their powered distribution boxes for HFC sitting on electricity poles all across the suburbs.

            “If people at home are worried about the power consumption at their end, they can turn the thing off when they don’t want to use it.”

            If they do that the UPS battery cuts in, then they have to turn it on again – low battery ‘beep-beep-beep’, have you really thought this through? LOL

            “You’re simply over-simplifying things to suit your argument.”

            Yes the simple arguments are the best, didn’t think you would like it.

          • You are now just being difficult and argumentative to cover your flawed logic. A number of posters in this thread have already demonstrated your numerous inaccuracies. Yet you keep digging around at the bottom of the pit you have dig yourself into in an effort NOT to admit you are wrong about something.

            Well, many things, but I digress.

            No doubt you’ll come back with the usual “…time to beat a hasty retreat and exit stage left (again) eh MW – bye… bullshit, but I’ll be one thing you never are (honest), and say what most people trying to post here in good faith have been thinking for a long time.

            You’re full of shit, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and every single time you are shown to be wrong about something, you flip, twist and turn and complain that you were “taken out of context”, or you just FUD the argument up with bullshit in the hope that people trying to read along “won’t be able to see the forest for the trees”.

            Have a cry and a sook about it if you like. No doubt you’ll think this is some kind of victory – (I can read your mind even before I’ve clicked the “Post” button) – but honestly, people don’t really care about your ego and you incessant desire to have the final word on everything – (as David put it earlier) – even when you are completely wrong about something.

            You don’t have the balls to answer simple questions asked of you. When you do bother to answer something, you completely redirect the discussion away from the question to TRY and make the person asking the question look like the fool.

            Alas for you, most people on here are intelligent enough to see right through your crap. As for the “victory” you will no doubt bathing your ego in right now, fear not.

            We don’t care – in the fullness of time we will all see who is closest of all the regular contributors on Delimiter to the truth in this debate.

            I doubt many – (if any) – fear that that will be you.

          • Got all a bit awkward did it? – especially this: ‘and let me ask you a question, think about it before rushing in feet first, you are definitely certain there is no power requirement whatever in the distribution of FTTH from street distribution points to a residence or business?’

            Time to get it personal drop into ‘shoot the messenger’ mode desperately try and drag it off topic and as you quite rightly said ‘exit stage left’.

          • “…no doubt you’ll come back with the usual “…time to beat a hasty retreat and exit stage left (again) eh MW – bye… bullshit…”

            Geez…

            Time to get it personal drop into ‘shoot the messenger’ mode desperately try and drag it off topic and as you quite rightly said ‘exit stage left’.

            incessant desire to have the final word on everything

            Thank you, your worship. I rest my case. Looks like I was right.

            Fact is, I would never besmirch you the right to state your opinion – and you will no doubt continue to “enlighten” us to it.

            Similarly, my opinion – (and that, apparently of many others) – is that you are indeed, full of shit. I will continue to hold that opinion until you demonstrate that you have any idea what you are talking about.

            I am also not “exiting stage left” – (as much as you would love that) – I’ll still be here, and calling you out on your rubbish every single time.

            That’s not a promise, as promises are made to be broken.

            Consider it a threat – as threats are made to be kept.

          • “I’ll still be here, and calling you out on your rubbish every single time.”

            I wouldn’t mind if you did, but you(and others) never do, just saying you do over and over is not the same thing as actually doing it, your latest effort above follows your usual post flow of dropping into off topic ‘shoot the messenger’ mode to round off your argument (if you could call it that) when you have run out of rational responses pertinent to the subject/s under discussion.

            “Consider it a threat – as threats are made to be kept.”

            ooh – look forward to it, I’m off to DSE to price ONT UPS batteries. LOL

          • You want me to provide you with a list of Telco’s in the world that use FTTN and that’s all you have as a counter because I didn’t respond?, are you joking? what planet are you posting from? doesn’t Google search work for you?

            You win, no one in the world uses FTTN, and the manufactures like Alcatel who make FTTN cabinets are stockpiling them because no one wants them.

            http://www.broadbandsoho.com/FTTx/Alcatel_7330_ISAM.pdf

            Now go away.

          • @alain… 24 hours of Googling fervently and that’s the best you could do…

            LMAO….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • “You want me to provide you with a list of Telco’s in the world that use FTTN and that’s all you have as a counter because I didn’t respond?”

            That’s right because you were the one who said:

            “I assume the large Telco’s in the USA, Korea, UK and Europe know what they are doing.”

            So I would assume you would know who these telco’s are right? Specifically what telco in Korea is doing FTTN. I really didn’t think it was that big of an ask but you kept avoiding the question so what are we supposed to think?

            “doesn’t Google search work for you?”

            Actually l tried Wikipedia but you know the rest of the story…

            “http://www.broadbandsoho.com/FTTx/Alcatel_7330_ISAM.pdf”

            Alcatel-Lucent are also making the NBN NTU so what does this tell us? That is a product document not a telco and it still doesn’t answer the question.

        • Love the T$ Engineer that uses “u” instead of you and has the audacity to label other “morons”.

          Engineer of picking your jocks out of your arse ?

    • Justin, you are possibly correct that 100/100 Mbps is theoreticallly possible if the copper run is 200 metres.

      Now, let’s do the maths on your scheme.

      The original 10 Mbps FTTN proposal required 20,000 power-hungry street cabinets at 2 km spacing (according to Telstra in 2006). You are proposing an FTTN deployment to deliver 100 Mbps with a 400m cabinet spacing, i.e. one-fifth the distance, therefore 20,000 x 5 x 5 or half a million cabinets!

      Your $100 billion brainwave sounds like something Malcolm Turnbull might suggest to avoid the obvious answer that the smattering of customers who need 1000/400 Mbps can have it from day one if we spend $10-12 billion to lay fibre to premises.

      • Or, you could just replace the last mile of copper to the node with fiber should the need arise for such speeds (yes, FTTN is upgradeable)

        Also this is assuming that VDSL2 is the last step of DSL progression, which is also a naive assumption

        • So deteego…

          You want to either let Telstra hold us to ransom again or pay Telstra $B’s more to use their copper, by building FTTN. Then when (not if – according to trends) the FTTP need arises, we pay Telstra $B’s more to either shut the copper down or let Telstra renew with fibre… and again have them in control to hold us ransom… very clever (if you are Telstra)…

          Not forgetting too, when time to upgrade, all the new contracts that would be required, contractors, the politics of again arguing exactly as we are now, lengthy negotiations, hold-ups, the inflationary increases of the costs to everything to be upgraded in the future, inconveniencing residents again, etc…

          And do you think the Greens (who will soon hold the balance of power in the Senate) will agree to the environmental issues regarding FTTN, such as powering issues?

          And what about the precious ROI, will it be as attractive as FTTP. After all I’m sure Telstra will want a percentage of the ROI too, because it’s their copper or fibre? Perhaps it may take longer to pay back less, who knows..? Or, by the time we roll out FTTN and then upgrade to FTTP it surely will, cost many $b’s more, than doing it now?

          All assumptions (and you don’t like assumptions do you.. oh apart from an NBN CBA…sigh)!

          Surely even you (although you will never admit it) can see the sense in doing it properly, straight-up?

          It’s a shame some will say “na, can’t be any good ’cause Labor are doing it”… even those who “should” (due to their schooling)…know this is the best way to go”! But once again, the NBN as it stands isn’t perfect… nothing is. But it is the best all encompassing alternative we have… regardless of whether it’s Labor or the Coalition building it…imo!

      • Francis,

        Please go have a look at the technology, hence why I made that point early in my post. They may not allow posting a URL here so just search for adtran UBE. You’ll find it on the adtran website.

        Physical box: a large brick that is hardened for underground, power pole etc installation.

        Power: Each port is powered from the subscriber. If the sub has their CPE turned off then it does not power the port on the UBE box. Each port is approx 1 watt of power.

        CPE: Basically a media convert that deliver a single ethernet..

        Power on GPON: Complex ONT using a lot of power. OLT driving high power based on distance and splits. Always powered whether 1 person, 30 people, or 0 people are using the service or have ONTs powered. Vendors may instigate power saving methods over time.

        Power on UBE (FTTN type of network): 1 watt per UBE. If CPE is not connected or powered the port is shut down. 1 person = 1 watts, 30 people = 30 watts, 0 people = 0 watts!

        As for installation you have fibre down the street either way and you need room for fibre splices somewhere (remember GPON splits)?

        The main point of Turnbulls, and I guess my point, is that such technology COULD save billions of dollars and deliver an equivalent or better service. Will it be looked at? NO because a government decided GPON was the way ahead. Not UBE, not active ethernet but GPON.

        I guess my point is please go have a look and if you are technical, like some here I am engineer in the industry, take the time to understand the technology. Then ask yourself….does this deserve to be looked at in detail?

        The cost is not in doubt. Do some reading and you’ll see this was built for Tier 1 carriers O/S for this specific purpose…deliver high speed ethernet through a quicker and cheaper installation process.

  22. Thanks for looking out for us Malcolm. Saving us half the cost of the NBN…. to…… give us under 1/10th the speed and much more neutered upload (unless your one of the lucky few who have all of the planets align with a perfect FTTN connection)

    Even if there were no issues with getting Telstra to agree, Turnbull’s suggestion looks like a much bigger waste than the current NBN rollout IMO.

  23. It’s all very interesting and all, and I like Turnbull but the time for the coalition to push the FTTN cart would have been back in early 2008 when the plan was changed, but instead the two Tony’s came up with even less than the prior Howard government who at least took it seriously if too late.

    If they went back to the drawing board to re-run the FTTN vs FTTH debate it would just mean adding another year of pissing around, and the valuation of Telstra is now dependent on the NBN proceeding.

    At this point, dropping the NBN is both a share price disaster for Telstra, and a killer on the entire IT industry who are gearing up for it. It ain’t going to happen.

    Malcolm’s simply playing the alternative history game where he would have been more responsible, something that can’t be proven without a detailed alternative proposal and the benefit of knowing what household bandwidth is required in 20 years.

    To be honest I reckon Malcolm would have made the same decision as Conroy, but perhaps not through a government enterprise. He’s done a better job with this faux debate than I expected though.

  24. errrr……I think the government dumped the FTTN because Telstra was going to charge the government an arm a a leg per housefold to touch their copper cables.

    • You and many others are getting confused in your zeal to dump on Telstra, the Labour RFP was not just about FTTN, it was up to the bidders to decide on their infrastructure choice, in the end all five bids were rejected and Conroy and Rudd hastily came up with the face saver policy of a taxpayer fed FTTH NBN.

      • Oh alain you can learn… how about that…! Or is thhis just another contradiction…LOL.

        You argued with me previously until you wre blue in the face, as you always do, that the RFP “was a FTTN tender” (that’s exactly what YOU called it and I told you it was not)… But yet you continued to argue… DIDN’T YOU??? But now look… RFP wasn’t just FTTN you say. Gee, indeed it wasn’t!

        So well done alain, you do sometimes (albeit rarely) listen and learn! Even though I know aren’t big enough to now admit to your above previous error, for everyone else… you and I both know eh ;-)

        Are you also ready to now admit one of our other heated debates… that Graeme Samuel said he thought a CBA not possible, in regards the NBN? Or do I have to post the webcast, with the exact time he says it AGAIN…?

        Sadly however, you still keep harping about all bids rejected…

        Big difference was the other bids were all compliant and went the distance… Telstra’s bid DID NOT COMPLY and was booted within a fortnight (from memory). No matter how much you try to throw them all in together, they were different because of Telstra’s arrogance…

        But why do you “always’ go into bat for Telstra…are you a Telstra stakeholder?

          • All the companies who submitted their RFP responses – (you don’t submit an RFP, you submit a response TO an RFP) – obviously believed they could meet the RFP specifications, else they wouldn’t have submitted a response. You don’t come up with concrete solutions and pricing until the RFT stage.

            But you know that. Don’t you?

            Telstra throwing in the towel at that stage was just dumb – but that was THEIR choice. But it is completely a moot point, because the government chose not to proceed to the RFT stage. That may or may not have been as a result of the information in the various RFP responses.

            In the end, that tender didn’t proceed – something that happens ALL THE TIME in business.

          • @alain, all RFPs for NBN Mark I were rejected because they failed on service delivery grounds unless many times the project budget was to be spent.

            Several years of industry lobbying that FTTP was the best and ironically cheapest way to go had been rejected on cost alone.

            But now that all NBN Mark I bids (including Telstra’s non-compliant 12-page letter) proved that the far inferior alternatives were just as costly, Kevin 07 quickly recognised the political and economic stimulus value of declaring that the right 100% broadband solution – fibre wherever possible – would be rolled out at an estimated $43 billion cost over a decade.

            Although K07 came to this view quickly, this was not a snap decision, but rather built on lengthy analyses by the DBCDE of years of work done since John Howard’s original 2004 announcement that delivering universal broadband must be a priority, given the failure even then of the market to provide it to many Australians.

          • so alain…that’s a YES then, you admit you erred before, apolgise for your uneducated and childish argument and beg forgiveness… in relation to RFP not being a FTTN tender…good!

  25. if my memory serve me right
    Conroy was planing to building FTTN network but Cost to pay Telstra to use it network, is same as building a FTTH network
    Malcolm forgot that fact
    4 corner report about NBN
    he on it too

  26. Given there is no option to reply to Michael’s latest post directly, I would just like to chime in with my full support of his comments to Alain.

    Alain: You’ll notice I deliberately stopped responding to you a while back. The reason? You are arrogant, you quote misleading information, you use blatant scare tactics, and you cherry pick information that only suits your cause then disregard any information that doesn’t.

    Even when you speak to some of the most knowledgeable people in the industry, you show no respect, and can’t fathom that somebody might actually know a bit more than you do. I’m humble enough to say that I don’t know half of what some of the other guys know here. People that actually work in the industry! But if their views aren’t completely in line with your way of thinking, you ignore or desperately try to discredit them. You actually seem to think you’ve got the best plan for Australia mapped out in your head all on your own.

    Often your incorrect assumptions or false data is corrected by others, which you either completely ignore or follow up with even more nonsense. You are completely one-sided and not once have I heard you say “sorry, I was wrong” or “thanks for pointing that out”. In fact I believe you once said that you have never been wrong before, which just shows how blinded you are to reality.

    No one here takes you seriously and you come across as a sad little man pushing his right wing agenda in our face at every opportunity.

    Here’s a wake up call for you: The NBN is being built whether you like it or not. You can whine till the cows come home, but in 10 years when we’re all utilising our 100mbps + connections, your luddite comments are going to sound even more laughable than they do today.

    Why don’t you move to a country where they have VDSL and FTTN? Because you can argue for it all you want, but it’s not happening here. The reason being the Australian government has chosen a far superior option. FTTH is the future whether you like it or not.

    I have no doubt you’ll reply to this post with your usual FUD, or claim that you’ve won because I’ve resorted to attacking you, and then when I ignore you, you’ll feel all happy that “you’ve won” again. However I don’t give s shit, as we’ll be the ones winning as we all connect to the NBN.

    • :” You’ll notice I deliberately stopped responding to you a while back.”

      No, if you respond or not is of no interest to me, just as if I respond or not is of no interest to many either.

      ” you quote misleading information,”

      Yes I keep asking about specifics about that, it is usually met with silence, and you are certainly not going to change that trend here and now are you?

      ‘you use blatant scare tactics,”

      LOL really? I have not seen that one before, and it’s not even Halloween yet.

      “and you cherry pick information that only suits your cause then disregard any information that doesn’t”

      You talking about about me or pro-NBN argument here?

      “and then when I ignore you, you’ll feel all happy that “you’ve won” again”

      SR there are no winners or losers in a blog like Delimiter, Whirlpool, ZDnet etc, there is just a mass of opinion with no independent arbitrator, you read it and agree or disagree and move on.

      • Gee more contradictions…LOL

        Not so long ago (after you being soundly flogged yet again – debating wise – and unable to answer your ridiculous contradictions, even yet again) you said that you would no longer correspond with me…DIDN’T YOU?

        But look you lied… sigh!

        So yes, responding (or in your case running, hiding and squirming) does matter to you…!

        As for the rest of your above BS…pfft!

    • “but in 10 years when we’re all utilising our 100mbps + connections, your luddite comments are going to sound even more laughable than they do today.”

      Nailed it.

      “However I don’t give s shit, as we’ll be the ones winning as we all connect to the NBN.”

      I have a funny feeling they will too, not because the rotted out copper is getting replaced but because there won’t be any sense not to, they bitch and moan about it now and tell us how 12/1mbps is all anyone ever needs but in ~5 years time they’ll choose a 100/40mbps connection just like everyone else in the fibre footprint.

  27. And there we have it

    “To go from 50 megabits per second to 100 megabits per second in a residential context would be imperceptible”.

    Bill Gates would be laughing right now – right when he said “640K is more memory than anyone will ever need”

    The whole failure argument right there. It’s called shortsightedness – any anti-NBN person – is exactly that IMHO – shortsighted. Just as Bill gates admitted he was – and just as you and Turnbull will admit that you are in the years ahead. I am not against Government accountability or cost scrutiny – but to suggest we will “never need” greater speeds defies belief.

    10 years ago – back on Altavista and Dialup – it was “imperceptible” that just 10 years later we would be at 24 mbps. Now, 10 years later in 2011 – we are using the argument that in 2021 – it’s “imperceptible” that we won’t use 100mb/ps.

    So let’s analyse it – 56kb 10 years ago – 24mpbs now – 428x speed difference. Let’s assume an average of around 15mbps taking into account distance from an exchange – 267x. “Of course its imperceptible” that in ten years time we won’t be using 100mb/ps – despite the increases that we’ve seen over the last 10 years.
    Of course, it’s “imperceptible” that in 10 years time we will be demanding to use 1gbps. It’s “imperceptible” that given the prominence of cloud computing – that every single data point you own will be in the cloud. That all the services you consume will revolve around the internet.

    It’s “imperceptible” that high speed video transfer, that working from home, that IPTV, that immersive touch and gesture based applicances run throughout the home connected to the internet constantly won’t be in use. What sort of “idiot” would expect this ? What sort of “idiot” would have thought 600 million people would connect to a social networking service called Facebook ? What sort of idiot assume that Video on the internet through a medium called Youtube would be so popular ? What sort of “idiot” would have assumed that we want to access data from a mobile computing device as opposed to a PC ? Of course, all this in 10 years – what sort of “idiot” would assume in the next 10 years we won’t go through the same generational increments just as Moore’s Law assumes we will.

    Indeed, all these things are “imperceptible” and that is why we need to just ignore what history has told us about the speed of technology development. Sure thing – let’s focus on what’s possible right now – to build out the future of the digital services in Australia. That’s a smart way to operate. And if we listen to this shortsighted view – the future will be a bleak one. Services will not be accessible to every Australian – and the divide becomes wider between classes.

    Open your eyes – don’t be so shortsighted. Don’t think about what’s “possible” – think about what’s currently impossible knowing full well within 10 years through the use of technology it may be possible. Access to the best surgeons in the world remotely, access to the best video schooling, access to enormous amounts of information, access to constant cloud based services, access to gesture and touch based interfaces – we are moving into a world of constant data demands.

    The arguments against the NBN are lost to me really and frankly in my view – your willing to destroy the benefits of a bright future and the demands that technology will require. Look back 10 years ago to what you consumed on the internet and look at yourself now. Or your wife, or partner or friend or family member.

    In 10 years time ? You’re kidding yourself if you honestly believe it will be no different than today. History has already shown you that.

    • Awesome post Tim. I don’t have much more to add than that because I’m on the road, commenting from my phone (over a hideously congested tower with bugger all bandwidth) but just wanted to say I share exactly the same vision for a connected home of the future. The lack of vision for the future from Luddite coalition supporters astounds me, and I think you summed up the situation superbly.

    • @Tim

      Bill Gates would be laughing right now – right when he said “640K is more memory than anyone will ever need”

      Except he didn’t say that, but never mind, never let a urban myth get in the way as the introduction to a good old flag waving rant eh?

      “The whole failure argument right there. It’s called shortsightedness – any anti-NBN person – is exactly that IMHO – shortsighted”

      The so called ant-NBN person’s argument is NOT simplistically defined as not having faster BB speeds at all, it certainly is not about us having a taxpayer fed all nation $43 billion folly or you don’t have anything at all.

      “Just as Bill gates admitted he was”

      Well he didn’t admit anything of the sort because he didn’t say it in the first place, but never mind keep the myth going.

      “It’s “imperceptible” that high speed video transfer, that working from home, that IPTV, that immersive touch and gesture based applicances run throughout the home connected to the internet constantly won’t be in use.”

      Yes we do that today throughout the world on FTTN, HFC, ADSL2+, ADSL and FTTH, you see all those applications are not the exclusive domain of FTTH.

      “What sort of “idiot” would have assumed that we want to access data from a mobile computing device as opposed to a PC ?”

      No one has said wireless is a total replacement for fixed line broadband, if that’s what you meant to say, because the way it reads you are saying that all the millions of people that access data from their mobile device instead of the PC are idiots.

      Interesting point of view. :)

      “The arguments against the NBN are lost to me really and frankly in my view – your willing to destroy the benefits of a bright future and the demands that technology will require.”

      I repeat the arguments about NBN are not just about the need for higher speeds, as higher speed is in the eye of the beholder and what the majority of users require, not just tech geeks and vested industry opinion pushing product.

      NBN does not only have to be a taxpayer fed FTTH.

      “. Access to the best surgeons in the world remotely,”

      I know FTTH is being sold as the cure for all ills, but a far as I know it it doesn’t come with a in home remotely controlled surgery kit, and also what is it about FTTH that allows me to access a Harley St specialist in London, and how do I pay him, with’ PayPal Medicare’? LOL

      “Look back 10 years ago to what you consumed on the internet and look at yourself now. Or your wife, or partner or friend or family member.

      In 10 years time ? You’re kidding yourself if you honestly believe it will be no different than today. History has already shown you that.”

      10 years ago we were using ADSL and HFC BB, we are still happily using it today, that’s what ‘history has shown’ – you didn’t really think that one through did you?

  28. @Alain

    Wow, thanks for again hiding behind the shadow of an “anonymous” commentor.

    Your view is a shortsighted one and your being patronizing at best. Your underlying tone is evidently one of “we won’t need faster speeds and our current capacity is fine and will be fine in the future” – it’s interesting you choose to ignore the arguments presented regarding services and devices we haven’t invented yet. Just as in 2000 – your argument fails because Youtube pushed the consumer demands of broadband higher and there will be other services in the years ahead that do the exact same thing.

    “No one has said wireless is a total replacement for fixed line broadband, if that’s what you meant to say, because the way it reads you are saying that all the millions of people that access data from their mobile device instead of the PC are idiots”

    –> No, that’s not what I am saying at all. I am stating that you’re assuming that consumer and business demands won’t change in the future and the incremental increases for infrastructure projects is a satisfactory outcome – depsite the fact that Australia is already ranked . You’re assuming that innovation will not demand greater speeds, broader access and higher consumption of services. This is where your argument is a disappointing one and you’ve failed to address this.

    ” as higher speed is in the eye of the beholder”

    No – it’s not. In 2000, we used 56KB – now we demand 24mbps. Misunderstand what you’re “in the eye of beholder” point is. Faster speeds are a derivative of innovation – they’re a requirement.

    “what the majority of users require, not just tech geeks and vested industry opinion pushing product.”

    Nice generalization. You have no idea what the majority of users require and more importantly – you have no idea what they WILL require. You’re assumption is based on the fact that moving into the future – data usage patterns will remain consistent. They won’t – we’re moving into a data driven world – do some more research.

    “NBN does not only have to be a taxpayer fed FTTH.”

    Infrastructure projects in our country should be funded by government. I do not see any great difference between roads and broadband access.

    “I know FTTH is being sold as the cure for all ills, but a far as I know it it doesn’t come with a in home remotely controlled surgery kit, and also what is it about FTTH that allows me to access a Harley St specialist in London, and how do I pay him, with’ PayPal Medicare’?”

    Again, patronizing. Nice. But the reality is – if you or your family or your friends or IMHO any person – and they have the ability to be connected to the best surgeons in the world remotely. That is an amazing thing. You’re belittle something of incredible value and that can change lives for the better.

    “10 years ago we were using ADSL and HFC BB, we are still happily using it today, that’s what ‘history has shown’ – you didn’t really think that one through did you?”

    Of course I did. Again, you seem to be missing something called “innovation”. In 10 years time, it will be interesting to see whether your consumption of digital services has changed greatly. From your comments – you assume it will not. Good luck with that.

    • +1 Tim, but…

      I wouldn’t worry too much about poor old alain…he is on a crusade and as such, he has no rules or ethical guidelines in regards to his comments…

      He contradicts himself incessantly to suit his (imo, politically/Telstra motivated) anti-NBN agenda, at any given juncture… and he’s doing it again right now!

      For example, just a few days back (and many times previously) he has told us HFC was and is a complete failure, and suggests as such the NBN being similar, will also be…

      But above he said “10 years ago we were using ADSL and (((HFC BB, we are still happily using it today))) that’s what ‘history has shown”.

      So alain is HFC a failure or not????

      Tim, seriously, you are trying to debate rationally with the irrational…, but wait, there’s more…LOL!

    • @Tim

      “Wow, thanks for again hiding behind the shadow of an “anonymous” commentor.”

      That old furphy gets a airing again, of course you are very selective on who that ‘put down’ attempt applies to, if it applies to everyone in blogs like this Whirlpool, ZDnet etc you have eliminated 99% of all posts in one hit as having any legitimate comment.

      ” – it’s interesting you choose to ignore the arguments presented regarding services and devices we haven’t invented yet.”

      Oh great build FTTH nationally, spend $43 billion of taxpayer funds and they will ‘invent something’ to justify its existence – brilliant!

      “Just as in 2000 – your argument fails because Youtube pushed the consumer demands of broadband higher and there will be other services in the years ahead that do the exact same thing.”

      Where does that argument ‘fail’, what is it about BB infrastructure in 2011 that fails to display Youtube properly?

      “–> No, that’s not what I am saying at all. I am stating that you’re assuming that consumer and business demands won’t change in the future and the incremental increases for infrastructure projects is a satisfactory outcome ”

      Err what, that doesn’t make any sense, is that intentional?

      “– depsite the fact that Australia is already ranked .”

      Australia is already ranked what?

      “You’re assuming that innovation will not demand greater speeds, broader access and higher consumption of services. This is where your argument is a disappointing one and you’ve failed to address this.”

      What innovation? – or do you consider the NBN rollout is like a lottery, based on a assumption that innovation in the future can ONLY be be met by a fibre to the home taxpayer fed rollout.

      “No – it’s not. In 2000, we used 56KB – now we demand 24mbps.”

      Who demands 24 mbps – you?

      ” Misunderstand what you’re “in the eye of beholder” point is.”

      Many users are happy today with HFC, ADSL and ADSL2+ BB speeds, if you gave someone FTTH today who is totally happy with ADSL2+ or HFC what are you achieving here?”

      ” Faster speeds are a derivative of innovation – they’re a requirement.”

      Seeing as you have not defined what the innovation is it sounds like you understand that current speeds are adequate but to help prove your case supporting the need for FTTH you have to rely on ‘stuff’ that has not been thought of yet.

      Reminds me of Concord the fastest commercially available aircraft in the world, where is Concord today?

      “Nice generalization. You have no idea what the majority of users require and more importantly – you have no idea what they WILL require.”

      … and you do?

      ” You’re assumption is based on the fact that moving into the future – data usage patterns will remain consistent. They won’t – we’re moving into a data driven world – do some more research.”

      You are muddying data usage with speed need, 100 gig under FTTN or HFC is the same data usage as 100 gig under FTTH,

      “Infrastructure projects in our country should be funded by government. I do not see any great difference between roads and broadband access.”

      Except this one requires the existing working infrastructure to be ripped up to ensure people use the NBN, is that what you mean by ‘innovation’ perhaps?

      “Again, patronizing. Nice. But the reality is – if you or your family or your friends or IMHO any person – and they have the ability to be connected to the best surgeons in the world remotely. That is an amazing thing. You’re belittle something of incredible value and that can change lives for the better.”

      Oh you are serious, sorry I thought it was a joke, so why cannot we do that today?

      ” Again, you seem to be missing something called “innovation”.”

      Yes but all of your ‘innovations’ are also missing, but that’s ok apparently.

      • As I said above Tim in relation to alain …

        “Tim, seriously, you are trying to debate rationally with the irrational… but wait, there’s more…LOL!

        …And look, exactly as prophesied, LOL!!!!!!!

        Plus he still didn’t answer his usual ridiculous contradiction… “is/was HFC a failure or not…”!

        So alain, I take that as a yes/no, as usual, good!

        • Trying to debate the benefits of the NBN with alain is like trying to debate “6000 year old earth” creationism versus science and evolution to a fundamentalist Christian. No matter how many facts you present to them that prove their entire belief system is wrong, they will always have a comeback that pulls apart your comments into ridiculous nonsensicalness sections, so that they can always feel like they are the beholder of the truth. For the sole reason that they will ultimately believe what they want to believe. No amount of science, data or common sense can penetrate their brain. They don’t really want to “debate”. They just want to force their warped viewpoint on as many people as possible. It’s very sad to watch really.

          • @Simon Reidy

            “Trying to debate the benefits of the NBN with alain”

            Yes but that is the key point SR you never do, when all gets too hard which is usually very soon after your first post you divert rapidly into off topic claptrap like that ‘Fundamentalist Christian’ post that has nothing whatever to do with the NBN subject matter being discussed.

            “they will always have a comeback that pulls apart your comments into ridiculous nonsensicalness sections,”

            Here we go this complete load of BS gets a airing again, when I ask for the detail of where this has been done it is ALWAYS meant with stunning silence, as per usual SR you won’t break the habit of the lazy poster here and now will you?

          • What are we debating again? Oh that’s right. You want to stick with dated technology and have no vision beyond “we can already watch YouTube” or “we can do all that on ADSL” standards, or quoting misleading single user experiences on HFC (which only a tiny percentage of the population can access anyway). You harp on about FTTN, when it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that going this route would only increase the total cost of building the NBN as it would only be an interim solution for a short amount of time as demands increase so rapidly. It also would not provide the benefit of a ubiquitous super-fast network for everybody, which is what the NBN is all about. Plus we’re not building FTTN, so why bother even trying to promote it? The Australian government has chosen a better standard whether you like it or not.

            The reason I rarely bother responding to you any more, is because you are an extreme Luddite, who posts the same repetitive dribble day after day, you have no respect for opinions from people with far more knowledge or experience than you, and you prove continuously that you have absolutely no vision for future applications, and bandwidth hungry multiple-internet-devices houses of the future. You have this “what we have now is good enough attitude” and simply can’t move past that way of thinking.

            As I said you don’t really “debate”. Show me a single post, just one, where you have conceded a point, acknowledged something you didn’t know, or have actually rethought your position on something after someone has posted detailed figures that are clearly more accurate than your googled posts. You can’t because you’re entirely single-minded, which makes you a fundamentalist and is why I used the analogy I did (which clearly went straight over your head given you said it was irrelevant).

            Fundamentalist as defined on Wikipedia
            strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity (see Establishment), but has by and large retained religious connotations. Historically, for some constituencies fundamentalism connotes an attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.

            i.e. no matter what information is presented to you, or who it’s presented by, you just don’t care. If it doesn’t back up your fundamental beliefs you pull it apart in the same repetitive fashion or you ignore it. You believe only what YOU have decided is best. I on the other hand see both strengths and weaknesses to the NBN, I know it’s far from perfect in terms of the way it’s been rolled out and sold to the public. I’ve also learnt a lot from other posters here (even you on occasion!) and I’m humble enough to not pretend to have all the answers. It’s not hard once you have done even the smallest bit of research to know that FTTH is the very best solution for the future of the internet worldwide.

            This is actually good timing to prove my point (or for you to stop and think and change your stance) as Tim has just posted one of the best posts I’ve ever read about why we need the NBN. Let’s see how you handle it. Will you pull it apart and challenge all his points with FUD? Or will you genuinely think about what he has had to say and think “gee that actually makes sense”?

            And I also post under my real name and stand by what I say. Who the hell are you?

            Now do you get why I choose to ignore your posts 90% of the time?

          • Apologies for forgetting to close the bold tag. Or perhaps having half of my post in bold might make it get through to you? (yeah right).

          • @Simon Reidy

            I really appreciated the effort that went into all that bold SR, but unfortunately that was the highlight of the piece (deliberate pun), the rest was just off topic incoherent rambling.

            Perhaps next time you could work on a different colour for each line, it doesn’t matter what you say, like your piece above, it is totally irrelevant.

          • LOL the pro-NBN lobby and their rag tag jury biased judgements supporting each either no matter what.

            It’s hilarious.

          • Dear WAA… (wrong again alain)…

            Intelligent posts should be congratulated with a +1.

            Ridiculous rubbish posts shouldn’t.

            I have noticed you never receiva a +1…

  29. @Alain
    I’ll respond to your comments again but unfortunately I don’t have the time again to reply on this thread – thanks for the discussion nonetheless.

    “That old furphy gets a airing again, of course you are very selective on who that ‘put down’ attempt applies to, if it applies to everyone in blogs like this Whirlpool, ZDnet etc you have eliminated 99% of all posts in one hit as having any legitimate comment.”

    Legitimate commenting online IMHO should link to a real online presence – hence the reason Facebook has implemented its online commenting system as one of many. You comment differently when you attach your real profile in comparison to an “anonymous” one because you do not care what you post – knowing that no one will ever attach this back to your name. The anonymity that one hides behind tends to provide a contextual behavior that you would not have if people knew who you were. I am not selective who this “put down” applies to in any sense – I think it is clear that your legitimacy is only increased when you provide critical commentary without hiding behind some “unknown name” because you care about your identity and therefore structure your arguments accordingly. It’s not so much providing your “real” identify as it is providing a consistent one – feel free to read http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html

    “Oh great build FTTH nationally, spend $43 billion of taxpayer funds and they will ‘invent something’ to justify its existence – brilliant!”

    You assume this a stupid thing ? In 2000, when the Internet was not even validated as a widely accepted concept in Australia – we used existing infrastructure to enable and facilitate connection. 10 years later – we are still using the same infrastructure albeit with a better facilitation mechanism. In the next 10 years, 20 years and even 30 years – the usage and consumption of the Internet will be compulsory and an inherent part of culture [if it is not already]. Perhaps you don’t believe that services in the future will continue to rely on Internet at a greater rate ? History has already shown the path that innovation has taken across the last 10 years. Do you assume that in the next 10 or 20 years – the reliance and consumption of services will not be at a faster rate than what they are currently at ?

    Let’s assume we do nothing – cost only increases as a function of time. IF we decide that we need faster infrastructure for broadband services in Australia in 2020 or 2030 – then the cost will far exceed $43 billion [even though this is not the total cost]. Let’s assume we build the project in “incremental” stages across the next 5 governments – then again, the total cost will far exceed the current projected budget. So the argument you present is more likely one of – “never build” – because across the next 30 years – building either a) privately or b) through incremental stages – will ultimately yield a slower, more expensive and poorly spread broadband service which has a higher net cost to consumers. Read this paper – http://www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf – as one of many. Australia ranks 14th – Switzerland, Japan, Greece, Korea and many other countries are already implementing FTTH nationally – of course, all these countries are “wasting their time” as well I assume ?

    “Where does that argument ‘fail’, what is it about BB infrastructure in 2011 that fails to display Youtube properly?”

    Because YouTube is an amorphous website that is constantly increasing it’s data demands. Youtube “works properly” now because it is unable to innovate at a faster rate because services are simply not available to justify the increase in innovation. If Australia had faster access to internet, then YouTube would innovate at a faster rate accordingly which would provide an even greater an immersive experience to the entire community.

    Again, yes youtube works. But no technological innovators want their service to “just work” – they want to innovate and provide a new and immersive experience to their users. In 10 years time, youtube will challegene Television stations just as Hulu.com and NetFlix are already doing in the US. You connect to the Internet directly and consume services across these services – this will become common place and already is becoming common place in the States.

    Certainly, if you want to have 1 TV – with shitty non-HD quality video’s displayed at poor resolution – existing services will work fine. DO you really think Mum and Dad who have just bought a new sony 3D television will want to continue along this line ? No. Now let’s assume there are 4 TV’s in the same house – all wanting to consume services at the same rate of consumption ? Again, existing services render this impossible without painful buffering and generally do not justify a family use case.
    “Err what, that doesn’t make any sense, is that intentional?”

    I’m unclear where you’re confused here. Read my first paragraph – the incremental increase of broadband infrastructure in Australia will be entirely more costly distributed over the next 20 years as opposed to upgrading the entire network as one project. Governments are responsible for pushing society forward as a whole – not providing incremental services to incremental aspects of society which promotes fracture and class separation. This is exactly what the Government is trying to avoid by upgrading the infrastructure in Australia entirely and I strongly applaud this effort.

    “Australia is already ranked what?”

    17th on broadband speeds and will quickly loose any status in the top 50 if we choose to avoid upgrading our infrastructure as a whole. Korea, Japan, Finland, Sweden, France are already far above Australia and are all increasing rapidly. Review this – http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html#Services_and_speeds – if you need evidence.

    “What innovation? – or do you consider the NBN rollout is like a lottery, based on a assumption that innovation in the future can ONLY be be met by a fibre to the home taxpayer fed rollout.”

    Perhaps you need a definition of innovation – I’m happy to provide one. From the Princenton dictionary – “being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before;”. Clear ? Evidently, existing services will not be able to handle products of innovation in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. In the last 10 years, we have grown into a culture of technological reliance and innovation. Every seemingly must be “realtime’ even now – and this will only change in the future.

    Do you believe that future services in the ‘average’ home of 2 parents and 2 child with immerse entertainment, multiple computers, streaming music, multiple streaming video connections, multiple gesture based appliances, multiple home appliances and home automation are all going to run across a 2.4mb shared connection ? It’s a strange belief in my eyes if you do. Given what history has already shown us in the last 10 years – I strongly believe that all the above services will require a vastly superior experience in comparison to what we have today and innovation in all these areas will require faster and wider broadband pipes.

    “Many users are happy today with HFC, ADSL and ADSL2+ BB speeds, if you gave someone FTTH today who is totally happy with ADSL2+ or HFC what are you achieving here?””

    Yes, the key word again “today”. So because one is happy with services they consume “today” – is your argument that this will contine at perpetuity ? New services arrive that require increased bandwidth and consumers upgrade accordingly. All you need is for Netflix to arrive in Australia [it will in the next 12 months] and already every household which wants this service will be upgrading their internet to handle streaming movies and television. So and so forth the data usage patterns are driven. The issue you seem to miss is that multiple service offerings through multiple services and devices in the home across the next 10-20 years will require an absolute increase in bandwidth and speed. There isn’t a question that this is going to occur – it’s a fact.

    “Seeing as you have not defined what the innovation is it sounds like you understand that current speeds are adequate but to help prove your case supporting the need for FTTH you have to rely on ‘stuff’ that has not been thought of yet.”

    Again, look above or in any dictionary. Innovation is a fairly clearly defined word. Of course, this is the point – there are many services already invented that aren’t in Australia yet for a whole range of reasons. American’s are already screaming for faster internet and it’s the whole premise for Google’s 1gbps expansion projects and the like – people are consuming more services, through more devices at a faster rate in their homes.

    In the next 10 years, the reliance on hard-drives will disappear completely and you’ll have a screen, a keyboard and connect to your OS over the internet. Look at Google Chrome OS – it’s already doing this and it’s evident that the future of online services are going in this direction. Do you honestly believe that 2 or 3 or 4 users in the same household booting and using their computers across the internet are going to be able to do this on existing broadband services ? Absolutely not and this is just their computers. Add in the swather of other services offered – music, education, home appliances, security , television, video, gesture based applications and all the rest which will require the internet – and you quickly discover existing infrastructure will render any and all such scenarios impossible.

    “Reminds me of Concord the fastest commercially available aircraft in the world, where is Concord today?”

    So you’re comparing an airline jet which services a single industry to the internet which services almost every application we currently use ? Nice use case comparison. The reality is – the internet is now more important and utilized by almost every service and device you use in either an indirect or direct capacity. If you don’t use it – businesses do to process basically anything you purchase or consume. I don’t understand how you can possible draw any similarities in this regard.

    The concord failed primarily due to the crash in 2000 and a loss of confidence in it from this point forward [in addition to other reasons]. In comparison, Internet sites crash all the time – do you stop using them if they do ? Of course not.

    “You are muddying data usage with speed need, 100 gig under FTTN or HFC is the same data usage as 100 gig under FTTH,”

    Really am I ? The shortcomings of HFC are well known – including primarily limited downstream [technologies such as Docsis try to help out] and even more limited upstream [ala channel bonding etc] and fundamentally the medium itself – the signal is a less ‘transparent’ one in comparison to fiber which why the requirement of amplifiers is needed and it’s a shared access network throttling bandwidth [just like wireless]. Evidently, the weakest point of HFC is the move from linear TV to non-linear HD video in both uplink and downlink.

    “We tend to overestimate the short term impact of a technology and underestimate the long term impact.” – Dr. Fancis Collins – Direct of the Human Genome Project

    Yes, upgrading HFC will be a ‘short-term fix’ – no it will not be enough to compare to FTTH in the future and a migration will be required eventually anyway due to it’s shortcomings. Again, your ‘incremental’ increase plan is just a more costly one across the life of any broadband project.

    “Except this one requires the existing working infrastructure to be ripped up to ensure people use the NBN, is that what you mean by ‘innovation’ perhaps?”

    Again, refer to the definition of innovation. Shared connections are the failure of almost all the technologies you mention in the future of consuming digital services in our country and every other country implementing a FTTH network understands this. Japan, Korea, Switzerland, Greece and so on are all building FTTH because shared technologies do not facilitate, and will not facilitate, the required demand in the future. Again, the reason google is building FIBER 1gbps trials in many US States and hope to expand this across the country. Again, the reason Australia needs FTTH and again the reason so many other countries are adopting the same strategy.

    “Oh you are serious, sorry I thought it was a joke, so why cannot we do that today?”

    Simple scenario. A team of surgeons – let’s assume 5 – each require HD video in real-time, each require machinery to operate as “hands” and each is remote. You think a broadband connection of 24mbps will handle this ? Absolutely no way would it. This is the problem – the shared network is not enough to facilitate the need. All you need is one “buffering” link or one “poor image” and you have the potential to kill the patient. This not to suggest that FTTH will not have these problems – but the risk of these problems is mitigated to a higher degree.

    “Yes but all of your ‘innovations’ are also missing, but that’s ok apparently.”

    I’m unclear that it seems history is an unacceptable use case. Compare the year 2000 to the year 2011 and you can fairly easily create a list of “innovations”. In the next 10 years, we will consume more services, at a higher rate and demand more speed through more bandwidth. In the tens years after that, it will continue at a higher rate.

    Finally …

    The sooner you accept that the world is moving to one of data services without the “cynicism” of “we won’t innovate” or “why waste money on products not invented yet” – the sooner you will realize that the future of digital services in this country requires a FTTH. Other countries realize it, we shouldn’t be any different. History has already given us a glimpse to what’s achievable in realistically 5 years [2005-2010 being the real growth] – and in the next 10-20 years its only apparent that such innovation will continue.

    While I respect that you don’t believe in the NBN and I applaud that you have a evidently strong belief that it is a waste of time – I think many of your views are cynical. I don’t necessarily hold the view that you’re “irrational” – if you didn’t hold such a strongly pertinent view against the NBN – then everyone on this blog would simply “agree” :) And that’s no fun is it ? As I stated I am all for government accountability and cost scrutiny and transparency – but in view Australia needs this broadband plan to adequately take us into the future for the next 10, 20, 30 years and beyond. Innovation is already apparent from the last ten years and Australia needs to arm itself for the benefits that the Internet can bring over the next 10, 20 and 30 years. Otherwise we will be left behind – with a populas demanding increased speeds and bandwidth to consume services other countries take for granted – and digital services which will be upgrade through private organisations, at a slow rate with an incredible increasing cost burden as a function of time on consumers which will lag us far behind the rest of the world [or should I say, further behind than we already are].

        • Does that kind of comedy come naturally to you alain? You may not realise this, so just to let you know: you’re an unfunny ignorant dick. There’s your bold.

          • That’s better, you learned how to turn bold OFF, but once again that was the highlight of your comment.

    • what a load of empty, feel-good rhetoric and delusional fluff.

      totally ignores:

      #1 – the cost to the consumer of adopting these fantasy-land, hi-tech apps

      #2 – the opportunity cost of overbuilding (under-utilized) infrastructure

      seriously… remote surgery at home performed by five surgeons over the internet?

      and how likely is this to be realized?

      this is the best justification NBN proponents can come up with to justify this exorbitant $50bln public waste?

      oh, please…

      true innovation is about finding new ways of doing things that are independently viable…. without requiring taxpayers to make a “$50bln gift” to distort economic incentives and make the numbers “stack up”.

      • What a load of empty, pessimistic rhetoric and delusional economic/political BS.

        I bet you were one who only 15 or 20 years ago would have scoffed at sending an electronic letter instantaneouly to the otherside of the world, to purchase goods, pay electronically in the morning and have the goods on their way that evening too…”I could see you saying, Star Trek and beam me up…

        So speaking about health issues… I think it’s about time for you to get you “head” out of the economics book, look past your own “nose” and remove your “tongue” from the back of someone’s speedos…

      • I wonder if you’d feel the the same way if you knew someone elderly who lived in a remote location who could benefit from such things? My Aunty lives in a remote NSW area and has breast cancer in remission, and currently travels 5 hours once a week for a check-up that could easily be performed over the net, should such technology be available. And you’re right that the same check-up procedure could probably be performed over ADSL2, if she could actually get it. Not to mention the NBN and the buzz around it, is what will drive true innovation in that field, and allow these exciting new types of applications to be rolled out much quicker than they can be over today’s mish-mash of dated technologies.

        Remote medical consultations require excellent quality high definition picture and sound. And an actual remote medical procedure or operation requires a very low latency high bandwidth connection both ways. Latency and upload speed is just as important as download speed, which is something often forgotten when discussing the technology than can deliver 100mbps+. Can you imagine the risk of trying to perform and advanced operation via wireless? Perhaps with LTE, but certainly not with 3G, and FTTH is by far the preferable option.

        I’m pro NBN for many reasons, but the quality of life for my Aunty, and the future of e-health for all of Australians is one of the biggest ones.

  30. Wow that was entertaining

    so who actually won that argument?
    (because its important on the internet to win random arguments, of course)

    on a serious note, where is the relevant (non paid shill using bad assumptions *cough* mckinsey *cough) studies that demonstrate incremental cost of FTTN to FTTH upgrade vs straight up FTTH, and the accompanying financial analysis e.g. lost opportunity cost, interest and investment income from money not spent initially on all-in FTTH etc.

    Also nobody seems to consider the backhaul to the rest of the world in all this, given that a lot of our traffic goes overseas (I don’t work in an ISP thank god so don’t have that sort of info handy) surely that has some bearing on whether or not its useful to have everyone on 1Gb or 100Gb or whatever if in fact its just going to bottleneck the few undersea cables, wheres the planning around that factor?.

    • sorry hit send too quick

      Above post is a genuine question, if anyone has a link to that sorta info, please let me know. I’m not trying to stir lol

      The NBN debate seems far too focused upon ‘moar bandwidth is useful’ vs ‘no its not’ and there appears to be not too lot of focus around the figures especially the figures for an alternative course of action i.e. FTTN –> FTTH (including structural separation of course). At a glance the reported figures for NBN (the oft quoted 43 billion and McKinsey report) don’t inspire confidence, as an investor I would not be going anywhere near the NBN in its present state, 6% ROI after 20 years or whatever and half the figures are fuzzy assumptions like the uptake rate, don’t make me laugh. Who in the right mind would risk that kind of money for a return less than a fixed deposit.

      That is not to say that moar bandwidth may not be worth 100 billion (for example) but we need far more rigor in the figures IMO, and analysis must start from that basis.
      Lets not forget too that when was the last time any government of any persuasion delivered a project this huge on time and within budget.

      Finally I might add that all this angst may be for naught, as unless julia pulls a few rabbits out of a hat or tony manages to put his foot in it even more spectacularly than ever before, labor is headed for a car crash and the libs will do everything in their power to roll back the plan (within whatever legally binding framework they have to stick to)

      • @Johann Lo, you say you genuinely ask?

        Well with due respect, looking at your snide remarks relating to ROI/investing, fuzzy assumptions and basically two comments outlining the same old worn out AJ type negatives, imo you don’t really want and answer, as you already have your mind made up…

  31. As usual Turnbull and co. fail to identify the simple fact that 10 years down the track we’ll likely need 100mbps as traffic forecasts predict that global online traffic may increase to levels over 50 times that of today’s (26 times between now and 2015 alone).

    http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/06/01/ciscos-traffic-forecast/

    Look at the numbers and work it out for yourself.

    As another quick example – you need roughly between 20 and 40mbits in order to stream an uncompressed bluray film. Compress that into an .mp4 (while keeping as much HD quality as possible) and you could bring that down to about 6-12mbit. Last year the average Australian ADSL connection speed was 2.9mbit. Bluray, and HD films are now the standard. 3D is slowly getting a wider audience. What will happen in 10 years?

    And with all this counter-intuitive drivel, the Libs just continue making me want to vote against them.

    • “And with all this counter-intuitive drivel, the Libs just continue making me want to vote against them.”

      Obviously the polls don’t agree with you, if a election was held this month Labor would be rolled big time, it seems the NBN is the least voters have on their mind assessing the performance of this Government.

      Have a look at Four Corners this Monday, it seems some Independent are not happy with them as well, we may have a election before 2013 at this rate.

    • @Quickey

      Don’t forget to include this comment from your traffic forecast link:

      “Cisco’s figures are somewhat self-serving, since they are the dominant provider of network equipment.”

      Indeed.

      • Gotta love the FUD mind-set…

        Any IT/ICT company who says the NBN will be great – “is biased and self serving”…

        But if the very same company says anything NBN negative – “they are truthful and open”…!

          • Cisco are dominant in the market, so don’t you think it’s accurate to say that Cisco’s statistics represent a fairly wide picture? Mate, go to a PoP/Telehouse and tell me how much Cisco gear you see. Going by their market share almost 70% of it would be Cisco.

            On the other hand if Cisco for some reason fudged the stats, and even if realistically the stats were HALF of what they claim to be, within ten year’s time the amount of traffic will still be 25 times that of today’s, and we’ll STILL need 100mbit connections because technology will not stop improving.

            Hence your argument about Cisco’s alleged incompetency falls short in more ways than one.

            As for my voting preference, that’s something personal to me and has nothing to do with the polls. Fair enough if Libs win an election in the coming years. I was just stating that basically I wouldn’t vote for a Communication’s Minister that constantly tries to hinder progress. Even as much as I dislike Senator Conroy and have been a Liberal voter for many years.

          • “Hence your argument about Cisco’s alleged incompetency falls short in more ways than one.”

            HELLO!! anyone home? – it’s NOT my argument.

          • In any case, you repeated it. It’s your point of view, seeing as you agreed with a particular statement that you quoted. It’s also a very inaccurate point of view. Business as usual, hey alain?

          • Just as your statement that it is a ‘inaccurate point of view’ could also be inaccurate, leave it in neutral I think.

          • Leave it in neutral? No thanks.

            Could my statement be innacurate? Of course, but if it is then show me some evidence. I’ve shown you my proof, crunched some basic numbers, and came up with a plausible idea. Where’s yours? You can’t just debate things without having evidence to back yourself up. That’s amateur, and frankly quite daft.

          • ‘Crunched some basic numbers and came up with a plausible idea’ – please give me a break, you might as well roll some dice and get the same figures at random.

            I love all the BS about predicted traffic flow and speed requirements in the future, what is amazing is that the majority of customers today don’t use anywhere near the capacity they have available to them, nor do they particularly crave the highest BB speeds, otherwise Telstra and Optus would have 100% subscription rate on HFC BB with a waiting list.

            That’s right they don’t, in fact the majority of residences that can get HFC give it a miss – funny about that eh?

            The only reason the NBN will get enough customers is because the alternatives are shut down, that’s getting customers on your FTTH -cough- ‘technical merits’ in the digital age.

  32. WOW Renai! You created a monster here! I need a Panadol after digesting all of this. BTW all, it was fun reading but now my head hurts.

  33. Woo! Bring on the NBN! — I voted for it, I want it, give me give me give me! I’m one of those willing to pay up to $100 or more… Hell, I do it now! [Twitter: @augrunt]

  34. My vote is for David Havyatt to be the current FTTH crazy! :) He certainly still knows his stuff, and owned the guys he was responding to.
    FTTH is the only really sensible option. It saves the waste of a picemeal FTTN build. It also save the delay that would bring. Who is going to upgrade FTTN to FTTH in a few years time when its needed? If its left up to govt, particularly the Libs with their poor record in comms policy, it could take another 10 years to get to FTTH after FTTN isnt cutting it anymore. Australia will move further into the backwater. FTTH now will save the cost of intermediate FTTN, the opportunity cost of all the delays while the fights go on again about who and what is going to be upgraded, and most importantly it will provide infrastructure now that will serve us for decades. ISPs will have the certainty of that infrastructure being in place, instead of continued uncertainty about how they deal with what the govt is offering. They will have to change their NBN plans back to deal with the FTTN piecemeal solution from Turnbull, and then again when further upgrades are done.
    FTTH now is clearly the sensible option, as David rightly spelled out.

Comments are closed.