iiNet chief executive Michael Malone has called for those commenting on the National Broadband Network to return to judging ideas on their “technical merit”, instead of letting politics cloud the national debate.
Malone last night took out one of the Australian telecommunications industry’s biggest gongs, picking up the award for Communications Ambassador of 2011 at the ACOMM awards hosted in Sydney last night by the Communications Alliance and newsletter Communications Day. The executive has been an outspoken member of the industry for several decades, and has been in the industry limelight over the past several years a great deal, on issues ranging from the development of the NBN, copyright infringement and the Government’s mandatory filtering plans.
The event last night at Sydney’s Sheraton on the Park hotel was attended by a ‘who’s who’ of the sector — including Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, Liberal MP Paul Fletcher, Internode chief Simon Hackett, AAPT chief David Yuile, Exetel chief John Linton, NEXTDC chief Bevan Slattery, chair of the ACMA Chris Chapman and many more.
In a recorded speech accepting the award, Malone told the audience that “unfortunately”, ideas regarding the NBN were being judged by who put them forth, “rather than on their technical merit”. “I’d like to see a return to that,” he said with regards to discussing ideas on their technical merit — a statement which was greeted by a number of expressions of support from the audience.
“We do live in interesting times. As the National Broadband Network begins to roll out around the country, it’s important we all step up and insist the right technological solutions are implemented on the NBN regardless of political influence,” Malone said in a separate statement issued today.
The creation of the initial NBN policy back in late 2007 and other events such as the appointment of outspoken former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull to the role of Shadow Communications Minister have resulted in the telecommunications sector being vaulted into the national debate on a permanent basis, with fiery NBN discussions regularly taking place in Federal Parliament and through the press.
However, the different sides of politics have been unable to agree on the merits of different kinds of broadband technologies, with the Opposition favouring wireless and cheaper substitutes for the NBN such as fibre to the node and HFC cable, and the Government insisting on the benefits of rolling out optic fibre to most of the nation.
In recent weeks Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been engaging in a war of words with the Coalition, claiming Opposition Leader Tony Abbott would demand the NBN fibre was physically ripped out of the ground if he took government. Turnbull has described the claims as “ludicrous”.
As he was not able to be present to accept the award, Malone invited rival and friend Hackett, who was a finalist for the same award, to accept it on stage in his stead. The pair have known each other for several decades and have collaborated on countless industry initiatives in that time — while competing for customers on the retail front.
Hackett told the audience he had discussed what to say with Malone and agreed he would utter a quote from renowned gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro,” he said, referring to the classic line from Thompson’s article Fear and Loathing at the Super Bowl.
Image credit: Delimiter
Bevan Slatter has changed his name to Bevan Slattery… :o)
Fixed :)
Yeah good luck with that. I don’t think we can really do that just because you said so.
You need to deal with political fallout because there are a lot of people who don’t or don’t want to understand the technical merits, or simply don’t care and would rather the entire thing got thrown out instead of trying to actually address the political issues.
I see it all the time here on Delimiter. Extremely valid and important criticisms clouded by a hatred for Labor and political bias, provided by an entity all but unwilling to look for a solution to the problem.
Worst still I know that posting this will be seen as an admittance by me that I can see the flaws of the NBN and I’ll be belittled by those who think I choose to ignore them out of some selfish desire to get superfast Broadband handed to me as a “free lunch”, which is not true.
Or even worse the reply will be focused around some illdesired attempt to prove to me that the flaws of the NBN are impossible to address, which clearly misses the point, as the argument goes both ways and any alternative should be explored to the same degree of exhaustion, so expect to have concerns fired back at you.
Because of the two problems with posting on the NBN I am going to refuse to reply to any responses to this post, but do understand that I will read them. This is because I do not want to have to defend my position again. I have spent enough time doing that as it is.
“You need to deal with political fallout because there are a lot of people who don’t or don’t want to understand the technical merits”
Well there are plenty who understand the technical merits of FTTH, I do, but it doesn’t follow that if you understand the ‘technical merits’ you must therefore support the NBN in its present Labor form.
“, or simply don’t care and would rather the entire thing got thrown out instead of trying to actually address the political issues.”
The ‘political issues’ will taken care of at the next election.
” Extremely valid and important criticisms clouded by a hatred for Labor and political bias, provided by an entity all but unwilling to look for a solution to the problem.”
That goes for both sides of the argument.
” selfish desire to get superfast Broadband handed to me as a “free lunch”, which is not true.”
Well what are you going to do about the so called ‘free lunch’ if it bothers you so much? – yep I know, you will take the ‘free lunch’ thank you very much – it’s easier.
+1 Michael Malone…
As I have said all along… those most vocal against the NBN certainly appear to be those with close associations to the Coalition…Whereas those who support the NBN are a cross section of voters.
Of course there are Labor puppets too (awaiting clever [sic] trolling comment about……now)… supportig for political reasons too. But the NBN while political, needs to be bigger than political idiocy and ideology!
Again, I say to the FUDsters, if this were Coalition policy I would still be here supporting it just as I do now and imo, YOU would be here agreeing with me, instead of claiming the world will end…such is YOUR fickleness and subserviency…!
Careful RS. Don’t feed the Trolls!
I support the concept of FTTP but hate the way Labor are managing the project.
If it was done under the budget with the cuts having to be made to other areas, so that budget remained balanced, then I would be a lot happier. As it stands now this ‘off budget’ rollout is a black hole waiting to happen if subscriptions dont match predications. Nothing I see this Government do makes me think they can pull it off. It’s a shame as it is definitely their best vision for the Nation, IMO.
There had to be some fat in the budget that Labor could have cut (Defence, Welfare, Health Service that will benefit etc) to accommodate the rollout. My hope is that Libs will continue the rollout, if they win Government, even if it is to more profitable areas first.
I agree with this, the FTTP would have been a far smarter idea (although not 93%, and doing cities first), if it was subsidized and funded by the budget.
The liberal government left a substantial surplus, and there is also the resources boom
Unfortunately the Labor government’s record for managing money in this last term wasn’t that fabulous, and the NBN is off budget for purely political and economic reasons.
With the recent report released showing the massive waste of the BER, and the new carbon tax not actually being budget neutral (meaning its going to take around 15 billion dollars off the budget in the next few years), Labor doesn’t have any funds for the NBN
No thanks, we need more discussion on the validity of NBNCo and its proposal.
I’ve neither a Labor or Liberal supporter, I’ve work in this field for over 10 years specifically in these technologies and relevant to the Australian situation. In addition to working in finance and management in telco and OEM sectors.
I’m yet to be convinced that all of this is not a mere political smoke and mirrors, and a costly one to boot.
The way to convince people is quite simple, and I put it to a challenge to any supporters of the NBN and the government alike, do this …
Please provide an engineering Proof of Concept that you can provide what you claim to. Let me elaborate, please the public by demonstating with your constructed test sites eg. Brunswick & Armadale, how we can implement 1) e-health 2) telecommuting 3) e learning etc. And show how FTTP would be a vast improvement over althernative technological solutions eg. FTTN.
So until you can do this, I’m just calling BS on this one…. and I’m not even going into the business feasibility of the $43Bn ??? cost.
+1 TechBris…LOL
+1, MIchael Malone, Renai, @RS and others (except @alain who didn’t actually say anything, and @NIghtKhaos who spent a whole post warning he was not going to post anything today).
The fact is that the coalition would be better off electorally if they simply ADOPTED the NBN as their policy. Why are they promising they will NOT deliver the only project of Labor that has mainstream traction in the electorate, while simultaneously doing their best (at taxpayer expense) to drag out its implementation?
Fibre to premises is best. No-one disagrees with this, once they realise it also delivers universal Wi-Fi and unburdens wireless broadband, so mobility needs are cheaper and more reliable if there is universal FTTP.
Fibre to premises is cheapest. (Inferior FTTN costs about the same to build as far as the footpath, plus at least $15 billion (in 2007 dollars) to buy back the ten million copper segments between footpath to premises from Telstra, i.e more than $25 billion for FTTN compared to $12 billion for FTTP.)
Therefore fibre to premises should be bipartisan, shouldn’t it?
It simply beggars belief that the coalition is allowing Labor to have the whole electorate to itself on this popular policy.
The fact is that the coalition would be better off electorally if they simply ADOPTED the NBN as their policy. Why are they promising they will NOT deliver the only project of Labor that has mainstream traction in the electorate, while simultaneously doing their best (at taxpayer expense) to drag out its implementation?
This has got to be the biggest joke
The coalition would do electoral suicide if they supported the NBN. Currently, with polling from newspoll. galaxy etc etc, if there was an election, coalition would slaughter labor with the biggest landslide in history
I am sorry, but the people who share the same opinion as you do are in a minority, not a majority. Not everyone thinks that FTTP is the only, and best way to go. If you think that is the case, then maybe you should get a reality check.
“The fact is that the coalition would be better off electorally if they simply ADOPTED the NBN as their policy. ”
This gets the award for the dummest thing heard today…
*Fibre to premises is best. No-one disagrees with this, once they realise it also delivers universal Wi-Fi and unburdens wireless broadband, so mobility needs are cheaper and more reliable if there is universal FTTP.*
wireless is actually a very cheap way of delivering broadband to light users who probably form a big majority of internet users. however, the cost effectiveness of wireless solutions lies in the fact that you minimise the fibre footprint and build huge towers instead. hence, building FTTP to deliver wireless broadband defeats the whole economic rationale of wireless technology. furthermore, any wireless solution leveraging off the NBN will have to pay the $20/Mbit CVC charge (otherwise NBNco would cannibalise its fixed-line BB revenue) meaning that building FTTP will NOT deliver “cheap wireless”.
*Fibre to premises is cheapest. (Inferior FTTN costs about the same to build as far as the footpath, plus at least $15 billion (in 2007 dollars) to buy back the ten million copper segments between footpath to premises from Telstra, i.e more than $25 billion for FTTN compared to $12 billion for FTTP.)*
(i) whatever FTTP costs, FTTN will cost less than half the amount because it avoids the super-expensive effort of re-laying the entire “last-mile” copper.
(ii) regardless of whether you build FTTN or FTTP, compensation will have to be paid to Telstra (unless it’s Telstra building the network for itself).
NBN proponents have this deceptive habit of adding the cost of “Telstra compensation” to total “FTTN costs” but then leaving it out of the calculation of total “FTTP costs” and then claiming that “FTTP is cheaper”. this is rubbish, dishonest, misleading FUD.
As I said above… “those most vocal against the NBN certainly appear to be those with close associations to the Coalition”…
And look what the cat dragged in x 2…LOL!
[Censored due to personal attack]
Enough with the “wireless is the solution” idiocy. The UK is considering eliminating FM radio to scrape together more spectrum for wireless services. Wireless spectrum is FINITE. There isn’t nearly enough spectrum to supply future broadband needs. It’s also extremely unreliable in severe weather conditions.
And no one wants towers on every street corner. [Censored due to personal attack]
FTTN DOES cost more than half of FTTP. Why don’t you look at AT&T’s U-Verse service in the USA? They spent ridiculous amounts of money for paltry speeds that barely reach 1/3 of their footprint, and are now stopping the buildout because the cost to benefit ratio is way too low. Now if they want to FTTH they have to replace almost the ENTIRE network. You can’t use FTTN as a stepping stone to FTTP. The cabinets don’t have enough cores, so you still have to draw more fiber to them.
[Censored due to personal attack]
*God gone it, why are you even allowed to post on this forum?*
because delimiter is not Whirlpool – you can’t censor the TRUTH just because it’s “inconvenient”.
*Wireless spectrum is FINITE.*
so?
*You can’t use FTTN as a stepping stone to FTTP.*
RUBBISH.
*Stop being such an ideological moron.*
stop resorting to political attacks and get a decent education.
lol truth.
Wow. Just wow. It’s your willful ignorance that is the most astounding. Why don’t YOU educate yourself on the (lack of) upgradability of FTTN to FTTH? http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/technical-points/the-fttn-first-debate/
The main point: “The fibre network used to build FTTN will only be useful for FTTP if it’s installed with enough cores to connect each house in the neighbourhood serviced by the pre-FTTP node.
Which is isn’t. It never is. Nobody’s pulling high-density cables into RIM cabinets. Usually 12 cores at most.”
*Why don’t YOU educate yourself on the (lack of) upgradability of FTTN to FTTH?*
stop spreading FUD. of course, you can upgrade FTTN to FTTH. there are solutions providers out there selling specially-designed FTTN cabinets that can be converted or reconfigured for FTTH.
the cost advantage of building FTTN first is that you delay replacing the last-mile which is super-expensive. in terms of the backhaul to the cabinets, you can either pull in sufficient fibre for future upgrades (which is relatively cheap compared to replacing the last-mile) or you can provision for larger cable ducts during the FTTN build to provide space for a subsequent brownfield backhaul upgrade.
this nonsense that there’s no upgrade path from FTTN to FTTH is one of the BIGGEST FUDs ever.
stop wasting your time reading all these RUBBISH nbnmyths/nbnexplained websites… biggest load of nonsense ever published on the net. and stop quoting Internode on FTTN vs FTTH – they have a massive vested interest in seeing FTTH built.
@NIghtKhaos who spent a whole post warning he was not going to post anything today
If that’s what you took from my post maybe you should read it again. Where I said I wouldn’t be replying to replies to my post was only the last paragraph.
The majority of the post was about you actually needing to address the political issues because you can’t just make them go away. You may not like it, but they’re still (usually) a valid concern.
Take the CVC charges, do you honestly believe the current pricing model can’t be improved? And telling those who raise the concern not to worry, it’ll get better, isn’t a good answer.
I put that last paragraph in because of people like Alain who completely mis the point. Obviously he just completely ignored me so I don’t know why I bothered.
Your belief that the current pricing model can’t be improved is false hope. The CVC charge needs to be lessened (as in decreased), however doing so would mean NBN won’t be able to pay itself off. That prospect is political suicide for Labor. This is the cost of putting FTTH everywhere and the NBN charges need to be this high for the NBN to be off labors budget books (i.e. technically NBN is a financial investment, not an infrastructure project, thats why it didn’t go through Labor’s infrastructure Australia body, or the productivity commission)
As you can see from the above paragraph, its impossible to segregate NBN from politics. The NBN is a political decision, its a political fix, and its design is due to political reasons. This is a reality, and its a fact.
What is more likely to happen though, is Labor getting kicked out in a few years, so we won’t need to worry about CVC pricing thing anyways, the NBN would be sold off cheaply (so the taxpayers will end up paying the brunt anyways)
Case and point: so we can’t reduce the FTTH can we deteego? So we can’t use the surpluses Labor or the Liberal’s aim for to directly sink capital into the project? We just have to drop the whole idea and resort to technologically inferior solutions?
well… fuck me over…. my life is so “technologically inferior”…. what with my shitty Holden V6, lousy Core2Duo laptop, crappy Twisted Neumatic LG monitors, cheap bloody Soniq LCD TV, Korean knock-off “iPod”, etc… i really should be ashamed of myself for surrounding myself with such “technogically inferior” (albeit affordable) products….
yea, the government should legislate to BAN all these inferior products from either being built or imported into Australia. so what if Audi A8’s, i7-2960QM notebooks, IPS monitors, Sony Bravia LCD TVs, etc cost way more? the simple fact that these latter products are “technologically superior” justifies government action to BAN all cheap, competing alternatives!
imagine that! we’ll be the envy of the world! Australians will have an international reputation for always using the most advanced (expensive) technology available! what about cost? well, i’m sure the gubmint can find some way of making it “cheap” by “sinking in the capital” for all consumers! heck – why don’t we tax all those rich bastards! rich people make a lot of “profit”, right? and, as we all know, “profit” equals “greed” equals “bad”. so, we can just tax “greed” (which is “bad”) and give every Australian the best technology that they deserve!
just “sink in the capital” – and the “cost” magically disappears! woohooo!! that was simple, wasn’t it?problems of economic scarcity and poverty have been abolished once and for all! repeat after me – just “sink in the capital”! we’ll be #1 in the world for something – stupidity.
Another reductio ad absurdum? You’re on a roll.
you’re correct in one sense – the “arguments” that NBN proponents put up inevitably reduce into economic absurdity.
The assumptions that the NBN is the most technologically superior solution and that this will set a persistent for the government to “ban all inferior technologies” are false.
The statement about sinking capital is drawn from the idea of a government subsidy, which uses the idea of indirect economic benefits in order to justify sinking capital into an area of the economy to get a desired affect.
You’re arguments in the above post were thus based upon logical fallacies and are not valid arguements to retort my original premise.
Shall we continue with valid debate or do you want to continue with this deception?
Actually it isn’t false
As far as I know if, there isn’t any commercially available technology that is faster than Fiber, and Fiber is a premium compared to any other wired installation. The reason why it is so ridiculously expensive is because its so technologically superior, as you put it.
Toshp3000 is completely correct in his criticism, if you are going to label copper as technologically inferior, then you may as well label a lot of what you use as technologically inferior.
GPON is inferior to Active Ethernet Fibre which is used by commercial enterprise, and requires considerably more investment in ducting than GPON. GPON is not the most superior technology we have for Broadband deliver for the home, it is also, like FTTN, a compromise for the sake of saving costs.
You are splitting at straws
Both are fiber installations, the only reason that GPON is inferior (as you say) is because its shared, something which NBN can easily avoid simply by installing the fiber cable all the way down to the POP (which would provide terrabytes of data).
Your getting your scale mixed up, anything with fiber (over the long term) is a premium product, because it is (as Conroy put it) “future proof”, even though this argument is ridiculous for different reasons
Also a direct fiber installation wouldn’t have been that much more expensive then GPON, and would have most likely never required to be upgraded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x#Direct_fiber
In the context of his argument where he turned it into “we must have the best at everything”, pointing out that GPON is not in fact the best technology is actually a very valid counter argument. To further demonstrate this, GPON has already been superseded by 10G-PON.
I think you forget when I say commercially available superior solution. Out of the xPON, GPON is the only one that is used for large scale commercial deployments (if at all), its whats done in Japan. The higher PON’s still have complications
WDM for example, is being trialed in Korea, but has certain issues among certain wavelengths
Again, my argument still stands. You are now the one picking at straws.
No your argument does not stand, because on a national scale, only a proven technology would be developed
The two proven technology solutions regarding fiber are GPON and Direct Fiber. Japan uses a 32 user split GPON
You calling their installation technology inferior, especially when we are being compared to them? What about Korea, they don’t have FTTP. They actually use VDSL with FTTB, are they technology inferior
Do me a favor, stop using sensationalist language like technologically superior or technologically inferior, because as you can see, you can make anything look inferior or superior.
No, my argument stands, because my argument was about telling Tosh that the assertion that using the best technology should be mandated is absurd, because Fibre is not the best technology (you also admitted that direct fibre would be better) and that it won’t set a president. Even if you successfully disprove one aspect of my argument you have the other one to deal with.
In that case you disprove yourself, because then you admit there is no such thing as “best” and therefore your comment about technologically inferior/superior does not apply
You are wrong either way, you can’t cut a cake and have both sides of it. Either you use the argument that fiber is the best available (in this context which is national installations), and the NBN is putting the “best” out there, or you use the argument that FTTH GPON is not the best, and that there are viable alternatives
You don’t get it do you. You’ve gone beyond going right or wrong, this was about Tosh taking my argument to the absurdity (that we should reject FTTH despite the solutions I proposed). Now you’ve turned it into some bizarre debate about how we define “best” and under what metrics we do this.
While you’ve done that you’re also simultaneously calling me incompetent in a field I am very passionate about, using logic which is questionable at best. You trying to assert that latency not being affected by bandwidth is laughable. In this network course did you happen to cover real-time application and the engineering problems associated with them because they expect prompt delivery of packets?
Do you get some sort of bizarre satisfaction at “destroying people” without actually addressing their concerns or arguments? This, and the other two threads are now over, I am not going to respond to what is little more than blatant abuse.
In this network course did you happen to cover real-time application and the engineering problems associated with them because they expect prompt delivery of packets?
Yes we did.
As I am saying, you are wrong. I would suggest you move along
Do you get some sort of bizarre satisfaction at “destroying people” without actually addressing their concerns or arguments? This, and the other two threads are now over, I am not going to respond to what is little more than blatant abuse.
You are making technologically incorrect statements
You stated that latency on copper is worse then on fiber. This is not correct in any fashion, and is misleading the public (either intentionally or not).
Being passionate and being correct are two very different things, and the latter is what matters. Also logic is pointless when you don’t actually know the material (or terminology) behind what you are arguing. You can logically claim the Sun revolves around the earth, and that the Earth is the center of the universe, just as was passionately done in the dark/middle ages, because they didn’t have enough knowledge to make an educated claim
*sigh* I think I understand now. I would like to apologise deteego, for wasting your time, and for causing you undo frustration. But in future can I ask you a favour?
If I am using the incorrect terminology why do you not inform me of the correct terminology instead of continually calling me wrong?
I am correct about the need for high bandwidth in order to achieve prompt delivery of information for real-time applications and how that is considered, by the layman to be “latency”. I know I am correct about this problem, because I have dealt with it on many occasions. If there is a correct term for the performance problems associated with this particular problem I would like to hear what it is, to avoid using the incorrect terminology in future.
Which comes back again to my “you’ve taken it beyond me being right or wrong” statement. I suggest you get past situations like this otherwise you may find it difficult to interact with people on a professional level. People make mistakes, not everyone has learned things from courses. Not everyone has a University Degree covering every caveat of the area they are working in.
@ ToshP300…
“The only reason NBN proponents invoke “political ideology” or “politics” is because they know universal fibre access is economic insanity”
LMAO…
More like… “The only reason anti-NBN FUDsters invoke economics is to hide their obvious “political ideology”…
@NK
*The statement about sinking capital is drawn from the idea of a government subsidy, which uses the idea of indirect economic benefits in order to justify sinking capital into an area of the economy to get a desired affect.*
1. “indirect economic benefits” ?
how about i come over and rob your house, steal your stuff and cash it at Cash Converters? sure, you suffer a direct financial loss from having to replace your shit – but, hey, what about the “indirect economic benefits” that would undoubtedly arise from spending the cash on my friends? i could argue that the suffering of one individual (*you*) is more than outweighed by the happiness of FIVE of my closest buddies from showering them with gifts from the proceeds.
stop parroting Internode’s self-serving propaganda – nothing will ever justify building a $50bln white elephant.
2. “desired effect”
desired by whom? internet geeks? hardcore, copyright-infringing torrenters/file-sharers? greedy ISPs looking for more taxpayer-subsidised “profit stimulus”?
Do you even know how government subsides are justified? You know that “We’re going to spend $6 billion dollars on Broadband” thing the Liberals were doing?
They’re saying “Well, we can justify spending this $6 billion because by doing it we’ll get a desirable outcome worth more than $6 billion dollars in terms of social benefits.”
That is to say “We are going to sink capital in to this particular area of the economy because we expect to indirectly see a return from this, be it by that sector recovering, social inclusion by access to this, or simply because it is something considered essential.”
This is how government subsidies work. I am talking about partially subsidies NBN Co so that NBN Co isn’t expect to return every single cent that it borrows from the government. Because that is the reason CVC charges will have to be so high.
*Do you even know how government subsides are justified?*
justified by WHOM? the vested interests seeking the subsidies?
*I am talking about partially subsidies NBN Co so that NBN Co isn’t expect to return every single cent that it borrows from the government.*
that’s bullshit – no political party is proposing a debt or equity write-off. stop parroting ISP propaganda.
*Because that is the reason CVC charges will have to be so high.*
the reason why CVC charges are high is because NBNco is pushing fibre to Whoop-Whoop. stop confusing the issue by saying rubbish like “i want to spend $XXbln on infrastructure but i shouldn’t have to pay back the $XXbln loan”.
that’s bullshit – no political party is proposing a debt or equity write-off. stop parroting ISP propaganda.
That’s because I, me, NightKhaos, made the suggestion.
the reason why CVC charges are high is because NBNco is pushing fibre to Whoop-Whoop. stop confusing the issue by saying rubbish like “i want to spend $XXbln on infrastructure but i shouldn’t have to pay back the $XXbln loan”.
The government gives subsides to various industries all the time, how is this any different? All you are saying is “$XX billion should be payed out by the government, the rest should be recovered by NBN Co revenue.”
Afterall you seem to think that the entire $50billion will need to come out of the public purse anyway, what’s the difference is we make $5 or so billion of that amount “official”?
*That’s because I, me, NightKhaos, made the suggestion.*
what’s wrong with you? don’t you realise if the government were to so-called “sink the capital”, the NBN would have to be put on-budget? and as an infrastructure project, that would mean being reviewed by the Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia, Department of Finance, etc? the whole point of this “NBNco” bullshit was to avoid due process. that’s why this project stinks to high heaven.
*The government gives subsides to various industries all the time, how is this any different?*
ffs…. there’s a big difference between subsidising basic access to broadband for people living in Whoop Whoops and so-called “subsidising” superfast fibre access for everyone! no private telco would ever lay FTTP even to 30% let alone 93% of the population (except for greenfield estates).
stop deluding yourself about the economic (un)soundness of universal fibre access.
what’s wrong with you? don’t you realise if the government were to so-called “sink the capital”, the NBN would have to be put on-budget? and as an infrastructure project, that would mean being reviewed by the Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia, Department of Finance, etc? the whole point of this “NBNco” bullshit was to avoid due process. that’s why this project stinks to high heaven.
And that’s a bad thing? Seriously. If it turns out all of these entities decide that the NBN is not worth the expense of putting it into the book, then fine, afterall that is what you want isn’t it?
ffs…. there’s a big difference between subsidising basic access to broadband for people living in Whoop Whoops and so-called “subsidising” superfast fibre access for everyone! no private telco would ever lay FTTP even to 30% let alone 93% of the population (except for greenfield estates).
Why is it you keep comparing the actions of a government entity of private enterprise? Private enterprise exist only to make a profit, of course they won’t do anything which has low profit margins like a national scale network.
*And that’s a bad thing? Seriously. If it turns out all of these entities decide that the NBN is not worth the expense of putting it into the book, then fine*
why do you think the Govt’s taken the “NBNco investment vehicle” route? of course, 93% FTTP would never survive due diligence and rational analysis of needs vs costs.
*Why is it you keep comparing the actions of a government entity of private enterprise?*
“fibre greed” does not justify “big government”.
*Private enterprise exist only to make a profit, of course they won’t do anything which has low profit margins like a national scale network.*
and why is that a bad thing? why is allocating scarce resources to their most productive uses a bad thing?
It seems we’re circling back to political ideology here. You should know that a debate that centres around that will not end well.
I do believe we should be using our scare resources for the benefits of society as a whole, not for the benefit of large corporations. That is why only building networks where it will be largely profitable feels like a fools errand to me. It is nothing to do with greed, greed implies hoarding of resources for self benefit, who benefits from the NBN as it stands today serving their “greed”?
So good luck arguing that one, because I seem to recall that according to you, under the NBN, everybody loses, especially Labor cause they won’t make it through the next election on the back of this white-elephant will they?
*It seems we’re circling back to political ideology here.*
*you* are, i’m NOT. decisions on major infrastructure investments should be governed by economic considerations, not “political ideology” ffs….. the only reason NBN proponents invoke “political ideology” or “politics” is because they know universal fibre access is economic insanity. the NBN is a “political proposal” or “broadband pork-barrelling” and not an economic solution to upgrading our broadband infrastructure.
*I do believe we should be using our scare resources for the benefits of society as a whole, not for the benefit of large corporations.*
and how is diverting scarce economic resources into less productive uses beneficial to our national welfare? did it ever occur to you that the biggest shareholders in “large corporations” are institutional investors or pension funds which are directly funding the retirements of hundreds of millions of schoolteachers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, retail workers, public servants, cleaning ladies, etc?
*That is why only building networks where it will be largely profitable feels like a fools errand to me.*
that statement tells me you’re just an internet geek who doesn’t understand simple economics or how the real world works and loves employing populist socialist ideological nonsense to justify fibre greed.
Congratulations Tosh, you just proved my point.
Have a cookie.
no. “economics” and “political ideology” are separate.
your failure to appreciate the difference does not prove your misguided contention.
*laughs* Actually in this case the argument you were using was a political ideology, namely economic liberalism.
*hands Tosh another cookie*
there’s no such thing as “liberal economics” or “socialist economics”. there’s just “economics”. people who employ such labels are pol. sci. types who don’t understand economics.
@ ToshP300…
“The only reason NBN proponents invoke “political ideology” or “politics” is because they know universal fibre access is economic insanity”
LMAO…
More like… “The only reason anti-NBN FUDsters invoke economics is to hide their obvious “political ideology”…
If you are going to label FTTN as “technologically inferior”, you may as well label 95% of what you use as technologically inferior, using the same logic
This coming from a person who uses the argument repetitively that FTTN is a good stepping stone because it can be upgraded to GPON fibre? Please. Don’t waste me time with trying to prove that FTTN is a better technological solution, it’s only better economically because you don’t need to relay as many cables. GPON has better latency, better peak bandwidths, and can obtain better performance over longer distances. I’d say the technical benefits of GPON outweigh the technical benefits of FTTN.
Better latency is false. The speed of electrons as they propogate through copper is basically the same as photons going through fiber. Please don’t chuck a Michael Wyres
Also I can say FTTN is technologically superior, why?
The nodes are powered, you can put a wireless base station at every node.
Can you do that with FTTH GPON?
NOPE
Therefore, for a vast majority of Australian’s, who have much more need for mobility, then lets say being stuck at home and tethered to a cable, FTTH is technically inferior
If you don’t get the point in your flawed logic, you can claim whatever you want is technologically superior (or inferior) using whatever metric your subjectively prefer. A Laptop is a technologically superior solution compared to my desktop, because even though my desktop might be factors more powerful, I can’t move it around, can I?
Better latency is false. The speed of electrons as they propogate through copper is basically the same as photons going through fiber. Please don’t chuck a Michael Wyres
That has nothing to do with why the latency of FTTN is inferior and you know it. Copper actually has faster propagation of elections compared to photons in fibre. Why then do we still get better ping via fibre infrastructure than copper?
In theory we can actually get better latency in copper based technologies, but in practice we don’t. Why is that?
The nodes are powered, you can put a wireless base station at every node.
One metric when FTTN is better. And something that in reality carriers will never do because they don’t have enough spectrum to support that kind of wireless node density. I think I’m still going to weigh my bets with GPON if that the best than that.
If you don’t get the point in your flawed logic, you can claim whatever you want is technologically superior (or inferior) using whatever metric your subjectively prefer. A Laptop is a technologically superior solution compared to my desktop, because even though my desktop might be factors more powerful, I can’t move it around, can I?
The stated goal of the Broadband Plans of both parties is to deliver Broadband to homes (i.e. fixed infrastructure). If you use that goal as your basis for determining what is superior and inferior, then you can validate your metrics.
That has nothing to do with why the latency of FTTN is inferior and you know it. Copper actually has faster propagation of elections compared to photons in fibre. Why then do we still get better ping via fibre infrastructure than copper?
Have you done networking?
Because I have, and if you had any idea what you were talking about you would know the answer to that question (in other words, its wrong, copper latency is roughly the same as fiber latency). If you are gettinig high latency, its because packets are dropping, which is due to congestion and has nothing to do with the copper last mile. The only way copper last mile can provide worse latency in the same situation is if there is a serious physical issue with the cable
One metric when FTTN is better. And something that in reality carriers will never do because they don’t have enough spectrum to support that kind of wireless node density. I think I’m still going to weigh my bets with GPON if that the best than that.
False, we are using a complete fraction of the spectrum available
Another biased FUD, and this is actually already being done in Europe and America
The stated goal of the Broadband Plans of both parties is to deliver Broadband to homes (i.e. fixed infrastructure). If you use that goal as your basis for determining what is superior and inferior, then you can validate your metrics.
That is your own metric, not the governments and not mine. Its called a National Broadband Network, I see nothing in there regarding having to be fixed in houses
Also you should read this
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/perlman-holy-grail-wireless/
The people that say that wireless is unable to deliver decent speeds due to physics, they clearly don’t know shit about physics.
Punters shouldn’t make sensationalist comments when they don’t fully understand the materiel behind the comments
Oh yay a new experimental wireless technology. Like we need another one of those.
Because I have, and if you had any idea what you were talking about you would know the answer to that question (in other words, its wrong, copper latency is roughly the same as fiber latency). If you are gettinig high latency, its because packets are dropping, which is due to congestion and has nothing to do with the copper last mile. The only way copper last mile can provide worse latency in the same situation is if there is a serious physical issue with the cable
Exactly, congestion. Congratulations, and what the primary cause of congestion, low bandwidth. A higher bandwidth pipe allows for more data to be transmitted, which accounts for the fact that information is not delivered uniformly. This is particularly important for real time applications and streaming as it ensures continuous delivery.
hat is your own metric, not the governments and not mine. Its called a National Broadband Network, I see nothing in there regarding having to be fixed in houses
Then why is it being built to have fixed connection to homes and businesses?
Oh yay a new experimental wireless technology. Like we need another one of those.
And this is supposed to mean what exactly? I thought you, out of all people, would like technological progression
Exactly, congestion. Congratulations, and what the primary cause of congestion, low bandwidth. A higher bandwidth pipe allows for more data to be transmitted, which accounts for the fact that information is not delivered uniformly. This is particularly important for real time applications and streaming as it ensures continuous delivery.
Please stop replying
All of this packet dropping stuff doesn’t happen at the edge of the network (i.e. last mile), it happens at the ISP, and beyond
Its thing like ISP’s cisco routers dropping data at layer 2 and whatnot.
Again stop commenting about what you don’t understand. At least
1. Do a networking course
2. Research it yourself
Then why is it being built to have fixed connection to homes and businesses?
Because the government thinks it knows best and is picking the winners.
And this is supposed to mean what exactly? I thought you, out of all people, would like technological progression
I thought you were the one who said we should stuck to commercially available solutions?
All of this packet dropping stuff doesn’t happen at the edge of the network (i.e. last mile), it happens at the ISP, and beyond
It’s not packet dropping that is the primary cause of latency at the last mile, it’s bandwidth. Let me demonstrate: If I have an application that delivers packets of data that equate to about 18Mbps, in chunks of 512kB or so, would I get the same latency performance if the connection is 18Mbps compared to 100Mbps?
Answer, I will get better latency performance at 100Mbps because the chunks will be delivered promptly. Copper’s, or more precisely FTTN’s, main flaw in regards to latency is it’s lack of bandwidth.
I thought you were the one who said we should stuck to commercially available solutions?
So you are telling me end user consumer products (mobiles, laptops) have never upgraded their wireless technology. We are still stuck at wireless 802.11a?
It’s not packet dropping that is the primary cause of latency at the last mile, it’s bandwidth. Let me demonstrate: If I have an application that delivers packets of data that equate to about 18Mbps, in chunks of 512kB or so, would I get the same latency performance if the connection is 18Mbps compared to 100Mbps?
jesus god dammit, bandwidth is NOT LATENCY. Bandwidth is the amount of bits you can push into a pipe, latency is the speed of those bits, they are completely different, If you want to use rivers as an example, latency is the speed of the water, bandwidth is the width of the river (allowing more water). In your example, your bandwidth would lower, not your latency.
This is why you can still play games like warcraft 3 on dialup speeds (which I did when I got capped), because my latency was still ridiculously low and such games didn’t require a lot of bandwidth
Latency (or speed) between copper and fiber is (practically) the same. Thanks for joining in, with Michael Wyres, for the circle of technologically incoherent punters who should stick to their own field or stop talking.
That technology is a fairy tale.
Technology which seems too good to be true… usually is.
Oh, and it’s still slower than the fastest theoretical limits of GPON.
@deteego, I find someone who claims (obviously still does so, as he never retracted or admitted erring) that the upper house (Senate) is where government’s are formed (so a dead basic – WRONG) criticising someone else for being wrong on a technical terminology, is laughably hypocritical…
@NightKhaos
“Oh yay a new experimental wireless technology. Like we need another one of those”
Well we do actually, wireless is what is driving worldwide communications demand from the consumer end and what is underpinning revenue and profits to the Telco’s.
Without wireless based products Telco’s world wide might as well go into the Supermarket business.
Alain, deteego: The reason I said we don’t need a new wireless technology is because we should yet experimental, as yet unproven, technology to interfere with policy.
Would you hold off buying a new laptop just because it’ll be obsolete in 6 months?
Why then should we hold off building networks when they may possibly be obsolete in 20 years?
Regarding DIDO, had you read the patent you’d discover its a more efficient form of MIMO, and is still limited by spectrum requirements, the system will be far more reliable with more spectrum to work with, however interesting enough, the primary limiting factor is the spatial diversity between antennas.
And therein lies the problem, according to [141] of the patients the maximum channel capacity is defined as the minimum of the number of client antennas or base station antennas, all of which need to be spatial separate from one another by a significant enough degree.
Particularly then there are two problems with DIDO: you need a lot of base station antennas, and you need a lot of computing power to analyze the signals, by both the client and the base station.
To put it bluntly, by the looks of this patent, wireless still won’t save us, but it will continue to do some awesome shit. :)
>The CVC charge needs to be lessened (as in decreased), however doing so would mean NBN won’t be able to pay itself off.
I wish I could have a nickel for every time someone like you lied about this. As Internode’s Hackett pointed out, CVC could be eliminated simply by raising the AVC pricing a few dollars on each tier.
Furthermore NBNCo’s revenue estimates are absurdly conservative. They’re predicting 70% sign-up and 20% take-up. What percentage of Australians have broadband? Over 60%! THAT is going to be the take-up rate, since NBNCo will own all the lines.
Then you can add in extremely profitable business lines that provide superfast, uncontended bandwidth, and the massive revenue generation of providing bandwidth to virtually every wireless tower in Australia, and there’s no doubt the NBN will pay for itself far faster than predicted.
*As Internode’s Hackett pointed out, CVC could be eliminated simply by raising the AVC pricing a few dollars on each tier.*
the burden of the CVC charge cannot be eliminated by simply shifting a few dollars here and there. this has already been explained extensively in other threads. Hackett’s suggestion is pure horse manure as it focuses on the trivial case of 12/1 plans with >100:1 contention ratios – in this special case, the cost of capacity provisioning is totally trivial.
*Furthermore NBNCo’s revenue estimates are absurdly conservative.*
NBNco’s projecting wholesale revenues at levels similar to current fixed-line revenues at the RETAIL level (i.e. ridiculously ambitious and speculative).
*They’re predicting 70% sign-up and 20% take-up.*
their projections are based on 70% take-up, not 20%. stop spreading FUD.
What the DEVIL are you talking about? Hackett was referring to all the AVC tiers. There is no need to charge for “contention” on an FTTH network where congestion will be almost nonexistent. A single node will provides 2.4 gbps to 32 people. As long as you provide enough backhaul, which is an order of magnitude cheaper to build out than the last mile, you won’t need to worry about bandwidth.
If you only charge AVC you don’t need caps at all. Do you think Verizon in the US has caps on their fiber network? Do you think Google, who is building an FTTH *wholesale* network in a couple of US cities, is going to charge for “contention” and force caps onto their network? The entire purpose of the network is to provide uncapped 1 gbps speeds to individual customers at affordable prices- something that’s ENTIRELY possible with FTTH and upcoming XGPON standards (10 gbps to 32 customers on a single node).
*Hackett was referring to all the AVC tiers.*
Hackett’s proposal is RUBBISH and does not work if you actually understand what he’s talking about.
get a clue.
*There is no need to charge for “contention” on an FTTH network where congestion will be almost nonexistent.*
NBNco is imposing artificial contention on the fibre network in order to recoup the $50bln cost of building the NBN.
get a clue.
I’m supposed to believe the founder of Internode’s proposal is “rubbish” because of your idiotic technical “analysis”? Do you have ANY evidence of this? Is your entire argument resting on “get a clue”?
The whole point is that the money earned through CVC can be recouped instead simply by increasing AVC prices. That makes perfect freaking sense. Bandwidth should be charged at how much it actually costs to transfer data across the network, and given it’s a giant LAN network that will be close to zero.
*I’m supposed to believe the founder of Internode’s proposal is “rubbish” because of your idiotic technical “analysis”?*
you’re supposed to grow a brain and learn to think critically for yourself instead of passively accepting every word from an industry player who has a MASSIVE VESTED INTEREST in seeing the $50bln NBN built with taxpayer dollars.
*The whole point is that the money earned through CVC can be recouped instead simply by increasing AVC prices.*
Internode’s suggested “solution” is COMPLETE RUBBISH because it solely focuses on 12mbit plans with ridiculously-high contention ratios. in this CONTRIVED “special case”, the cost of provisioning capacity is indeed TRIVIAL and you can “eliminate” the CVC charge altogether by jacking up the AVC charge by a dollar or two. once you start considering the faster ports and taking into account realistic contention ratios and meaningful capacity provisioning, then it’s no longer a case of simply shfting a few dollars from one bucket to another.
if there was such an easy solution to the so-called “CVC pricing dilemma”, NBNco would have implemented it by now, you dumb ****.
STOP listening to VESTED INTERESTS (such as Internode) that are talking their book and bullshitting a lot of the time.
Internode isn’t concerned about the cost of broadband to consumers – all they care about is preserving their market share and gross margins.
to maintain market share, Internode is utlimately concerned about its ability to offer broadband plans at prices competitive to the offerings of the bigger players.
from Internode and other small ISPs’ POV, the problem with NBNco’s pricing approach of adopting a two-part tariff (one part fixed, AVC, and one part variable, CVC) is that the resultant “cost per subscriber” scales according to the size of your subscriber base.
because the required burst capacity in relation to total capacity falls as the subscriber base increases, larger ISPs enjoy lower CVC costs per subscriber. this means that the bigger players like Telstra and Optus can pass on these lower unit costs to their customers and offer more competitive pricing.
this has nothing to do with the absolute level of the CVC charge. the competitive positioning of the various ISPs is “relative” in nature (as everyone has to pay the same $20/Mbit) and is ultimately determined by the size of their subscriber bases. the bigger your subscriber base, the lower your UNIT (not total) CVC costs.
this is why Internode was calling for the (variable) CVC charge to be collapsed into (fixed) AVC port fees. by doing so, the “unit cost per subscriber” at the various tiers becomes fixed and no longer varies according to the size of your subscriber base. this means the larger telcos no longer have a pricing advantage in terms of provisioning burst capacity due to a larger subscriber base.
basically, NBNco’s pricing policy encourages subscriber base consolidation. the problem with Internode is they want to stay “small” at ~250K customers and they expect NBNco to overhaul its rational pricing approach to suit a market minnow. silly.
Gee, after all that hollow rhetoric about democracy, competition and heralding private enterprise, you finally realise what private enterprise is all about, Tosh and you give them (i.e. Internode) a serve, LOL!!!!!
Exactly, they are all about preserving their market share…time for a refreshing change…eh!
@Francis Young
“The fact is that the coalition would be better off electorally if they simply ADOPTED the NBN as their policy.”
Except that’s NOT fact it’s opinion, the polls indicate that the Coalition opposition to the NBN is not doing them any harm at all, makes your statement complete rubbish.
” Why are they promising they will NOT deliver the only project of Labor that has mainstream traction in the electorate,”
It has – you know this how?
“Fibre to premises is best. No-one disagrees with this,”
Well plenty do, you just don’t like to read it.
” once they realise it also delivers universal Wi-Fi and unburdens wireless broadband, so mobility needs are cheaper and more reliable if there is universal FTTP.”
Wow FTTH = Wi-Fi, how does that work, each ONT box comes with a aerial?
BTW how does FTTH unburden wireless BB?
“Fibre to premises is cheapest.”
No it isn’t.
” (Inferior FTTN costs about the same to build as far as the footpath, ”
No it doesn’t.
“plus at least $15 billion (in 2007 dollars) to buy back the ten million copper segments between footpath to premises from Telstra, i.e more than $25 billion for FTTN compared to $12 billion for FTTP.)”
Wow can I borrow the dice after you, where do get this crap from?
“Therefore fibre to premises should be bipartisan, shouldn’t it?”
Why?
“It simply beggars belief that the coalition is allowing Labor to have the whole electorate to itself on this popular policy.”
I tell what beggars belief is anyone reading your post and believing any of it!
I would like to see how Malone would envisage taking the politics out of the NBN when the whole thing is being built by a government
If you are going to have something whos responsibility is almost all up to the government and its going to be built completely by a GEC, and with the government calling all the shots, its going to be political regardless of whether you like it or not
I don’t believe iiNet has ever undertaken a project purely on its “technical merits”. They’d have DSLAMs everywhere if they had. Nope, even Mr Malone considers the economics of projects before taking them on. I’m sure iiNet does business cases for their projects and the business case not the technical merit is the deciding factor in how to proceed. Why doesn’t Mr Malone support calls for the government to do the same?
Maybe because like me he doesn’t believe that governments should make decisions based on just economic considerations.
If a government only made decisions based upon economic considerations they’re effectively just a big entity run for profit. I don’t know about you but I don’t want greed to be the deciding factor for law and policy.
“Maybe because like me he doesn’t believe that governments should make decisions based on just economic considerations. ”
So if a project like this runs over budget that’s ok by you, Governments should not be held accountable for economic considerations.
“I don’t know about you but I don’t want greed to be the deciding factor for law and policy.”
… and there is no greed pushing this NBN turkey? – yeah right pull the other one.
Give a man an inch and he takes a mile. Jeez. Way to play the reducto ad absurdium.
NBN proponents are all about fibre greed (if they were honest)… greed for filesharing, greed for copyright infringement, greed for torrenting… just pure greed for all the useless, unproductive activities that somehow justify spending $50bln of taxpayers’ money…
yea right, i’m going to convert my lounge into a makeshift operating theatre, install surgical robotics equipment, buy a used GE MRI scanner for a measly $10mln off Ebay and cram that into my bedroom for surgical diagnostics, buy a Dummies Guide to Self-Administration of Anaesthetics…. all i have to do now is lie down on my make-shift operating bed and turn on the laughing gas…
And that’s two… any more takers on reductio ad absurdum?
Uh, maybe you should read what reductio ad absurdum is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
He just took the often used argument of facilitating health care via the NBN and turned it into a self installed robotic surgery in every home, how is that not reducing the argument of health care to absurdity?
Maybe you should read that link I provided
Furthermore, the only way an NBN (compared to a more modest approach) would actually use that extra bandwidth would be through telesurgery and stuff like that. Furthermore VDSL can easily facilitate anything extra that is needed
If you watched the four corners program, you will see for example in Britian where they rolled out high speed (which isn’t even 100mbit broadband), the takeup has been pathetic.
If you want to argue for NBN in the context of e-health, you actually have to provide real life examples of how that extra bandwidth is needed, and telesurgery is not going to save any money in that regard, and is a serious health hazard
1) I have read the link. The key phrase there is:
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence
Proposition: The NBN will enable e-health services to every home and technology like robotic surgeries to remote communities.
Arguement: As the NBN is run to every home does that mean that “i’m going to convert my lounge into a makeshift operating theatre, install surgical robotics equipment, buy a used GE MRI scanner for a measly $10mln off Ebay and cram that into my bedroom for surgical diagnostics, buy a Dummies Guide to Self-Administration of Anaesthetics…”
Again, how is that not reductio ad adsurdum?
2) I didn’t bring up the e-health aspect, Tosh did, with his above quoted post.
3) Now you’re bringing in new information (take-up rates) not relevant to what we were originally talking about, which was Tosh using absurd arguments.
He wasn’t arguing in response to that proposition, maybe you should reread the comment
(He was responding to your comment that we should ignore economics when the government is making decisions and applying it in a different scenario)
He is still taking my argument to absurd proportions regardless. The reason I quoted that proposition is because I read that to be a direct response to the e-health idea.
Did anyone here notice the fact that I highlighted the word just?
You ignored it too. Did I say we should ignore economic considerations? No. I didn’t.
No he is using your logic and applying it to different situations. Again he was never responding to your so called proposition
You are the one doing logical fallacies, not him
Right Deteego, he wasn’t technically responding to that proposition, but I still read it as thus, and hence I why I used it as the example of how his statement is reductio ad absurdum.
However, on further examination of his reply: that isn’t my logic. I never said we shouldn’t consider the economic side of things, I said we shouldn’t just consider the economic side of things when dealing with policy. He took the idea of putting economic considerations aside and taking in other considerations, i.e. not just considering the economic side of things, and took it to it’s extreme, where we don’t consider the economic side of things at all. Which is still, unless I am much mistaken, reductio ad absurdum.
Do you better understand now deteego?
@NK, you hit the nail on the head…
IMO, these few radical dries who frequent this forum (refer above to the usual suspects) clouding the issues with their political ideology, are simply unable/not allowed to consider the NBN as anything but a political opportunity to put the boot into their much hated foe…
As clearly demonstrated by how they will indeed take a simple comment and go straight to the nth degree of stupidity in their arguments…!
Just as you said… reductio ad absurdum and also please add, “ignoratio elenchi and ignotum per ignotius”!
@NightKhaos
“However, on further examination of his reply: that isn’t my logic. I never said we shouldn’t consider the economic side of things,”
You always did like a rigged argument NK, you try to make a position to give the false impression you argue objectively and that you also take into account ‘ the economic side of things’ as well as the technical.
Your history of posts indicate you argue exclusively on the technical merits of FTTH to the exclusion of any detrimental economic argument against the NBN.
You don’t fool anyone with your Latin crap ‘reductio ad absurdum’ and thinking it gives you some sort of higher plane of debate.
More like ‘reductio ad BS’.
LOL
You always did like a rigged argument NK, you try to make a position to give the false impression you argue objectively and that you also take into account ‘ the economic side of things’ as well as the technical.
So just because I disagree with on the economic costs of the project being justified you are stating I am not objective? Give me a break.
Your history of posts indicate you argue exclusively on the technical merits of FTTH to the exclusion of any detrimental economic argument against the NBN.
That history you refer to also includes quite regularly criticism that CVC charges need to be addressed for us to take advantage of the FTTH. If pricing of the commodity is economic related, well, I don’t know what is.
You don’t fool anyone with your Latin crap ‘reductio ad absurdum’ and thinking it gives you some sort of higher plane of debate.
If you can’t see how your response to my post was not reducing the idea of considering things other than the economic side of things was taking it to the absurd conclusion of not considering them at all, then fine, however, don’t you try and tell me that I think I am above you. I don’t, however sometimes I do wish you would stop touting the same arguments which have been constantly, and concisely addressed, without modifying your argument to take into account the new data. I’m sure you have some problems with the way I argue as well.
NK – when dealing with Alain, Tosh, or anyone else so obviously lopsided and rude, I would probably think of that age old adage –
‘Never argue with an idiot, first they beat you down to their level, and then beat you with experience’
Not that I would contend that they have actually won, Its more that I contend that arguing with someone with the brains of a brick wall is pretty much the same as smashing your head against the aforementioned brick wall.
@Paul
Not that you can be bothered pointing out any flaws in any of the arguments, best stick to the lazy option, personal attack, then run.
>If you watched the four corners program, you will see for example in Britian where they rolled out high speed (which isn’t even 100mbit broadband), the takeup has been pathetic
What the HECK are you talking about? 100 mbit takeup is only “pathetic” when ISPs price it at absurdly high premiums. The whole point of FTTH is that you can offer 100 mbit for the same price you offer less than 12 mbit over ADSL now.
And most importantly, HOW CAN THERE BE USES FOR 100 MBIT WHEN NO ONE HAS IT?! Year after year for over a decade bandwidth consumption has consistently grown exponentially. What evidence do you have that people will NOT make use of extra bandwidth once it becomes available?
“What evidence do you have that people will NOT make use of extra bandwidth once it becomes available?”
HFC for starters, and I noticed you ignored the point from the Four Corners program about poor takeup of FTTH in Europe, then proceeded to comment as if the point did not exist.
Pro NBN FTTH comments are usually based on delusional ‘filter out what you don’t want to see’ arguments.
LOL…HFC
The same HFC which when suits you, you call a failure (such as now)… and when it suits in other comments is a thriving competitive network/sad causalty, which the NBN has to kill off, to survive…
Oh… but of course it’s Sunday… HFC failure day…AGAIN!
High-speed DOCSIS 3.0 HFC is priced too high. OF COURSE people won’t pay a super premium for extra speed. They want the extra speed but at most will pay an extra $10/month for it. That’s the whole POINT of the NBN. [Censored due to personal attack] You can upgrade speeds without increasing the cost of the plans. Once 100 mbit becomes available for the same price as 6 mbit, then takeup of 100 mbit will be the SAME as takeup of 100 mbit. THEN the 100 mbit applications will come. It’s not freaking complicated.
*The whole point of FTTH is that you can offer 100 mbit for the same price you offer less than 12 mbit over ADSL now.*
RUBBISH. not only will 100/40 plans be SUPER-EXPENSIVE to provision under the NBN, even “ADSL-equivalent” plans will become more expensive.
*Year after year for over a decade bandwidth consumption has consistently grown exponentially.*
by leveraging cheap ADSL technology. so, what does that imply about bandwidth consumption under the super-expensive NBN? NOTHING.
*What evidence do you have that people will NOT make use of extra bandwidth once it becomes available?*
available at what price? $20/Mbit? what’s the current price of “bandwidth” on the tail circuit? ZERO.
amazing how personal greed can make some ppl delusional.
*High-speed DOCSIS 3.0 HFC is priced too high. OF COURSE people won’t pay a super premium for extra speed. They want the extra speed but at most will pay an extra $10/month for it.*
this is PRECISELY the reason why NBNco will go BANKRUPT.
Merlin you do realize, that the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade here in Australia, at this time, is ridiculously cheaper then any equivalent FTTH plan by NBNCo
Optus allows you to jump from ADSL2+ (or DOCSIS 2.0) speeds to 100/4 for just $20 a month. With Telstra it costs $200, and it lasts forever. That price is already lower then the jump in AVC tiers from NBNCo, and also completely ignores the increase in CVC charges which will result from downloading at such high bandwidth
@Merlin
“High-speed DOCSIS 3.0 HFC is priced too high.”
HFC plans are at $19.95/mth at the low end for 3000/1000 to $59.95 for 100000/2048 for BigPond Utimate cable, Optus have similar pricing for standalone HFC and packages including phone calls and line rental from $79/mth.
“OF COURSE people won’t pay a super premium for extra speed. They want the extra speed but at most will pay an extra $10/month for it.”
What does that mean? and what ‘extra speed’ are you referring to here, and how do you know the extra figure people will pay is $10/mth or less?
“That’s the whole POINT of the NBN” [delete personal attack] You can upgrade speeds without increasing the cost of the plans”
Oh really , so when the NBN business plan states wholesale pricing at $24/mth for 12/1 Mbps at the lowest end up to $150/mth for 1000/400 Mbps, the ISP’s will absorb those extra costs as the speeds increase, that’s mighty big of them!
” Once 100 mbit becomes available for the same price as 6 mbit, then takeup of 100 mbit will be the SAME as takeup of 100 mbit.”
Well the NBN Co doesn’t offer 6 Mbps,( you really should do your homework), how do you know the NBN Co will drop the price of their 100Mbit plan to the price of the lowest speed plan (assuming that’s what you mean) – gut feel?
Once again Tosh, you are literally scum. Calling other people greedy for supporting an economically viable project that will bring superfast broadband to the vast majority of Australians, while you whine and rant for Telstra to remain in control so you can pad your dividends, has got to be the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever seen on this site.
The pricing on the NBN needs to be fixed, but with FTTH it’s extremely easy to provide 100 mbit to everyone for the same price as ADSL. It’s done literally the same way EVERY OTHER FTTH network out there provides 100 mbit connections to customers, and the same way Google is planning on providing 1 gbit for affordable prices. ADSL is maxed out, FTTH is currently at XGPON (10 gbps for 32 people). Over the next decade FTTH will continue getting faster and faster. The next upgrade path for PON lies at 40 gbps per 32 people. THAT’S how you provide people with 10 times the speed for the exact same price.
HFC’s upgrade path is EXTREMELY limited. With DOCSIS 3 you might be able to get to 1 gbps per NODE (shared among HUNDREDS of customers) with minor upgrades, but beyond that you will need amplifiers and a ton of other expensive equipment to reach the theoretical maximum of 5 gbps. Moreover almost NO ONE HAS HFC.
No deteego, NBNCo’s pricing isn’t set in stone you idiot. Isn’t it patently obvious they can change it according to the revenue generation trends? To NBNCo on an FTTH network, provisioning 100 mbit is almost the same as provisioning 12 mbit. As long as backhaul continues to be built, the incremental cost of providing another megabit is tiny. This isn’t a “gut feel”. If you’ve EVER used or seen an FTTH network in any other country in the world, you’d see how insanely easy it is for fiber ISPs to provide faster and faster speeds.
*Calling other people greedy for supporting an economically viable project that will bring superfast broadband to the vast majority of Australians*
the only idiots clamouring for this $50bln white elephant are fibre-obsessed internet geeks and copyright-infringing, hardcore torrenters. the vast majority of Aussies couldn’t give a flying **** about “downloading at 100Mbit”.
the NBN is definitely NOT an economically viable project. this is precisely why NBNco has failed to attract any cornerstone investments from private telcos despite Krudd’s past boasting. this is also why any future debt that NBNco raises will have to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth in order to attract investor interest – in the absence of a government guarantee, any debt issued by NBNco will be JUNK-RATED and carry a huge coupon.
*The pricing on the NBN needs to be fixed, but with FTTH it’s extremely easy to provide 100 mbit to everyone for the same price as ADSL.*
NBNco’s wholesale pricing tells us that “ADSL-equivalent” products will be MORE EXPENSIVE under the NBN.* 100Mbit priced at current ADSL? – don’t be stupid.
*It’s done literally the same way EVERY OTHER FTTH network out there provides 100 mbit connections to customers, and the same way Google is planning on providing 1 gbit for affordable prices.*
is Google building FTTH to 93% of the population? does NBNco have massive search revenues to subsidise the operation of the fibre network?
*NBNCo’s pricing isn’t set in stone you idiot. Isn’t it patently obvious they can change it according to the revenue generation trends?*
if anything, the CVC charge is more likely to GO UP than come down due to the inevitable cost blowouts that will occur for a project of this massive size and long time frame.
*To NBNCo on an FTTH network, provisioning 100 mbit is almost the same as provisioning 12 mbit.*
you just don’t get it. NBNco is spending $50bln building this giant fibre white elephant – they have to RECOVER THIS COST. the pricing of access to this network has got nothing to do with the underlying technical capabilities of the network – it’s about recouping the investment.
* right now, the variable tariff on bandwidth (CVC) on the tail circuit is ZERO. ISPs are earning higher margins on the more expensive, large quota plans which, in turn, cross-subsidise the cheaper, small quota plans. with the introduction of $20/Mbit CVC, ISPs will lose the higher margins earnt from offering large quota plans which means they will have to jack up the prices of even the basic plans. the $50bln NBN unambiguously makes broadband MORE EXPENSIVE for everyone.
Greed, tosh? You’re talking about greed [Censored due to personal attack]
Telstra alone earns $4 billion/year in PROFIT. They’ve monopolized the industry for over a decade. With all the money they’ve earned they could easily have built their own FTTH network, especially given they already own all the lines. All the profit earned by the incumbents like Telstra and Optus come from subscriber revenue. And where do you think that money goes, aside from lining CEO and shareholder pockets?
They invest that money OVERSEAS. Telstra uses its BILLIONS in Australian money to build networks in developing countries so they can charge monopolistic prices to people who can barely afford to eat. Do you enjoy watching Australia’s network decay and rot while Telstra drains billions from the Australian economy?
With the NBN EVERY DOLLAR is going to go back into the network- and back into the Australian economy. There will be no massive CEO bonuses, stock options, and “golden parachutes” to waste money on. Salaries will be extremely constrained by political approval.
There is NO WAY NBNCo won’t be profitable. Over 60% of Australians have broadband, and NBNCo is going to massively surpass their estimated 20% take-up rates. Australians are going to be shocked at how much money NBNCo is able to make. Corporations like Telstra constantly juggle money around and “invest” in overseas projects to make their profits appear significantly less on paper than they really are. Every corporation in the world does this.
And here you are talking about greed. All you care about is that Telstra continues to profit off while doing absolutely nothing for Australians, presumably to improve your own dividends. Do you not have ANY shame whatsoever?
@Merlin
“and NBNCo is going to massively surpass their estimated 20% take-up rates.”
You keep repeating that false figure of 20% in the vain hope that repeating a incorrect figure over and over in itself is sufficient to make it true.
The take-up figure from the NBN Business plan is 70%.
From that ‘high point’ the rest of your post deteriorates into your usual no fact agenda driven trolling rant.
[Censored due to personal attack] Have you even read their business plan? I’m referring to “sign-up” rate. Take-up rate is estimated to be 70%, which is itself low-balling it. Sign-up rate is estimated to be in the low 20s. But right now over 60% of Australians have broadband. THAT will be the true sign-up rate. And there are additional revenue streams to be acquired. Telecom is HUGELY profitable. NBNCo is going to be making money hand over fist and will pay off the network in half the estimated time.
Your ‘mistake’ is deliberate as it’s not the first time you have done it (but then you know that), you then try to back pedal yourself out of your statistical mess of terminology by resorting to pathetic personal attacks, but it does nothing to detract from your agenda driven no fact rants.
@alain…
Very hypocritical of you, considering your still unanswered “contradictions/deliberate FUDulent rants”…
Oh, but you aren’t corresponding with me anymore are you, how utterly convenient. When there is no answer which you can hide behind after exhausting every excuse in the book and then some, refuse to correspond…LOL!
Keep up the great work [sic]!
My “agenda”? How hypocritical can you possibly be? I’ve been watching the telecom sector all over the world for almost a decade and it’s ridiculously obvious how abusive and wasteful allowing private corporations monopolize ownership of the lines is. You choose to focus on my “sign up” vs “take up” substitution error, while ignoring the point that telecom is INCREDIBLY profitable, and NBNCo is 100% likely to pay off its loan significantly faster than estimated. Its sign-up rate will be at MINIMUM DOUBLE its estimated rate, and its profitability is guaranteed.
” I’ve been watching the telecom sector all over the world for almost a decade”
Wow that’s one impressive ‘qualification’ , I take it all back. LOL
” and it’s ridiculously obvious how abusive and wasteful allowing private corporations monopolize ownership of the lines is.”
You do realise that until relatively recently in the history of Telecommunications in Australia Telstra (then PMG then later Telecom) was 100% owned by the Government then majority owned by the Government until full privatisation.
Your assertion indicates that any monopoly of ownership of lines is somehow ok until it is fully privatised, is that what you mean?
You do realise the intention of this Labor Government is to privatise the NBN Co?
I also assume you think the 100% Government owned NBN Co that requires the shutdown and buyout of all competing fixed line infrastructure to be even remotely viable and the forced migration of ALL the ISP customers from HFC, ADSL and telephony is a more friendly benign monopoly of ‘ownership of lines’!
“and NBNCo is 100% likely to pay off its loan significantly faster than estimated.”
What loan for what amount in what time period and in what ‘faster’ time period will the loan be paid back?
” Its sign-up rate will be at MINIMUM DOUBLE its estimated rate”
Here we again, what sign-up rate and what is the minimum double figure you have in mind?
“and its profitability is guaranteed.”
So what year will the $43 billion be paid back and profit starts after ongoing costs, I missed your estimate?
Look forward to you ignoring answering any specifics as per usual and a response containing the usual emotional tirade of diverting abuse with rubbish about working for Telstra etc.
you really should go do an Open Learning introductory course on business or economics because you have got no idea what you’re talking about.
Are you freaking KIDDING me? Why do you think telecom companies are some of the most influential corporations in the world? In the US AT&T spends more money lobbying Congress than ANY OTHER COMPANY in the entire country. That’s how insanely profitable telecom is. Right now they’re trying to lobby the FCC to approve a takeover of T-Mobile. They’re bribing hundreds, even thousands of groups that have nothing to do with telecom and would almost undoubtedly suffer from the merger into supporting AT&T’s cause. In fact there was a recent scandal on this very issue when a major LBGT group’s members caught on to what their group’s executives were doing, and the leaders were forced to resign.
With NBNCo as the sole provider of bandwidth in Australia, there is absolutely NO QUESTION the network will be profitable much faster than estimated.
[Censored due to personal attack] You know DARN WELL this project makes complete economic sense. You just dont want your idiotic dividends to disappear. You enjoy sitting on your behind doing NOTHING while Telstra drains billions out of the Australian economy.
[Censored due to personal attack]
since you keep referencing “here in America, America, Verizon, Verizon, AT&T, AT&T, FCC. FCC….”
i suggest you head down to your local, taxpayer-subsidised “community college”, enrol your (_!_) in adult education night classes and get yourself educated in some introductory business course or elementary economics… instead of abusing people on an internet forum just because they point out your vast ignorance of the economic issues surrounding the NBN.
@Merlin
“With NBNCo as the sole provider of bandwidth in Australia, there is absolutely NO QUESTION the network will be profitable much faster than estimated.”
Another generic nothing specific (there never is) piece of BS spin.
1. What is the estimate that the NBN will return a profit? you do know what profit is I hope, it is when the $43 billion and counting is paid back and the revenue from ISP’s is then greater than the on going costs.
2. How much ‘faster’ do you estimate this will be, assuming you have defined the estimate in the first place.
I sense it’s time for another Merlin personal attack.
Personal attacks for the mindless naysayers is appropriate. Profitability is when revenue outstrips operating expenses. Paying off the network will happen significantly faster than is estimated in NBNCo’s business plan. I sometimes wonder whether deteego, Tosh, and alain are all part of the same group, possibly working for Telstra. The willful ignorance and incessant lies on their part is indicative of a serious agenda.
You still have not answered the questions, you have not defined what ‘significantly faster’ is, you just keep it vague and then go off on your usual tangent even trying to pathetically justify your personal attacks as being ok even when deleted by Renai.
Err alain, hypocritically, you still (since Nov 2010) have not answred your strange contradictions…
You claimed that the NBN will be a success and conversely a week later, claimed the NBN will fail… so!
DIDN’T YOU?
@ alain
Err, is that the same business plan that you claim is full of “incorrect assumptions”…?
Incorrect when it suits and gospel when in other instances that suits, that is…!
Hey everyone,
you may have noticed that I have censored a bunch of lines from a bunch of Merlin’s posts on this thread. Let this be a warning to him and to others — personal attacks will not be tolerated.
I take a very lax attitude to moderation. There are only two things I will censor:
1. Strong personal attacks that have no point and degrade the conversation (mild personal attacks in context are usually OK)
2. Things that will get me sued, such as links to sites with dodgy material, defamatory content and so on
You can go as off-topic as you want here and discuss flying pink elephants — but break those two rules too often and I will bring out the ban-hammer. It’s happened to RS before and it can happen to you.
Cheers,
Renai
I’m sorry Renai, but it gets frustrating when the same 3 people keep lying through their teeth over the issue while calling others “greedy” or having an “agenda”. The hypocrisy and self-projection is so staggeringly obvious it beggars belief how they can get up in the morning and look themselves in the mirror. These people aren’t interested in the facts or how to make the NBN viable and profitable. They don’t care what worldwide trends are for cost/household of an FTTH buildout, or the best way for NBNCo to maximize revenue. They just want to add to their Telstra dividends. It’s hard to watch greed go by unchecked.
Back in the day these sorts of people would be stared down and made outcasts. But greed is far more prevalent these days.
Discuss technical merits eh, Malone? Hows about the TCP window size then eh? Am I gonna get 100mbps over http to the US? Nope. Hows about the technical merits of keeping copper & cable for those areas that are currently serviced? Sure be a lot cheaper than spending $36-50 billion of taxpayer dollars.
You’re not paying a single dollar in taxes to buildout the NBN. How is it “expensive” for you? And you understand there are massive savings in replacing decades old copper that requires hundreds of millions in maintenance with brand new fiber that is virtually unlimited in speed, right?
“You’re not paying a single dollar in taxes to buildout the NBN.”
Really so who is paying for it then, the tooth fairy?
” How is it “expensive” for you?”
Well it is coming out of his tax bill, that’s how it is expensive for you’, he then has to buy a retail plan off a ISP who is reselling NBN access with a nice little mark up to infrastructure he paid for in the first place.
” And you understand there are massive savings in replacing decades old copper that requires hundreds of millions in maintenance”
Where did you get that figure from – that same tooth fairy?
” with brand new fiber that is virtually unlimited in speed, right?”
Wow BB at the speed of light that I would like to see, pity about all the bottlenecks at all the web servers world wide and on the overseas links.
Alain said: Really so who is paying for it then, the Tooth Fairy?
RS: Yes lainy, the Tooth Fairy is paying… sigh
Alain: Well it is coming out of his tax bill, that’s how it is expensive for you
RS: No, we both just ascertained the Tooth Fairy is paying didn’t we, remember? Pay attention!
Alain: he then has to buy a retail plan off a ISP who is reselling NBN access with a nice little mark up to infrastructure he paid for in the first place.
RS: Err yes, that’s how our economy works, wholesaler sells to retailer, who sells to us. Perhaps you should buy directly from the Tooth Fairy, as this typical everyday occurrence is obviously way beyond you. But again he didn’t pay for it in the first place… the Tooth Fairy did, helloooo…!
Alain: Where did you get that figure from – that same tooth fairy?
RS: Yes lainy, the very same Tooth Fairy… sigh
Alain: Wow BB at the speed of light that I would like to see…
RS: Yes marvelous just what the Tooth Fairy can do, init?
Happy now precious? You have been answered in the manner you so justly deserve…!
Comments are closed.