New Coalition NBN policy: Splitting Telstra, using HFC

141

The Federal Coalition has proposed a new National Broadband Network policy which would see Australia provided with broadband through a combination of developed HFC cable in urban areas, splitting up Telstra into wholesale and retail arms to serve suburban and regional areas, and wireless and satellite solutions to serve the rest of Australia in remote regions.

In a speech given to the National Press Club in Canberra today (the full text of which is available online), Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull broadly divided Australia into a number of different zones when it came to addressing future telecommunications policy.

Urban areas in major capital cities, the Liberal MP stated, were covered to a great extent by the existing HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus. Under Labor’s existing NBN policy, Telstra’s HFC network will stop providing broadband services as customers are migrated to the NBN, while Optus will decommission its own network as part of the same process.

However, Turnbull questioned “why on earth” Labor and NBN Co wanted to overbuild and decommission the HFC networks, which he said passed 28 percent of Australian premises.

“The network has plenty of potential for future upgrades,” he said. “As NBN Co’s corporate plan acknowledges, HFC node splitting ‘could be implemented as early as 2013 and would result in an increase in typical download speeds to 240Mbps and upstream speeds to 12Mbps’. In the US, UK, Canada, South Korea, Japan and many other countries HFC is a fiercely viable competitor to copper – indeed it is usually the only threat that prompts incumbent telecoms to upgrade to FTTx.”

In suburb and regional Australia — those areas not served by the HFC networks yet not so remote that they required cost-effective wireless and satellite technologies to service their broadband needs — Turnbull proposed that a Coalition Government would invite private sector companies to deliver wholesale broadband services within the designated areas, subject to set of ‘common carrier principles’ guaranteeing wholesale access and ‘reasonable’ access prices to third parties.

“Some of these areas will be commercially viable and the timing and nature of upgrades will depend on the terms and regulatory certainty provided to investors,” he said. “Others will not be economic in purely market terms and in addition to regulatory certainty will require different levels of Government support, which could be in the form of co-investment, capital subsidy or in a few cases both capital and recurrent subsidies.”

Turnbull noted that Telstra would be “in a prime position to tender for much or all of this role”, given its existing copper network.

However, for Telstra to win the work would require it to separate that network off into a separate company, which Turnbull dubbed ‘Network Co’.

“Assuming Telstra did form a new Network Co of its own, which could be one of several wholesalers in different parts of the country, it would be a regulated common carrier, would not offer retail services and would not discriminate between access seekers,” said Turnbull. “Its assets at the outset will consist of the Telstra exchanges, the copper customer access network and the HFC cable.”

Truly remote areas would be served, under the Coalition plan, through wireless and satellite services similar to the existing NBN policy, and the previous Howard Government’s OPEL strategy.

Lessons from New Zealand
Much of Turnbull’s thinking appears to have been influenced by New Zealand’s own NBN policy, which he mentioned frequently in his speech today.

“While we may hope to thrash the All Blacks in the World Cup, we have been completely and utterly outdone by our Kiwi cousins on broadband,” said Turnbull. New Zealand’s Ultra-Fast Broadband policy has similarly seen its monopolist telecommunications provider, Telecom New Zealand, separate its operations into a number of separate companies and a number of wholesale providers (principally electricity networks) set up fibre to the node networks in a number of areas.

“At the end the New Zealand Government will have ensured nationwide access to fast (or ‘ultra-fast’ in most cases) broadband with public investment of $500 per FTTH household and $800 for households covered by the Rural Broadband Initiative. Overall net cost to taxpayers will be about $650 million, or $400 per household,” said Turnbull today. “All that without a great big new Government monopoly. Or artificial restraints on facilities-based competition.”

“The Kiwis look across the Tasman at the NBN with astonishment. Its extravagance is almost beyond conception. .The most common reaction was “Well, you’ve got all those minerals so I suppose you can afford it. We have to watch our pennies here.”

The last time the Coalition unveiled a major telecommunications policy — during the 2010 Federal Election — much of the telecommunications sector and wider business community pilloried the initiative as not having gone far enough, compared with Labor’s NBN policy, which was budgeted at an amount in the multiple tens of billions.

The policy announced today appears to have gone further than that existing policy, which did not feature the restructure of Telstra or incentives for wholesale providers to build competitive broadband access infrastructure in suburban areas. However, it remains unclear what extent of funding Turnbull’s policy announced today would require.

The Coalition’s new NBN policy in brief:

  • Optus and Telstra HFC networks to be upgraded
  • Wholesale providers to be invited to supply services in other areas
  • The likely separation of Telstra into retail and wholesale arms, with the integration of NBN Co infrastructure
  • Satellite and wireless to supply remote areas
  • Focus on driving competition in the retail market, with Government subsidies where appropriate
  • Using New Zealand’s Ultra-Fast Broadband policy as a model

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

141 COMMENTS

  1. Because private companies have rolled out networks in the past in areas……

    Are’n’t we in the current situation because Telstra/Optus etc decided to not roll out HFC everywhere?

    • Also doesn’t HFC have a load limitation, so if enough users are on it, it’ll just choke out the connection

      • Which is why they are proposing a node split. It’s a smart counter policy change but it’s still… Odd. The policy is converging closer to the NBN. As usual its just because you can do it cheaper this way.

        *shrug* We’ll see what happens.

        • Well I am sure it will go through many modifications before the 2013 election, Labor canned their Comms policy platform completely post the 2007 election, so what does it matter?

        • *The policy is converging closer to the NBN*

          WTF? COMPLETE RUBBISH.

          Labor:

          1/ government monopoly; renationalisation of fixed-line

          2/ (almost) universal fibre-to-the-home access

          3/ shutdown all competing fixed-line platforms

          Liberal

          1/ private ownership of fixed networks

          2/ mostly “fibre to the node” technology (i.e. HFC, FTTN)

          3/ multiple competing platforms

      • xPON has this limitation as well, which is what NBN uses

        HFC has like 1.5+gbits of total bandwidth subdivided by all the people in the node split, NBN is a 32 user slpit of 2400/1200

        • Lol this is such a misleading statement. I’d almost call it a lie. Cable nodes are shared by hundreds of users, while FTTH PON implementations are shared between 32 users. Current implementations of cable, called “DOCSIS 3”, bond 4 channels to produce about 160 mbit/s of downstream bandwidth. Upstream bonding is much more difficult and limited. While DOCSIS 3 will eventually get to 1 to 1.5 gbit/s, because it’s shared no one will ever reach those speeds, and dl/ul will be extremely asymmetrical. On the other hand FTTH continues to advance, with XGPON the latest standard, delivering 10 Gbits/s to 32 users. Cable doesn’t even compare. The bandwidth difference is laughable.

    • From MT’s address. “Commitment to free markets and competition are engrained in Liberal Party DNA, but we also believe competition is a means to ensuring affordability, particularly at entry levels.”
      And that folks is what it’s all about. The Liberals don’t really care about the consumers, about people. They care more about free markets, competition, and private enterprise.
      He pays scant heed to how much the govt would have to ‘incentivize’ private enterprise, (read giving away taxpayers money to corporations without any resulting ownership of assets. No concern for the welfare of the country, the state, and the people who comprise that entity. It’s all about free markets and competition.

      Now I could break down and raise criticisms and offer critiques to various claims and points made by MT. But it would take too long. Instead I’ll rest by simply asking, how can MT claim that the duplication of basic, essential infrastructure lead to lower prices for the end consumer ??? He raises a little homily about council building a six lane freeway to a farmers property. Then I would ask him to justify private enterprise building 6 single lane roads to a suburban dwelling.

      No. MT and the Liberal Party are about private enterprise, big business keeping as many fingers in as many pies as possible regardless of the outcome or cost to the consumer. Nothing more, nothing less.
      (And funnily enough, he makes an appeal to Telstra shareholders in there as well. Suggesting they will be better off with the Liberal plan. Thank you Malcolm. You just said it all.

  2. So Turnbull’s plan is to increase the “digitial divide” between metro and regional customers?

    Also he does realise that both north and south islands in NZ are about the same in length as Brisbane to Sydney, ie. it’s much cheaper to lay FTTH over there because geographically people are much closer together.

  3. I’m in WA, can someone tell me where the HFC networks are that Optus and/or Telstra have built over here?

      • Why did you just ask a question with a question? Are you not able to answer it? If not, go troll elsewhere.

        • I can answer the question, the answer which you already know is there is no HFC networks in WA and I repeat where does it say in the Coalition policy the ONLY fixed line solution will be HFC?

          • Actually Alain, you truly are an ass. I didn’t know if there were or not, thus why I asked, but you made an assumption that was completely wrong. I had heard there was some areas that I believe Optus was considering for HFC in some areas, but I didn’t know if it had gone ahead or not. Thus is was a simple answer I was looking for. Now I’m afraid if I ask a simple question again, I’m going to be shot down by you…the ass.

          • @Brendan, don’t worry about hom mate… he’s easy to shut up… watch…LOL

            I am snickering too…alain (or do you prefer your new more apt name, “the ass”?, thanks Brendan)

            Because here you are alain, lauding HFC again, when you have previously, clearly told us HFC WAS/IS A FAILURE – DIDN’T YOU?

            YOU ALSO SAID, YOU HAVE A HFC CABLE ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU WHICH IS GOOD ONLY FOR THE PIGEONS TO REST ON…DIDN’t YOU?

            LOL… you are now a fully fledged supporter of the Coalitions PIGEON COMMS PLAN… oh please stop it my sides are again splitting with laughter…!

          • There is HFC in WA, but VERY little of it, tiny portions of only the richest suburbs. Look in areas like South Perth, Como, Dalkeith, Nedlands, Kingsley, Ardross etc

          • Thanks Gav, my OP had Telstra and/or Optus, appreciate the info, didn’t realise so many small networks are out there. I didn’t really care who it was, I was asking if there was any. I was trying to recall the name a new suburb in along the northern suburbs that was being touted as a ‘smart’ suburb…started with a ‘B’ I think. That was the one I was trying to think of, but again, wasn’t sure thus why I was asking.

          • Close, but it was Brighton I was thinking of. Asked a mate, who knew the name of it.

  4. wasn’t labor’s NBN 1.0 exactly that?

    http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/258554/telstra_rejects_opposition_calls_separation_totally_irresponsible_/

    /quote

    “The opposition has made it clear that if $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money is to be utilized, then we need commensurate public policy gains. We’re not about imposing new burdens on taxpayers, shareholders, or corporations; we’re about saying if you want the money there are strings attached,” Billson said in his presentation.

    “And we believe that achieving effective structural separation has to be one of those things, because the natural monopoly that will be produced requires that kind of clarity.”

    /end quote

    we’ll put out money for a tender *wink wink at telstra*

    but they didn’t play ball :(

  5. So 28% of premises can get HFC Cable, and rural areas get wireless.

    What about everyone else? Is that going to be just ADSL(2)?

    Australia would be left with 28% HFC, a few percent fibre (from the aborted NBN rollout) and everyone else stuck how we are now.

    So I guess the majority just hope this new Network Co will roll out more cable or – god forbid – fibre?

    • @Nick

      “What about everyone else? Is that going to be just ADSL(2)? ”

      No, where does it say that?, the NZ model is not about HFC and ADSL2+.

      “Australia would be left with 28% HFC, a few percent fibre (from the aborted NBN rollout) and everyone else stuck how we are now.”

      Why don’t you read it again!

      “Optus and Telstra HFC networks to be upgraded”

      … and where does it say FTTH will NOT be rolled out beyond what is in place by the NBN Co if they win the next election?

      “So I guess the majority just hope this new Network Co will roll out more cable or – god forbid – fibre?”

      Yeah they will, that’s what it says.

      • my read is that, put simply, Telstra will be encouraged to build FTTN in areas w/o HFC subject to “structural separation”.

      • @Nick
        > “What about everyone else? Is that going to be just ADSL(2)? ”
        > No, where does it say that?, the NZ model is not about HFC and ADSL2+.
        > “Australia would be left with 28% HFC, a few percent fibre (from the aborted NBN rollout) and everyone > else stuck how we are now.”
        > Why don’t you read it again!

        Apparently my reading comprehension is failing me. Are you saying that the coalition policy is a HFC and/or fibre rollout to the home?

        >“Optus and Telstra HFC networks to be upgraded”
        >… and where does it say FTTH will NOT be rolled out beyond what is in place by the NBN Co if they win
        > the next election?

        It doesn’t (although I’m unclear about who the “they win the next election” is referring to) .

        So are you saying that the NBN fiber rollout to the home will continue even if Labor loses the next election? That’s quite different to what I understood!

        > “So I guess the majority just hope this new Network Co will roll out more cable or – god forbid – fibre?”
        >Yeah they will, that’s what it says.

        What I read was FTTN (fiber to the NODE). I’m interested in the node-to-home area. From what I can see this doesn’t tackle that at all beyond upgrading HFC Cable for those who can get it.

        What am I missing?

  6. I’m glad at least one journalist was actually paying attention to the speech. The so called journos at the Press Club kept asking about everything but the Broadband policy. No wonder politicians try and give us short sound bites.

    • The whole thing was a joke including Turnbull himself. Making excuses for his patchwork plan “bu bu bu bu the internet is a patchwork” the speech sounded like an anti-NBN crusader from the Internets wrote it lol. Plenty of contradictions and “bogus” claims too.

      • “Plenty of contradictions and “bogus” claims too.”

        Not that you pointed them out.

          • “Yep I thought so, nothing rational to say, business as usual eh HC?”

            Considering you dodge and refuse to answer other peoples questions I thought posting the link was quite rational but if reading (and comprehending the information) is too much for you you can always watch it on iView (I assume).

          • So still nothing to say about ” Plenty of contradictions and “bogus” claims too.”, except a desperate attempt at diversion, as I said business as usual HC.

          • Ummm, do I have to ask again alain…?

            The NBN will be a success vs. the NBN will fail… both claims from you…

            Your time starts …………….now!

          • Hey HC…

            alain refuses to correspond with me, because I quizzed him on his contradictions (and embarrassed him, oh)…and he simply has no answer!

            So, perhaps you could ask him for me?…LOL ;-)

          • “So, perhaps you could ask him for me?…LOL ;-)”

            Yes I could do that but perhaps you can give it one last try? Maybe you could simplify your question. Remember who you are talking to :-)

          • And he can think too…

            You ought to try it for yourself without depending on the Libs doing it for you, even only once…!

          • Oh, the eighth deadly sin!

            So where exactly are you from, since clearly you are not Australian, otherwise you would know better?

        • I’ve pointed them out many times alain…

          As such, feel free to explain them any time soon!

  7. “Wholesale providers to be invited to supply services in other areas”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ohhh mercy

  8. First thoughts: Turnbull seems excessively focussed on whatever last example he was shown. A few months back, he went to Korea and was talking in terms of what he saw there. Now he’s just come back from New Zealand and wants to do what they’re doing. Could someone please offer him a trip to a recreated Wild West town? He’ll come back extolling the virtues of the Pony Express…

    I was struck by this comment, which seems to show a tremendous lack of understanding:

    “The melancholy truth is that more than 75% of the cost of this network is civil works – the people with the back hoes, trench diggers, trucks and cherry pickers. Plainly if you can use some of the existing fixed line local access network, you can reduce those civil works considerably.”

    This is _exactly_ the reason why the deal with Telstra was so important. Because it avoids just this kind of civil works expenditure, by using the existing pits and pipes – as Turnbull admits. But he appears clueless that this is the case – or simply pretends that he doesn’t know.

    • *Because it avoids just this kind of civil works expenditure*

      oh, and that $36bln is just tiling Mike Quigley’s executive bathroom? ever occur to you that “fibre-to-the-node” solutions avoid the super-expensive task of replacing the “last-mile”?

      *But he appears clueless that this is *

      it’s obvious who’s clueless – that’s YOU.

      • it’s obvious who’s clueless – that’s YOU.

        Please stop confusing “has a different opinion to the great and mighty toshP300” with “clueless“.

        • you have a problem with a lowly and humble internet forum participant calling bullshit “BULLSHIT”?

          why am i not suprised? :-)

          • You want to exemplify charm, and you choose Leno as your example?!

            Yes, this is an internet forum. But it’s not the Youtube comments cesspool. Renai does like to keep it civil – lively, but civil.

            Glad you feel passionate about your cause. I take a different view. I enjoy a debate of ideas. Personal abuse, not so much.

            Have a great day – and I hope your dearest wish comes true.

          • there’s a difference between “healthy debate” and spreading LIES on the internet.

          • Ooo-err nurse! Spreading LIES on the internet? Sounds like someone’s been a Very Naughty Boy!

          • hey, if “nurse porn” floats your boat – go for it. you have an unalienable right to wank.

          • Thank you for proving my point about your inability to accept that other people may have a different opinion than yourself.

            You win a free burial at see in the war of your choice.

            Just because YOU think it’s bullshit, does not mean that it IS bullshit, or that other people necessarily AGREE with you.

          • so, it’s okay for an anonymous internet forum poster to call a public figure (MT) “clueless”…. but it’s not okay for another anonymous poster to call the original anonymous poster “clueless”.

            Riiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhtt.

          • I never said anything was “right” or “wrong”. Just pointing out that some people have a different opinion to yourself, and that you should stop getting shitty at people for disagreeing with you.

          • sorry, i failed “charm school” – never got pass “The Art of Bullshit 101”.

            you must have earned your Doctorate eons ago.

            *genuflect in respect*

      • @ToshP300

        From the full text of the speech, Ref section:

        “A report by WIK Consult for the European Competitive Telecommunication Association, also in 2008, estimated that FTTC costs per premise were $690 in Germany and $530 in Sweden. Costs for FTTH were roughly four times higher at $3100 in Germany and 3.5 times higher at $1900 in Sweden.

        WIK-Consult / ECTA – The Economics of Next Generation Access – Bad Honnef, 2008”

        • whoaaa… alain! you sadistic animal….

          don’t quote FACTS to NBN proponents – that’s like waving a crucifix at Dracula…. they can’t handle the TRUTH!

        • > “A report by WIK Consult for the European Competitive Telecommunication Association, also in 2008,
          > estimated that FTTC costs per premise were $690 in Germany and $530 in Sweden. Costs for FTTH
          > were roughly four times higher at $3100 in Germany and 3.5 times higher at $1900 in Sweden.

          I don’t think FTTC has ever been proposed in Australia, because we don’t really have “cabinets” (the “C” in FTTC). I assume FTTN would be similar or slightly cheaper though.

          But I don’t think anyone has ever argued that FTTN isn’t cheaper than FTTH.

          FTTN doesn’t fix the household access problem though. Even with FTTN, most people will be stuck on ADSL2, which maxes out at around 25Mbs.

          Coincidently, 25Mbs is roughly four times slower than the max NBN speeds being offered now.

          Solving that problem means putting new infrastructure in place (except for the minority of people with cable).

          If you are going to put new infrastructure in then you may as well put fibre in, because it will be the same price as putting any other technology.

          • @Nick

            “don’t think FTTC has ever been proposed in Australia, because we don’t really have “cabinets” (the “C” in FTTC).”

            Is that in any way a serious comment, we cannot build FTTN because ‘we don’t really have the cabinets’
            umm yeah ok, is there world wide shortage of ‘cabinets’ ?

            “FTTN doesn’t fix the household access problem though. Even with FTTN, most people will be stuck on ADSL2, which maxes out at around 25Mbs.”

            FTTN is not ADSL2+ what are you on about with ‘most people will be stuck on ADSL2’, what access problem doesn’t it fix?

            “Coincidently, 25Mbs is roughly four times slower than the max NBN speeds being offered now.”

            Yes and…..?

            “If you are going to put new infrastructure in then you may as well put fibre in, because it will be the same price as putting any other technology.”

            The report I linked to said it is not, which was FTTN vs FTTH, and ‘any other technology’?

          • >Is that in any way a serious comment, we cannot build FTTN because ‘we don’t really have the cabinets’
            umm yeah ok, is there world wide shortage of ‘cabinets’ ?

            Dude, you need to read my comment. In Australia FTTN has been proposed, and I said FTTN is likely _cheaper_ than FTTC. Of course Australia could deploy cabinets, but that’s not a small task, since (unlike Germany) our infrastructure doesn’t currently use them. I guess one could argue that Telstra RIMs are kinda-sorta cabinets. If you want to call them that then fine.

            >FTTN is not ADSL2+ what are you on about with ‘most people will be stuck on ADSL2′, what access problem doesn’t it fix?

            Yes it is!! The “Node” is an exchange or RIM. You still need access, and that will be done over copper phones lines using ADSL (or variant).

            In NZ, apparently they use VDSL2, which (as pointed out below) can go up to 50Mbps, but degrades to ADSL2 speeds at 1.6km from the node (exchange).

            How do you think people get access from the Node to their home? It’s the telephone lines – and replacing them is why the NBN costs so much.

          • If you are going to criticize FTTN, at least do it properly

            NZ is running off FTTN right now, and you can get speeds at 50/50 for the lower end, heard of VDSL2?

          • I’d love to see the NZ ‘heat maps’.
            The irony of FTTN is, you replace the well sealed, often pressurised main cable, and keep the unsealed, narrow gauge most corroded part of the copper.

            I’d love to see how many .32 and .4 gauge lines can support 50/50.
            What I expect to see would be an uneven and unpredictable series of speeds that, admittedly do top 20mbit, but cannot exceed it.

            Anyone who’s ever worked a DSL fault, seen the DMT carriers, done a SELT, MLT, or seen a TDR will know just how wildly unpredictable copper is. I’ve seen services beyond 7km getting 3mbit, and services under 3km getting 2. It’s incredibly hard to predict, and the best anyone can ever give is a best guess.

            What annoys me most of all, is that for once we have an opportunity to do something properly, bypass the unpredictability, the immense maintenance costs, and power consumption at a time when the total industry return already exceeds the investment and is growing, but people want to penny pinch.

            We’ve wasted most of the proceeds from the mining boom buying houses at excessive prices, increasing middle class welfare, and other more or less consumption based expenses. Here, at least we have the chance to have something useful for the next 50 years. Copper cannot last that long. Hell, our resources probably won’t at the rate they’re being ravaged from the ground.

            Now you can argue that FTTN is the cheap option. Just a little bit more speed for not much money. I can stick a VT V6 in a VB Commodore too, do some hektik burnouts for a while and argue that I only have to upgrade the body next.
            Pretty stupid way of upgrading a car, wouldn’t you think?
            Unfortunately, while FTTN is definitely a cost effective technology in the short term, it’s a lot more expensive in the long term. Doing anything twice costs twice as much.

            Not only that, but the further risk is that it will never happen. The FTTN crowd seem to think that FTTN to FTTH is so easy, and inevitably, but they fail to consider the possibility that once done, that’s it. That’s the extent that anyone will ever want to touch communications again. Telstra surely would be weary of the process by now.

            The NBN is credible. More expensive, but credible. The coalitions is still nothing more than a bunch of wishes in a hat.

      • Thank you for the civil and constructive comment, toshP300.

        I refer you to the extensive history of why FTTN was abandoned by the Rudd government, and why it is likely to be far more expensive than you think. The ABC Four Corners documentary of a few months ago is a good place to start.

        It’s a common mistake to think that all you need to do for FTTN is whack in a big box on a few street corners, and it’s all done. Who owns the remaining copper? Who owns the node-based infrastructure? Who can use it, and under what terms? Without a plan for complete structural overhaul, all you end up with is a _private monopoly_, not even a public one. Even more control and profits for Telstra – and a terrible deal for everyone else.

        • *The ABC Four Corners documentary of a few months ago is a good place to start.*

          oh please… not the Chewbacca Defence….. “oh, that’s right, we can’t build FTTN ‘coz that would entail paying compensation to Telstra”….. er, and what’s the Government doing under the current $11bln Telstra deal?

          *Who owns the remaining copper?*

          Telstra already owns it.

          *Who owns the node-based infrastructure?*

          Telstra would own it because they’re investing in it.

          *Who can use it, and under what terms?*

          anyone on reasonable, commercial terms. (artificial regulatory pricing like $16 ULL won’t do.)

          *Without a plan for complete structural overhaul, all you end up with is a _private monopoly_, not even a public one.*

          and why is that a problem? how is a lumbering public monopoly run by politically-appointed, crony, dim-witted bureaucrats better than a private monopoly run by professional, competent management with clear directives from the Board to manage capital efficiently and maximise the value of the fixed network?

          isn’t MT insisting on structural separation? (will Telstra fight it? of course.)

          *Even more control and profits for Telstra*

          Telstra “controlling” a network that they already “own” – fancy that.

          Telstra earning more profits by sinking more of shareholders’ precious capital into the network – fancy that.

          Karl Marx must be turning in his grave.

          * – and a terrible deal for everyone else.*

          sure, if you’re Telstra’s competitors hoping for a free ride on infrastructure built with other people’s money.

        • @Gwyntaglaw

          “I refer you to the extensive history of why FTTN was abandoned by the Rudd government,”

          When and how did they abandon FTTN?

          • Well alain… WRONGLY, according to you (and you argued and argued with me, surprise, surprise) the first RFP to build an NBN was in fact a FTTN tender… wasn’t it?

            Whilst you never admitted to being wrong AND YOU WERE WRONG AS IT WAS NOT A FTTN TENDER… pleeeease, do not now have the audacity to attempt to ridicule others for “perhaps” doing as you did, when you yourself CLEARLY DIDN’T KNOW (but still argued anyway…LOL) and you learned it from me… sigh!

          • You must be getting really really uptight… since yesterday its just constant yelling from you…

            Liberals will get in next election and you know it….. don’t worry, I understand….

          • LOL…

            Not everyone is a minion to a party, like you…

            If the Australian public decide to vote the Coalition in so be it… Wow what a revelation…

            Next sheep…!

  9. So Malcolm’s plan to avoid much of the cost of laying fibre to 90% of the houses in Australia is to lay HFC cable to 62% (90-=28) of houses in Australia? Are they going to use Telstra ducts? Are they going to open the HFC networks to wholesale competition? This plan doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

    • sounds like the Libs are just picking up where Labor left off before they went completely crazy with their universal fibre access “investment scheme” joke – i.e. negotiate with Telstra to build FTTN (and impose structural separation).

      • Which “Telstra” withdrew from and then later, “submitted a non-compliant bid”.

        You can lead a horse to water…!

  10. The main comments that worry me are;
    “Focus on driving competition in the retail market, with Government subsidies where appropriate”
    “Optus and Telstra HFC networks to be upgraded

    This is worrying, because it sounds like he is suggesting we throw cash towards Optus and Telstra, so they can upgrade their HFC infrastructure, and at the end of the day they will still not wholesale it to anyone so the only people who benefit are Telstra and Optus.

    This is DUMB. Turnbull especially harps on about competition alot, does he not care if it is fair competition or not?? Is it good so long as it’s competition no matter how much government cash one competitor might get?

    The taxpayer has already thrown copious amounts of money at Telstra and it simply isn’t working, I cannot believe a political party is suggesting we do exactly the same thing again, at least in Labor’s handout to Telstra they are buying their infrastructure, and not paying for upgrades on their network.

    He does not even mention how much money we will be throwing towards this, how it will be funded ,what speeds it will provide, what amount of the population is covered….

    And this guy has the balls to accuse NBNco of hiding the facts?!?

    • It sounds like their carbon policy… throw taxpayer money at big companies and hope that solves the problem.

    • *This is worrying, because it sounds like he is suggesting we throw cash towards Optus and Telstra, so they can upgrade their HFC infrastructure*

      there’s no suggestion of throwing cash at Optus or Telstra to upgrade their HFC networks. the subsidies are for the non-metropolitan areas where the cost of infrastructure upgrades cannot be borne by the smaller population densities.

      Telstra would NOT “benefit” from the subsidies – the “subsidies” merely offset the DIFFERENCE in capital costs of upgrades and what regional subscribers can actually afford to pay to defray those capital outlays.

      *The taxpayer has already thrown copious amounts of money at Telstra and it simply isn’t working*

      what are you talking about? how has the taxpayer “thrown copious amounts of money” at Telstra? the USO subsidy is levied on the industry. even the ACMA report on the cost of Telstra’s USO argued that the real burden was less than what Telstra is getting from the USO levy.

      *at least in Labor’s handout to Telstra they are buying their infrastructure, and not paying for upgrades on their network.*

      NBNco isn’t buying any of Telstra’s infrastructure – they are just leasing the right to use certain exchanges, pits, ducts, etc. they aren’t even allowed to TOUCH the copper.

      *He does not even mention how much money we will be throwing towards this, how it will be funded ,what
      speeds it will provide, what amount of the population is covered….*

      it will be MUCH MUCH LESS than the $50,000,000,000 that Labor is THROWING at NBNco taxpayer scam.

      *And this guy has the balls to accuse NBNco of hiding the facts?!?*

      NBNco is misleading the Australian public on the real cost and unaffordability of the NBN. many industry leaders have already pointed this out. do you think the NSW State Govt would appoint Paul Broad to head “Infrastructure NSW” if he was just some “clown” and didn’t know what he was talking about?

  11. This policy is effectively the same NBN that Rudd left behind. Goes to show you how much the Coalition is playing catch up.

    I would wager that by the time the 2013 election rolls around, and the NBN is rolled out to a great extent, the Coalition would just adopt it as their policy.

  12. The title of the article should be called *New Coalition NBN Policy – Splitting Hairs*.

    From Malcolm’s speech.

    “At the outset let me explain our objective: to ensure all Australians have access to very fast broadband that enables them to access the services and applications of value to them, and at a price they can afford. … I’ve already made it clear an early step in government will be to seek advice from the Productivity Commission on the most cost-effective means of achieving the objective. This advice will be given and considered however in the context of the contractual and legal constraints imposed by the Gillard Government prior to the election as well as the actual state of the rollout of NBN assets by that time.[12] …

    IF NBN Co achieved the forecasts in its December 2010 corporate plan, by the end of 2013 its fibre would pass 1.9 million premises (16 per cent of the national total), 1.1 million households would be customers, and $16 billion would be committed in equity.

    Plain english translation:

    Get out of jail free. When it turns out that breaking contracts and implementing a whole new plan will at that point be more expensive than completing the existing NBN Co plan we’ll stick with the plan that’s already in place…

    • “Get out of jail free. When it turns out that breaking contracts and implementing a whole new plan will at that point be more expensive than completing the existing NBN Co plan we’ll stick with the plan that’s already in place…”

      Not to mention the two or three year delay suspending and compensating various parties for existing agreements, conducting this PC review, renegotiating what will be an as equally complicated deal with Telstra as the current NBN deal, getting the ACCC to review, comment, adjust and approve any new deal, drafting, introducing and passing a new batch of legislation to actually do anything, and then have to negotiate to get it past a senate that will still have the balance of power in the hands of the Greens who support the NBN.

      Good luck Malcolm.

      • Exactly..

        Assuming election at end of 2013 as advertised a PC inquiry is at least 6 months, then responding the the PC inquiry and coming up with legislation …. well by then we’re in 2015 without a coalition BIG button being pressed.

        Would that mean for instance they would stop the rollout in the meantime?

        Can you imagine the political pressure, both from industry and people whose suburbs were scheduled for rollout.

        Worst case likely scenario is that NBN Co is instructed to rollout as planned EXCEPT to those that already have HFC.

        • To be honest, I think this Labor government has stifled communications the most. After 6 year of them in power, the only difference is in 3 small test trial towns, so even by your overbloated metrics coalition would still be faster

    • *IF NBN Co achieved the forecasts in its December 2010 corporate plan, by the end of 2013 its fibre would pass 1.9 million premises (16 per cent of the national total), 1.1 million households would be customers, and $16 billion would be committed in equity.*

      where do you get your numbers from?

      FTTP brownfield premises passed: 950,000

      active FTTP brownfield services: 260,000

      cumulative equity employed: ~A$9bln

      • That information is actually outdated and they are going to release a new corporate plan

        The current corporate plan didn’t take into account the massive delay with the construction tenders, so the NBN is actually going to pass even less premises then estimated

    • Good catch! Yes, you could drive an army platoon through that loophole.

      I can’t recall the current state of play – isn’t the Productivity Commission going to report on the NBN anyway? I thought that was part of the deal with the independents.

      If so, I would be very interested to hear what Turnbull’s response would be if the findings tend to support the broad plan of the NBN. Gary Banks has said something to the effect that just because FTTN might be cheaper in the short term that it would be the better option.

      • Aaagh! That last line should read “just because FTTN might be cheaper in the short term *does not mean* that it would be the better option”

          • Wow, who would have thought The Australian could be accused of selective quoting? Here’s a link to the full report: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/broadband_ctte/third_report/c07.pdf

            Some more “selective quoting” for you:

            “The Productivity Commission submitted that it supports the government’s proposal of building a FTTP network on the basis of the Commission’s previous work, which demonstrated a strong link between productivity and investment in ICT (see discussion in chapter six).”

            “[T]he Commission’s Telecommunications Competition Regulation report found that open access networks, by encouraging downstream competition and innovation, have major advantages over those that restrict entry.”

            “Importantly, the Commission highlighted that the same is true of competition between network technologies”

          • Shakes head… umm the bloke who’s at the dept. you want to do an NBN CBA, yet you don’t even know who he is?

            Ironically, in weeks and months to come, what’s the bet you will be talking about Gary Banks like he is your brother and ridiculing others for not knowing him…sigh!

  13. Malcolm Turnbull and his policy must be taken very seriously as, at the moment, if would seem that he will be in Government in the near future. Will be interesting to see what those that pull the levers in the Industry think of his plan.Malcolm certainly has delivered a credible alternative.

    • Hi Syd…welcome home (you are home)?

      Gee, didn’t you invite me to come with you, seriously…LOL!

      No Malcolm (hopefully as leader) won’t be in government for quite sometime/if at all, unless the independents jump ship…

      Again I bring to your attention the fickleness of politics…. in March of this year Tony Abbott was at all time popularity lows and Labor had a healthy lead, yet here we are only a few months later and this has turned completely…so…

      I also, as I have said before, still find it unbelievable that Labor and Gillard are at all time lows, yet Abbott is still more unpopular, than he is popular (according to the last poll I saw)… seriously with a real leader I would have to agree with you Syd, it a done deal, but…!

      So I’d suggest although you are thinking about voting “against” the NBN deal, think twice Syd…!

    • Sydney, I think you might be onto something if you said “Malcolm has delivered a *politically* credible alternative.” It’s all about the politics at the moment – Turnbull doesn’t have to offer a costed, fully worked out solution. He just has to give an idea that he has a clue and seems to know what he is doing.

      In the end, it all comes down to the politics – which is why, in government, you may expect to find Abbott and Turnbull taking a very different tack. If the NBN proves popular (and it is now – likely to be more so once a bigger chunk of the population gets connected over the next 2 years), then Abbott will adopt it, in a “rebranded” form. Some settings will be tinkered with, targets will be adjusted, and the regulatory/ownership environment will be a little different. Probably some working-in of FTTN to the plan somewhere. But not a lot of change. The rollout will be too far gone by then, and the political reality will dictate the outcome. Abbott is purely a populist, anyway – he has very few core principles, beyond power, and is no ideologue.

      The real area to watch is the industry response, as you point out. Publicly, those in the industry will make very little comment on Turnbull’s plan, other than to say “this is the policy of the government now, we will work within current policy, and should the government change, we will work with the new policy”. Privately, I believe there would be real skepticism about the Coalition plan. It requires a lot of work to iron out the details, and most would know that any plan stated now would bear little resemblance to what a new government will do come late 2013.

      And where has the industry consultation been? Where are the Telstra, or Optus, or other major telco or IT execs coming out to support the Coalition plan? When we start to see that, then I’ll believe that there is real support for the plan. Otherwise, it simply doesn’t pass the basic credibility test.

      • *The rollout will be too far gone by then*

        Roolly? – just under 1mln brownfield premises is “too far gone”? (that’s assuming they get their act together.)

        *and the political reality will dictate the outcome.*

        you mean the economic reality of cost blow-outs and lack of subscriber interest will dictate the outcome [failure]?

        *Abbott is purely a populist, anyway*

        Roolly? which is why he is so “unpopular” in political polls as a “preferred PM”?

        *he has very few core principles, beyond power, and is no ideologue.*

        the driest of dry, economic rationalist, free market purist, conservative ideologues of the Howard Administration (apart from Peter Reith) has no “core principles”?

        man, you’re SO FULL OF SH!T.

        • Script kiddies turn into political commentators is always a sore sight to see, especially considering how massively wrong they get it

        • @ Tosh…

          Isn’t it funny… as soon as one join the Liberal party (and probably Labor Party) one becomes a pompous chronic flogger… !

          Yes Abbott is preferred PM now, but just a few months ago, he was at all time lows, which shows the fickleness of voters. Things change and change quickly…

          Regardless Abbott is still more unpopular than he is popular, according to the polls… DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

          However I do agree with you Tosh, Abbott was the driest of dries and a rad con extremist, which is exactly why Malcolm Fraser quit the Liberal party. Because his pride and joy, lifelong party had become an extreme conservative party (i.e. too radically right wing)…not a Liberal party!

          Ditch the moron Abbott, bring in Turnbull and all is forgiven (well all is forgiven, apart from your stupid comments)…!

      • …and right on cue, my suspicions have been vindicated. From smh.com.au:

        “Telstra chief executive David Thodey has previously said his priority was working with the government of the day.
        ”It’s important to remember that the NBN is government policy. And we will work within that policy framework. We are asking shareholders to vote on what we believe is best for Telstra within that policy framework, not on alternative government policies,” Mr Thodey said in June.”

        Exactly as I said.

        “Industry sources, however, were sceptical Telstra would agree to co-operate with the Coalition without the offer of compensation or a competitive threat, such as the NBN.
        ”Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t got a stick and he hasn’t got a carrot,” one said.”

        Again – just what I said – the industry isn’t buying it!

        “The director of government and corporate affairs at Optus, Maha Krishnapillai, welcomed the Coalition’s support for Telstra separating its wholesale and retail arms.
        ”Optus continues to be focused on achieving a level playing field in the Australian telecommunications market and we will work with all sides of politics to ensure their respective broadband policies achieve this,” he said.”

        This is the best support Turnbull can expect: Optus commending him on the one thing they agree with – the strict separation of Telstra’s wholesale and retail business. Which has been their chief concern (and the other ISPs) all along. (BTW Krishnapillai has been quite outspoken in his support for the NBN too.)

        • *“Telstra chief executive David Thodey has previously said his priority was working with the government of the day.*

          so, if the “government of the day” changes in 2013, Telstra’s priority changes. the “NBN” is a decade-long process. ripping up an agreement 1.5-2yrs into a decade-long process is hardly a big deal. after all, the 20% completion trigger for the $500mln break fee will not accrue by 2013. also, Telstra has been hedging its bets on a change in government policy all along, by refusing to sell its infrastructure outright to NBNco in return for higher compensation.

          *We are asking shareholders to vote on what we believe is best for Telstra within that policy framework, not on alternative government policies,” Mr Thodey said in June.

          translation: Telstra would eject itself from the deal in a heartbeat within an alternative policy framework because the current deal is clearly NOT within its best interests.

          *“Industry sources, however, were sceptical Telstra would agree to co-operate with the Coalition without the offer of compensation or a competitive threat, such as the NBN.*

          the Chewbacca Defence again… and Telstra isn’t currently being bribed with compensation to “cooperate” with NBNco? LOL. (Johnnie Cochrane must be smiling from his grave.)

          “industry sources”…… LOL. (sounds like Mr Krishnapillai, agent of the Singaporean Government talking, as usual.) of course, the “competitive carriers coalition” wants Australian taxpayers to fund a fibre network so these greedy telcos can “sell services” without having to actually INVEST in infrastructure. you know the $500mln that Telstra spends annually on “maintaining the copper network”? that’s called INVESTMENT.

          yes, my friends, when your car breaks down, and you need to replace various components, it’s a form of INVESTMENT – something members of the CCC wouldn’t know anything about as they hardly spend any investment dollars (a few lousy million on DSLAMs don’t count), because they’re too busy crying to the ACCC for even CHEAPER network access (at the expense of Aussie pensioners).

          ”Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t got a stick and he hasn’t got a carrot,” one said. Again – just what I said – the industry isn’t buying it!*

          see above.

          of course, they will play down MT’s plan – who doesn’t want a free ride on taxpayer-funded white elephant infrastructure? especially when they have nothing to lose in terms of existing ownership and control of the fixed-line infrastructure.

          if/when the Libs win power and MT seeks to renegotiate the Telstra deal and offer them the chance to KEEP CONTROL of their fixed-line network, they will pounce on MT like an eager puppy with tail-wagging at 500mph. what do you think Optus will do when Telstra gets back its HFC network?…… they will be screaming to reclaim their HFC network as well (to maintain competitive advantage)…. LOL

          if Telstra is SO DESPERATE to get rid of ownership/control over the fixed network, why lease the infrastructure to NBNco as opposed to selling outright? why set the “break fee” at a measly $500mln? why not $1bln? $2bln?

          *The director of government and corporate affairs at Optus, Maha Krishnapillai, welcomed the Coalition’s support for Telstra separating its wholesale and retail arms.*

          Mr Krishnapillai should get an Order of Singapore or whatever government honours they hand out in Singapore to people who serve Singaporean interests with excellence.

          ”Optus continues to be focused on achieving a level playing field in the Australian telecommunications market and we will work with all sides of politics to ensure their respective broadband policies achieve this,” he said.”

          yes, a “level-playing field” as long as it’s tilted against the incumbent that has to spend $500mln a year on maintaining infrastructure that everyone else has a “free-ride” on thanks to ACCC bureaucratic generosity to foreign interests.

          *This is the best support Turnbull can expect: Optus commending him on the one thing they agree with*

          you don’t get it. it’s the same deal with NBNco, MT needs the support and cooperation of only ONE player – you got it: TELSTRA CORP ;) once they reclaim their HFC network, Optus will be begging to “buy” theirs back ;) all these other small little ISPs (that don’t invest and have zero assets and infrastructure) are just like the flies hovering around the backside of an elephant hoping to feed on whatever poo stains gets left behind. yea, MT is really SCARED of little ISPs… like he was scared of KP…. LOL

          *BTW Krishnapillai has been quite outspoken in his support for the NBN too.*

          HEELLLOOOO???? “taxpayer-funded, free ride”, anybody??

          yes….. thanks for sharing your NBN wet-dream….. hmmm..

          • Tosh, I have to say, that is really the oddest post I’ve seen from you yet – and that’s saying something.

            I can’t discern what your argument is, other than “I’m agin’ it”. Something about Singaporean conspiracies. Something about it all being at the expense of Aussie pensioners. And then there’s that Chewbacca defence! (Is that the one that goes “Aaarrhgghh aoooohhrrrgh aieiiieeeooo”?)

          • *I can’t discern what your argument is*

            not my problem your general industry nous and knowledge of “world affairs” is confined to expected international release date of “Battlefield: Bad Company 3”.

          • I confess. My knowledge of international affairs must be sadly lacking, because I have no knowledge of this “Battlefield: Bad Company 3″ of which you speak.

          • Tosh is losing it. The idea of his precious Telstra shares going down the drain are driving him mad with lust and greed. It’s actually quite funny watching him mentally break down.

    • @ Sydney Lawrence.
      “Malcolm Turnbull and his policy must be taken very seriously as, at the moment, if would seem that he will be in Government in the near future.”

      In your most fervent wet dreams Syd.

  14. Hi Rizz, must admit that although we two have had monumental clashes over the years, you are a balanced and thoughtful debater. It is probable that my thoughts on the NBN will be of little consequence but I think that while the FTTP NBN would be the ultimate system the final cost of delivery, and the advantages thereof, must be considered. Whatever happens Senator Conroy must get big raps for his dogged perseverance and efforts for his dream of delivering the FTTP NBN for Australians.

    • Syd…

      After corresponding with some of the disgracefully dishonest FUDsters here, I have come to the realisation my friend (and I say that with sincerity) that even though we may have “had” our differences, in comparison to these people, you are an gentleman :-)

      Hope you enjoyed your trip (even though you reneged on our deal)… bastard, LOL!

    • @Sydneyla

      “, you are a balanced and thoughtful debater.”

      Yeah that’s why he was banned as RS and is now on his second ban and is exploiting a loophole in Delimiter by using a different name and continuing on with the same trolling no fact BS as if nothing happened.

      • And only one person (the one with the most to hide) has complained now 3 times, guess who…?

        Hint begins with a and ends with either lain or dvocate, speaking of different names…

        Oh lainy, again you are just jealous that an opponent has given me credit, something you have never and will never deserve…!

        Wanna talk about your ridiculous contradictions again? LOL!!!!!!!!!

      • Of course on any other legitimate forum it would be yourself and Tosh that are banned. Renai seems to have a soft spot for trouble makers though.

  15. i hope Telstra’s institutional investors pick up on the smoke signals from MT and VOTE DOWN the anti-competitive, value-destroying Telstra/NBNco deal and send NBNco into a tailspin.

  16. golden rule of Delimiter:

    any article containing the words “Coalition” and “NBN” will attract a minimum of 100 comments within 6hrs.

    LOL

    comment #98

  17. Why is everybody talking about laying fibre and cable?

    Wireless technology will soon exceed the usability of fixed line services, so the only fibre that will be required will be the core network.

    Turnbull knows this, if nobody else does.

  18. Probably the most significant comment made by Turnbull in relation to accessibility was the following:

    “It is extraordinary that the government appears to have no interest in making broadband access more affordable, notwithstanding that it is quite clear that the biggest barrier to accessing the internet is not technology, but lack of household income,”

    So the question remains: How will Labor’s NBN rollout benefit over two million disadvantaged Australians? At least somebody on the other side thinks about these things…..

    • Turnbull’s incisive policy analysis is an embarrassment to the Government. Conroy is a clown – he should go back to his sole area of competence: collecting union dues.

  19. Go on tell us again that you guys are legitimately against the NBN and not just politically biased…

    Ooh and do it with a straight face…!

  20. “The Federal Coalition has proposed a new National Broadband Network policy” – this week

  21. If HFC had any future wouldn’t Telstra and Optus keep rolling it out? But they don’t. Doesn’t this say something about Malcolm’s flawed plan?

Comments are closed.