opinion Yesterday Malcolm Turnbull did exactly what a Liberal shadow minister should do: Present a credible, fiscally responsible and less disruptive alternative to a big-spending and over the top Labor project which since it was unveiled in 2009 has been the policy equivalent of using an elephant gun to kill a house fly.
The weakness of Stephen Conroy’s magnificent National Broadband Network vision has never been its primary technology choice of optical fibre to the home. Nor has it been its focus on using that technology to address the market power of Australia’s former monopolist telco Telstra. And none of the nitty gritty details of the NBN rollout itself have really called the policy into question.
What Turnbull has long felt in his gut — and was finally able to articulate into a solid policy response yesterday — is that the weakness of the NBN policy is also the weakness of the Labor movement itself: It’s a big government solution, with big government money, to a problem which probably requires a much more targeted, intelligent and minimalist approach.
As Australia’s chief cheerleader of the ‘small l liberal’ movement — as opposed to the more moderately right-wing Christian conservatism which Tony Abbott represents — the NBN has never sat well with Turnbull. And the truth is, it’s this philosophical issue which is why the NBN remains so contentious amongst much of the population today.
Fellow ‘small l liberals’ like myself have long found ourselves caught between the technological allure of universal fibre to the home and the hard economic reality of a $43 billion government intervention into and forced restructure of a telecommunications sector which had already been rapidly improving its offerings over the past decade of competition.
Australians, by and large, want fast broadband; that’s a truism. But in an age where society is speeding up and becoming more nimble, market-focused and flexible, to voters who have lived through decades of privatisation pain and deregulation under first Paul Keating and then John Howard, and with the economic disasters of failed European and American economies looming over the globe like a noxious shadow, the billion dollar contracts which NBN Co is currently lavishly throwing in glorious bunches to its contractor suitors have started to smell a lot like the mistakes of the past.
In this context, and as I have long argued, many of the elements of the Coalition’s new NBN policy unveiled yesterday make complete and obvious sense.
The destruction of value inherent in the shutdown of the HFC networks — a technology which is still being actively used and developed around the globe — has long stuck in the craw of many Australian technologists, and Turnbull would halt this anti-competitive madness and reverse it.
The Coalition has long been wary of the separation of Telstra, but half a decade of furious debate has generated a consensus around the issue: Telstra must not remain wedded to its copper network, and a Coalition NBN policy which did not include this as a key focus would be no policy at all. Turnbull has long been shifting the Coalition into accepting this fact and yesterday’s announcement formalises it and adds bite to its previous anaemic policy approach.
Supplying Australia’s regional and rural population with satellite and wireless has been a long-standing policy of both the Coalition and Labor, and Turnbull is right to keep it on the list. Just as long as he doesn’t mention the words “OPEL” again, rural Australia will doubtless be pretty happy with any investment in this area.
There are also other tasty morsels written between the lines of Turnbull’s speech. A focus on the successful Ultra-Fast Broadband policy which is unfurling in New Zealand also implies the potential to break Australia’s telco deadlock with other players; New Zealand’s wholesale market has been shaken up by the entrance of several electricity providers, with their long expertise in deploying and operating underlying infrastructure.
There is no reason to suggest that the same picture couldn’t emerge in Australia, with our much larger electricity providers — some of which are newly cashed up through privatisation and looking for new sources of growth. It’s an outcome which we suspect former AAPT chief executive Paul Broad — long a critic of the NBN policy — would look forward to with relish.
And the use of more targeted Government funds in areas where private sector investment has failed is more than just a solid alternative to the blast furnace approach of the NBN. It makes common sense. Government’s role should never be to use its legislative and budgetary powers to steamroll an entire sector. As Turnbull has always pointed out, Government should only step in where the market has failed. And with much of Australia currently enjoying decent broadband speeds from a range of providers; it’s hard to argue that the telecommunications market is the walking disaster which Labor often makes it out to be.
Now, of course, there are a number of obvious problems which Turnbull will face in implementing his fledgling NBN alternative.
Perhaps the largest one will be explaining to the electorate why — as Communications Minister Stephen Conroy pointed out this morning — the NBN project as a whole is being “cut up” in mid-flight, with more than a million Australians already enjoying fibre to their house and the rest clamoring for the same.
An obvious second will be bringing Telstra — which has already engaged in a gargantuan legal negotiation once with the Government over the past 18 months — to the table yet again for another complex restructuring exercise. And a third will be convincing the rest of the telecommunications sector that Australia’s political sphere has any legitimacy or consistency at all when it comes to an industry which has seen more changes in policy over the broadband issue over the past decade than a leopard has spots.
However, with his greater personal understanding of the sector (compared with Conroy’s gruelling and incomplete self-education process) and his ability to use his personal charisma to smooth over trouble spots, Turnbull is well-positioned for these battles. As he demonstrated yesterday, the Member for Wentworth has already anticipated many of the arguments his opponents will use against his fledgling new policy.
In addition, telco sector luminaries such as iiNet chief Michael Malone and his TPG colleague David Teoh have long been hedging their bets when it came to the NBN anyway; continuing ADSL DSLAM rollouts, making acquisitions and launching new services that will ensure their companies’ growth regardless of what happens in Canberra. We need no longer really consider Optus part of the major picture when it comes to the future of fixed broadband in Australia; the SingTel subsidiary has largely checked out of the fixed broadband market and is almost wholly focused on the mobile sector; an area where it can make better returns and not be hamstrung by government regulation.
In short, the sector will survive further change. It always does.
Perhaps the greatest threat to Turnbull’s vision is actually the former Opposition Leader’s own divided loyalties.
It’s hard to imagine the Coalition going to the next Federal Election being led once again by the ageing Tony Abbott. With his right-wing views, his unusual attitude towards women and his refusal to show compassion on soft issues such as the one surrounding refugees, Abbott has increasingly become an anachronism who does not fit well into modern Australian society.
Many Australians believed the 2010 election would have been better fought between Turnbull and Julia Gillard’s ousted predecessor Kevin Rudd; and it remains unclear who the next contest will be between. However, one thing is certain. Were Turnbull to sideline Joe Hockey somehow and re-take the leadership of the Liberal Party, he would doubtless triumph over Julia Gillard, who has lost the faith of much of the electorate and is now commonly labelled a liar.
Were this to happen, Turnbull would get the chance to put the Coalition’s shining new NBN policy into practice; but in an ironic twist, his ascension to the Prime Ministership would leave the actual implementation in the hands of someone else as Communications Minister — and perhaps someone with even less understanding of technology than Conroy himself.
Many will label former Optus executive and Member for Bradfield Paul Fletcher as a worthy candidate … but the fact remains that Fletcher does not yet have the party seniority for such a role. A junior ministership would be the natural first post for Fletcher in the near future, despite his telecommunications sector experience.
Whether such a change of leadership would leave the Coalition’s NBN policy without sufficient oomph to proceed on a rapid-enough basis to achieve decent outcomes during a Coalition Government’s first term remains to be seen. However, at least it has a decent chance of being successful. In the meantime, sure, for now, the NBN is going ahead. But for the first time since deregulation in 1997, the Coalition finally has a decent telecommunications policy to oppose it. It’s game on from now on in, and the entire future of Australia’s telecommunications sector is up for grabs.
Lastly, a reminder for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.
Minister, this morning you laughed on national television that you spent all your life “on geek websites” these days, and apologised to journalists for using technical terms in a press conference. “Sorry if you’re not a tech-head or a geek,” you told them.
I feel it timely to remind you that these “geek websites”, as you call them, have shaped the entire future of Australia’s telecommunications industry. It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually the entire state of broadband competition in Australia over the past decade has been driven by broadband forum Whirlpool, which has painstakingly scrutinised the actions of all of the major players since it was established a decade ago.
These “geek websites” also played a pivotal role in reporting during the 2010 Federal Election, constantly debating issues which both sides of politics have acknowledged were crucial to Labor gaining the tiny margin of Government which it now holds.
Throughout your time in politics, Minister, you have demonstrated an enduring contempt for “geeks”; especially when it comes to contentious matters such as the NBN and the Internet filter project. And yet it is upon the shoulders of these “geeks” which the implementation of your NBN policy rests. I urge you not to take them lightly, and I would point out that one of the attractions of Malcolm Turnbull to this segment of the electorate is that he does not.
Governments, Communications Ministers and NBN policies will come and go, and yours may not survive past 2013. However, the geeks … the geeks will inherit the Earth.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
You are going to piss off a lot of NBN white knights with this piece ;)
Yup, but I’ve already had three re-tweets on Twitter from people who agree with it :)
I strongly, thoroughly disagree with your views here, Renai. It’s utterly foolish to believe that the telecommunications sector will pull its head in and do the right thing, even with a few well-placed dollars here and there from the Federal Government (whomever that may be at the time). Telstra are earning a cool $8 billion a year or thereabouts from their monopoly on fixed-line communications. They will never allow themselves to be completely separated, despite what they might put forward as their official position, and nothing short of the Government legally resuming them would change that. I don’t think I need to point out why resumption of a large corporate entity like Telstra is a supremely bad idea as far as foreign and domestic investment in Australia is concerned. Anybody who doesn’t understand those possible ramifications needs to step away from the whole NBN argument and get a CAT scan instead.
Turnbull is a fruit-loop if he thinks that HFC is an answer. Telstra and Optus individually spend tens of millions of dollars every year keeping their HFC networks running, and any engineer with experience in such technology will tell you that HFC is even more prone to serious reliability problems than the existing POTS network. Every winter, massive temperature fluctuations cause ingress faults that are a major pain in the arse to track down and repair. Every time it gets windy, amplifiers and gateways go offline due to getting knocked about (often savagely). Above all else, HFC is still a shared-spectrum technology, albeit split up a bit more than your average mobile network. There are obvious limitations on how many users can be connected to a single node, and splitting nodes to the point of having a gateway on every street corner is an idea that’s almost as bloody ridiculous as having wireless broadband towers on every block.
When will you people learn that the NBN is the best possible option for bringing the fixed-line telecommunications sector back into line? Yeah, it’s a boatload of cash that’s being spent, but don’t you think it’s far smarter to spend the money and get it 100% correct right now, as opposed to spending as much money or even more in the future trying to correct a half-arsed job? If we can’t even learn from our own past mistakes, let alone the mistakes of others (AT&T anyone?), then what possible hope do we have of getting things right at all?
Ahhh, GPON is also a shared spectrum technology.
Aside from the fact that this piece made me lose respect for you Renai, I’m finding it hilarious how even Liberal voters are finding the proposal. From TheAustralian comments: “The NBN is about the future of Australia as a smart country. The Turnbull plan is about being able to download porn at the lowest price.”
How is all those monopolies Telstra created overseas from its profits going Merlin?
Generally if you make ridiculous claims, your the one that should back it up
He doesn’t back up anything, fires from the hip stays low for a week or so after reading all the responses that ripped his points apart, comes back fires from the hip again , and the whole BS cycle starts again.
“The NBN is about the future of Australia as a smart country.”
implementing Labor’s NBN means:
1/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to renationalise the fixed-line sector;
2/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to mandate “universal fibre extravagance”;
3/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to shutdown all other competing fixed-line platforms.
that would make us the DUMBEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (and the world’s laughing stock).
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 and I quote from their list of demands:
Congratulations. You’ve uncovered the Da Vinci Code secrets behind Das Kapital!
Of course, he could just have been talking about the RTA.
There’s no magic code, it means exactly what it appears to mean.
I’ve actually been within the inner corridors of the Labor party. Most Australians are not aware that they greet each other as “comrade”….. victory to the PLO and all that stuff…..
What a load of Tosh.
You say: 1/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to renationalise the fixed-line sector;
I say: prove it, preferably with credible links.
You say: 2/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to mandate “universal fibre extravagance”;
I say: Same as point 1 but I object to the phrase “universal fibre extravagance” – it is emotive and inflamtory. Seriously Tosh make a objective argument or stop making yourself look sillier.
You say: 3/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to shutdown all other competing fixed-line platforms
I say: So?
You say: that would make us the DUMBEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (and the world’s laughing stock).
I say: All that is in your own, not so humble, opinion. I notice you conviently ignore the praise from many parts of the world that the NBN has garnered: even from the British Tories (shock horror… you mean the British Liberal party? The people that the Australian Liberal Party are modelled on? Really?)
*You say: 1/ we’re THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to renationalise the fixed-line sector;
I say: prove it, preferably with credible links.*
link to news articles announcing that the governments of X, Y and Z countries have just decided to NOT re-nationalise their telecoms?
LOL
how about you link me to a news article saying that a tornado DID NOT sweep through midwest of USA uprooting thousands of properties, killing thousands of people…. or a news article proclaiming that the President of India was NOT assassinated while he was snoring in bed last night.
LOL
oh, how i miss the WP “links” game ;)
*stop making yourself look sillier.*
who’s next?
@ V for Vendetta
“I notice you conviently ignore the praise from many parts of the world that the NBN has garnered: even from the British Tories ”
What praise from the world, and what praise from the British tories?
“(shock horror… you mean the British Liberal party? The people that the Australian Liberal Party are modelled on? Really?)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia
The British Party is not mentioned once as it being the model in the Aust Liberal Party history.
http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Our-History.aspx
Nope not here also.
Really?
@V for Vendetta
“praise from many parts of the world that the NBN has garnered: even from the British Tories”
I Googled this and could not find a thing. Please provide a link to something…..?
The problem I have with the plan is I have no idea how it would solve my particular broadband woes. I am about 3km from my exchange but get very poor ADSL speeds due to a local AM radio tower. How the NBN would fix this is obvious, there would be fibre connected to my house.
However, there is no HFC in my area, so what exactly is Turnbull proposing to build in such a situation? FTTN would only partially fix the issue, because its the last mile of copper that is the problem.
“get very poor ADSL speeds due to a local AM radio tower”
?
I’ve never heard of this sort of problem before. Are you saying the radio signal is interfering with the copper?
Yes indeed. When I first moved into the place I had an unshielded phone and I could hear ABC Radio louder than my friend I was talking to.
Basically the copper acts as a massive antenna, I’m about 1km from the tower so I can get ADSL but much slower than I should be able to sync at. People closer to the tower can’t get ADSL at all.
Theres a thread on the Whirlpool forums about it here
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/390504
Actually there is a better thread here
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1244752
The problem with a patchwork plan like Turnbull’s is that it isnt clear whether these sorts of issues, or RIMs/Twisted Pairs would actually be fixed or if those people would just simply be out of luck like they are currently. With the NBN it is very clear these issues will be fixed.
What percentage of the population are near AM transmission towers adversely affecting their ADSL?
Assuming the Coalition plan for your area is FTTN not FTTH and that’s a big assumption anyway, what makes you think FTTN will not fix it ?
What makes you think FTTN won’t fix the problem?
FTTN recycles the copper cable that is in the ground, so obviously if the copper cable is what is attracting the signal, then shorting the exposed cable may help, but will not entirely remove the problem.
In the case of this (isolated) problem, the cables will have to be completely replaced, either with a more heavily shielded variant, or fibre.
Is this a massive problem that is having a detrimental effect on FTTN uptake overseas including NZ?
Actually it would fix the problem, because the node would be moved closer to the home, and up until that node its going to be all fiber
So depending on where the tower is, where there used to be copper there easily would be fiber (since the node got displaced)
Also remember, due to the mathematics of SNR, the losses from interference get much much much worse the further you are from exchange (same reason why VDSL2 starts dropping so sharply at certain distances)
In any case, Malcom is mandating a 12mbit speed, so if its not possible that speed through copper, then they will install fiber to your place (or extend HFC)
FTTN implies shorter copper, shorter copper means less antenna, means less noise pickup.
Also HFC uses quad-shielded coaxial cable which has vastly better noise immunity than what an unshielded twisted pair gives you, and anyhow HFC works in L-band (approx 1GHz) which is a decent distance away from AM radio bands (approx 1MHz), or FM radio for that matter (approx 100MHz).
I don’t think its very clear at all..
There’s instances of some households with current DSL access not being in the NBN fibre areas
There’s also no guarantees that NBNCo will in the future quickly repair fibre should it be damaged
And no guarantees that NBNCo will continually upgrade transmission equipment in older areas to keep up with latest and greatest. Over time its possible that initial NBN areas will suffer congestion issues.
You do understand that FTTH GPON shares 2.4 gbit/s between 32 users, right? Upcoming XGPON shares 10 gbit/s between 32 users. It’s literally impossible to experience congestion on an all fiber network. It simply can’t happen. And fiber is much easier to repair than copper due to a complete lack of electrical properties. And why wouldn’t NBNCo repair lines? That’s a basic part of its business.
that’s just the ACCESS NETWORK. do you know how much it costs to provision international bandwidth at even, say, 12.5Mbit uncontended? it costs $20,000/km to lay fibre over the ocean beds and we’re thousands of kilometres away from the major continents of internet significance.
yes, we can build local data centres to mirror iTunes’s entire catalogue. but, for fuck’s sakes, taxpayers should not be spending $50bln to subsidise Apple or Microsoft or Google’s business model or private profits.
*Lol you’re the most desperate liar I’ve seen on this board.*
trolling.
*Half the time I honestly think you’re drunk.*
trolling.
*Since when is all internet traffic international you blithering idiot?*
and what % isn’t for a country like Australia, unlike the US?
*When you have FTTH reaching 93% of the populace why on EARTH wouldn’t you build local caches?*
because with a CVC of $20,000/Gbit, FTTH would be no different to ADSL?
*You realize such PRIVATE INVESTMENT would help Australia’s economy*
spend $50bln to entice, say, $5bln “private investment” in “local data centres”? why bother? why not lower taxes by $50bln and have $55bln in PRIVATE INVESTMENT instead?
if you like “Labor stimulus” so much, why don’t you go stimulate yourself (wanker) instead?
*you illiterate drunkard?*
trolling.
You honestly think a $36 billion infrastructure investment will attract only $5 billion in private investment? The entire history of government infrastructure projects contrasts with your irrational conclusions.
International transit is at $40,000/gbit, twice as high as CVC. So yes building data centers in Australia with infinitely lower latency makes economic sense. CVC can also be lowered easily by the ACCC.
*You honestly think a $36 billion infrastructure investment…………*
……. will crowd out $36bln of VIABLE PRIVATE INVESTMENT earning ROI DOUBLE, TRIPLE that of NBNco.
*The entire history of government infrastructure projects………..*
……is a history of COST BLOW-OUTS, TAXPAYER WASTE and WHITE ELEPHANTS.
*International transit is at $40,000/gbit, twice as high as CVC…..*
….. which is why internet geeks jerking off over 100Mbit… 1Gbit…. 10Gbit… download rates from torrents and cyberlockers are DELUDED.
Interesting, never thought about copper telephone lines ability to act as a massive antenna!
apparently, it also works in reverse…. people who run Ethernet at home over their internal house power lines using those Dick Smith kits can disrupt amateur radio enthusiasts miles away.
Internode reference these issues when discussing optimising ADSL2, under the heading:
The presence of non-ADSL spectral interference
“This can come from surprising sources – not just sources local to your house, but also from things as direct as a high powered AM Radio transmitter that is near to your copper line somewhere on its path back to your local exchange.”
http://www.internode.on.net/support/guides/internet_access/broadband_adsl/optimising_adsl2_/#Things_you_cannot_fix
“but get very poor ADSL speeds due to a local AM radio tower.”
How do you know this, have you asked the radio station to shut down while you do some tests?
BTW FTTN is not the same infrastructure as 3 km of copper from your residence to the exchange?
Somehow I doubt 891 ABC Adelaide will shut the radio station down so I can run ADSL tests. This is a known issue in my area, Telstra have been out several times and have concluded they can’t filter out the noise without disabling ADSL frequencies at the same time.
ADSL is more or less a bunch of AM radio stations sent down a wire.
The AM tower happens to sit smack bang in the meaty part of the ADSL carriers.
A carrier mask can be applied to mitigate the dropouts but at the cost of speed.
It’s a well known issue with the ABC tower in Adelaide.
If you have a half decent ADSL modem and a reasonably modern DSLAM it will automatically avoid the bands where interference is detected. That’s the whole idea of the training sequence and the bit swapping algorithm.
Yes, this does cut down total bandwidth and result in slower speeds. The DSL just does its best under the circumstances.
*the internet contributed $50 billion*
total fixed-line revenues (excl. large enterprise/corporate) is only ~$10bln. i presume by “internet” you mean the ICT sector in general. “ICT” does not equal “internet”. using your numbers, it’s like saying the Sydney Opera House contributed $10bln to GDP.
*The NBN is going to be a huge boost to the Australian economy and it’s going to open up lots of opportunities.*
an overly-costly infrastructure retards growth in the industry because all these other “opportunities” require a platform which is affordable in order to be viable. this is especially the case when you shutdown all other competing infrastructure (which are much cheaper to access).
*The cost of the NBN is only small compared to the benefits that it will bring to Australia.*
no other country in the world is spending “THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS” per capita to upgrade broadband. it’s more in the region of “hundreds of dollars” per capita even in the wealthiest countries.
As I linked yesterday…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-03/australian-digital-economy-tops-50b/2822196?section=business
And…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-04/internet-contributes-50b-to-gdp-annually/2823726?section=business
Gee I wonder who we should believe, eh Tosh?
ROLL ON FLOOR LAUGHING MY ASS OFF.
study commissioned (or paid for) by Google Australia.
“Google Australia managing director Nick Leeder discusses a new Deloitte Access Economics study claiming the internet contributed $50 billion to the GDP last year, as much as iron ore exports.”
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…….
oh dear…. vested interests abound…
If you have an issue with the methodology, I suggest you take it up with Deloitte.
i don’t have an “issue” with anything or anyone. i just know that’s just Google pushing its own corporate self-interest agenda by paying consultancies to prostitute their brand name to put out reports that paint the rosy picture they want.
put simply: affordable broadband stimulates growth in internet sector. super-expensive broadband kills internet adoption. it doesn’t take a genius to understand something so simple.
No, you obviously, have an issue with the NBN and the Labor party ;-)
So you’re criticizing something you’ve not even read, because you believe Deloitte would “prostitute” their brand in order to make a buck?
I mean, if you have a problem with the methodology, or the assumptions, sure, you’d have an argument. But all you’re doing is sticking your fingers in your ears, shouting “la, la, la, I’m not listening to you!”
let’s just say i’ve been around long enough to understand how the consulting world works…
Ah, the appeal to authority. “I’m older than you, and I know how the world works.”
Fair enough.
Its called bias, every company does it
Heck google claimed the NBN was a fantastic idea, but they even admitted they were biased towards it (and because it would make it easier for everyone to watch youtube)
Google paid for the study, but if there is any bias in the result, you need to “blame” Deloitte who actually conducted it.
Of course, nobody claiming bias seems to have actually read it…
… and that’s using ADSL, HFC and wireless.
… and that’s using ADSL, HFC and wireless
exactly, just think what it’ll be like when it’s on the NBN ^_^
Not a lot, since there aren’t many quantifiable benefts when moving from HFC/ADSL2+ speeds to NBN speeds apart from 3D media, which there is almost no market in
Is there a massive benefit when going from <12mbit speeds, yes there is
There is no linear relationship between speed and productivity, and it never has been
When asked to point out the extra productivity benefits in HFC and FTTH Greenfield areas or other fibre areas covered such as TransACT cable in Canberra that have been using it for years there is a deafening silence.
Of course NBN fibre is a special ‘high productivity’ sort of fibre that only allows the insatiable demand for interactive dance mats and across state border choir singing.
:)
@Alain – you forgot World of Warcraft….
Another legitimate opinion piece, thanks Renai.
Particularly liked the ending – I also believe it’s not an exaggeration that if it wasn’t for the geeks, Greens & Labour would have never won the election. Further more, as someone who was out on the streets holding pickets calling Conroy a Conman for his filtering shenanigans, I was willing to forgive and forget (as we successfully got the legislation buried just before the election) because of how tasty this NBN deal was. However, if we have an opposition with a plan that still splits up Telstra, and gets broadband to the bush – I believe the geek community will tell Conroy to go stuff himself, he isn’t needed or wanted any more [as if he was in the first place!].
@Merlin
“Look at how much profit Telstra ALONE makes annually. $4-5 billion a year. If NBNCo earned just Telstra’s profits it could pay off the network in less than 10 years.”
Well it might if it retailed BB as the biggest ISP in Australia with the largest BB customer base and had a wireless network as big as Telstra’s with the largest customer base for both mobile telephony and data, NBN doesn’t so it won’t pay off the network in 10 years or anywhere near it.
Taxpayers will be propping up this NBN turkey until it is sold at the great 2020 garage sale when Telstra is the only Telco interested in buying it.
This isn’t win. This is political gamesmanship.
$10b for X speed.
How much for the next upgrade to 2X speed?
How much for the next upgrade to 4X speed?
…
…
…
How much for the next upgrade to nX speed?
All he had to do was come up with a plan that costs less, and the people who don’t understand will think he’s a genius.
Check the poll here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-net-plan-rejects-the-need-for-speed/story-fn59niix-1226107787577
Even the traditionally anti-NBN audience of The Australian isn’t convinced:
The Coalition has unveiled a $10 billion public-private NBN proposal to upgrade existing infrastructure instead of laying fibre across the country.
The Coalition is on the money
38.35% (451 votes)
Labor’s NBN plan is better
61.65% (725 votes)
Total votes: 1176
@Micheal Wyres
Even the traditionally anti-NBN audience of The Australian isn’t convinced:
By what amazing powers of deduction do you reach the conclusion the readers of the The Australian are traditionally anti-NBN?
@alian
Common sense, indeed…it either shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to get the usual vibe from them in regards to the NBN, or “they” are typical astro-turfers.
Since you’re such a fan of quoting statistics and numbers, and what they variously mean, I thought you’d be interested in those particular numbers.
So that’s a no then, you don’t actually know.
No, it’s an “it’s pretty bloody obvious”, which I’ve already said.
You were too busy being obtuse to notice.
alain, play nice…
stop trying to grab those straws from Michael’s clutching hands.
Also if you knew anything about demographics, most of The Australian readers read it in paper form, not online
Those poll reviews are skewed mainly due to the NBN proponents that all flocked from whirlpool the minute it got mentioned in the IT news section
The Whirlpool glee club stacking polls?, who would have ever thought!
LOL
Tinfoil hats, lol.
I’ve been watching the threads in Whirlpool. The WP NBN regulars are watching to see whether the poll gets deleted because nobody has admitted to voting multiple times, and lolling at the results because it’s vote stacking isn’t needed.
Great chuckles all round really. The Libs plan denounced by online readership on a pro-Liberal site, ROFL
@Murdoch
Yeah right Murdoch pull the other one, I remember the Telstra site NWAT use to run polls and Whirlpool ran active threads persuading members to go in there and vote negative, sure enough previous polls that ran around the 100’s suddenly had a increased polling base that ran into the thousands when mentioned in Whirlpool, all in the space of 24 hours.
lol, I don’t care whether you actually believe me or not. Makes a great chuckle to my (and other’s) Friday. I’m not here to convince you. Other’s can share in the laughs though.
You can conspiracy theory all you like, that can add to the Friday humour. Have a look at it, in WP if you like where the exact figures are being posted just in case Rupert’s mob deletes it in embarrassment..
“lol, I don’t care whether you actually believe me or not. ”
I don’t.
“You can conspiracy theory all you like,”
So the Whirlpool thread titled ‘How can NBN fight the FUD and WIN?’ now in Part 2 which devotes at least two columns to the Australian poll means that no one from ant-Telstra, pro-NBN and pro-Internode Whirlpool voted and stacked the poll?
LOL yeah sure.
” Have a look at it, in WP if you like where the exact figures are being posted just in case Rupert’s mob deletes it in embarrassment..”
No it’s still in the Australian, and you can still vote, now there is the real conspiracy theory, your comment that it will be deleted.
“So the Whirlpool thread titled ‘How can NBN fight the FUD and WIN?’ now in Part 2 which devotes at least two columns to the Australian poll means that no one from ant-Telstra, pro-NBN and pro-Internode Whirlpool voted and stacked the poll?”
I’m assuming you’ve read it. If anyone did I don’t think it would be enough to swing the vote 60% for Labor. I’m mean seriously, you think that 200 odd people got on there and voted 3-4 times on different devices? LOL
“No it’s still in the Australian, and you can still vote, now there is the real conspiracy theory, your comment that it will be deleted.”
Yep, it’s still there, thank goodness. And another article’s propped up, about how online polling is skewed. Gee, maybe they conspiracy theory as much as you do.
If you look at the small sample size of the votes, then yes it is easily possible
Somehow I don’t think our NBN discussion is THAT popular. The long time posters in there rean’t particularly interested, me included. Besides, if you read the thread, we wanted to see how it would turn out. You’ll even notice in the last day or so that we think there’s vote stacking going on NOT BY US but someone else because the numbers have suddenly taken a jump in Labour’s favour than the first couple of days.
Go figure.
@Murdoch
“Somehow I don’t think our NBN discussion is THAT popular.”
Let’s just look at the ‘How can NBN fight the FUD …..’ thread in WP.
Part 1 went to 85 pages 1682 posts and was read by 14716.
Part 2 is sitting at 193 posts and read by 1145.
That’s just one subject in multiple threads devoted to the NBN that has its own forum on Whirlpool.
Not that popular? – LOL.
Let’s just look at the ‘How can NBN fight the FUD …..’ thread in WP.
Part 1 went to 85 pages 1682 posts and was read by 14716.
Part 2 is sitting at 193 posts and read by 1145.
That’s just one subject in multiple threads devoted to the NBN that has its own forum on Whirlpool.
Not that popular? – LOL.
Errr you do know that every time the thread is looked at, even by current posters, that a hit is pipped don’t you? Even pressing F5 triggers it. So if that’s the equation you’re using to measure popularity …. LOL back at you.
Your point is what? no WP members took part in the Australian poll?
“Your point is what? no WP members took part in the Australian poll?”
No Mr Extremist. My point is that WP members (at least in that discussion), actively DID NOT attempt to stack the poll, but watched it with interest, especially so when the poll is posted on a pro-Liberal site. Turnbull has got it very wrong indeed according to the Australian reader’s opinion.
@Murdoch
So your argument is that WP members did not stack the poll because a few that posted comment in WP said they didn’t (BTW which means nothing) so therefore the few that commented speak for all WP members and all of those that read the thread and so therefore it didn’t happen.
Jeez that was easy, brilliant deduction.
lol @ alain.
Tell you what … how’s about you actually prove that the poll is stacked first before attacking my current example that elsewhere people were interested in the disparity between the known bias of the site vs the actual numbers reflected in the poll.
Just because you say it’s stacked doesn’t make it true, lol. And not even likely. Double lol.
Keep your tinfoil hat on lest “they” affect your brainwaves.
This is awesome. Even TheAustralian’s filtered comment system can’t hide the massive discontent among voters with Malcolm’s “plan”. I’m quite pleased with the fact that the unwashed masses are able to see through Turnbull’s deception.
Malcolm isn’t designing an NBN to satisfy internet geeks, but to satisfy the needs of the average Australian. the average Australian doesn’t give a fuck about downloading at 100Mbit.
if you want fibre, go pay for it yourself. the rest of the country couldn’t give a toss about NBNco fibre and Alcatel’s marketing spiel.
+1 @ Tosh
Define “very poor ADSL speeds”.
To me sounds like a problem with your router, not the network coming to your house. Is it wireless or fixed line to your computer?
I’m assuming this was a reply to me.
Around 1/3 of what I should get on my length of copper. I should get around 6000/1000 but I get 2000/1000. It is definately the line, I have tried 4 different routers on the line and the current one (Billion 7800N) performs the best. The brand new FritzBox I got from Internode is too fussy to connect at all.
But really this is an aside to my main point. There are plenty of broadband blackspots and greyspots around the country, and it isn’t clear how Turnbull’s plan will fix them. With the NBN plan, it is.
Thats sad. I’m currently in a Third World country and am getting around 3400 (4Mbps plan) and can get the same almost anywhere and in some places can get 10,000Mbps plans.
I wouldn’t be waiting for the NBN, that could take ten years. Instead I would be jumping up and down, gathering forces and demanding the problem be fixed…. there is also the communications ombudsman if you don’t get any joy.
12 years ago Telstra put in 8 poles to bring a line to my mining camp (and many more to others) in far outback NSW. If they can do that, then certainly they can fix your line in a more populated area.
Backslider:
The problem isn’t the regulation, it’s how the network was layed out from the get go.
The copper network, was designed specifically with the peace of mind of being a Telephone Service.
Thats why a half assed solution, from the usual suspects, basing on cost cannot be solved using Coalitions plans, you will still have the same issues under the Coalitions plans because the copper network is the weakest link.
@Daniel
I don’t think that you understand me correctly.
We all know that there will be latency over the internet. For example, I am on a 4Mbps plan (outside Australia), however my real speed, say to sites in the USA, is around 3.4Mbps. This is to expected. I know for a fact that the speed to my exchange far exceeds 4Mbps.
However, if Brad is on a Telstra plan at say 24Mbps, then he MUST get this speed at least to his exchange. The kind of problem he is talking about is not acceptable latency. Thus, if he cannot get any joy from Telstra, the Communications Ombudsman is the appropriate recourse.
Telstra cannot sell a 24Mbps plan that is unable to deliver the speed, simple as that.
Its a sad fact that individuals in Australia tend not to know or stick up for their rights.
Sorry for the typo…. sleep kicking in here, thats 10,000Kbps (10Mbps)
Yes…7:35 again off to bed now precious and again leave this to the adults, sleep tight!
How many times now have you been banned for trollling? You post under multiple names, yet not even one occasion have you posted anything at all that adds to discussion, just trolling and FUD
Oops, fed the troll again… just wait for the idiocy….
Indeed, what is the point of having a ban if you can continue on as if nothing happened, you don’t even have to change the way you post and the reasons why you were banned twice in the first place.
“it isn’t clear how Turnbull’s plan will fix them”
Turnbull’s patchwork plan will fix it like this: let’s just say they end up going with the FTTN option because of the “cards they are dealt” the max speed will be something like 60/10mbps according to him. 90 something percent will be covered by FTTN with this plan and they will claim it as a monumental success even though the majority of that 90% cant actually get 60/10mbps. We’ll hear a few mumblings about how HFC will save us again (forget about the ones who dont have HFC) and 10 years after it is complete they will go “oh shit what a waste of money that was, we should have done FTTH the first time”
Actually 90% of us, according to conroy, do get ADSL2+ speeds currently (he said 1 million Australians cannot get ADSL2 speeds, thats 1 in 20)
ADSL2+ speeds are “up to” numbers so are the FTTN numbers. News at 11.
So, what kind of numbers a FTTH numbers?
Are you kidding? FTTH numbers are 100% consistent. Oftentimes it’s overprovisioned, because bandwidth is so abundant on an all fiber network. Look at a comparison of US ISP providers here: http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1674729~8b5c55b490a3f564767ea51901183e2c/peak.jpg
Verizon’s fiber service is consistently at 110% of provisioned speeds, and NEVER slows down, even during peak times. We’re talking 2.4 gbps to 32 users. Soon it will be 10 gbps. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for FTTH to have congestion. Everyone else on that chart is a HFC provider, except where it notes DSL. Do you see how bad cable can be? As more and more people start to use higher speed services, congestion will increase even more.
@Merlin – I think you need to understand the question.
As expected, HC is unwilling to reply.
I think you need to learn some basic facts about technology backslider.
Basic facts such as what? Basic facts like how your connection will be throttled to around 750Kbps on the NBN once you exceed your quota? Basic facts about internet latency regardless of your connection? Right!
Thats funny
Exetel advertises their fiber as “up to” as well
That throws your argument out the 5 story window
deteegod? what’s the story bud, you typoing an extra d accidentally or you now consider yourself godlike?
a truer reflection of the latest reincarnation from mal
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/265868,nbn-the-blowhole-and-other-political-analogies.aspx
that article is COMPLETE RUBBISH. totally ignores or downplays the economic issues of cost and affordability. just totally biased, pro-NBN political propaganda with muddled thinking.
one is rubbish that is for sure, but to say it’s the other one, i’d suggest is in the eye of a one eyed beholder
Anyone using the word “patchwork” in a derogatory sense is doing nothing more than shouting to the world that they have not the slightest idea about network engineering.
Interesting Article Renai. Well written, but I guess it does come down to an ideological line. It’s down a matter of personal faith in the market and it’s ‘invisible hand’. I personally believe that the market has failed over the last few decades. Even in areas that are profitable, it is easier to just leave infrastructure as is – and without a choice, there is little to complain about (or advocate for).
With the recent numbers of the Internet’s value to the economy, I think it’s a valuable piece of infrastructure that should be seen in the same scope as roads and our electricity network. Markets fail to invest anywhere other than where profit abounds – and in the case of our country’s need for a national way of accessing the Internet, there are much higher costs, and usually higher needs to boot where there is a lower probability of profit.
I honestly think that there is a lack of media responsibility in being informed on this issue. You provide excellent coverage, and I honestly have no idea why you aren’t on a national masthead explaining this issue in layman’s terms in an unbiased, technically-founded way. HFC has serious issues behind it. I’m currently living in two places. One is a HFC serviced place, with Telstra in a relatively wealthy suburb of Brisbane (I’m housesitting before you start to judge :P). The second is a Telstra Zone 3 acreage on the North Coast (serviced by a Internode ADSL2 Reach connection @ 17mbps/1mbps). I can honestly say, other than the bursts of blistering speeds that Telstra provides, it is not at all a stable connection. It doesn’t even whisper the standards that a Fibre connection can apply. If a Zone 3 connection is beating a Fibre/Coax connection in stability, it doesn’t speak much for the network. The sooner that pull it up IMHO, the better.
*generic lacking upload speeds argument*
Cheers!
Cheers for your comment Jack!
“I honestly have no idea why you aren’t on a national masthead explaining this issue in layman’s terms in an unbiased, technically-founded way”
I tried that for a while at the AFR … but the internal politics at the large newspapers are a bit savage, and I prefer to spend more time talking directly to the readers ;)
Renai
Does fluctuating speeds can have nothing to do with physical medium and everything to do with the network
Immediately blaming HFC on an assumption gets us nowhere
Thats like saying fiber is shitting because of TransACT in ACT, or even the NBN when the school got under effects of congestion
While it’s missing some important cost info, I’m glad to see that the opposition are finally putting together a more cohesive and presentable plan that we’ve seen up to this point. I’ve never been a major party voter, but I’ve lamented for quite a while that the only choices we seem to have is Labor and Anti-Labor. More rounded policies like this will go a long way to change my mind on that.
That said, that doesn’t mean I prefer this model.
The main reason is is that the HFC networks that seem to form the basis of this plan are relatively sparse and the rollout was not designed with a national broadband infrastructure base in mind. While I agree, reuse is normally the preferred route, the purist in me prefers the mostly homogeneous approach of the current NBN. While I’m also not an Apple fan, they’ve demonstrated that if you give people a common platform on which to build, where the endpoints are mostly uniform, developing new concepts and usage models become vastly simpler.
Still, good effort in finally raising the level of policy offerings from the Opposition, though I fear it really should have been done *before* the election last year.
+1
I think Renai must be having Malcolm’s baby..
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Malcolm’s just creating a plausible fantasy policy that people could feel comfortable supporting without any consideration of the real world practicalities of un-winding the NBN agreements and legislation, hence the ‘disclaimer’ buried in his speech.
Telstra will jump at the chance to reclaim its ownership and control of the fixed-line network in a heartbeat. right now, MT isn’t the Minister – so it’s just words. should the Libs win in 2013, all the doors at Telstra HQ will be open to discussion.
Considering what miniscule percentage of the population will actually be using the NBN by 2013 it’s not a issue, and that’s factoring in those that can get it but don’t want it., oh dear who would have ever thought eh?
“Just over half the 2600 premises in the Brunswick test site have agreed to have a fibre optic connection installed”
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/brunswick-locals-rolled-by-nbn-20110803-1ibq1.html
… and that’s when the connection is FREE!!
NBN, we cannot give it away.
I can cherry-pick too, alain!
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/383764/test_customers_go_live_armidale_nbn/
Armidale – over 90% take up rate for the NBN!
And the magnificent 7 actual subscribers. YES JUST 7 SUBSCRIBERS are 10 billion times more productive and profitable that they were. NOT ;-)
Oh and for the fools that say what about again I’ll save you the trouble what about the Tassie “trial” I hear you say. Its been about 18 months and the subscription rate is up to an unequivocal NBN UNVIABLE 6 % !!!!
It’s actually 18.
But of course, even 18 is an impressive number when the general public cannot order a service until October 1st.
But once again, I won’t let the truth get in the way of your mis-informed bullshit… :)
Yes, we should be looking at more realistic figures….. such as the 52% takeup rate in Brunswick.
Or perhaps we should look at figures such as Labor’s polling at the last election? Or their current perhaps?
@Micheal Wyres
“But of course, even 18 is an impressive number when the general public cannot order a service until October 1st.”
18 active users of hand picked trialists WTF!! and we are into the second year of the rollout and the NBN Co cannot even provide a voice service off the ONT yet.
This is the ‘new careful careful trial FTTH infrastructure’ that Telstra and others started rolling out to Greenfield estates years ago, pick one.
http://www.telstra.com.au/smart-community/find-smart-community/index.htm
http://www.opticomm.net.au/index.php/communities/our-communities
Impressive bah, more like depressive!
The ISPs pick the trial users…not NBN Co, or the government. Clearly, you’ve never had anything to do with the rollout of large technology project – something you demonstrate over and over and over and over and over again…
Of course you have no comment about the well established FTTH rollout in Australia by the likes of Opticomm, TransACT and Telstra, and treat the NBN FTTH as some sort of special infrastructure type that is somehow amazingly different from Greenfield estates all over Australia and the established suburbs of Canberra.
Perhaps you need to attend Telstra Velocity/OptiComm industry briefings instead of the NBN Co briefings and ask Telstra/OptiComm how they managed to do it?
@Jeff Petre
Stop trotting out the ‘it’s free why not’ connection figures as if that is some sort of reliable indicator of how many of those residences will go on and sign up for a ISP plan, Tasmania has shown this no indicator at all.
The Brunswick figures are bad because is the free connection!
Last time I checked, the population of Armidale isn’t even compatible to the population of Australia
*comparible
I think the problem with such a policy is that it wont fix one of the big issues we currently face with Telstra’s ageing copper network: huge differences in performance between locations.
Lets ignore the bush for the moment, even in metro areas the speed and quality of your connection varies wildly, indeed some people (like my in-laws) have no land-based broadband connection at all because they’re unlucky enough to live in a blackspot.
From what I understand the plan is for a mix of technologies, each which have their own strengths and weaknesses. However you will still have some lucky people on Fibre, some slightly less lucky on HFC / cable, those much less lucky on ADSL and those who are unfortunate enough only to get wireless.
In my opinion it does not do enough to fix the divide between those with good service, and those with bad service, especially those who have poor ADSL connections already.
Yes the plan calls for upgrading the copper network, but what exactly does that entail? How will that upgrade be future-proof? and what will it cost to upgrade the copper to the point where it can offer comparable speeds to fibre in the future when the demand for it is there.
While it may be expensive and seem like a huge gamble, I believe the NBN will provide the better outcome for Australia, were the vast majority have the same high quality connection rather than what will essentially be the exact same situation we are in now, but with higher average speed thanks to the mix of technologies proposed.
*Yes the plan calls for upgrading the copper network, but what exactly does that entail?*
replacing old, wet copper in blackspots and FTTN for the rest to lift the minimum line speed performance.
*How will that upgrade be future-proof?*
do corporations adopt a “least-cost, minimum standards” approach or a “gold-plated, latest, best & most expensive technology” approach to their internal infrastructure needs? which is a viable investment strategy and which is wasteful?
*and what will it cost to upgrade the copper to the point where it can offer comparable speeds to fibre in the future when the demand for it is there.*
much much less because of (capital) interest savings.
*the vast majority have the same high quality connection*
at what cost?
*but with higher average speed thanks to the mix of technologies proposed*
much cheaper and affordable.
*replacing old, wet copper in blackspots and FTTN for the rest to lift the minimum line speed performance.*
Assuming all the blackspots were fixed and everyone got FTTN, what line speed can we expect into the house? They wont be comparable to fibre speeds, at least not without adding a second par of copper wires to each house. That alone would be very expensive.
*do corporations adopt a “least-cost, minimum standards” approach or a “gold-plated, latest, best & most expensive technology” approach to their internal infrastructure needs? which is a viable investment strategy and which is wasteful?*
Thing is, we’re not talking about a corporation out to make money. This is a government elected to serve the citizens of the nation.
*much much less because of (capital) interest savings.*
So you believe that in (for arguments sake) 10 years time when the copper network needs a considerable upgrade/replacement that it + this would end up costing less?
I doubt that would be the case.
*at what cost?*
At a higher short-term, but lower long term cost I would argue.
*much cheaper and affordable.*
Being cheap and affordable doesn’t always mean its best.
If you’re out 4 wheel driving out in the country and you have the choice between a reliable, tough but expensive Toyota or a cheap, no-frills Great Wall; what do you think would be the better choice? I know what I would choose.
*They wont be comparable to fibre speeds*
why does it have to be?
*Thing is, we’re not talking about a corporation out to make money. This is a government elected to serve the citizens of the nation.*
NBNco is a corporation “out to make money”. 7% return on govt equity and market return on debt funding. if Labor can’t even find $50bln in the Federal Budget (deficit) to pay for its own political pet project (fibre extravagance), why do you think Abbott, Hockey or Turnbull will?
*So you believe that in (for arguments sake) 10 years time when the copper network needs a considerable upgrade/replacement that it + this would end up costing less?*
of course. there’s a thing called “opportunity cost” and “present value discounting”. $1 of cost (in real terms) incurred in the future is equal to less than $1 of cost (in real terms) in the present.
*At a higher short-term, but lower long term cost I would argue.*
nope, higher both.
*Being cheap and affordable doesn’t always mean its best.*
“affordability” is key to consumer attractiveness. look at the success of Aldi, Walmart, Woolies/Coles Home Brand, LG electronics, Clevo laptops, etc.
*why does it have to be?*
Right now and for many consumers it doesn’t, but it will in the future.
For businesses however, the advantages in speed, reliability and latency can be massive (depending on the business). If we even had 50Mbit speeds at work, I and the customer i support would be over the moon. We could enable all the IP conferencing and collaboration tools we’ve wanted for some time now but had to hold back due to lack of bandwidth.
*NBNco is a corporation “out to make money”. 7% return on govt equity and market return on debt funding. if Labor can’t even find $50bln in the Federal Budget (deficit) to pay for its own political pet project (fibre extravagance), why do you think Abbott, Hockey or Turnbull will?*
You make a good argument and I concede that point to you, however I still believe that a “good enough” approach is the wrong one.
*of course. there’s a thing called “opportunity cost” and “present value discounting”. $1 of cost (in real terms) incurred in the future is equal to less than $1 of cost (in real terms) in the present.*
I am not familiar with those terms so I will take your word for it. I argue that even with the potential lower cost in future for upgrading the copper network would still cost more and provide less benefit than the NBN rollout.
*nope, higher both.*
I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this point.
*“affordability” is key to consumer attractiveness. look at the success of Aldi, Walmart, Woolies/Coles Home Brand, LG electronics, Clevo laptops, etc.*
That may be so, that doesn’t make it the better choice however. Simply because something is popular does not make it better than something else. A $800 HP laptop is not going to be a better choice than a $1100 Apple laptop (and i say this as a former HP Employee).
This is just typican NBN-pro guff!
I have been conferencing over the internet for years at speeds of sub 1000Kbps…. not a problem whatsoever. Yes, video is a bonus if you have the speed, but certainly not at all essential for conferencing.
If a business requires high speed internet, then they can well and truly PAY for it, simple as that. If an individual requires super high speed, they can do the same.
The truth is that MOST Australians do not need or want the kind of speeds being floated around.
Anybody ever heard of “supply and demand”…???
BS nothing… almost everybody here is saying they already have broadband at much higher speeds than 1000Kbps…. 6Mbps+ perfectly good, even for your World of Warcraft.
Another stated that the official forecasts for NBN usage in 2020 will be 50% of the population using “entry level 12Mbps”, which is perfectly servicable with ADSL. Fibre to the node makes far more sense, since connecting fibre from there according to DEMAND is far simpler and more cost effective. For those only requiring “low” speed broadband, copper is just fine.
As already advised, you should really PAY for a business connection for your business… I’m sure you can have the speeds you drool over TODAY…… just PAY for it!
Nothing to lose eh RS, if your banned as Rizz just use another name and continue on as normal.
@Rizz
Exploiting banned loopholes is your only reason for existence.
*I have been conferencing over the internet for years at speeds of sub 1000Kbps…. not a problem whatsoever.*
That’s great if you’re a single user that does not use a WAN link for several other business applications.
In my case we have a 20Mbit WAN link that services 200+ users. This connection is used not only for internet access, but Exchange email, business applications, remote support and IM.
And if you think a corporate connection of that speed/capacity comes cheap, well you have another thing coming.
*Yes, video is a bonus if you have the speed, but certainly not at all essential for conferencing.*
Unless you’re speaking to clients overseas or having board member meetings. Then it is essential.
*If a business requires high speed internet, then they can well and truly PAY for it, simple as that. If an individual requires super high speed, they can do the same.*
Thing is, large businesses DO pay for it, but its STILL slow and REALLY expensive.
*The truth is that MOST Australians do not need or want the kind of speeds being floated around.
Anybody ever heard of “supply and demand”…???*
Most Australians were also happy to potter along with dialup for a very long time. Fact is there are several IPTV services that people DO want right now but many people CANT get it due to slow connections. That’s not even considering the next generation of web applications that can be enabled with increased bandwidth.
ah post fail. this was directed at Backslider.
*Fact is there are several IPTV services that people DO want right now but many people CANT get it due to slow connections. That’s not even considering the next generation of web applications that can be enabled with increased bandwidth.*
at what COST? NBNco is just a fraudulent accounting scheme where they capitalise all the massive costs incurred in overbuilding universal fibre access to almost everyone and then sit, pray and hope that subscribers will pay $80/mth wholesale to access all these “IPTV and next gen web apps” you talk about so they can pay off their massive $50bln debt.
if the Labor Government cannot find $50bln NOW in the Federal Budget (deficit) to fund its pet political project when mining revenues are at an all-time high, the entire scheme is just an impending fiscal train wreck waiting to happen. any debt issued by NBNco will be junk-rated and will have to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth, so taxpayers are in hock for the entire $50bln.
and why the hell is NBNco hiding behind FOI laws? why are they so afraid of having their financial budgets, models, forecasts of this MASSIVE PUBLIC PROJECT scrutinised? the same reason Bernie Madoff and other fraud merchants fend off investor/regulatory scrutiny – coz the entire scheme is massive taxpayer scam designed to commit and build everything first and worry about funding, viability, user cost or bail-outs later.
this is just crazy, irresponsible policy.
And your point is what? That the whole of Australia should pay to service the needs of your company? I think not.
To me it sounds like you are trying to get more out of the service than its capable of… essentially, you need to upgrade and not try and make one thing service everything.
Mattybo.
The entire argument about speed is irrelevant.
We’re faced with two choices. We can either get a fully fiber network that offers any speed you want, now and into the future, that costs the taxpayer nothing and ends up as an asset owned by the taxpayer.
Or..
We can have an el-cheapo FTTN network that actually costs taxpayers money, and in the end leaves the taxpayer with nothing of any value since a private monopoly will be the ultimate beneficiary.
Bit of a no-brainer really.
“that costs the taxpayer nothing
So how is the NBN rollout being paid for? – it’s really generous that all those contractors rolling out fibre and the fibre suppliers are doing it all for nothing, I didn’t realise that.
“and ends up as an asset owned by the taxpayer.”
The one Labor intends to privatise you mean.
“We can have an el-cheapo FTTN network that actually costs taxpayers money, and in the end leaves the taxpayer with nothing of any value since a private monopoly will be the ultimate beneficiary.”
So the comparison with FTTH according to you is only that the FTTN is cheaper.
“Bit of a no-brainer really.”
Umm, no I will leave that one alone tempting as it is. :)
*We’re faced with two choices. We can either get a fully fiber network…… ends up as…*
….a massive $50bln taxpayer bail-out / fiscal train wreck.
*Or…. We can have an [AFFORDABLE] FTTN network that actually costs taxpayers…*
…. ZERO (because Telstra is building FTTN with shareholders’capital).
*Bit of a no-brainer really.*
staring at a mirror?
” ZERO (because Telstra is building FTTN with shareholders’capital).”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all week (although we’ve only just got started).
Why would Telstra commit it’s own funds. They’ve had what? ~13 years since privatisation. Were they just warming up?
“If a business requires high speed internet, then they can well and truly PAY for it, simple as that. ‘
Yeah it’s funny how many businesses survive with what they have now a residential grade connection then complain when it falls over (bloody Telstra! – typical) and don’t want to pay for a business grade connection and surprise surprise back the taxpayer funded FTTH rollout all the way.
Your making it sound like this is a common problem
HINT: it isnt
Its just a few forgotten and vocal souls crying on whingepool and delimiter and whatnot that think everyone else has the same copper problems they do
*Your making it sound like this is a common problem
HINT: it isnt
Its just a few forgotten and vocal souls crying on whingepool and delimiter and whatnot that think everyone else has the same copper problems they do*
Granted the people in blackspots are in a small minority, but that does not mean we can simply ignore them. What IS common however is wildly varying connection speeds and line quality.
I’ve lived in several different houses/apartments and while the newly built places typically had pretty decent connections, the older places and those unlucky enough only to have Telstra equipment in the exchange were quite poor.
My friends and family have also had similar experiences. What i don’t want to see is the continuation of the current environment where some people being better of than others because they lucked out.
what sort of speeds did you get in old and new apartments? care to share?
The best place was a brand new apartment in Lilydale VIC (wife and I were the first tenants) living less than 1KM from the exchange – got around 23-24Mbps and a reliable connection.
Worst is an older apartment in St Kilda VIC, not sure distance from exchange- approx 3-5 Mbps with reliability was OK at best.
The rest have varied somewhere in between, right now i’m getting 10Mbps with a fairly unreliable connection in Kelmscott WA.
I’ve had it lucky compared to a few friends of mine, one which her connection drops every time it rains, another which was only able to get around 1.5Mbps for a very long time (cabling was eventually replaced).
thanks for sharing. most interesting.
I guess I’m lucky to have a 9Mbps ADSL2+ link in outer western suburbs of Sydney around 3km from the exchange. Though my friend, in the same suburb, at 3.5km could only sync out around 200kbps (yes thats right 200kbps). Though the thing is, my connection used to sync at 11Mbps, I’ve been with the same provider for some time now (iiNet) and have seen my connection sync speeds gradually drop. No new houses or anything are getting added to the area, no contention on my line (that I can notice) as I’ve never had problems hitting max download speed compared to the sync speed. At one point it dropped to 8Mbps, but I tweaked the router settings I found on whirlpool that increased my sync enough to stay up at 9Mbps.
I’m guessing in a number of years my connection will continue to degrade, and I highly doubt anyone will be paying to replace the copper. The NBN will be great, even though it comes with a high cost. The only thing the Libs plan will do is possibly slightly increase my sync speeds as long as they replace all the copper (last mile if FTTN), which will be costly.
Anyway, looking at the Libs plan, it seems they will spend years renegotiating contracts with the big 2 ISPs, with all the vendors etc, and will end up probably taking around the same time to complete, with less of an impact then the NBN will have. I’m going to assume the $10bn will be just for the plan itself, not counting the cancellation or renegotiation of contracts.
Hint: It Is
If any of you had bothered listening to Conroy this morning, he stated that 1.2 MILLION are unable to get broadband in Australia. 1.2M, that’s a minority sure, but a very large number of people. Not just a few disgruntled people on whirlpool like some would insinuate.
These aren’t all in remote rural areas either, there are black spots of no broadband in just about every major and regional cities.
As someone said in response to Turnbull’s plan on a news site today:
“If the private sector is driven by consumer demand why do we have the crap we have now?”
“As someone said in response to Turnbull’s plan on a news site today:
“If the private sector is driven by consumer demand why do we have the crap we have now?”
So everything was ok when Telstra was majority Government owned and previous to that 100%?
So, you believe Telstra have installed extra “crappy” into their network?
umm what?
Suspected you wouldn’t understand… :o)
oh I thought you would take the opportunity to explain it, not likely eh?
Comment still stands: umm what?
@ renai
“Fellow ‘small l liberals’ like myself have long found ourselves caught between the technological allure of universal fibre to the home and the hard economic reality of a $43 billion government intervention into and forced restructure of a telecommunications sector which had already been rapidly improving its offerings over the past decade of competition.”
Lol A rapid improvement eh? After how many years ??
But not to worry, private enterprise and the free market will take care of it. Yep. You bet ya.
Hmmmm, but then again if that’s the case then why under the coalition plan are they yet again offering taxpayers money for free (vouchers) given to private enterprise and the free market, to fix the ‘unprofitable’ areas and what do the taxpayers/nation get out of it ?? Oh. So private enterprise will only take care of the bits they can make money out of. As opposed to a govt providing a better solution and gaining an asset in the process
I suspect that as Turnbull admitted, the belief in free markets and competition, ingrained in the DNA of the Liberal Party, is blinding you to reality.
“I suspect that as Turnbull admitted, the belief in free markets and competition, ingrained in the DNA of the Liberal Party, is blinding you to reality.”
Let’s not forget I’ve been reporting on Australia’s broadband market now for about eight years. I personally reported the painstaking upgrade of Australia’s ADSL infrastructure every step of the way, as well as the gradual improvement of our mobile networks. That model may have been tough; but it got us a long way. More than most, I know the intricacies involved here :)
I too have been watching the thing called the internet, but in reality is much different to what yours is Renei.
We’ve gone from ADSL to ADSL2+, same network, same speeds, because the weakest link is the copper network.
Majority of the population doesn’t have DSLAM’s, and much less of a chance of getting any, where as under the NBN will get 93%, with room to improve later on.
If you guys, as well as those in National Party had any guts or ability to think for yourselves, you’d be doing yourself’s a great favor by ridding our copping network.
Telstra Network, It’s time go leave the house.
Tailgator follows a heavy socalist anti “private” agenda
You will have to great lengths to convince him otherwise, even though you know much more then he does in this area
Its kind of ironic that all these issues stemming from Telstra happened to due to socialist and government practices, not private. Telstra, just like NBN is supposed to be, was a government funded program that got sold to private enterprise.
Under government hands it was even worse then under the hands of Telstra, if anyone remembers the old Telecom days
Yes deteego and thank you for the response from the furthest, extreme right possible…!
Basically Turnbull wants the pre-NBN scenario, one (or two) private enterprise companies controlling Australia’s comms on behalf of shareholders NOT on behalf of average Aussies! Encouraging them to scrape the cream in profitable areas, at us “the sucker taxpayer’s (thanks alain) expense…And to exaserbate the problem, “us, the sucker tax payers (thanks again alain)” will also, foot subsidy bills (with no ROI) in the bush!
Taxpayers lose three times. Paying out, no ROI, no asset ownership… Zero, zilch…SFA…
So much for ROI, eh? Apparently only when it suits the dirty political agenda, is ROI an issue! And don’t forget wastage and all the other rhetoric…!
This is the largest and whitest ideological elephant yet…unfortunately, and all the typical lap dogs are lapping it up…!
No he wants to split and break up government monopolities, and private companies that got monopolies from governments
What happened with Telstra is evidence that create monopolies is a massive disaster, there is simply no justification for it. Our problems with Telstra would have never happened with they weren’t given a monopoly that they could bulldoze everyone with
The thing that is required the most, and what every other country has done (yes including Japan), is to split up the monopolies. Australia is one of the last countries to split up a monotholy, and that is what has been hampering the progress
LOL, so YOUR party privatised a vertical Telstra and after years of refusing to accept Telstra separation, they finally said ok.. and now you crow because they will finally break their own monopoly they created…
Telstra being privatized was the lesser of evils, because Telecomm under government control (believe it or not) was even worse then Telstra
Also, the liberal government needed funds to pay back the monstrumental debt that was left behind by the previous government
“It’s hard to imagine the Coalition going to the next Federal Election being led once again by the ageing Tony Abbott.”
Abbot is 3 years younger than Turnbull. Unfortunately I think it is all to easy to imagine the Coalition going to the next election led by Abbott – while they are ahead in the polls they will never change, and Abbot can point to the fact he nearly won the last election and is polling better personally now than he was then.
When we all had dial up in the 90’s, no one thought we’d want to watch movies or teleconference over the internet, since we had tvs for that. But the world has changed. We need to build capacity for future technologies. Turnball’s proposal will require compensation to telstra to use its copper, and limit it’s capacity, especially for people at the end of the loop.
Renai,
Only a rich man can afford cheap shoes.
I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that at some point, FTTH will be a necessity. Whether because the copper gave up the ghost or because the speeds are needed. The reason why is not really relevant. It’s just an inevitable course.
TCO for FTTN is higher.
Every single node requires power.
Every single node requires temperature hardened ISAMs.
It makes FTTH later less than optimal because of archetectural realities.
It costs more to do something twice (even 1.5x) than to do it once.
Do you realise that the nodes will only be able to service 2-500 customers? Same with the FDH’s. But the OLT’s can support 4000! Going FTTN then means when you upgrade you get stuck with OLT’s supporting 2-500 customers.
Far less than ideal. Far, far less.
Another point Renai,
The NBN assumes around 10m end users.
Let’s take that as a nice round number.
Now, let’s assume that that 10m end users is divided evenly per ISAM.
Ok, so an Alcatel 7302 ISAM can hold 18 slots. Minus 2 for the controller cards and you’re left with 16 slots available. A DSL card can support 48 customers. That’s 768 customers per ISAM.
10m/768=13020 ISAM’s required.
The same ISAM can support 16 GPON cards with 8 ports and each port can support 32 customers. That’s 4096 customers per ISAM.
10m/4096=2442 ISAM’s required.
Telstra state (1):
10. The Alcatel 7330 –Power consumption is approximately 3W per line.
Ok, so that’s around 2.4kw per ISAM for DSL. Or around 29,998kw per hour for the country.
Let’s tilt the scales and assume that GPON uses 3kw per ISAM. This amounts to 7,326kw per hour for the country.
Let’s annualise that.
DSL = 29,998*24*365=262,782,480kwh
GPON = 7326*24*365=64,175,760kwh
At around 15c/kwh:
DSL costs $39,417,372 annually to power.
GPON costs $9,626,364 annually to power.
Over 10 years, that’s $200m in electricity. Or to be green(2) that’s 640,049tonnes of CO2 saved. A modest dent, no?
(1) http://www.comcom.govt.nz/assets/Imported-from-old-site/industryregulation/Telecommunications/StandardTermsDeterminations/SubloopUCLLservice/ContentFiles/Documents/TelstraClear-letter-to-Commerce-COmmission-re-addtional-info-for-Subloop.pdf
(2) http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-footprinting/pages/conversion-factors.aspx
Your 2 comments made me shed a tear. I’ve always wanted to see these calculations done and the difference between FTTH and FTTN explained in such detail. I’m going to save these and bring them up whenever Liberal trolls appear.
You completely ignore the power at the customer end of course, and as for “green” technology, the NBN endpoints are going to have nicad batteries which would probably be the least green consumer item (OK, not quite as bad as murcury light bulbs, but next worse after that). Go away and find me a place in Sydney that will accept disposal of nicad batteries and mercury light bulbs and post their address and phone number here. I’ve searched, I can’t find anyone. I personally talked to Sims Recycling and they will take everything else but they absolutely will not touch batteries, nor mercury.
Anyhow, let’s for a moment presume your figures are accurate, you claim there’s an annual power saving to be made of $30 million… at 7% interest rate the $30 million will pay the interest on approx $430 million of investment, but the NBN costs 100 times as much!.
You don’t know what you are talking about
For one thing, yes every node does need power. Is this an issue?
m.,
No its not, FTTN (or FTTB) has been deployed commercially around the world, without any problem regarding power consumption, because its trivial. Hell Korea doesn’t even have FTTH, they have FTTB, and guess what, those nodes also have to be powered.
Hell if you kew anything about Fiber, you would realize you are simply transferring the power cost from the node to the end consumer (ONT), fiber does not magically use less power. In fact one of the main reasons in Japan for pushing so fast to FTTH, is that due to their laws, ISP/RSP resellers have to pay the power costs from NTT, so it was cheaper for them to use a FTTH service where the consumer pays for the power (this is not the case in Australia, or South Korea, or America)
And lastly, having powered nodes is a good thing, you know why? You can make a wireless base station every 1.5 km’s, something you cannot do with a passive PON system
Korea does have FTTH, they have FTTB which is Fiber To The Basement/Building, it is then moved into apartments via gigabit ethernet.
It is still FTTH.
FTTN is when the fiber goes to a box on the road side, terminates, and copper runs to houses several hundred meters away.
NBNco plan to use Fiber To The Basement/Building where possible, but unfortunately most Australians live in urban sprawl so we don’t have the levels of high rise South Korea does, this means FTTB is not a option, and FTTN would give crap speeds due to long distances.
In the high rise buildings in Australia, NBNco are doing _EXACTLY_ what South Korea have done.
Fiber does use less power, also, the main reason it uses less is because the entire process is digital, with DSL the DSLAM needs to convert the signal from digital to analog, send it down the copper line, then your modem has to cut out all the crap (line noise) then convert it back into digital. This uses immense amounts of power. Fiber does not need to do this because;
a) it’s digital the entire trip
b) there is no line noise!
No it is not
Korea has FTTB (Fibre to the basement), that is NOT fiber to the home, stop lying please. FTTP (or FTTH as some call it) means the fiber goes right into your door, i.e. to your premise. Japan has massive FTTP, South Korea does not
FTTB can only deliver a maximum of around 400/400 to everyone in an apartment (either by ethernet or by VDSL2), and in both cases there is a node (usually in the basement) to convert the optical signals to electrical
There is no tangible power difference between FTTH or FTTx (where x is not H). In every case, you are getting data from fiber which has to be converted to an electrical signal. In FTTH its at the house, in FTTB its in the basement of the apartment, in FTTN its in the node (since the backhaul is fiber it needs to be converted there)
Until we get optical computers, this will always be the case. You are just shuffling the cost around
Premise does not equal your front door, it equals your property, anywhere in your property. The basement is included on the premise.
Why don’t you go and setup a drug lab in your basement then claim to the cops you can’t be held liable because it’s not on your premise? You will get smacked upside the head so quick……
Either way you want to argue it, it’s a far cry from FTTN which was your initial arguement.
FTTB can also deliver more than 400/400, VDSL might not be able to but you do not need to use VDSL whatsoever, nor do many connections in South Korean apartments, if they did, the latency most connections in Korea exhibit would be impossible as you cannot get <5ms on VDSL, most of it is cat6a and it can deliver 10 gigabit so long as the wiring is efficient and does not exceed 200m runs.
When they are talking about appointment’s, premises means the actual apartment the person lives in, not the basement of the apartment
For houses, yes it can mean the basement, but that is because the household owner owns that basement. That is not the case for apartments
The distinction is very clearly explained on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x
“You don’t know what you’re talking about”
Oh the irony.
You realise that everyone already has a DSL modem, right?
ONT>DSL =Net 0 change.
You realise that applying 50VDC to a line requires more energy than flashing a laser, right?
You realise that heaps of this power literally goes to ground, right?
If I had a dollar for every short circuit fault I logged…
Hell even add in a router and you’re unlikely to use as much power as copper.
0 resistance. 0 crosstalk. Under 30db of attenuation and 4* faster.
I wish you’d stop spouting crap. What are you, 12?
And you do realize, that people with ADSL2+ only have one modem or device
With FTTH, you have 2, an ONT and another router. The ONT also happens to take more watts then any other router on the market (having to convert optical speeds to electrical signals at the rate it does)
Deeteego,
Do you think that at some point, FTTN will be upgraded to FTTH?
If so, then your point is moot.
We’ll be stuck with an architecture that requires 13020 ISAM’s vs 2442.
Laughably, they’ll only have 3 cards in them with 13 spare slots.
FTTN is not optimal.
PS, I have: Modem+ Router+ Swtich. Many others are in this boat.
Not saying that you’re technically incorrect. I can’t seem to find average wattage stats for ONT’s in a 30 second google search.
I do know that VDSL uses a lot more power than DSL2 to drive those high frequency signals further.
Even if you are correct, a hell of a lot of power goes straight to the earth with copper. A near impossibility with fibre.
I forget, what is your main objection to the NBN?
Is it the perception of wasted money or the ideology of free markets?
South Korea is stuck with that infrastructure
I don’t hear them crying about power issues
FTTH does not save any power, you are just transferring the power cost from the Node to the consumer. Have you seen how much power the ONT takes?
Until we get optical computers, you have to convert the optical signal from electricity somewhere. A single node services thousands of customers, so on a per customer basis the power cost between FTTx and FTTP is the same
Are you deliberately obtuse?
DSL requires 4x the number of ISAM’s.
Whether they’re in the same node or not doesn’t matter. There are still 4x more of them.
When you commit to this architecture, you are stuck with either 4x as many nodes, or nodes that contain 4x more ISAM’s than you need.
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/33/04/T33040000020008PDFE.pdf
Slide 12.
It looks like my sketched figures are on the high side for GPON.
They claim 80% savings in energy consumption. This means the ONT AND router combined would have to use a whole hell of a lot more than a DSL modem to match the overall consumption (CO & CE)
I don’t know what presentation you pulled out of your arse, but that slide you showed provides no reasoning or methodology on how they came up with their figure
Furthermore its apparent they are only taking into account the power figures for the nodes (or splitters) and POI’s/exchanges, and not the power costs for the consumer side which is exactly what I am talking about
The fact that there are 4x more ISLAMS is irrelevant because
1. Its duplication of infrustructure (companies install their own ISAM as they connect through to the exchange (you can’t do this under NBN, its not allowed))
2. You are disregarding the extra power caused by ONT (again). The ISAMS are larger for FTTN because they need to convert the fiber signal, which again is what I am talking about in the first place.
The whole point of the ISAM is multiplexing the data from the backhaul, which is from fiber
There is no power net saving cost, yes PON FTTH is cheaper, for NBNCo, it is not cheaper for the consumer, the costs are just being transferred. There is no not reduction in power, if you were to add the extra power cost from the ONT’s, and add them together for each person being served under the POI (or POP), you would realize that its not any different then what the power cost is today with ISLAM’s and xDSL
Deteego you have got to be one of the most idiotic trolls I have ever encountered. PON splitters are powerless you moron. They’re just prisms. It’s a verifiable fact that FTTN cabinets require a great deal of electricity and upkeep, and FTTN networks in general require much more maintenance and electricity than FTTH.
I would bother replying to what you said, but its clear you didn’t read anything I said
(you know that thng that NBN is installing in everyones house, that massive box, well yeah, that takes power, now add it up and compare it to how much power it ADSL takes up)
@Merlin – there is a big question as to who the idiot is. I think its somebody who suggests that the NBN doesn’t have nodes and distribution hubs…. doh!
Also do me a favor
Stop quoting reports from vested interests like the “panel of climate change”, lol, whos figures are as rubbery as your reasoning (it doesn’t help they didn’t provide any figures whatsoever to back up their claim)
Here is a hint, you cannot actually “save” energy, its against the laws of physics. Any saving is made from a cost somewhere else
Ahh the good old FTTN vs FTTH power requirements gets a airing again I see.
Each FTTN cabinet consumes 1200 watts and services about 300 residences, each FTTH ONT box consumes 5-8 watts and is required with a UPS and a rechargeable battery that is trickle fed 24/7 for each and every residence on FTTH.
Ah, hopeless idealism, how quaint.
A few more years in the real world might sort that out.
Well, one thing’s for sure. I certainly know a lot more about DSL and fibre than him.
People who just want DSL and not POTS don’t actually need the 50VDC on the line but at least with copper you get a choice. Far out, giving the consumer a choice of products, how totally patchwork!
Why spend money to upgrade obsolete technology – only to have to rip it up in 10 years time?
Turnbull keeps claiming that speeds will be 24mbs under his scheme, but we all know that in reality it may not be anywhere near that. He also claims that this speed is enough. Perhaps it is for most people and will be for the next 5 or even 10 years, but what about beyond that?
Let’s spend the money ONCE and do it PROPERLY. It’ll be cheaper in the long run.
*Why spend money to upgrade obsolete technology*
it’s not “obsolete” just coz you say so.
*– only to have to rip it up in 10 years time?*
why would you rip up anything? with FTTN, firstly you draw sufficient fibre cores to a cabinet that can be upgraded to FTTH. or you provision larger cable ducts to facilitate a future brownfield backhaul upgrade. if demand arises, then you replace the copper tail with fibre connecting to the same FTTN/FTTH-upgradeable cabinet. this is what NZ has done, at a very low cost.
there’s no “ripping up” of anything. everything is recycled like a good little greenie.
*Turnbull keeps claiming that speeds will be 24mbs under his scheme, but we all know that in reality it may not be anywhere near that.*
who’s “we”? the ignorant and uneducated of Whirlpool?
*He also claims that this speed is enough. Perhaps it is for most people and will be for the next 5 or even 10 years, but what about beyond that?*
then you upgrade from FTTN to FTTH simply by connecting new fibre tails to the existing FTTN/FTTH-upgradeable cabinets.
*Let’s spend the money ONCE and do it PROPERLY. It’ll be cheaper in the long run.*
no, it won’t. the biggest downfall of Labor’s NBN is the MASSIVE CAPITAL SERVICING COSTS of overbuilding before the need arises.
No… it’s obsolete because Nielsen and Moore say so…
But of course you know better…sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“the ignorant and uneducated of Whirlpool?”
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/user/356121
“then you upgrade from FTTN to FTTH simply”
Or you could just do FTTH to begin with and save a lot of time and money.
Still posting BS as usual HC?
“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″
“Still posting BS as usual HC?”
Point out what part of my comment was BS. Ready. Set. GO!
You a member of the Flat Earth Society?
Cant point out what part of my post was BS? Why am I not surprised. You just love embarrassing yourself dont you?
btw that flat earth society line sounds hilarious coming from you. I guess too much progress can make people like you crazy they cant even tell when they are being hypocritical.
*Why spend money to upgrade obsolete technology*
Mostly because there’s a business case for it and you can deliver a product that people want for a price they can afford. You know, just the simple obvious reasons.
Well Renai, lucky for me you mentioned your ‘small l’ party support, or I wouldn’t have know from your sucking up comments to Mal.
Questions to the Geek from your opinion piece.
How do you propose the Mal Plan will upgrade infrastructure without making “billion contracts with Network Co and lavishly throwing glorious bunches to contracting suitors”? When building nationwide networks, economies of scale means there must be large contracts for supplies. What do you suggest? Buying cable 100 metres at a time? Your statement.shows your immaturity.
HFC cable will be the last area for replacement, possibly in 8 years time. When the other 65% of the population is on fibre, those on HFC will be DEMANDING it’s replacemnet. By then it will have lost it’s “inherent value”. Would you still want 20mbps when others have moved to 1000mbps?
How do you propose Testra is divorced from it’s copper by Mal’s Plan. Buy it from them? Whoops, where did that $50billion go. See I can make up numbers too. They own it. Two solutions, build fibre around them, re NBN, or buy it. Complete NBN as now planned or what? C’mon, time starts now. Complete separation of Telstra will will cost the Liberal’s more cash and make the NBN plan low cost in comparison.
Mal’s Plan cannot separate Telstra into two entities, and then use Telstra copper for FTTN. They were given ownership by Howard when it was sold. If the FTTN copper is to be given to Network Co, what does Telstra Retail gain? They will screw Wrong Turn Ballsup for every dollar in the budget. Explain how separation will work, and how it will end up less cost, if you are a disciple of the plan? What now, build new copper around Telstra copper so FTTN is an option. More waste of money. So without separation “it is no policy at all”. Your words.
I can argue very easly that the existing telecommunications market is a walking disaster. The one issue that has prevailed in politics since 2005 has been the terrible state of broadband. Normal people look at what they have and are not satisfied with coverage nor price. Just when it seems that the spots on the leopard have shown up through the foliage, and produce a credible outline, the Wrong Turn Bull hunters have threatened to kill it.
Aside from the NO NO NO, Abbott hates broadband for no other reason than it cost him his grand plan to be PM. He will happily keep Australia in the 90s, where we have not progressed from. Mal, like a good boy, follows. If the Liberal policy was to do nothing, I would be sad, but accepting. To spend on FTTN, and then in a decade spend more for FTTP is almost a criminal waste.
I thought Delimiter was an IT area of balance, where all sides were questioned, but you have shown total bias.
*How do you propose the Mal Plan will upgrade infrastructure without making “billion contracts with Network Co and lavishly throwing glorious bunches to contracting suitors”?*
the structurally-separated “Telstra Networks” will do the infrastructure upgrades. in regional areas where Telstra cannot recoup the cost of capital outlays from subscriber revenues, the Government will reimburse Telstra for the shortfall. Telstra does NOT gain from this. the subsidies directly benefit consumers who would otherwise have to pay higher prices for broadband upgrades (or not get them at all).
*How do you propose Testra is divorced from it’s copper by Mal’s Plan.*
there is no need to “divorce” Telstra from its copper because a structurally-separated “Telstra Networks” will be building FTTN.
*Complete separation of Telstra will will cost the Liberal’s more cash and make the NBN plan low cost in comparison.*
RUBBISH.
*Explain how separation will work*
it works in the United Kingdom, it works in New Zealand…. why the hell won’t it work here?
*FTTP is almost a criminal waste.*
you got that bit right.
Tosh, get off your knees in front of Mal please, it’s pathetic…
Imo… Mal has simply gone back to the future and wants to give us little different, process wise (since succumbing and finally adopting Telstra’s separation, as policy, a while back) to what we had for years, pre- NBN!
Umm, it hasn’t worked previously, so why would it work in the future?
FFS… the entire house needs renewing – but Mal’s happy enough to whack a coat of paint on and make it all appear nice and new…! And look the usual suspects are, in true faithful lap dog fashion, pathetically lapping it up…!
RS,
i owe you an apology – sorry for confusing you with Tailgator. you can’t blame me entirely – it’s often very difficult to distinguish between “dumb” and “dumber”.
Apology accepted… “dumbest”..!
Apologise with an(other) insult…classy…
You bored or something? That was FOUR days ago…..
How about this to keep you occupied. See if YOU can answer these simple little questions, which none of the pro-NBNers seem capable of:
1. Why do YOU need the NBN?
2. What online activities do YOU engage in that require blistering speed?
3. How much are you willing to pay for such a connection?
4. What is the speed of your current connection?
5. What type of connection is it?
6. How do you think the the NBN will benefit over two million disadvantaged Australians?
P.S. As it is the habit of pro-NBNers, questions instead of answers won’t be accepted.
I don’t sit around all weekend trying to compare penis size. Go outside from time to time – you’ll find there’s fresh air, and other things to do other than be a keyboard warrior.
As for your “questions”:
1. I “need” the NBN to allow myself and my family to be part of a world where educational and business opportunities will be cornerstones. Why do you need a car? Why do you need a house? You can’t hold back progress for political ideals.
2. None – because I don’t have “blistering speeds” – (or even semi-reasonable speeds) – I can’t engage in anything above fairly standard activities at home. A single YouTube video for example, bogs the speeds down for every other connection in the house. I have to QoS/rate limit switch ports to not completely shut things down for the rest of the network. Skype – (even just audio) – is basically pointless – and with video, it’s an exercise that shoving red hot pokers in my eyeballs is less painful.
3. Until the market starts setting prices on an RSP vs RSP basis – (which is not happening yet) – I don’t know what to expect or set my expectations at.
4. 1.5Mbps/384kbps…
5. ADSL1
6. Disadvantaged Australians will benefit – whether they connect to it or not – because efficiencies driven across the economy from the existence of the NBN will provide more opportunities and free resources to allow for more programs to assist them. Indeed, it is then up to the government to deliver those freed resources to the appropriate parts of the economy.
No doubt you’ll have some witty rebuffs of everything I’ve just said. I don’t listen to FUD – I prefer to look at the big picture, rather than some contrived three-year political cycle.
So do your best.
The “questions” are genuine questions. You might think I am here to just try and shoot anybody down, but thats not the case. When I first came here, it was to ask genuine questions, only to be assailed by FUD and trolling from the likes of RS and co.
#1. You haven’t answered the question unfortunately.
I can only say that I have enjoyed speeds less than you have for the past 14 years, the past 7 of which have been full time telecommute without a problem at all. Several of those years were on dialup. It is only very recently that I have a new service that gives me around 3.4Mbps.
I come from a disadvantaged background, having been forced to leave school at the age of 15 and find work. Then, in 1997 Telstra put in eight poles to bring a phone line to my mining camp and I had my first dialup internet connection. From there I was able to explore my fascination with computing and to teach myself several programming languages online. I ended up specializing in eCommerce and haven’t looked back, even Google is using my work. Currently I am also studying a degree in computing online with RMIT, something I could do easily on a dialup connection.
So I have, for the past 14 years, been a part of “a world where educational and and business opportunities will be cornerstones”… without the NBN.
So, why exactly do you think that you need a fibre connection?
#2. I phrased that badly, so let’s give it a second shot. What online activities do you THINK you would engage in if you had blistering speed?
#3. Doesn’t answer the question. We do not need a start or end figure, only what you are willing to pay.
#4. See my reply to question #1.
#5. Yes, I can understand that a better connection would be good, however I do not believe that you need fibre.
#6. Won’t happen. How about we divert the 20billion+ of taxpayer’s money that IS going toward the NBN toward better opportunities for disadvantaged Australians?
Fortunately, your opinion is only an opinion. Likewise, my opinion is only an opinion.
I happen to have a different opinion to you.
The difference is I don’t believe that my opinion is an irreducible fact.
Asd always with the pro-NBNers, unable to answer simple and fundamental questions regarding why they want the NBN.
As for opinion, this is my opinion: The NBN is the Labor Home Insulation Scheme on steroids.
@Ully
“I thought Delimiter was an IT area of balance, where all sides were questioned, but you have shown total bias.”
But if Renai had headed his piece ‘Why I love the NBN’ we wouldn’t have heard a peep out of you eh?
“I thought Delimiter was an IT area of balance, where all sides were questioned, but you have shown total bias.”
Let me refer you to that seminal journal of the public record, Gizmodo:
“You Write ‘Bias Journalism’ and I Read ‘Derp’”
http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp
;)
Here’s one I prepared earlier…LOL
You were expecting that comment weren’t you Renai…?
Everyone is inherently biased, journalists are no exception.
This is, however, an opinion piece and not a news story or report.
I don’t agree with it, but then its not my opinion, its Renai’s.
People need to remember that opinion pieces are just that, opinions.
Agreed Mattybo and Renai even gave us the disclaimer (unlike the usual suspects who are fully fledged) that he is a small l Liberal, so fair enough…
I’d like to know Renai if you or Turnbull really have any idea how much Turnbull’s plan would really cost?
From what I’ve read Turnbull’s has stated that his plan aims to provide a minimum of 12 Mbps to every premise. I wonder if anyone truly knows how many premises can’t get that speed now because of limitations to copper infrastructure?
As a personal example I know of a residence that is only a few hundred metres from the Telstra exchange, this residence is connected with Telstra on ADSL2. They currently get 10 to 11.5 Mbps. Having tested their line numerous times their speed has never reached or exceeded 12Mbps.
Will Turnbull’s plan be fixing their line, or not? It’s pretty close to 12 Mbps. If so how? Replace the copper wire with newer copper wire, hoping it will provide better connectivity? Move their house slightly closer to the exchange (yes, I’m being facetious). Put up additional mobile towers to handle the additional bandwidth?
Perhaps they’ll replace it with Fibre.
Oh, there’s a good idea.
And before everyone chips in and states the above is only one example, it is, but I can guarantee it’s not the only one. And I bet no one here knows how many there are. At least 1.2 Million can’t get any broadband at the moment, I wonder how many more millions can’t get 12Mbps?
How much would it cost on Turnbull’s plan to fix all the nearly good enough lines?
“I’d like to know Renai if you or Turnbull really have any idea how much Turnbull’s plan would really cost?”
You mean like there is no CBA on costing on the NBN rollout?
“From what I’ve read Turnbull’s has stated that his plan aims to provide a minimum of 12 Mbps to every premise. I wonder if anyone truly knows how many premises can’t get that speed now because of limitations to copper infrastructure?”
The Coalition plan is not let’s keep ADSL
“As a personal example I know of a residence that is only a few hundred metres from the Telstra exchange, this residence is connected with Telstra on ADSL2.”
The Coalition plan is not let’s keep ADSL2+
“Move their house slightly closer to the exchange (yes, I’m being facetious). Put up additional mobile towers to handle the additional bandwidth?”
You have no idea whatever how Fbre to the Node works do you?
“Perhaps they’ll replace it with Fibre.”
Yeah they will.
“Oh, there’s a good idea.”
Yeah because that’s what they plan to do.
“And I bet no one here knows how many there are”
Well tell us then.
“I wonder how many more millions can’t get 12Mbps?”
I wonder I wonder I wonder…..
“How much would it cost on Turnbull’s plan to fix all the nearly good enough lines?”
How many are there ‘I wonder’, and why won’t the Turnbull plan fix them?
LOL… the true colours of the usual suspects are shining through today…
If Mal supplied **t in a bucket (ironically, as he did) you’d love it, wouldn’t you alain…!
@alain
You hang from the line similar to a rotting piece of mullet, like the troll you are.
@Ully
What’s up Ully ran out of ideas, time to pull out the personal attack (been reading RS too long), time to go back to to your cosy little world where you only want to read cosy feel good stories about the NBN, and everything else is biased.
“They currently get 10 to 11.5 Mbps”
How positively awful!!! Pray tell, what exactly is it they are missing out on with such “slow” internet speed?
You now have another Retweet saying how dumb this article is, Renai.
Turnbull’s claimed critieria to be satisfied are ubiquity, sufficient speed, cost to taxpayers, cost to households.
The NBN delivers fibre to 93%, ticking ubiquity and speed, with the last 7% getting LTE (400,000) and 12 Mbps satellite (300,000). But Turnbull stops FTTN/HFC on the edge of capital cities, then hands tax-funded vouchers to telcos to deliver whatever they feel like, i.e. more of the same for regional Australia.
Cost to taxpayers from Turnbull is a claimed NPV of $800 million if his unpublished figures are true.
Yet cost to taxpayers from the NBN is zero, built by borrowings that are repaid at 7% by wholesale revenue. It also delivers major savings to regional and remote health and education budgets by making city facilities accessible remotely.
Cost to households from Turnbull has to compete with NBN rates. $35 per month will deliver phone and broadband to half Australia’s households. What does HFC cost? Hmmm.
Measured by his own criteria in yesterday’s talk, his plan fails at the first hurdle.
The coalition should obviously adopt the NBN (and its brilliant funding mechanism) as a bipartisan policy, depriving Labor of its only remaining mainstream policy that could threaten a hung result in the 2013 poll just like the unlikely outcome we saw in 2010.
Maybe it’s time to coin the term “Turnbullshit”?
(Pardon the French, but he was full of it, and Renai has eaten it up.)
I would like to see where you are getting those figures for costs, because the new mainland prices tell a different story
here: http://www.exetel.com.au/residential-fibre-pricing-mainland.php
Don’t forget the “Excess Data Throttled at 512k/128k”
Hello dialup!!
Optus 1tb speedback with HFC and unlimited national calls beats the hell out of any of those prices. Those prices are pathetic, exetel isn’t even offering 1TB
Why are you comparing apples to watermelons? Exetel don’t offer 1TB over DSL either.
The prices are good, for Exetel.
If you want to compare it to Optus, wait for Optus NBN plans :)
I dont care what ISP offers those plans
The fact that not a single ISP is offering any plan that has a data cap that can actually utilizie the fiber is evident enough
Hell exetels residential ADSL2 plans have higher quota then NBN ones (200/200 onpeak/offpeak vs 200 all peak for NBN)
http://www.exetel.com.au/a_plan_pricing_adsl2_new.php
Dont believe me, have a look yourself
NBN: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/25/undercutting-internode-exetel-reveals-nbn-prices/
ADSL2: http://www.exetel.com.au/a_plan_pricing_adsl2_new.php
Hell when the exetel CEO says that NBN contention prices are double that of the most expensive wholesaler currently around (Telstra) that should be indicative enough
*Yet cost to taxpayers from the NBN is zero, built by borrowings that are repaid at 7% by wholesale revenue.*
COMPLETE RUBBISH.
NBNco will never generate the required $70-80/mth (and rising) wholesale ARPU to pay off the $50bln cost.
*The coalition should obviously adopt the NBN (and its brilliant funding mechanism) as a bipartisan policy*
inevitable “Chapter 11 bankruptcy” is a “brilliant funding mechanism”?
Not according to NBNCo…
So phew, who should we believe..?
LMFAO!
some date in 2013. “pink slips confetti day” at NBNco.
I thought you didn’t read (or reply) to my comments. More lies, at least you are consistent!
Anyway, keep clinging to the polls and that next election, as you have nothing else…LOL!
Actually, if you go check the figures in the published NBN business plan, you would see that there’s only allocation for ROI payments on $25 billion of infrastructure investment. No really, check it yourself. Buy a pocket calculator if it helps.
The money paid to Telstra as part of the leasing deal on their exsting in-ground ducts, etc, is never going to be paid back to the taxpayer by NBN Co. That’s the plan, Sam.
If Malcolm Turnbull is reading this, please get one of your gophers to do the sums and find a way to explain to the Australian people just what they are buying. They won’t do the reading for themselves, and they won’t listen to me either.
Tosh, if you are actually interested and not just sniping, please read the data demand and revenue projections in the NBN Corporate Plan 2011-2013.
Based on a straight-line extension of the historical growth, data consumption will generate the wholesale revenue required to repay all borrowings with 15 years.
But the history only reflected two-thirds of premises, and the average ADSL bandwidth actually received according to the ABS was just 2.8 Mbps, against the 24 Mbps advertised.
Unless you are prepared to argue that data consumption from more Australians than previously had access to broadband will not at least grow at historical rates, despite the proliferation of faster fibre and 12 Mbps alternatives instead of copper, then you cannot deny the revenue foreacasts.
Not only are they achievable, they are both guaranteed and laughably understated. For instance as at 2020, 12% of premises at any time are considered not to have any NBN services, and 50% are considered to still be using a 12 Mbps entry-level product.
Therefore actual wholesale revenue to NBNCo will meet or more likely considerably exceed the forecasts, and the construction loans will be repaid by NBNCo without any recourse to tax funds.
Knock yourself out building a counter-argument, but I cannot conceive of any threat to data consumption that would risk those revenue targets, on the contrary. Please post back here when you have done some research and formed a view.
Your opinion matters to me, Tosh, simply because you represent many others who are equally keen to see universal broadband without undue cost to taxpayers and households. If you can do a better job of this than the NBN I promise I will switch to support your funding model.
*Based on a straight-line extension of the historical growth, data consumption will generate the wholesale revenue required to repay all borrowings with 15 years.*
i presume you’re referring to that Alcatel marketing chart where they plot the progression of internet speeds from dial-up to ADSL to superfast broadband.
those “historical data points” up to 12Mbit or 24Mbit represent the gains in speeds achieved simply by tinkering with the end-points of the local loop copper tail. the gains in speed up to 12/24Mbit were easily-achieved because ADSL is cheap to implement and affordable to end-consumers.
those “higher speed” data points that correspond to superfast broadband would require substantial investment in infrastructure that goes well beyond just “tinkering with the end points of the existing copper loop”. we’re talking about a massive jump in the cost structure of the fixed-line infrastructure.
for lack of a better analogy, you can’t assume that just because, in the past, consumers have been willing to fork out an extra couple of thousand to upgrade from a Honda Jazz to a Honda Civic, therefore, they will fork out an extra $60K to upgrade to a BMW 7-series.
basically, that Alcatel chart doesn’t tell us anything about the kind infrastructure consumers can afford to use (or service) in the future. it doesn’t tell us anything about future broadband demand because service uptake is dependent on “service costs” and “consumer affordability”.
ADSL is cheap to implement, FTTH is a MASSIVE LEAP in infrastructure cost. you can’t just assume that consumer discretionary spending on broadband is “exponential” in the way that the underlying infrastructure costs of going from dial-up to 1Gbit is “exponential”.
*But the history only reflected two-thirds of premises*
if “one-third of premises” can’t afford ADSL technology, why do you assume “two-thirds” can afford an even more expensive fibre solution? in fact, that “two-thirds” of the market might even shrink.
*Not only are they achievable, they are both guaranteed and laughably understated.*
what is laughable is the $70-80/mth (and rising) wholesale ARPU required by NBNco. what’s more, this is probably understated.
*For instance as at 2020, 12% of premises at any time are considered not to have any NBN services, and 50% are considered to still be using a 12 Mbps entry-level product.*
this is precisely because NBNco recognises that the NBN will be very expensive to use.
*Therefore actual wholesale revenue to NBNCo will meet or more likely considerably exceed the forecasts, and the construction loans will be repaid by NBNCo without any recourse to tax funds.*
so you reckon the retail market can sustain wholesale ARPU even higher than $70-80/mth? that is just fairyland stuff and completely delusional.
“For instance as at 2020, 12% of premises at any time are considered not to have any NBN services, and 50% are considered to still be using a 12 Mbps entry-level product”
12Mbps – which does not require fibre at all. So, if 50% of Australians at 2020 will only require slow ADSL speeds, why do we need fibre pushed to every house in the country??
Once again fibre IS NOT GOING TO EVERY HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY, stop the FUD….
I did read it, and it pays back $25 billion, but not $40 billion.
God help you if Whirlpool started running the country. You will inherit then is the disjointed opinions of so many personal agendas that it makes parliament house look like play school. At least in parliament house they are articulate whereas in Whirlpool its all about beating your opponents over the head with your view of the world then being ignored anyway. Lets not get into the shotgun moderation which has been so badly neglected it is relegated to rule enforcement instead of improving the quality of discussion. Then there is massive and rapid fire discussion threads which are largely inaccessible as there are no feeds available to follow them. In the end its a disjointed mess of human opinion that most intelligent people do not have the time for as they are likely running the country and/or networks which you and I enjoy.
Thanks for the article, Renai. It was well worth reading, and even though I don’t agree with you on all things, I can certainly respect the experience you bring to bear on the issues.
I am neither a “small-l liberal” nor a big government lefty. I’m a pragmatic centrist. Which is why the idea of NBN Co being a public company does not appal me – and neither does the idea of selling it off once complete. My main concern with NBN Co being in public ownership (and it’s more a political concern than anything) is that it makes it a bigger target for the economic dries on the other side to take pot shots at.
I am firmly convinced of the value in balancing the “natural monopoly” that the customer access network enjoys (by whatever technology) with the competitive strengths of the market in all other areas. That’s why I support the new 121 POI structure over the original 14 POI arrangements, because the old plan included too much of the “monopoly” customer access component in backhaul where there was or could be actual competition. And with the healthy emergence of half a dozen players in that market, I think that will prove correct over the long term (the pricing arrangements which Simon Hackett has complained so much about are another matter – but they can and will be addressed over time).
I think the strongest argument you make, and the strongest motive behind Turnbull’s thinking, is that the NBN, as currently proposed, makes insufficient use of private capital and private sector efficiency. And if the entire history of the last decade had been different, this might have been more likely from the start. However, the intransigence of Telstra made a government-led solution much more plausible at the time the NBN was being devised, and so here we are. Otherwise, we might indeed have gone down a route more like New Zealand’s.
The other thing that has worried me (politically) about the NBN is that it is something of a chimera – part business investment, and part infrastructure building. The difference is that you look at the first as something where a return on investment is expected, and the second where a direct return is not expected (like building roads to country towns). But the NBN is one whole beast – and it’s difficult to see where one begins and the other ends. Laying fibre to Blayney and West Wyalong is like building country roads – it provides a community service to taxpayers, but would never be commercially viable. Whereas laying fibre in densely populated, affluent city areas could indeed be commercially viable. By weaving them into the same tapestry, you build in the cross-subsidy without it being explicit.
Now, I have no problem with that myself (it does after all apply to a whole range of government and other services – just like the standard national letter postage). But it does make it jarring, to move from arguments based on social obligation to those based on financial returns. It is a tradeoff – between maintaining fairness and having the same level of service in city and country, and ensuring commercial forces play a bigger part. And like all tradeoffs, it’s ultimately a matter of policy and preference: there is no mathematical measure of where it should be – it’s where you decide it should go, based on your preferences and values.
That works for our society generally. We are neither extreme libertarians (“user pays” all the way, with no government interference), nor extreme socialists (the state owns/regulates everything). We, in Australia, decide on a balance between those two.
Back to Turnbull and your piece. Turnbull proposes an explicit subsidy for the bush. Fair enough – he’s further along towards the libertarian/free market end, so it’s what we would expect. But the tradeoff in this case is that it pretty much locks in a worse service for the bush. There is no incentive to invest in uncommercial markets – and offering a subsidy simply sets that relationship in concrete. There is an incentive for companies keep holding out their hands for more subsidy, when one has already been offered, and equally an incentive to drag their heels on service provision unless absolutely forced to. The bush already knows all this, and is heartily sick of it.
As we all know, the devil is in the detail. And Turnbull’s plan, if one were to get out the magnifying glass, has patches all over it which read “insert detail here”. Or “subject to future Productivity Commission recommendation”, or “we’ll let you know when we get there”.
And the detail of your piece, Renai, is the key problems that you yourself have identified. “90 per cent win” your headline reads. Ahh, yes, but it’s the other 10 per cent that is most telling. That’s why I have said again and again that we can’t take this “plan” the least bit seriously. It simply won’t be there in two years’ time. Something else will be, but not this.
Turnbull’s driving principles are another matter. They are on full display, and those you (mostly) commend. Fair enough. I agree with some, not with others, but no matter. I think that the fixation with HFC is misplaced, simply because Telstra, and especially Optus, simply have no interest in extending or promoting them. As you note, Optus is much more interested in the more profitable mobile business, and Telstra only gets value from its HFC as a medium for pay TV (which they will continue to do, NBN or not). I think this is a classic example of the sunk cost fallacy – letting the fear of “wasting” the investment already made keep the government and industry from making rational choices about restructuring the entire market, not just the 30% that has cable access.
That’s why I’ve said that I think Turnbull will keep many aspects of the NBN – for populist reasons (as you note – “the next door town/suburb got fibre – now I want mine!”), and for practical ones as well. If Quigley and co are judged to be running a lean volume rollout operation come late 2013, why would you stop them? I do think Turnbull would try to play with the settings, and may restructure things to place the fibre in private ownership sooner (and may even privatise NBN Co as a going concern mid-rollout).
And someone, somewhere will get wretched FTTN – just because. I hear Randwick is a likely candidate… :)
Why aren’t we laying the fibre now instead of having to pay more to do it in the future?
Why would it cost more to do in the future, if anything it would be cheaper (technology has a habit of getting cheaper as time passes, not more expensive)
Seriously, that kind of logic is giving people this idea that NBN will be more expensive in the future to install, when historically speaking the complete opposite happens
It would potentially cost more to do it in the future because if the Coalition gets its way, we’ll have to spend even more money than we already have fixing their stuff-ups. Please don’t say that the Coalition won’t stuff it up, because I’ll only respond by pointing you in the direction of the 1990s.
Tha doesn’t make any more sense, rolllouts don’t magically become more expensive because you happen to be more biased against the liberal party
Your rhetorical and incorrect rants about liberals stuffing up in the 1990’s makes no sense,it was Telstra/Optus that chose to do the HFC rollout, not the Liberal Party
/
Fruthermore the HFC is now providing service that is cheaper to the equivalent NBN service by Optus/Telstra, so if anything (and by using your logic), the Labor party is the one that was wasting money
Couldn’t help yourself eh, just had to get ANOTHER political plug in…LOL
“Tha doesn’t make any more sense, rolllouts don’t magically become more expensive because you happen to be more biased against the liberal party”
If you bothered to read what the fuck I actually said, you’d understand that I was talking about the potential cost of fixing the Coalition’s stuff-ups. They’ve stuffed up telco policy before (quite badly, I might add) and they’re in prime position to do it again, all because they can’t bring themselves to invest in something that doesn’t bring an immediate, unsustainable return.
“Your rhetorical and incorrect rants about liberals stuffing up in the 1990′s makes no sense,it was Telstra/Optus that chose to do the HFC rollout, not the Liberal Party”
Telstra sell-off, not HFC rollout. Damn boy, you stupid.
“Fruthermore the HFC is now providing service that is cheaper to the equivalent NBN service by Optus/Telstra, so if anything (and by using your logic), the Labor party is the one that was wasting money”
http://goo.gl/5qqDr
you don’t know what you’re talking about.
the privatisation of Telstra and the concurrent deregulation of the telecommunications sector resulted in sharp drops in the cost of local and international telephony, massive growth in the broadband market with hundreds of ISPs offering diverse, competing retail internet products which have dropped massively in price over the past decade.
Who’s debating whether or not market deregulation resulted in increased competition? I’m certainly not, but what I am saying is that competition has been hamstrung consistently since the privatisation of Telstra, by Telstra themselves, who have been overcharging for ULL/LSS access, deliberately inhibiting access to exchanges for competitors to install DSLAMs or other equipment, and generally being a pain in the industry’s backside. You talk as if these are debatable points, when it’s already been well-established time and time again that Telstra are a thorn in everyone’s side bar their own.
*by Telstra themselves, who have been overcharging for ULL/LSS access*
can we get some basic facts right? LSS/ULL/WLR is set (or dictated) entirely by the ACCC. ULL has fallen almost 50% from a high of $30/mth to $16/mth over the past decade. in real terms, once you factor in inflation and rising labour costs, “real ULL” has probably fallen 75%. for many years, Telstra had to borrow money to pay or maintain dividends because their operational cashflow was too low.
*deliberately inhibiting access to exchanges for competitors to install DSLAMs or other equipment, and generally being a pain in the industry’s backside.*
once upon a time ago, Telstra used to survive largely on telephony revenues alone. now, due to deregulation of the voice market and the erosion of PSTN revenues, securing “broadband revenues” is critical to just maintaining CONSTANT revenue.
the ACCC’s enforced pricing structure means that they are only guaranteed $20/mth line rental from the “telephony” component and $2.50/mth LSS from the “broadband” component.
now, if a line subscriber is also a Bigpond subscriber, they might get say $30/mth from “broadband” for that particular line. if the line subscriber switches to a competitor ISP, they will only receive $2.50/mth (LSS) from “broadband”.
if the difference between a subscriber being a Bigpond customer or being a non-Bigpond customer is the difference between receiving $30/mth and getting a measly $2.50/mth, what would you do? naturally, you would fight tooth and nail to retain as many broadband subscribers as possible as direct customers of Bigpond.
this is the natural consequence of the ACCC’s pricing structure which guarantees a relatively comfortable level of “telephony revenues” but forces Telstra to fight tooth and nail to earn the “full broadband revenue” (i.e. $30/mth Bigpond vs $2.50/mth LSS) component just to maintain CONSTANT total revenues (in the face of ongoing PSTN erosion).
all this while you have had massive inflation of labour and material costs over the past decade thanks to the mining and commodities boom.
At this point, I’m content to just let your jackass commentary speak for itself.
you’re the JACKASS in suggesting that Telstra’s “overcharging for ULL/LSS” when these rates are set by the ACCC since DAY ONE.
moron.
Ouch, someone got owned
Oh deteego, you are kidding… spoken like someone who has only ever been to school…
What about construction costs, labor etc…
Yes, the price of “tech gadgets come down” but what about real world infrastructure? Do you think it will cost less to build a house, road or comms network in 10 years than it does now…?
Look back ten years for a guide, rather than giving a typical FUDulent reply about me proving it…sigh!
Seriously, that kind of logic is giving people this idea that your BS network will be less expensive in the future, when historically speaking the complete opposite happens ;-)
you’re completely right there. if you read through the ACCC’s pricing determination documents, you’ll notice a downward trend in the “optimised replacement cost” valuation of Telstra’s CAN because if it was laid today, it would be done differently due to technological advances and network design optimisation.
I have to agree with what some others have posted. Malcoms done a good job, I will not gainsay that. But he is too reliant on the already tried and failed method of Private Sector Investment. It just doesn’t exist, atleast from where I sit. Delivery of internet/phone infrastructure should be treated like roads, water etc. Put it in place and sure, let the private sector run it under guidelines, but do not leave them to direct it. That is where you end up having what we have now. Places still do not have access to decent DSL, Cable etc that should being in the cities. They get stuck behind poorly maintained wires that are privately owned and run so there is no chance them getting repaired. They cannot get anything else other than wireless, so going to a competitor is out.
that’s what happens when you push ULL down to $16/mth and deny Telstra the “free cash flow” or financial incentive to invest in its copper network. why pour more money and capital into the network when the returns you’re getting from it are shrinking due to ACCC regulatory diktat?
no sane restauranteur would invest in new fittings and renovations if the menu prices are forced down over time by the local council.
So to clarify… the way to fix our current broadband system is to make it more expensive? Because if you are talking about returning to a market-lead expansion of our internet infrastructure, and building in incentives for industry to do so, the money is coming out of our pockets.
Call me crazy, but I’d prefer the cash come out of the taxes I’ve already paid and get guaranteed Fibre to my house, rather than pay extra to Telstra and have whatever broadband technology they deem appropriate for my area.
Australia actually has one of the lowest ADSL2+ broadband wholesale prices according to the OECD ($16 a month with ULL), so everything else that is being added ontop of that is nothing to do with Telstra
*So to clarify… the way to fix our current broadband system is to make it more expensive?*
no rational entity (that wants to stay out of bankruptcy) will pour more capital into an existing infrastructure unless they can recoup that capital through higher charges. will a nightclub owner spend millions refurbishing his joint to attract a higher-class clientele unless he expects to raise cover charges or bump up the price of a vodka martini?
NBNco is doing just that – it’s forecasting “long-term” wholesale ARPU north of $70-80/mth. current wholesale ARPU is only ~$30-35/mth.
*Because if you are talking about returning to a market-lead expansion of our internet infrastructure, and building in incentives for industry to do so, the money is coming out of our pockets.*
NBNco is designed to be a self-funding infrastructure investment vehicle. the money HAS to come out of our pockets in any event.
*Call me crazy, but I’d prefer the cash come out of the taxes I’ve already paid and get guaranteed Fibre to my house, rather than pay extra to Telstra and have whatever broadband technology they deem appropriate for my area.*
the Federal Government isn’t building the NBN with taxes. it’s borrowing the money which has to be repaid at 7% through access charges. you will be paying, as a consumer, for the full cost of constructing the NBN. in reality, NBNco can’t force you to spend $80/mth on wholesale charges, so they will most likely go bankrupt instead.
Tosh said – “the Federal Government isn’t building the NBN with taxes. it’s borrowing the money which has to be repaid at 7% through access charges. you will be paying, as a consumer, for the full cost of constructing the NBN. in reality, NBNco can’t force you to spend $80/mth on wholesale charges, so they will most likely go bankrupt instead”.
Well tell that to your FUD brothers who keep talking about the “sucker taxpayers”…!
So according to you, the taxpayer is not/has not paid for anything for the NBN.
Its quite clear that the NBN won’t be able to raise enough cash from consumers, so please explain how the money will be repaid?
You still here, I thought you were banned.
Ok, prove to the World how the current roll out of the NBN has not cost the tax payer a penny.
Prove it, or STFU
Pretty clear who’s mixed up with their names and posts…. RS, Rizz, Porkie Chorizo… and God knows how many other handles you use here…..
Quite clear?
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
What does it matter anyhow?
In the time it takes for the NBN to recieve 40bn, we will have spent:
80bn on foreign aid
900bn on government services
200bn on military
1100bn on welfare
50bn on Victorian roads
50bn on NSW roads
It’s a drop in the ocean.
there isn’t $40bln of idle government cash just lying around. the Federal Government is currently in DEFICIT. there are already plenty of other more socially-worthy areas of government spending that have been chopped due to the DEFICIT.
sorry to prick your BUBBLE – but IPTV and “100Mbit burst transfer ORGASM” isn’t the most important thing in the world.
should we fix broadband blackspots? YES – but that will only cost tens or hundreds of millions, not BILLIONS. it’s like an accident victim getting facial reconstruction surgery and then asking the cosmetic surgeon, “oh, btw, while i’m here, you might as well give me a boob job, liposuction for my hips, stomach, etc.” NICE TRY.
there will also be a full return on the investment from the NBN not from the others you mention too myne, which makes the NBN a no brainer to everyone but those with no brain.
$43 billion return is lot of money to break even at, what century do you predict this will happen?
So, according to you, everybody who doesn’t agree with you has no brain. Such decorum for somebody who spouts about it, yet God have mercy if somebody refers to you as dillbrain….
that’s ok backslider i forgive you, because you now no better.
Yes I read 5150’s holier-than-thou little speech from the pulpit criticizing personal attacks etc, but it’s ok when if he does it.
There is one thing you will see that is always consistent with pro-NBN argument, blatant in your face hypocrisy.
incorrect alain. in relation to my holier than thou speech as you refer to it, i did not personally attack anybody, it was friendly advice on how people will take one’s comments more seriously.
what i did was criticise backsliders comment, not him personally, following his criticism of ungulate’s comment. a comment from ungulate which i believe is superior to anything i have read here for months, hence my comment coming to his defence.
alain, you ergo believe it’s ok for people with similar views to you to say as they will, criticise and personally attack, by calling others morons and dill brains. while also believing it’s not ok for these others with differing views to you, to even give credit to a very worthy post?
with such mulish disdainfulness, lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters on a mission, allowed to run amok.
“what i did was criticise backsliders comment, not him personally, following his criticism of ungulate’s comment.”
Problem is, I never made any criticism of unguate’s comment. I asked him questions dillbrain.
to repeat.
with such mulish disdainfulness, lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters on a mission, allowed to run amok.
You see, you have nothing because I just proved you wrong. It is you who is on the mission.
Still waiting for any kind of anwser from his eminence, whom you so foolishly worship.
yes, you’re 100% correct, 5150….
delimiter should fall in line with WP and stop any further intelligent criticism of Labor’s NBN. the NBN is so flawed in concept, its supporters know it’s virtually impossible to defend w/o having themselves exposed as complete fools in a public forum…. hence, the only way to “level the playing field” is to ban all further criticism.
“lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters on a mission, allowed to run amok”
Yes, couldn’t agree more. Whenever I ask a pertinent question, some pro-.NBN troll jumps in piping trash…..
good gracious, all three are now here and have responded, to demonstrate exactly as i have been saying and i didn’t even have to try… i think avid gamer summed it up perfectly by saying, yawn.
backslider you have proven nobody wrong, what you have done is proven me correct, which Tosh even agrees with ;)
so, to repeat once more and with feeling. with such mulish disdainfulness, lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters on a mission, allowed to run amok.
please now fight over which of you will have the final word, as i know you must, and then all sit back pumped, believing yourselves to be the all conquering victors and prima donna’s you clearly are not.
because with each subsequent comment, you make my above repeated description more apropos.
Show to the world where I criticized ungulate’s flowery speech dillbrain. I didn’t and you know it… fricken TROLL
@5150
“i did not personally attack anybody,”
Really?
Your quote: ‘which makes the NBN a no brainer to everyone but those with no brain.’
” it was friendly advice on how people will take one’s comments more seriously”
So that makes all personal attacks ‘friendly advice’ only when you are the poster, for everyone else it’s a straight up personal attack.
.”a comment from ungulate which i believe is superior to anything i have read here for months, hence my comment coming to his defence.”
Even the comments from ungulate that have been shown to be incorrect, how is incorrect statements deemed ‘superior’ ?
I noticed you avoided coming to his defence repudiating any points I or other have made re ungulate statements, of course ‘coming to his defence’ as far as you are concerned has its limits.
“with such mulish disdainfulness, lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters”
Yes the pro-NBN lobby hate being rationally argued with, it’s a ‘born to rule we know what’s best for you’ mentality, I assume you are used to mother Whirlpool where you can herring ad-nauseum with like minded members and the pro-NBN, pro-Internode anti-Telstra moderator team will take care of those pesky posters that have the gall to ask awkward questions, with posts deleted in great swathes using the well abused off-topic and pointless rules.
The discussion in Delimiter is very good, you might not like it if you see pro-NBN comment being constantly shredded, which is what you really object to, hence your blind support of ungulate, but that’s too bad.
@5150
“i repeat. with such mulish disdainfulness, lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters, who run amok.”
I disagree totally, and you are wrong, as I said you personally not liking anti-NBN comment and not liking pro-NBN comment being disputed does not translate into ‘delimiter going down the tube’ just because you say so.
“what I did was make a general comment, not aimed at anyone personally.”
No it was directed to everyone that doesn’t support the NBN, and you know exactly what you meant, don’t try and wriggle out of it just because you didn’t name every individual by name that posts anti-NBN comment, so therefore it doesn’t count.
Also nothing to say about your so called ‘defence of ungulate’? nothing to say about supporting his so called ‘superior’ comments even when they have been shown to be wrong?
Of course you disagree, we wouldn’t want it any other way ;)
so when you were, and lets read this out loud together, in 1997 supplied an internet connection by the government owned Telstra, like the connection you currently tell others to pay for – now tell us, but I paid, go on – and taught yourself 1’s and 0’s, perhaps you should have taught yourself a few a, e , I, o and u’s too, because you sadly appear to have a real problem understanding basic english.
since you are all still having a prolonged tantrum and because the Jekyll to your Hyde, alain refused my first challenge, here’s a challenge just for you.
are you listening?
are you ready?
now diddums, keeping in mind you hypocritically refer to others as morons and bigots, but yet whinge when someone even disagrees with you, oh, and since it’s so important to you and made you all teary eyed, point out after I gave ungulate his rightful praise, where exactly I said you personally attacked or criticized him, well go on, use that self taught pc pizzazz and find and paste the words ‘criticize’ or ‘personal attack’, from my earlier comment, here ~
challenge mk2 now on.
and since you love to ask questions let’s see how you go answering a few.
1. is it ok for you to criticize another poster?
2. is it ok for you to personally attack another poster?
3. is it ok for me to criticize another poster?
4. is it ok for me to personally attack another poster?
5. how old are you?
@Tosh:
**NBNco is doing just that – it’s forecasting “long-term” wholesale ARPU north of $70-80/mth. current wholesale ARPU is only ~$30-35/mth. **
The $30-$35 is if I’m not mistaken taken from TPG’s latest financial report? Remember that does not count PIPE subscribers, even if it’s for another ISP once again, it likely does not count business subscribers, when you consider many business customers are paying tens of thousands of dollars per month for their fat FIber connections, ARPU of $70-$80 does not sound so ridiculous.
A 1Gbps connection will be $150 for the AVC, let alone CVC, and I’m certain most small to large business will take one of them up, you’d be paying upwards of $50,000 for 1Gbps currently.
@Duideka
*The $30-$35 is if I’m not mistaken taken from TPG’s latest financial report?*
no, that is the estimate of the copper tail wholesale ARPU from the McKinsey Study.
*it likely does not count business subscribers, when you consider many business customers are paying tens of thousands of dollars per month for their fat FIber connections, ARPU of $70-$80 does not sound so ridiculous.*
firstly, NBNco is pushing fibre to every business premise. however, not every business premise requires fibre. think of hairdressers, laundromats, shoe shops, jewellers, pizza shops, newsagents, restaurants, grocers, bakery, hardware shop, etc. (the list goes on and on.) only a minority of businesses will fork out extra for faster services. this means that a large chunk of business premises with underutilised fibre will have to be subsidised by the minority that do require faster internet AND are willing to spend more for it. so, even within the business sector, there will have to be a heavy cross-subsidy burden if NBNco is recover the installation cost for each premise.
now, stepping back, and looking at all premises – there are approx 10 times as many residential premises as business premises. again, a large chunk of these residential premises will not require fibre speeds OR be willing to spend extra on internet. (this is exactly the experience of South Korea and Japan where consumers have demonstrated little willingness to fork out extra for faster speeds.) there’s no way that the “business sector” as a whole (which itself will require internal cross-subsidisation) will be able to carry the financial burden of subsidising the vastly larger number of residential premises.
the large enterprises like big financial institutions will not pay $20,000/Gbit. bottomline, if NBNco tries to force these large enterprises to cross-subsidise the other users, there’s a PtP cherry-picking exemption in the NBN legislation anyway.
You have just identified the gist of the NBN plan.
However, regardless of public or private investment, new infrastructure needs to be paid for, by someone. If not the users of that infrastructure, then who?
” And with much of Australia currently enjoying decent broadband speeds from a range of providers; it’s hard to argue that the telecommunications market is the walking disaster which Labor often makes it out to be. ”
This statement is just not true at all and in fact the complete opposite. So many can’t get good speeds or have any sort of choice. I live 23km from Brisbane CBD. Thats CBD. No HFC. No ASDL2. No choice.
The telco market is completely stuffed. No choice and poor service. And for goodness sake the HFC is old and stuffed and needs to go. ( I know this 100% ).
Can I please see some statistics stating that there are a lot of people that happen to be in your situation
Or is it something that you say as a last line of desperation?
The advertised speed of ADSL2+ is 24Mb/s, yet the average speed of internet connections in Australia (according to speedtest.net) is only 8.72 Mb/s. That’s a lot of people getting much less than half the theoretical maximum…
Keep in mind also, the kind of person who tests their internet speed on speedtest.net is likely going to be someone with faster internet anyway.
And, as I keep saying, there is no guarantee that you will get the 12/1 Mbps or 25/5 Mbps or whatever speeds advertised by the NBN.
There are a lot of variables that need to be addressed for this to be guaranteed.
Sigh.
Ok so lets be happy with our 5Mbps when we should be getting 20+ and be thankful that they are accepting our cash… sigh!
Well you should be getting speeds “Up to” a defined theoretical maximum and that’s what you are getting.
And that is exactly what you’ll get on the NBN as well.
Why can’t people see that reality?
Sigh.
You have gotta be kidding me.
It’s totally not what we will get on the NBN.
On the NBN we will get a AVC which has a WORST CASE COMMITTED bandwidth of 78Mbit/s – the speed you download at is entirely up to your ISP, and you can switch ISP’s if one is being cheap on back haul.
On ADSL2+ you get a ‘up to’ 24Mbit/s connection, which averages a third of that, and you can’t do anything to increase your speed, because this is SYNC speed, determined by distance from exchange and quality of copper, nothing your ISP can control..
You are talking complete crap, it will be throttled at the CVC level. All of the affordable NBN plans will be contended plans, and by definition contended plans are “up to” some best case result.
If you want 100M of uncontended bandwidth, the CVC price is 20 * 100 = $2000 per month, wholesale, and that does not include the uplink to the Internet itself. Please get yourself up to speed with the situation here.
And I’m not saying we should improve on the infrastructure.
That’s a good thing.
I’m just trying to tell people that its not a silver bullet to their “speed” issues.
Ugh. Correction to my previous statement. It should’ve read:
“And I’m not saying we not should improve on the infrastructure.”
Oh. Dammit. I really shouldn’t post after 10pm. :/
The advice has already been given to you and your business, to pay for a business connection, not residential.
What?!
No guarantee of speed?
Fibre doesn’t work like ADSL.
Your modem either gets full 2.5gbit/1.25gbit or you get nothing.
If the internet was located at the POP, you would have a point
Unfortunately it isn’t
ADSL2 is by far not the only bottleneck in speeds
If the liberals win.,,……………any form of broadband plan has a 98% chance of never happening.
You mean like the Labor broadband plan they went into the 2007 election with?
I seem to recall the Liberals really riding Labor about them not releasing every little detail in the early days of the NBN, but I must say their policies were a open book compared to this. .
I read Turnbull’s broadband ‘policy’ and I’m even more confused than I was at the start, I still have no idea what it will do for me, nor for my father who is stuck on satellite – the entire policy runs through about every method possible of fixing the problem and suggests they ‘might’ do either one of them, but it will depend on ‘things’ that they can’t see this far ahead, oh they will also ‘encourage’ telco’s to roll out broadband! but they don’t mention what encouragement they are talking about or what kind of speeds/technology they will even be encouraging people to roll out…
They also talk alot about subsidies to upgrade broadband infrastructure, but obviously mention nothing about what upgrades, or what level of subsidies they will provide – either way what a flapping disaster that will be, even more money for Telstra so they can screw over all of their competitors – I agree with Turnbull that competition is good, but not if it’s completely one sided competition, is it Liberal policy that competition, free market, and capitalism is good no matter how hard the pooch is getting screwed?
You do realize that the NBN was announced like a couple of months before election, and that a government has access to facilities such as the treasury and the productivity commission (and infrastructure Australia)
Opposition has access to none of those things until the government enters caretaker mode (which is when an election is announced), all other costings have to be sent to private companies and the party has to fund it out of their own budget
*even more money for Telstra so they can screw over all of their competitors*
*completely one sided competition*
so, guys like Simon Hackett and David Teoh are in the BRW Rich List, while the Telstra share price has completely tanked (even though their mobile networks business is massively successful and profitable)…..
in terms of the “fixed-line business”, who’s really screwing who?
EXACTLY… all the more reason why we need an NBN…
Are you getting it yet…?????
Also, reading the OP again you suggest broadband has been ‘rapidly improving’
I currently sync at 14Mbit/s.
A year ago I synced at 18Mbit/s, at one stage I even got 19Mbit/s
For me, it’s getting WORSE.
And you know what? I’m one of the ‘lucky’ ones living within spitting distance from the exchange, god help those further away.
“For me, it’s getting WORSE.”
Same here, last year there was an issue with the line here and the speed dropped dramatically, Telstra were supposed to fix it but had to come back just this week. Still getting less than it was originally was getting. The state of the copper really is deplorable… I feel sorry for ISPs, they have to put up with irate customers (like me) when it isn’t even their fault.
I had absolutely terrible problems with water-corroded wiring – I started out with 2000-3000 kbps, and wound up struggling to get 200 kbps.
I complained to my provider (iiNet) for months about the terrible speeds, but to no avail. They fobbed me off with the usual excuses.
But the magic words came when I said that I also had “a bad crackle on the line” for voice calls. That instantly generated a response, and within two days a Telstra technician had replaced my wiring to the street, at no cost to me.
Instantly, I had 13000-14500 kbps speeds, and a crystal clear line. I realised that while ADSL speeds are nowhere guaranteed in the basic voice service, a clear line is!
Crackles=actionable problem. Slow speeds=not our problem.
So, if you’ve got lousy speeds AND audible crackling (or other audible faults), get Telstra out on the basis of the crackles – that’s the only thing that will work.
[Of course, the technician told me that with the atrocious state of the pit, I could expect to find it corroded again within a few years – but I’m hoping for something better by then!]
That’s the exact problem I had last year, my phone was totally useless, nothing but crackling. This time the phone was just completely dead but I could still connect at a reduced speed as I could last time. I quickly figured out the problem was external since I have 3 sockets and two handsets to test with. They fixed it the next day. Last time it took more than a week :-|
You made that all up.
Nope. You are wrong again. You just cant accept that the copper it rotted out it seems “boo hoo hoo I want to keep my copper ADSL!!!”
Oh it’s progressed to the ‘copper has rotted out’ now, how about some more emotive rubbish like the exchanges are falling down, the ducts are dissolving, the DSLAM’s are overheating, the pillars are falling down, and don’t forget the ‘Coalition patchwork plan’, you haven’t mentioned it for awhile.
I know you have an emotional attachment to the copper but it’s time to let go. You know how they put race horses down sometimes it’s for the best. Same with the copper. “bubububu but I want my copper boo hoo hoo!” Let it go.
Not sure why you are bringing the coalitions patchwork plan here btw, is this another attempt to derail the discussion? But for the record it will not solve any of these issues the copper has.
So HC… why don’t you pay for some fibre?
Probably bumming off someone else and can’t afford it ;)
So Backslider, you think every Australian suffering from slow speeds or connection problems, or lacking an internet connection entirely, should pay for their own fiber?
@Merlin – I think that people like HC, who already have a good internet connection should, yes. I have never said “every Australian”, and if you would get up to speed, you would understand exactly where I stand in regard to “every Australian”…. something that people of your ilk do not consider at all…
So you think only 28% of Australians deserve to have what amounts to an approximation of high-speed internet? And the rest should be ignored? Oh and they should all be stuck on monopolies after having billions taken out of their pockets to subsidize Telstra and Optus?
@Merlin – you run around bagging everybody else, calling them every name uder the sun, yet cannot even get yourself up to speed with discussion… moron
And you think the NBN will give you guaranteed 12Mbps (which is about 1.5 MB/s)?
I’m sorry but no. There are lot of factors that go into determining what speeds you get. Think about the path packets have to travel and they way they communicate.
Wow, are you really going to be this pedantic and nitpicky about a few bit and bytes you wont be getting fibre? Newflash: we all know the overheads associated with these things (btw did you know with ADSL2+ it is higher?) the BIG FAT IMPORTANT difference with fibre is that we will be able to move virtually ANYWHERE and get roughly the same speed on a 100mbps plan as we would at a previous address. It might be 96mbps it might be 98mbps or even 92mbps, really who cares with speeds like this and don’t forget the latency improvements.
Of course, this is all theory, and has no bearing in whether or not, in reality, the consumer will actually get that speed (and get it consistantly)
CVC charges would make NBN’s FTTH network, mirror the actual outcomes of our current network, where our current network is limited by physical constraints, NBN’s will be by financial.
The pity is, even with an equivalent service, NBN is still more expensive then ADSL2+ (or even HFC)
“The pity is, blah blah blah”
The pity is you dont know what you are talking about.
Current pricing supports my claim
CVC charges can be changed on a whim by the government you troll.
it can’t – Conroy’s pretty much washed his hands of NBNco and saying that everything NBNco does is arms-length from DBCDE. he’s even saying now the Government never promised uniform retail pricing.
of course there won’t be uniformed retail pricing, pricing as we saw with internode and exetel is at the determination of RSP’s, which is the beauty of it known as competition. surely that’s obvious.
What is obvious is that ADSL2+ is better value.
Getting those speeds back in the days of Telecom were you?
AT this point all I care about is that it gets easier to swap providers and my service does not get any worse.
I used to care about a lot of other things that were important to othr people but would not mean squat to me… now I dont.
All you have to do is look at Telstra and Optus HFC to find out how many problems HFC has. Parts are super prone to water damage.
When I was using optus hfc I needed 3 techs to come out in the year I had it.
Since Jan 2010 I have needed 1 level 3 tech, 3 level 2 techs and 3 level 1 techs to come fix bad parts all because of water damage nothing else just water damage. I was also informed that I will need another level 2 to come out to replace another rail sometime in the near future.
Would anyone like that many tech visits in that amount of time? Unreliable use and having to take days off waiting for techs. Anyone who says Oh Ive never had a problem with HFC just wait. Might be a year or more but you will have some form of problem.
This is someone who isn’t really gimmie FTTH, all I am is anti wireless as all I get is 2mbit and that’s at 12am.
So if there is one that doesn’t suffer from congestion, distance and water damage. I’m all ears.
1 “We need no longer really consider Optus part of the major picture when it comes to the future of fixed broadband in Australia; the SingTel subsidiary has largely checked out of the fixed broadband market and is almost wholly focused on the mobile sector; an area where it can make better returns and not be hamstrung by government regulation.”
Oh really? They would be Australia’s 2nd biggest wholesale provider, and one which actually ALLOWS its wholesale customers to compete!
2. Where are the costings? What will this “MBN” (Metropolitan Broadband network) cost? INCLUDING all the payments to Telstra which will be required? And I mean the payments for cutting their copper network (repeatedly forecast at $20Bn for NBN1) not just the “change the new contract” payments. Remember, that is why NBN1 was scrapped – $15B for the network, $20Gb in compensation to Telstra (total $35Bn) for FTTN, $40Bn for FTTP. So for $5Bn the upgrade was a no brainer!
3. How long would it take? Allowing for a FURTHER 12 months negotiating with Telstra (to start not before after the next election due Aug 2013) it would be October 2014 before they start planning the new network. It may take half the time, so lets say 5yrs instead. So Christmas 2019 instead of Mid 2021 – 18months quicker WHOOPEE.
Nope – not convinced. Sorry.
Build it once. Build it properly. Not half-arsed! It may be the only thing Labor has got right in the last 4 years – but they HAVE got it right!
*They would be Australia’s 2nd biggest wholesale provider, and one which actually ALLOWS its wholesale customers to compete!*
how’s Telstra stopping TPG and iiNet (both customers of Telstra Wholesale) from competing with each other? Optus is just reselling access to Telstra infrastructure.
TW Wholesale —> Optus Wholesale —> Internode Easy Bundle
*2. Where are the costings? What will this “MBN” (Metropolitan Broadband network) cost? INCLUDING all the payments to Telstra which will be required?*
Telstra will upgrade the metropolitan network to FTTN using shareholders’ capital. ZERO payments required. the subsidies are for the regional areas where susbcriber revenues will not fully defray the capital outlays required to upgrade to FTTN. Telstra does not benefit from these subsidies. regional consumers do.
imagine if a doctor refused to travel to Whoop Whoop to make a home visit consultation because of the $100 extra travel costs incurred. should the Government incentivise the doctor with a $100 travel coupon or subsidy, the $100 merely offsets the doctor’s higher costs. he doesn’t “profit” from the subsidy. the rural patient does.
*And I mean the payments for cutting their copper network (repeatedly forecast at $20Bn for NBN1) not just the “change the new contract” payments.*
there’s no need to cut the copper lines or offer compensation because Telstra will be upgrading its own network. the $500mln “break fee” will not accrue because the 20% completion milestone will not be reached by 2013. NBNco will be dissolved and its assets consolidated with Telstra’s copper assets in a structurally-separated “Telstra Networks” spin-off.
*Remember, that is why NBN1 was scrapped – $15B for the network, $20Gb in compensation to Telstra (total $35Bn) for FTTN, $40Bn for FTTP. So for $5Bn the upgrade was a no brainer!*
COMPLETE GARBAGE.
$43bln building costs PLUS $11bln compensation to Telstra PLUS $1bln compensation to Optus = $55bln FTTP. by letting Telstra build FTTN with its own money, NO COMPENSATION will be required.
*Build it once. Build it properly. Not half-arsed! It may be the only thing Labor has got right in the last 4 years – but they HAVE got it right!*
what has Labor achieved in the last two terms other than blowing a couple of billion dollars on political show-pony TRIAL SITES with a measly handful of PILOT CUSTOMERS? we could have had metropolitan FTTN network built by now for the same cash outlayed (by Telstra shareholders)!
Sayonara Rizz ….
I don’t think anyone will miss him tbh
Yes… ban the guy who has the emotional stamina to deal with the Liberal trolls. We can all see where your priorities lie with this garbage “opinion” propaganda piece.
Haha that’s the the funniest post I have seen for ages, rib tickling stuff, ’emotional backbone’ you should do stand-up comedy, you are wasted in here.
I’m pretty sure he’s RS’s gameboy brother
@Merlin – please learn the meaning of Troll (and FUD while you are at it)…..
Merlin I would be careful, with the trolling and personal attacks in your posts, you will be next up on the list if you don’t behave
you gotta love the politics of internet forums.
some people are now pushing the idea that it’s okay to spread blatant lies (e.g. upgrading from FTTN to FTTP would require “ripping up everything” and “starting all over again”) because it constitutes an “OPINION”.
just goes to show what a shambles Labor’s NBN concept is and the contorted lengths its supporters have to go to defend its validity or continued existence.
Great More Underdevelopment Wooooo Go Australia
Would rather kill the fly with an elephant gun then a split hair one about 1mm long too
Puh-lease, what the bunkum are you on about?
When will you people get it straight: The NBN is a by-product of the separation issue.Ignoring this is like ignoring that ISP blocking is a political issue not a technical issue.
This is not a “elephant gun to kill a house fly,” its shock and awe to slice a 800 pound gorilla, with a bonus super network.
You pass off The Spiv’s commitment to separation like this: “The Coalition has long been wary of the separation of Telstra, but half a decade of furious debate has generated a consensus around the issue: Telstra must not remain wedded to its copper network, and a Coalition NBN policy that did not include this as a key focus would be no policy at all. Turnbull has long been shifting the Coalition into accepting this fact and his address formalises it and adds bite to its previous anaemic policy approach.”
Come on, so after 20 years, Turnbull is the one who can “negotiate” an outcome with Telstra?
Puh-lease!
*This is not a “elephant gun to kill a house fly,” its shock and awe to slice a 800 pound gorilla, with a bonus super network.*
… and create a 2,400 pound gorilla (NBNco) instead?
LOL
The only crazy, irresponsible policy in the arena, is one that does not swing a big axe down the middle of Telstra. Functional, structural separation is the only thing that will cure what ails our Telecommunications industry.
There is no valid reason why iiNet, TPG, Internode, and Optus all need to rent their customer loop from ONE provider who ALSO competes with them on a retail level. It’s anti-competitive in the extreme.
If total and clear separation can be achieved, and done so in a way to prevent dodgy back room TelstraNetworksTelstraRetail deals, then the private sector at least stands a chance of doing something new and exciting, since they won’t have to worry about the incumbent pricing them out of the market by maliciously manipulating the chain of supply.
*The only crazy, irresponsible policy in the arena, is one that does not swing a big axe down the middle of Telstra. Functional, structural separation is the only thing that will cure what ails our Telecommunications industry.*
the fundamental problem we face is a lack of investment. there’s a viable business case for investing in FTTN, but tail circuit access charges will have to rise to reflect the enlarged capital base consequent upon sinking billions more into the access network.
however, it makes no difference whether Telstra Corp builds it or a structurally-separated “Telstra Networks” builds it. in either case, access charges will have to rise by the same amount because the cost of investing in FTTN is the same regardless of whether it’s being built by Telstra Corp or “Telstra Networks”.
similarly, even if “Telstra Networks” was structurally-separated 10 years ago, if the ACCC kept lowering the returns on the access network by depressing ULL/LSS/WLR charges (as it has done), “Telstra Networks” would have behaved in exactly the same way Telstra Corp has done in minimising maintenance work (and not fixing broadband blackspots) to maintain profitability.
in terms of lack of investment in the network, “structural separation” is a completely tangential issue.
*There is no valid reason why iiNet, TPG, Internode, and Optus all need to rent their customer loop from ONE provider who ALSO competes with them on a retail level. It’s anti-competitive in the extreme.*
actually, the retail playing-field is tilted against Telstra because ISPs like iiNet, TPG, Internode and Optus are able to bypass Telstra’s wholesale charges by investing in DSLAMs and accessing the tail circuit via ACCC-mandated cheap ULL/LSS, thereby, undercutting Bigpond and offering larger quotas plans at lower prices.
this is why Telstra’s competitors have been able to amass a 50% share of the retail broadband market, without investing in any infrastructure (aside from Optus HFC) or having to spend hundreds of millions maintaining networks.
Telstra, on the other hand, is always on the backfoot, playing catch-up in terms of retail pricing, because as the owner of the copper network, they can’t rape or whore their own network without reducing the total returns on their assets. Telstra’s competitors have every incentive to rape the copper network because they don’t bear the burden of having to service the multi-billion dollar asset sitting on their balance sheets. Telstra has dividends streams to pay to pensioner shareholders and billions of dollars of interest-bearing loans to service.
*If total and clear separation can be achieved, and done so in a way to prevent dodgy back room TelstraNetworksTelstraRetail deals*
Telstra doesn’t pay itself to access its own network to retail Bigpond products. “wholesale prices” wouldn’t even exist if Telstra chose not to wholesale their network. (of course, they are forced to do so by legislation.)
*then the private sector at least stands a chance of doing something new and exciting*
no-one’s stopping Telstra’s competitors from building their own fixed-line networks and do “something new and exciting”.
*similarly, even if “Telstra Networks” was structurally-separated 10 years ago, if the ACCC kept lowering the returns on the access network by depressing ULL/LSS/WLR charges (as it has done), “Telstra Networks” would have behaved in exactly the same way Telstra Corp has done in minimising maintenance work (and not fixing broadband blackspots) to maintain profitability.
Perhaps… if TelstraNetworks remained as a shareholder-ransomed entity. If TelstraNetworks was returned to the status of being a government department, perhaps profitability could take second seat to, you know, working properly. Separation is one part of the issue, the other part is that the model of shareholder and businessman greed does not suit public infrastructure. (The issue of government inefficiency notwithstanding).
* accessing the tail circuit via ACCC-mandated cheap ULL/LSS
That’s not the point. The ACCC shouldn’t have to step in to ensure equal access to infrastructure built from the public purse. The fact they had to at all is evidence of the anti-competitive nature of the vertically integrated Telstra. Something that should never have existed. I apologise for not being clearer earlier, i didn’t mean that separation on its own would be the panacea, I meant that separation, and re public-isation of infrastructure, the bricks and mortar our taxes paid to build.
* no-one’s stopping Telstra’s competitors from building their own fixed-line networks
The exorbitant cost of Telstra pit/duct access, and the unwillingness of councils to allow the construction of more?
* Telstra has dividends streams to pay to pensioner shareholders
Thanks to pensioners being able to own Telstra shares, their grandchildren are losing out. They can bear the consequences of fixing the situation, tough bikkies.
*Thanks to pensioners being able to own Telstra shares, their grandchildren are losing out. They can bear the consequences of fixing the situation, tough bikkies.*
don’t forget, the $60-70bln that the Government earned from the privatisation resulted in $60-70bln reduction in debt/tax burden for everyone including grandchildren. it means everyone has more money than otherwise to spend.
or that $60-70bln, could pay for an NBN with $blns left over.
plus if telstra with their old copper network was worth $60-70bln, imagine what NBNCo with state of the art fibre will be worth.
*or that $60-70bln, could pay for an NBN with $blns left over.*
$60-70bln can pay for a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean you should buy them.
*plus if telstra with their old copper network was worth $60-70bln, imagine what NBNCo with state of the art fibre will be worth.*
i’m not quite sure of the exact number, but i recall reading someone quoting “$60-70bln”. but, whatever it is, you have to realise:
1/ a chunk of that reflected the sale of a large block of shares around the time of the dotcom boom, when you had an irrationally high P/E valuation of telco companies. that no longer applies. no investor will pay those crazy earnings multiples again.
2/ ten years ago, the industry landscape was totally different and Telstra’s fixed-line network was much more profitable, e.g. ULL was double what it is now; revenue mix tilted towards higher margin PSTN products vs lower margin broadband products; fixed-line domination with nascent wireless; etc.
just think about it – a decade ago, many people didn’t even own mobile phones; now, a lot of people have more than one mobile phone and ditch their fixed-line. the industry landscape is totally different and beyond comparison in terms of the value and importance of a fixed network back then and NOW. Skype didn’t exist (or was fledging) ten years ago, and you don’t need much bandwidth to Skype.
most of the traditional revenue streams of fixed-line networks are gradually being eroded year after year. only 60% of population subscribe to ADSL broadband because it’s already too expensive for the remaining 40%. making broadband more expensive isn’t going to grow take-up and revenue.
when you borrow money to push fibre indiscriminately to every premise with millions of underutilised connections, NBNco basically has a negative net worth. when a future government liquidates NBNco’s assets, they will end up selling at less than 100c on the dollar.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/media-marketing/telstras-nbn-deal-may-be-torn-up-turnbull/story-e6frg2rc-1226098995549
“A lot of people have said, and they are right, that it would have been cheaper for the government to buy all of Telstra, keep the customer access network and sell off all of the wireless and retail business,” Mr Turnbull said.
LOL
THAT IS SO TRUE.
$35 market cap
less $20bln wireless assets
less $5bln for retail arm
= $10bln (approx.)
and you’d actually OWN all the exchanges, pits, ducts & copper lines, as opposed to the current $11bln deal where they are just leasing access to certain exchanges, pits, ducts and aren’t even allowed to TOUCH the copper.
two words: Labor Incompetence.
Renai, your tired Labor bashing rhetoric belies the fact you have not the least bit of interest in why the NBN is the best policy for this country. Lets just focus on the main untruths of this debate.
Firstly the Liberals scream “taxpayers money”. This is of course not what’s actually happening. In reality the NBN is being funded out of the pockets of large institutional investors. How? The government sells bonds to large investors. This money is loaned to NBNco. NBNco makes a return from selling its products and services. Then NBN repays its loan to the government. Net effect on the budget is zero. Its as simple as that.
Yes, the government does act as guarantor. But then the government is in the privileged position to create a low risk environment for NBNco. The beauty of the arrangement is that NBNco gets low cost capital and in return it can offer low cost products and services – something no regular private firm, tasked with the same job, could possibly do.
So let me repeat that. The NBN is NOT being funded by taxpayers money. It DOES NOT compete with schools or hospitals or roads. It actually gets paid for by making something useful and selling that. And it does so in the most efficient manner possible.
OK, so its NOT costing the taxpayer. What’s the big fuss about? Why scream big numbers that most people can’t understand if in fact what it actually is is an investment. The taxpayers actually end up owning something of real value. And that something is paid for because it sells services that ultimately generate wealth elsewhere in the economy.
Once you comprehend these simple facts, its hard to understand why the Liberals are making such a noise. Why indeed? The ultimate cost of building the network does affect the price of its products and services. But it does not affect government taxation or spending in other areas. Rather, a faster network, a future proof network, is the one most likely to generate wealth, raise standards of living, increase productivity and indirectly raise the tax base without raising taxes. In other words, its a win win situation.
Now, once you understand that, the noise generated on this issue is without any real point – there just is no problem to solve and no need to have to the el-cheapo version instead – in other words we’re being lied to and lead into a false economy.
A FTTH network and a FTTN network differ primarily in that the latter does not have the “last mile” cost. In this case, NBNco (out of its $26B capex) is going to spend roughly $10-$12B of that money on its street fiber. The “last mile” Part. So in theory you save half.
However, a FTTN network is not without its own unique costs. For a start there is several Billion to be spent on the “nodes”.. tens of thousand of these and they all require space for equipment and power. This is the investment that will be thrown away if a FTTN network were later upgraded. On top of this, there is a significant extra labour component. But the real biggie is this.
Telstra have never offered full separation. What they’re willing to do with NBNco is gradually abandon the copper network on a payment per user basis. It makes good business sense and they are freed from several Billion per year in maintenance costs on the copper. When FTTN was considered in 2008, the opinion of the expert panel that considered all the proposals was to put it simply, the copper would cost too much, any which way you tried to slice or dice it.
Telstra has said it wants in the order of $15B to sell the copper network. Anything less and its shareholders and the courts would become involved.
What Mr. Turnbull wants to do is to turn back the clock to the days when Telstra was blackmailing the government offering 75% FTTN with the government throwing billions of dollars of taxpayers money at it and then asking for a regulatory holiday which would allow it to charge extortionately. All of this sir is well known and well published fact.
So what’s Turnbull on about now? Voluntary separation? Oh yeah, suuure. Whats really going to happen is Turnbull is going to try to sweeten the deal by giving to Telstra billions of assets from NBNco and throwing in taxpayers billions, and also in the process handing back pricing power to Telstra. This dream he has of lots of little companies competing over the physical network is just a red herring. Remember the cable wars, and the waste involved in overbuilds? No one is going to do that. The bottom line is an inferior network. One that has a limited use by date and one that unlike the NBN, the taxpayer does not own.
IN other words, what we’re talking about here is replacing a FTTH build with a $26B capex (plus opex and interest costs) and instead having a FTTN network that may cost (once all the creative accounting is unrolled) around the $13-$18B mark. So then, you get something that isn’t cheap – its actually more than half the cost and that’s being very generous to the idea indeed – and you’re getting something that has built in obsolescence in under 10 years compared to something that will last us over 50 years. FALSE ECONOMY.
Why? There’s absolutely no sense in this is there? To take a situation where the entire industry is on board, and just toss it into the bin and start again on a hair brained scheme that is little more than pretense. After all, all this is about is pretending that the Liberals “can do better”. No, they can’t. Not on this sector anyhow. And why?
Because of ideology. Because of the “government bad m’kay” meme. Because they really just can’t grok that a little company called NBNco, stocked with the best experts, and actually doing the market thing by tendering out its work, can do better than your regular bloodthirsty telco giants not the least interested in the best outcomes.
This is the most indecent, ruinous, nasty, incoherent opposition we have ever seen in this country. Its so absolutely essential not to have their narrative fracture, not to admit that the government got it right on anything, that they have to embark on the most foolish, destructive path possible in an industry that’s worth $80B to our economy. Why the heck would any sensible person want this mob of ideologicaly blinded wreckers?
And lets look at it from one more perspective. We have a copper network. Ok, fine. Its aging. It needs replacement sooner or later. Once you get around to actually replacing it, the only sane alternative is fiber. Since fiber cable itself is inexpensive and labor is what costs. All this rubbish about 4 lane highways is bogus. With fiber you get a 400 lane highway for the same price. So why the heck not? Ultimately a fully FTTH network will be built. The only question is when and how. Now the NBN strategy under this government is to appoint a team of experts to do it properly, as a seamless whole, with all the benefits of scale that entails, and without the senseless costs of having multiple overlapping physical cables.
The free marketeers here just simply can’t abandon the thought that sometimes, markets fail. And some things are natural monopolies. Even Adam Smith in “the wealth of nations” made it very clear that markets are useful but are also limited. The NBN is a perfect example of something that is best built as a unified whole, built by experts, and built with the cheapest capital (government bonds) and also best as a wholesale only monopoly with clearly regulated prices. That’s the best of all worlds and any pretense that the Liberals have that they can do better is just plain bullshit.
Finally, if you’re tempted to vote Liberal, remember this…
Don’t think you’re going to get your “upgrade” soon. With the dodgy cost benefit analysis, the disruption to industry, the negotiations and so on you’ll be lucky to see this sucker breathe any life before the 2016 election.
Oh, and one other thing. Nerds actually think about things. Liberals just sit there and stew in their ideology and generally create populist but non-functional governments more interested in handing out grants to make babies than do anything worthwhile in infrastructure.
Lovely little speech, pat yourself on the back.
So, if the majority of Australians don’t require more than entry level NBN speeds, why do they need fibre at all?
How will the NBN service the over 2 million disadvantaged Australians who won’t be able to afford it? Oh yes, thats right, they can go down to their local library and queue… *sigh*
Please provide the real figures as to how much the NBN has ALREADY cost the Australian taxpayer.
it was a lovely speech, coherent, fluent, factual and very well presented. the sort of detailed comment people such as myself come to delimiter for. thank you ungulate.
your response however, certainly was not.
Right dillbrain….. *yawn*
Not related to RS by any chance are you?
temper, temper.
while i do not condone internet censorship, i certainly also do not condone, aggressive, unprovoked personal attacks at forums such as this. always from the same individuals, aimed at each and every person who has a differing view point to them. everyone here is entitled to an opinion and to forward that opinion without being referred to as a dill brain, for example.
are such comments absolutely necessary? do you think it stands you, the perception people have of you and your comments and your argument in good stead? i’d say quite the opposite actually.
as i mentioned i do not agree with internet censorship, but i applaud delimiter in one way for trying to stamp out unwarranted flamers. but in the same breath i find it puzzling that the job was only half done, still leaving a group of others, equally disruptive.
until such time as all of the troublemakers are dispelled, it really is a complete waste of time trying to conduct meaningful discussions at delimiter, as ungulate clearly found.
probably time to go back to just visiting for a quick read, belly laugh at the insolence and unwillingness of those to listen or consider others views and then move on to the serious forums. forums as yet not infiltrated by the rs’s, alains and backsliders of this world.
“temper, temper.”
Fortunately for you, I do not rile very easily.
“while i do not condone internet censorship, i certainly also do not condone, aggressive, unprovoked personal attacks at forums such as this. always from the same individuals, aimed at each and every person who has a differing view point to them. everyone here is entitled to an opinion and to forward that opinion without being referred to as a dill brain, for example.”
You must be referring to RS. Yes, he was banned several times.
“are such comments absolutely necessary? do you think it stands you, the perception people have of you and your comments and your argument in good stead? i’d say quite the opposite actually.”
You mean the “dillbrain” comment? Yes, that was directed toward you and deservedly so. While you sit there ranting about decorum, you fail to see your own lack of it. Your rudeness toward me immediately led me to the conclusion that the cap fits you perfectly. You have failed to change that view.
“as i mentioned i do not agree with internet censorship, but i applaud delimiter in one way for trying to stamp out unwarranted flamers. but in the same breath i find it puzzling that the job was only half done, still leaving a group of others, equally disruptive.”
You either condone internet censorship or you do not. You can’t have it both ways buddy! If your comment toward myself was not a flame, then such a thing is a myth and doesn’t exist.
“until such time as all of the troublemakers are dispelled, it really is a complete waste of time trying to conduct meaningful discussions at delimiter, as ungulate clearly found.”
Well, since it was you that started this, while I was trying to ask ungulate pertinent questions, I expect that you will expel yourself from our company without further ado…. and stop kidding yourself that you don’t agree with censorship.
“probably time to go back to just visiting for a quick read, belly laugh at the insolence and unwillingness of those to listen or consider others views and then move on to the serious forums. forums as yet not infiltrated by the rs’s, alains and backsliders of this world.”
Off you go then… take your own advice you troublemaker.
thank you for verifying exactly as i said.
enjoy arguing an argument you simply cannot win, because one person’s opinion is no more valid than another’s.
no matter how many names you call people and expletives you feel you must use to justify your’s.
Oh sticks and stones.
You are just another of these gutless morons who comes on here, blatantly insults somebody, then when they bite back makes some holier than thou speech as though they did absolutely nothing wrong. Get a life you pathetic little troll….
Still waiting for ungulate to answer the questions, which clearly you are here to detract from….. troll, thru and thru
backslider, tut tut. i suppose you want to punch my head in too?
if you care to reverse you will see that you started this by being disrespectful to ungulate. but blame me if you must. i know it makes you feel more like a real man.
Oh I get it! You cult worship the hoofed one, so its disrespectful of me to ask questions…..
@ungulate
” Lets just focus on the main untruths of this debate”
LOL
I wish you had, you didn’t and here is why:
” This is of course not what’s actually happening. In reality the NBN is being funded out of the pockets of large institutional investors.”
So all the millions spent so far is being paid for how – the NBN Co employees and all the contractors are being paid with IOU’s?
” How? The government sells bonds to large investors.”
So in what decade is the Bond sale going to happen after the NBN rollout has started and what if the bond sale tanks?
“This money is loaned to NBNco. NBNco makes a return from selling its products and services.:
What if expenses are higher than revenue and the NBN Co cannot service the loan, a very real possibility if at least 70% of residences do not take a paying NBN BB Plan
“Yes, the government does act as guarantor. But then the government is in the privileged position to create a low risk environment for NBNco. The beauty of the arrangement is that NBNco gets low cost capital and in return it can offer low cost products and services – something no regular private firm, tasked with the same job, could possibly do.”
The NBN is a high risk environment because it relies on 70% take up of services and at least a 7% return on investment – tell them they are dreaming.
“So let me repeat that. The NBN is NOT being funded by taxpayers money.”
It is actually, unless you can prove that Quigleys and all the other execs packages and all of the CAPEX of the rollout so far is being paid with a slip of paper that says’ ‘Bonds will come later’.
“A FTTH network and a FTTN network differ primarily in that the latter does not have the “last mile” cost. In this case, NBNco (out of its $26B capex) is going to spend roughly $10-$12B of that money on its street fiber. The “last mile” Part. So in theory you save half.”
That is complete and utter rubbish, where did you get that ‘half ‘ BS from?
“This is the investment that will be thrown away if a FTTN network were later upgraded.”
FTTN can be upgraded to FTTH later if needed, many overseas FTTN rollouts have taken this into account in their FTTN evaluation.
” On top of this, there is a significant extra labour component.”
What significant extra Labor component?, FTTN can be rolled out quicker because you can use existing infrastructure, you mean FTTH has a significant extra labour component?
” What they’re willing to do with NBNco is gradually abandon the copper network on a payment per user basis. It makes good business sense and they are freed from several Billion per year in maintenance costs on the copper.”
It’s good business sense for the Conroy and the NBN Co to have the Telstra copper shutdown, because until it is all shut down it has no hope of surviving.
Australia is unique in the world, it is paying existing infrastructure owners billions to shut down their networks so the NBN monopoly has chance of surviving.
Interesting economics justifying $43 billion of spend don’t you think?
” When FTTN was considered in 2008, the opinion of the expert panel that considered all the proposals was to put it simply, the copper would cost too much, any which way you tried to slice or dice it.”
The RFP’s were all chucked out by Labour, no one had the chance to resubmit anything FTTN or FTTH or a combination or both.
“Telstra has said it wants in the order of $15B to sell the copper network. Anything less and its shareholders and the courts would become involved.”
Why is that cost greater than a FTTH rollout with compensation paid to Optus and Telstra to shut down their infrastructure?
“All of this sir is well known and well published fact.”
Well it isn’t actually, most of that rant you made up.
“So what’s Turnbull on about now? Voluntary separation?”
No he didn’t mention voluntary separation, quite the opposite, his plan is for Telstra to be separated.
” Whats really going to happen is Turnbull is going to try to sweeten the deal by giving to Telstra billions of assets from NBNco”
Where did he say that?
” and throwing in taxpayers billions”
Where did he say that?
“, and also in the process handing back pricing power to Telstra.”
Where did he say he was disbanding the Government organisation that determines NBN and Telstra monopoly pricing the ACCC?
” This dream he has of lots of little companies competing over the physical network is just a red herring”
Where did he say that?
” Remember the cable wars, and the waste involved in overbuilds? No one is going to do that. The bottom line is an inferior network. One that has a limited use by date and one that unlike the NBN, the taxpayer does not own.”
The Coalition plan is not about overbuild, and the NBN is intended to be privatised, it’s in the Labor BB plan presented to Parliament and passed by Parliament.
“IN other words, what we’re talking about here is replacing a FTTH build with a $26B capex (plus opex and interest costs) and instead having a FTTN network that may cost (once all the creative accounting is unrolled) around the $13-$18B mark.”
The only creative accountant here is you, what complete and utter BS figure comparisons.
“that’s worth $80B to our economy.”
Plucking figures out of the air again I see, $80B, $100B, whatever eh?
“Why the heck would any sensible person want this mob of ideologicaly blinded wreckers?”
That’s why if a election was held now the Coalition would romp it in.
“Don’t think you’re going to get your “upgrade” soon. With the dodgy cost benefit analysis, the disruption to industry, the negotiations and so on you’ll be lucky to see this sucker breathe any life before the 2016 election.’
You mean as distinct from the non existent CBA on the NBN?
That’s enough, I have cut out all the off topic boring swathes of anti-Coaltion political based emotive ranting thinly disguised as a case for the NBN which fails totally because of incomprehensible gibberish of the worst kind.
Alain,
I’ll just rummage through your post to find the bits that are coherent enough to warrant a response…
“So in what decade is the Bond sale going to happen after the NBN rollout has started and what if the bond sale tanks?”
The bonds in question are being sold at this moment.
“What if expenses are higher than revenue and the NBN Co cannot service the loan, a very real possibility if at least 70% of residences do not take a paying NBN BB Plan”
If you have an argument to support this, trot it out. Otherwise I’ll refer to you to the argument for 70% take up in NBNco’s business plan. http://www.nbnco.com.au/news-and-events/news/nbn-co-corporate-plan-released.html
Of course that plan is now actually too conservative because it was done prior to any deal being done with Telstra. Now that Telstra is on board, so too is Optus. And the rest of the industry is solidly behind the NBN, a take up of 70% seems very much on the cards.
“EXTREMELY HIGH RISK”
Not any more. See above.
“the street cabinets used in FTTN can be reused for FTTH”
Wrong. The FDH (fiber) cabinets are a passive patch panel. The nodes are powered. One costs a few thousand. The other costs tens of thousands. One is small, the other is quite large. And all of the electronics and power supply becomes scrap even if you’re lucky enough to find a node that is in the right location for a future FDH panel which is another issue.
“NBNco’s network will be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to utilise because access pricing will reflect MASSIVE EMBEDDED (DISTORTIONARY) CROSS-SUBSIDIES”
No comment necessary :)
“if Telstra builds FTTN to metropolitan areas, not a single cent of taxpayers’ money will be spent. ”
That’s IF it does. As it stands, Telstra seems perfectly happy becoming a customer of the NBN. Why would it want to change course when the deal with NBNco for better or worse is a generous one. Why would Telstra be the least bit interested in FTTN now, unless it were offered taxpayer subsidy and a regulatory holiday – and it has form in this.
Frankly, Alain what you’ve failed to notice is the central premise. That is the core argument being used by Liberals is that the NBN has to be justified as if its competing with roads and other spending – it isn’t. Now given that fact, all the arguments about why we will never need it or we could make do with less, are utterly irrelevant.
As I said, you either get a future proof world class network that lifts the productivity of the country, lifts our standard of living, even delivers more GDP hence more money for the government to spend on other things. One that becomes an asset owned by the taxpayer.
Or..
You get sucked into a bogus argument about the headline cost and led into a false economy. One where you get a half assed, patchwork, band aid network with a use by date. One where tax payer money (yes the stuff that would have paid for roads instead) gets diverted into propping up private monopolies. One where the end user cops it in the end and the taxpayer has nothing to show for it.
Another good read ungulate (very knowledgeable) Really starting/looking forward to the NBN when it gets to my neck of the woods. Cheers
That’s what I like with the pro-NBN brigade, even when a post is shown to be wrong it’s put on the filtered glasses on and pretend it all doesn’t exist.
Alain again *YAWN*
@Avid Gamer
“Alain again *YAWN*”
Ouch! -those withering fact backed attacks, it’s brilliant well researched stuff, or is it just a reflection of staying up all night gaming?
alain, haven’t you read the results of the “Ungulate WP FTTH Estates Survey”?
people living in TransACT and other greenfield FTTH estates enjoy a higher standard of living, are more productive and pay higher taxes than ordinary Australians who live outside of those hallowed fibred-up areas.
I heard also these FTTH areas have the highest at home digital photography business ratio, the HD video conferencing in these suburbs has gone through the roof and the demand for interactive dance mats is insatiable.
:)
You know guys, I’m really beginning to have second thoughts. Imagine having Nick Faldo right there in my loungeroom tuning my swing…. “Watch the chandelier!!!”……. or being able to play live in the British Open as a virtual competitor, right beside Rory McIlroy and Phil Mickelson…… man
Easy, with that sort of innovative insight into our digital future you might be invited by Conroy to the next ‘orange button’ NBN opening.
Backslider and his interactive golf mat!
:)
*That is the core argument being used by Liberals is that the NBN has to be justified as if its competing with roads and other spending – it isn’t. Now given that fact, all the arguments about why we will never need it or we could make do with less, are utterly irrelevant.*
this is a GEM in human stupidity.
so, the NBN isn’t “competing with roads and other govt spending” because it’s not funded by taxes, but by subscriber fees. from that, our GENIUS FRIEND, ungulate, asserts that the issues relating to “why we will ever need the NBN are utterly irrelevant”.
uh… DoooOOOOhHHH!!….. if the NBN is entirely dependent on subscriber revenues to meet costs, doesn’t that make the issue of how much consumers are willing to fork out on services a matter of PRIMARY IMPORTANCE?
even my 10yr old brother has a better clue… “uuuhhh tosh, but dat mayke noo seeNnSseeeE!!”
@ungulate
“I’ll just rummage through your post to find the bits that are coherent enough to warrant a response…”
Which translates as I’ll attempt a response to the bits I choose, the awkward points I will ignore, the rest I will make up (again).
“The bonds in question are being sold at this moment.”
Give me a link to the web site where you can buy them.
“If you have an argument to support this, trot it out. Otherwise I’ll refer to you to the argument for 70% take up in NBNco’s business plan. http://www.nbnco.com.au/news-and-events/news/nbn-co-corporate-plan-released.html”
So that translates as you don’t know and you will take the word of the NBN Co that has to justify its existence, yeah ok I like that totally independent analysis of NBN revenue predictions that’s one objective point of view, independent analysis does not agree with that.
“a take up of 70% seems very much on the cards.”
No it isn’t.
“Wrong. The FDH (fiber) cabinets are a passive patch panel. The nodes are powered”
So all those overseas Telco’s rolling out FTTN with a view to a FTTH upgrade later have got to wrong, and all tyhe technical information from the likes of Alacatel-Lucent explaining how the upgrade transition works have got to wrong also, because you say so.
“. One costs a few thousand. The other costs tens of thousands.”
One what? you also overlook each FTTN cabinet services 300 residences and doesn’t require each residence to have a powered FTTH ONT box.
” One is small, the other is quite large. And all of the electronics and power supply becomes scrap even if you’re lucky enough to find a node that is in the right location for a future FDH panel which is another issue.”
No it’s not another piece of crap you just made up , I noticed you used generic terms in describing the cabinet sizes like ‘small’ and ‘quite large’, that’s real tech stuff ungulate, got any actual measurement comparisons – best not go there eh?
The rest of your post is a total distortion because you have mixed in a load of ToshP300’s response and attributed it to me, nice work ungulate, your casual approach to facts is repeated in the way you post.
@ungulate
Update:
“One is small, the other is quite large.”
Oh you mean like this ‘small’ unobtrusive FTTH NBN distribution hub with all the graffiti over it in Brunswick?
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/brunswick-locals-rolled-by-nbn-20110803-1ibq1.html#ixzz1U1hDUkIp
@ungulate – So why did the Age report: “Over the life of the project, it (the government) has pledged to contribute $27.5 billion in taxpayer funds, while NBN Co plans to borrow the rest on debt markets.” …?
ungulate has left the building.
*Firstly the Liberals scream “taxpayers money”. This is of course not what’s actually happening. In reality the NBN is being funded out of the pockets of large institutional investors. How? The government sells bonds to large investors. This money is loaned to NBNco. NBNco makes a return from selling its products and services. Then NBN repays its loan to the government. Net effect on the budget is zero. Its as simple as that.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
NBNco will never be able to recoup the $50bln “investment”. TOTAL fixed-line revenues (include retail margins) currently stands at ~$11bln. NBNco requires almost $10bln of WHOLESALE revenues (alone) to make their numbers stack up. if the NBN is built to completion, the taxpayer will have to bear the massive financial burden of bailing out NBNco from the inevitable $50bln bankruptcy.
*Yes, the government does act as guarantor. But then the government is in the privileged position to create a low risk environment for NBNco. The beauty of the arrangement is that NBNco gets low cost capital and in return it can offer low cost products and services*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
NBNco’s ENTIRE PROJECT of indiscriminately pushing fibre to almost every premise in Australia without regard to infrastructure cost, market demand and consumer affordability is EXTREMELY HIGH RISK because large swathes of these installed connections will be completely underutilised. aside from hardcore torrenters, internet addicts and unemployed teenagers from wealthy households, the VAST MAJORITY of ordinary households have ZERO REQUIREMENT and ZERO CAPACITY TO PAY for expensive fibre connections.
at present, only 60% of households can afford ADSL. NBN fibre will be AT LEAST TWICE AS EXPENSIVE in the long run (following the initial, artificially-priced ADSL-fibre transition to lure households onto the NBN before shutting down all competing platforms).
NBNco’s network will be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to utilise because access pricing will reflect MASSIVE EMBEDDED (DISTORTIONARY) CROSS-SUBSIDIES to internally-subsidise the capital servicing burden of the vast majority of freshly-installed, underutilised fibre connections spread across some of the most expensive cost geographies in the world. other wealthy Western countries are spending HUNDREDS of dollars per capita to upgrade broadband. the Labor Party is alone in its stupidity in spending THOUSANDS of dollars per capita.
*A FTTH network and a FTTN network differ primarily in that the latter does not have the “last mile” cost. In this case, NBNco (out of its $26B capex) is going to spend roughly $10-$12B of that money on its street fiber. The “last mile” Part. So in theory you save half.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
NBNco will incur upfront capital costs of $36bln. on top of that, you have to add billions of dollars of PROJECT DEBT INTEREST. the vast majority of that cost will relate to replacing the last-mile with fibre. backhaul is relatively cheap. by building FTTN, you save MORE THAN HALF the costs of building FTTH because the task of shrinking the “last-mile” becomes exponentially cumbersome and expensive as you get closer to the actual premise due to the necessity of constructing individual “fibre lead-in conduits” for all varieties of premises.
*However, a FTTN network is not without its own unique costs. For a start there is several Billion to be spent on the “nodes”.. tens of thousand of these and they all require space for equipment and power. This is the investment that will be thrown away if a FTTN network were later upgraded. On top of this, there is a significant extra labour component. But the real biggie is this.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
the street cabinets used in FTTN can be reused for FTTH. all you need to do is unplug the copper tail and plug in the newly-laid fibre tails. you do this as household demand and capacity to pay for fibre arises. this is what New Zealand is doing. the real and massive economic advantage of FTTN over FTTH is that you delay unnecessarilly replacing the “last-mile” before DEMAND and REVENUE arises and, hence, avoid having to borrow TEN OF BILLIONS of dollars more with the DEBT INTEREST accruing at a COMPOUNDED RATE – this is what will eventually SINK NBNco into financial bankruptcy.
*What they’re willing to do with NBNco is gradually abandon the copper network on a payment per user basis. It makes good business sense and they are freed from several Billion per year in maintenance costs on the copper. When FTTN was considered in 2008, the opinion of the expert panel that considered all the proposals was to put it simply, the copper would cost too much, any which way you tried to slice or dice it.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
Telstra’s current market cap is $36bln. most of that value is in their wireless assets. their copper network has been progressively devalued by the ACCC’s actions in artificially-depressing the WLR/ULL/LSS access charges to extremely low levels over the past decade while you have ongoing PSTN line and call volume erosion. Telstra’s booming wireless business has been subsidising the decline in fixed network profitability. in total (wireless and fixed), Telstra’s overall group earnings has been relatively FLAT. part of the reason why Telstra agreed to the deal was because the Government informally threatened to deprive Telstra of future releases of wireless spectrum. wireless expansion is absolutely CRUCIAL to their business given the ongoing in erosion in fixed-line revenues.
Telstra was prepared to build FTTN several years ago and was only stopped by the ACCC’s unwillingness to given them regulatory certainty over pricing. so-called “expert panels” presided by ivory tower academics with vested interests like Rod Tucker who have never run a business in their life and spend their whole lives feeding off the public teat don’t know shit about infrastructure investment in the real world and what’s viable and what isn’t.
Telstra is happy and eager to build FTTN because capital investment in the region of “billions of dollars” doesn’t affect its bottomline (much). the reduction (not elimination) in maintenance costs would offset the capital servicing burden of a couple of billion dollars.
Telstra currently spends $500-600mln a year in maintaining the copper network. even if you make the EXTREME (and clearly unrealistic) assumption that some form of upgrade will reduce maintenance costs to $0, $600mln capitalised at, say, 10% weighted average cost of funds (ignoring principal repayment) equates to $6 billion dollars max. if you spend TENS of BILLIONS of dollars on an infrastructure upgrade instead, internet prices will HAVE to go up SUBSTANTIALLY (in the absence of govt subsidies) because the capital-servicing burden will no longer be neutral to Telstra’s bottomline.
*Telstra has said it wants in the order of $15B to sell the copper network. Anything less and its shareholders and the courts would become involved.*
the Chewbacca Defence again. and what’s NBNco currently offering Telstra? something in the region of $30bln+ in total undiscounted cash flows over the period of the agreement. stop aping Conroy’s stupid illogic. (dangerous, ignoramus politicians like him belong in SuperMax.)
*What Mr. Turnbull wants to do is to turn back the clock to the days when Telstra was blackmailing the government offering 75% FTTN with the government throwing billions of dollars of taxpayers money at it and then asking for a regulatory holiday which would allow it to charge extortionately. All of this sir is well known and well published fact.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
if Telstra builds FTTN to metropolitan areas, not a single cent of taxpayers’ money will be spent. Telstra will benefit from lower maintenance costs which will be offset by a slightly higher capital servicing burden of a couple of billion dollars. if the Government mandates FTTN to 90%, then regional subscribers will benefit from government subsidies to encourage Telstra to extend FTTN outside the metropolitan footprint. Telstra does NOT benefit from government subsidies. those subsidies just defray the higher capital costs per subscriber in sparsely-populated regional areas. (no matter where Telstra builds infrastructure, they face the same cost of funding. if they have to absorb the higher capital costs per capita, then they LOSE money.)
*Whats really going to happen is Turnbull is going to try to sweeten the deal by giving to Telstra billions of assets from NBNco…..The bottom line is an inferior network. One that has a limited use by date and one that unlike the NBN, the taxpayer does not own.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
it’s not Turnbull’s fault if idiots like Conroy spends billions pushing fibre to Whoop Whoop with 5 measly subscribers and the highest bid for rubbish white elephant infrastructure is 10cents in the dollar. this is why Turnbull wants to stop the TAXPAYER WASTE ASAP. a COST-EFFECTIVE and AFFORDABLE network is the SUPERIOR network.
FFS, why the fuck would the taxpayer want to “OWN” an infrastructure company with a NEGATIVE NET WORTH and $50BLN DEBT?
*IN other words, what we’re talking about here is replacing a FTTH build with a $26B capex (plus opex and interest costs) and instead having a FTTN network that may cost (once all the creative accounting is unrolled) around the $13-$18B mark. So then, you get something that isn’t cheap – its actually more than half the cost and that’s being very generous to the idea indeed – and you’re getting something that has built in obsolescence in under 10 years compared to something that will last us over 50 years. FALSE ECONOMY.*
that’s COMPLETE RUBBISH.
STOP MAKING UP your numbers. the capex build for FTTH is $36,000,000,000. that’s not including BILLIONS of dollars more in PROJECT DEBT INTEREST, TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars shelled out to mothball competing fixed-line infrastructure and the MULTI-MILLION dollar compensation packages enjoyed by the NBNco Executive Committee.
Excellent post, ungulate.
You know your stuff, and you are right on the money.
Nice post ungulate and very informative, Thanks
Avid Gamer and Gwyntaglaw, the echo comedy act, ‘well done ungulate’ .
ungulate has been literally ‘well done’, you are both right there.
Alain, you are one big *YAWN*
“Avid Gamer” – well, that doesn’t hide anything, now does it? Pretty clear as to why you are so pro-NBN and also shows you couln’t possibly have anything other than a biased viewpoint.
You know what? I like games also and am an avid golfer. Guess what? I paid 20K to join a decent country club, pay a monthly fee plus caddie fees so I can enjoy my game. How about YOU pay for the internet connection you want to enjoy yours?
Same goes for the rest of your gameboy crew.
“Avid Gamer” – well, that doesn’t hide anything, now does it? Pretty clear as to why you are so pro-NBN and also shows you couln’t possibly have anything other than a biased viewpoint.
I am far from biased m8 I can assure you that, my voting preferences over the last 30 years have been very varied depending on the issues of the time. Now how varied has your voting/bias been over the last 30 years or has it ALL been Liberal, Liberal nothing but Liberal so help me GOD and GOD bless America *cough, cough* meant to say Australia.
Gameboy, never touch it that’s for little kiddies. Me high end computer gaming is the way to go and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than hitting a little ball all over the park. And you pay 20K + EXTRAS to hit a ball? what ever floats your boat I suppose.
“How about YOU pay for the internet connection you want to enjoy yours?”
I do and have always done so to the tune of $99.95 (Internode) a month.
Ok then, give us your eminently unbiased opinion as to why all the Australians who do not want or need blistering internet speed should have the NBN shoved down their throats, no matter the cost?
P.S. I think you would be shocked if you did a faithful accounting of your outlay for your own little hobby.
Thank you folks, we’ll be here all week! Oh wait…
“a massive $50bln taxpayer bail-out / fiscal train wreck. ”
Give me.. .ludicrous speed! ;)
There you go!…. you have just undone any argument you have ever made supporting the NBN. Thanks!
Its always interesting to see the motivations of people like ungulate and avid gamer… 100% selfishness
WE WANT GAMER HEAVEN!!!!!!……. FTROTW !
i’ll share a story with you:
ungulate used to cross-post all over WP’s various NBN threads trying to spread his crazy idea that NBNco should be pushing fibre to 100% of the country (!!!!!) because based on his “reading” of ABS population statistics, the cost of laying fibre beyond the 93rd percentile is no higher than the average cost of the first 93 percentiles….
LOL
that’s what happens when politicians start selling crazy ideas to the public – it just entices all these nutcases to emerge from their secluded aslyum and start promulgating even crazier ideas.
sif the NBNco business plan isn’t already STUPID enough as it is.
I actually wondered how many hours he spent composing his little rhubarb…. *snicker*
“his crazy idea that NBNco should be pushing fibre to 100% of the country”
Really? Does that mean the bag lady who lives wrapped in old blankets at Circular Quay and the fellow who lives in cardboard boxes up on George Street?
Maybe I should be pro-NBN, huh?
Yes, well, I do think Fibre-to-the-Tree or Fibre-to-the-Water-Feature is going a bit far for now. Though we are talking about the Internet of Things, so you never know!
Backslider, who’s talking about “WE WANT GAMER HEAVEN!!!!!!” as I don’t and have never ever played games online as you seem to be referring to my handle as someone who does nothing but plays video games online as the ONLY reason for supporting Labor’s NBN.
But anyhow Backslider a big *YAWN* to you too
Yeah sure. I’ll believe you, but thousands wouldn’t.
Ok then, explain:
Exactly why do YOU need super fast internet speeds. What activities do you engage in online that requires it?
How much are YOU willing to pay for it?
Why is your current connection not sufficient?
What is your current internet connection speed?
What type of connection is it?
“Yeah sure. I’ll believe you, but thousands wouldn’t.
Ok then, explain:
Exactly why do YOU need super fast internet speeds. What activities do you engage in online that requires it?
How much are YOU willing to pay for it?
Why is your current connection not sufficient?
What is your current internet connection speed?
What type of connection is it?”
Here’s a good enough reason http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/
“How much are YOU willing to pay for it?”
Anything up to say $150 a month would be OK to me as I already pay $100 a month for ADSL2+ which loses sync a couple of times a day mainly from about 5PM onwards. But that’s the nature of ADSL2+ over copper and my line is in fairly good condition most likely because of living in a regional town.
You only answered two of the questions.
“You only answered two of the questions.”
I already have http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/
My sync speed varies from about 13-15Mbits with it being lower in the hotter months and better/higher in the winter/cooler months.
But as I’ve already said my ADSL2+ loses sync a couple of times a day mainly from about 5PM onwards due to electrical interferences from various sources outside the household (street lighting for example)
Is losing sync an answer as to why you need the NBN??
You say the your speed “varies from about 13-15Mbits”… is that so bad??
Now, please answer the other questions.
If you are unable to address the questions, just say so.
amazing how many broadband whingers on delimiter live in regional and get 15-18Mbit, while i live 20km from a capital city and only get 6Mbit…. do you see me jumping up and down and complaining?
and yes i know, speed is determined by distance from exchange and i’m not that far.
Patiently waiting for answers here…. but experience tells me not to be hopeful.
Yes, Tosh, its amazing. I currenlty get around 3.4Mbps and go to work every day on it (I telecommute). Before I was on only 750Kbps and still not an issue, I worked every day on that for five years. Sure, a bit more speed would boost my productivity a little (not massively), however ADSL is just fine and the average speed you get in Australia is a lot more than I get here.
You know Australia is doomed on the world economic stage unless we get the bloody gaming latency right, and if $43B of taxpayer funded FTTH cannot do it what hope is there?
:)
@alain
yes, don’t talk about the world stage…. that’s just depressing… we’re so far behind… we should have had FTTH 50 years ago… we’d be the “leading digital economy” (whatever that means) on this planet by now….
i mean look at Japan, which has the most extensive fibre-to-the-home build in the world….. look at how many DIGITAL ECONOMY TECH GIANTS they have produced….. like, umm…. er… yea… you know!…. i mean, Japan’s the “leading digital economy” in the world, right???!! they must be! they have extensive FTTH! er.. SOFTBANK! there you go! (oh, hang on… they are actually more of a telco than anything else..)
and then compare it to pitiful US of A…. so backwards…..with only measly 5% FTTH build… mostly reliant on lousy HFC instead which as we all know is like shared spectrum… it’s fibre to the NODE technology! ferrcrissakes… that’s shit…. like only slightly better than shared mobile spectrum! (oh, don’t mention wireless…. that’s unholy… dirty…. sacrilegious)… and not suprisingly, US is NOT the “leading digital economy”! they can’t be! they don’t push fibre everywhere! i mean what DIGITAL ECONOMY companies have they produced or innovated?….
(Google, Yahoo, Ebay, PayPal, GroupOn, NetFlix, Facebook, Youtube…..)
err…. those don’t count…. umm, right… as i was saying… Japan is CLEARLY the “leading digital economy” of the world because they have extensive fibre to the home! all we gotta do is blow $50bln on a fibre network, and we’ll be just like the US.. i mean Japan!… and inherit their mantle as “leading digital economy”. all it takes is loads of fibre strung underneath the sidewalks and along the poles… but it takes guts to do that… we just gotta cross that FEAR barrier and make the $50bln leap of F A I T H…. (forget about Silicon Valley, cultural values and ingenuity… all it takes is loads of grunt and sweat digging trenches.) Google, here we come!
@alain
*You know Australia is doomed on the world economic stage unless we get the bloody gaming latency right*
COD is a game of milliseconds… the margin for error is so small… one half a millisecond too late or too early, and you don’t quite make the shot…. on the NBNco team, we fight for those 17 milliseconds…. because we know, when we add up all those milliseconds… it’s gonna make the f**king difference between fragging and getting fragged.
time to update this page:
http://delimiter.com.au/the-century-club/
comment #346
Liberals still don’t get it. you can deliver your half-assed plan, which is like making a new 6 lane highway and having everyone go into 1 lane for the last 10 miles. or you can do the job properly the 1st time. yes things cost money, you do something do it properly or don’t bother at all. By the way i dislike both parties but because of your NBN ignorance i will vote labor. yes i will vote labor for the real NBN. you will lose again i know plenty who will back the true NBN. how will it feel to lose the election 2 times in a row because of the NBN? i know smarter monkeys.
@Realist
*you do something do it properly or don’t bother at all.*
tell that to these 40 countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2
Don’t worry – I think they’re all reading this thread! :)
thank you for that wiki link toshp300 very informative.
obviously the unspoken point you were trying to make is that, considering places such as slovenia have had vdsl since 2007, we are so far behind, that we need to act now and act decisively and doing fttn that is outdated is a complete waste of time.
agreed, by the time the opposition may take control in 2013 and then go through the legal processes we will be 8-10 years behind even slovenia, who having done it cheaply years ago, by that time, will be looking to upgrade to fttp/h.
you are right toshp300, we need to do it right now and get to the forefront with fttp, instead of being behind and playing catch up with slovenia and the likes.
what, leave you while you are still huffy and all upset, because me, that big bad man, didn’t praise you, like he did ungulate? I couldn’t, with you in your emotionally distraught state.
but, diddums, it obvious what I said. i can’t hold your hand 24/7 and explain everything little aspect to you. perhaps a 101, home english tuition course could help you?
you bought up history, about you at age 15, 1997 etc, so how old are you?
also, you have a number of other outstanding questions awaiting up yonder, so get to it, chop, chop.
“yes i will vote labor for the real NBN. you will lose again i know plenty who will back the true NBN”
I just replied to somebody else here who believed that Labor “won” the last election because of the NBN: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/04/turnbulls-new-nbn-policy-is-90-percent-win/#comment-120945
Ok, so if an election were held today, who do you think would win? :-)
‘NBN remains so contentious amongst much of the population today’
i am not sure if your comment above is true, – may be it should have been ‘Labour is in power today because Australians voted for NBN’
If malcolm’s policy is to stop the NBN, well we may need Labour for another term to finish the job.
“Labour is in power today because Australians voted for NBN”
You need to educate yourself. We had a hung parliment.
Traditionally, Australians do not vote out a first term Government, yet with Labor and its NBN thats exactly what happened. I think its safe to say that this was BECAUSE of the NBN.
Labor governs by the skin of its teeth because it is in bed with the Greens and idiots like Oakshott and Wilkie. They have a Minority Government.
If Australians had voted for Labor because they wanted the NBN, then it should have been a landslide victory. It wasn’t.
Regardless, next election will be the decider…. then you can weep.
Oops…. looks like RS got muzzled again.
Hey RS, while you are trying to praise 5150, take a look what he said about YOU: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/04/turnbulls-new-nbn-policy-is-90-percent-win/#comment-119741
I think there is a fine line between rigorous debate and offensive behaviour. I’ve been watching this thread and it’s been touch and go at times, but I don’t want to censor too harshly.
@5150
“and this is an example of that rigorous debate and non offensive behaviour you speak of renai? copied from up yonder.”
But of course 5150 you are very very selective on what copies ‘from up yonder’ you use.
Here is some others:
*Half the time I honestly think you’re drunk.*
‘Were you beaten as a little kid?’
‘you corrupt troll?’
‘you hang from the line similar to a rotting piece of mullet, like the troll you are.’
There were also all the deleted ones from the banned poster.
Now what’s the key difference here?, that’s right they are from pro-NBN posters and are ignored in your from the pulpit speech about personal attack, you view about personal attacks is not a objective view of personal attacks, it’s a biased view based on your motivation as being pro-NBN.
” i applauded ungulates comment as being coherent, fluent and factual and said his was not,”
I and others showed the flaws in ungulates argument, I asked you about that and if you had anything to add to his defense seeing that’s what you said you were doing, you ignored the request, just another example of your blatant bias and how you are extremely selective you are when you want to bag Delimiter and support a point of view because you want to stack your argument to reach a conclusion of your own making.
” is sadly deplorable, but typical of the one sidedness delimiter seems to now be allowing and more aptly, not allowing, in reply.”
Rubbish, you just don’t like seeing pro-NBN comment being responded to with facts, most times with links supporting the argument.
I hope you read all the pro-NBN argument in here (although I doubt it, you are selective in what you want to see), when links are asked for to support a point of view there is a deafening silence and in some cases the poster is never heard from again, of course you have no comment to make about that sort of BS that goes on all the time because any pro-NBN argument factual or not is better than none at all it seems.
“check the comments. 400+ is a monumental effort, but almost half are from just a handful of infiltrators, who are here to derail and argue at every turn and offer absolutely nothing of substance :( as outlined above.”
Oh come on, you know there is plenty of substance, the problem is you simply don’t how to respond to it in a rational manner so you ignore it and pretend the opposite exists.
“again i put it to you renai, with such mulish disdainfulness, lamentably delimiter has gone down the tube as a serious means of friendly, open ict, views. thanks to a small number of unruly posters on a mission, allowed to run amok.”
Yes you have said that about four or five times now, you must you think it is a literary gem that is so good it requires repeating over and over.
Sorry to break your fantasy, it’s total rubbish for all the reasons I have outlined above and other posts to you, many containing questions, which you ignored, it’s all to awkward.
“but if comment numbers are what you want, well this is working”
Yes we all noticed the high hit rate generated by the headline: ‘Turnbull’s new NBN policy is 90 percent win’, most of the initial comment is generated by posters disagreeing with that statement and that’s ok, what you hate is seeing multiple valid responses to those posts.
“by for now renai, time to adjourn to more fruitful two way correspondence, elsewhere.”
By no means was your correspondence in here two way or close to fruitful, you got on your soap box showed your blatant bias then have decided to take your bat and ball and leave, too much heat in here, then you have the gall to blame it all on falling standards in Delimiter!
Off you go then, find somewhere else that is stacked with pro-NBN comment and where the anti-NBN comment is howled down with personal attacks and unsubstantiated crap about Liberal political allegiances, or moderated into oblivion, there is plenty of them.
Comment 400…
Jesus Christ, I have a little break over a weekend and you guys get to 400 comments??
What can I say, Renai? Sometimes you hit a nerve, and sometimes you hit a whole nerve bundle…
Comments are closed.