opinion Malcolm Turnbull’s knee-jerk rejection last week of proposed changes to local telco infrastructure planning laws starkly demonstrates how far the Coalition is right now from understanding the fundamental and underlying changes required to implement its own new telecommunications policy.
Last week Communications Minister Stephen Conroy issued what appeared to be a somewhat innocuous statement outlining a new swathe of proposed regulatory changes to support the National Broadband Network rollout. At face value, the changes appeared relatively harmless. Detailed reading of the legislation revealed they would give NBN Co greater freedom in a small number of areas relating to the practicalities of its gargantuan task of rolling out next-generation broadband infrastructure around the nation.
By elevating Federal legislation in the area above state and local authorities, the fledgling fibre monopoly would gain better access to install connections inside buildings containing more than one dwelling (such as apartment blocks), and it would also be able to more easily deploy overhead cabling through existing cabling poles where necessary.
Makes sense, you would think? But no, according to the Coalition. In a series of fiery interviews and statements, Conroy’s chief critic, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull ripped the proposed legislative amendments apart.
The changes would let NBN Co “run over the top of and ignore local planning powers”, claimed the Liberal MP on radio station 2UE. Labor would start “stringing up more optic fibre cable” on telephone poles around the nation, “trampling on local communities, local democracy” and destroying the “environmental amenity and the heritage amenity” by fixing aerial cable everywhere.
Now those of us who have been following the NBN for some time may recall that we’ve heard a similar argument from the conservative side of the world before. In February this year, The Australian newspaper published what I described at the time as a remarkable pair of articles detailing what it said was a “backlash” by residents of NSW’s Southern Highlands to the planned NBN fibre rollout in the area. Intrinsic to the reported complaints about the NBN rollout was that it would somehow destroy local residents’ “way of life” — the heritage incumbent to their historic region, the beautiful landscape and their overall cultural existence.
Turnbull’s outrage last week at Conroy’s proposed regulatory changes seemed aim to stoke the same kind of fears about vengeful modernity intruding on the idyllic lifestyles of modern Australians.
As I took in his comments on the matter, I couldn’t help but picture the former Opposition Leader manfully facing down several giant bulldozers determined to demolish the historic sandstone Vaucluse House facility in his electorate of Wentworth and replace it with a chrome and steel monstrosity leaking oil all over the palatial surrounds and stringing up unsightly black fibre cables between the eucalyptus. “You shall not pass!” Turnbull would manfully pronounce, his outstretched hand regally barring modernity from trespassing where it was not welcome. “Our cultural heritage will remain intact for our grandchildren!”
A leader to his core, one of Turnbull’s main strengths is that he finds it difficult to refrain from energetically striding to the defence of any aspect of society which he feels needs support. But in this case his energy is misplaced.
A we’ve previously discussed, the notion that the NBN will somehow destroy any Australian’s “way of life” or cultural or environmental heritage is nothing more than a bad joke; the simple fact of the matter is that most of the optic fibre infrastructure won’t be visible to the naked eye, and where it will be visible, it will hardly be more intrusive than our current generation of electricity and copper cabling strung up between telegraph poles.
But let’s not go into that further; it’s a nonsensical argument which we’ve already put to bed.
Instead, let’s examine what I consider a much more interesting claim which Turnbull has tacked on to his outrage about Conroy’s purported plan to destroy Australia’s heritage: The Liberal MP’s sensational statement that the new legislation will roll back a working telco planning framework which the Coalition itself implemented during the Howard years in the late 1990’s. Quoth Turnbull:
“The Government is seeking to reverse important planning powers which were decentralised in the roll-out of HFC pay-TV cable in the mid-1990s by the then Communications Minister Richard Alston.”
And then on 2UE:
“… the reality is that in the past – you know, the telecom companies have had the power to run cables over private land. But when there was a big backlash – you may remember back in the late 1990s over the roll-out of the Pay TV cables. And so Richard Alston, who was the Liberal Party Communications Minister then, essentially decentralised those powers so that local communities had a say and local councils had a say ultimately as to how the cables could be rolled out.”
What Turnbull is in essence claiming here is that during the late 1990’s, when Telstra and Optus rolled out their existing HFC cable networks, the Howard Government set up regulations for the rollout of telecommunications infrastructure which actually worked — finding a balance between the desires of telcos to deliver universal high-speed services and the concerns of local communities, who didn’t want to see their skyline destroyed by unsightly black cables.
That this claim is as ludicrous as it is ill-informed should be patently clear to anyone who has ever tried to get HFC cable connected while living in an apartment block, or while conducting business from an office complex.
I have lived in a number of apartment blocks in inner Sydney, all of which have been passed by the HFC cable connections of either Telstra of Optus. Up until a few years ago, when competitive DSLAM rollouts made ADSL2+ more attractive, it had been my common practice to request that the HFC cable be connected so that I could enjoy the benefits of high-speed broadband.
Unfortunately, both Telstra and Optus have consistently refused to do so, on the basis that the entire apartment block was what is known as a ‘multi-dwelling unit’. In order to wire me up, I have been told over the years, the telcos would need to wire up the entire block — and this is not something for which the strata or single-owner landlord which administers the blocks have been willing to facilitate.
In short, the fibre runs past the building — but a lack of useful Government regulation has prohibited the telcos from getting enough rights to run it to the actual premises it should be serving. The changes to planning regulations which Conroy unveiled last week represent an important step in fixing this problem. In future, under the NBN, there will be no question about whether the fibre can be rolled out to multi-dwelling units; in fact, the process will be streamlined to an extent which has simply not been allowed previously under Australian law.
Now, knowing all this, we might still allocate the redoubtable Mr Turnbull some validity with respect to his points last week — given that the NBN rollout will undoubtedly be somewhat intrusive during its rollout — were it not for one single fact: When it comes to telecommunications infrastructure planning laws, there really is no difference between the policies which will in future be required from both the Government and the Opposition.
Turnbull appears to have completely overlooked the fact that it will need to enact very similar legislation to that which Conroy proposed last week, if in fact it wins Government and proceeds with its plan to upgrade Australia’s HFC cable networks and separate Telstra.
If Australia’s HFC cable networks are upgraded and expanded to serve more premises in their footprint area, a future Coalition Communications Minister will no doubt need to revise planning laws along the exact same lines which Conroy proposed last week, in order to facilitate the rollout to multi-dwelling units.
And, if smaller regional wholesalers are created, as the Coalition’s current policy suggests, those players will likely take advantage of some current cable strings on telegraph poles, used by electricity networks and other telcos, to deploy further infrastructure. This, after all, is only what Conroy proposed last week.
The fact that Turnbull does not realise this is extraordinary — but perhaps not unexpected.
One of the most significant aspects of Labor’s NBN policy, as some commentators have repeatedly pointed out, is that its focus is not solely the deployment of 100Mbps fibre broadband around Australia, as the general populace believes.
The fibre rollout is merely the populist vehicle through which a vast tranche of much wider industry reforms are taking place. Under the guise of the NBN policy, Labor is attempting to right a whole series of wrongs in the telco sector in general. The vertically integrated nature of Telstra. The need to upgrade the ageing copper network. Broadband blackspots. Regional services. Simplification of the regulatory environment.
The NBN is a ‘catch-all’ evolving policy. As Conroy’s bureaucrats realise that some new aspect of the telecommunications landscape needs tweaking, they bundle a hotfix into the NBN. This is exactly what has happened with last week’s regulatory changes with regard to planning laws. Team Labor saw a chance to fix the HFC planning nightmare created by Australia’s most luddite Communications Minister Richard Alston in the 1990’s, and is taking action.
There is really no way for Turnbull to know precisely what changes will be required in all of these different areas — it has taken the whole of the Gillard Government’s first term, and part of its second, to work through them all. There is a constant stream of new legislation and other regulatory instruments emanating from the Government at the moment as a result.
But it does seem somewhat ridiculous that the Shadow Communications Minister would reject a policy approach from Labor which seems so closely aligned with the Coalition’s own. Turnbull recently convinced his party to make amends for one of its major mistakes in the past — neglecting to separate Telstra — and move forward into a better future. But he will need to keep that momentum going if he wants to successfully implement his new vision. It is not enough to criticise others without applying that self-same blowtorch to oneself.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull, Wikipedia user DAEaton (Creative Commons)
I am anticipating that this article will see a significant test of the new Disqus commenting system ;)
It seems that any praise/criticism of the NBN is like a red rag to a bull … it’s a shame, since it makes any attempt to have an adult debate rather tricky.
I am personally rather tired of the content and incessant low-level commentary about the NBN, and quite determined to escalate the debate to a more informed level. A lot of Turnbull’s stuff at the moment is overwhelmingly populist and not the sort of more educated commentary we have come to expect from him.
Let me start. A very good column.
heh cheers David — I enjoyed writing it :) The short-sightedness and knee-jerkiness of Turnbull’s reaction last week stimulated this … I couldn’t let his statements go unaddressed.
I find that much of Oz politics is completely made up by knee-jerks at the moment …
It seems they feel that the first person to shout “You’re wrong” is the winner.
Politically, it’s a good move for Turnbull, as he can conjure up images of unsightly cables a la Cable Wars back in the day when we went through this the first time around with HFC. However, rather astute Renai, they would have to do the same thing for the current underserved to enjoy their solution as well.
I think he’s just out to assure the rabid right wingers (not the moderates) that he’s still attack attack attack on the NBN. Tony can see he’s doing his job, and he keeps the rabid’s frothing. Classic politics (both sides are just as bad), think only as far as the next election, and the rules will all be changed when they get into power.
Oh, and cool system Renai!
Good comment. I think Turnbull is under pressure to keep the heat on Conroy, despite the NBN’s obvious success at the moment.
Thanks re Disqus! It has been needed for a long time … there are so many good features in it — the ability to log in from your social networking account, the ability to ‘like’ comments, the ability to edit your comment, much easier moderation for me, the fact that now if five people report a comment then that comment will be auto-moderated, and so on. It is just so much more flexible than WordPress’ system ;)
Where’s the dislike button? ;)
I don’t think Disqus offers that ;)
I too prefer this system vastly over the previous ’90s quality system. On the other hand… it’s disqus. It’s missing a dislike button and disqus tends to be buggy. If you’ve ever frequented Engadget you’ve probably noticed what I mean.
We have noticed a few bugs … but overall the system is handling better than WordPress’ default install ;)
Well if you have been to Japan and see the ridiculous amount of overhead cables everywhere (to the point where it looks somewhat dystopian in some areas) you can see where the concern comes from
However I think quite a lot of that may be due to their particular architecture … in such an old country, it’s a bit difficult to go digging up the concrete to install fibre cables. It’s much easier in Australia, and the NBN won’t result in significant overhead cabling — due to the existence already of the Telstra ducts (and other infrastructure owned by electricity companies and so on).
I think Japan put cables overhead is due to earthquake concerns.
In a earthquake prone area like Japan, it is more practicable to use overhead cable than underground cable.
I’ve been enjoying your posts on the NBN, showing the FUD for what it is. Just thought I would highlight this paragraph to you:
“A we’ve previously discussed, the notion that the NBN will somehow destroy any Australian’s “way of life” or cultural or environmental heritage is nothing more than a bad joke; the simple fact of the matter is that most of the optic fibre infrastructure won’t be visible to the naked eye, and will be, and where it will be visible, it will hardly be more intrusive than our current generation of electricity and copper cabling strung up between telegraph poles.”
You might want to consider revising the last couple of comma separated bits: “.. to the naked eye, and will be, and where it will be visible ..”.
Feel free to delete this comment if you fix it.
Cheers Timothy! I’ve fixed that par :) Glad you’re enjoying my posts!
what’s the matter… have apostrophes gone out of fashion?
Huh?
Alston’s past
Ah yes, but it was a pun on ‘Ghosts of Christmas past’ so semantically Alston’s didn’t fit in ;)
“A we’ve previously discussed, the notio”
As !
Turnbull is contradicting his own policy (following NZ)
NZ power company is rolling out 60% of fibre using overhead cables
Not only that, but according to Paul Budde (who is a more reliable source of fact and expert opnion than just about anyone else), New Zealand reversed its policy on FTTN:
“…the initial plan to extend the life of copper was abandoned in New Zealand. The country started out on a plan based on extending the life of copper, using fibre-to-the-node (FttN), which involved the deployment of thousands of street cabinets. Only Telecom NZ would profit from this, as no other company could afford to install equipment in all of these cabinets and in the absence of that equipment they would have been unable to compete.
The New Zealand Government deemed this not to be in the best interest of the country and abandoned the FttN plan. They have since replaced this with a plan to roll out FttH.”
http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/is-ftth-future-proof-infrastructure/
So, Mr Turnbull; what is the lesson that we should be learning from New Zealand?
Funny, doesn’t look ‘abandoned’ by the company rolling it out!
http://www.chorus.co.nz/enhancing-the-broadband-network
Funny indeed.
http://www.chorus.co.nz/fibre_to_the_home
The next challenge is to lay fibre to replace the ‘last mile’ of copper cables which connect New Zealand homes.
Fibre is the future.
The stark difference of course is that one million NZ residents can get FTTN today because of a much cheaper and faster rollout timeline that utilises existing infrastructure with a view to a upgrade when the need arises.
What year will it be before the NBN FTTH passes a million homes? – it’s well over halfway through 2011 and we are still trialling it, and they still cannot provide voice from the ONT box inside the residence!
The NBN viability depends on the existing infrastructure to be shut down, it has no viability on a pure technical basis that it is the fastest.
Way of the digital future? sure it is as long as fixed line competition is totally eliminated.
One which even they have no plans to continue using. Also wouldn’t this upgrade eliminate fixed line competition? So surely you can’t be endorsing the NZ solution…
What year do we get FTTH after a FTTN rollout?
Explain why you believe infrastructure should be duplicated.
That’s right it will be viable regardless of being the fastest solution as it addresses many other problems with the current network.
Explain what fixed line competition we have now. Are you suggesting that with the coalition patchwork plan areas that only have copper will get a second (HFC or fibre) option?
Your formatting follows the theme of the post content, plenty of blanks.
Woah, Alain attacking a post and dodging a question instead of coming up with an actual response??
No WAY! Say it isn’t so…
/sarcasm
Time to step up your game a bit mate, you’re slipping.
So instead of coming up with an actual reply you complain about the formatting of my post. One which makes use of a well known Disqus features.
How do you determine the Turnbull policy is 100% ‘following NZ’?
“The fact that Turnbull does not realise this is extraordinary — but perhaps not unexpected.”
I suspect he probably does realize that this policy would need something like this anyway. However, he probably knows his supporters don’t realize it, and it’s politically easier to oppose it now and then propose it again when they’re in government trying to implement their own policy.
*sigh* perhaps you’re right — but I feel that this would be a bit hypocritical on Turnbull’s part :(
a politician who wasn’t hypocritical?
i believe that no such beast exists.
My personal nomination for a non-hypocritical politician is Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.
Maybe a little cynical, yeah :-)
Has Mr Turnbull ever experienced a local community campaign against the placing of a mobile phone tower?
Is he aware of how much power the local community has to stop these – ie none?
75% of fibre rolled out will be underground and out of sight. 100% of fibre will have no electromagnetic radiation whatsoever – unlike mobile phone towers (for good or ill).
To complain on behalf of “local communities” regarding harmless and nearly-invisible fibre, while remaining silent regarding radiating mobile phone towers (which are enabled by the same Constitutional Federal power over communications) is hypocritical, and base politics.
Our local Liberal member will turn out to a mobile tower demo at the drop of a hat.
The greens politicians are the most hypocritical out of all of them
You have got to be joking, this sort of nonsense is always bandied about…just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them hypocrites.
I think a few of The Greens members are nutjobs (in a similar fashion to a bunch of the coalition too…and Bob Katter), but they certainly are less hypocritical than the majority of members from out two major parties.
And in particular seeing as you want to try and smear Scott Ludlam as hypocritical as he is a member of The Greens (AND THEY’LL ROON US), can you provide a shred of evidence to Scott Ludlam being hypocritical?
Actually a lot of it due to the fact that NTT wanted to save as much money as possible in their FTTH rollout, and so they did it almost all overhead
I’ve been to Japan a couple times. The overhead cables are horrid, but they were drawn out by private companies all seeking to minimize costs and without any cooperation. Since NBNCo is laying out one set of lines, with only 25% of the cables above ground, the outcome will be an order of magnitude nicer to look at.
Ah the advantages of a government monopoly constructing infrastructure.
“Since NBNCo is laying out one set of lines, with only 25% of the cables above ground,”
Where did you get that figure from?
I assume from news articles on the net, I have seen it bandied around in articles, saying that it comes from NBNCo
You realize that this all came up because NBN is planning to increase the % of overhead installations to save cost?
Good article.
Turnbull can either campaign against NBN cost or overhead cables. If he’s campaigning for every cable to be put underground then naturally that raises the cost dramatically where there are no existing ducts.
Coincidentally Ars Technica have an article about the situation in the US where one cable company is using overhead wiring to keep the price down for their customers.
Malcolm’s other comments on same radio programme:
“Well, the cost to the Government will be at least $50 billion. And that’s adding the money they’re paying to Telstra on to the capital cost of building it, which they’ve estimated at over $37 billion currently.
But let’s just remember this: There is no big Government infrastructure project which has come on on time and on budget. Even the private sector’s big projects like this tend to run over budget. So the other point is you’ve got very experienced people in the industry who have gone on the record and said the capital cost of building this network, the way they’re going about it, is going to be, rather than $37 billion, more like $60 to $80 billion.
This is not me saying this. This is the principal of one of the big consultancies in the area, Gibson Quai. His firm has extensive experience in this and his observation is it’s more likely to cost in that range. So, Tim, this is all part of this hopeless incompetence of this Government. I know I sound like a politician bagging others, but just think about this: How could any responsible Government, Tim, undertake a project like this without doing a proper cost-benefit analysis first?”
Both Moore’s Law in general, and the public record of NBNCo’s frugal contract-letting practices, undermine Mr Turnbull’s assertion about costs blowing out. The cost-benefit analysis was effectively done – in the public square. The build cost was developed and debated in gun-bleeding detail, while economic benefits alone – even just the readily quantifiable ones – are plainly far greater by any reckoning.
Renai, it was a very good pickup that every broadband proposal Mr Turnbull has ever suggested (wireless towers, FTTN cabinets, HFC property drops) will require exactly the kind of facilitating rules of engagement contained in the draft DBCDE Bill that has just been released for public and industry comment.
Opt-out legislation is the other thing that is needed. Everyone must retain the democratic right to farcicly exclude themselves. So, which publicly-funded approach is more efficient for the same administrative outcome – processing 10 million forms opting-in, or a handful opting-out?
The fact is the NBN is a nation-building project, not socialism, and Mr Turnbull needs to start acting in the country’s interest, because he has spent a year badly tarnishing the coalition’s reputation.
Nothing you have said has any relevance
Almost every government project has gone over budget, and your NBN is not exempted because it happens to be a project you like
In fact, all signs are that it will go overbudget. When you for example consider that the business case was released after the project was considered, not before (and many other signs), there is nothing, whatsoever that would hint at NBN being on budget
If that’ts the case, nothing you have said has any relevance either. You have stated that nothnig hints at NBN being on Budget. however, at the moment, there is no hint that NBN is over the budget either. Your only argument is like ‘All government projects go over the budget’. That may be true, but it will not be conclusive – especially this early in the process.
At least Francis provided some reasoning behinf his argument…
Wait what signs are there that it will go over budget? The business case was very conservative. CVC is extremely high as well, much higher than it needs to be.
If private companies like Verizon can make FTTH profitable despite having to compete with cable ISPs in the US, what makes you think NBNCo’s monopoly will fail?
“Wait what signs are there that it will go over budget?”
The finish deadline has been extended for one, to 2020, I bet it’s extended again, which mean less revenue than originally planned in the NBN budget because you are still building it when it should have been completed, and your build costs blow out.
“The business case was very conservative.”
Why is it conservative, just because you say so or do you have something more substantive than that?
“CVC is extremely high as well, much higher than it needs to be.
What figure does it need to be?
“If private companies like Verizon can make FTTH profitable despite having to compete with cable ISPs in the US,”
Hang on a sec, Verizon Communications Inc the privately listed company on the NASDAQ does not equal NBN Co taxpayer fed wholesale only FTTH, with pricing set by the ACCC.
Verizon is a vertically integrated private monopoly, and makes money from its triple play FiOS package, voice, internet and HD Pay TV, it does not just wholesale FTTH to ISP’s in the USA under the pricing jurisdiction of the FCC.
” what makes you think NBNCo’s monopoly will fail?”
Simple, because it will not get 70% of residences it passes post completion 2020+? taking up a paying service from a ISP.
Just because you say so or do you have something more substantive than that?
Indeed, that 70% assumption is based on a prediction from the NBN Co Business Plan of wireless ONLY residences to be only 16.3% in 2025, it is currently sitting at 13%, so that is only 3% in 14 years.
Seeing the rate of wireless BB growth is rapidly accelerating, not virtually stagnate as that growth rate indicates, tell them they are dreaming.
In other words you dont know what you are talking about.
btw I noticed you constantly moaning about “fixed line competition getting totally eliminated” if according to you “wireless BB growth is rapidly accelerating” then why does this particular issue about the NBN even matter?
@HC256
I have never said fixed line will be totally eliminated by wireless.
I noticed you didn’t dispute the figure projections nor did you endorse the NBN figure of 16.3% by 2025.
The issue matters because if you are aiming for a figure of 70% takeup of residences taking a NBN FTTH plan by finish date 2020 and that figure is calculated taking into account wireless ONLY projections, if you get the wireless projection wrong you have to downgrade the 70%.
If for example the 16.3% projected for 2025 is actually reached in 2014-2015 the NBN Budget and ROI projections including of course debt payback takes a nose dive.
I noticed you dodged another question.
(btw you still dont know what you are talking about.)
You make it up as you go along, posting off topic waffle, go back to ZDNet where you can play the trolling game double act with your banned mate Rizz all day long.
You make it up as you go along, posting off topic waffle, go back to ZDNet where you can play the trolling game double act with your banned mate Rizz all day long.
Historically about 95% of all projects this size go overbudget or overschedule. So if NBN is onbudget it would be an extreme rarity
Furthermore, the business case was made after the project was initially planned (failure point #1), not all of its figures were conservative (such as the wireless figure, #2) and there are around 10 factors external to NBN which can make the project completely fail (#3)
The only reason that people are hoping NBN will stay on budget is because it happens to be a project they like, however almost every project of this size (and especially if its government run) says otherwise
Also most other projects have a CBA, actually details if its worth building ;)
“The only reason that people are hoping NBN will stay on budget is because it happens to be a project they like, ”
Don’t forget ‘it’s free’.
:)
Ah, so looking at historical trends are fine when we’re talking about projects going over budget, but when we’re talking about the exponential growth of internet speeds, historical trends are worthless?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/4564866018_1060158878.jpg
@Dean Harding
http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Insight/FTTH_roll-out_Insight_Aug2010/
FTTH is still a risk too far: wireless device and service innovation makes fibre less future-proof
QUOTE:
“Even though many cable operators have been offering superfast fixed broadband connectivity for some time in Europe and North America, take-up of such services remains troublingly low. The vague promise of future services may appeal to some early FTTH adopters. However, it will become increasingly ineffective as a selling point unless the rate of innovation in devices and services that are uniquely suitable for FTTH gets some new impetus from vendors and service providers. The future cannot be simply plotted against increasing fixed-line bandwidth.”
i’ll emphasise the final sentence:
“THE FUTURE CANNOT BE SIMPLY PLOTTED AGAINST [HISTORICAL] INCREASING FIXED-LINE BANDWIDTH”
Dean unfortunately that graph has no relevance whatsoever to what I am talking about
@Dean Harding
The graph is fine on a straight tech tyre kicker ‘wow look at the speed’ basis, but how about you extrapolate on top of that graph how many residences are using the maximum speed available to them at any point in the timeline.
HFC is the fastest BB infrastructure commercially available today, so why does a residence that can get HFC prefer ADSL2+ or even ADSL1?
The vast majority of residences will only use NBN FTTH because the ADSL and HFC infrastructure is shutdown and the respective corporate owners are paid taxpayer billions to do so.
Cheers!
You’re right about most of this, but at the end of the day I do think Turnbull is doing a champion job for the Opposition; you only have to look at his anemic predecessors to realize this fact ;)
“So, which publicly-funded approach is more efficient for the same administrative outcome – processing 10 million forms opting-in, or a handful opting-out?”
How do you know it will be a a ‘handful’?
because Australians are inherently lazy.
if you offer them something (NBN), and tell them they have to perform some minor task in order to get it (opt in), more often than not they will just say “nah. bugger that” and go without.
but if you give them something and tell them to perform some minor task in order to get rid of it (opt out), more often than not you will get the same response.
So your happy that taxpayer $$ are connecting up residences and installing ONT boxes with a UPS power supply that don’t actually use it.
Both Moore’s Law in general, and the public record of NBNCo’s frugal contract-letting practices, undermine Mr Turnbull’s assertion about costs blowing out. The cost-benefit analysis was effectively done – in the public square. The build cost was developed and debated in gun-bleeding detail, while economic benefits alone – even just the readily quantifiable ones – are plainly far greater by any reckoning.
Renai, it was a very good pickup that every broadband proposal Mr Turnbull has ever suggested (wireless towers, FTTN cabinets, HFC property drops) will require exactly the kind of facilitating rules of engagement contained in the draft DBCDE Bill that has just been released for public and industry comment.
Opt-out legislation is the other thing that is needed. Everyone must retain the democratic right to farcicly exclude themselves. So, which publicly-funded approach is more efficient for the same administrative outcome – processing 10 million forms opting-in, or a handful opting-out?
The fact is the NBN is a nation-building project, not socialism, and Mr Turnbull needs to start acting in the country’s interest, because he has spent a year badly tarnishing the coalition’s reputation.
more evidence Labor’s NBN is fraudulently-undercosted.
http://www.atkearney.at/content/misc/wrapper.php/id/50262/name/pdf_next_generation_access_networks_1264778078b4bb.pdf
ref. pg 3 — to roll-out FTTH to ~7,500/sq km pop density costs ~A$2,600 per subscriber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
this is approx. the pop. density of Singapore (7,148/sq km). the pop. density of Australia, on the other hands, is 3/sq km. since most of the pop. resides in 25% of territory, let’s be super generous and just multiple the 3/sq km by a factor of “ten”…. you still arrive at pop. density of only 30/sq km (similar to US with much larger population).
if you eyeball the chart on pg 3, the cost of such a low pop. density FTTH roll-out is almost A$10,000 per subscriber.
compare that to NBNco’s projected spend of A$36bln / 7mln subscribers = ~A$5,000 per subscriber.
it’s easy to see why the experts are saying the real cost of rolling out fibre to Whoop Whoop is A$60-85bln.
That’s not evidence, that’s you making up figures to try to prop up your feeble argument and irrational hate of the NBN, or possibly just your problem with the Labor govt. The population density is much, much higher since only towns with 1000 residences or more will be strung. Which ever way you cut it the NBN is cheap because it pays for itself and is world class infrastructure. That’s markedly better than paying top dollar to Telstra for the privilege of using the decaying copper which we already paid for once before it was sold off. So much for the free market giving us anything more than a hole in our wallets.
*That’s not evidence*
there’s plenty of evidence:
1/ Gibson Quai’s on the record estimate of A$60-80bln;
2/ Analysys Mason report which shows that FTTH is ~5 times the cost of FTTN (which itself is etimated at A$15bln for 90%+ for Australia);
3/ AT Kearney report which shows the correlation btw avg cost per premise and pop. density.
just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
AT&T wouldn’t even build FTTN beyond 60% of their much denser market, and the Labor Government wants to push fibre to 93% to Whoop Whoop.
*the NBN is cheap*
LOL
NBNco is a political conception so it has a political lifespan of the Labor Government. if i was working at NBNco, i wouldn’t be accumulating too much annual leave.
*world class infrastructure*
world class white elephant, you mean.
What a tired argument, what is the point, Government commissions cost benefit analysis, analysis is weighted in such a way that the public benefits it can provide as well as being as future proof (obvious hardware upgrades will still be required) as possible mean that its worth building even if it cost $100 Billion….the end.
Anyone can make a cost benefit analysis stack up however they want.
This project over its life will cost about the same as the gov stimulus package….have we all been ruined? Is our country an economic mess? If you agree with the gov spending or not (and I agree with it, but think it was poorly thought out/targeted), the coalition was happy to just pass tax cuts to the same effect, so either way, $50 Billion is clearly not that much money.
In fact, at least 2 NSW power companies have $5 Billion upgrade plans each happening right now, and thats just NSW, and is just upgrades (we aren’t talking network overhaul, we are talking mostly transmission upgrades and burying overhead cables, the developer of a subdivision is still paying for the power not the power companies).
This sort of rubbish about the cost is so inane, its not a lot of money over the period of time for the product we get, infrastructure costs a lot, and is good for our country.
“A leader to his core, one of Turnbull’s main strengths is that he finds it difficult to refrain from energetically striding to the defence of any aspect of society which he feels needs support. But in this case his energy is misplaced.”
Lol. Far too kind. I would have have put it thus, ‘A political opportunist to his core, one of Turnbull’s main weaknesses is that he finds it difficult to refrain from energetically seizing any chance to to spread FUD in the hope of furthering his and his political party’s aspirations’.
Please, At least call a spade a spade. Turnbull was indulging in FUD. No more, no less. And to place any more importance on it than that gives it far more credence than it deserves.
“Please, At least call a spade a spade. Turnbull was indulging in FUD. No more, no less. And to place any more importance on it than that gives it far more credence than it deserves.”
Well it has just as much credence as Conroy pushing that stupid orange button when a trial site opens to cue in that special FTTH only sort of activity that the ‘digital community’ is crying out for, like the interactive dance mat.
Comments are closed.