opinion The furious debate which took place over the weekend over National Broadband Network applications highlights the fact that the project raises fundamental questions about what the role of Government should be in our complex and multi-layered society … and just what needs it should attempt to address.
Over the past several days, as quite a few of you have noticed, Delimiter hosted a ferocious debate over the veracity of Malcolm Turnbull’s audacious-sounding claim that there were no applications which would actually require the 100Mbps speeds which the NBN project will eventually offer to all Australians.
On the one hand were a number of commenters who claimed the Shadow Communications Minister simply didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. Citing the ongoing and incredible growth in demand for computing and bandwidth resources over the past three decades, they pointed out that it was pointless planning for today’s applications when national telecommunications policy should be anticipating the challenges of tomorrow.
On the other side of the coin were the naysayers (yours truly included).
This side of the argument highlighted the fact that many Australians are already using applications with high bandwidth requirements (such as videoconferencing, IPTV and e-health solutions) over our existing telecommunications infrastructure, and argued that we shouldn’t be basing future telecommunications policy on applications which may (or may not) appear in future.
However, like a phoenix rising from the ashes of expired arguments, a more complex strain of thought also emerged from the debate which I want to explore in a greater amount of detail.
When large corporations and government departments first started providing Internet access to their workers (mostly this was throughout the 1990’s, as the demand for corporate email exploded), network administrators quickly discovered an important fact which remains pertinent today: As you add more users to a network, complex performance issues rise to the fore.
These issues firstly arise in the case of certain network users using more than others. As one person starts downloading a particularly large attachment by email, everything slows down and the call goes around the office: “Who’s hogging the Internet?”
But it quickly became more fine-grained than just a question of how much Internet capacity is available.
As corporate users started to use more sensitive, real-time applications on their networks, latency also became an issue. A large amount of requests experienced simultaneously could cause chaos for those trying to access remote applications through platforms like VNC or Citrix. The CEO’s live video conference with analysts would go awry. And in the worst case today, with many large organisations using IP telephony, many of the office telephones just wouldn’t work properly.
Now, fatter, better quality pipes and Quality of Service protocols have resolved most of these multi-use issues in the corporate sphere. Hundreds, thousands — even tens of thousands of users can connect to the same corporate network and still receive a good grade of service. But they are far from being resolved in the residential world.
Up until midway through this decade, it was likely that each Australian residential household would only feature a handful of devices — at most — connected to the Internet. The parents probably shared a PC or had an extra laptop, while kids were only gradually getting their own, and smartphones and tablets with Wi-Fi access were virtually unheard of.
However, now the game has changed. In my own personal household, which has only two people, my wife and I own no less than about a dozen devices which all connect to our home router. I have a PC, we both have laptops and smartphones, there’s also an iPad, a Nintendo Wii, a Microsoft Xbox and the loungeroom features a mediacentre. Every year, it seems, new devices get connected to our home network. God only knows how many Internet-connected devices an Australian family household will feature once generation Y’s offspring head towards becoming teenagers and their own device count proliferates.
In my controversial opinion piece over the weekend I suggested that the vision put forward by technology commentator Stilgherrian of an entire household constantly using streaming video applications was basically “complete horseshit of the highest magnitude”. And I stand by those comments. However, it’s also important to realise that the question of whether there are applications which require 100Mbps speeds is somewhat of a false dichotomy.
The truth is that in today’s connected household, it would be fairly normal to have all of the following applications running at the same time, on a multitude of difference devices: YouTube IPTV streaming, web browsing, software updating, latency-sensitive online video gaming, file-sharing through platforms like BitTorrent, instant messaging, Internet telephony (Skype or otherwise), email downloading, photo uploading (Facebook), social networking and so on.
And all of this activity has its cost.
I have no doubt, for example, that a common complaint in Australian residences is that someone in the house is saturating the household Internet connection with BitTorrent file-sharing traffic to the extent that normal web browsing is nigh-on impossible. Does this need to happen? Of course not — BitTorrent can be set to only require a minimal upload connection, with download speeds rate-limited. This can be done at either the application or router layer. But not everyone’s sophisticated enough to set these options. On the other side of the coin, I’m sure some video gamers have been frustrated by sub-standard connections experienced while someone else in the house has been streaming YouTube at 1080p. Without routers designed with decent QoS embedded, this sort of thing could be a constant headache in a moderate-sized family.
The difficulty is with regard to these sorts of issues, is that while the question of whether NBN applications exist might be a false dichotomy, the question of which technology we ought to be using in future really is not.
There are, realistically, no sufficient graduations between the use of copper as a fixed broadband technology and the use of fibre-optic cable. Any technology in between those two limits — say, fibre to the node, or HFC cable — eventually becomes subject to similar latency and downstream and upstream bandwidth limitations as copper cable. In short, if you want to build infrastructure to meet the demands of the modern Australian household, you have no choice but to massively overprovision by using fibre — because in doing so, you are faced with a limited set of options from which fibre is really the only solid choice.
To some amongst you, this may sound like I have just unequivocably come down on the side of Labor’s National Broadband Network policy. But don’t jump to any conclusions — this argument is, again, a little more complex than that.
The problem for traditional Liberals like Malcolm Turnbull in investing in fibre-optic technology around Australia is not the question of whether or not it is the right technology — basically everyone (except those short-sighted fools who believe wireless technology will provide all of the world’s broadband needs going forward) agrees with this.
The problem, as the Liberal leadership has previously stated in its somewhat clumsy way, is that many of the applications I have described above are focused around entertainment.
Does it benefit the nation as a whole for the Government to invest billions in building a national network which will principally be used for purposes which have very little to do with actual economic outcomes, and very much to do with free or very cheap entertainment and socialising? Should the Federal Government really be focusing its energy on ensuring that modern households can run a variety of different Internet applications simultaneously?
Sure, there will be strong business outcomes to eventuate from a network construction rollout like the NBN … but, as Turnbull and others have pointed out, the businesses and educational and health institutions which require higher levels of network connectivity, by and large already have it — and are willing to pay for it themselves. The NBN will principally serve those who don’t technically need fibre infrastructure, or are unwilling or unable to pay for it.
And what responsibility does the Federal Government have to facilitate not only the basic needs of the Australian community which it serves (setting the basics of economic policy and security, as well as making sure that food, shelter and clothing are provided), but also its higher-level happiness — meaningful work, strong community, health outcomes and so on … all of which, in 2011, are likely to depend in some degree on the existence of strong national telecommunications infrastructure?
These are the philosophical questions at the heart of the debate about the NBN. Because telecommunications infrastructure is now, and will be in future, used for a variety of complex purposes, the debate about the NBN has become one in which the only clear answers can be gleaned when you take stock of the technological limitations which society currently works within, and then apply your own view of what the role of Government should be to it.
In this vein, the debate about the NBN has long been about far, far more than just technology. To debate the NBN in 2011, is to debate the issue of what role you believe the Government should play in society. If you believe governments should only work at the fundamental layer of providing underlying frameworks for other forces in society — industry, primarily non-profit sectors such as health and education and so on — then you will be against the NBN, because the complex set of problems which it attempts to solve rises far, far above that layer.
If, however, you believe that the Government should solve all of society’s ills — as perhaps the majority of Australians do — then you will respect and admire Labor’s NBN policy; because it will resolve the question of how best to support multiple applications in Australia’s net-connected homes once and for all — with the private sector … or without it.
Image credit: Dimitri Castrique, royalty free
The big issue is that the NBN is being built for tomorrow, not today. To wait until there are apps that are pushing the 100mbps speed limit will be leaving it too late. It has taken us years of debate, years of negotiation to get to the start of this build. Keep in mind the build itself will take at least 10 years, and the historical data shows that in that timeframe, usage will be dramatically higher than it is now. It makes sense to build infrastructure with plenty of cpaacity like Labor is proposing, as opposed to building one to fit todays needs (and probably will be lagging by the time the actual build would start 3-5 years after Libs get into office).
Witrh the cheap prices of laptops, computers and portable devices, more and more items will be connected to home internet connections. One of the big trends along these lines that is going to drastically drive an increase in home internet traffic is smart TVs. Easy convergence of online media into the loungerooms of the average punter is going to mean they will consume more and more high bandwidth content. Watch YouTube clips will be easier and much more comfortable than having to sit in front of your computer and watching a little window with video in it. You can watch it on your fancy big LCD or Plasma TV from the comfort of your lounge. YOu can stream movies and do the same thing, catch up TV – why record anything ever again? I know that is what is happeing in our household. I cant remember the last time we recorded anything.
Now extrapolate that out 10 years, when there is more and more of this stuff online, and more service providers wanting a cut, and people start having their music collections in the cloud for streaming anywhere they want it.
We need the infrastructre to be STARTED now, to be ready for when it is to become mainstream.
*the historical data shows that in that timeframe, usage will be dramatically higher than it is now.*
not to the extent of 100mbits. current average monthly downloads is only the equivalent of contant 50kbps. interestingly, average IP traffic per subscriber in Japan which has pervasive, cheap fibre is only 10GB/mth.
*Witrh the cheap prices of laptops, computers and portable devices, more and more items will be connected to home internet connections.*
seriously, how many pair of eyes do you have at any one point in time?
*Now extrapolate that out 10 years, when there is more and more of this stuff online, and more service providers wanting a cut, and people start having their music collections in the cloud for streaming anywhere they want it.*
seriously, you want the Federal Government to spend $50bln+ of taxpayers’ money to subsidise “home entertainment” for the rich?
ROFL
And in 10 years, what will the IP traffic in Japan be? Remeber, we are providing for the future, so its pointless saying its enough for today.
As for how many pairs of eyes? Currently 4 pairs. That is the point that seems to get missed. I am not the only one consuming internet services at my house. There are 2 adults and 2 pre teens, who are rapidly boosting their consumption as they get older, not to mention the amount of devices they have.
” seriously, you want the Federal Government to spend $50bln+ of taxpayers’ money to subsidise “home entertainment” for the rich? ” What I seriously want is for people to stop hanging their hat on this tired old bit of rhetoric. Entertainment is not bad. Entertainment is what the current taxpayer funded infrastructure is used for. Recreational activities contribute to an ever increasing part of the economy.
And as for being for the rish.. thats even lamer. The recent plans annoucned for the NBN are equivalent to current ADSL2 pricing, and for anyone outside cherry picked metro areas, its even better value again because they can finally get rid of line rental for a start. I know I will be about $40/ month better off under NBN pricing, and I am certainly not rich.
ROFL indeed!
*And in 10 years, what will the IP traffic in Japan be? Remeber, we are providing for the future, so its pointless saying its enough for today.*
and why can’t we build FTTN first then upgrade later when demand arises like most other countries are doing? why are we “special” ?
*There are 2 adults and 2 pre teens, who are rapidly boosting their consumption as they get older, not to mention the amount of devices they have.*
and pretty soon, they will turn 18 and get their P-plates. so, should the Fed Govt also introduce a taxpayer-funded subsidy for households that can’t afford four cars in the garage and aren’t willing to learn to share?
*Entertainment is what the current taxpayer funded infrastructure is used for.*
the copper network wasn’t built for “entertainment purposes”. the fact that it can be leveraged for internet and youtube for little additional cost by slapping on DSLAMs and modems at end-points doesn’t mean there’s an economic justification for replacing the entire network just to stream hi-def entertainment. pls learn to differentiate btw “intended benefits” and “indirect benefits”.
*Recreational activities contribute to an ever increasing part of the economy.*
so, our economy is being driven by a “recreational boom” as opposed to the “mining boom”. interesting. where’s the “Fox Studios superprofits tax”?
*The recent plans annoucned for the NBN are equivalent to current ADSL2 pricing*
that’s just NBNco’s transitional, below-cost pricing to lure consumers onto the fibre network before shutting down all fixed-line competition and trapping subscribers on an over-priced, super-expensive fibre network with no affordable alternative.
*its even better value again because they can finally get rid of line rental for a start.*
the “line rental” is embedded in NBN’s basic AVC charge of $24/mth. think about it: currently, ISPs are only paying $2.50 to access LSS to deliver broadband.
“and why can’t we build FTTN first then upgrade later when demand arises like most other countries are doing? ” Simple, because its a waste of money because FTTN is not an upgrade path to FTTH. The investment in FTTN is wasted. This is the main reason why the expert panel rejected FTTN when it was suggested previously. On top of that if you wait till there are 100mbps apps, you are already behind the 8 ball, as it will take at least another 5-10 years to actually get something built.
” and pretty soon, they will turn 18 and get their P-plates. so, should the Fed Govt also introduce a taxpayer-funded subsidy for households that can’t afford four cars in the garage and aren’t willing to learn to share? ” Which of course is nothing to do with the point I raised and yet another Tosh obfuscation.
” the copper network wasn’t built for “entertainment purposes”. Correct, which is exactly my point. It serves us now for a purpose that was completely unseen when it was built. It was built with capacity to handle future use. Now Labor is planning to do the same thing, to provide us with infrastructure that will last us for decades to come, with relatively little upgrade costs. Its a very sensible investment. This is in contrast to Turnbulls plan to spedn billions now, pretending to get the same result and then scrapping that investment and spending 10s of billions to get to where we would have been anyway under the NBN. Turnbull is simply moving the cost moving to fibre, not removing it. He stands to waste far more taxpayer funds than Labor ever could.
” that’s just NBNco’s transitional, below-cost pricing to lure consumers onto the fibre ” No it isnt. Internodes recently released prices are their standard retail offering for when the NBN goes live later in the year. http://www.internode.on.net/news/2011/07/236.php
As for the rest of the rhetoric in that paragraph, come back with the “expensive” rubbish after reading that pricing. It matches or betters their ADSL2 offerings.
“so, our economy is being driven by a “recreational boom” as opposed to the “mining boom”. interesting. where’s the “Fox Studios superprofits tax”?” Thats nothing like what I said. Its not even anything close to what you quoted. Please stop misrepresenting people.
” the “line rental” is embedded in NBN’s basic AVC charge of $24/mth. think about it: currently, ISPs are only paying $2.50 to access LSS to deliver broadband. ” You are the one who needs to do some thinking. Your answer again doesnt address the actual point raised. You keep jumping from one thing to the next to avoid answering the hard questions. Your surname isnt Turnbull is it? ;)
As I said, read the pricing above, and have a real think about it. I am currently paying $69.95 just for internet. Add line rental of $30-ish, plus calls and the rest, and I am paying around $120 per month. On the NBN, I get all I need for about $70-$80. How can you seriously say its more expensive?
*Simple, because its a waste of money because FTTN is not an upgrade path to FTTH. The investment in FTTN is wasted.*
that’s complete FUD. the backhaul (incl. the conduits) can be re-used. there are vendors selling FTTH-upgradeable cabinets which can also be reused. this is what Chorus NZ has done.
*This is the main reason why the expert panel rejected FTTN when it was suggested previously*
the so-called expert panel full of vested interests rejected FTTN on the basis of “equipment costs” but failed to take into account the massive savings from “labour costs” by delaying last-mile civil works. so much for your “expert panel”.
*you are already behind the 8 ball*
what “8-ball”? how is consuming “Hollywood entertainment” and “online gaming latency” so vital to national prosperity?
*as it will take at least another 5-10 years to actually get something built.*
rubbish. FTTN can be upraded to FTTH progressively as demand arises on a selective basis. this is what Chorus NZ is doing.
*It serves us now for a purpose that was completely unseen when it was built.*
you totally missed the point. just because i can take my van out for a spin on weekends and have some fun, doesn’t mean i can justify the cost of acquiring the delivery van purely based on weekend fun & joy activities.
*Labor is planning to do the same thing, to provide us with infrastructure that will last us for decades to come, with relatively little upgrade costs. Its a very sensible investment.*
this is not a sensible investment as you just ignored the massive, unnecessary upfront capital costs incurred with little immediate benefits/revenue to service the immediate capital burden.
*This is in contrast to Turnbulls plan to spedn billions now, pretending to get the same result and then scrapping that investment and spending 10s of billions to get to where we would have been anyway under the NBN.*
FTTN and VDSL is a massive improvement, it’s not the “same result”. you’re not scrapping anything, you invest on top of FTTN. you need to get up to speed and stop filling your mind with FUD from “nbnmyths.org”.
*Turnbull is simply moving the cost moving to fibre, not removing it. He stands to waste far more taxpayer funds than Labor ever could.*
by delaying the capital works associated with last-mile replacement, you save BILLIONS of dollars w/o compromising on delivering immediate benefits. go read up on “time value of money” and “opportunity cost”.
“No it isnt. Internodes recently released prices are their standard retail offering for…..”
forget about Internode. Internode charges are based on NBNco’s current below-cost wholesale pricing and are meaningless in terms of understanding the long-term underlying real cost of 93% fibre.
“On the NBN, I get all I need for about $70-$80. How can you seriously say its more expensive?”
i’m not talking about your special case of a regional subscriber not enjoying bundling discounts. also, the current uncertainties over POIs and backhaul cross-subsidisation could still mean that regional users pay more than metro.
“As I said, read the pricing above, and have a real think about it.”
Have a real real think about this then, you can get a voice service from Telstra for $22, I only want a voice service, how much is a voice only service on the NBN?
http://www.nbn.gov.au/frequently-asked-questions/voice-services-over-the-nbn/will-my-landline-phone-cost-more-if-i-connect-to-the-national-broadband-network/
Except don’t ask for it yet because it’s not available and keeping in mind the cheapest published wholesale price from the NBN Co is $24/mth wholesale for a 12/1 Mbps data service, $22/mth for a voice only service run off a ONT box I look forward to.
Why would you ask for it and why would it be available? The copper has not been decommissioned and commercial services dont start until October.
“We” cannot built FTTN first because “we” have no right of way to lay fibre to these supposed nodes and “we” own no exchanges where we can terminate the fibre. Also, “we” do not own the last-mile copper network necessary to link the nodes to subscribers’ homes. That whole network, as you know, is owned by Telstra and Telstra isn’t interested in sharing. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a deal with NBN Co and put the deal off for two years while packing its parachute.
So much time gets wasted on this speeds-and-feeds argument that people forget the real reason for the NBN is to build a wholesale infrastructure that everybody doesn’t have to ask Telstra for permission to use. It’s an expensive solution to a poorly handled privatisation but there is no other technical way out of the current situation bar shifting the entire country onto last-mile wireless – and the problems with that model have already been discussed ad nauseum.
Whether the NBN runs at 25Mbps or 100Mbps it represents a ground-up reimagining of our local access network as it was supposed to become under deregulation. It may be creating a new monopoly of sorts but that’s only necessary because trying to manage the previous one to benefit all Australians turned out to be a disaster. Done right, we should never have to manage a build like this again; done poorly, we will be having the same debate again in 10 years.
Thank you David for pointing this out and lifting the debate.
Of course, tosh is a full-time Telstra booster, so the argument is unlikely to gain any traction with him, but it is no less correct and relevant for all that.
“”We” cannot built FTTN first because “we” have no right of way to lay fibre to these supposed nodes”
That’s a bizarre statement, what’s different about the fibre right of way under FTTH and FTTN?
“and “we” own no exchanges where we can terminate the fibre.”
Doesn’t stop the NBN rollout, the NBN Co negotiates with Telstra for use of changes for NBN distribution points as in the Brunswick West exchange for that pilot area, what’s unique about the FTTN using exchanges?
” Also, “we” do not own the last-mile copper network necessary to link the nodes to subscribers’ homes.”
We don’t own the NextG towers either, your point is what?
“That whole network, as you know, is owned by Telstra and Telstra isn’t interested in sharing.”
Funny I thought that was what the ACCC was doing under legislative Parliamentary control of Telstra monopoly infrastructure?
“It had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a deal with NBN Co and put the deal off for two years while packing its parachute.”
Oh so it was making sure the deal didn’t screw its shareholders, and that took awhile to negotiate with Conroy – stiff.
BTW the parachute analogy means what?
“So much time gets wasted on this speeds-and-feeds argument that people forget the real reason for the NBN is to build a wholesale infrastructure that everybody doesn’t have to ask Telstra for permission to use.”
No they have to ask the NBN Co permission to use it but both monopoly infrastructures are overseen by the ACCC, but you know that.
“but there is no other technical way out of the current situation bar shifting the entire country onto last-mile wireless – and the problems with that model have already been discussed ad nauseum.”
The technical alternative to NBN FTTH is last mile wireless? not even the Coalition have said that, where did you pull that from?
“Whether the NBN runs at 25Mbps or 100Mbps it represents a ground-up reimagining of our local access network as it was supposed to become under deregulation.’
I am sure taxpayer fed FTTH to 93% of Australia is not what the ultimate aim of deregulation was.
” It may be creating a new monopoly of sorts”
That would have to be the understatement of the year, at least at the moment we have some semblance of competing infrastructure with HFC and to a lesser extent non-Telstra DSLAM’s in exchanges providing ADSL2+ and a product Telstra doesn’t sell, Naked DSL.
“but that’s only necessary because trying to manage the previous one to benefit all Australians turned out to be a disaster.”
Well it depends if you call 195 ISP’s in Australia all selling Telstra products and their own exchange base products liked Naked DSL at widely varying price points and quotas ‘a disaster’.
Let’s see how many ISP’s survive the transition to NBN or if the big two just get even bigger!
My firm prediction is that big two Telstra and Optus will just get bigger.
*the historical data shows that in that timeframe, usage will be dramatically higher than it is now.*
not to the extent of 100mbits. current average monthly downloads is only the equivalent of contant 50kbps. interestingly, average IP traffic per subscriber in Japan which has pervasive, cheap fibre is only 10GB/mth.
*Witrh the cheap prices of laptops, computers and portable devices, more and more items will be connected to home internet connections.*
seriously, how many pair of eyes do you have at any one point in time?
*Now extrapolate that out 10 years, when there is more and more of this stuff online, and more service providers wanting a cut, and people start having their music collections in the cloud for streaming anywhere they want it.*
seriously, you want the Federal Government to spend $50bln+ of taxpayers’ money to subsidise “home entertainment” for the rich?
ROFL
household network congestion from multiple streaming for entertainment purposes does not constitute a “social ill”.
Since when did entertainment stop contributing to the economy? Recreational services are one of the main drivers of the modern economy. It also helps people become familiar with, and use technology which then leads them to be more comfortable extending their reach into other areas and services. Like it or not, entertainment, and particularly porn, has been the main driver of the internet to date, and there is no shortage of dollars that has flowed into the economy from that. You wont find any pollie willing to stand up and admit that though.
*Since when did entertainment stop contributing to the economy? Recreational services are one of the main drivers of the modern economy.*
funny that… i sure never heard of the Arts & Entertainment industry complaining about the Federal Government levying a “glitz & glamour superprofits tax” on our local entertainment industry. as far back as i recall, the local film industry would be dead without special govt incentives such as the “film production 100% tax write-off” industry subsidy. not to mention all the other public subsidies and grants provided to various arts bodies.
recreational services a driver? more like a tax drain. when was the last time you turned on your TV or went to the local cinema? how much locally-produced fare is there? by laying fibre all across Aust, the Govt is basically using taxpayers’ money to subsidise delivery platforms for Hollywood studios.
* It also helps people become familiar with, and use technology which then leads them to be more comfortable extending their reach into other areas and services.*
fluff.
*Like it or not, entertainment, and particularly porn, has been the main driver of the internet to date, and there is no shortage of dollars that has flowed into the economy from that.*
and how much of the porn you consume is produced locally? as opposed to the San Fernando Valley? is Joe Francis opening a Sydney office?
*Since when did entertainment stop contributing to the economy? Recreational services are one of the main drivers of the modern economy.*
funny that… i sure never heard of the Arts & Entertainment industry complaining about the Federal Government levying a “glitz & glamour superprofits tax” on our local entertainment industry. as far back as i recall, the local film industry would be dead without special govt incentives such as the “film production 100% tax write-off” industry subsidy. not to mention all the other public subsidies and grants provided to various arts bodies.
recreational services a driver? more like a tax drain. when was the last time you turned on your TV or went to the local cinema? how much locally-produced fare is there? by laying fibre all across Aust, the Govt is basically using taxpayers’ money to subsidise delivery platforms for Hollywood studios.
* It also helps people become familiar with, and use technology which then leads them to be more comfortable extending their reach into other areas and services.*
fluff.
*Like it or not, entertainment, and particularly porn, has been the main driver of the internet to date, and there is no shortage of dollars that has flowed into the economy from that.*
and how much of the porn you consume is produced locally? as opposed to the San Fernando Valley? is Joe Francis opening a Sydney office?
The bigger issue is about universal access. Renai, you live in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs and so did I until recently. But you don’t have to go far before ADSL2 drops off a cliff performance-wise. If you are 11km from an exchange then you can’t access ADSL2. If you are in a regional area then you can forget it. The NBN ensures that everyone will be able to access the network with a connection of at least 12mbps. That’s not super fast but it is ubiquitous – and that is the point. Giving regional and remote communities the ability to access all the services that people in the Eastern Suburbs can access is the most critical aspect of the entire project. So, stop with the data rates and look at accessibility. If you could, you should do a story on what it like to live in the middle of Sydney but are 11km from an exchange – I think parts of St Ives are in that boat (and I’m sure other parts of the city are in a similare situation). Fibre to the home offers non-degraded speeds over 30km and switch gear upgrades can potentially make that performance even better.
you can achieve “ubiqitous accessibility” at one-fifth the cost of FTTH which is what Malcolm is proposing.
You can get a half baked patchwork option that builds in massive digital divides by building Turnbulls solution. Cant wait till he has to answer the hard questions on how he actually plans to do any of the stuff he has said he will. That will be a real laugh when he realises how many holes there are in his plan, and how long it will actually take to get anything happening. I bet he is hoping that he is leader by then so he can dump it on some other poor putz that gets the comms minister gig.
*You can get a half baked patchwork option*
look, you engage in meaningless name-calling like “half-baked patchwork”, etc… but the fact is no other country in the world is doing what we are doing in terms of tech configuration, scale or spend per capita.
*That will be a real laugh when he realises how many holes there are in his plan*
holes? the BIGGEST HOLES are in NBNco’s so-called “corporate plan”.
@toshP300
“the fact is no other country in the world is doing what we are doing in terms of tech configuration, scale or spend per capita.”
I’m not going to argue the facts here, as what you have written sounds more than correct. As far as I know, there isn’t another country doing what we’re doing.
The question I would ask however is, is that necessarily a bad thing?
As food for thought and without going into too much detail, what if what Australia is currently proposing with the NBN is a good way to go about building a nationwide network. What if all the other countries in the world are going about it wrong? Then by the same token what if we’re going about it all wrong? I really can’t say, only time will tell I guess.
While I’m not saying one way or the other there is a “right” and “wrong” way, but using the argument that because nobody else is doing it implies that it is a horrible move I don’t think holds much water and isn’t a convincing point to make.
I guess it goes back to Renai’s initial question, can we move towards a move complex NBN argument? Or are we stuck with the old fallback, “well nobody else is doing it so it must be bad…”
“No other country in the world is doing what we are doing in terms of scale.”
There, fixed that for you. Never mind the rest of the planet were dozens of countries are providing FTTH – only on a smaller scale: Australia is already doing the tech and spend – check out the FTTH in new housing estates that’s already installed in most cities of Australia, and the ACT suburbs provisioned with FTTH by TransACT. It’s the same setup as NBN Co.
that’s what i meant by “tech configuration”…. 93% FTTP vs 5% FTTP, etc, etc…
Nailed it. Everything about their patchwork plan revolves around the NBN that is why Turnbull cant answer even the simple questions about it, all he can say in a vague fashion is “we’ll be using a variety of different technologies because variety is good derp derp derp!” might be wireless one day, FTTN the next and then he’ll jump to DIDO lol, he cant even guarantee consistent speeds for the majority of people and unless you live in capital city you still get screwed.
Really? Malcom provided costings on his proposal? (that aren’t back of the envelope)
Do you inflate his numbers by 2 times when you hear them also, since it will be a government project (which seems to be a common complaint about the NBN)
go read the Analysys Mason report commissioned by the UK Broadband Stakeholders Group. you might learn something.
broadband stakeholders group. strange ally for you?
started by stephen timms, a christian socialist, labour party vice chairman and labour mp.
he sounds like the uk’s version of stephen conroy.
why do you have to look at everything through political lenses? the study was conducted by Analysys Mason, not BSG.
all i did was elaborate upon your comment. it was not i who brought it up, made it an issue nor mentioned who it was commissioned by.
you suggested we might learn something and we did. we learned that bsg was started by the uk’s conroy for the want of a better description, who is a christian socialist and strangely, you appear to support them.
i only referenced who commissioned the report to clarify which Analysys report i was refering to. they are a consultancy, they publish dozens of reports. i don’t know why you need to read in a political motive or inclination.
i only referenced who commissioned the report to clarify which Analysys report i was refering to. they are a consultancy, they publish dozens of reports. i don’t know why you need to read in a political motive or inclination.
so a uk report, written by consultants, paid for by a group lead by a christian socialist, is gospel {pun intended}.but the rfp panel of experts who said it would cost too much here in Australia to build fttn and then later upgrade to fttp are not to be listened too!
But reports commissioned by Google (and conducted by consultancy Deloitte) elicit bouts of laughter and comments of “let’s just say i’ve been around long enough to understand how the consulting world works…”
(http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/04/turnbulls-new-nbn-policy-is-90-percent-win/)
Just had a gander.
That report is for a very different situation.
http://www.broadbanduk.org/content/view/307/73/
clearly shows an 8:1 ratio for their GPON. That will increase costs for the FTTH rollout. (from 32:1 which I believe ours is).
Additionally, those statistics include costs for premises with less than 1000 lines, the most expensive. These will not be included with our FTTH/FTTN roll out.
As costs are exponential, the difference between each is exponential also, and reduce very quickly as you start dropping the more expensive components (like the rollouts to communities of less than 1000 lines).
1:5 cost difference is with a different network (8:1), and a different rollout (to communities with less than 1000 lines).
I suspect that is the tip of the iceberg with respect to how inaccurate this report is for the australian NBN
more reading of the report indicates a 32:1 GPON ratio.
This report now contradicts itself directly.
At least it was checked for consistency…
Was about to bother replying. Had 2 huge paragraphs.
Heres a synopsis: That report states clearly, that they will dig trenches where trenches dont exist. If they did overhead wiring it would save 5 billion dollars off a FTTP build. Thats 20% right there.
(FTTC now 4:1 not 5:1 cost saving).
It is a build out for 100% of the population. (Already a bad comparison).
This report cannot be applied directly to our situation without a significant rewrite taking into account our NBN.
No one claims an FTTC isn’t cheaper dollar for dollar. But it isn’t 5:1, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I suspect at best it is 3.5:1.
Best part of that report? they indicated that for a roll out to 100% of premesis, the cost of 100% takeup as opposed to 30% take up would go down for an FTTC roll out. Someone care to explain how, since an FTTC cabinent is as far as you go and given 100% coverage [not takeup] you don’t get to choose where you put a cabinent…
Oh, so Malcolm has a cost now? Last I saw, he kept dodging the question of how much his policy would cost, insisting only that it is “cheaper”. I don’t quite see how it can be cheaper than Labor’s $0 NBN plan (yes, the net cost is $0, and that $50B figure is just fictional).
“Does it benefit the nation as a whole for the Government to invest billions in building a national network which will principally be used for purposes which have very little to do with actual economic outcomes, and very much to do with free or very cheap entertainment and socialising?”
The thing is – if it’s built – business will use the network as much as people use it for social needs. The problem is these apps do not exist in todays world because there is no network, and you dont invest money in something if you dont have the capability to run it.
I am sure if the NBN goes forward, there would be a multitude of apps central to remote workplace environments using the benefits of fiber poping out of the woodwork.
The point that is being missed by those who put up the spurious “oh but its just for entertainment” argument, is that the current copper network, that swallowed millions upon millions of taxpayers dollars over the century or more it has been built is used primarily for….. wait for it…. entertainment. The average household would make some “business related” phone calls, but most calls would be to family and friends to catch up or just have a chin wag – i.e. entertain each other. The higher use of the copper medium though comes from copper based internet consumption which is…. primarily entertainment related again. Youtube, music, movies, TV shows, chatting, gaming, etc etc etc. No one complained about the money being spent on the building of the copper netwrok for entertainment. Its a tad disengenuous to roll it out now, a century after the last major “entertainment” infratructure rollout began.
The point that is being missed by those who put up the spurious “oh but its just for entertainment” argument, is that the current copper network, that swallowed millions upon millions of taxpayers dollars over the century or more it has been built is used primarily for….. wait for it…. entertainment. The average household would make some “business related” phone calls, but most calls would be to family and friends to catch up or just have a chin wag – i.e. entertain each other. The higher use of the copper medium though comes from copper based internet consumption which is…. primarily entertainment related again. Youtube, music, movies, TV shows, chatting, gaming, etc etc etc. No one complained about the money being spent on the building of the copper netwrok for entertainment. Its a tad disengenuous to roll it out now, a century after the last major “entertainment” infratructure rollout began.
you consider maintaining social relationships with friends and family which are vital for your psychological and social health “entertainment” ?
ROFL
My goodness. It just keeps getting thicker. psycological and social health? Surely that same line of thinking can be applied to the NBN then? A century ago when the copper network was started, it was way overkill for just a few conversations for “psychological and social health”. Back in those days, people actually talked face to face or wrote letters. They had no more “psychological and social health” problems due to this than we do now. Most people are having a yak on the phone for little reason other than for a bit of entertainment, and a catchup/gossip.
You are truly grasping at straws with this one.
*Back in those days, people actually talked face to face or wrote letters.*
dude, you said it, not me:
Quote: “but most calls would be to family and friends to catch up or just have a chin wag – i.e. entertain each other.”
“dude, you said it, not me:”
Yep, as I said, most people are entertaining themselves on the copper network.
If you stop and think about what is being argued here, the fact that most people used to talk face to face or write letters, should have been justification for NOT building the copper network. Why would they want copper whrn they can send a letter?? Letters worked fine in the day, no need for copper right? Surely even you see the logic disconnect in the arguments. You cant say you shouldnt build the NBN when a network was already built on the exact same prmise, and no one batted an eyelid. Its an empty argument.
you’re grossly mis-caricaturising current internet uses.
going online to check email, read the news, scan for job ads, house rentals, buy a second hand car, trade goods on Ebay, banking transactions, trade stocks on e-Trade… basically, all the high-value internet activity that can be carried out perfectly fine without the need for 100Mbit… is NOT “entertainment”.
“Does it benefit the nation as a whole for the Government to invest billions in building a national network which will principally be used for purposes which have very little to do with actual economic outcomes, and very much to do with free or very cheap entertainment and socialising?”
The thing is – if it’s built – business will use the network as much as people use it for social needs. The problem is these apps do not exist in todays world because there is no network, and you dont invest money in something if you dont have the capability to run it.
I am sure if the NBN goes forward, there would be a multitude of apps central to remote workplace environments using the benefits of fiber poping out of the woodwork.
“Does it benefit the nation as a whole for the Government to invest billions in building a national network which will principally be used for purposes which have very little to do with actual economic outcomes, and very much to do with free or very cheap entertainment and socialising? Should the Federal Government really be focusing its energy on ensuring that modern households can run a variety of different Internet applications simultaneously?”
But IPTV IP Gaming are busness opportunities services like Hulu OnLive were developed in the US because the infrastructure existed to support them.
Having he NBN gives an economic incentive to develop applications and programs that use it since people will have access to an internet connection capable of using services. In turn these advances could be sold or licenced to other countries leading to large IT companies developing in this country.
The NBN could lead the way for the next google or facebook like company to develop in this country yet a short sighted viewpoint will leave us an internet and technological backwater forever.
“Does it benefit the nation as a whole for the Government to invest billions in building a national network which will principally be used for purposes which have very little to do with actual economic outcomes, and very much to do with free or very cheap entertainment and socialising? Should the Federal Government really be focusing its energy on ensuring that modern households can run a variety of different Internet applications simultaneously?”
But IPTV IP Gaming are busness opportunities services like Hulu OnLive were developed in the US because the infrastructure existed to support them.
Having he NBN gives an economic incentive to develop applications and programs that use it since people will have access to an internet connection capable of using services. In turn these advances could be sold or licenced to other countries leading to large IT companies developing in this country.
The NBN could lead the way for the next google or facebook like company to develop in this country yet a short sighted viewpoint will leave us an internet and technological backwater forever.
you don’t need 100Mbit to watch Hulu.
the US has the highest capex spend on the ICT sector in the world (28% of GDP), yet average internet connection speeds is in the mid-single digits Mbps.
Japan and Korea have extensive residential fibre, yet the capex spend on ICT is only 13% of GDP (even lower than Australia at 20%!).
there’s absolutely no correlation between tech investment and residential fibre abundance.
look at the most successful, multi-billion dollar “digital economy companies” in the world: Facebook, Google, Linked-In, Twitter, Groupon, MySpace…. 90%+ of the value of their services do not depend on superfast broadband.
what “digital economy innovations” have countries like Korea and Japan produced with their extensive fibred-up estates?
in the case of Sweden, the only thing fibre abundance created of international renown is “PirateBay”.
How could you miss the point by so far?
“look at the most successful, multi-billion dollar “digital economy companies” in the world: Facebook, Google, Linked-In, Twitter, Groupon, MySpace…. 90%+ of the value of their services do not depend on superfast broadband.”
They rely on ubiqutious broadband coverage though and the next group will rely on Very High speed broadband.
What you are saying is that all those companies would exist with Dial Up!!!!
*They rely on ubiqutious broadband coverage though*
are you saying that only a tiny minority of Aussies are using Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc?
*the next group will rely on Very High speed broadband.*
whoooosssssh! is that the sound of Silicon Valley venture capitalists flooding into Japan and Seoul? nope, just hot air out of a balloon….
are you saying only a tiny minority of aussies have broadband?
and we only need dial up ?
Who needs a car train or bus when we can walk? walking will get you anywhere you want to go so sell your car now people
the problem is in countries all around the world, as Malcolm has pointed out from talking directly to the stakeholders in Korea, NZ, etc,.. there is little evidence of consumers being willing to pay extra for faster services. go read his NPC address, the radio interviews and do some general research.
that’s why you minimise your spend and build FTTN and upgrade to FTTH over time if demand arises.
Japan has extensive fibre yet average monthly IP traffic per subscriber is 10Gb/mth… wtf?
FTTP, often called FTTH in Japan, was first introduced in 1999, and did not become a large player until 2001. In 2003-2004, FTTH grew at a remarkable rate, while DSL’s growth slowed. 10.5 million FTTH connections are reported as of September 2007 in Japan.[2] Currently, many people are switching from DSL to FTTH, the use of DSL is decreasing, with the peak of DSL usage being March 2006. On September 17, 2008, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications reported that for the first time, the number of FTTH connections (13.08 million connections) eclipsed that of DSL (12.29 million connections) and became the biggest means of broadband connection in Japan at 45% of total compared to that of DSL at 42%. In the report, the number of FTTH connections grew by 929,681 during the period of March to June 2008 while the number of DSL connections declined by 420,706 during the same period.[3]
*** Average real-world speed of FTTH is 66 Mbit/s in the whole of Japan, and 78 Mbit/s in Tokyo.
FTTH first started with 10 Mbit/s (end-user rate) passive optical network (PON) by Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT), and 100 Mbit/s (end-user rate) with GEPON (Gigabit Ethernet-PON) or broadband PON as the major one in 2006. PON is the major system for FTTH by NTT, but some competitive services present 1 Gbit/s (at end-user rate) with SS (Single Star).
*** Currently, most people use 100 Mbit/s.
Major application services on fibers are voice over IP, video-IP telephony, IPTV (IP television), IPv6 services and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country
so you have a 50% take-up rate of FTTH despite massive govt subsidies… no wonder NBNco wants to spend another $13bln of taxpayers’ money (on top of capital works) shutting down Telstra’s copper network.
oh, and if fibre is similar in price to ADSL in Japan, it just shows that they can’t achieve any “premiums”.
instead of trying to shout everyone down, why don’t you read and learn. isn’t that the intention of such forums?
so a condensed version of what’s happening in japan, once again.
‘FTTP, often called FTTH in Japan, was first introduced in 1999’
‘Currently, many people are switching from DSL to FTTH, the use of DSL is decreasing’.
‘FTTH connections (13.08 million connections) eclipsed that of DSL (12.29 million connections) and became the biggest means of broadband connection in Japan’
‘Average real-world speed of FTTH is 66 Mbit/s in the whole of Japan, and 78 Mbit/s in Tokyo’.
‘Currently, most people use 100 Mbit/s’.
now what were you saying about japan?
*now what were you saying about japan?*
100Mbit to download 10Gb/mth… wtf?
if fibre is same price as ADSL, there is no premium achieved.
mass-posting from wikipedia doesn’t achieve anything.
that’s why i condensed it, just for you
:-)
@Pepe
Is Japan pulling down ALL existing infrastructure to make way for FTTH?
no they aren’t being pulled down alain, i would have thought it obvious from my previous comment and no question needed, but thank you for asking none the less.
because, as you accidentally allude to, the stats from japan show fttp has overtaken dsl when they are competing, which disproves your totally unwarranted theory that competing networks ‘need’ to be closed.
no they aren’t being pulled down alain, i would have thought it obvious from my previous comment and no question needed, but thank you for asking none the less.
because, as you accidentally allude to, the stats from japan show fttp has overtaken dsl when they are competing, which disproves your totally unwarranted theory that competing networks ‘need’ to be closed.
So why does Conroy want the Telstra and Optus networks shut down?
I agree, not everyone needs 100Mb connections now. But at some point in the future that sort of bandwidth, based on the current trend, will be needed. If it has to be built at some stage, why waste money on a stop gap? GFC, sure, all the more reason to stimulate the economy with a project like this. There will be no GFC recovery with everyone saving for a rainy day and never spending.
I myself wouldn’t mind 100Mb. It would enable me to work from home. As a programmer I often have to grab many MB of code and data. Some times this could take 4-5 hrs on the 12Mb available to me (the guarenteed alternative amount). This sort of delay a couple of times a week would make it impossible to work from home on a regular basis.
FTTN is not a “stop-gap” and money is SAVED by not overinvesting in fibre before demand arises. there is no need to stimulate the economy, we’re already at full employment with RBA pushing up interest rates.
I never mentioned FTTN being a stop gap, stop putting words in mty mouth. I am talking about the getting everyone to a minimum of 12Mb/s using a variety of technologies. Since I am at 12Mb/s I would stay as is. 12MB/s is not going to cut it in 10-20 years and 100MB/s will be necessary. Further, I said the economy, not whether people were employed. BTW, unemployment has just risen and the RBA has put any rate rise on hold. But that’s irrelivant as both those are just part of your strawman.
Absolutely governments should be involved in solving these kinds of problems. These are long term problems that go beyond the next profit announcement. History is full of examples where governments have solved long term problems and when we look back we mostly agree it was a good thing. I see the NBN and carbon pollution as two examples of today’s long term problems that only a government can get us started on.
To put it another way. Industry tends to settle on a local minima, and needs a kick every now and then to move on to a more optimal solution.
“To put it another way. Industry tends to settle on a local minima,”
… or to put it another way industry would prefer not to pay for business grade connection if the taxpayer bankrolls a high speed connection for them.
If it’s freebie in the wind they will wait forever, and ‘be right behind it’.
“and needs a kick every now and then to move on to a more optimal solution.”
…. as long as that ‘optimal solution’ is free.
Which RSPs will be offering NBN plans for free?
When the NBN rolls past a business as distinct from a residence the business has to pay for the connection and the ONT box?
Which RSPs will be offering NBN plans for free?
what problem? entities that really need fibre already have fibre and do not rely on taxpayer subsidies.
history is also full of examples of govts building white elephants, public infrastructure projects suffering massive billion dollar cost blow-outs and squandering taxpayers’ money.
“”but, as Turnbull and others have pointed out, the businesses and educational and health institutions which require higher levels of network connectivity, by and large already have it — and are willing to pay for it themselves.””
I think this is going a bit far, not every business has huge economies of scale with large amounts of staff that make the cost of a ‘good’ internet connection reasonable.
Someone will probably mention TPG’s 100Mb $599 unlimited fiber, now whilst that price seems good, although still maybe a bit pricey for small business at $7k a year, it’s only available in 3 of our CBD’s and a fraction of the buildings at that, what kind of small business can afford rent on CBD office space?
For those that don’t live in the CBD, even a 10/10 connection will set you back at minimum $1000.
Small business cannot afford that.
good point. it’s interesting that the catch cry is nbn is unaffordable for consumers. ignoring that what we already have ‘is’ actually more unaffordable, not to mention greatly inferior.
$50bln “small business” welfare? no, thank you.
Yikes .. nice attitude. What’s one of the pillars of the Australian economy? Small business.
Don’t forget the Labor insulation rollout debacle was there to help small business also, best to forget that one eh?
Yes, I hope they learnt from that one. Tighter reigns on who gets into the scheme. The world has too many bottom feeders trying to rip people off.
Had a call Microsoft to fix a virus on your computer lately?
Yes I am sure the electorate will learn from that one election time 2013.
Dear Renai,
Given that your last little commentary prompted such ‘ferocious debate’, (though most coming from the usual 3 suspects who, truth be told couldn’t string together six glass beads let alone a cogent and rational argument. And yes, they know who they are.) I thought I’d get in early in the hope that my voice would be heard.
But firstly could I just note your mixed metaphor …. ‘On the other hand of the coin were the naysayers (yours truly included).’
Now, as for the article proper,
In defense of Stilgherrian’s scenario, and the criticism of your subsequent call of ‘complete horseshit’ I challenge you to cite exactly where it claimed that “…. an entire household ‘constantly’ using streaming video….”. Because he didn’t. You set up a strawman and then called foul.
Secondly, you note that it is a ‘vision’. So you obviously accept that he is not talking about the here and now. Yet you still claim it to be horseshit. Does that mean you lay claim to prescience, that you can predict 10-20 yrs into the future? Now THAT is complete horseshit.
As for your selective application of judging the worth of the NBN purely on the basis of providing entertainment is a complete laugh. So much so that I wonder if it isn’t a troll. It totally ignores the benefits of an almost universal high speed connection in a society. (Though at least you restrained yourself from using the ‘porn’ argument and for that we should be thankful. – Hang on, porn is entertainment – arrgh!)
Oh hang on …. “Because telecommunications infrastructure is now, and will be in future, used for a variety of complex purposes,….”. Gasp. You mean you just contradicted yourself ? That there’s more to it than entertainment ?
Next comes this classic …. “If you believe governments should only work at the fundamental layer of providing underlying frameworks for other forces in society — industry, primarily non-profit sectors such as health and education and so on — then you will be against the NBN, because the complex set of problems which it attempts to solve rises far, far above that layer.”
I beg your pardon. Implicit in that statement is that the ‘fundamental layer’ excludes basic infrastructure, and secondly that the profit sectors will meet the needs of the nation as an entity, not just the needs of the profit sector. Perhaps if you discuss and clarify that then you might take steps to finding the answers you seek. Until then, making such ludicrous claims is useless.
In closing, a belief in the NBN does not imply that one thinks the govt should cure all of society’s ills and attempting to lump all of them together and thus discredit or muddy the waters of debate is something that I would expect of the anti-NBN posters on this site rather than the author.
Perhaps it’s infectious ? In which case consider this my first and last post. But seriously, Get serious. Now I know that journo’s often use shock jock type tactics, to inflame, outrage get the readership levels up, the hits, etc etc. always good both now and in the long term. (But I’m not suggesting that you are guilty of any such actions. – Do you like that? Learnt it from the UnOz.)
I would suggest a little more sound logic and less strawman type arguments would be more beneficial if you want to be taken seriously.
Cheers.
“I would suggest a little more sound logic and less strawman type arguments would be more beneficial if you want to be taken seriously.”
I looked for some ‘sound logic’ in your esoteric waffle but couldn’t find any, in fact I still don’t know what your thrust was, other than a poor opening attempt at a put down as if that somehow magically justified what followed.
I was hoping you would predict what will happen in 10-20 years and why the NBN FTTH will be the ONLY solution to support it.
I mean 10+ years ago we had a HFC rollout, who would have ever thought that over ten years later most residences STILL don’t need it.
Oh but that historical precedent of extrapolating 10 years ago to today is different because umm err it just is.
The only reason residences will need FTTH is because the alternatives are shut down, pure and simple, up to that point it will be just a select few tech tyre kicker exercise, the equivalent of doing burnouts in the street and posting brag figures in Whirlpool and forums like this.
in response to your final paragraph alain, as your first impolite paragraph was uncalled for from my perspective.
as you unwittingly alluded to previously, japan experienced quite the opposite to your persistent claims that other networks ‘need’ to be shut down. with fttp overtaking dsl as the ‘network of choice’ in japan.
as this is the case, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you really do not have a premise to keep touting closure of competing networks as being essential to the success of the nbn, do you?
“in response to your final paragraph alain, as your first impolite paragraph was uncalled for from my perspective.”
Why? because I used the term ‘esoteric waffle’, but of course this is ok which is what I was responding to from Tg because it is pro-NBn argument, as I have said many times blatant hypocrisy underpins much pro-NBN argument.
“, truth be told couldn’t string together six glass beads let alone a cogent and rational argument.”
“you really do not have a premise to keep touting closure of competing networks as being essential to the success of the nbn, do you? ”
So Telstra and Optus are volunteering to shut down their networks to make way for the NBN without one cent of compensation from the Government, and Conroy is not asking them to do it?
no alain.
as i said, and as you unwittingly alluded to previously, japan experienced quite the opposite to your persistent claims that other networks ‘need’ to be shut down, with fttp overtaking dsl as the ‘network of choice’ in japan.
surely as an intelligent man that should tell you something?
It tells me and what you are desperately avoiding to acknowledge is that in Japan legacy infrastructure operates alongside new infrastructure, in Australia legacy infrastructure is required to be shut down so the NBN can have at least some chance of a reasonable customer numbers under the Conroy negotiated forced migration program.
@alain, no, i came here to discuss ict issues, via friendly two way correspondence, with knowledgeable, fair minded people. but seeing how the vocal mainstays here operate, that is looking very unlikely indeed.
i’m not desperate what so ever. not everyone has an ulterior motive to cause desperation, but a few here certainly do. the desperate one’s, from my perspective, are those from both sides who even after receiving information to show them mistaken, twist everything around, to somehow try to legitimize their errors?
alain you made claims which japan’s experience proves you are mistaken. it’s not an argument or manhood competition, it is simply so, according to the data. as you say, australia is migrating rather than doing as the japanese have done, but this does not change the fact that japan, having choice, have chosen fttp, does it?
as for australia, i’m guessing its being done this way to maximize the return and appease those who demand same, strangely, peoplelike you. again, you can’t have it both ways.
on that note, we have now hit an obvious impasse, so rather than argue over old ground, it’s time for me to move to a new thread and just cop the last word, parting swipe, inevitably heading my way.
on a side note, it appears as though the advice hubertcumberdale gave me last night is looking spot on.
Whilst large enterprises may already have higher speed links the reality is that the majority of adult working Australians are infact employed in the SME market and the SME market cannot afford the extortionate pricing Telstra have been reaping off the large enterprise/government/education market for over a decade. The NBN, for want of a much better and less overworked phrase. ‘levels the playing field’ allowing the sector that employs most Australians jsut as good access as the ‘big end of town’.
Secondly, talk of ‘downloading porn, warez, games, movies’ etc are crap. Given that most of that is taken via overseas sources so the end result of the NBN would be the exact same speeds of foreign data. Thats the one area of broadband downloads that WON’T benefit from the NBN – so why do commentators harp on a bout it? Its absolute bollocks. What you will see is a boom in home grown content providers. More providers, more staff = more employment and more money being spent on the services. When did that become a bad thing?
Hey everyone, FYI I’ll be coming back to this thread and responding to some of the comments later this evening — have to duck out before that point. However, I just want to caution people that I have already noticed a shrill note creeping into people’s tone on this thread. Please keep your comments directed at the debate and not into personal insults — or, as always, they will be deleted etc.
Happy debating! :)
Cheers,
Renai
Debating? What debating? It’s just toshP300 spewing his opinion over the top of everyone.
oh sorry, i forgot… a real debate is when everyone agrees with you(r selfish personal need for taxpayer-funded fibre because you happen to work at home).
apologies.
No, a debate isn’t when everyone agrees with everyone.
I object to your “debating” because it is nothing but mocking and posting what you think onto everyone elses discussion.
It’s when people read what you have to say and respond to it with there arguements. It’s not responding with strawman arguements. It’s not picking one or two words from their input and then stating what you think yet again.
I do not work at home. It would be nice to have the option. I can see that there is a need in future for more bandwidth than is available today. What the oposition is proposing is spending about half the money that is required to implement something that is futureproof for at least 20 or upto 50 year for something that could be a limiting factor in under 5.
*I object to your “debating” because it is nothing but mocking and posting what you think onto everyone elses discussion.*
don’t blame me if you post rubbish like “the economy needs stimulating to recover from the GFC” and get called out. all it shows is ignorance when the RBA has had to jack up interest rates swiftly and sharply to counteract the economic pressures from booming mining capex, while other major OECD countries still have interest rates at near zero.
*What the oposition is proposing is spending about half the money that is required to implement something that is futureproof for at least 20 or upto 50 year for something that could be a limiting factor in under 5.*
FTTH costs FIVE TIMES implementing FTTN.
http://www.analysysmason.com/PageFiles/5766/Analysys-Mason-final-report-for-BSG-(Sept2008).pdf
“the economy needs stimulating to recover from the GFC”
I didn’t post that. You are rewording what I said to create another strawman.
GFC is “Global”, not just Australia. If every country just stops spending the crisis would be ongoing.
I will have to read that report in full but a quick glance at the figures shows a lot of the FTTH cost is in ducts that are already there in Australia.
this is what you said:
“GFC, sure, all the more reason to stimulate the economy with a project like this. There will be no GFC recovery with everyone saving for a rainy day and never spending.”
you either have a penchant for backtracking or you express yourself very poorly.
And how much does it cost to cut the Telstra copper?
Yes, the reason I said that is because the reason people keep saying we shouldn’t have an NBN is because we are in the middle of a GFC. Part of the cause ongoing of the GFC is everyone panicing and sitting on their cash and not spending. Australia may not have the low interest rates and the high unemployment but it is still effected by the GFC. Many business that export are suffering from the high Australian dollar. Companies that are owned by overseas entities are becoming very expensive. Effectively our salaries have risen 60% over the last 10 years due to the increase in the dollar.
OK, I’ve read the document. I’d suggest basing cost on what it would cost here in Australia. NBN co are not planning to build ducting (the major cost of the UK FTTH) they are planning to run fibre in existing ducts.
@Guest
if a structurally-separated Telstra Networks builds FTTN, compensation = ZERO.
regardless, NBNco is currently compensating Telstra anyway to the tune of $13bln or whatever.
I really can’t see Telstra rushing out and build FTTN. They still haven’t even rolled out ADSL2+ everywhere. Newly developed areas have massive numbers of RIMs or no telephone service at all. I feel they will just milk their exclusive existing copper til ad infinitum.
@Dbremner
*I’d suggest basing cost on what it would cost here in Australia.*
Gibson Quai’s estimate is $60-80bln capital works alone.
*NBN co are not planning to build ducting (the major cost of the UK FTTH) they are planning to run fibre in existing ducts.*
duct re-use savings are factored in the report. still “approx 5 times” cost relativity after factoring in.
What is wrong with the NBN cost estimates?
“What is wrong with the NBN cost estimates?”
You mean the fact that were made before the latest CVC charges drop with a rebate and that the finished time has been extended from 2018 to 2020?
Nothing I guess.
The reason I mentioned that I could benefit from 100Mb at home is to show there are applications that do require it for the home now and possibly more in future. With both parents often working telecommuting could be a good option to putting your child in child care. Jobs are becoming more and more data intensive.
you’re talking about a small, tiny minority of the workforce.
what about jobs like bricklaying, plumbing, nursing, courier, laundromat operator, forklift driver, policeman, waitress, chef, locksmith, barber, mobile phone dealer, grocer, cleaner, security guard, criminal barrister, carpenter, tiler, mechanic, bookseller, fast food shop owner, dancer, doctor, physiotherapist, chiropractor, sound technician, stagehand, shop assistant, forex dealer, sex worker, photographer, landscape gardener, warehouse manager, priest, film director, personal trainer, sports coach, actor, private detective, pilot, driving instructor, machine operator, factory supervisor, barmaid, phys ed teacher, acupunturist, make-up artist, set designer, janitor, caretaker, hospital administrator, masseuse, receptionist, electrician, etc etc etc…..
how are these ppl going to “telecommute”?
Well obviously they are not, but that does invalidate that in some jobs you can. In fact some you listed you can.
If FTTH is such a mainstay of a working from home trend, we would assume that the greenfield estates that have had a FTTH service under the Telstra Velocity program and other supplier estates such as Opticomm rolled out years ago would have a high proportion of at home telecommuting.
Similarly you would expect that TransACT rollouts in Canberra and even HFC serviced premises would have a high proportion of residents using at home telecommuting relative to residences that have to ‘suffer’ with ADSL or ADSL2+ .
FTTH is not new to Australia, so there is plenty of history of use out there, although Conroy would like everyone to think the NBN FTTH is a new 2010 invention, and requires gently gently trialling.
” Debating? What debating? It’s just toshP300 spewing his opinion over the top of everyone ” Hear hear, not to mention the constant misrepresentation of other peoples posts. Its hard to debate something you never even said.
lol
“misrepresentation”…. sucks doesn’t it not being able to post pro-NBN FUD w/o other people calling you out on it? my commiserations.
You can’t even answer that post. He never complained about “not being able to post pro-NBN FUD w/o other people calling you out on it?” He complained about you misrepresenting posts. You do it constantly. If you cannot reply to a post on it’s own merits don’t bother. Rewording it so you can redicule it doesn’t fool most people.
good on you… engage in more ad hominems… just because you can’t defend your beloved NBN on its (lack of) merits.
“misrepresentations”… lmao. if you don’t want to look like a fool on an internet forum, don’t post rubbish and then try to backtrack your way out of it.
good on you… engage in more ad hominems… just because you can’t defend your beloved NBN on its (lack of) merits.
“misrepresentations”… lmao. if you don’t want to look like a fool on an internet forum, don’t post rubbish and then try to backtrack your way out of it.
Why shouldn’t I mention your constant twisting of peoples posts? It’s obvious to everyone you are doing it. FTTN and FTTH both have their good and bad points. I am not pro anything other than pro government intervening, as the private sector has had many years to do something and hasn’t. I don’t believe I have been posting rubbish. The only rubbish I see is your constant twisting of others posts to put down opions they haven’t even expressed. Opinions created for your straw man attacks.
Hey Renai, there seems to be a problem with the RSS feed. It shows post as a minimum of 4 hours old.
Congratulations Renai, you’re really getting there with this. Only for your omission of that pesky Telstra separation business and I think you’ve framed this about right. Keep it up.
Cheers! :)
I would support the NBN if the project was bought back under budget. For me this is necessary to ensure that the Government has a greater responsibility to ensure that spending on the NBN does not spiral out of control. I dont buy the NBN will start paying for itself in X amount of years as an ‘investment’, especially considering the outward -> inwards roll-out and the long time to complete the project.
My preference would also be for the government to supply the skilled training and labour for the people to be involved rather than a bidding war for contractors already getting large salaries in the mining industry. Set up apprenticeship schemes for young people, and trainee-ships for those being displaced in the new carbon friendly industries, and control the management of personnel from within NBNCo. It does go back to the dark ages a bit when governments used to be responsible for a large portion of trades training but I don’t think that has to be a bad thing.
large corporates also get cheaper stationery and office equipment because they buy in bigger volumes. what’s next? taxpayer subsidies for SMEs to purchase pencil sharpeners and printing paper at same rates as BHP?
“home grown content providers”? what kind of content exactly? so, people are going to stop watching Hollywood movies and start watching local Aussie fare just because they have a NBNco ONT box in their home?
the Optus HFC network which serves millions of homes has been running bare (other than reselling Telstra’s Foxtel) for yonks. what’s stopping “home grown content providers” from taking advantage of an existing fixed-line distribution network with plenty of excess bandwidth capacity? what’s so magical about the NBN that will suddenly make Aussies want to watch domestically-produced entertainment?
“what’s stopping “home grown content providers” from taking advantage of an existing fixed-line distribution network with plenty of excess bandwidth capacity”
Because they are content providers and upstream on HFC isn’t too low to do that.
oh so, these “home grown content providers” that Dread mentions are going to be working from home like you do.. “hiring staff and generating employment”…. wow, looks like the NBN will also trigger a boom in residential home renovations/office conversions to house all those tens of thousands of “home-housed” staff.
Once again, I do not work from home. I have had the option too before. Working contract of companies outside of Australia. So I had looked at what the data requirements would be.
The subject was home content providers. To be a small business and provide content you need to be able to send that content out. You argues HFC was plenty fast enough. It is down to the home, from the home it isn’t.
Stop with the personal attacks.
for the sake of clarity, this is what Dread posted (which i responded to):
“Secondly, talk of ‘downloading porn, warez, games, movies’ etc are crap. Given that most of that is taken via overseas sources so the end result of the NBN would be the exact same speeds of foreign data. Thats the one area of broadband downloads that WON’T benefit from the NBN – so why do commentators harp on a bout it? Its absolute bollocks. What you will see is a boom in home grown content providers. More providers, more staff = more employment and more money being spent on the services. When did that become a bad thing?”
And you responded:
“the Optus HFC network which serves millions of homes has been running bare (other than reselling Telstra’s Foxtel) for yonks. what’s stopping “home grown content providers” from taking advantage of an existing fixed-line distribution network with plenty of excess bandwidth capacity?”
And I responded:
“Because they are content providers and upstream on HFC is too low to do that.”
And you responded with something about me working at home again.
I would just like things to be discussed based on what is said. You simply acusing me of liking FTTH because I want fast home net isn’t discussion.
Be it FTTH, FTTN or whatever. 12Mb/s which is being posted as the alternative I don’t feel will cut it. If they go FTTH fine, it will allow faster copper technologies over the shorter distance and provide for the increased bandwidth requirement over time.
What are the costings on FTTN vs FTTH? Is it that much cheaper?
oh so, these “home grown content providers” that Dread mentions are going to be working from home like you do.. “hiring staff and generating employment”…. wow, looks like the NBN will also trigger a boom in residential home renovations/office conversions to house all those tens of thousands of “home-housed” staff.
Renai,
Like I said, you do love the attention. Its a brave new connected world in which we live and we will drag them, kicking and screaming into the 21st century. If you took the votes of under 30’s I bet you would have a +70% on the NBN. People with a modicum of intelligence can see the benefits of ubiquitous networking in their society.
Kevin
(Tosh need not reply)
So true, it’s times like this I wish I lived in Tony Windsor’s electorate or there were more politicians like him.
Sorry only a miniscule minority of electors Australia wide voted for Windsor, his utterrings do not represent many at all.
Thanks for that useless and not relevant piece of information. Perhaps you would like to try to read & comprehend my comment next time. Hint: there are six words after the “or”.
The point remains unchanged.
Thus your point is still irrelevant. Thanks for stopping by.
Are you being paid to post this tarp?
Are you being paid to post this tarp?
In my area, we have a group of islands – 4 suburbs and nearly 60k people – with NO ADSL2 and barely any ADSL1. Theres almost no mobile reception here, poor tv reception and uselessly congested wireless… and we’re at 4165 – which is about 1 hour from brisbane. According to some people, mostly tech writers that have no clue and some politicians – anyone in a metro city should be able to get ADSL right? … lol… thats a good one.
I’m studying Network Engineering at uni, while working in a local phone store :) just for the perspective…
My problem with this whole debate, is it doesnt deal with the white elephant in the room, a large portion of the population doesnt even have ADSL! Who the hell in the 21st century doesnt have internet I hear you say? Well I can tell you all … my local area certainly doesnt.
FTTN is totally useless if its supposed to use existing lines. Thats great, but the infrastructre isnt here, which is why most of the locals here want NBN as it is – they KNOW theyre going to be serviced by it one way or another.
No more buying a house and praying for reception.
No more renting a house and praying for anything past tv signal.
No more stuffing around with Telstra – it’ll get done and thats all they want.
No more buying or renting and not getting a phone line from telstra.
Yes thats right people, theres barely even phone lines here. Do you want to move here?
Sure, shorten the minimum to 12mbps but the FTTN plan of malcoms, doesnt promise anything more than whats already here. It promises to use existing infrastructure – but it makes no mention of adding stuff thats not here! Why should the locals around here, take the Coalition option (which most people I talk to – are a little unsure about) when the Labor option is pretty much garaunteeing theyre going to get something run straight to their door – given the local area has been told we’ve got very good prospects of being a test site?
Personally, Im all for FTTN. I think the original NBN 1.0 idea was excellent, but up until the liberals voted it down, it wasnt a problem – now theyre picking up the old idea. But FTTN doesnt guarantee that the service here gets any better =(
I can see where your’re going Renai, but these people here need more than just good faith. Theyre over it, theyre over Telstra and they just want internet.
Interesting point. However, can you clarify the ADSL availability? If there is ADSL1 in the area, one wonders why there isn’t ADSL2+.
In addition, I’m curious to know what sorts of speeds you can get there from Telstra Next G?
we are in basically the same situation there are only enough ADSL ports for ~50% of people in the area and am on Next G which gets congested from 5pm till 11pm with speeds at best dial up at worst so slow that the browser times out and requires multiple refreshes to get a basic page like this one.
outside of normal usage times it can be ok but not when I want to use it after work this is actually the case for most new housing estates these days :(
I think FTTN should have been laid with the original NBN 1.0 (if you want to call it that) plan , where the end-user could be offered to buy or pay-off the fibre over 12-24 months similar to the way a phone contract works and upgrade their connection as they need. I thought it was solid planning… or at least thats what it looked like.
At the moment, I’m working for the local allphones – so I get to see what the availability is like of all services outside of fixed line. Luckily our Telstra store is infact owned by a customer of ours who cant get his own service indoors (ironic right?) So hes more than happy to answer any questions we have and hes previously been a service technician here.
Next G average speeds here are less than 2Mbps on average as the towers here are very congested for all 3 networks. (obviously with limited ADSL that will happen).
Previously speculation has always been that Telstra never viewed the area as anything more than rural, (which given we’re so close to brisbane isnt really correct) which may have previously limited their desire to extend the ADSL past anything more than the RIM which runs past the local shopping centre.
false alarm. Malcolm’s plan of mandated minimum of 12Mbit actually means regional blackspots like yours will receive the highest priority to be “fixed up” even if it means laying fibre.
I dont believe its a false alarm. I’d love to get ADSL2, but I cant. You’d think if you have a large enough group of people in an area with limited to no internet, surely that points to an “alarm” in itself? Why would anyone in the 21st century still not have internet?
As I’ve said, I’m all for FTTN over FTTH – but Labor’s plan currently is looking to be alot more likely to be completed as is. I’m certainly not discounting the idea of Coalitions ideas here, its just that we’ve heard all about regional areas being improved, then … not because someone argued it was “too expensive”.
Yours sounds like the type of area that the NBNCo should be concentrating on in the first place. Although I dont really understand your disregard for Malcolm Turnbull’s plan which would provide a mandated service of 12Mbps to each household. Surely either rollout would be of benefit if you can not currently get any ADSL/ADSL2 in your area?
Its more to do with the direct benefit the locals will see. The mobile infrastructure here is very limited, given the terrain is really hilly. Even with Labor not completeing previous projects or doing them half-assed, this honestly to me (and it seems apparent to most other locals) seems like theyre actually going to finish it. The question is, how much will be completed and how far will they get before either getting the boot or being re-elected.
I guess the big concern here (I talk about this alot with locals – because theres alot of people here sick of poor adsl and no mobile service indoors) is that they want to know theyre going to recieve a service for certain – because honestly the politicians here have been promising alot for a long time and never delivering – which at least with FTTH, they know they’ll get something more than empty promises.
What they’ve promised is 50-60mbps down and 5-10mbps up, but they wont mention what percentage will get those numbers, regardless it’s nothing groundbreaking or impressive.
“regardless it’s nothing groundbreaking or impressive.”
Being locked into the ‘it must be a NBN FTTH all Australia rollout or nothing’ mindset as your countless biased posts here and in the self invented emotive Coalition bashing headlines in the forums has shown, does not mean any other solution that has that doesn’t have the official HC256 endorsement of being ‘groundbreaking or impressive’ will not be more than adequate and come in at a much lower tax burden to the punters paying for it.
Stop your whining. What the coalition are proposing is nothing groundbreaking or impressive, that is a fact, if you think it is then when the NBN rolls out in your area simply sign up for a 25/5mbps plan. Which is the speed you’ll likely end up getting which their FTTN patchwork. There is nothing emotive or biased about my posts btw, they are all based on facts not nonsense and relentless whining like “taxpayers blah blah, hospitals, roads schools boo hoo hoo”.
If you don’t have any copper in the ground, then you would most likely get new fibre. Assuming your towns aren’t ridiculously slow, the cost dfiference between laying new fibre and laying new copper is negligable
Malcolm never said that he would put FTTH to 100% of Australia for the hell of it. The current copper network (where copper exists) would be extended to FTTN (and in some cases FTTH to where it exists)
As I said, current Labor policy is that we’re very likely to be a test site, due to the local island population nearby campaigning to be covered.The campaign they started was largely a success, but it wasnt a firm “sure you’ll be on the list”. The problem is a serious lack of infrastructure to which in areas like mine the Coalition policy would see very minimal change. Why not have totally uniform FTTH, when we know we’re eventually going to have to lay it anyway? This isnt an area which isnt built up, theres 60k + people here and we’re an hour outside brisbane.
Or maybe you could go and tell the locals they should use the shoddy Mobile networks here for 10 years or so more? because the local Coalition Federal Minister is doing a crappy job of convincing them why they should …
I find it incredibly ironic that less than a month ago you were lamenting that in hindsight the laptops for schools were too slow, and that they should have got iPads.
The iPad – a technological disruption did not exist before 2010, and no-one could have predicted it’s success, yet people are convinced that’s it’s ok to DELAY an upgrade to the network that will still take 10 years to build. In the time it took Facebook to go from a college dorm to a multi-billion dollar company, some people are still waiting for an ADSL connection.
It’s not hard people. ADSL reliability is a bad joke compared to ethernet, and fibre. 90% of the corporate world don’t NEED 100mbps LANs either, but applications like net boot, fileshares, virtual desktops, and any video applications all benefit from 100mbps upward.
Most domestic connections will be quite happy on a RELIABLE 25mbps, but like any corporate network there are <10% of all users who want to suck up all the bandwidth you can give them at a reasonable price just to access files remotely or any one of the 1000's of small but useful applications.
REQUIREMENT != DEMAND. Soviet style planning is dead. Governments and telco's can't pick which suburbs have the next Mark Zuckerberg or remote worker that will pay for a decent connection, so if someone decides to start the next 3d video rendering house, or recording studio out in a smallish town why the hell do they need to wait until some company or government dept decides the overall demographic warrants a fibre rollout.
so you’re saying the Govt should push fibre to every home just in case residents of one out of many thousands of those homes might want to start a home-based “3d video rendering studio”?
that’s is so insane and warped, it’s not funny.
apologies.
Nobody needed your poster-boy’s NextG network when it was rolled out either…
On your arguments Telstra should have done what the other telco’s did and saved some money by rolling out lesser networks, because the demand wasn’t there.
Telstra’s profit derives from people checking Facebook. Maybe you think that’s insane and warped as well.
how much did it cost to roll-out NextG? NextG was rolled-out precisely because the business case stacked up, i.e demand was there!
*massive facepalm*
why build such a risky, expensive white elephant as nextg? they had cdma, it was good enough then and for the future. why would anyone want or need anything better? mobile porn and games i’d bet.
massive facepalm mk2
Telstra doesn’t build white elephants, that’s why they built 3G.
and yet you still can’t quite grasp the analogy.
“why build such a risky, expensive white elephant as nextg? they had cdma, it was good enough then and for the future.”
It wasn’t a risk, consumer trend was showing a increased demand for wireless BB, that’s why Sol Truillio at the time fast tracked the NextG build and wireless Telco’s are struggling to keep up with demand even in 2011.
Telstra wireless LTE will sell all the capacity it can handle within weeks of release, Telstra LTE revenue will not be at risk
Optus wireless LTE revenue will not be at risk.
There is excess capacity on HFC and ADSL/ADSL2+, and fixed line BB demand has virtually flat lined.
Wireless only residences was at 13% in 2010 and rising, HFC is a high risk rollout depending on 70% take up of services (not the freebie connection) and a 7% return on the investment by the completion date.
NBN FTTH requires all existing fixed line infrastructure to be shut down and all customers forced onto the NBN before it even has a chance of being viable.
Oh and the taxpayer didn’t pay one cent for NextG, so if it did fall on its arse the taxpayer was not impacted.
talking about the nextg white elephant was sarcasm, alain!
just throwing the same lame excuses back at those who say the same about the nbn, but in hindsight, now rave about nextg.
i would have thought my tongue in cheek gibe, obvious?
Yes but you equated the sarcasm with the NBN, the success of Telstra NextG does not mean that therefore the NBN will be a success.
The blinding difference between NextG and NBN FTTH is the demand for wireless products is driving Telstra and others to build infrastructure the punters want, driven by the products the likes of Apple and others sell them.
The demand for FTTH equates to a big yawn of indifference, in the same way the demand for HFC was big yawn of indifference, with the majority of residences NOT taking HFC even though it was available to them.
The majority of residences that are not wireless only will eventually take NBN FTTH, but not until the HFC and copper networks are shut down.
alain
I wonder why wireless only residences are rising is it because of the service or because for around 50% of people in new estates it is the ONLY option?
I pay around $200 a month for a variety of wireless Telstra bigpond for steam and general browsing in non congested times as well as overnight downloads. Optus for gaming in High congestion times when telstras network is just to overloaded to do anything. I get about 30 gb if i am lucky for that price.
When the NBN comes along I would not be surpised if that number of wireless only homes decreases.
Honestly the most obvious difference is FTTN cost taxpayers a whopping $0
Sorry, I meant nextG, not FTTN
@AJ
“I wonder why wireless only residences are rising is it because of the service or because for around 50% of people in new estates it is the ONLY option?”
You need to look at the wireless only figures in conjunction with Telstra’s published PSTN disconnection figures, both are rising.
I take your point about the new estates and it being the only option, but I don’t think it is significant in terms of all the residences that have had a PSTN line for years disconnecting and relying solely on wireless voice and data for the residence that you can carry with you.
Well they only got about 5% of mobile subscribers to Next G in 2007. Why build a national network or outspend Optus when Optus also got about 4% of customers for less spend.
According to your principles it wouldn’t have been worth rolling it out nationally on those numbers, or outspending Optus.
In fact against it’s then competitors Next G pricing made everyone else look cheap. But with the beauty of hindsight it’s genius instead of a white elephant.
The NBN business case also stacks up. i.e. the demand is there.
“The NBN business case also stacks up. i.e. the demand is there”
That’s why it requires Telstra and Optus to shut down their fixed line infrastructures so users are FORCED onto the NBN.
That’s a business case stacking up, spending taxpayer billions to eliminate competition?
“Nobody needed your poster-boy’s NextG network when it was rolled out either…”
Well they did actually.
On your arguments Telstra should have done what the other telco’s did and saved some money by rolling out lesser networks, because the demand wasn’t there.”
The demand was there.
“Telstra’s profit derives from people checking Facebook. Maybe you think that’s insane and warped as well.”
Telstra’s profit is increasingly dependent on wireless data, just like SingTel/Optus.
BTW I heard there are 3D rendering studios everywhere in Telstra Velocity FTTH estates and TransACT cable areas in Canberra, surely they are not using all that bandwidth goodness just for email, Google searches and Facebook?
Well why not the ability to do that. Yes, running fibre to every home is overkill for now, maybe not in 20-30 years, it might be like the phone line, just a given by then. It would be nice to have the option though. If they did go FTTN why not offer FTTH from that node for those that pay for it?
*If they did go FTTN why not offer FTTH from that node for those that pay for it?*
this is exactly Malcolm’s endorsed Telecom NZ/Chorus solution!
Hey. I’d go for it, if they did it. I know of areas in Melbourne still with no broadband access in Melbourne that were meant to get it under their broadband black spot program. Wasn’t economically viable “Telstra says no”
that’s what happens when you implement geographically-deaveraged ULL pricing and push band 2 ULL to a measly $16/mth. you deprive Telstra of its ability to cross-subsidise money-losing areas.
note how NBNco’s wholesale pricing is geographically-uniform with in-built cross-subsidy.
somehow, what’s good for the goose is not for the gander.
it’s so easy to engage in mindless Telstra-bashing w/o actually understanding the underlying incentives structure mechanism which ultimately affects real world outcomes.
Telstra is not evil. a lot of the problems in the industry are caused by the ACCC’s silly, draconian price regulation and competitor ISPs gaming the regulatory system. if Telstra was such an evil, greedy, profitable monopoly, their profits wouldn’t be declining.
Telstra do have to follow the CSG though. Part of the privatisation was that they provided services to everyone. Can’t buy Telstra agreeing to that then go back on it.
The main problem wasn’t Telstra in the first instance it was the black spot program. It was my GFs place, Seaford. Since it was metropolitan area no wireless blackspot program. Too far from exchange for ADSL2+, (though not range extended, there were about 100 premises so you think they could do that). No cable, not option but dialup. Managed that with a Meastro modem design for bad rural conditions and got 2.6BKB/s. Not good when she has 3 highschool aged kids. Then she moved to Edithvale. Bad line, wouldn’t ring a lot of the time, ADSL intermitent, drop outs every few minutes. Been there a couple of years now. Telstra know the problem and they temporarily fix it now and then when she gets the TIO onto them. That doesn’t bother them it’s the ISP that has to pay the costs. So she has internet and phone for a few months then eventual degrades to no phone, two months through TIO, Telstra drain the duct under the road. They don’t fix it, the tech said that would cost too much and it wasn’t worth it for the 8 houses that it effected. So the cycle goes one.
I get the district point that a lot of people are going to miss the point of your article Renai. Already I have seen minor ideological skirmishes breaking out.
Already the debate has turned, as it always does, as a “we can do X, Y and Z with the NBN!” vs “We can’t afford the NBN and what is about X, Y and Z that requires the NBN, or justifies the expense.”
To be honest, I am sick of that debate. We can, have, and will continue, to have that particular debate well past the 2013 election, no matter what the outcome. If the Liberals win there will be people accusing Turnbull of being a short sighted bigot and demanding he take action to continue to NBN roll out. If Labor win, there will be people accusing them of wasting tax-payers money.
It annoys me that the more complex issue is so hard for people to see, or in same cases being plain ignored. The NBN is a means to an end, the problem is we are having a little trouble defining what the end is.
Whenever I look at the what the Liberals have proposed I always get the feeling of “almost, but not quite”. And whenever I look at the NBN I get the feeling of “yes, but why are we risking so much?”
I think the bigger strain of thought, and bare with me a moment, is that we’re just throwing out paint to wind and seeing what sticks. The thing is that we are actually completely redefining how we shape our world here.
Everyone has all these great ideas and there is always seeming to be a “yes, but”. You’ve heard them all so I won’t go over them.
We almost need a platform, and this is globally, to “try it and see”. To figure out what it is we need to be doing. Conservatives will say “well that’s the market isn’t it! Let the market decide!”
Except it isn’t. That is the problem, when it comes to Broadband Infrastructure the market will not decide these things. It’ll work out what is an appropriate cost for whatever the provider decides to deploy, but which is the optimal choice of all the various options? Further, what is the optimal distribution of these options? Which areas will opt for the more expensive options and which will just want the cheap and basic access
The market is incapable of determining this. Someone has to decide. Someone needs to make a conscious decision to role out FTTN to this area, someone needs to make a conscious decision to roll out FTTH to another area. It’s not like consumables, where you get a choice between many products, and can actively say what is you do and don’t want by your wallet.
You get a choice between whatever products just happen to fall on your street. To change what product is you want, in most cases, you’ll have to move. That means you, the consumer, needs to make a commitment of saving up to hundreds of thousands dollars, just to say “Hey Telstra, I don’t want ADSL2+, give me that fancy new FTTH.”
In all other areas of the market we can easily define our niche. If we’re a gaming geek and want a powerful computer, we can walk down a computer store, and this store only services gaming geek. In this area of the market, we don’t have this option, unless we start geographically separating ourselves by what kind of fixed line Broadband we want.
In the United States new networks are only rolled out to areas where there is not already preexisting competition where possible. In the majority of the country, if you want to sign up for cable you have the choice of one provider. That provider is determined by where you live. It is too expensive to try alternative technologies.
This problem is reflected here as well. Telstra is the incumbent, and, both directly and indirectly controls almost all of the market. The same can be said of British Telecom in the United Kingdom, or Chorus in New Zealand.
This is because, if we the consumer, start to decide what is we want, the benefit of rolling out en-mass is lost, and the costs start to raise. Consumers will end up getting the cheaper options merely because they cannot afford the high cost of entry, but hey, that’s the market right?
What we need is a method to enable the consumer to actually chose, and not have it chosen for them by the government, or their cable provider, or their phone provider, a way for a consumer to say “Hey, I want this, and I’m willing to pay for it.” Because if the NBN debate has shown anything, it is that there are people who want 100Mbps FTTH, and are willing to pay for it. They aren’t everyone, but they are everywhere, and thus lies the problem.
If it was a single suburb in Melbourne that wanted FTTH, and everyone else was fine with what they have, this political debate wouldn’t even be happening. But it’s not that, it’s this one guy from Melbourne, this one guy from Hobart, this one guy from Sydney, this other guy from Penrith, this other guy from Geelong, a guy from Darwin, oh and this bloke over here from Perth.
That is what I like about the NBN, you can chose between any bandwidth tier you care to dream of. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing this. But as I said, this comes at an enormous risk, a risk that will result in higher prices for the short term, and possibly huge amounts of debt, and endless political debate. Just like this article, and every other article you have written re the NBN, has stirred.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but that isn’t the point, we have to start somewhere, and being aware of what the problem is should be a good enough place to start.
tl;dr
Pot, kettle, black. LOL
ts;dr
my goodness, 37/100 comments, call mr guinness.
No real point “debating” with him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was just some kid trolling myself. He’s determined that FTTN is the way to go. Well it could be for the short term. Even his much touted UK report shows planned transition to FTTH over time and losing 50% of the investment lost. The way I see it is eventually the network will need to be FTTH so why waste doing it in stages. The main cost is labour and wages aren’t going to drop. It’s not like Australia can’t afford it. It’s only 3% of the much touted education and hospital budgets that many argue it should go toward. Or maybe we could by a few km of freeway every year instead.
Actually I better correct that. Build 30 something km of freeway.
who’s counting? don’t you love speed chess? ;)
@Dbremner
*I wouldn’t be surprised if he was just some kid trolling myself.*
so much for decrying “personal attacks”. Pot, kettle, black.
*The way I see it is eventually the network will need to be FTTH so why waste doing it in stages.*
that statement can only be made by someone who’s completely ignorant of how business and economics works in the real world. there’s a simple concept called “time value of money” or “opportunity cost”. go educate yourself.
*The main cost is labour and wages aren’t going to drop.*
so? does that mean we should build all the infrastructure we shall ever need in the future with growing population because “labour and wages will only rise”? of course, not. there’s a scarcity of labour and we have to prioritise infrastructure that satisfies immediate needs and not some future spec demand (and consumer willingness to pay) for 1080p multi-streaming into entertainment lounges.
also, in the same way that the cost of labour rises over time due to wage inflation, the cost of borrowing money also has a nominal inflation component.
*It’s not like Australia can’t afford it.*
our Federal Budget is in deficit and the Government is in debt. if you even follow events outside of the narrow tech world, you’ll realise the Government’s been slashing all kinds of important social expenditure left, right and centre. everything from vital funding for special schools for autistic children… to the latest outcry that disabled support services needs an immediate $6bln annual boost in federal funding support.
*It’s only 3% of the much touted education and hospital budgets that many argue it should go toward.*
what’s more important? education and healthcare or “hi def home entertainment” and “online gaming latency”.
“so much for decrying “personal attacks”. Pot, kettle, black”
Well, I do have my doubts that you are an adult. The only adults I see who “debate” in the manner you do are in parliment and I find then far from mature.
“that statement can only be made by someone who’s completely ignorant of how business and economics works in the real world. there’s a simple concept called “time value of money” or “opportunity cost”. go educate yourself.”
I do understand those concepts. And whether it is a waste economic to use one technology for a period of time to save money depends on the time scale before that technology would be superceeded. I cannot see FTTN be sufficient for even 10 years.
“our Federal Budget is in deficit and the Government is in debt.”
Oh yes, less debt than virtually any other country in the world. If they borrow for the NBN and it returns 7% as they say and the interest rate is <7% isn't that a profit?
"what's more important? education and healthcare or "hi def home entertainment" and "online gaming latency".
There you go again, I never said either of those things.
That’s exactly right and this highlights a major flaw with the coalitions rhetoric, it’s not about one size fitting all, it’s about letting the consumer decide what fits them and choose what speed they want rather than letting the length of copper decide it for them.
People who are happy with the speeds they currently get on ADSL2+ can just get a 12/1mbps connection if they like which I’m told is a close approximation for the ADSL2+ connection they’ve always loved and cherished. In many cases they’ll even be paying less for a far superior service. If that isn’t slow enough for them they can always install spyware or viruses (if they haven’t already) that will more accurately emulate the ADSL2+ experience.
I know, however this flexibility does still come with a high risk. As stated above. If we could find a way to reduce this risk and still give the consumer the ability to chose exactly what it is they wanted I think everyone would be far happier with the policy.
I tell you what leave Telstra to upgrade its OWN infrastructure, leave the HFC and let the NBN FTTH compete on its technical merits.
Surely everyone will mass migrate to NBN FTTH, because it is so good, err perhaps not, that’s a risk Conroy is not willing to take, hence the billions given to Telstra and Optus to shutdown and mass migrate their customers.
We NEED the NBN FTTH because if you want a fixed line connection that’s all you can have.
That’s a crying need?
Obviously you didn’t read my post at all. Because if you had you would note I already covered why this line of this line of thinking doesn’t work.
So you think the NBN would survive on its pure technical merits alongside HFC and ADSL2+ and FTTN?
So now you’re attacking a straw man?
Come back when you can understand my position better.
Derp!
Yes I thought you would avoid a answer.
There is nothing ‘flexible’ about NBN, its forcing FTTH on everyone. In any case the liberals will win, and all thats required to fix the Australia broadband problem is really to PROPERLY split Telstra
Thats what happened in Japan, NZ, Britain etc etc, and it has done wonders in those countries
The ability to get any bandwidth tier you require depending on your need and/or budget, and not dependent on ‘pot luck’ of what Telstra and other providers decide to run by your door isn’t flexible?
Also, there is a difference between ‘fixing a problem with Broadband’, which is what splitting Telstra will do, this will merely make market competition work as its supposed to without the incumbent screwing everyone over, and fixing the way Broadband is distributed, i.e. Not based upon the demand each individual user has.
The latter problem is not unique to Australia, and a lot of governments, including the possible coalition here, will not bother dealing with this issue because they fail to see how it’s a problem, thinking just having a healthy market is all you need, and in some cases this will be correct because the market will provide solutions that fix this inherited flaw of Broadband distribution, but not all.
Ever other statically delievered service to dwellings is able to cope with whatever demand thrown at it. You can’t be told that because you live in x place you can’t run all your kitchen appliances because your particular electricity lead in cable is thinner than the guys to blocks away. Without exception, the quality of service delivered to every dwelling is geographically independent within the power grid.
It is this flaw that the NBN solves, and therein lies its flexibility, but obviously, considering the market can also solve this flaw, all I want to see is adequate controls and an understanding of this issue to be reflected in the Coalitions policy, right now all I know is ‘they can do it cheaper using these technologies’.
But the question I put to them is ‘do what?’ Broadband is a unique service, with very different distribution problems to everything else. It’s not just delivery of a service anymore, it’s delivery of X to Y. Every consumer of Broadband has different demands of the network.
The demand exhibits the properties ofa consumable good, but the distribution exhibits the properties of a utility.
The Coalition always say there is not a one size fits all solution to the problem, but actually, their proposed solution does not address this issue EITHER.
As a software developer, I yearn to be able to send small packets of data to and from client machines as fast as possible. It’s not all about the volume of traffic but the speed at which I can send and receive small packets of data.
Even if the requests I make are only, for example, 10kb in size, on a 100mbit connection, I can make significantly more requests in the same amount of time (assuming everything else is held constant).
What this means is that I will be able to make my software far more interactive and provide more real-time features than what I can do now.
Regardless, the copper has been in the ground for over 50 years now and the NBN kills two birds in one stone.
1) Updates infrastructure that has reached it’s end of life
2) Fixes the problem of having a private monopoly in charge of a public good. For infrastructure that is a natural monopoly, the only appropriate owner for it is the government who is accountable to the people and not just shareholders.
I think things would be very interesting without the uncertainty of copper. I’d love to read the WP TPG forum then. Now they can deflect customers complaining about speed problems due to their over subscribe network on telephone line problems. Having people do endless tests until they give up and accept the slow speeds or churn to another provider. I can see why NBN co put in that ISPs were not allowed to blame the NBN for their speed problems. With a properly designed complete solution like they have planned out those sort of bottle necks should be a thing of the past. There are so many headaches now. Distance to the exchange, RIMs, backhaul congestion, lack of ports. ISP blames wholesaler, who blame Testra who check the line, only guarenteed for voice and say all is ok. Goes around and around and those with bad connections have nearly no hope of getting them fixed.
I’ve said before, elsewhere, that I couldn’t care if the speed was limited to 12mbit across the board.
To me, the issue is the medium. Having supported copper connections, with their multitude of issues and worse still, the black art that is fault finding on copper, I want the country to have something better.
The lost opportunity cost of copper must be staggering. The sheer number of business phone calls lost because of crappy lines is impossible to quantify. But I’ve seen it. I’ve heard the tears of small business owners who can’t stay online, cant recieve calls, can’t get simple things done and have to wait weeks or months for a genuine resolution. Conversely, I’ve heard many BEGGING for anything but wireless.
This is the issue I care about.
I want the reliability of fibre. I want the certainty of fibre. I want to be able to tell end users that their fault is simple, that the tech will have no issues finding it, that it shouldn’t relapse. I cannot do this with any other medium but fibre.
Speed is a great bonus, but certainty is the target in my mind. Did anyone know that Telstra’s copper phone network only achieves a single 9 on the network reliability scale? It is 92% from what I’ve been told.
Shocking in a world where network providers aim for as high as 5 9’s (99.999%)
Can copper ever hit even 3 9’s? I doubt it.
Privatised Telstra reminds me of when they privatised British rail. They ran it into the ground. All they cared about was the bottom line, profit. Lack of maintenance. Eventually they had to buy it back. The same with Telstra (I know a few ex technicians). They put off most of the technicians, most of the work is done by contractors now, there are way less technicians than there were. Bad in case of a problem. This isn’t Telstra but in Melbourne there were power outages that took up to a week because of similar technician cutbacks. I guess that’s why Telstra can rarely look at a problem sooner than a few weeks and often techs just don’t turn up when you take a day off to wait for them.
Tosh, you are an intelligent, articulate person I respect. But I just deleted a bunch of comments from this thread and the majority were yours. You are more subtle in your insults than ragers like RS (now banned for good), but you are crossing the line.
You are hereby being warned. If you post one more personal insult, or if you do not start respecting other posters, you will be put in the sin-bin for a period of a week. Moderate yourself — or I will moderate you.
Cheers,
Renai
Can something be done about the constant misrepresentations by Tosh? Its pointless trying to debate anything with him when he selectively quotes you and then claims you said something that is quite different to what was actually said. His strawmen are bringing things off the rails.
I have a policy of deleting posts on Delimiter which are not polite … beyond that, the debate is largely up to you guys ;)
Thats a shame, because what tosh is doing is not debating. He is building strawmen based on what he wishes people had said. People have to spend too much time correcting his misrepresentations, and the lose the ability to do so when the reply option disappears. Its certainly going to limit my involvement hear if I cant be represented correctly, and others too no doubt.
Simple solution: Ignore him, that what most people here do, even more so since NBNco changed the CVC charges just a few weeks after he claimed nothing could change because “this is NBNco’s pricing policy”.
Not really worth debating anything on here really. The majority here get what is being done with the NBN. It would be nice to be able to discuss pros and cons of various delivery systems, etc. That seems to be rendered impossible by two people (or is it one? hard to tell) who keep regurgitating that same stuff (what’s with overseas studies? Is it an Australian cringe thing? Why not use local studies?), twisting what people say, and generally being obnoxious.
Had enough really. Nothing being discussed. Time just wasted on one eyed Liberals with no vision past the next couple of years and their own hip pockets.
“Not really worth debating anything on here really. The majority here get what is being done with the NBN.”
Well the majority don’t actually, and one discussion in one web site dominated by a minority of IT geeks is not any way representational of the ‘majority’.
“It would be nice to be able to discuss pros and cons of various delivery systems, etc. ”
You mean you don’t mind a discussion as long as no one disagrees with you, much pro-NBN argument is based around the ‘ we know what’s best for you ‘ from the pulpit pronouncements by IT geeks.
One poster said that only those under 30 years of age have the ‘intelligence’ to know the NBN is what we need, that’s the sort of meaty factual stuff that keeps the NBN circus going.
Next thing you know the good old BS standby of accusing posters that disagree with you as being ‘a Liberal’ will be trotted out.
Oh dear hang on sec you just did, there is was one thing the pro-NBN argument is always consistent with, mindless no fact rhetoric.
Alain/Tosh, this will be the last time I post on here so please enjoy your final misrepresentation of it’s contents.
“Well the majority don’t actually, and one discussion in one web site dominated by a minority of IT geeks is not any way representational of the ‘majority’.”
You will notice I used the word ‘here’ refering to this forum. Was extending it to include all of Australia so you could knock down a strawman satisfying? I hope so.
“You mean you don’t mind a discussion as long as no one disagrees with you”
No, I meant what I said. Strawman two. Enjoy.
“One poster said that only those under 30 years of age have the ‘intelligence’ to know the NBN is what we need, that’s the sort of meaty factual stuff that keeps the NBN circus going.”
Well I am well and truly waaay over 30 and I can see that something like the NBN will be needed over the next 50 years. 50 years ago people were protesting the phone system the same way. Who’d need it, etc, etc.
“Next thing you know the good old BS standby of accusing posters that disagree with you as being ‘a Liberal’ will be trotted out.”
I assumed you were. You keep baging labour and praising Liberal. Your aren’t going to vote Liberal come next election?
“Oh dear hang on sec you just did, there is was one thing the pro-NBN argument is always consistent with, mindless no fact rhetoric.”
Yes, I did. I has nothing to do with rhetoric. It has to do with your constant labour bashing and liberal praise as I mentioned above.
Anyway, goodbye Alain/Tosh, enjoy your final poke at this post. I doubt I will be back to read it.
@Dbremner
“You will notice I used the word ‘here’ refering to this forum.”
Yes I know you said ‘here’, the point I was making as you are well aware was saying that the majority in here ‘support it’ is meaningless, so why say it?
“Well I am well and truly waaay over 30”
Well good for you but you let the original point I made slip through to the keeper though.
Also it seems the strawman argument is only used on those who argue against the Labor NBN, I assume you think there is no such thing as pro-NBN strawman argument, and if there is you would prefer to ignore it.
“Your aren’t going to vote Liberal come next election?”
You just cannot let it go even when highlighted, but of course asserting political allegiances even though you would have no idea what I or any posters background is not a strawman argument?
“It has to do with your constant labour bashing”
I argue against the Labor NBN rollout because I think it is a blatant waste of billions of taxpayer money, it will never return a profit, it will be a never ending cost sinkhole, until whoever is in Government can flog it off (assuming anyone wants it).
Being a douche is what gets you banned, getting raped in logical debates unfortunately is not a reason
“Can something be done about the constant misrepresentations by Tosh?”
That coming from someone with the name tag ‘The Truth’ after looking at the content of your posts here and in other Delimiter discussions has to be ‘in your face’ direct hypocrisy surely?
Its clear and obvious from the strawmen you and tosh constantly build that you cant handle the truth. Proper debate has gone out the window. You only debate the points you want other people to make, not those they actually make.
I repeat the point I made to Dbremner, you and others are very selective on who you apply the strawman argument to, as Tosh and I and only Tosh and I, the pro-NBN strawman argument doesn’t exist or is ignored.
“Its clear and obvious…”
No it’s not clear and obvious at all, like many pro-NBN posters you hate counter argument, the NBN is good, any argument against that point of view is not allowed.
Is there a way to adjust the width of the columns in this system? Where there has been several replies to a post, the indenting of each subsequent one means that eventually the reply link disappears out the right hand side of the column. There are many fallacies and misrepresentations from tosh that need addressing, and due to the number of replies he has made, to various posts, the reply option has disappeared.
Sorry … I think the current max thread depth is around six :(
OK, done some searching about for FTTH vs FTTN. Seems FTTN is twice the cost of FTTH. For the next 5 years it’d probably adequate with VDSL. I don’t like the 50% loss when it needs to be upgraded. It puts the NBN at $57B over 10 years rather than $38B. If FTTN had start 5 years ago when it was first suggest it would probably have been viable. Now it just seems an uneccessary step. I wonder how many people would be stuck on it while others are going to 1Gb plus in twenty years? I am not thinking hidef video or games or anything like that. I am thinking of web based applications, backups, cloud computing, applications are growing enormously in size and process more and more data. Even just the advertising included on many web pages would have brought 1st generation ADSL to a halt 10 years ago.
I see a couple of issues with FTTN, the cabinets needs power and therefore large battery backup for the cabinet rather than smaller units at the premises.
What will Telstra charge for the last mile copper? Will they maintain it? When rolling out the first and second stage NBN release they found quite a lot of the ducts needed to be repaired or replaced. This currently would be at Telstra’s expence. What would happen with FTTN of the ducts from there to the houses are left as is?
The FTTN roll out is envisioned as a private sector rollout. Will the backhauls at the exchanges be upgraded? With the NBN they will. How many people have been waiting years for Telstra to upgrade backhauls on congested exchanges?
The more I look at the alternative the more I like the catch cry, “Do it once, do it right”. It’s the programmer/engineer in me but I don’t like half arse solutions. It’s full arsed or nothing :)
Too late at night. That should be $46B vs $38B over 10 years.
Seems FTTN is twice the cost of FTTH.
No it isn’t.
“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”
“I see a couple of issues with FTTN, the cabinets needs power and therefore large battery backup for the cabinet rather than smaller units at the premises”
Each FTTN cabinet services about 300 residences, dismissing the FTTH ONT boxes required at each and every residence that also requires a UPS battery backed power supply is being smaller so therefore better is a interesting biased comparison.
“What will Telstra charge for the last mile copper?”
Ask them – is it cheaper than paying them billions to shut down their networks?
” Will they maintain it?”
No, they will let all their customers both wholesale and retail have faults and never fix them, the ACCC and the Government will let them do this.
A lot like today if your telephone stops working that’s it, buy a mobile because Telstra will never fix it.
“What would happen with FTTN of the ducts from there to the houses are left as is?”
Telstra would fix them.
“The FTTN roll out is envisioned as a private sector rollout. Will the backhauls at the exchanges be upgraded?”
No Telstra will leave them at 1500/256 capacity, and they were never upgraded for ADSL2+, residences on ADSL2+ are not getting ADSL2+, and the ACCC will let them do this.
“How many people have been waiting years for Telstra to upgrade backhauls on congested exchanges?”
There is a massive problem here?, or is merely posing the question enough to insinuate there is a problem?
I could also say that there is excess backhaul capacity at the majority of exchanges.
“The more I look at the alternative the more I like the catch cry, “Do it once, do it right”. It’s the programmer/engineer in me but I don’t like half arse solutions. It’s full arsed or nothing”
That’s assuming that a taxpayer funded 93% FTTH across Australia is ‘do it once do it right’ and anything else is a half arsed solution.
They are reports done in different countries 3 years ago. Why not look at the Australian reports done now? Twice the cost isn’t enough for you?
“What will Telstra charge for the last mile copper?”
Ask them – is it cheaper than paying them billions to shut down their networks?
Wasn’t the high cost of that last mile copper, > 1billion a year that set the government on the FTTH path in the first place?
“No, they will let all their customers both wholesale and retail have faults and never fix them, the ACCC and the Government will let them do this.
A lot like today if your telephone stops working that’s it, buy a mobile because Telstra will never fix it.”
I don’t know if you are trying to be srcastic but that is about the case these days. If they can’t fix it very easily it doesn’t get fixed.
“Telstra would fix them.”
They don’t now, why would that change? Have you ever tried to get Telstra to fix I duct? I and a couple of work mates have also and it doesn’t happen.
“There is a massive problem here?, or is merely posing the question enough to insinuate there is a problem?”
Yes, there is a problem here. Telstra time frames for backhaul range from 6 months to never.
“That’s assuming that a taxpayer funded 93% FTTH across Australia is ‘do it once do it right’ and anything else is a half arsed solution.”
Not anything else. But the Turnbull hodgepodge network isn’t it.
First of all what has changed the situation from those O/S figures?
“Why not look at the Australian reports done now? Twice the cost isn’t enough for you?”
What Australian reports?
“Have you ever tried to get Telstra to fix I duct? I and a couple of work mates have also and it doesn’t happen.”
That’s interesting because the majority of the NBN rollout is going to be using Telstra ducting, ring up the NBN Co and say ‘me and my mates think you should lay your own ducting’.
“Yes, there is a problem here. Telstra time frames for backhaul range from 6 months to never.”
So where is the backhaul congestion exactly? and how does that equate to a Australia wide problem?
“Not anything else. But the Turnbull hodgepodge network isn’t it.”
At least get the emotive term right, it’s not hodepodge it’s patchwork, you guys have got to sing from the same hymn book in unison to get that BS message across.
the rfp panel of experts.
8 The Proposals have also demonstrated that rolling out a single fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network is:
␣ unlikely to provide an efficient upgrade path to fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), because of the high costs of equipment associated with rolling out a FTTN network that would not be required for a FTTP network (i.e. FTTN is not a pre-requisite for the provision of FTTP); and
␣ likely to require exclusive or near-exclusive access to Telstra’s existing copper sub-loop customer access network (CAN), the so called ‘last mile’, thereby confirming that strong equivalence of access arrangements would be essential. As well, providing such access to a party other than Telstra runs a risk of liability to pay compensation to Telstra. The Proposals have this risk remaining with the Commonwealth but they have not addressed the potential cost to the Commonwealth of any such compensation.
***In any event, the Panel considers that no Proponent could accept the cost risk and continue to have a viable business case.
Is that the Labor Government appointed panel of experts that were asked to put a case together for the NBN FTTH after the decision to roll out the NBN FTTH was made?
no alain it was not.
it was an independent panel of experts put together to adjudicate the rfps, prior to the fttp announcement.
i thought you would have known that?
but please, as you will, add your indelible flavour.
My mistake, I thought there was a delay between announcements, you are correct.
@alain
no problem, we are all here to learn from each others experiences and views.
Thats actually due to the fac that the government decided to intrudes on Telstras private property and cut their copper, which would mean Telstra would have to get compensated like 15 billion
No technical reason whatsoever why FTTN in australia is more expensive then anywhere else in the world, and such an issue wouldn’t have happened if
1. Labor did their research (they surely should have known about this legality before it arose)
2. Telstra was split
thank you for the reply deteego,
but to refresh your memory, as you seem to have somehow missed the pertinent comment, here again is the statement in relation to fttn, from the ‘independent panel of experts’.
‘in any event, the panel considers that no proponent could accept the cost risk and continue to have a viable business case’.
if that was unclear, there is not a viable business case for fttn here in Australia.
please note, these recommendations are from an ‘independent panel of experts’.
so as you said second last comment on this page, ‘its a pity people can’t have a more realistic open mind’.
Yes, because of the reasons I outlined (due to legality). I know very well what you are talking about, it was looked at four corners extensively
so why the continued argument deteego?
the decision was made by an independent panel that fttn is not viable in australia! you even said you know what i’m talking about.
and nothing has changed, except that now the coalition, after initially criticising the original pre fttp nbn, now have primarily embraced it.
embraced it, even though it’s economically not viable.
unfortunately, your entire plan revolves around telstra. wanting the government to again hand them the reins of australia’s communications, leaving us all at their and their stakeholders mercy. as one who has been screaming competition and affordability on the one hand, on the other hand the alternative to the current nbn which you support, seems most illogical.
scroll up and read david braue’s entire informative comment, which states, one of the best parts of the nbn is ridding australia of telstra’s overbearing power. for now here’s one paragraph from david’s comment.
‘So much time gets wasted on this speeds-and-feeds argument that people forget the real reason for the NBN is to build a wholesale infrastructure that everybody doesn’t have to ask Telstra for permission to use. It’s an expensive solution to a poorly handled privatisation but there is no other technical way out of the current situation bar shifting the entire country onto last-mile wireless – and the problems with that model have already been discussed ad nauseum’.
i note you glimpsed over the question of the cost of copper access? this is a major issue, not to be taken light heartedly. also does the report you mentioned give an indication of approximate price projections for future upgrading from fttn to fttp, when it ‘is inevitably’ required?
from my perspective, there seems to be many holes in any fttn plan. a lesser product, still a major investment and if companies are subsidised there will be little or no return for taxpayers, later upgrade requirements – cost to fttp, consumer affordability when dealing with profit driven network owners and the copper – telstra factor. all grey areas which need actual answers, before any balanced view can be determined, as to the worth or otherwise of fttn. until these areas are cleared up, the current nbn is streets ahead of fttn, as far as I am concerned.
but having seen how some here approach ‘nbn balance’, as for discussing these fttn holes, i’m sure I’ll receive a quick reply from one of the regulars and rather than a reasoned and circumspect response, I’m more likely to cop a gob full of cheek.
unfortunately, your entire plan revolves around telstra. wanting the government to again hand them the reins of australia’s communications, leaving us all at their and their stakeholders mercy. as one who has been screaming competition and affordability on the one hand, on the other hand the alternative to the current nbn which you support, seems most illogical.
scroll up and read david braue’s entire informative comment, which states, one of the best parts of the nbn is ridding australia of telstra’s overbearing power. for now here’s one paragraph from david’s comment.
‘So much time gets wasted on this speeds-and-feeds argument that people forget the real reason for the NBN is to build a wholesale infrastructure that everybody doesn’t have to ask Telstra for permission to use. It’s an expensive solution to a poorly handled privatisation but there is no other technical way out of the current situation bar shifting the entire country onto last-mile wireless – and the problems with that model have already been discussed ad nauseum’.
i note you glimpsed over the question of the cost of copper access? this is a major issue, not to be taken light heartedly. also does the report you mentioned give an indication of approximate price projections for future upgrading from fttn to fttp, when it ‘is inevitably’ required?
from my perspective, there seems to be many holes in any fttn plan. a lesser product, still a major investment and if companies are subsidised there will be little or no return for taxpayers, later upgrade requirements – cost to fttp, consumer affordability when dealing with profit driven network owners and the copper – telstra factor. all grey areas which need actual answers, before any balanced view can be determined, as to the worth or otherwise of fttn. until these areas are cleared up, the current nbn is streets ahead of fttn, as far as I am concerned.
but having seen how some here approach ‘nbn balance’, as for discussing these fttn holes, i’m sure I’ll receive a quick reply from one of the regulars and rather than a reasoned and circumspect response, I’m more likely to cop a gob full of cheek.
is nobody interested in discussing what i can see as glaring fttn deficiencies, which I quickly outlined directly above?
i’d legitimately like for someone to explain in detail, how much better the apparent alternative to the current nbn – fttn node actually is in these people’s opinions, instead of them just telling us all how woeful they believe the nbn to be.
especially when considering the current government following advice from the panel of experts, decided fttn not financially viable.
“How many people have been waiting years for Telstra to upgrade backhauls on congested exchanges?”
There is a massive problem here?, or is merely posing the question enough to insinuate there is a problem?
There’s a problem in my area. Just because the problem isnt BIG doesnt mean its not there.
The bottom line for me is this – Private enterprise have been given the chance to step in and provide world class connectivity in Australia and fankly they have failed dismally. Unless it is in their own economic interests, they are simply not interested in providing essential (and non essential) services. I give you “the bush” as exhibit A. As Exhibit B I give you me.
I live 10 klms form the Brisbane CBD. I’m stuck on a RIM and only have access to ADSL”1″ (congested at that). This has been the case for years and without the NBN would remain the case ad infinitem . Even with the advent of 4G, contention and price rules that out as a viable “broadband” option.
So yes – I do see it as the Government’s role to step in and it will benefit the nation. If only previous governments didn’t screw up the privatization of Telstra…..
Thanks for the good article Renai.
I agree entertainment should not be subsidised.
I think the productivity benefits of increased stability and reasonable speed are quite high.
To get a better feeling of what many people deal with, would you be willing to do a two week trial with your ADSL capped to 5Mbps and have it drop sync every 12 hours or so.
I think fibre is the most sensible solution to this situation (the halfway jobs just aren’t worth it as you say).
5Mbps and only dropping sync every 12 hours. I know many people who can only dream of a connection that good. I’ve lucked out myself with a nice stable 12Mb but know many who are not that lucky and very few who do better than 12MBps
How about 3-4Mbps, dropping out or retraining every 15 minutes or so with about a 5% packet loss. Of course we can’t forget a slowdown to 25KBps in the evening due to exchange congestion. :)
Thanks for the good article Renai.
I agree entertainment should not be subsidised.
I think the productivity benefits of increased stability and reasonable speed are quite high.
To get a better feeling of what many people deal with, would you be willing to do a two week trial with your ADSL capped to 5Mbps and have it drop sync every 12 hours or so.
I think fibre is the most sensible solution to this situation (the halfway jobs just aren’t worth it as you say).
Absolute speed isn’t the main issue, reliability (with sufficient speed) is, as it is central to distribution, which is the cornerstone of most businesses
In short, many businesses need to connect to their customers reliably in order to distribute services to them. They can’t do this with unreliable ADSL (in terms of both data rate and connectivity), so they won’t invest in developing services that require such distribution channels, as they can’t quantify the addressable market.
Consider the outcry that would arise if the governments provided roads with the reliability of ADSL: bridges falling down overnight, delays for no apparent reason etc. The impact on the ability of business to distribute goods to customers would be immense, and an outcry would rightly follow. Exactly the same situation applies with the NBN.
Fibre can be unreliable as well, you obviously never heard of TransACT
point is, there are many factors in what contributes to an unreliable connection, the last mile is just one of them
CVC pricing will actually artificially make the NBN less reliable than what it should be
Can someone remind me never to comment on these articles and leave that checkbox saying “subscribe for email updates” ticked?
and I just did it again.
toshP300
seriously, you want the Federal Government to spend $50bln+ of taxpayers’ money to subsidise “home entertainment” for the rich?
They are NOT taxpayers dollars
THE federal government will begin tapping global investors to raise nearly $3 billion over the next 12 months to help fund the national broadband network.
A further $15 billion will be raised between mid-2012 and 2015 for NBN Co to spend on construction and operating costs.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/government-goes-global-to-raise-3b-needed-for-national-network-20110710-1h91o.html#ixzz1VnruM0iP
You forgot this bit, dunno why!
“a note sent to investors, the Australian Office of Financial Management stated that the funds raised under the infrastructure bonds ”may be used to finance the government’s investment in NBN Co”.”
I just wanted to say Renai, you did brilliant work with this article and hit the whole issue on the head, its a pity people can’t have a more realistic open mind
Great work!
Cheers, I appreciate it! I enjoyed writing it, it clarified some of my thinking about the issue :)
I’m not sure why so many people are arguing here. The NBN was supposedly built for everyone. Quite simply internet costs in Australia will not come down. Those who can’t afford it now will not be able to afford it in the future. That’s ok if you’re affluent and can afford the service, but the was never the idea. You’ve been conned.
Comments are closed.