• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Featured, News, Telecommunications - Written by on Monday, October 24, 2011 10:09 - 228 Comments

    Coalition NBN policy shifts to fibre to the node

    news The Coalition appears to have evolved its alternative National Broadband Network policy over the past few weeks to focus squarely on the so-called fibre to the node network rollout style which was rejected by the Federal Government’s expert NBN committee in early 2009.

    The Gillard Government’s current NBN policy being implemented by NBN Co focuses on using a fibre to the home rollout in which cables are deployed from centralised points (usually telephone exchanges) all the way to home or business premises around Australia.

    The previous NBN policy focused on rolling fibre out to neighbourhood cabinets known as ‘nodes’, using Telstra’s existing copper cable for the last hop to home and business premises. However, it was ditched in April 2009, after an independent panel of experts warned the Federal Government that the policy was not feasible due to the requirement for industry involvement — and no satisfactory industry proposals.

    The most comprehensive description of the Coalition’s rival NBN policy to date was contained in a speech given by Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull in early August this year. In the speech, available online, Turnbull said a Coalition Government would focus on upgrading the existing HFC cable networks of Telstra and Optus, inviting wholesale providers to supply services in other areas, and likely separating Telstra into retail and wholesale arms, among other measures.

    However, over the past few weeks, Turnbull has appeared to increasingly focus on the idea that a FTTN-style rollout would be a key plank of NBN policy under a Coalition Government.

    Over the weekend, the Financial Review reported this morning, Turnbull said “a Coalition Government would renegotiate with Telstra to ensure it could use its copper phone lines to lay fibre to nodes on street corners rather than Labor’s more expensive plan of all the way to each home”, adding he didn’t anticipate the negotiations would be difficult. And, responding to comments by NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley on Sunday that NBN Co had not prepared contingency plans for a change of government, Turnbull told the Australian that “it was “obvious” that the Coalition wanted a cheaper FTTN rollout rather than a more expensive FTTH plan.

    The comments came after similar comments by Turnbull in a Senate Estimates hearing last week, in which Turnbull asked NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley whether a FTTN approach to the NBN had been considered, given the focus on FTTN networks (also known as ‘fibre to the cabinet’) using the VDSL standard being deployed in some other countries, which may allow speeds up to 80Mbps, although it will offer poorer latency than the current FTTH NBN model.

    “The reason they are undertaking that, and Mr Quigley and I have discussed this before, is that this VDSL solution — fibre to the node, fibre to the cabinet – is obviously a lot cheaper,” said Turnbull. “Given the very high speed that can be delivered, and is being delivered, with this VDSL fibre to the cabinet approach in Britain — and the Germans are doing something very similar — has the Government thought about re-calibrating the approach of the NBN?” Turnbull has recently returned from a visit to Europe, where he spoke with telcos about their network rollout plans.

    In response to Turnbull’s comments in Senate Estimates, Quigley said for technical reasons, a fibre to the node deployment in Australia would not be desirable. Problems revolved around getting access to Telstra’s infrastructure, as well as the population distribution geographically and the state of the existing copper network.

    “In Australia, to get the sorts of speeds you are talking about, you would have to go very close to the premise and would end up with an enormous number of cabinets,” the NBN Co chief said. “It is simply not a smart commercial proposition, I think, for a country like Australia to get the sort of coverage that the Government was aiming at.”

    The executive noted that NBN Co analysis showed that technical standards known as ‘phantoming’, ‘vectoring’ and ‘DSM’ which were used in overseas FTTN deployments were “very difficult to apply in Australia”. Quigley added that the long-term architecture which telcos were aiming at was fibre to the home. “If you deploy a fibre to the node network, you are likely to waste about half of the investment you made in so deploying,” he added.

    The NBN Co chief — who has an extensive background at Alcatel-Lucent, a manufacturer of key network components in telco networks — offered to spend “half a day” with Turnbull to help him understand the FTTN/FTTH disparity. “This is such an important issue. I think it is worth the investment of time to put your mind at rest,” he said.

    “You would need a huge number of cabinets to get anything like those speeds, whereas you can with fibre to the premise … you can cover 90 per cent of the country,” said Quigley. “You just cannot do that. You would have to stop at somewhere around 60 to 65 per cent with a fibre to the node to get, say, 12 megabits and above. Telstra did this analysis some time ago.”

    “The question is: what do you do from there? We looked at those various scenarios. That is what I would be happy to share with you to show you it is not such an easy thing to do. It depends on your objectives. One thing I would say is that you cannot, to 90 per cent of the population and over the copper network, use VDSL at those sorts of speeds for a low price. It is not possible.”

    Image credit: Zoran Ozetsky, royalty free

    submit to reddit

    228 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. Posted 24/10/2011 at 10:13 am | Permalink |

      Yet Uncle Malcolm refused an invitation from Mike Quigley at Senate estimates for a sit down to explain why the economics of FttN aren’t what he apparently believes them to be.

      If he’s truly interested in the best outcome, he’d take up the offer and get all the information instead of steaming ahead in a direction that is deliberately contradictive.

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 10:21 am | Permalink |

        I agree, Turnbull must take the time to sit down with Quigley on this, or show himself to be insincere.

        • Dbremner
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 10:38 am | Permalink |

          I think it’s all just politics. They oppose FFTH for the sake of opposition. FTTN is obviously a big waste of money thst in 10 to 15 years will have to be upgraded to FTTH anyway. I bet if is there was a way to continue FTTH and say it was somehow different to what labour was doing, they would do it. Why do politicians all act like school yard kids?
          I am sure I read somewhere FTTN was out because of some agreement with Testra that they need to be compensated if someone other than them delivered a copper connection to a household. It was something like $25 billion or something. The other alternative was that Telstra did the FTTN rollout and they owned the infrastructure and that just leaves us where we are, a private company owning the major portion of the telecomunications infrastructure, trying to maximise profit in a monopoly environment with only government bodies trying to limit it’s charges and try to get some equality in pricing between different retailers trying to use this network.

          • Someyoungguy
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:38 am | Permalink |

            Why would you need to upgrade to FTTH when you have FTTN, it will last a considerably long time. FTTH network stands the great possibility that it will be obsolete simply due to technological change, it wont last 40-60 years as touted, look at HFC vs. ADSL, obviously ADSL won, what makes you think GPON or fibre will be the best option and worth the $40Bn++ price tag? A technology that cannot be proven to be supported worldwide over a long lifetime?

            If we look at HFC when completed in the late 90s, it offered 8Mbps, but today the average user speed is around 4Mbps, that is to say that over 10yrs after its completion, users still are not using the network to its full capacity, despite having two separate competiting networks eg. Optus and Telstra. The current HFC network can suffice for another 10yrs even without upgrade just based on uptake, price an value, in addition to alternative and complimenatry techonologies that have emerged, such are wireless broadband.

            An upgrade of HFC to 100Mbps would make even a FTTN build pointless, based on uptake trends and demand, it is more likely that users will go for current ADSL2+ and Cable offerings and add mobile broadband for their iphones and tablets, and it will do the job just as well.

            So as long as Paul Budde keeps pushing his e-health and e-communiting snake oil, and the BILLIONS of productivity gain that the IT revolution will bring, unless his ‘vision’ miraculously changes the way we do work, there is no real need for FTTN or FTTH, as we are simply using the network for household/personal communications and enterainment, and not as a industry and productivity changing ‘transector’ shift.

            • Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink |

              Why would you need to upgrade to FTTH when you have FTTN, it will last a considerably long time. FTTH network stands the great possibility that it will be obsolete simply due to technological change

              FTTN is already obsolete due to technological change.

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:10 pm | Permalink |

                So those countries that have it rolled out and are still rolling it out and are have been using it for years are technologically disadvantaged how?

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:31 pm | Permalink |

                So how will countries that have been FTTN be at a disadvantage to countries that have FTTH andin what timeline if it’s all about ‘will be’?

                Is that the same disadvantage Australian postcodes that don’t have Greenfield FTTH or HFC are at technological disadvantage to others or do you have some other esoteric measure in mind here?

                • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink |

                  Is that the same disadvantage Australian postcodes that don’t have Greenfield FTTH or HFC are at technological disadvantage

                  That is correct. Wow, you are finally getting it.

              • Anonymous
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

                Alain what is the population density of Australia?

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:40 pm | Permalink |

                oh hello, it’s time for some general knowledge tests is it, I assume there is a motive behind the question somewhere, but here is one for you in the meantime, what is the capital of Bolivia?

              • PeterA
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:09 pm | Permalink |

                “So those countries that have it rolled out and are still rolling it out and are have been using it for years are technologically disadvantaged how?”

                alain you are making it too easy!

                Those countries that have rolled it out and are still rolling it out are technologically disadvantaged when compared with all the countries with fibre! Latency, Uplink Bandwidth, Downlink Bandwidth, Cost to operate (FTTN cabinets need power), Cost to upgrade to better technology.

                Response alain?

                But of course, you didn’t expect me to actually answer that question.
                You meant compared to Australia? Or were you not actually asking the question you asked? were you asking “How are these people technologically disadvantaged compared to people with worse technology

                I think I will leave that one in the alain-approved basket of: “loaded question, summarily ignore”.

            • Anonymous
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink |

              FTTH network stands a great possibility that ig will be obsolete simply due to technological change

              So somehow FTTN is immune to this flaw as well? Curious.

              Every technology has a chance of being superceded, you don’t make decisions based upon that, you make them based upon economic and your desired outcome. Turnbull for example doesn’t want FTTH because it is too expensive in his view.

              If we look at HFC when completed in the late 90s, it offered 8Mbps, but today the average user speed is around 4Mbps

              Flawed premise, the average speed used is in no way reflective of the peak speed required. There is a minor correlation, but the relationship is actually the reverse of what you are implying, the average speed goes up when the peak speed does as people tend to consume more.

              An upgrade to 100Mbps HFC would make even a FTTN upgrade pointless

              Correct, under the assumptions that usage is always sparse and thus users won’t be affected by the highly contented nature of HFC, and that you had HFC everywhere for this upgrade.

              Both assumptions are false.

              There is no real need for FTTH or FTTN

              False. So much so that I won’t even bother explaining the reasoning. Upgrading of our telecommunications infrastructure is an important developmental step we need to take. The political disagreement centers around the how, not the why. How do we ensure everyone has adequate access to Broadband? How do we ensure we have a healthy market to provide it? How do we ensure we do not get into technological stagnation?

              • Someyoungguy
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:46 pm | Permalink |

                The days when you build massive infrastructure like the copper network of the past, or the current proposed massive fibre network are over.

                The reason is that technology today is evolving very rapidly, but no necessarily linearly. There is no guarantee at all that GPON or fibre will be necessary, or that it will not be superceeded by FTTN. There is also no guarantee that the fibre network will have a life of more than 20 years, less if you consider the time it takes till it reaches its potential simply because of the time required for other platforms to catch up, be it telco or in other industries. Eg. a telecoms network may be in place, but do our manufacturing industries have the techonology to make use of it?

                I pointed out the HFC vs ADSL example as being one where two technologies we put forth, an ADSL is definitely the one that has been prefered world wide. The same would probably happen for fibre.

                But all this is jumping the gun. We really need to look at what we expect in the next 10-20yrs, and how industry would change inorder to justify a fibre network.

                Again the only benefit I see would be so called ‘transector’ benefits, which is supposed to offer billions per year in cost savings and thereby paying off the NBN through better practices and reduced carbon emissions etc.. But who really buys into that?

                If you dont buy into this, or that a fibre network will somehow make all this possible, then you’d probably think Paul Budde is the biggest con artist. If there are no major benefits, then upgrading existing networks or even FTTN at a fraction of the price will suffice, given the current network infrastructure has another 10 years, another 10-20 on FTTN.

                By then you would probably have the copper loop pushing 100-1gigabit, and the same for wireless, without the need for a fibre network.

              • Anonymous
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink |

                The days when you build massive infrastructure like the copper network of the past, or the current proposed massive fibre network are over

                This doesn’t work, society will always need infrastructure. How precisely are we to provide infrastructure if we can’t build it?

                The reason is that technology today is evolving very rapidly, but no necessarily linearly. There is no guarantee at all that GPON or fibre will be necessary, or that it will not be superceeded by FTTN.

                What? Okay. So, just because we can’t predict the future we shouldn’t try to prepare for that. That’s an excellent plan.

                I get what you are trying to say, but the response and ideology you are applying to it is way to extreme to be practical.

                If we always delaying action on an issue because of risk, then we will never take any action at all, and the problem will compound.

                Further, based upon our current understanding of physics, the chances of someone creating a breakthrough in copper based transmission of information for high bandwidth applications that will make the installation of fibre and the increasing trend to reducing the length of copper based transmission in networks (the reason for both FTTH and FTTN) is negligible.

                I pointed out the HFC vs ADSL example as being one where two technologies we put forth, an ADSL is definitely the one that has been prefered world wide. The same would probably happen for fibre.

                I think you are confusing cheaper and lower risk with ideal technology for the task. That is what FTTN is, it is a lower risk option. It is lower risk because it relies on the least assumptions, which is good in terms of Occam’s Razor, however that in no way makes it ideal. Especially in a country like Australia, with a very sparse population density even in populated areas (one of the assumptions of an efficient FTTN roll-out is high population density, as the relative node density is lower).

                To me it seems you are still at step one, justifying intervention into the network in general, and the rest of us have already gone past that. To put it blankly, you’re stuck in the “why”, where as we’re stuck in the “how”.

                Now I respect you for that, I do, asking why all this needs to be done is kinda important part of the political process,however it has already been done. So the burden of proof here is on you. You need to prove to us that all the countries across the world who are investing in Broadband Infrastructure are wrong. That the assumptions they have used to do them are flawed, or they somehow do not apply to Australia. I wish you luck with that.

                By then you would probably have the copper loop pushing 100-1gigabit, and the same for wireless, without the need for a fibre network.

                I find this unlikely. And if you understood the physics of signal transmission so would you.

            • Guest
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:17 pm | Permalink |

              Will be.

            • Dbremner
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink |

              Sorry Someyoungguy, just too many questions to answer there. I’ll try some, not sure if you really want answers.

              FTTN, is right near it’s tech peak, maybe able to double or quadruple speed over time, not good enough for 0 years.

              FTTH will easily upgrade, 1Gb is nothing to fibre, could to multiple Tbits in time.

              HFC is sufficient for 10 years, if you can get it.

              “no real need for FTTN or FTTH” opinion, personally I think you are being very shortsighted.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:34 pm | Permalink |

                “not good enough for 0 years” typo, that should be 50 years

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:46 pm | Permalink |

                Can I ask you on what basis you predict HFC 10 years and FTTN 50 years?

                After all HFC was started in 1994, who would have ever thought that in 2011 most residences it passes still don’t want it eh?

              • Dbremner
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink |

                Had a chance to put in some extra data. Why is FTTN temporary? Look at past and projected broadband speeds into the 2020s.

                http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/broadband-speeds/

                At current rates 100Mb barely takes us to 2017

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink |

                No comment about the history of HFC in Australia?

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:09 pm | Permalink |

                BTW I forgot to add, who is responsible for the ‘NBN explained’ web site as being the authoritative source on all things fibre?

              • Dbremner
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

                Sorry Alain, posts take a while to show up, did my errata and yours wasn’t on here them.

                HFC isn’t going to get that much faster than current. There are already areas of heavy HFC use where HFC is really slow. (Some areas of Box Hill drop below 5Mbit of an evening). Remember your are all sharing the one cable. If everyone went HFC at a high speed, well it just won’t cope. Not to mention it’s upload speed. That is already obsolete.

                Didn’t look at who was responsible, just looked for the graphs of network speed, just happened to be NBN. You will find many other sites give similar speeds from past to present.

              • Someyoungguy
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink |

                Hardly, the issue here is that people are being “conned”, yes literally. You;ve been scammed by the likes of Conroy.

                First take a step back and look at the telephone, how old is that invention, and surprise Ive got one on my work desk, its no obsolete, it uses hardly any bandwidth at all.

                The second most useful thing for productivity is email, that uses hardly any bandwidth at all.

                so how is 1Gbps going to improve my productivity? Well, we must look at the transector stuff. So what is it that they expect to achieve in terms fo productivity from this?

                If you cannot demonstrate how FTTP will provide massive transector benefits, then sorry, its just another communications and entertainment network that is overkill for our needs. We ccould get the same benefits with just upgrading the HFC and copper network, the difference would too small to justify spending $40Bn+ dollars on something we already have.

                So the great productivity advances in computer and telecoms technology, probably the telephone and computer, then to a lesser extent the internet (most offices dont even need internet to be in business) so we factor in e-commerce… so whats this transector stuff? hows that going to be the next leap forward?

                Ecommerce, you dont need fibre to do that, 8mbps will do just fine, the rest is just internet download, making phone calls, enterntainment etc etc.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:28 pm | Permalink |

                OK Someyoungguy, can’t argue with what you are saying. Because it is the state of things today you are arguing. You either see a trend and see an increase in usage over time or not. I am not arguing that we need more than we have now for now. In the future I believe we will. Computers used to have an OS that took a few floppys and you could download patches. If the speed at those times were applied today every windows patch would take a day or two to download. Given there are usually a few a week downloading those patches were all you could do. 8Mb/s, well that was all a large company needed 10-15 years ago, now they are more likely to use 8Gb/s.

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:54 pm | Permalink |

                so how is 1Gbps going to improve my productivity?

                It’s not. Get a 12/1mbps plan and stop your whining. Meanwhile the rest of us will enjoy the productivity benefits of the higher speeds available and upgrade to 1gbps if and when necessary.

                We could get the same benefits with just upgrading the HFC and copper network

                100/40mbps on copper? Explain how.

                so whats this transector stuff?

                Good question. The word sounds like it’s made up. Care to enlighten us?

                the rest is just internet download, making phone calls, enterntainment etc etc.

                False.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 4:09 pm | Permalink |

                @Dbremmer

                “HFC isn’t going to get that much faster than current.”

                Sorry you missed the point I was making or are deliberately avoiding it, when HFC was laid in 1994 for PayTV initially then subsequently used for cable BB do you think Telstra and Optus looked ahead and made any prediction on how long that technology would last and how soon it would be superseded because faster speeds would be required?

                The point is of course is here we are 17 years later still with HFC out there and most homes that can get it deciding they don’t want it, so they are either not taking fixed line BB at all or ‘surviving’ on ADSL/ADSL2+ and/or wireless BB.

                It’s interesting you roll the dice and say HFC will only last another 10 years, indeed that would be true if in 2011 all residences that can get it have HFC cable into their homes.

                It would also be true if those suburbs in Melbourne that can get the speed upgraded Telstra Cable Ultimate have all signed up for it as well, I can get it for example but I don’t need it.

                The only reason HFC in reality will be ‘superseded’ which is not the correct description in this instance is that Optus and Telstra have been paid out handsomely by the NBN FTTH Government owner to switch it off.

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 4:21 pm | Permalink |

                so is hfc redundant or not, alain?

              • Dbremner
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 7:43 pm | Permalink |

                I think we have had this discussion before. It aint that easy to just sign up for HFC. Even if it goes passed your door it is at Telstras descretion if they will connect you. The few times I have tried (several houses) they wanted to do ADSL2+ instead because we weren’t already connect for foxtel. try the foxtel route, they prefer to use satilite now. No way to talk betweent the two and get both.

      • Anonymous
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:38 pm | Permalink |

        He already knows the answer. Don’t you think the Liberals have analysts to perform cost estimates? He’s not interested in the truth.

    2. alain
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 10:37 am | Permalink |

      Is sitting down with the head of the NBN Co a Labor Party appointment directed to rollout out the Labor political decision of FTTH the right person for the Coalition to be discussing a totally objective view of a FTTN alternative?

      • Dean Harding
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

        Well, sit down with someone at least. The way it is now, it looks like he’s just ignoring all advice and pushing his own agenda with no regards to technical capability.

        Show us some expert who says that FTTN would be a cheaper option for Australia that will provide the speeds they’re asking for to 90%+. Studies conducted overseas in different markets, under different conditions and with differing technical debt do not make it look like they’re taking this seriously.

        • alain
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

          Well he’s not ignoring ALL advice Turnbull is using overseas examples that use a mix of infrastructure technologies to fulfill BB infrastructure need, the key point also is that overseas technologies do not require existing working fixed line BB technologies to be shut down so that the political ‘chosen one’ of FTTH has its way like in Australia.

          • Dean Harding
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:06 am | Permalink |

            So if he has examples, and he believes they’re actually relevent to Australia, then sit down with Quigley and go through them with him. If they really believe it’ll work in Australia then what’s to lose by talking to Quigley? It shows the Coalition is at least interested in the issue and not just grandstanding.

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:37 am | Permalink |

              No Turnbull should be sitting down with Telstra not Quigley.

              • Brendan
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

                “No Turnbull should be sitting down with Telstra not Quigley.”

                Telstra is not the NBN.

                Turnbull should speak with those responsible with the NBN, as he will be expected to make decisions over it’s future if in power.

                He had an opportunity during the Senate Estimates. Libs have had plenty of time to play an active part. They decided to jeer from the side lines.

                Now they have to either front up, with a policy, or they’re little more than muppet hecklers.

                Further, Telstra has seen the writing on the wall – the alternative is physical separation of retail and wholesale, which will write many millions off it’s share value; they are not interested in that option, because the Libs will not offer enough compensation.

                Because Telstra will demand it.

                So your beloved entity is actually pro-NBN, because the alternative isn’t palatable.

            • Someyoungguy
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:44 am | Permalink |

              FTTN if Alcatel will win the tender will just be ISAM with VDSL cards installed. There are no surprsies, as Telstra hve been installing them for years now, it is the evolved version of the CMUX.

              It is well known in the industry that Alcatel makes shitty equipment and are overprice, they are only in business because they are mostly corrupt as a vendor supplier to large customers overseas…

              I agree with FTTN to a point, but I do not like alcatel, Sol Trujillo or Telstra, a lot of this is still live and well and is inherited.

              I’d thought with NBNCo Alcatel would be out of the picture, but looks like the old school of telstra is still in there somewhere

          • Pepe
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:47 am | Permalink |

            and while turnbull is apparently looking abroad (ignoring the panel of experts advice that fttn is NOT economically viable here in oz) to excuse his party’s ideolgical opposition to the nbn, the rest of the world (well europe anyway) are apparently, now looking to us…

            http://www.itnews.com.au/News/277516,europe-changes-tune-on-broadband.aspx

            great to be at the forefront instead of sheep eh?

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:15 pm | Permalink |

              Except that report is not about ‘looking to us’ at all, but then you know that, good try though hoping most will not bother to click on the link and actually read it.

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:10 pm | Permalink |

                you really DON’T WANT the truth do you?

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:51 pm | Permalink |

                ooh also no comment about the panel of experts saying fttn is NOT viable here…

                too hard basket… just let that one slide through to the keeper?

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

                I’m sure the Coalition can come up with their own -cough-cough- ‘expert panel’ to say the opposite when required.

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink |

                dear oh dear, rather than being able to disprove the panel of experts, you make “unfounded accusations relating to their impartiality”?

                why don’t you stand by the above comments and accuse these people individually and by name?

                well go on!

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

                Obviously not -funny that.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink |

                That comment above is in the wrong spot.

                • Anonymous
                  Posted 11/05/2012 at 2:11 am | Permalink |

                  Sorry, what was that? Still waiting for your response…

            • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:23 pm | Permalink |

              great to be at the forefront instead of sheep eh?

              It’s not just Europe, NZ are also looking to us http://www.crownfibre.govt.nz/ultra-fast-broadband/what-is-ultra-fast-broadband.aspx but this sort of thing does not surprise me, it is just further confirmation that fibre is the future.

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:36 pm | Permalink |

                NZ is also actually rolling out FTTN and customers are using it because it is faster to deploy, perhaps we should be looking at them, oh that’s right it’s only a one way street, not allowed.

                • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:44 pm | Permalink |

                  75% FTTH. Fibre is the future. Get over it.

                • Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:42 pm | Permalink |

                  NZ is also actually rolling out FTTN and customers are using it because it is faster to deploy

                  They are using it because it is faster to deploy. Of course. They certainly are not using it because it is faster or because they have a choice. Thanks for confirming that btw.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink |

                I am sure NZ found they were not getting good results with FTTN and the rest is going in FTTH. At work, not reference, if someone wants to post it go ahead.

            • Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:17 pm | Permalink |

              http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/newsreleases/detail?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=News_Releases_2010/News_Article_002118.xml&lu_lang_code=en

              “The Australian NBN is one of the most important initiatives in our industry. The world is watching.”

              Indeed.

          • Jacob Kelly
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:54 am | Permalink |

            Australia is unique in both population density and poulation amounts. I’m all for a FTTN rollout if its can actually be proven to be cost effective. Considering Testra’s studies as such leading towards no, I’m not exactly enthused by Turnbulls stance until he backs it up with hard, country relevant evidence.

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:03 am | Permalink |

        Well, is Malcolm Turnbull, the man specifically tasked by Tony Abbott to “destroy” the NBN the right man to objectively promoting alternatives?

        If you believe your statement, you have to believe that too.

        If Malcolm has nothing to be afraid of, a morning of his time to hear the other side of the argument shouldn’t be too much of a hassle for him, in the interests of doing the job properly.

        • alain
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

          Well I don’t think sitting down with the head of the NBN Co who is directed by Conroy to roll out a Labor FTTH program and to be told FTTN is not cost effective is not the sole source of any ‘expert advice’ that Turnbull should be happy with.

          The key to FTTN is Telstra, if Telstra unequivocally came out and said we are not interested in FTTN post 2013 or ever because of existing commitments including shareholder approval of the NBN deal, subject to the ACCC big tick to the Telstra structural separation proposal of course, then a Coalition FTTN proposal is sunk.

          What would be really interesting is has Turnbull discussed in any way with Telstra about FTTN? – it’s a bit glib to say this far out from 2013 and a reasonable advanced state of the FTTH rollout at that point FTTN negotiations with Telstra would not be a problem.

          • Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:23 am | Permalink |

            Since you refused to answer the question, I’ll take that as a resounding “no”.

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

              Well that’s because I don’t agree with the loaded question, neither does Turnbull.

              http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/48049-gillards-rip-it-out-claims-ludicrous-says-turnbull

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:46 am | Permalink |

                What a load of crap.

                It’s Turnbull vs Quigley we’re arguing, and you refuse to the answer the question, because Turnbull wouldn’t/doesn’t agree with the question?

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:54 am | Permalink |

                Again we come back to your idea that Turnbull is ignoring the orders of his boss when he was asked to “demolish” the NBN.

                Yes, we know it’s “demolish” in the sense of the policy and not literally rip up the cables — Gillard’s comment was really dumb, no arguments here — but you can’t deny that Abbott has asked Turnbull to “demolish” the NBN policy and that is exactly what he’s doing: oppose for the sake of opposition.

                If that wasn’t the case, then what’s the harm of sitting down with Quigley? Sit down with Telstra if that’s what you want, but sit down with someone and discuss the technical merits of their plan. I see plenty of trips overseas but no actual engagement with industry in Australia.

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:08 pm | Permalink |

                Huh? I don’t know know what you are on about, I gave you link where Turnbull stated he would not destroy the NBN, the only statement that the Coalition would destroy the NBN has come from Gillard, which the Coalition have categorically denied, what more do you want?

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:09 pm | Permalink |

                Just answer a question for once in your life without trying to obfuscate it with reams of entangling bullshit.

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:26 pm | Permalink |

                Seems like a simple and straight forward answer on Coalition intent on rolled out NBN post 2013 to me, you obviously don’t like it when actual facts are introduced but there is nothing new there.

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:30 pm | Permalink |

                Fail. So full of fail.

                And all because of your man crush on Malcolm.

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink |

                Jeez you run out of rational comment mighty quick.

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:07 pm | Permalink |

                good thing about mw is, that he has rational comments to make, unlike some, eh alain ;-)

          • Someyoungguy
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:47 am | Permalink |

            The simple fact is that NBNCo is essential a sham. The economics never match up to reality, hence no independent studies, only those commissioned by NBNCo.

            Reality catches up with the dodgy Gillard government and their shambles policies, just a matter of time.

            • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:01 pm | Permalink |

              Save this comment for The Australian.

            • Pepe
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:12 pm | Permalink |

              as i have mentioned many times previously…

              is there one person out there who opposes the nbn, who is not politically motivated to do so…

              the nbn isn’t about who introduced it, it’s about what is best, regardless of petty political biases, sigh

            • Dbremner
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink |

              Only those commissioned by the NBN. OK. So is that the NBN’s fault? What studies have the Liberals done for their policy? None? Exactly.

    3. Sen ectus
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

      So, Given that it’s going to be THAT MUCH cheaper… How much will I pay for my internet in a coalition modified scenario ?

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

        With the coalitions patchwork plan you will end up paying the same as you do now just as you would with the NBN but it’ll be an much more inferior service. Others will pay the same amount you pay and get a better service but still inferior to the NBN while others will pay the same amount you pay and get an even worse service.

        • alain
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:20 pm | Permalink |

          You know what is going to happen post 2013 (assuming a Coalition win) in October 2011 how?

          • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink |

            Observation and deduction.

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:39 pm | Permalink |

              lol – as I said in the other discussion on the Victorian Government and the NBN, you are wasted here, audition immediately.

              http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/3327591

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:45 pm | Permalink |

                Do you believe with the coalitions patchwork plan prices will be higher, lower or the same as what they are now? Simple question.

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:55 pm | Permalink |

                I don’t know, it’s not post 2013 yet, in the same way the NBN Co business plan on detailing pricing came out AFTER the 2010 election.

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink |

                So everything the coalition has said up until now can be disregarded?

              • Gwyntaglaw
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink |

                “I don’t know, it’s not post 2013 yet”

                That’s the future, and the future’s too hard, don’t ask me about it? That’s what you think, alain?

                So you can confidently talk about the NBN being too expensive or failing or whatever (in the future) but any other predictions are too hard – because “it’s the future”?

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:52 pm | Permalink |

                Well it’s not just me, my opinion is based on what others say also, it was also enforced by the NBN Co SAU submission where it stated the NBN rollout faces ‘demand uncertainty’.

                I believe them unfortunately, sorry about that.

              • PeterA
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:26 pm | Permalink |

                Other people say what I like therefore its the TRUTH!! Gods honest truth!!.

                What you guys are saying? No one says that! Not even 1 person! It is especially evident that it isn’t what people I know or Tony Abbott or Godly Turnbull says, therefore it’s the fail and crazy people hand waving communist WITCHERY of future telling crystal ball lies!

                And that NBN document expects everyone to buy internet! hah! Its predictions are faulty too! But it projects it will increases costs at inflation+5%!! gospel!!

                The labour party waste waste waste machine will just tax tax tax and never earn any money ever.

              • nonny-moose
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink |

                “…enforced by the NBN Co SAU submission where it stated the NBN rollout faces ‘demand uncertainty’.

                I believe them unfortunately, sorry about that. ”

                so alain, you’ll believe the NBNco SAU paper, but you wont believe Quigley, the man ultimately responsible for said SAU?

                (“Well I don’t think sitting down with the head of the NBN Co who is directed by Conroy to roll out a Labor FTTH program and to be told FTTN is not cost effective is not the sole source of any ‘expert advice’ that Turnbull should be happy with.”)

                its impossible for you to discuss this without playing the man, isnt it?

                in any case you obviously believe the word of a business financier/entrepreneur over the word of a man who has made a career of building networks, as to the relative merits of a FTTN vs FTTH rollout?

                i really dont think Malcolm is the man to ask. i understand you feel Quigley is a Labor puppet, so lets leave the both of them out for the moment. do you have any real, network engineers who can substantiate Malcolms claims? or who have the network building experience to comment on Quigleys claims?

                if the FTTN is so glaringly obviously the way to go in Australia – i dont want people commenting on overseas rollouts; i am asking for comment on the *specific* Australian case – id be happy to hear their comments on the relative merits of the two NBN build options.

                im open to being convinced of FTTN, if there is someone with the technical chops to match Quigley who can put the case(someone who is not a network engineer will not cut it). if there is anyone you know fits that bill, i’m interested to hear it.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:34 pm | Permalink |

                There is one FTTN option I don’t mind. That is FTTN with the option to run FTTP from the node box (whatever their term is). User pays for the fibre. At least if a FTTH network isn’t done it gives the people who want or need fibre the option. Also it would allow replacement of copper tails where the house/business is not getting the minimum speed due to line length/deterioration (not at the customers expense). Maybe start that at 12MB/s and rise from there with time. Say 100MB/s by 2020 or 2025. Of course this is wasteful, but then again if FTTN is implemented without a fibre option is just as wasteful and limiting where more bandwidth is needed or bad copper makes for a sub par connection.

        • Sen ectus
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:43 pm | Permalink |

          This is actually what I expected… Sometimes (especially in infrastructure) doing things half arsed costs the same as doing the job properly.

          • Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:21 pm | Permalink |

            In the case of the coalition they believe doing things half arsed and then properly is far more efficient lol. Unfortunately for us the taxpayers and the customers get screwed in the process just for their shortsighted political motives.

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink |

              Well we could all get screwed by the Labor NBN as well.

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

                we will primarily always be screwed by politicians…

                so again, look past your political allegiances and measure the nbn for what it is, not for what the party says it is…

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink |

                Well we could all get screwed by the Labor NBN as well.

                We could but we wont, they had the foresight to do a 93% FTTH build. What percentage of the coalitions patchwork plan will be FTTH? We may never know…

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:21 pm | Permalink |

                “We could but we wont,”

                oh ok, then it’s all all right then, jeez I was worried about all of that $43 billion for a moment but you have alleviated that concern in one simple phrase – brilliant.

              • Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink |

                oh ok, then it’s all all right then

                Not really. We could still get screwed by the coalition due to their shortsighted political motives.

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:43 pm | Permalink |

                btw – the official capex estimation is $35.9B, with the governments contribution $27.5B. not $43B.

                so please at least try to catch up a little and then just be two steps behind, from here on!

                i feel a spiel on the word estimate or something equally adult, coming on…sigh

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 4:25 pm | Permalink |

                Nope it’s still $43 billion, but then what would the Conroy Department joint press release with the Minister for Finance after the external implementation study was done know?

                http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2010/040

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink |

                nope… LOL…

                like you fttn ideas which are way behind the times your url (although you are learning) is also way behind the times…

                http://www.nbn.gov.au/frequently-asked-questions/

                http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/about-nbn-brochure.pdf

                http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/faq.pdf

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 5:22 pm | Permalink |

                actually here’s a better one which spells it out oh so clearly…

                http://www.nbn.gov.au/frequently-asked-questions/nbn-costs-and-pricing/how-much-will-the-national-broadband-network-cost-to-roll-out/

                and here’s the interesting part…

                “On 20 December 2010, NBN Co Limited’s (NBN Co) Corporate Plan confirmed the total capital expenditure for the project is estimated to be $35.9 billion

                (((( less than the government’s original $43 billion estimate ))).

                The government expects to contribute $27.5 billion in equity for the rollout”. {END}

                gee that’s the figures i quoted what and you said what, rofl?

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 3:41 pm | Permalink |

                I’ll stick to the estimate provided by McKinsy & Company and KPMG and posted on Conroy’s web site and not retracted thanks.

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 4:20 pm | Permalink |

                conroy fanboi now then are you…rofl!

    4. Krimlay
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:26 am | Permalink |

      Only about half of NZ FTTN customers can actually get VDSL2
      VDSL2 costs an extra $50/month on top of an ADSL plan

      Thats hardly “cheaper”

      • alain
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:35 am | Permalink |

        Get and want are different.

    5. Brendan
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:34 am | Permalink |

      Here’s the thing. The liberals may make many claims about the NBN, but this so called “change”, actually isn’t; it’s just beefing up the same old and tired FTTN plan that was massively underfunded from around the time of the last election.

      Abbott clearly has only one function at this point. To reject everything the Federal Government does, for the sake of rejecting it. He has no policy platform and even the media is now starting to sense there’s a problem there.

      Turnbull is tonto to his kimosabe.

      Mr Turnbull believes the NBN is too expensive. His alternative is to “prop up” Telstra (never mind the huge cash injection care of the NBN deal) even further, then somehow use the same broken framework to “encourage” other suppliers to invest.

      Which hasn’t worked. Telstra has resisted. It will always resist. Functionally separating Telstra into an Infrastructure arm, and a retail arm, is really just a Telstra run NBN. It’s smoke and mirrors.

      Worse, the ACCC is effectively chosen to step out of the (CAN) game.

      I wouldn’t be at all surprised that if the Libs actually return to Federal Government that they will “decide” after some consideration to continue the NBN deployment, but massively underinvest in it.

      The liberal party will have a problem selling any alternative to the NBN, because it involves investment, something that is typically lacking – unless it involves guns. Propping up Telstra simply emboldens it to flatten all competition, and isn’t a solution in of itself.

      FTTN also requires future investment.

      Labor (to their credit) to a massive punt and decided to jolly well do it right the first time. They may have made a ton of mistakes (offshore processing.. really?) but at least they have the gumption to try a nation building exercise.

      And I’m looking forward to seeing alain spruke the value of the NBN, if the Coalition decide it’s actually an OK idea, once they put their name on it (even if they cut funding). ;)

      Hell, if I could vote at all, I’d vote Lib just so I could see that! :D

    6. Brendan
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink |

      As a side note, I see Turnbull’s poster child for FTTN, the European Commission has just announced a massive €50 billion investment in high speed networks.

      So much for the idea that Australia was “crazy”.

      • alain
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink |

        Yes I have read that report, it is certainly not just about 50 billion to roll out of FTTH to all of Europe supported 100% by European Union taxpayers, it involves a hefty injection of private investment as well.

        To glibly say that is like what Australia is doing with the Labor NBN is disingenuous.

        • Brendan
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:35 pm | Permalink |

          “it involves a hefty injection of private investment as well.”

          EU is “hoping” they can get private investment based on a notion that the industry will fall over itself to compete.

          Unless they have a different monopoly structure to Australia, it won’t end well.

          We have a long standing example of FTTN already in play. It’s called ADSL2+

          Exchanges are the node, the last (4-5 miles) are copper. Telstra has already stopped investing in copper.

          Telstra has moved on. It’s interests are NextG, NBN and to a lesser extent HFC.

          Your claims that FTTN is the best option ignore that Telstra doesn’t agree with you.

        • Chuq
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

          I don’t know how far their coverage goes but the EU does have a population of over 400 million over an area similar in size to Australia. It certainly changes the economics of the situation.

        • Pepe
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink |

          to blindly ignore it even having read it, is even more disingenuous.

          • alain
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

            So point out the section where the Euro Commission says a future European fibre rollout should be 100% bankrolled by the taxpayer and that all existing fixed line BB infrastructure should be shut down and more billions of taxpayer funds given to their corporate owners to do so? – it must be in there somewhere?

            • Pepe
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink |

              didn’t you see where “hackett” said it…rofl

              • alain
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:03 pm | Permalink |

                Umm what? – hackett said what ?

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:21 pm | Permalink |

                gee’s you can’t even remember your own faux pas re: hackett (it was only a couple of weeks ago)… lol, anyway…

                as for your 100%, i too can use figures to suit and the last time i looked eur 220B is more than aud 35.9B. to use your percentages, it’s what, ooh over 500% more?

                didn’t you see that in there somewhere?

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:03 am | Permalink |

                I have read that many times, I still don’t understand what you are waffling on about, it is incoherent – I will have to give it a miss.

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:59 am | Permalink |

                following our lead, european governments are looking at investing up to 220B euros (which in case you are unaware, is actually far more than our government is investing 35.9B dollars – in fact $27.5B governmental dollars).

                it’s not quantum physics, take your shoes off if need be!

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

                It’s NOT following our lead:

                1. Their proposal requires a hefty injection of private funding, ours does not.

                2. It’s for all of Europe, it’s like saying what Labor is doing here in terms of funding is for all of the Pacific region including SE Asia.

                3. The Euro plan does not require existing working infrastructure to be pulled down to make way for their final proposal.

                4. Billions are not being given to existing infrastructure owners to ensure their customer bases are forced onto the new build.

                Other than those key glaring differences it is nearly the same, in fact the European commission report and the Labor NBN proposal put to Parliament may have even used the same word processing software, perhaps that is what you are inferring when you say ‘they are following our lead’ ?

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:10 pm | Permalink |

                1. they are looking to inject up to 220B (starting with 9.2B). 220B is a lot more “hefty than our – $27.5B” (again take off shoes if it helps). private enterprise will be asked to commit less than 20%, so please.

                2. they will be doing europe, one continent as we are (argue as you will that NZ and New Guinea are technically part of the continent, sigh).

                3. how do you know? crystal ball gazing, ah I see. so what, they have taken our idea and are perhaps going to do it it somewhat differently?

                4. how do you know? crystal ball gazing, ah I see. so what, they have taken our idea and are perhaps going to do it it somewhat differently?

                this all started because a mouthy, nay-saying dooms-dayer kept saying no other governments anywhere are committing funds to high speed networks…

                so much for no governments anywhere eh?

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:00 pm | Permalink |

          you mean like the ~10 BN of private investment that will be on top of the ~27bn government investment in NBNco?

          yeah in that respect they are not at all the same, arent they. *rolleyes*

          looks the same to me, govt investment in tandem with private. im not seeing the difference in how they are being paid for, here?

          • alain
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink |

            What private investment? – where is it, how do I apply?

            • nonny-moose
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 5:15 pm | Permalink |

              why do you care? you dont mean to tell me youve done all this bashing of the NBN but you actually have intention of INVESTING in it?

    7. Anonymous
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 11:44 am | Permalink |

      Hmm. So you’re going to try and convince Mr Turnbull and all the other political commentators out there that FttN is technically the wrong solution for Australia? This is not going to end well. Already we see (hello Alain) people accusing Mike of being biased, and this iz likely going to continue, even outside of our comments.

    8. Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:02 pm | Permalink |

      I really can’t see why Malcolm won’t sit down with Quigley. He doesn’t even have to change his mind about FTTN. He could even say that he sat down with Quigley but doesn’t agree with his conclusions if he wants to.

      I mean seriously. For once we have the head of NBNco offering some transparency on the project and Turnbull is going to knock it back because of politics. Aaargh!

    9. Brendan
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:17 pm | Permalink |

      I think the key thing people (whom rush to Turnbull and Telstra’s defence) are that their beloved industry giant, is pro-NBN.

      Telstra will vigorously defend their vertically integrated structure. They had a real ability to reject the NBN and fight the Government at every step. They even claimed “we’ll build a competitor network!”.

      Things change. Sol and his Amigo’s became a concern. They were removed.

      Conroy is many things, but he’s not (that) stupid. Telstra had a choice. Separate (and the massive loss that would incur) or be an NBN partner. Those were the options.

      Telstra chose to remain integrated. It chose to be an NBN participant, rather than action it’s threats to build a competitive network. It chose to play ball. Sure, it forced some of it’s ideas into the mix, but it wasn’t all their way.

      The world has changed since the GFC. Priorities are different. Investment is different. Telstra can ill-afford a stoush with Federal Government. It will lose. Telstra knows this, they’ve picked a side.

      It’s not the Coalitions. Turnbull knows this. He knows that FTTN isn’t enough. Hence the claims that others will invest to pick up the slack. We already know that won’t happen; Telstra’s dominance and the decision to back the NBN is Turnbull’s undoing.

      He will have the fight of his life to separate Telstra. And I don’t think the Coalition has the will or strength. When the only retort you have to the NBN, is heckling, you’ve already lost.

    10. Mr Creosote
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:20 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull needs to sit down with Quigley and become informed by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
      Beyond that though, the bigger question that needs to be asked of Turnbull is why is he going to waste the Productivity Commissions time by getting them to do a cost benefit analysis, when he has aleady picked his winner. Even if the Productivity Commission comes back and says the most cost efficient solution (note: thats not always the cheapest solution as Turnbull is trying to make out) is FTTH, Turnbull is never going to allow that to be built after lambasting it for so long. Also, if Turnbull is truly serious about the importance of a CBA, it should be done before the election, so people have the information prior to voting.
      Turnbulls CBA, as it stands, looks to be nothing more than a political pointscoring tool, and of no real value other than to wave around and say “look! I did one and Conroy didnt!”

    11. DinoTerrific
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:30 pm | Permalink |

      Who in there right mind would spend billions building a national highway for the masses and the last mile build a 1 lane road full of potholes. This is the Liberal governments version of the NBN. Just throw away all logic, reason and inherit a monkeys brain and you’ll get close to knowing what kind of brain matter you are dealing with.

      • Harquebus
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:03 pm | Permalink |

        Build a highway to your home for one car. Great.

        • Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink |

          No one said “build a highway to your home”. DinoTerrific is suggesting that pothole filled roads connected to highways are not the way to build a road network.

    12. Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink |

      FYI Turnbull has issued a new statement on this matter this morning:

      http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/blogs/malcolms-blog/quigley-makes-it-clear-that-nbn-design-all-about-politics/

      • Brendan
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:00 pm | Permalink |

        I find it interesting that Malcolm backs an idea that Telstra have not.

        He’s claiming *DSL is viable, yet Telstra has stopped investing in copper.

        He is claiming HFC could be used, but negates to mention there is no legislation forcing either carrier to open those networks to competitors.

        He’s still claiming the EU are the poster child, yet the EU has changed tack; their model has changed. Investment levels have changed.

        Malcom is claiming there is no CBA, yet he hasn’t provided clear costings for his own that prove FTTN is financially more responsible over FTTH (under-investment is not automatically better) in the longer term.

        He is claiming that it is better to use existing networks, yet the current legislation does not force separation in Telstra; he has no guarantee he can deliver that.

        Has Malcolm actually spoken to _anyone_ for advice, at this point?

        • Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink |

          He is claiming HFC could be used

          He also fails to mention that the majority of people do not have access to HFC, fails to provide an equivalent solution example for those without HFC and never addresses the upload speeds which in comparison to fibre are dismal.

          • alain
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink |

            He said it could be used rather than pulled down, not that the Coalition BB plan is HFC for all of Australia, nor is it if you don’t have HFC you will have to stay on ADSL/ADSL2+, but then you know that.

            BTW you must get over your fixation with upload speed, especially ‘what I want as a individual is therefore what everyone wants’.

            • Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:18 pm | Permalink |

              He said it could be used rather than pulled down, not that the Coalition BB plan is HFC for all of Australia

              Like I said he: fails to provide an equivalent solution example for those without HFC You really are not very good at reading are you?

              BTW you must get over your fixation with upload speed

              No. It’s not my fixation with upload speeds. Upload speeds is what is important here, that has always been a problem with any network and now it is being addressed (with fibre) to disregard this issue shows the shortsightedness of Turnbull.

              especially ‘what I want as a individual is therefore what everyone wants’.

              It’s not just what I want. With the NBN you can get whatever slow upload speed you like while I can get whatever fast upload speed I like. That is the advantage of the NBN. Can you say the same for the coalitions patchwork plan? No. There is only one upload speed: Slow.

          • Pepe
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:03 pm | Permalink |

            hc, just to go on a slight tangent here…

            i see the fudsters ‘crystal ball gazing’ has again come up empty in relation to their claims the nbn prices ‘would increase by 5% every year”…

            http://www.zdnet.com.au/simplification-removes-nbn-price-hike-clause-339324817.htm

        • alain
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink |

          “Has Malcolm actually spoken to _anyone_ for advice, at this point?”

          No, it was knocked up on a domestic plane flight in Australia, sorry I was getting confused, that was Conroy and Rudd and the NBN.

          • Duideka
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

            It was created on a domestic flight after several years of tender processes for ‘fast broadband’ (be it HFC, FTTN or wireless) were totally unsuccessful.

            It’s not like they were ‘Hey, Let’s roll out FTTH – man, good idea!’ out of the blue, they tried doing it Malcolm’s way and got nowhere.

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink |

              lol

              • Pepe
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

                troll

              • Gwyntaglaw
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:40 pm | Permalink |

                very droll

          • Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink |

            No, it was knocked up on a domestic plane flight in Australia

            Wow, so Conroy and Rudd came up with the NBN on a domestic plane flight in Australia? Impressive. While with all the intense “planning” the coalition did and all they could muster up was their substandard FTTN patchwork? I’d say things are not looking good for the coalition in this case.

          • Brendan
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:30 pm | Permalink |

            “No, it was knocked up on a domestic plane flight in Australia, sorry I was getting confused, that was Conroy and Rudd and the NBN.”

            Playing the man, not the topic again, alain?

            Turnbull has spent a lot of time talking to people that have no actual relevance to Australia. And even they are changing their models to align to a FTTH model.

            Never mind Turnbull has not spoken to anyone in Australia, let alone the largest Telco. Whom has already made its decision. I notice you keep ignoring Telstra’s decision. The decision to support the NBN.

            Why is that?

            • alain
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:28 pm | Permalink |

              I am not ignoring Telstra’s decision and their support of the NBN, I said so in detail in a earlier post, if you are going to make false generalisations at least read all of my posts before going off half arsed.

              • Brendan
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:02 pm | Permalink |

                Apologies, but within the sea of replies that reject comments for the sake of rejecting, it was difficult to see where you actually present a valid argument.

                “The key to FTTN is Telstra, if Telstra unequivocally came out and said we are not interested in FTTN post 2013 or ever because of existing commitments including shareholder approval of the NBN deal, subject to the ACCC big tick to the Telstra structural separation proposal of course, then a Coalition FTTN proposal is sunk.”

                Is this what you mean?

                Telstra _has_ made it’s decision. That being my point. The NBN deal has been approved. The shareholders have approved the agreements.

                The last stumbling block is the ACCC, whom are highly unlikely to decide now is the perfect time to grow a backbone. It will, eventually, accept the deal.

                Further, Telstra do not want structural separation. Telstra has been highly vocal regarding _any_ attempts towards further separation.

                Turnbull is picking a fight he can’t win.

                And you are still arguing for a model Telstra has rejected. The player you say is the hinge. They aren’t going to change their mind down the track.

                If Turnbull tries to turn back the clock, Telstra will have the capital (and cash injection) to build their own NBN. Which damns us all to a single retail + wholesale vendor.

              • deteego
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

                “The last stumbling block is the ACCC, whom are highly unlikely to decide now is the perfect time to grow a backbone. It will, eventually, accept the deal.”
                Nice assumption you have there

          • Pepe
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:54 pm | Permalink |

            please supply proof of this plane, claim?

      • Duideka
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink |

        What a load of crap.

        My response:
        They made no effect to determine the most cost effective model??? Don’t you remember the several years Labor tried to get people to tender for a broadband upgrade with no actual speed target in the beginning, and got pathetic responses – especially from Telstra?

        It wasn’t until after they had scrapped a bunch of hopeless FTTN and wireless policies did they decide to just go FTTH, and Quigley was hired.

        Quigley was not hired when the government was running tenders on ‘any’ broadband delivery method that could get the job done.

        You should know this ffs Malcolm, stop treating the Australian public like morons!

        Had no consumers shown inclination to purchase 100Mbps?? BZZT.

        This is from Simon Hackett, Internode:

        “”The uptake of NBN services has been in line with Internode’s expectations, although more customers opted for 100Mbps services that we originally forecast,””

        In UK, I’d suggest the 80Mbps is a theoretical maximum, and average speeds are 20-30Mbps, furthermore their top plan is a measily 40GB for $60AUD – there is nothing higher.

        In Germany, I’d ask you what FTTN?

        Labor did not consider wether other technologies could do the job? YES THEY DID. Don’t you remember the G9? Telstra’s FTTN proposal??

        Sigh.

      • Boey
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink |

        Haha looks like the comments on his website aren’t moderated. He’s getting smashed by people who are pro-nbn.

        • Pepe
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 9:17 pm | Permalink |

          he’s getting smashed because he has no argument and always resorts to silly pedantics and semantics to deflect and hide his baseless, but fervent agenda.

          so, as he chooses and wants to involve such childish tactics in absolutely every pro-nbn comment, why should the pro-nbners only, be moderated in reply?

          live by the sword…!

          • Pepe
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 9:18 pm | Permalink |

            ooh nice try though…!

    13. Dean
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:54 pm | Permalink |

      If we go down the fttn path don’t all those cabinets require power? So we will need to power all the exchanges then thousands or hundreds of thousands cabinets i can only see that as a huge downside.

      • alain
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink |

        This has been flogged to death before Dean, the power requirements of a Node cabinet servicing about 300 residences are less onerous than individual ONT boxes with a UPS power supply that is required for each and every residence, even if they are just using it for ‘PSTN clone’ phone service.

        • Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:30 pm | Permalink |

          Yeah, but people already have power connected to their homes.

          These currently non-existent cabinets- (and therefore non-existent power cables) – will need to have power connected to them.

          I guess that will cost nothing?

          • alain
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink |

            The point is about current draw of one FTTN cabinet vs the current draw of 300 ONT’s, unless you are aware of a proposal in your industry briefings from the NBN Co that the NBN Co is going to meet the cost of each ONT box’s monthly electricity cost.

            I think the power cabling of Node cabinets is not the technological deal stopper you make it out to be, I am sure it has been done before somewhere in the world, also Telstra and Optus could tell you how it is done with HFC.

            • AJ
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:04 am | Permalink |

              Umm every house will need an adsl modem as well which is essentially equivilant to an ONT so you are saying that essentially FTTN box power plus Modem uses less power than just an ONT

        • Anonymous
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:50 pm | Permalink |

          Actually they will draw around the same amount, with FTTH coming out slightly better in terms of consumption but at the cost of reduced flexibly (i.e. using the node as a wireless access point for a 4G network), which I personally consider a minor concern as high node density wireless networks are superfluous with FTTH.

          Power consumption therefore should not be a major concern. Unless we have to spend a significant amount of capital to enable the network. Something I have not seen evidence for (sorry Michael).

          Would you like me to dig up the link I have posted on several occasions demonstrating the power consumption figures again Alain or are you, once again, going to argue for the sake of arguing?

          • alain
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:11 pm | Permalink |

            Yeah show me the link, I have mine ready as well.

            • Pepe
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:57 pm | Permalink |

              thank you mathew, very interesting.

              now to be fair where is the link of yours alain?

            • Anonymous
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:01 pm | Permalink |

              Sure, why not?

              The important statistic you should draw from this is 13% less energy consumption including end-user (ONT) equipment.

              This is obviously not quite a solid figure as it relies on the assumptions of the case study, in particular the density of the node setup. Further, it notes that a combination of FTTB (for High and Medium Density) and FTTH (for Low Density) is more efficient than pure FTTH.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:08 am | Permalink |

                There is one thing about discussions like this is the mindless repetition, the discussion on FTTH vs FTTN power usage has already been done.

                http://delimiter.com.au/2011/06/03/fibre-to-the-node-would-do-60mbps-turnbull/

              • Anonymous
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:37 am | Permalink |

                *claps with glee* He remembers. What you think I forgot that?

                Hmm, kinda weird you’d think that when I asked you if you needed me to post a link again.

                No matter. On many occasions this debate has occurred, and on some of those occasions I brought this presentation out as citation. It shows GPON, including end user equipment (modems, ONTs) uses less power than FTTN.

                So instead of saying we’ve had this debate before why don’t you provide a specific citation that contradicts this presentation or undermines its assumptions, something I don’t recall you ever doing in any of our previous debates in this issue.

                Of course if I’m mistaken you can always provide a link to the specific comment where this happened. Oh and by the way, before you did up that example, calling the producing authority of this data biased is not a valid argument. I know how much you love playing the man instead of the ball.

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:48 am | Permalink |

                but yet alain, still no link “as promised” even though it was “ready”…

                what a (typical/usual) mystery…rofl

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink |

                So after all this time from the original discussion held in June you still have nothing to counter the points made back then, it was not refuted then it is still has not.

              • Anonymous
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink |

                The points made then don’t actually contradict the presentation. The burden of proof is actually yours here.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:22 pm | Permalink |

                Proof of what, are you saying a FTTN cabinet servicing 300 homes does not draw 1200 watts and each ONT box consumes 5-8 watts?

                Multiply 300 x 5-8 watts = 1500-2400 watts, and that’s not factoring in the power requirements of a FTTH network which is certainly not all passive.

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

                You know you also need a VDSL modem for FTTN, right?

              • Anonymous
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:39 pm | Permalink |

                Alain: again, I’m going to highlight the relevant information from the link I provided.

                The important statistic you should draw from this is 13% less energy consumption including end-user (ONT) equipment.

                As I said before: this presentation does not conflict with what you have stated in that thread provided.

                The proof you need to provide is either that this presentation is flawed in some way. Otherwise, I’m going to say one more time for you:

                Actually they will draw around the same amount, with FTTH coming out slightly better in terms of consumption but at the cost of reduced flexibly (i.e. using the node as a wireless access point for a 4G network), which I personally consider a minor concern as high node density wireless networks are superfluous with FTTH.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

                @Dean Harding

                You do realise if you want a hardware firewall, voice or Wi-Fi you need the appropriate router right?

                http://www.internode.on.net/residential/fibre_to_the_home/nbn_plans/

        • Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:45 pm | Permalink |

          Bullshit.

          FTTP is the most energy efficient access medium.
          See “FTTH IS ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY” in
          http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/rtucker/publications/files/tja10043.pdf

          which comes from a paper co-authored by the same person (Prof. Rod Tucker):
          “Energy Consumption in Access Networks” (2008)

          • deteego
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

            I read that, and it just spewed left green bullshit to me

            FTTP uses the same energy, its just that the energy cost is shifted onto the consumer through the ONT

            Have you seen how much power the ONT takes, now multiply it by the number of premises.

            FTTP is more energy efficient for the infrastructure owner, it however does not take overall less power.

            As NightKaos pointed out, its also very sensitive to network topology, the studies you point out take into account nothing about Australia’s architecture

            • Pepe
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink |

              yes but then centre right, spews left green bullshit to you ;-)

            • Someyoungguy
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:07 am | Permalink |

              i think you should stop mental masturbating now..

    14. Duideka
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

      Hi. I have not read all of the comments yet but I’d like to point out in the Australian article, he talks about ‘Fiber to the Curbside’

      The definition of FTTC is a node under 300 meters away from your premise on the curb, often literally every few houses, the node fed with Fiber, and copper from the node to your house.

      Now maybe it’s just me but I can’t see how this is much of a saving, you are doing almost all of the work that FTTH requires, but then stopping when there is less than 5% of the work left and connecting it to copper – this just seems like he is willing to leave a massive copper bottleneck in place for sheer idealogy and nothing else.

      This is NOT FTTN if he is really proposing FTTC, the definition of FTTN has a node >1000m from your house.

      I don’t know about you, but my street alone is far longer than 300 meters, if he is serious about rolling out a FTTC system even covering one city is going to require hundreds of thousands of power hungry DSLAM cabinets – I’d ask him how many nuclear power plants he intends on building under the coallition’s ‘Direct Action Plan’ to counter all of this? ;)

      Turnbull also talks about UK’s FTTN plan again, I assume he has not read what is happening there – whilst the peak speed of 80Mbps, it is delivering on average 20-30Mbps, furthermore it is a closed access network and prices are atrocious, example;
      $50AUD ‘up to 40Mbps’ 10GB usage
      $60AUD ‘up to 40Mb’s 40GB usage

      No terabyte plans, not even a 100GB plans – their ‘unlimited’ plan actually has a 40GB cap in the TOS.

      He then yet again talks about the Germans doing something similar, like last time, this was nonsense;
      ———————————QUOTE————————————————–

      Deutsche Telekom used the CeBIT show in Hanover, Germany, as a platform to discuss its plans for next-generation fiber to the home (FTTH) and LTE wireless network expansions. As many as 160,000 households in 10 German cities will be connected via FTTH this year, Deutsche Telekom says. The German carrier asserts its network upgrades will enable downstream speeds of 1 Gbps and upstream speeds of 500 Mbps.

      “Our decision to expand the fiber-optic network in Germany proves our commitment to our home market. With today’s launch of the expansion program, we are systematically executing our strategy,” said Niek Jan van Damme, the member of the Board of Management at Deutsche Telekom AG responsible for business in Germany, on February 28. “Only through an intelligent mixture of technologies from wireless and landline networks can we offer our customers fast connections, high quality and attractive prices.”

      ———————————QUOTE————————————————–

      Long story short they are investing $10bn euros and aim to have 10% of Germany covered via FTTH by 2013 – not as ambitious as our broadband plan, but they are NOT rolling out FTTN despite what Turnbull might say.

      • alain
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink |

        Of course the key differences to Australia is that:

        1. The UK and German taxpayers are not bankrolling a 100% FTTH network with a dubious ‘fingers crossed’ for 2020 – 7% ROI and 70% uptake figures, coupled with the premise that is in the NBN SAU to be submitted to the ACCC, that it faces ‘demand uncertainty’.

        2. All existing fixed line infrastructure in those countries will be switched off to ensure FTTH uptake is somewhat viable by forcing end users onto it if they want fixed line BB and or telephony.

        • Duideka
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 1:24 pm | Permalink |

          The point I was making is they are not rolling out FTTN like Turnbull suggests.

          Hardly anyone is rolling out FTTN but he keeps suggesting ‘countries worldwide are rolling out FTTN’ – every time he names a example country is gets shot down.

          Just like he talked about infrastructure competition in Denmark (Hi TDC) and Switzerland (Hi Swisscom) – there is zero infrastructure competition there…

          Turnbull just destroys his credibility every time he opens his mouth.

          • Dbremner
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:21 pm | Permalink |

            The will do what the Liberal has always done, nothing. They will plan and talk and do absolutely nothing. Not that this is always the wrong thing to do. But if Australia had continual Liberal governments will would have lots of money in the bank, dirt tracks for roads and no telephone system.

    15. Guest
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:11 pm | Permalink |

      Dont forget that many variants of VDSL require two copper pairs to everyones home, which is not the case for every premise today

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink |

        ADSL only uses one wire…not even both in the pair. If you cut the right one, you’ll still get sync, just no dial tone.

    16. Gwyntaglaw
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:17 pm | Permalink |

      The twin anchors of the alleged Coalition policy are that the rollout of broadband will be _faster_ and _cheaper_. [Note, by the way, that they are very cautious about claiming that the broadband you would _pay for_ would be cheaper. Slower, without a doubt. But cheaper in retail terms? They aren’t committing themselves to that at all – because they know they can’t guarantee it.]

      I’m not even going to worry about whether it will be cheaper (to roll out) the Turnbull broadband vision – after all, anyone can dial down the policy settings at any time to get a cheaper result. That’s not hard to understand. You can always pay less and get less. No argument there. The question of whether it will be good enough is of course not relevant – if you want cheap, then cheap you’ll get.

      But faster? That’s an interesting one. What can we say about speed of rollout in the Coalition’s first term, if they are elected in mid 2013?

      Before tackling that delightful chestnut, let’s just have a look at what would happen if the ALP were re-elected in mid 2013 for another three year term. According to the NBN Co Corporate Plan (p115) the FTTP brownfields deployment would go from 9% (June 2013) to 46% (June 2016) – that’s nearly half the fibre rollout complete by the end of the next parliamentary term. So that’s the baseline for any comparison of speed.

      If Abbott and Turnbull get their hands on the levers of government in mid 2013, what will happen with the rollout teams already underway? Let’s assume they do what they have said – stop the “wasteful” rollout on the spot. They can direct NBN Co to cease immediately all rollout operations, pending a full review/Productivity Commission inquiry/cost benefit analysis [take your pick]. How long will that take? Remember, they have committed themselves to something that looks like a cost benefit analysis before pledging further government expenditure. They will, of course, also be busy at this time rolling back the carbon price legislation, stopping the boats, etc etc. But yes, broadband policy (and Telstra policy) will be handed off to a panel of worthies to report back in 6-12 months.

      At the same time, negotiations will have to begin fairly soon with Telstra over the structural separation – which will require the passage of legislation, as was alerted today in the parliamentary committee hearing, by the head of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Now Telstra is in a very interesting position – and a very strong one, too, as David Thodey well understands.

      The deal which received 99.45% support by shareholders last week was the result of 3 years tough and painstaking negotiation. There is no reason to believe that a brand new negotiation, which essentially tears up the basis of the previous one, would be any quicker to achieve. In fact, given Telstra’s stronger position, there is plenty of reason to believe that they will drag things out as long as possible – they are in no hurry to change. They will continue to receive guaranteed payments under the deal, and they will consolidate their position in the market even more.

      So, can’t the new Coalition government just force them to comply – ride legislative roughshod over them, so to speak? Well, leaving aside the possibility of actually _passing_ such legislation through a Senate where support of either the Greens or Labor is necessary, it just wouldn’t work. You see, the FTTN proposal absolutely _needs_ the Telstra-owned copper, and needs its cooperation, too. You can be sure as anything that Telstra will vigorously oppose any attempt to seize its property on terms that it has not agreed to after lengthy negotiation. Federal Court… High Court… the fun would never end.

      The upshot of all that is that even in the _best case_ scenario, it would be unlikely that the Coalition would have made any significant progress on rolling out its FTTN vision in under three years – bringing us to the 2016 election (if a double dissolution hasn’t been called first).

      So… in the period 2013-2016, under Labor you would have had nearly half the fibre rolled out already… and under the Coalition, NOTHING.

      Faster? “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 3:56 pm | Permalink |

        Great comment Gwyntaglaw. If you had a blog I’d have to include this in the ‘Hall of Awesome’ http://delimiter.com.au/forum/national-broadband-network/485-hall-awesome.html :-) btw the one you posted on ZDNet was just as good and summed up the situation very well. +1

        • Gwyntaglaw
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink |

          Gotta spread the joy. :) Thanks!

      • SMEMatt
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink |

        “Over the weekend, the Financial Review reported this morning, Turnbull said “a Coalition Government would renegotiate with Telstra to ensure it could use its copper phone lines to lay fibre to nodes on street corners rather than Labor’s more expensive plan of all the way to each home”, adding he didn’t anticipate the negotiations would be difficult”

        I love that last bit. “he didn’t anticipate the negotiations would be difficult”.

        CLP get in mid 2013 then Labor back in after that because lets look at the 3 major policies.

        Chances of CLP getting anywhere with broadband in a term is slim as they are going to stop current work and waste more time analysing what to do. Of course “by stopping the waste” they will be wasting time wasting money on contract termination, and money already spent that won’t be able to be paid back in full by selling of an incomplete network, where the bulk of the existing network is in less profitable areas.

        Stopping the boats well off shore processing is out now and when it was an option it seemed like the only difference in policy was the country to do it in. Let’s face both parties immigration policies are a complete shambles and won’t do anything to stop one boat. Well not without getting use pulled before the international court which is what will happen is Mr Rabbit tries his turn back the boats approach.

        The carbon Tax. Labor policy is to take money from the big polluters and give the bulk of it to tax payers. CLP so far have said they will scrap this. The only thing I seen the announce to put in its place is to give money to the polluters to clean up there act, unless they have a money tree it will come from the tax payers directly either by cutting other services. I personally don’t think either approach is the way to go but in my experience big business will respond quickly to cut costs(carbon tax) and work in the cheapest way possible to get extra money(CLP carbon reduction bribe). I personally don’t think either party has got it right but labor are closer to the correct approach.

        So if the CLP get in 2013 if I was labor, I would be doing everything possible to keep as much structure of the NBN in place as possible so work can resume as quickly as possible pending a CLP defeat next election.

      • Brendan
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:15 pm | Permalink |

        “You see, the FTTN proposal absolutely _needs_ the Telstra-owned copper, and needs its cooperation, too. You can be sure as anything that Telstra will vigorously oppose any attempt to seize its property on terms that it has not agreed to after lengthy negotiation. Federal Court… High Court… the fun would never end.”

        Exactly. Telstra doesn’t think short term. They play the long-ball odds. The ACCC has never been able to keep up. It’s been aggressively re-entering the market and the recent stoush with ISPs and the wholesale pricing debacle are clear indicators of what Turnbull faces.

        And herein is Turnbull’s trump card. FTTN allows the Liberal Party to continue to not do anything. As you’ve pointed out, it’s taken years to get Telstra into the NBN; there is zero reason, or history to suggest Telstra would jump into FTTN.

        In fact, now that they have a real shot at taking a large chunk of the FTTH market, they are unlikely to settle for FTTN, where they are having to price aggressively to claw back market.

        So they get to spend very little, doing very little. Just as they did in their last set of terms.

        There is no advantage to the Liberal FTTN. It maintains the broken status quo.

        • Gwyntaglaw
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink |

          “In fact, now that they have a real shot at taking a large chunk of the FTTH market, they are unlikely to settle for FTTN, where they are having to price aggressively to claw back market.”

          Excellent point, Brendan. You are quite right – if the urban rollout of NBN fibre were to cease abruptly, it would be the cue for Telstra to jump in and start rolling out fibre in the profitable urban areas that the NBN hadn’t reached yet.

          They’ve already done that in South Brisbane, and in a few other spots under the Telstra Velocity banner. It would enhance their long-term position tremendously, not to mention their bargaining position.

          Clever Mr Thodey.

          • Brendan
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:36 pm | Permalink |

            “They’ve already done that in South Brisbane, and in a few other spots under the Telstra Velocity banner. It would enhance their long-term position tremendously, not to mention their bargaining position.”

            Telstra has history of “me too” when it comes to parallel deployments.

            Lets not forget the Optus/ Telstra HFC race. That ended well. Ironic that Turnbull now seeks to list HFC, as a potential part of FTTN. Which he’d need to get legislation passed to force wholesale access.

            Never mind all the greenfields FTTH (such as Velocity) sites, where Telstra is under no obligation to wholesale. Again, legislation would be required and that has no hope of succeeding in a single term.

            And I cannot see either Telstra or Optus welcoming that option.

            For all the claims of “cherry picking” Telstra have made in the past of other Infrastructure deployments, you can bet they would immediately focus on profitable urban deployments for a quick win and to lock out competitors.

            It’s really just a larger-scale version of the existing greenfield deployments. FTTH is not a new concept for Telstra.

            Thodey has a long term vision, unlike his pitt-bull predecessor Sol.

            • Gwyntaglaw
              Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:01 pm | Permalink |

              The price for Telstra’s agreement to FTTN usage (in some areas) will probably involve a sweetheart deal to “take over” the onerous management of the NBN fibre laid to date, and take some of the “problem” of broadband off the Government’s hands.

              Turnbull has been very big on the idea of private sector involvement rather than the government (Cuba anyone? North Korea?) so it will play into that need to get it off the Government’s books.

              And all on very favourable terms to Telstra.

    17. Granny Anny
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:37 pm | Permalink |

      If we get a coalition govt., and then a FTTN, who will own it? Who will own the copper tail? Who will pay to replace all the degraded copper so it can support the speeds we need these days. Do you really think Telstra will gladly invest millions in copper upgrades for the benefit of their competitors?

      We have moved on. One of the great achievements of the NBN was to remove the monopoly ownership of all the telecommunications network and a significant proportion of it’s users.

    18. nonny-moose
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:51 pm | Permalink |

      Malcolm doesnt “anticipate the negotiations would be difficult.” for a coalition-telstra FTTN deal. i had a great big belly laugh at that one – he is only ignoring that it took two years to nut out the NBNco agreement? does he seriously think that even taking out the duct access deal and just dealing with the last mile section it will be a walk in the park, knock over the agreement and slope off to the pub affair after winning government?

      in the depressing event that the Coalition does win government, i would be amazed if the negotiation part of the deal will take any less than 12 months to complete. the dollar value for cut copper is definitely going to be a difficult negotiation; and it will be interesting to see what happens. since Malcolm loves to rabbit on about value for money i wont be surprised if he will ensure the government pays the absolute minim it can possibly, which Telstra will fight vigorously.

      i personally see there is also a high potential for cost blowout in the FTTN alternative, at least a blowout relative to what Malcolm claims it will cost today. in that case the question will then have to be asked, why bother persisting with it given the costs going from FTTN to FTTH down the track?

      either way, as noted upthread the most cost effective policy is not necessarily the one that is the cheapest policy to follow – a point i fully agree with. Its also one i wish the Liberals would concede, rather than being ideologically wed to the lowest dollar figure, never mind any other considerations. it will be for all the wrong reasons but a Coalition victory would be something to watch, to see how they deal with their own policy and if it can at all hold together as they claim it will now.

    19. Brendan
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:59 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull’s entire policy requires a series of legislation changes in order to enact.

      And it requires (by their own admission) a CBA and Telstra to tow the line.

      Unless it somehow gains both majority in Parliament, and majority in the Senate, it is difficult to see how his grand vision of 1990 will come to fruition.

    20. Granny Anny
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:16 pm | Permalink |

      And the pro-Turnbull FTTN crowd might also be interested in this; (Found on another blog)

      Ed Husic
      @edhusicMP
      Know how many of the Coalition’s 19 broadband plans were referred to the Productivity Commission for “cost/benefit” analysis? Not one. #nbn

    21. deteego
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink |

      To be honest, we shouldn’t be debating FTTN vs FTTH as a black and white matter, and Quigley is being very insincere about his comments

      FTTN should be deployed where feasible, FTTH should be deployed where feasible, and upgrade to HFC should be done where feasible

      Obviously putting the whole country under FTTN (or anything 90%+) is a stupid idea, just the same way as doing FTTH to 90% of the country is a stupid idea. Its just a question of calculating, due to demographics, population density and network topology where to roll out what, and thats what a CBA is for

      • Gwyntaglaw
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

        Mike Quigley is not being insincere about his comments. It is not feasible to implement FTTN while achieving other key objectives of the NBN – fast, reliable service (both up and downward data); level playing field for competition; future-proof infrastructure. FTTN fails all three of those.

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink |

          and of course, equivalence of service. a part FTTN part FTTH network likely will have a different ability on the noded sections to those who get a fibre run direct to their premises. while you can wipe out blackspots with a blended model im not so sure it delivers on the ubiquity of service that the 93% fibre arrangement does.

        • deteego
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:40 am | Permalink |

          Mike Quidley didn’t come up with the NBN, Conroy did. He is being told to do 93% FTTH to Australia, he is a network engineer

          And also, if you didn’t realize, VDSL2 with FTTN can easily provide 50/50 (VDSL2, unlike ADSL2, is synchronous)

          Also there is no such thing as future proof infrastructure, so that point is complete moot. Fiber has been around since the 90’s with the speeds that we are talking about, still yet to see any country future proof itself with FTTH even though its been around for so long

          And level playing field with competition can easily be done without FTTN

          • Pepe
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 8:03 am | Permalink |

            there is no such thing future proof!

            gee, just when the opposition almost had us convinced that copper is?

            • deteego
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink |

              Uh, when did they

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink |

                talking fttn of course, featuring the star of the 50’s and the coalitions best friend, that precious last mile, get with it…

                either that or stop taking every off the cuff, light hearted remark, which doesn’t shower roses and kisses on the liberal party to heart ;-)

          • Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink |

            VDSL2 with FTTN can easily provide 50/50

            Great. In any case I’ll expect nothing less for 93% of the population in 2016 then.

            Also there is no such thing as future proof infrastructure

            Apparently there is a first time for everything and the NBN will be the first.

            Fiber has been around since the 90’s with the speeds that we are talking about, still yet to see any country future proof itself with FTTH even though its been around for so long

            What a ridiculous argument.

            And level playing field with competition can easily be done without FTTN

            Certainly. The NBN when complete will be proof of that. No FTTN in sight.

            • Pepe
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink |

              lol, ridiculous argument indeed…

              fibre has been around since the 90’s, when the copper addicts were probably saying it will obsolete any day.

              yet here we are 15-20 years later and they are still saying it…

              i think of all people bob katter put it best, earlier this year…

              “I haven’t heard the opposition put forward a single solitary piece of technology, and yet they think we should wait for some sort of science fiction fantasy to jump out from behind a bush and provide a service,” Mr Katter said.”

              • Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

                Got to hand it to Katter, he sure knows how to articulate things. Too bad for those wireless geeks hoping for star trek subspace communicators in their iPads. Now you know the real reason they oppose the NBN.

    22. ozimarco
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:28 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull’s opposition to the NBN will last only as long as the Labor government. As soon as the Coalition takes over, the absurdity of their opposition will hit home and there will be a monumental backflip, no doubt cleverly disguised as a new policy. Long live the NBN, the only reasonable long term solution to Australia’s telecommunications needs.

      • Gwyntaglaw
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink |

        I hope you’re right, and up to a point, I think you are.

        I think they’ll find a way of flogging off many of the assets, while spinning off the satellite and fixed wireless components into a subsidised, non-profit “Broadband for the Bush” outfit, which will require considerable propping up from government coffers.

        And we’ll probably be back to Telstra ruling the roost – buying up NBN fibre and cherry-picking its own profitable areas for further build.

        And some poor sod is going to get FTTN, whether they want it or not, just to tick that particular box and save face for Turnbull.

        • Dbremner
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:51 pm | Permalink |

          Well, they could give an out by improving the FTTH rollout. P2P fibre, that’d be nice and extend the life of the network even further.

    23. btone
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:42 pm | Permalink |

      This thread definitely reads like the minutes of a senate estimates committee! :)

    24. Harquebus
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink |

      Finally, some sense.

    25. Sydneyla
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:15 pm | Permalink |

      Let’s wait and hear a little more about Malcolm Turnbull’s plans for the upgrade before we all cut loose and go berserk. If the coalition is the next government Telstra and the NBN Co are duty bound to work with them or at least listen to their plans.

      A full FTTP is ideal but the cost and necessity must be considered. It is true that the NBN concept is popular with the Australian people and it would be in the interest of the Labor Party for Senator Conroy to expedite its roll-out and sign-up as many customers as possible before the next election.

      • Dbremner
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink |

        OK, cost of the NBN. This is over a 10 year period. Not ongoing like the other things I will compare it too. This is based on 2007-2008 figures, they were what I had available, so the percentages will be even lower now.

        3% of our social security budget.
        15% of our defence budget.
        6% of our health budget
        50% of our arts and culture budget
        10% of our government services budget

        1.2% of the total budget

        • deteego
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:43 am | Permalink |

          Such figures are meaningless and don’t say anything

          Its not how much the NBN costs, its the ability for it to pay itself off. Greece has the roughly the same net debt as Australia, so using your logic Greece’s financial situation is “fine” because they really didn’t spend that much money

          And regarding spending, in the past 3 years, we were the 2 country in the world to increase its expenditure (by 120%)

          Honestly it would do a massive favour if the IT “geeks” at least stuck to what they are good at, and that is technology

          • Pepe
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 8:26 am | Permalink |

            whether greece’s debt levels are similar to ours or not, i do not know, so i’ll take your word (surely you don’t always tell porkies).

            but yet, it is universally recognised that we are in a more enviable economic position than almost any other country. so your greece logic/comparison is not only flawed, but laughably desperate.

            it’s about the ability to repay debt, not the actual debt, which is significant.

            it’s a bit like comparing two families, one with good assets, well budgeted, with lucrative incomes and the ability to repay, having a $1m mortgage and another family with little assets, bad budgeting with little income and questionable ability to repay, also having a $1m mortgage… seriously.

            interesting statement though, coming from someone in IT, for the geeks to stick to IT… i agree…!

            • deteego
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

              You are right, to a certain extent, but as I said before, our national spending has increased by 120% since Labor got into government. If that was to continue for decade (or even half a decade longer) we would turn into Greece

              The reason that Australia was is in such a good financial position is because we didn’t spend massive amounts of money on extravagant projects that had little value for cost and we maintained a surplus

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

                umm since YOU have brought up surpluses etc, deteego…

                the government had to spend to stimulate growth (as would the coalition had they still been in power – refer url below) because there was this thing called the GFC, you may have missed it while smoking behind the toilets at school.

                we have been through this before with a history lesson consisting of views from experts, which you refuse to accept or even consider…sigh.

                here’s AGAIN is the previous URL you ignored (it’s even from the Australian…LOL)..

                http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/labors_debt_and_deficit_problem/

                and here’s the pertinent paragraph…

                —–

                “but when Kevin Rudd government came to office in November 2007 he inherited a healthy surplus.

                However, if the election had been held a year later the GFC would have been getting into swing and John Howard would have bequeathed a fiscal deficit to his successor.

                So this timing made the economic story difficult for the current government… {END}

                ——

                here’s the latest dismissing your blind surplus foolishness…

                http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/IMF-warns-Australia-on-surplus-plan-report-pd20111018-MRNMQ?opendocument&src=rss

                expert opinions on surpluses/deficits…

                http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1839552.html

                sadly, none of this will actually make any difference to you i know. facts seem to be of no consequence..

                so all i can ask is please, enough bs preaching about a topic which you clearly have no understanding of…!

                in fact to use your words – “honestly it would do a massive favour if the IT “geeks” at least stuck to what they are good at, and that is technology”…

          • Dbremner
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:05 am | Permalink |

            So, it’s about repaying the amount spent?

            ROI
            0% of our social security budget.
            0% of our defence budget.
            0% of our health budget
            0% of our arts and culture budget
            0% of our government services budget

            7% on NBN

            Gee looks pretty good.

            Yep, IT people should stick to IT and those that aren’t should shut up and leave the NBN to them and stop pushing dumb alternatives.

            • deteego
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:08 am | Permalink |

              Incorrect again

              Until NBN actually pays itself off, the government has injected around 2 billion dollars of debt into the NBN without reward

              I do not pay heedance to flimisly business plans that will most likely never enact forward. Greece’s spending habits would have had similar business plans (among other things)

              With a business plan you can prove whatever you want, it has no bearing on what will happen

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

                so when there’s no business plan, bag…

                when there is a business plan.. umm bag.

                typical, you blokes always ask, but when given, you refuse to accept…

                and btw, since you ignored, how much is the government pumping into those other areas outlined by dbremner, you conveniently side stepped, again with no roi, now or ever?

                oh but that’s ok, because they are within your ideological guidelines…rolls eyes.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:58 pm | Permalink |

                No, you sir are incorrect. Just saying you don’t pay heedance to something doesn’t make it wrong. You cannot avoid everything by saying well the experts say this but it’s wrong because I want it to be wrong.
                Ludite.

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:32 pm | Permalink |

                don’t take the “it’s wrong just… well… just because” away from the nbn nay sayers Db, otherwise they’ll have nothing left…!

          • Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink |

            Honestly it would do a massive favour if the IT “geeks” at least stuck to what they are good at, and that is technology

            Maybe you should take your own advice… wait, what are you good at?

            • Dbremner
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:59 pm | Permalink |

              Not much it seems. Maybe fooling the ignorant?

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 7:54 pm | Permalink |

                i’d suggest online games…!

    26. Jeff
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 9:19 pm | Permalink |

      If FTTN is cheaper to deploy – what would be the cost to deploy it to 90% of the population achieving minimum 100mbps that FTTH offers? I doubt it’s that cheap.

      Plus, saying GPON will be superseded like ADSL superseded HFC is not looking at the actual physical medium.

      Copper remains the same, the technology that runs over it has changed many times – dialup – ISDN – ADSL. But the properties of this medium has reached it maximum potential.

      Optical fibre as a physical medium is unlikely to be superseded by another physical medium for the foreseeable future. Plus the future of optical communications has not yet reached or even seen the limits of the technology.

      • Pepe
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 9:33 pm | Permalink |

        indeed jeff… we are using an antiquated telephone network to deliver our 2011 (and beyond) data requirements and the detractors are saying that’s good enough…???

        well i say it’s not even good enough for now, let alone the future.

        when people are on (theoretical maximum) 20 or 24Mbps plans and receiving just 5 or 6, 12 etc, it pretty well proves it, imo…

        for example… would these same people pay for theoretical maximum of 10kgs of potatoes and be happy to receive 2? or a dozen eggs and get 5? or what about a pair of shoes and get 1 shoe? a full tank of fuel and get half a tank?

        would they say, oh that’s good enough…?

      • deteego
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:44 am | Permalink |

        I doubt anyone is offering to do FTTN to 90%, so its a strawman of a question

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:15 pm | Permalink |

          not entirely – by your answer i take it you admit that it is not possible to give as large a percentage of the premises service under the FTTN model as there is under the FTTH model?

          out of curiosity, what percentage is acceptable to deliver FTTN service to, for you?

      • alain
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:08 pm | Permalink |

        @Jeff

        “If FTTN is cheaper to deploy – what would be the cost to deploy it to 90% of the population achieving minimum 100mbps that FTTH offers? I doubt it’s that cheap”

        Who says the benchmark speed needed must be capable of 100mbps?

        • Dbremner
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 7:53 pm | Permalink |

          Well the benchmark is that it is meant to be able to meet Australia’s fixed communications needs for 50 years. FTTH allows for huge upgrades, hundreds of Gigabits. FTTN will be obsolete in at most 10 years and the path will be to do another round of upgrades to FTTH, wasting all the money invested in the dead end FTTN technology.

      • Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:35 pm | Permalink |

        If FTTN is cheaper to deploy – what would be the cost to deploy it to 90% of the population achieving minimum 100mbps that FTTH offers? I doubt it’s that cheap.

        That’s exactly right Jeff and dont forget the fibre laid will enable speeds like 1gbps down and 400mbps up to be offered at a later date. Not looking too good for FTTN.

    27. Leo_F
      Posted 25/10/2011 at 7:05 pm | Permalink |

      alain is a complete knob!!!

    28. toshP300
      Posted 30/10/2011 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

      having now read all the comments, most of you have completely mischaracterised the quandary that the incoming Minister of Communications will find himself in 2013/14.

      the biggest fundamental problem of Labor’s NBN is that it is “unfunded”.

      assuming that the NBN is rolled out to completion, there is no way in hell the small Australian market of 5mln broadband subscribers can sustain or service NBNco’s $50bln capital base. this is very easy to see.

      for starters, consider iiNet’s claims that current NBN pricing is equivalent to “on-net ADSL pricing”. well, Telstra’s revenues are a weighted average of “on-net pricing” and “off-net pricing”. and, according to the ACCC’s latest valuation, these revenues in aggregate support a capital valuation of approx. $17bln for the CAN.

      in other words, if current NBN pricing is truly equivalent to “on-net ADSL pricing” as iiNet claims, then current fibre wholesale pricing is not even capable of servicing or supporting a $17bln capital base (let alone $36bln or $50bln). prices will HAVE to rise for NBNco to service debt interest and recoup its capital.

      however, the problem is telco operators both overseas and domestically have universally failed to generate a pricing premium for superfast broadband. Malcolm has already drawn our attention to empirical evidence that attests to this failure in North Asia, NZ and Germany. (the same phenomenon also holds in the States.) domestically, both Telstra and Optus have failed to attract sufficient demand for superfast broadband on HFC.

      if, by 2013/14, NBNco had already received all the funding it needs to roll out the NBN to completion, then it would indeed be highly tempting for Malcolm to just let NBNco carry on as planned, because unravelling all the contracts and enabling legislation is indeed a very complicated and difficult task. however, this is not the case.

      by 2013/14, NBNco will have spent ~$10bln. not only is the Federal Government supposed to kick in another $16bln of equity to fund the continued roll out of fibre, the taxpayer will also have to guarantee the remaining tens of billions in debt required by NBNco. in reality, because of the Commonwealth guarantee on NBNco infrastructure debt, the taxpayer is in hock for the entire $50bln.

      this is the dilemma that the incoming Minister of Communications faces in 2013/14. by then, NBNco will have spent $10bln on assets probably worth only a fraction of their incurred costs. so, Malcolm will be staring at an immediate, mandatory writedown of assets on NBNco’s balance sheet even before he has taken any other decision. from this starting point (or financial mess that he will inherit from Conroy), it would be criminal of him or the future Liberal Government to continue pouring billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money down a hole knowing that most of it will never be recovered.

      so, despite all the difficulties of reshaping an alternative NBN policy, the only way Labor’s NBN can be carried to completion is if some room is found in the Federal Budget to fund it as general infrastructure spending as opposed to the pretence that “the NBN will pay for itself”.

      the question you have to ask then is:

      if profligate Labor can’t even find room in the Federal Budget for their own political pet project, how likely is it that the incoming Liberal Government will have any greater success?

      to all those who fall outside of NBN’s fibre roll-out footprint from now to 2013/14 (and that’s assuming they actually manage to meet their targets), stop all your forum masturbation over 1Gbit internet.

      Labor’s NBN is on deathrow and it has nothing to do with Liberal ideology and everything to do with the fact that Labor’s grandstanding political project was never properly funded in the very first instance. it’s nothing but one huge political scam and, short of an early election, taxpayers are already staring at billions of dollars of losses due to asset write-offs of unrecoverable capital.

      ironically, the more NBN-cheerleading ISPs like iiNet boast about how “cheap and affordable” NBN wholesale pricing is, the more certain it is that this fat turkey called NBNco is going fall flat on its face. but, the sad truth is most of the financial illiterati don’t catch onto this irony.

      • Brendan
        Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:40 pm | Permalink |

        “assuming that the NBN is rolled out to completion, there is no way in hell the small Australian market of 5mln broadband subscribers can sustain or service NBNco’s $50bln capital base. this is very easy to see.”

        Is it? How is the CAN profitable? How can such a small market make voice and internet profitable?

        Is it because of the longevity of copper? No.. surely not. Never mind that Fibre has a greater longevity. And that it seeing the same kinds of jumps in speed. Just considerably higher.

        And how do we sustain the billions in military spending?

        How do we sustain breathing, for that matter?!

        “if profligate Labor can’t even find room in the Federal Budget for their own political pet project, how likely is it that the incoming Liberal Government will have any greater success?”

        Why are you suggesting a Liberal Government would see mass expenditure in broadband? It’s never done so. Is on record as will never do so. It’s an irrelevant argument to make.

        “ironically, the more NBN-cheerleading ISPs like iiNet boast about how “cheap and affordable” NBN wholesale pricing is, the more certain it is that this fat turkey called NBNco is going fall flat on its face. but, the sad truth is most of the financial illiterati don’t catch onto this irony.”

        The NBN isn’t being built to survive for five years. It’s being built to replace copper. With a longer cable life and based on technology that has no signs of stopping.

        In the time spent beating your drum, did you notice Southern Cross are increasing their fibre connectivity speeds again? That’s a horribly expensive white elephant too, right?

        Within all the bleating about how the NBN is evil, it always comes down to money over the short term. Investment that will easily see a return over the long term.

        Of course we’re not allowed to think about the long term (despite the naysayer’s longterm view of copper and how it’s perfectly serviceable, ironic given that is the exact same case for fibre) because that completely undermines any argument regarding cost.

        Because, we have to look at this through short-term, sub five-year greedy shareholder eyes, not the longer term view. Like 10 years years. Or thirty. Or fifty.

      • Brendan
        Posted 31/10/2011 at 12:40 pm | Permalink |

        “assuming that the NBN is rolled out to completion, there is no way in hell the small Australian market of 5mln broadband subscribers can sustain or service NBNco’s $50bln capital base. this is very easy to see.”

        Is it? How is the CAN profitable? How can such a small market make voice and internet profitable?

        Is it because of the longevity of copper? No.. surely not. Never mind that Fibre has a greater longevity. And that it seeing the same kinds of jumps in speed. Just considerably higher.

        And how do we sustain the billions in military spending?

        How do we sustain breathing, for that matter?!

        “if profligate Labor can’t even find room in the Federal Budget for their own political pet project, how likely is it that the incoming Liberal Government will have any greater success?”

        Why are you suggesting a Liberal Government would see mass expenditure in broadband? It’s never done so. Is on record as will never do so. It’s an irrelevant argument to make.

        “ironically, the more NBN-cheerleading ISPs like iiNet boast about how “cheap and affordable” NBN wholesale pricing is, the more certain it is that this fat turkey called NBNco is going fall flat on its face. but, the sad truth is most of the financial illiterati don’t catch onto this irony.”

        The NBN isn’t being built to survive for five years. It’s being built to replace copper. With a longer cable life and based on technology that has no signs of stopping.

        In the time spent beating your drum, did you notice Southern Cross are increasing their fibre connectivity speeds again? That’s a horribly expensive white elephant too, right?

        Within all the bleating about how the NBN is evil, it always comes down to money over the short term. Investment that will easily see a return over the long term.

        Of course we’re not allowed to think about the long term (despite the naysayer’s longterm view of copper and how it’s perfectly serviceable, ironic given that is the exact same case for fibre) because that completely undermines any argument regarding cost.

        Because, we have to look at this through short-term, sub five-year greedy shareholder eyes, not the longer term view. Like 10 years years. Or thirty. Or fifty.

    29. TechinBris
      Posted 09/11/2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink |

      I see the usual argument and FUD is flying and creating the same old abstract wallpaper that that makes us very nauseated, giddy and in need of a lie down. Once again the same ol’ diatribe from the same ol’ people….ad nausea.
      Regardless of your anti, or pro NBN stance, regardless of if your paid to be online as a Troll in making nauseating FUD everywhere, one thing is inescapable in this whole argument and it really needs to be dissected and the answer found to WHY.

      Look at the Pro and Con Camp. Why do they oppose what is a logical step forward in a diabolical problem? The big argument is Money. Ok, let’s look at Money.

      Money is the Market. The Market believes all should be privately owned operated and beholden to the according demands of Market forces. This is antithetical to the philosophy of Public Owned Enterprises in which the Enterprise doesn’t not have to be beholden to the Market forces but to the needs and control of the Community/Government/Co-Operative/whatever. That means it does not have to operate within what the operational Market dictates. The Market dictates are well known and require endless exponential growth, which we all know is a flawed philosophy no matter how you dress it up. Also the Market philosophy does not tolerate anything that does not follow its code as it upsets its apple cart thus distorting the ebb and flow of the Market prices of its listed Shares. It also creates a situation where the Non-market Enterprise can move outside of the boundaries which the Market can work creating/doing something it really cannot compete with within its framework. OUCH! No one likes to lose!

      Conclusion I see is that the Coalition of Liberals/Nationals has worked hard with the Market to bring the Telecommunication arena into the rules of the Market thus removing the distortions created and upsetting the unfair difficulties that Market Companies have against providing return to Investors/Shareholders against the Publicly owned Enterprise that does not have to, thus creating stress in competition by price and quality and engineering. Now we have a Minority Government that is going to reintroduce those same stresses back into the Money Market again in order to remove the diabolical problem that has arisen in a country which has a small amount of people spread over a large continent in which the Money Market philosophy rules of engagement will not work with equity fairness to all Australians, no matter where they are located in the land. The last number of years under the Privatised Telstra have proven this, thus leading to the final contemplations that have lead the Government to come to the conclusion to build the NBN.

      So, we come to the real reason why there is an argument in the Parliament about the NBN. It is an argument about if the force of the Money Market will prevail over the needs of a small amount of people in rural Australia. The Coalition have never hidden that they support the Market philosophy. Most other Ministers predominately has slowly moved into the same camp over the decades, but confronted with the diabolical problem it was creating and their Constituents where demanding a solution, politically the people forced the hand of those Representatives to find a solution and only a non-market solution presented itself. Constitutional Law did the rest.

      My thought in this, I feel dreadfully sorry for Rural Australia going up against such a Juggernaught that is the International Stock Market.
      Renai, you can now bring out the Kärcher and blast this nauseating wallpaper off the walls of Delimiter which is stressing everyone. If we are going to dialogue, let’s have dialogue on what it is really about.

      **Vitriol shield is ON** **Care factor temporarily set to ZERO for piece of mind.**

      • Noddy
        Posted 11/11/2011 at 8:18 pm | Permalink |

        Leaving politics and money out of it. I know it will cost money and it’s therefore hard to remove politics which tends to follow the money.

        I don’t think the need for universal broadband should be looked at from a purely money perspective other than trying to provide the best service for the least cost over the longest period of time.

        I think the core is why the need for universal broadband?

        As the years go by broadband is becoming more and more a given thing, sometimes even necessary thing. A lot of jobs are now only advertised online. Used cars for sale, the same. Want the best price on somnething? Online. Want to pay a bill without a surcharge, online. Bank with low fees, online. A lot of businesses have no physical outlets anymore. Insurance, some banks. Even the government assumes internet access with it’s “go to site abc and print the form” with no other option given. As the years go by this is more and more the case.

        Yes, all this can be done now by those lucky enough to have decent internet access. With a lot of sites dialup is just of no use any more. Even my 70 year old parents finally went broadband, they got sick of waiting 5 minutes for web pages (some download a lot of data now).

        This is a trend that doesn’t look like it is going to just disappear or be a “fad”. More sophisticated web sites with more bandwidth required to make them usable. More people interchanging larger data files. Video rather than pictures, or at least higher resolution pictures.

        Those that don’t have access to some form of broadband will become more and more disadvantaged. And those stuck with lower speed broadband will end up in the position dialup users are today.

        Access to the internet via broadband is becoming nearly as necessary as access to power, gas, mail. Sure you can run a generator, but you will be at a constant disadvantage to those with access to the power grid.

    30. golfman
      Posted 29/11/2011 at 7:06 am | Permalink |

      I don’t buy the spin that FTTN is a waste of money. In Germany, NZ, Switzerland, UK, USA FTTN is simply an incremental step towards eventual FTTH. In fact NZ lays 120 fibers to EACH FTTN node so that replacement of the last mile copper can take place at a later date without needing to re-lay more fibre from the node back to the exchange. In other words building FTTN with future FTTH capabilities is a minor extra cost as we all know the cost of laying the extra fibers now is insignificant compared to the cost of the labor and equipment required to lay it.

      The true beauty of FTTN now extending to FTTH later is not only the cost saving. It’s that Australia can achieve world average speeds within the next 18-24 months instead of many being stuck on ADSL till up to 2020 waiting for the snail paced, labor intensive, insanely expensive rollout of FTTH to a doorstep near you.

    31. Anonymous
      Posted 11/05/2012 at 2:25 am | Permalink |

      It is funny to watch Alain go from trying to fight head on with actual fact to essentially nit picking over the minor details of people’s arguments and simple minded school yard tactics…




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights