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

  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Monday, October 24, 2011 16:19 - 202 Comments

    Fibre to the node: Turnbull to meet with Quigley

    news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has accepted an invitation issued by NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley to a half-day briefing on the merits of fibre to the home versus fibre to the node technology.

    The invitation was issued during a fraught exchange between the pair in a parliamentary hearing on the National Broadband Network last week. Turnbull had repeatedly questioned Quigley on the issue of why the Government wouldn’t investigate rolling out a less expensive fibre to the node network compared with the existing fibre to the home plan.

    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.

    “This, I think, is a very important discussion to have,” Quigley told Turnbull. “It is very important the committee understands. I would be delighted to spend half a day with you and take you through that analysis if you would like to do so. This is such an important issue. I think it is worth the investment of time to put your mind at rest.”

    A spokesperson for Turnbull this afternoon confirmed Turnbull would accept the invitation — with a date yet to be set for the meeting.

    Quigley and Turnbull are believed to have met several times in a private briefing context since Turnbull’s appointment to lead the communications portfolio in late 2010, although in general the NBN Co chief has focused his efforts on his relationship with the Labor Government of the day rather than addressing the Opposition’s concerns. However, it is the pair’s public sparring matches at hearings of parliamentary NBN committees which have drawn the most attention to their relationship.

    On one notable occasion in May this year, for example, Turnbull relentlessly hounded Quigley on the issue of allegedly corrupt behaviour at Quigley’s former employer, Alcatel-Lucent — eventually extracting an acknowledgement from the NBN Co chief that he had spoken “too loosely” in the past with respect to US Government investigations into the company.

    At the time, many in the telecommunications industry believed Turnbull had gone too far in attacking Quigley over the issue — as none of the US regulatory authorities had questioned Quigley on the issue.

    Last week in the hearings, Turnbull’s chief contention was that Australia should examine a FTTN policy because of its cheaper cost compared to the pricier FTTH NBN rollout. The Liberal MP highlighted the fact that a number of European countries were pursuing FTTN deployments. However, Quigley does not believe a FTTN rollout would be a good option in terms of telecommunications policy — especially on technical grounds.

    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.

    opinion/analysis
    Oh, boy. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at this meeting.

    Personally, I would hope that Turnbull would be diplomatic enough to clear the air between them before speaking with Quigley at any length. Some of the committee hearings where Turnbull has harangued Quigley were pretty extreme — as extreme as I’ve ever seen these hearings get in parliament (with the possible exception of some of the times where Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has faced off against the acid tongue of Liberal Senator Mary Jo Fisher).

    Given that fact, the other thing about Quigley’s invitation is that it demonstrates how truly humble and strong-minded the NBN Co chief is.

    Most executives, faced with the sort of powerful accusations that Turnbull has levelled at Quigley over the past year, would decline to spend any real time up close and personal with their attacker. The fact that Quigley has actually invited Turnbull to spend time with him personally — expending his precious personal time on the Opposition — indicates a certain strength of character. A willingness to engage with a fellow intellect on hostile terms and a belief in the rightness of his vision for the NBN.

    We can only recognise this and give Quigley credit for it — and we hope Turnbull does too. The man deserves respect.

    Image credit: Delimiter

    submit to reddit

    202 Comments

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

    1. Guest
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:24 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull is such a technological retard.

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

        Actually I think he’s pretty smart — but he is making up policy on the run ;)

        • daniel
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:41 pm | Permalink |

          No, he’s not smart because he’s in politics.

          But in all seriously, I would doubt that Turnbull would agree with anything considering his past comments, he was recently arguing with Quigley over Economics vs FTTN.

          • Steve
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:52 pm | Permalink |

            He can’t, his political job has been set by his leader to demolish the NBN.

            It’s not about logic at this point it’s all politics. I think Turnbull is a smart guy, but there is no way he can turn around after this and say, well actually what Labor are doing with the NBN is awesome and FTTH is the way to go, even if that’s what he ends up believing.

            He will be kicked to the back benches by his leader.

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

              …kicked to the back benches… and replaced with Tony Smith? Paul Fletcher? The sad fact is that the entire Coalition is filled with, as it was so eloquently put higher up, “technological retards”. There is no other opposition minister mounting even a shadow of a coherent attack on the NBN, and an Abbott censure of Turnbull over his reversal on the NBN would be seen as nothing more than a vindictive bit of nastiness that would as a side effect totally disqualify the Coalition when it came to comms policy.

              Would be interesting to watch, but.

              The interesting thing is to consider on how many occasions Turnbull has taken big philosophical steps away from the comms policy they took to last year’s election. Remember that he’s only been shadow comms minister for just over a year now; where will he stand 18 months from now when an election is upon us/

          • deteego
            Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:12 pm | Permalink |

            That has to be the most screwed up logic I have heard

            “He must be stupid because he is a politician”

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

              I suspected that I would get a reply from one of you.

              Going back to FTTN scenario, over and over and over again is stupid, thus stupid politician.

              How many revisions has the Coalition Party had of their Broadband Policy? 19? 27? I lost count.

              How many shadow communications minsters they had? Senator Coonan, Senator Smith, Senator Turnbull?

              Investing in a out of date technology AGAIN and then eventually (if ever) moving to FTTP, means you’re wasting money on investment, and thus you’re returns will take longer.

              Fibre to the Node is just that, It’s a Node system, we already have that in a limited rollout, called RIMS.

              I think you need to look at the bigger picture, which some of you detractors refuse to do so.

              • deteego
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

                Im sorry, but I assume you mean CMUX’s, and not RIM’s, and such systems were not even designed for ADSL2/ADSL (which is why there are so many congestion issues).

                FTTN technology, such as which that is being deployed in NZ and Europe, is significantly different

                Also Telstra is a private company, and so its really in their ballpark whether for infrastructure decisions, Telstra aint a government company, and you cannot blame coalition for that (you can blame them for other things however)

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

                “Telstra aint a government company, and you cannot blame coalition for that”

                Um, I’m pretty sure you can…

                I think privatization was a good idea, but I really, really wish they’d separated it into retail and wholesale from day 1. Would’ve saved a lot of heartache… IMO.

              • Duideka
                Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink |

                From what I understand…

                RIM’s were designed for phone, which miraculously managed to fit DSL1 equipment in, but were hanging off copper back haul.

                CMUX’s were designed for DSL1, and had Fiber back haul (OC3)

                ISAM’s were designed for DSL2 (VDSL also) and had Fiber back haul (OC3)

                ISAM and CMUX is pretty much what FTTN is.

              • deteego
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:49 am | Permalink |

                I agree with you there Dean, Telstra should have been split long ago, Coalition had their reasons not to split Telstra (nick minchin, guy on far right, stated that Telstra shouldn’t be split, otherwise its value would be lower, which we now know isn’t true)

                You however can’t blame coalition for doing massive government intervention that Labor is doing with NBN, its completely opposite of their agenda, and no other country in the world is doing it either, and it is typical of 1850-70′s socialist economies (of which most respected economists agree were horrible in general)

              • deteego
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:55 am | Permalink |

                Sorry make that 1950-1970′s

              • Mike
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:14 am | Permalink |

                Damn deteego, I was with you till you called them socialists. Pitty.

              • deteego
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:03 am | Permalink |

                I said the design of the NBN was typical socialist policy from the 50-70′s, I wasn’t specifically calling them socialists

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

                You however can’t blame coalition for doing massive government intervention that Labor is doing with NBN

                They can be blamed. They made the mess… and you complain when someone tries to clean it up?

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:56 pm | Permalink |

                @deteego… “no other country in the world is doing it”!

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

                I can feel a percentage argument brewing now…sigh

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

                socialist policy from the 50-70′s, while menzies and co were in power, really?

      • ken
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:55 am | Permalink |

        he’s a regressive moron

        fibre the whole thing start to finish

        stop being a stingy dickhead playing devils advocate just because you can, and sitting up on your high horse

        fucking moron

        • alain
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:14 am | Permalink |

          Come on Renai that’s beyond acceptable standard by any measure.

          • Pepe
            Posted 26/10/2011 at 4:13 pm | Permalink |

            it doesn’t seem to worry you when it’s tosh saying the f word or calling people dh… curious!

      • Anonymous
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink |

        And it makes Quigley shine even more. You guys really got yourself an amazing executive. These days so many CEOs are corrupt and greedy pencil pushing socipaths, but Quigley seems really humble and genuine. Maybe it’s an act, but if so then it’s a darn good one.

    2. Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:28 pm | Permalink |

      This should be interesting and by that I mean I look forward to the reading article that will appear on Turnbull’s website completely disregarding what Quigley says the next day.

      • Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:35 pm | Permalink |

        lol

      • alain
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:43 pm | Permalink |

        So the only outcome that is a worthwhile outcome after the discussion is if Turnbull agrees 100% with a FTTH rollout decision, jeez that is a surprise coming from you HC.

        • Posted 24/10/2011 at 8:18 pm | Permalink |

          I see, so Turnbull is allowed to disregard the experts but I’m not allowed to disregard his disregarding of that advice from the experts. Seriously, just stop talking, you’ve embarrassed yourself enough for one day with your petty & childish behavior.

          • alain
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:22 am | Permalink |

            The term is ‘expert’ singular in this case, and you have to keep reminding yourself who this expert is.

            He is employed by the Labor Government to roll out the Labor decision of 93% NBN FTTH by 2020, that’s it, that what he HAS to do in the role of head of the Labor public service department called the NBN Co.

            Even if he wanted to he cannot change that directive in any way.

            The only goal of any meeting with Turnbull is that the head of the NBN Co has to convince Turnbull that the job he is employed by Labor to carry out is the correct one, jeez funny that, what else would he say?

            Then Turnbull comes out of the meeting convinced Coalition policy is the right track after all and all the howls will emanate from the pro NBN pundits like yourself ‘see Turnbull won’t even listen to the expert’.

            This whole meeting scenario that is thought of as in any way a meeting of totally objective mindsets on what technology infrastructure is most suitable for Australia and who more importantly who pays for it is laughable.

            Infrastructure rollouts are political decisions, OPEL was the Coalition policy, NBN FTTH is the Labor policy, there will be another policy post 2013 if the Coalition win.

            This meeting will not change anything, but we all know that.

            • Anonymous
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink |

              Play the ball, not the man.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:36 am | Permalink |

                Don’t talk BS NK, I was only stating the reality of the situation, if that pathetic untrue response is the best you can come up with as a counter then why bother?

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

                Calling you out on a logical fallacy and undermining your assumptions is “bullshit” and “pathetic and untrue?”

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

                Well it would if you did,you have not, merely saying it is as if just saying it is all that is required doesn’t cut it at all.

              • Anonymous
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:37 am | Permalink |

                You need me to spell it out for you?

                He is employed by the Labor Government to roll out the Labor decision of 93% NBN FTTH by 2020, that’s it, that what he HAS to do in the role of head of the Labor public service department called the NBN Co.

                The only goal of any meeting with Turnbull is that the head of the NBN Co has to convince Turnbull that the job he is employed by Labor to carry out is the correct one, jeez funny that, what else would he say?

                Here is your proposition. The underlying assumption of which is that Quigley cannot maintain impartiality because of his position.

                This assumption cannot be proven easily. By Occam’s razor, it is far more likely he is meeting Turnbull only to educate Turnbull on how NBN Co operates and the technology they are using.

                Further, by saying that Quigley is not being impartial you basically rejecting any and all information provided as not credible. Which leads to my retort, play the ball.

                If, and when, Quigley provides information to Turnbull that information should be viewed on its own merits.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:02 pm | Permalink |

                I was only pointing out the decision to roll out 93% FTTH was a Labor Party decision post the Rudd won 2007 election and the subsequent failure of RFP process, the Quigley appointment and the formation of the NBN Co came well AFTER that decision had already been made.

                The NBN Co was formed to singularly carry out that political decision and subsequently approved by Parliament, nothing more nothing less.

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 4:11 pm | Permalink |

                err alain, the rfp process (glad yo now refer to it correctly) was not a failure. the bids were unsuitable and the method behind most bids, fttn, deemed unviable.

                let me ask (for no reply i’m sure – well not a related reply anyway) when you need work done at your place and you get say 3 tradesmen to come around and quote, and they don’t supply what you need at the right price, is that your fault…

                according to you yes…

                btw again, i gave you a liked, just so you don’t feel left out… my pleasure

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

              The term is ‘expert’ singular in this case

              Actually no. Turnbull has a history of disregarding what the experts say regarding broadband. Quigley is part of that group of experts.

              and you have to keep reminding yourself who this expert is.

              Let’s see. He is Mike Quigley. Knows more about the subject than a worn out politician with a brief to “demolish the NBN” from another worn out politician who knows even less about the subject.

              He is employed by the Labor Government blah blah blah

              Stop your whining.

              This meeting will not change anything, but we all know that.

              So even though Quigley is taking the time to educate a dummy on the subject he’s still going to completely disregard it? Thanks for confirming that, I believe that is exactly what I said in my initial comment. Thanks for stopping by.

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

                “Actually no. Turnbull has a history of disregarding what the experts say regarding broadband.”

                What ‘history’ you mean all the pro FTTH argument history of course, any other expert opinion is to be disregarded if it doesn’t state 100% FTTH as the required outcome because you don’t want it regarded as expert opinion.

                You always did like the rigged jury approach to any argument.

                ” He is employed by the Labor Government blah blah blah

                Stop your whining.”

                That’s a valid response?

                The rest of you post is the usual agenda driven nonsense waffle.

                • Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:23 am | Permalink |

                  What ‘history’ you mean all the pro FTTH argument history of course, any other expert opinion is to be disregarded if it doesn’t state 100% FTTH as the required outcome because you don’t want it regarded as expert opinion.

                  So even though Quigley is taking the time to educate a dummy on the subject he’s still going to completely disregard it? Thanks for confirming that again.

                  That’s a valid response?

                  Yes. For you it is. Stop your whining.

                  The rest of you post blah blah blah

                  Stop your whining.

            • Anonymous
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

              He also gave away his first years paycheck to charity.. so i hardly think he actually NEEDS the job.. seems more like passion to me..

              I hardly think he’s going to bow over to them because they’re his boss.. if he thought it was crap he probably wouldn’t have anything to do with it.

              I mean seriously.. every person I have talked to who is a technician or engineer has agreed that FTTH is the way to go.. its just.. logic

              • Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:46 pm | Permalink |

                I mean seriously.. every person I have talked to who is a technician or engineer has agreed that FTTH is the way to go.. its just.. logic

                It certainly is but you have to understand many people have an emotional investment in opposing the NBN, their political leanings wont allow them to admit that they are wrong. Notice how most of the opposition to the NBN came after the last election. Their opposition to it is purely political and emotional there is no logic involved at all.

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 4:14 pm | Permalink |

                absolutely, my sentiment exactly.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:36 pm | Permalink |

                “I mean seriously.. every person I have talked to who is a technician or engineer has agreed…. ”

                Oh well that seals it then, that’s convinced me, I take it all back. lol.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

                Hey Pepe you really must stop talking to yourself as Pablosan2 and setting yourself up for a response. lol

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 7:19 pm | Permalink |

                no wonder you are unable to decide from one thread to the next and waffle between one to the other, in realtion to…

                * hfc being a thriving competitor or abject failure.
                * the nbn a successful monopoly or abject failure

                you can’t even tell the difference between pepe and pablo, those p’s are tricky eh?

                at least you gave it a shot and did better than you do with english…well done!

              • Dbremner
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 8:04 pm | Permalink |

                “pepe and pablo”

                All you Mexicans look alike to me ;)

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:16 pm | Permalink |

                wait till you see my cousin… sol…scary!

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

          alain these guys on this forum are pretty dumb, like the guy that has no ideas about rims, claiming they have ‘copper backhual’ i loled…

          then he claims that cmux has oc3 backhaul, lol again….

          it goes back to basics really, why did labor suddenly up the NBN to 43bn, everyones jaw dropped, but the more ‘independent’ studies and credible wittness they pay off , the more geek fools it convinces…

          fttp is a far more bigger political football than fttn, its still a load of shit, it just takes time to unravel, then again, politicans are arseholes… this thing just needs to run its course like everything…then when the figures come in, they will run out of hands to play, and games up…

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

            If you don’t think RIM’s have copper back haul, go and ask Telstra.

            • deteego
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:51 am | Permalink |

              I would recommend you stop posting things as if you know what you are talking about (which you obviously base off here-say)

              • Duideka
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:29 pm | Permalink |

                I have followed RIM-hell threads for a long time where people working for Telstra often drop in and talk about it.

            • Dbremner
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:46 am | Permalink |

              Some have fibre, some are copper only. Since most are fitted with at least ADSL now they are more likely to have fibre.

          • Pepe
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:53 pm | Permalink |

            yes two “guys” especially. one young and one french… ;-)

        • Pepe
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:47 pm | Permalink |

          umm first paragraph…

          “Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has accepted an invitation issued by NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley to a half-day briefing on the merits of fibre to the home versus fibre to the node technology”.

          did you get that? “merits of fibre to the home” versus fibre to the node technology.

          in other words quigley has invited turbull to a meeting to explain to turnbull how dumb the oppositions plan actually is.

      • James
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:59 am | Permalink |

        Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to comment on technology

        They have no technical skills and everything they say is motivated by self interest

        It’s beyond insane

        • Anonymous
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink |

          Meh… conservative people trust them, even when there’s no reason to. How many old white geezers were screaming bloody murder over the carbon tax? It was so loud I could hear it from over here in America.

          Why? Because their leaders told them to. They brought in “important people” who really had no credentials but could act like they did on TV. Then they told scare stories, threw out a few “socialism! tyranny!” dog whistles, and voila more than half the country is riled up.

          It’s not the politicians’ fault. It’s the people who vote for them.

    3. Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink |

      Why does turnbull consistently bring the derp with the FTTN argument? It’s got to be ideological masturbation at this point. Fibre to the node has been tried – it’s called a telephone exchange, or a RIM.

      • daniel
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 4:49 pm | Permalink |

        Because the Coalition need a Broadband Policy, and they don’t like Labor’s Policy, so they get rid of it, and start from Scratch.

      • Mattee2463
        Posted 24/10/2011 at 8:04 pm | Permalink |

        Ahh, it’s his “job”, as described by his “leader”.

        And yes, that’s what most of the Coalition;s policies seem to be, idealogical wanking.

        :)

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

        its because he knows the 43bn fttp plan is a scam, but becuse the indepdenents back it, what was a stupid idea that covered up their failed fttn tender/rfp, labor are now using it as a platform, ie. wasting time in trying to trick ppl into something that they will never build, but has good political pull for certain key pollies, however most australian dont know why the heck so much money is needed or if it is needed, only net geeks in these forums think its important cos they want more pornos to download…and they hav no lives and stay home and downloads lots

        • Dean Harding
          Posted 24/10/2011 at 10:29 pm | Permalink |

          Seems like you’ve got it all figured out, then.

        • Anonymous
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:29 pm | Permalink |

          obvious troll.

          • alain
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:50 pm | Permalink |

            Hi Pepe.

            • Pepe
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 7:21 pm | Permalink |

              hi sydney!

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 8:57 pm | Permalink |

          if its only net geeks that find it important how come Quigley has had his door run down by many many local area governments demanding he roll it out in their shire, when they feel hard done by on the rollout schedule? particularly many rural LAGs… not exactly the areas you would expect to be flush with net geekery, at any rate.

          i suggest it to you that they see distinct local benefits from it for local business and industry, and not for ‘more porn’ and to ‘download lots’. though they are perfectly welcome to do that as well, if they like…. in any case i find it hard to believe LAG representatives would go in to Quigley to bat for their local porn addicts. that doesnt really add up, does it?

          • Pepe
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:22 pm | Permalink |

            indeed, not to mention victorian liberal mp’s, who must be porn addicts, (and piracy advocates and online gamers) too…!

        • Anonymous
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

          I don’t understand why you think any sane person would want the country to continue paying Telstra $12 billion a year? Telstra earns $4 billion in profit. Why should all that money go to a private company?

          The NBN will be paid for partly with the money Telstra earned annually. In other words Australians will get the fiber network at no extra charge. Their taxes won’t be raised, and the network will be paid off entirely by subscriber revenue.

          Your arguments about cost are a non-sequitor I’m afraid.

      • alain
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:38 am | Permalink |

        Well informed pro NBN FTTH argument does not come any better than that -’ FTTN has been tried – it’s called a telephone exchange…’ – priceless.

        • Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink |

          Back in your box, tiresome ideologue.

          • Pepe
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:11 pm | Permalink |

            +1

          • alain
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink |

            So tell me how the current telephone exchange system is just like FTTN, I had a look around my area – nope no FTTN cabinets just Telstra pillars, do you have a update on how Telstra exchange based Fibre to the Node ‘that has been tried before ‘ works without fibre ?

            • Dbremner
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 8:09 pm | Permalink |

              Well alain, the fibre goes to the exchange or RIM or whatever the latest greatest box at the end of the street is they are rolling out to handle people too far from the exchange or support new housing when the exchange is full. Then the copper goes from there to the house. Currently ADSL or some form though there are other things used bonded DSL, etc. Pretty much like a FTTN cabinet.

              • nonny-moose
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink |

                incidentally the latest and greatest box being the top hats – from Telstras page:

                “Telstra will start rolling out Top Hats in November, to approximately 2000 street side cabinets and expect the project to be completed within 18 months. At the same time we’ll be replacing the connection from the street side cabinet to Telstra’s core network with Gigabit Ethernet fibre.”

              • Dbremner
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:14 am | Permalink |

                About time, that has been years coming. Why now? Unless when and if the FTTN plan comes they can say job done for those areas.

              • nonny-moose
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 2:55 pm | Permalink |

                no these are allegedly going to be fielded in areas which have the longest wait for NBN as a stopgap, according to Telstra. make of that what you will….

    4. Dean Harding
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink |

      But, but, but… he’s going to be sitting down with the Labor Party-appointed head of NBN Co, a company directed to roll out the Labor Party FTTH political decision! I think I hear the four horsemen in the distance!

      • alain
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:47 am | Permalink |

        That’s exactly what it is, what outcome do you expect here, the Labor appointed Head of the Labor NBN Co is going to go back to Conroy post meeting with Turnbull and say I think we should keep the HFC and consider FTTN! lol

        • Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:01 am | Permalink |

          Why would he do that? HFC and and FTTN are redundant. Who would take two steps back like that with a patchwork build when they are designing and building a FTTH network?

          • alain
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink |

            No they are not redundant because you say they are.

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

              That’s right they are not redundant because I say they are they are redundant because they are old and incapable of providing the speeds that fibre can.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink |

                What do we need the top speeds that FTTH can provide when in 2011 we don’t even utilize the top speeds the existing infrastructure can provide?

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:17 pm | Permalink |

                lol… we don’t utilise it because we can’t get it… remember “up to”!

              • Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:29 pm | Permalink |

                we don’t even utilize the top speeds the existing infrastructure can provide?

                I guess we wont be needing FTTN then either. Stop and drop everything everyone, alian has it all worked out. ADSL2+ ftw… you of course realise this makes the coalitions patchwork plan even more of a sham now. Since ADSL2+ is all that’s ever needed their FTTN patchwork suggestion can only be regarded as purely political.

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink |

                What do we need the top speeds that FTTH can provide when in 2011 we don’t even utilize the top speeds the existing infrastructure can provide?

                Back in 2000, did everybody sign up for for the 1500kb/s plans the day they were released? Obviously not. So does that mean, in 2011, that 1.5Mb/s is more than anybody can possibly ever need?

            • Pepe
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:06 pm | Permalink |

              no HFC’s not redundant alain… people just don’t want it…rofl!

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:06 pm | Permalink |

                or should i say “need it”…!

          • Someyoungguy
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink |

            The only thing that would make HFC redundant is if this ‘TRANSECTOR’ stuff actually takes off.

            The reason is HFC is designed as a ‘broadband’ network, not as a premium telecoms network per se, in that it offers superior performce needed for transector. It was design for people mainly to use the internet.

            If the NBN remains primarily a broadband network, and there is no significant transector there is no need to remove the HFC, an upgrade to 100mbps (internet grade networks) will do fine.

            FTTN is higher performance and can cater for transector, the issue comes in when FTTN speeds will no longer be sufficient, but that is a long way off, and doesnt factor in improvements in VDSL or copper technology. But it would have approx 20yrs service until the improvement in transector makes FTTN inadequate.

            FTTP is over kill, because it cannot be guaranteed that it will have a life over 20yrs and that fibre will still be the technology of choice, in the same way that HFC was superceeded by ADSL, GPON could be superceeded by DSL, it all depends on research.

            But just looking at broadband history in AU. the Optus and Telstra HFC networks were finished in the late 90s, they offered 8mbps, and plans were available then for consumers, 8mbps and often unlimited quotas, it is only today nearly 15 yrs after the completion of those networks that the average user speed is around 4mbps. Could we estimate that the average user speed be 8mbps after 20yrs of completion of the HFC networks? Suffice to say that an upgrade of HFC to 100Mbps will do, given your usage and consumption needs.

            The reality is that ‘transector’ is a wildcard, and this stuff about future digital economy, is that just bullshit? Probably. Saving on carbon emissions? more bullshit? Labor seems full of it.

            But reality is most people use the telecoms network for communication and entertainment, not for producitivity, and unless there is a MAJOR paradigm change, there is no need for FTTP. There is a need for a cheaper FTTN rollout which will suffice for 20years.

            • Anonymous
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:49 am | Permalink |

              You didn’t adequately address my retort in the other article, what makes you think I will allow you to say exactly the same thing here without protest?

            • Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

              The only thing that would make HFC redundant is if this ‘TRANSECTOR’ stuff actually takes off.

              And what is this “transector” stuff? You still haven’t explained that. You seem to be making up words and phrases and expecting people to know what you are talking about.

              The reason is HFC is designed as a ‘broadband’ network

              No it wasn’t.

              It was design for people mainly to use the internet.

              No it wasn’t.

              FTTN is higher performance

              Higher than what? HFC? Fibre?

              and can cater for transector,

              Define “transector”

              FTTP is over kill,

              False.

              GPON could be superceeded by DSL

              lol, no it wont, do some research.

              The reality is that ‘transector’ is a wildcard

              Once again define “transector”

              • Pepe
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

                cmon guys you know,

                first we have the “flux capacitor”, which feeds to the “subcutaneous transponder”, causing a “transector”…

                ;-)

              • Someyoungguy
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:36 pm | Permalink |

                youre an idiot.

                If you wannt know transector, got ask Paul budde, is he for real or just a shit talking guy looking for a quick buck in consulting fees selling snake oil

                • Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink |

                  I’m not going to ask Paul Budde. I’m asking you. You keep using the word. So what is it? The least you can do is provide a source for Paul Budde using the word.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

                From Wiki.

                A transtector (トランステクター Toransutekutā) is a non-sentient Transformer body controlled by a smaller being.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:16 am | Permalink |

                Go easy HC, it’s obvious Someyoungguy is only a Telstra shill in training. His level of knowledge seems to be growing over the last week so he is putting the study in. He still is doing some posts by wrote though not knowing what he is really copying down.

              • Anonymous
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:10 pm | Permalink |

                It’s hilarious watching this young kid blindly defend/argue for a plan without even a shred of technical understanding.

                It’s like a nationalistic patriot going to war against the “bad guys” without a single thought about who is actually the bad guy.

                Actually when I think of it that way it’s a little sad…

                I suppose people normally grow wiser as they grow older. I sincerely hope this kid starts to think for himself a little bit, rather than blindly regurgitate the political positions his dad is probably screaming about every day after listening to Alan Jones.

            • Duideka
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:33 pm | Permalink |

              HFC was superceeded by ADSL? What planet are you living on?

              HFC was designed for people to use the internet? Funny that, just like DSL was designed for voice I was under the impression HFC was designed for PayTV.

              • Someyoungguy
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink |

                youre an idiot duideka, and have no understanding of telecoms…

                we are not talking about paytv , we are talking about HFC as a telecoms network, not a tv network

                HFC is a network for internet connectivity, and to an extent POTS

                you obviously cant even understand this, why waste your time posting?

              • Duideka
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:01 pm | Permalink |

                I feel I do know what I am talking about but it’s often hard to put it into words, especially on blog sites and such. IF I am wrong on any areas I’m always happy to be corrected, it’s impossible for anyone to know anything, but I’ve done substantial research into telecoms, especially in Australia.

                Getting to the point, I used the wrong technical terms I guess.

                What I meant was, let’s firstly look at the copper network – it was originally laid to deliver voice to people, it does not matter if you are running DSL, DSL2, DSL2+, SHSDL, VDSL or whatever over it – the core network was designed to carry voice data and nothing more, and any further modifications to the standards running on the network are just trying to make the network do something it wasn’t necesarrily designed to do.

                And, to HFC, whilst standards like DOCSIS were designed with data delivery in mind, it still does not change the fact the initial network was designed with only Pay TV in mind, this leads to issues like high contention – with huge amounts of houses sharing a very low bandwidth pool.

                With that said, some HFC networks suchas Virgin Media’s were designed with data delivery in mind, and as a result the network has effectively zero contention as their network is more or less FTTN with coax as the last mile running DOCSIS.

                The point I’m trying to make is, if we have managed to milk these two networks so well, when they were not even designed for data delivery in the first place – how much will we be able to milk a network that IS designed with data delivery in mind? (FTTH)

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

                anyone to know everything* godday lysdexia.

              • Duideka
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:07 pm | Permalink |

                Why do you keep saying HFC was superceeded by ADSL btw? I have seen this comment from you in many diferent articles.

                I feel HFC, whilst not perfect, it certainly superior to ADSL as far as speed and latency are concerned – if you are looking at take-up of the services, I think that has more to do with the prices the people selling the HFC networks charge, and also their refusal to connect various buildings (unit’s for example)

            • Dean Harding
              Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink |

              Transector… you keep using that word…

              • Steve
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:37 pm | Permalink |

                I think he means Trans-sector, some correct spelling would have done him wonders.

                From: http://www.budde.com.au/Presentations/content/Reflections%20on%20trans-sector%20innovation.pdf

                “The key element of the trans-sector concept is that governments and industries need to develop policies and
                strategies that will bring various sectors together to address some of the daunting issues that are arising in
                nearly every aspect of life.”

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:54 pm | Permalink |

                Yeah, I got that. I still don’t think it means what Someyoungguy thinks it means.

                I mean, what does HFC vs. FTTx have to do with it?

    5. Zorro
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

      If Turnbull was really smart, he shouldn’t have accepted the poisonous job he was offered by Abbot. Instead, he should have gone to the back bench from where he would have been free to criticise the bizzarely unprincipled anti-policies of the current leader of the opposition and working towards pulling the Liberals back into the field of reasonable politics. He made a wrong decision, unfortunately, and Australia will pay the price.

      • ozimarco
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 2:03 am | Permalink |

        Exactly! I’m sure that, in his heart of hearts, Turnbull believes the NBN is the best long term solution for Australia’s communication needs. Yet, because of the job he’s been given, he is using his not inconsiderable intellect to argue Abbott’s anti-NBN case. For that reason, I can’t see his meeting with Mike Quigley making any difference to his stance. He already knows that FTTN is an inferior solution but cannot publically admit to it. I’m afraid Mike will be wasting half a day of his valuable time but good on him for trying. I’m looking forward to hearing the spin from Malcolm afterwards.

      • alain
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:52 am | Permalink |

        But despite all of that the Coalition on all probability of ongoing polling even with Abbott as leader (which surprises me) will win the next election at a canter, perhaps Australia thinks the Labor price of another term is too high.

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

          You do release that the party being unpopular does not mean it’s policies are wrong?

          If Australia wants the NBN, but doesn’t want Labor, then it is entirely with in the possibility that the Liberal party continue the policy.

          You’re inferring a false dilemma here. You’re inferring that to get the NBN Australia must continue to support Labor with universally unpopular policies like the ISP filter.

          So, instead of playing the party here Alain, why don’t you play the policy? What do the polling results say about the NBN if they ask about specific policy? That is the appropriate statistic you should be citing here, and it may even support your position.

          But don’t waste our time with playing the party.

        • Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

          But despite all of that the Coalition on all probability of ongoing polling even with Abbott as leader (which surprises me) will win the next election

          Sounds like more crystal ball gazing.

        • Pepe
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink |

          that may well be so and your nightly prayers answered.

          however, a government does not stop governing because of polls, so moot point.

      • Anonymous
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

        I don’t understand. What’s so unprincipled about a pledge in blood?

        I kid I kid.

    6. Jeff
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 9:40 pm | Permalink |

      CMUX’s were designed with ADSL in mind – just not enough to provide a 1:1 ratio of ports to phone lines (I beleive something like 100 DSL ports to 300-400 phone lines?)

      The last iteration of CMUX and ISAM meant that the CMUX solely provides around 400 phone lines only, and the ISAM provides 400 DSL ports pre-jumpered to the voice paths.

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

        the cmux can be set up in various configs depending on waht cards u choose.

        the isam last time i worked in the area had an XD xtremem desnity version that had 600+ ports i believe per unit…

        they also have pots/dsl combined ports.. havent seen the vdsl cards they are talking about, last time i heard telstra was trialing vdsl and from speaking to a friend on the project it was quite successful, but they didnt go ahead with it.

        • deteego
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:53 am | Permalink |

          Telstra’s VDSL trial happened when the first iteration of NBN was being talked about, of course when the NBN MK1 fell through then the trial was stopped

          This is the same reason why VDSL/2 isn’t available in exchanges, it hasn’t been standardised for Telstra’s exchanges and so unless you own the last mile yourself you can’t sell VDSL2

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

            you got no idea what ur on about

    7. Paul Hahn
      Posted 24/10/2011 at 9:53 pm | Permalink |

      I second the appeal of being a fly on the wall. Anyone good at bugging ??

    8. Sydneyla
      Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:22 am | Permalink |

      Forget the NBN Co and the Labor Government Malcolm Turnbull must have deep and serious talks with Telstra as to what could be an acceptable program for a fast NBN network for Australia.

      The only hope the Gillard Government has of remaining in Office is for a speedy and successful roll-out of the NBN with many happy customers connected before the next election.

      • alain
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:42 am | Permalink |

        Well there will be, but they will have to shut down the HFC and copper networks first, I’m not sure you can define that as being ‘happy customers connected’ based on the Conroy like it or lump it approach, but it is the nearest you will get.

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

          Tell us about the “happy customers” on FTTN in NZ now.

          • alain
            Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink |

            Is that a rhetorical question or do you have something of substance about FTTN in NZ to add?

            • Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink |

              It’s not a question at all. I’m asking you to tell us about the “happy customers” on FTTN in NZ that chose to use FTTN because they had a choice between using FTTN, HFC and fibre.

              • alain
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:53 pm | Permalink |

                Umm what? – another incoherent time waster, your point is what, other than there is no point?

              • Posted 25/10/2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink |

                I’m sorry, you didn’t understand the comment (I’m not surprised) let me rephrase it: I’m asking you to tell us about the “happy customers” on FTTN in NZ that chose to use FTTN because they had a choice between using FTTN, HFC and fibre.

              • Dbremner
                Posted 25/10/2011 at 8:11 pm | Permalink |

                Last I heard they were unhappy with the FTTN performance and were putting in FTTH from now on.

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:31 am | Permalink |

                Heard where?

        • Pepe
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 1:09 pm | Permalink |

          why would they be unhappy hen they “don’t need HFC”?

    9. Evislync
      Posted 25/10/2011 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

      Tunball will get schooled. Why would you bother listening to reason when you have a fight to fight?

    10. Goddy
      Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:00 pm | Permalink |

      This meeting will achieve nothing, especially while Turnbull has a party line to tow.

      • alain
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 3:11 pm | Permalink |

        Indeed, even the NBN Co has a ‘party line to tow’, they will implement what Labor tell them to implement.

        • Pepe
          Posted 25/10/2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink |

          @alain,

          the government (labor as you say) originally told a “panel of experts in the comms field” to choose the best rfp to build an nbn, remember? you use to wrongly call it a fttn tender, until i educated you.

          now these rfp’s, could have been for fttn or fttp (not just fttn as you used to also wrongly claim, until i educated you further – no thanks needed) .

          in fact, acacia included wireless/satellite too and most (iirc) rfp’s did include fttn, remember again? pity again silly telstra put in a NON-COMPLIANT/ILLEGAL BID (as opposed to unsuitable but legal) – even though you are the only person on earth who still refuses to accept they did so…

          but alas, even without being hamstrung to any particular network type, the panel of experts (not the government) concluded the bids unsuitable but legal (as opposed to telstra’s non compliant/illegal…lol).

          But importantly they also concluded that “fttn was simply not viable here”, remember?

          this lead to the current nbn with nbnco being brought together and being told to implement fttp…

          so of course that’s what quigley will implement, because the alternative isn’t viable (to anyone but the opposition and their minions that is)…!

          • alain
            Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink |

            Yes that’s what I said, the NBN Co will build whatever the Labor party tell them to build.

            • Pepe
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:54 pm | Permalink |

              good for you, at least you accept telstra’s non compliant bid now, hallelujah.

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 4:51 pm | Permalink |

                Huh what?

    11. toshP300
      Posted 25/10/2011 at 9:35 pm | Permalink |

      errrr….. correct me if i’m wrong… but this is the same Mike Quigley who came to Australia on a marketing roadshow a couple of years ago selling FTTN to Canberra when Alcatel was preferred vendor for Telstra’s FTTN “tender bid”… and publicly stated that FTTN was fantastic for Australia and structurally separating Telstra would be too complex to attempt?

      funny how the corporate boy whistles a different tune when he has a new (Labor) paymaster…

      • Dean Harding
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 10:56 pm | Permalink |

        Source, or it didn’t happen.

        • toshP300
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:16 am | Permalink |

          go ask Renai – it’s quoted in one of his old articles.

          • Dean Harding
            Posted 26/10/2011 at 7:49 am | Permalink |

            Sorry, I’m not going to do your research for you. If you want to make ridiculous claims, the least you can do is back them up with some evidence.

            • toshP300
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 8:38 am | Permalink |

              i trust my memory (which even RS below confirms). go do your own fucking research to fill in your ignorance.

              now go flame someone else.

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:03 am | Permalink |

                The only thing he “confirms” is that Alcatel/Quigley worked with Telstra on their proposal. I don’t have a problem with that, they did. What I’m asking for is a source to your claim that Quigley ever publicly stated that FTTN was fantastic for Australia and structurally separating Telstra would be too complex to attempt.

                Maybe you trust your own memory, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t. And I’m happy to do my own research, but I’m not going to do yours as well.

              • toshP300
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:42 am | Permalink |

                what? you think Alcatel brought Quigley out here to schmooze the Canberra pollies just to say, “oh, we’re really not too sure about this FTTN thing… might not be the best for Australia after all…..”

                of course, he was praising FTTN to the skies as the right solution for Australia… for fuck’s sakes.. a bit of commonsense please… which rock do you live under?

                and i specifically recall the words “Quigley”, “structural separation”, “Telstra” and “too complex” used in the same sentence in the article.

                i’m not going to do YOUR research. (i have no need to research something i have already read and committed to memory.)

                your best bet is to ask Renai. it was probably one of his very first delimiter articles to mention this character called “Quigley”.

                good luck!

                (or “it didn’t happen”.. whatever.. lol.)

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:47 am | Permalink |

                you think Alcatel brought Quigley out here to schmooze the Canberra pollies just to say, “oh, we’re really not too sure about this FTTN thing… might not be the best for Australia after all…..”

                I don’t know, you’re telling the story.

                i’m not going to do YOUR research

                It’s not my research. I’ve done my research and he never said any of that. Of course I can’t produce evidence of something he didn’t say — you need to provide the evidence that he did say it.

                If you can’t, then maybe you can just admit your memory isn’t as clear as you might think?

          • alain
            Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink |

            Indeed he did, but it is in ZDNet:

            ‘Network vendor Alcatel has scorned a proposal floated by Telstra’s major competitors that would see the nation’s broadband infrastructure cooperatively upgraded.’

            http://www.zdnet.com.au/alcatel-slams-rival-fibre-proposal-139255989.htm

            and again here:

            ‘Alcatel waits in the wings’

            http://www.zdnet.com.au/alcatel-waits-in-the-wings-139252407.htm

            and a interesting piece by Braue:

            ‘Dancing with the NBN Co stars’

            http://m.zdnet.com.au/dancing-with-the-nbn-co-stars-339297667.htm

            • Dean Harding
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:53 am | Permalink |

              Nice try, but none of those articles confirm what tosh is claiming Quigley said.

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

                Yeah I was waiting for the best covers of the Michael Jackson moonwalk you will ever see.

                “The Alcatel executive said it was “not simple and straightforward” to separate telcos’ wholesale and retail arms, as the government was currently doing with Telstra.

                Such a model had yet to be proven, he said”

              • toshP300
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:02 am | Permalink |

                LOL

                (oh dear….. )

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:06 am | Permalink |

                gee and it’s “not simple and straightforward”…

                who would ever have thunk it eh…?

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

                @Pepe

                Of course you left out this bit:

                “Such a model had yet to be proven, he said”

                Ouch.

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:16 am | Permalink |

                “structurally separating Telstra would be too complex to attempt”

                vs.

                “not simple and straightforward”

                Oh right, paraphrasing… “classic exit strategy“, eh?

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:35 am | Permalink |

                Besides, given that it’s taken three years to actually get everybody to come to agreement, I would say he was right on the money — separating Telstra was “not simple and straightforward.”

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

                ouch…lol.

                glad to see you actually have found another nothingness to cling to alain…it may stop your childish pedantics for a few days…!

                now about the comparison with turnbull being a “republican/carbon tax advocate”..

                of course you left that part out, ouch…!

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

                You too keep leaving out this bit as well, I know it gags in the throat but here it is again for you:

                “Such a model had yet to be proven, he said”

                So Dean let’s get back to the Telstra FTTN proposal of which Alacatel was the key supplier partner, are you saying they did not support the Testra FTTN rollout any in way shape or form?

                That’s Fibre to the Node as distinct from Fibre to the Home as in the current NBN, just in case in gets lost in translation somewhere.

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:24 am | Permalink |

                “Such a model had yet to be proven, he said”

                Maybe not at the time he said it, but the Telstra separation deal is all but done now.

                So Dean let’s get back to the Telstra FTTN proposal of which Alacatel was the key supplier partner, are you saying they did not support the Testra FTTN rollout any in way shape or form?

                No, I’m not saying that. Why do you think that’s what I’m saying?

                All Alcatel and Quigley said at the time was that Telstra’s proposal was the best on the table at the time. He never said FTTN was better than FTTH. He never said Telstra was a better option than NBNCo (given that NBNCo didn’t even exist back then, I don’t see how he could have said that).

                In fact, given all the time Quigley spent on Telstra’s FTTN proposal and all the time he’s now spent on NBNCo’s FTTH, I’d say Quigley is the best person to comment on the merits of both. Perhaps, as opposed to other commentators who’ve categorically stated they’re opposed to FTTH and haven’t even bothered to look at it as an option.

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:35 am | Permalink |

                now as i have mentioned many times, instead of doing what you do alain and picking out one or two words let’s look at what quigley ACTUALLY SAID…

                Quigley “.. “it was not simple and straightforward” to separate telcos’ wholesale and retail arms, as the government was currently doing with Telstra.

                Such a model had yet to be proven, he said, and it was likely that smaller telcos would not invest in infrastructure as long as they could buy wholesale services from a larger telco.”

                No longer an issue ” quigley was obviously referring to the concerns that once telstra was separated, investment would cease. however nbnco are now building the network, neither smaller telcos nor telstra have to invest in such infrastructure, making these concerns of yet proven… null and void.

                now about turnbull, forrest?

                plus where does quigley say fttn is better than fttp, still waiting… please show us?

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

                you know dean the funniest part of this?

                these dooms dayers seem to believe they are business savvy, yet they now wish to crucify quigley for promoting alcatel and their client when he worked for alcatel…que?

                yes i could imagine…

                sol,

                yes mike,

                we don’t want telstra’s $bs, because i think your/our competitors have a better product.

                ????

                i bet tosh and alain do this daily with their clients too!

                keep trying boys. as the nbn boxes keep being ticked, proving you WRONG time and time AGAIN…

                progressing with build – check
                progressing from trial to commercial stage – check
                cvc concerns remedied – check
                5% cpi increase clause removed – check
                etc, etc, etc

                umm, oh so what now… try to throw more mud at quigley, how deliciously predictable…!

                ooh and ironically, here’s a url from “today”.

                http://www.zdnet.com.au/fttn-nbn-may-cost-more-accc-339324970.htm

                and look at the first sentence…

                “The competition watchdog says building a cable broadband network to the kerb could be a waste of funds if the system is later upgraded to homes and businesses”.

                wry smile :-)

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink |

                @Dean Harding

                “Maybe not at the time he said it, but the Telstra separation deal is all but done now.”

                No it isn’t, the ACCC is still mulling over the Telstra structural proposal, I get the feeling they are going to hand it back to Telstra with some serious concerns, which may require another shareholder meeting (now that would be interesting!), in fact the ACCC also have some serious concerns with the NBN Co as well.

                http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/25/nbnco_dargging_regulatory_heels/

                “No, I’m not saying that. Why do you think that’s what I’m saying?”

                Good so they were right behind the Telstra FTTN proposal, glad we got that sorted.

                “He never said FTTN was better than FTTH.”

                No one has said he did.

                “He never said Telstra was a better option than NBNCo (given that NBNCo didn’t even exist back then, I don’t see how he could have said that).”

                No one said he did.

                ‘In fact, given all the time Quigley spent on Telstra’s FTTN proposal and all the time he’s now spent on NBNCo’s FTTH, I’d say Quigley is the best person to comment on the merits of both.’

                Yes it’s interesting how it was ok back then but it’s not anymore, what’s changed I wonder?

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:20 pm | Permalink |

                I get the feeling they are going to hand it back to Telstra with some serious concerns

                Ah, so it’s crystal-ball gazing. This last hurdle is the only hope you can cling to…

                Good so they were right behind the Telstra FTTN proposal, glad we got that sorted.

                I didn’t say that, either. It’s not black and white, they’re either totally against it, or they’re totally behind it.

                “He never said FTTN was better than FTTH.”

                No one has said he did.

                OK, I’m glad we agree on this point. He also never said that “FTTN was fantastic for Australia.”

                Yes it’s interesting how it was ok back then but it’s not anymore, what’s changed I wonder?

                What’s changed? Perhaps, since FTTH was never on the table back then, he never looked at FTTH then? His company had put in a bid for Telstra’s business and Telstra had already decided they were going to do FTTN. Perhaps, since that time, he’s looked at other options and decided that FTTH is better than FTTN? In fact, isn’t that exactly what he’s saying?

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:47 pm | Permalink |

                @alain

                Dean: “He (quigley) never said FTTN was better than FTTH.”

                Alain: “No one has said he did”.

                Great so…

                * agreed quigley never said fttn is better
                * agreed fttp is in fact superior
                * agreed the fttn concept should be killed off
                * agreed nbn is best

                thanks for clearing that up.

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

                @Pepe

                “oh and ironically, here’s a url from “today”.

                http://www.zdnet.com.au/fttn-n

                and look at the first sentence…

                “The competition watchdog says building a cable broadband network to the kerb could be a waste of funds if the system is later upgraded to homes and businesses”.

                wry smile :-) ”

                Yes I was hoping that article would be brought up, so glad it is you.

                Can I ask you if you agree with every every statement in that link before we go any further? I suggest you read it carefully and don’t blink at the bits you don’t want to see.

                We will then see who ends up with the ‘wry smile’.

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 4:27 pm | Permalink |

                oh alain, you just admitted that the nbn is the way to go, because fttp is in fact the better option than fttn…

                but i’ll tell you what…

                you answer my two questions (already ignored by you several times) here…

                1. is hfc redundant – yes or no?

                2. is turnbull doing as you infer quigley is, by toeing the party line, against his own actual opinion, in relation to a republic/carbon tax – yes or no?

                then, and i will certainly answer yours.

                well…?????????

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 4:59 pm | Permalink |

                @Pepe

                ahh you have read it through and have spotted it hence your desperate avoidance in answering:

                “Can I ask you if you agree with every every statement in that link before we go any further? I suggest you read it carefully and don’t blink at the bits you don’t want to see.”

                wry smile indeed eh?

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:24 pm | Permalink |

                hence your desperate avoidance in answering, you say…

                FALSE

                i clearly said you answer the questions i asked and i will answer yours, would you like me to draw a picture since you do not understand…

                OBVIOUSLY YOU CANNOT ANSWER… thank you

                but please, the subsequent laughter is hurting my stomach, because now i’ve heard it all (and i thought before roads was a gem)… “hence MY avoidance – you say”…lmao…

                obviously there are no mirrors at lib hq or telstra!

            • Pepe
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:15 am | Permalink |

              BFD… quigley worked for alcatel and promoted alcatel… gee what a revelation.

              what next thodey promoting telstra?

              can’t quite see anywhere, where quigley openly suggests fttn is technically superior to fttp.

              anyway, as is always the case where the nay-sayers cast doubt upon quigley (such as his previous so called illegalities) again one can point the finger at turnbull…

              isn’t he a “republican/carbon tax” advocate, whistling to a different tune and toeing the libs line?

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

                me too, thanks for the FUD and ensuing laughs…at your expense ;-)

            • toshP300
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

              that article is actually a very interesting and refreshing reminder…

              by attacking Optus’ proposal, Quigley was basically rubbishing the whole concept of a “wholesale-only, open access platform” and arguing that a vertically-integrated Telstra with “light regulation” was best positioned to move the industry forward… because, as he stated himself, investing in infrastructure is a “risky business”…

              and he was absolutely correct.

              even today, “wholesale-only, open access networks” simply do not exist*… all the major telcos in the world that have implemented FTTN/FTTC/FTTH are vertically-integrated entities.

              Quigley accurately called Singtel Optus’ bullshit back then… but now, he has a different paymaster and dances to a different tune…

              * with the apparent exception of a tiny Icelandic municipality-owned fibre network that is supposedly “wholesale-only”.

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:45 am | Permalink |

                which article are you referring to toshp300?

                the topical current one above, by renai or the urls from 2.5 years ago, you selectively and desperately hand pick a few words from?

                rofl…

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:53 am | Permalink |

                He doesn’t rubbish the “concept of a “wholesale-only, open access platform”” at all, he says that Telstra was better-placed (at the time) to build their FTTN network than a consortium of companies.

                “To think that we could do this, fast, with a consortium of companies … it would be awfully difficult,” he said. “It’s not the way I’ve seen it done anywhere in the world.”

                He never mentions anything about a “wholesale-only, open access platform”.

              • toshP300
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:01 pm | Permalink |

                LOL

                it’s like pulling teeth….

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

                pulling teeth indeed…

                seems you have been caught embellishing the truth (i’ll be nice) toshp300.

                why would anyone who rationally wishes to correspond without bias…do that?

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink |

                I dunno, I think pulling teeth is probably more pleasant.

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:06 pm | Permalink |

                Dean and Pepe in the hamster wheel, careful it might come off at the hinges.

                lol

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink |

                exit strategy 2…alain, nice!

                gee and still no answer about turnbull’s toeing the party line or whether hfc is actually redundant or not…?

                what do you have to hide…?

                on that note, perhaps it’s prudent for one of your typical and inevitable awol periods, since again disproved… bye then, see you at the next article (or back here in about a week, sigh)…!

              • Dean Harding
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 2:26 pm | Permalink |

                Right, so toshP300 makes some baseless, completely false claims, and when asked for evidence he retorts with “do your own fucking research”.

                Then alain rushes to his defense with “evidence” that doesn’t even back up the claims, and it’s “LOL like pulling teeth” and name calling.

                I certainly does feel like I’m running in a hamster wheel, going nowhere fast.

                OK, I give up. You guys win. Quigley thinks FTTN is the best solution and he’s only talking about FTTH now because he’s been paid off by the Labor Party. Who needs evidence to back up such an obvious conclusion?

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 2:42 pm | Permalink |

                yes and the fact quigley donated his entirely first year’s salary proves it’s all about $’s and that he’s easily bought…d’oh!

              • toshP300
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 3:18 pm | Permalink |

                …except alain just provided the evidence by linking to the articles i was referring to… and instead of thanking him for furthering your education and filling in the potholes of your ignorance… you get all defensive and try to spin your way out of the TRUTH STARING YOU IN THE FACE:

                i/ Mike Quigley flew back to Australia tasked with the specific purpose of intensely lobbying Canberra pollies and convincing them that Telstra’s FTTN bid implementation/role was the correct solution for Australia. Labor’s tender did not specifically specify FTTN or FTTH, so by endorsing Telstra’s bid he was endorsing FTTN as the appropriate upgrade solution for Australia;

                ii/ Optus, under the guise of industry solidarity of G9/Terria, bankrolled the political push for a preferred access regime towards an “wholesale-only, open access platform”. this was the whole point of the G9 bid charade. they had zero intentions of actually executing the bid but used it as a marketing tool to persuade the Govt/ACCC to adopt the G9 proposed model by forcing Telstra to structurally separate into a “wholesale-only FTTN network”.

                Mike Quigley rubbished Optus’ proposal; specifically he attacked the feasibility of implementing structural separation because of the complexities of separating “wholesale” from “retail”. the G9 proposal can only be implemented if Telstra is structurally separated from the CAN because the G9 FTTN proposal builds on the CAN and is a wholesale-only, equivalent access platform.

                now, you can show some maturity and accept that there are huge gaps in your understanding of the issues, viz. YOU ARE WRONG, or you can continue carrying on with your forum lawyerism, rubbish accusations of “baseless and completely false claims” and further dragging this thread into pointless debates over your failure to admit error.

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 3:57 pm | Permalink |

                ah as opposed to your mate who does the “exit strategy” you go the “huff/tantrum strategy”, then you claim yourself champ…rofl.

                alain supplied diddly. yes quigley said a few things, your interpret them as you will…

                ALSO YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED ANY OF THE SAME QUESTIONS RELATING TO TURNBULL, HOW ABOUT YOU DO SO… WHAT ARE YOU RUNNING FROM? anyway…

                1. yes quigley worked for alcatel whose client was telstra… you do understand at least basics of salesmanship and why he would promote telstra’s NOT HIS OWN plan?

                2. mike quigley clearly was worried about separation stopping investment (as it probably would have). this is no longer applicable. simple.

                3. please… while ever you main goal is to support the coalition and telstra, it will cloud your judgement.

                so if anyone is wrong here it is you and your twin..

                anyway here is an interview by telecoms journal with mike quigley… so you believe alain (rofl) and we can read what the man himself says…. here’s the excerpts which deal with your bs…

                TJA: As the global Alcatel President, were you also helping Alcatel secure a deal with Telstra in late 2005 for its proposed next generation fixed broadband network?

                Quigley: Yes, I met Sol [Trujillo] several times and Greg Wynn. I knew both of them reasonably well.

                TJA: Were you managing the Telstra bid?

                Quigley: I had an interest with what was going on in Australia and I had quite a number of discussions both with our people and with Telstra people.

                TJA: You must have been persuasive because Alcatel won a strategic partnership with Telstra and entered an MOU to provide ‘network design and integration, product supply, deployment, maintenance and ongoing support, in relation to broadband access, Ethernet aggregation, and fixed next generation voice and network integration’.

                Quigley: Yes, all good stuff. We were successful.

                TJA: Were there plans for any fibre to the premises?

                Quigley: They were looking at fibre to the node, but when you’re building these networks – fibre to the node or fibre to the premises – it’s not radically different. There are some changes: you’re putting in splitters instead of cabinets, and you’re putting some electronics in the field with FTTN. But all you’re really doing with FTTN is pushing that fibre further out and using that last bit of copper, which is expensive to replace.

                TJA: However, Telstra soon suspended its network proposal partly because it was after regulatory certainty in terms of preventing rivals from gaining access to the new network.

                Quigley: It was one of those situations that sometimes happens. You can stitch up a deal, but if the telco decides to change somehow, there’s not much you can do about it.

                And

                TJA: At this launch, you were reportedly scornful of the proposal floated by Telstra’s rivals to collectively fund a network that all telcos could access. You apparently used words to the effect that this was not the way you had seen it done anywhere in the world!

                Quigley: It could well be. If I were asked a question about whether or not I thought a large group of telcos could do that, I’d have to say that I’d never seen it done anywhere and it’s not so easy {END}…

                gee doesn’t sound all that cloak and dagger to me, quite the opposite. but please AGAIN embellish as much as you wish…

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 4:50 pm | Permalink |

                @Pepe

                Thanks for that, that Google search hamster wheel of yours must be smoking :

                I liked this bit, did you?

                “There are some changes: you’re putting in splitters instead of cabinets, and you’re putting some electronics in the field with FTTN. But all you’re really doing with FTTN is pushing that fibre further out and using that last bit of copper, which is expensive to replace.”

                I’ll emphasise it in case you get that well known ‘pro-NBN blink’ problem again:

                “and using that last bit of copper, which is expensive to replace.”

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:28 pm | Permalink |

                hallelujah alain you are finally getting it…

                “and using that last bit of copper, which is expensive to replace.”

                yes it is, what do you think the basic difference is between fttn and fttp, just the last letter…?

                rofl.

              • toshP300
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink |

                @alain

                that’s a classic article link.

                so we have it from Saint Quigley’s own mouth:

                i/ Telstra should be “lightly regulated” to allow it to invest in FTTN as a standalone, vertically-integrated entity because investing in infrastructure is a “risky business”;

                ii/ also, FTTN is similar to FTTP, with the added benefit of not having to replace the last-mile of copper which is very expensive.

                i’m in total agreement!

                Quigley spoke a lot of sense before he became a Conroy political crony implementing a political mandate.

                *high five*

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 6:19 pm | Permalink |

                rofl…

                tosh again embellishing to add excitement to his otherwise faceless/baseless telstra/lib puppeteering…!

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 6:37 pm | Permalink |

                I’m done here, this discussion reminds of trout farms where you are guaranteed a catch – too easy, I’m off looking for iiNet Easter eggs.

                :)

              • Pepe
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink |

                and again…

                me too, thanks for the FUD and ensuing laughs…at your expense ;-)

      • Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:34 am | Permalink |

        errrr….. correct me if i’m wrong…

        You are wrong.

    12. Pepe
      Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:09 pm | Permalink |

      hi toshp300, welcome back. been hiding after that strange, sexist comment of your’s eh? ;-)

      so do you know about quigley/telstra… or are you just muddying the water…again?

      regardless, the answer to your 2 part question is “in it’s simplest form, yes to the first part”… but before you and alain start high fiving there.

      fttn was all that was on the table, so of course quigley would be saying, yes we will supply fttn and it will be fantastic for australia… as it would be sans fttp. so no big deal there, everyday business…!

      quigley wasn’t going to refuse to give the client what they wanted, because there was a technically better option. i’d assume he probably suggested fttp to telstra, as rolling out fttp would have been much more lucrative for alcatel… but of course remember, telstra wanted to keep the last mile monopoly, so technically better or not, fttn it was (until telstra withdrew)…

      so now fttp is on the table… so gee, how about that? mystery and inferred conspiracy solved.

      as for the 2nd part, the separating telstra claims, don’t know? but i’m sure $11b goes a long way to sorting out all sorts of complexities, regardless of what mr quigley may or may not have said…
      :-)

      but speaking of whistling to a different tune, you mean like this…

      http://m.zdnet.com.au/liberals-we-will-block-labor-s-fttn-funding-339288601.htm

      http://www.zdnet.com.au/liberals-misfire-in-fttn-funding-attack-339289924.htm

      • Pepe
        Posted 25/10/2011 at 11:15 pm | Permalink |

        addendum… telstra wanted to keep the last mile monopoly … “at minimum cost”

    13. Kuykee
      Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:52 am | Permalink |

      Turnbull is such a moron.

      Wake up and smell the fibre.

      • alain
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 9:35 am | Permalink |

        Wow it’s the deep well researched comment like that that really pushes the pro NBN argument forward into a new dimension of enlightenment.

        • Pepe
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 10:04 am | Permalink |

          ditto…

          telling that you would ‘again’, race to the defence of turnbull though!

    14. Brendan
      Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink |

      We’ll ignore the senate enquiry that suggested FTTN was an obsolete concept, in 2004.

      That’s seven years ago.

      It’s ok, I’ll remind you: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/tele_network/report/telecommunications.pdf

      “The Government should publicly confirm its acknowledgement that the existing
      copper fixed line network is becoming increasingly obsolete. Government policy
      should focus on the objective of having this network replaced with a fixed line
      network based on fibre to the home technology, or alternative technologies
      offering similar capacity, over the next decade (para. 7.15).”

      Let’s not forget that Telstra has previously stated FTTN would be an untenable option for them, were it to be regulated in any way, shape or form.

      It’s ok, Ill remind you: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20060807/pdf/3xw8rhmsb8nhg.pdf

      So we can safely presume since Telstra has not since repealed that official comment, it still stands.

      Let’s also (for arguments sake) forget that Telstra has been deploying FTTH for some time now, later to be released under their “Velocity” product line.

      It’s ok, I’ll remind you: http://www.zdnet.com.au/telstra-trials-first-fttp-home-139172026.htm

      And we’ll forget that most exchanges now have Fibre interconnect; many well within several kilometers of end users. FTTN is just an acronym for a fibre-fed “last x mile” network. Exchanges often fulfil that role in Australia.

      What those acronyms represent is the important thing.

      Hence Quigley’s invitation. Turnbull is an educated fellow. He’s not an idiot. He’s also hamstrung by being Abbott’s hitman sent to take NBN down and shoot everything that moves. That effectively hobbles any kind of outcome.

      I honestly believe Turnbull is trying to at least swing the policy into the 20th century, however Abbott barely comprehends the abacus, and fears anything silicon based. That cannot lead to a sensible outcome.

      So all Turnbull can do, is play a semantics game. Twist the facts for political gain. For a potential broadband Minister, that is a very very disconcerting proposition. Just as doing nothing is, something the Coalition became very good at during their last tenure.

      • toshP300
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:12 pm | Permalink |

        “a senate enquiry has declared FTTN to be obsolete”…. LOL…. tell that to all the FTTN/VDSL equipment vendors in the world who are still pouring millions into R&D.

        i’m sure all those telco expert consulting companies around the world are consulting and quoting Australian Hansard when advising countries how to upgrade their comms infrastructure ;)

        and, oh please stop spreading this COMPLETE RUBBISH about how “Turnbull secretly loves the NBN” which i believe originated from an Internode radio interview. read the f–king speeches on his website ferchrissakes. he explains in excruciating detail why 90% FTTH is completely bonkers. saying “Turnbull has been ordered to destroy the NBN” is just completely FALSE GARBAGE by people who are either too lazy to read his writings on the topic or too daft too understand his arguments.

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

          “tell that to all the FTTN/VDSL equipment vendors in the world who are still pouring millions into R&D.”

          Just because I can still get replica parts for a Ford Model T, doesn’t make it any less obsolete. That’s why we all drive around in Model T’s and A’s still, right?

          I mean, the new parts are just as good as the old.

          If you have a modern car, you are evil. You should be using a horse and cart.

          It’s the same argument.

          You also (again everyone defending FTTN is refusing to answer this) forget that Telstra has both a long-standing history of under-investment in the CAN, and that it’s already signaled, to the ASX, it would not consider a regulated FTTN deployment.

          Even the Coalition would require it be regulated to ensure (amongst other things) that the USO was honoured, and that the Trade Practices Act was adhered to.

          Vendors continue to develop copper based technologies because it has become a very common connectivity technology which is still in use.

        • Pepe
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:36 pm | Permalink |

          lol…

          yes the senate enquiry is biased against fttn and companies who profit from fttn are totally unbiased…

          stop my sides are splitting…!

          plus i can’t see where brendan said turnbull secretly loves the nbn? he just said turnbull is at least trying to bring us into the 20th century.

          ironically, its now the 21st century of the anno domini era.so turnbull is still a century behind and abbott another century behind that again …rofl!

          • Pepe
            Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:37 pm | Permalink |

            oops that wasn’t meant to be a link above… my faux pas not hitting the space bar, sorry.

    15. SMEMatt
      Posted 26/10/2011 at 11:54 am | Permalink |

      What everyone seems to forget including Turnbull and all other other politicians is that it isn’t Turnbull’s job to kill the NBN, it is his job to do what is best for Australians. Is it in the best interest of Australians to have core infrastructure owned by a private company whose best interest is to make as much money as possible? The opposition oppose the NBN not because it is in the best interests of Australians to do so, but because opposing it is in the best interest the main stream media and acting in the best interest of the mainstream media helps you get elected.

      • alain
        Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink |

        So what is it about the NBN that is not in the best interests of the ‘mainstream media’ and needs the helping hand of the Coalition in opposing it, and what is it about the Coalition plan that is more friendly to ‘mainstream media’?

        • Pepe
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 12:49 pm | Permalink |

          the good ol’ trusty “exit strategy” eh?

        • Brendan
          Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:09 pm | Permalink |

          “So what is it about the NBN that is not in the best interests of the ‘mainstream media’ and needs the helping hand of the Coalition in opposing it, and what is it about the Coalition plan that is more friendly to ‘mainstream media’?”

          That does not make sense.

          SMEMatt is pointing out that a politicians job is to represent not just grandstand in front of a microphone. Mainstream media feed off conflict; conflict sells. Further, media has had an increasing effect on whether or not politicians are voted in.

          So, if you bang a drum and make outrageous, often unsubstantiated claims, the media will take interest. Because that sells. It’s a very unhealthy symbiotic relationship.

          None of which is beneficial for the constituents. Which those in favour of FTTN, despite the regulatory hell that hath rung, keep forgetting.

          • alain
            Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:23 pm | Permalink |

            The media reports on the feel good spin fed to them from Labor about the NBN as well, but that’s ok in selling newspapers is it?

            • Brendan
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:29 pm | Permalink |

              “The media reports on the feel good spin fed to them from Labor about the NBN as well, but that’s ok in selling newspapers is it??”

              The media reports whatever the heck it wants to report. One could argue there is a good deal of spin from Turnbull too.

              You act as though there is no negative ‘spin’ for the NBN. There is plenty of that. Heck, even Renai has played both sides of the fence here before. ;)

            • Pepe
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 1:30 pm | Permalink |

              no it’s not ok…

              all we want are the facts warts and all.

              so don’t be scared although they prove you wrong, facts don’t actually bite!

            • SMEMatt
              Posted 26/10/2011 at 3:57 pm | Permalink |

              The big advantage of the NBN is ubiquity of service at a minimum level that enables free* access to on-line media. It is ubiquity of access to free to air TV and Newspapers that gave the likes of Murdoch their political power. To the Murdoch press it isn’t just about money it is about to ability to influence political and social debate to their advantage. The Ubiquity of access to alternative sources of information is a very real threat to them as it affects both their business model and the influence they can wield.

              • alain
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

                So how is all of that different today in the HFC ADSL non-NBN world?

              • SMEMatt
                Posted 26/10/2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink |

                I going to go with the “yo mama” approach to explain it.

                Right now “yo mama” does A,B and C on the internet.

                I use to the internet to do A,B,C and X,Y,Z.

                “yo mama” would like to do X,Y,Z except because of where she lives or the bare minimum internet connection she is on due not knowing such option exist, prevents her from doing X,Y,Z when she find out such a thing is possible. The NBN raises these bare minimum circumstances to allow almost everyone to do X,Y,Z. It just some happens that ATM X,Y,Z is a rich media experience on the internet.

                What does X,Y,Z enable?

                Well lets look at the TV and TV “News”(hell will freeze over before I call TT news). TV news in country is controlled by a few players, Not very likely to changed. Nearly everyone’s mama owns and knows how to use a TV.

                Recently a service called digital TV was turned on. When digital TV was first turned on there was very few TVs on the market able to access it as there wasn’t much demand and very little in the way of programming to watch. Now you can’t buy a TV without access to digital, extra digital stations are spring up to fill the demand for choice in content. However the barrier for entry to provide that content is very high indeed and control of the media and TV news has remanded in the same few hands.

                We are seeing the emergence of “internet TV”. The are a very small number TV on the market with built in capability due to fact that without a suitable internet connection the experience is poor. Due to the smaller market there is little content available yet. With the NBN the experience for internet TV is good for everyone eventually ever TV will be “internet enabled” just like every TV is digital ready now. With the increased viewership new content will be available. The big difference is the barrier of entry for producers of new content in an internet TV context is much lower which will remove control of the media from these few hand that control it now.

                Sure some of us can do this now just like early in the piece some of could watch digital TV it is the fact that then NBN will allow anyone even “yo mama” to do this no matter where they live or the fact that ask for the wrong type of internet is what scares the media mongrels.

                As an aside right now I can go almost anywhere in Australia and get electricity connected and expect to get the same “type” of electricity you can not do the same with communications. Universal broadband is to Australia in the 21st century what electricity was in the 20th .

              • alain
                Posted 27/10/2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink |

                So to summarise your lenghty ‘yo-mama’ theory of media relativity (are you in or from the USA?) all ‘mama’ requires is a reasonably fast broadband connection, anything above 1500/256 will do?

                I know it works because I have used it to watch ABC iview at that speed.

    16. Posted 27/10/2011 at 8:31 pm | Permalink |

      I think the problem with Quigley is far more simple to understand – no need to debate the technical merits of FTTH or FTTN.

      Last year during the election, Quigley picked a side and OPENLY backed Labor. I clearly remember the press conference/media stunt where Quigley and Conroy with Gillard in toe, increased the bandwidth figures people would get when the NBN was deployed.

      It was seen as a huge coup for Labor on this policy matter and it made the LibNats look worse because their policy was written in crayon by simple people.

      Quigley forgot that he was running a government funded monopoly crown corporation and played politics. That was well and truly out of line. I mean, imagine the head of the ABC on stage during a campaign policy announcement championing one party over the other during an election? Wouldn’t happen.

      So all of this stuff about Turnbull going in hard on him in hearings and everything is just the way politics at that level are played. Quigley put himself in that position and he will now have to wear the consequences of that day for the rest of his time in that role.

      When Labor gets rolled, Quigley is unemployed. All this other debate about technology is just a waste of breath.

    17. mr30h7
      Posted 30/10/2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink |

      The article say the fibre runs from the (local) exchange to the house. That is a hell of a lot of fibre to lay. I thought it would be more like from the (local) exchange down to a fibre router* (maybe more than 1?) then to the house.

      *sorry if router is not the correct technical term.

    18. golfman
      Posted 29/11/2011 at 7:28 am | Permalink |

      Countries that have and are continuing to roll out Fiber to the Node (FTTN) networks:

      Germany, UK, Switzerland, NZ, USA.

      Countries that “HAD” ambitious plans for Fiber to the Home (FTTH) networks until the GFC hit:

      Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy

      Are you saying Germany, UK, Switzerland, NZ are ‘unwise’ in choosing the economically sane, fast to rollout FTTN option? Greece’s FTTH “plans” are now stuck on hold while Germany (the very wise nation that’s keeping the rest of Europe afloat right now) are doing two things:

      1) The ROI from existing FTTN roll outs have been realized and so now areas with FTTN can be upgraded to FTTH by extending copper from the FTTN nodes to the premises – incremental build, fully paid for by the private sector.

      2) Areas that currently only have copper to the exchange are being upgraded (yes, right now in 2011) to FTTN! Incrementally paid for by the private sector.

      FTTN is NOT old technology as some spinsters like to incorrectly state. It represents a stepping stone to full fiber FTTH but does it in an incremental way that it fast to rollout and insanely less expensive by deferring the replacement of last mile copper pairs to the 10,000,000 premises in Australia. Do the maths related to a per instance cost and time saving on 10,000,000 of anything and you’ll see why FTTN ends up so much cheaper and quicker to roll out.

      The ROI on FTTN swamps that of FTTH otherwise smart nations like Germany would be bypassing FTTN and going straight to FTTH. If you think because ‘our’ NBN Co doesn’t need good ROI because it’s tax payer/debt funded (debt = future taxes) you clearly missed economics 1.0.1. If this baby doesn’t have a good ROI then, when it is flogged off, like the Gov has said it will be (which rather conveniently means it can avoid including NBN costings in the budget!), it will be sold in a fire sale that will mean Australia hands over Rolls Royce infrastructure for the price of a Hyundai – and probably to some overseas interest which will then function like a monopoly, non Australian owned Telstra. That should make all the Telstra haters happy – even though their superannuation fund probably owns shares in Telstra – talk about shooting your face to spite your nose!




    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