Technical “dead-end”:
Conroy smashes Turnbull’s NBN policy

96

news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has taken an axe to the national broadband policy outlined by his Coalition counterpart over the past few months, arguing Malcolm Turnbull’s vision for Australia’s future telecommunications needs would end up with the nation stuck in “a dead end”.

Although Turnbull has not formally published the Coalition’s rival telecommunications policy, over the past six months he has outlined the approach he said a Coalition Government would take to the issue. Currently, that approach appears to focus on a number of core concepts such as incentivising the industry to deploy fibre to the node infrastructure, separating Telstra into wholesale and retail arms, utilising wireless services in rural areas and re-using the existing HFC cable networks.

However, in a landmark speech given to the National Press Club this afternoon and broadcast nationally by the ABC, Conroy attacked each of the technologies which Turnbull has promulgated, highlighting instead the strengths of Labor’s fibre to the home-based policy.

With respect to the fibre to the node technology which would see fibre laid to streetside cabinets, and then extended to premises through the copper network, Conroy said Turnbull appeared to be misleading Australians about the capacities of fibre to the node.

Turnbull has argued FTTN could deliver speeds of between 60Mbps and 80Mbps. However, Conroy stated that such speeds would be dependent upon the type of copper cable installed. And in this area — in terms of both the cable’s diameter and the length of the lines, speeds would be severely restricted in Australia, the Minister argued.

In particular, the speeds envisaged by Turnbull would require bonded copper pairs to be used — which were not present in the current copper network owned by Telstra, Conroy said. “We simply do not have the copper available for speed or performance of what Turnbull is claiming,” he said.

In addition, Conroy said, much of the equipment needed to build a FTTN network would be rendered obsolete in future as bandwidth needs forced the government of the day to examine the case to further roll out fibre to the premise. This was the advice which the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had repeatedly provided to the Government, he said.

Turnbull has previously held up New Zealand’s NBN model as being one that Australia could draw inspiration from. However, Conroy pointed out that the New Zealand Government had largely shifted its policy from a FTTN to a FTTH model, before the planned FTTN infrastructure was completed. “New Zealand’s Conservative Government understands the important of super-fast broadband infrastructure,” said Conroy, noting that Turnbull was right to look to New Zealand — but implying he had missed the Kiwi broadband message.

HFC and wireless
Conroy also attacked the Coalition’s focus on wireless and HFC cable technologies as low-cost alternatives to Labor’s big-spending NBN package.

Often when Turnbull, Liberal Leader Tony Abbott or Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey spoke about the benefits of wireless technology, Conroy said, they were actually talking about Wi-Fi connections rather than the mobile broadband which is provided through 3G/4G networks owned by the major telcos. And because Wi-Fi required a fixed-line connection to support its bandwidth requirements, Conroy argued, Wi-Fi was actually a fixed-line broadband connection.

Even if the Coalition was discussing actual mobile broadband, Conroy said, those connections would not replace fixed-line networks as Australia would continue to need greater and greater capacity on fixed-line networks. The Minister displayed a number of charts to show how bandwidth requirements had constantly increased over the past several decades.

“Turnbull simply denies that the growth shown in these charts will occur,” Conroy told the audience. “Turnbull has decided there is no growth in demand for bandwidth — it just stops. All of the extraordinary growth in Internet data, uploads and capacity. It all ends today. No innovation from companies like Apple or Google. According to Mr Turnbull, nobody in the world is going to deliver anything new.”

In addition, Conroy added, mobile broadband was far more expensive than fixed-line broadband, and suffered from a similar problem to HFC cable in that the more people who connected to the service, the more congested it would become.

All of Australia’s major mobile carriers have suffered from a problem over the past few years with respect to their 3G networks which has seen them suffer congestion and slowdowns as they have added users. Initially the problem struck Optus following the local launch of the iPhone, but then Vodafone was affected in 2010, and finally even Telstra’s leading Next G network has been suffering problems in the Sydney and Melbourne city centres of late.

At this point Conroy played the following decade-old advertisement by Pacific Bell (now AT&T) which satirised congestion problems on HFC networks in the US.

“HFC is a shared medium and has all of these problems,” said Conroy. The congestion problem is often cited by critics of Australia’s own HFC cable networks owned by Telstra and Optus. “When people start hogging the available capacity, there’s just not enough to go around. Using HFC is a dead-end solution,” he said.

Conroy also raised the question of whether and how Turnbull would force Telstra and Optus to resell their HFC networks to other retail players like iiNet, Internode and TPG.

The Minister also raised a number of other problems with the technologies which the Coalition has focused on; a lack of sufficient upload speeds, the lack of a future upgrade path to support higher bandwidth (the NBN infrastructure will support speeds up to 1Gbps), the size of the cabinets involved in FTTN deployments, the difficulty involved in separating Telstra without an incentive for the telco and so on. And he also attacked the Coalition’s statements on the cost and pricing associated with the NBN, stating that even NBN Co itself had not been able to work out how Turnbull had done his sums to come up with the cost of the FTTH build, and pointing out that entry level NBN plans started at $34.50 — cheaper in many cases even than some ADSL services.

“The worst part of Mr Turnbull’s plan is how it abandons regional Australia,” Conroy said. ” Under the NBN, 70% of regional Australia will receive fibre to the home. The future for these towns under the opposition is not quite as clear. There is only one certainty, if you live in regional Australia. You will be dramatically better under the NBN.”

“Mr Turnbull is offering three technologies — FTTN, HFC and wireless,” Conroy concluded. “All of which are limited in being able to provide Australia with the broadband it needs.”

opinion/analysis
Frankly, Conroy’s mostly right here. And I love the fact that he’s making his argument on technical grounds. His comfort level with respect to the actual technology has come ahead in leaps and bounds over the past year or so.

In the speech he gave today, our long-running Communications Minister primarily attacked Turnbull’s rival NBN policy on technical grounds, and on every single one of those grounds he scored points. Wireless? Nope, not going to be enough for our future bandwidth needs — or even those of 2011. HFC? Nope, congestion problems, and it’s not open for wholesale access. FTTN? Nope, it doesn’t have the same upgrade path as FTTH and Telstra’s copper network won’t support the speeds Turnbull has been waving around.

Of course, all of the points Conroy raised are fairly simplistic ways of looking at these technologies: It’s not quite as black and white as he would suggest. Mobile broadband is clearly complementary to fixed broadband, but its importance will only grow over the next decade. There is a strong argument to be made that the HFC networks should not be shut down to make way for the NBN, and it’s an argument that I agree with. And fibre to the node is, it must be said, a technology which could provide for the majority of Australia’s bandwidth needs for perhaps most of the next two decades.

In addition, of course, the technical situation with respect to the NBN is not even half of the whole story … issues like the future of competition in the telecommunications sector, the fact that the Government is creating another Telstra-esque monopoly and the unsavoury idea of destroying infrastructure-based competition shutting down HFC cable infrastructure everywhere are all bad smells which continue to hang around the NBN. By ignoring these issues and focusing on the technical merits of the NBN, Conroy’s on home territory. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, and Turnbull has rightly focused on them.

Overall, the core of the problem for Turnbull right now, as I have noted, is that although many of his ideas about future telecommunications policy are very solid, he has done nothing to develop them over the past few months or address criticism of them. He started a debate in July and August by proposing a robust alternative to Labor’s NBN, then walked away from that debate. And it died. Until now, Conroy hasn’t bothered to address Turnbull’s policy, because he didn’t need to. Now he’s delivered an extremely powerful closing blow to Turnbull before Christmas, in a very public forum — the National Press Club. And he’s done it on the best of grounds — technical ones. To be honest, I think it will take Turnbull a while to recover from this one.

Update: The full text of Conroy’s speech can be found online here in PDF format.

96 COMMENTS

    • Most effective, yes. In a government with very few who are willing to get their hands dirty with political biffo, Conroy loves the stoush and gives as good as he gets. The Opposition knows better than to go at him half-cocked.

      He might not quite be Keating, but he’s a Keating-esque fighter. Probably the last of them.

    • 1. It’s not 2022 yet. (latest extension to NBN finish date)
      2. It’s not 2018 yet. (deadline of Telstra separation)

      3. Post any of those two dates – who is Minister Conroy?

  1. renai, i can”t understand why you keep harping on about the issue of shutting down the HFC network.

    in one paragraph you state that shutting it down is so unsavoury when in only the previous paragraph you state precisely why it should be shut down.

    if the HFC network has issues with congestion and is not open for wholesale access then it is no good to the NBN and should be removed.

    • I’m with Clinton. Renai, where’s the consistency?
      Also, “many of his ideas about future telecommunications policy are very solid.” In context of “Conroy smashes Turnbull’s NBN policy,” which ones exactly are “very solid,” prey tell?

    • Lets just say that the HFC network disappeared today, and all those connections morphed somehow into ADSL – Would anyone notice anything? Not generally, I don’t think so. Would there be less competition? nothing noticeable I would think.
      We don’t have Cable here but in the next suburb they do. I don’t see any difference in competition because of the presence of TWO HFC cables. In the real world it barely matters.

      • It will matter, however, if those existing HFC networks are forced to provide wholesale access to all ISPs wishing to service that area, and that infrastructure becomes hopelessly congested.

    • I object to shutting the HFC networks down because I see it as an uncompetitive act on behalf of the government to favour its own new infrastructure above that which has been rolled out commercially.

      However, it is also true that the HFC networks will not support the volume of traffic which Turnbull wishes to put on them as they are upgraded.

      These two facts are not contradictory; the situation is more complex than a binary yes/no argument.

      • Well considering most residents that have HFC passing them today are not using it that’s a interesting statement about about future ‘load problems’, it also assumes the Coalition plan is that where there is HFC there will be no other fixed line BB alternative allowed.

        By mid 2013 there will be many areas that have HFC that also have FTTH, also there will be many residences with a HFC connection for Foxtel and a NBN connection for BB.

        Making an assumption that any HFC area that does not NBN FTTH already rolled out by 2013 will ONLY be allowed to have HFC as their BB option in a Coalition plan is just guess work, therefore any ‘load predictions’ on the Telstra HFC network made now in 2011 based on a Coalition win post 2013 is also pure guesswork because it is based on so many unknowns it is a totally pointless exercise.

        • so if most residents where HFC is located aren’t actually using it, why is it even there?

          yet another reason to remove it in favour of NBN FTTH.
          foxtel can be broadcast just as easily via FTTH as it can via HFC.
          in fact any other companies wishing to provide pay tv could use the same fibre as the foxtel.

          something they can’t do with the HFC.

          • @Clinton

            ‘so if most residents where HFC is located aren’t actually using it, why is it even there?

            yet another reason to remove it in favour of NBN FTTH.’

            So why will replacing HFC with NBN FTTH magically mean they will start using it, or is it that not using NBN FTTH is much cheaper alternative to not using HFC?

          • “So why will replacing HFC with NBN FTTH magically mean they will start using it”.

            Choice/competition from multiple RSP’s, better prices which will lead from such competition and all of this, for a superior product.

          • @Ross

            I can use ‘common sense’ as well, that’ s typical pro-NBN spin unfounded rubbish.

          • So –

            FTTP is not superior to HFC?

            Having the choice of many RSP’s is not beneficial?

            Competition does not create downward retail pricing?

            And anyone who thinks they are, is an NBN glee club member?

          • @Ross

            FTTP is not superior to HFC?’

            HFC is superior to ADSL and wireless BB in terms of speed, it doesn’t mean everyone that has it passing their residence therefore takes a HFC plan does it?

            ‘Having the choice of many RSP’s is not beneficial?’

            Like we have today?

            ‘Competition does not create downward retail pricing?’

            Most of the downward retail pricing today is created by competitor DSLAM’s inside Telstra exchanges, there is a special ‘downward retail product’ that Telstra Wholesale and BigPond don’t sell, it’s Naked DSL.

            Under the NBN everyone sells the same bog standard products at the same speed price wholesale break points as everyone else, there won’t be the same ability to price cut unless you want to go out of business because your cost margins don’t have the same flexibility as having own-your-own DSLAM’s.

            ‘And anyone who thinks they are, is an NBN glee club member?’

            A NBN glee cub member is someone who posts in websites like this wearing rose coloured glasses, acting as self appointed NBN Co apologists and perpetuating and repeating like sheep the political NBN BS from the Labor Party spin machine, and ignoring anything negative about the NBN they don’t want to see.

          • @alain let’s recap.

            What we were actually referring to was this comment from you.

            “So why will replacing HFC with NBN FTTH magically mean they will start using it”.

            So, remember ‘HFC’, and try again

            Is FTTP superior to HFC?

            You made a comment about competition “like we have today”. Who are these many HFC RSP’s widly competing?

            Competition comes from “competitor DSLAMS” in Telstra exchanges. Wasn’t that previously referred to by a few here as parasitic cherry picking?

            NBN glee club is obviously the nemesis of the anti-NBN fanatical bigotry society.

          • “So why will replacing HFC with NBN FTTH magically mean they will start using it”

            Better value for money. Those that chose not to use get a gimped HFC plan may consider a vastly superior FTTH plan because it offers better value for money… unless you are suggesting Optus and Telstra customers are complete retards that cant recognise a comparative bargain when they see one.

          • It could be that residences that can get HFC don’t want it because when it comes to BigPond and Optus their ADSL2+ and HFC plans are the same.

            Many residences can also have 100Mbps plans, it doesn’t mean they all sign up.

            That’s the nice thing about HFC it was not bankrolled by taxpayers, so if it loses $$ the taxpayer is not left pouring money into a voracious sinkhole like the NBN debacle will be.

          • The taxpayer did’t fund the 100Mbps upgrade either, so if Telstra lose $$ on the deal who cares.

            The NBN will be blowing taxpayer $$$ for decades as it struggles to get 7% ROI and struggles even more to get 70% of residences using a NBN plan.

            But hey look at all those social benefits as shown by existing Greenfield rollouts, err perhaps best not to go there.

          • “The NBN will be blowing taxpayer $$$ for decades as it struggles to get 7% ROI and struggles even more to get 70% of residences using a NBN plan.”

            If you aren’t using a NBN plan what will you be using? Wireless? If you’re right and everybody jumps over to your wireless bandwagon do you really think that your wireless connection would be that usable? The wireless networks are that congested now, at times it’s almost unusable and that is only going to get worse once more and more people start to use it.

          • I didn’t say everyone will move over to wireless, but the trend the NBN rollout is facing and remember it hasn’t even got off the ground yet and has a finish date of 2022 is a trend for the disconnection of fixed line and total reliance especially for calls on mobile but also increasingly wireless data.

            I would have thought those that can get products like Telstra and Optus LTE at the right price for their needs will put the NBN on permanent bypass no matter how appealing the plans look relative to wireless.

      • Yes, they should really leave HFC as is. Fair enough ripping out copper, they need the exchanges and pits to run the fibre. Also the goal is to not have to maintain the copper in parallel to the fibre. HFC though could just sit there and be used. The telco could maintain it or not. Not specific requirement to do so.
        I wonder if the close down of HFC was all NBNs doing or if it is because Telstra and Optus wanted compensation for fibre running to the same areas? If so, you’d hardly then want to leave them with the HFC to compete after paying out the compensation.

    • im interested in a related item – how much does it cost in upkeep to keep HFC going per year? id heard the maintenance bill was substantial for HFC but i dont think a figure was ever given. it would be good to figure out; as most of the hfc area at the moment have 2 wires down it, ergo 2x the maintenance bill for one area. (on the other hand two cables in one area might help with the congestion issues)….

      • Well irrespective of what it is, the nice thing about HFC maintenance is that it’s not coming out of the taxpayers purse.

    • Question remains: Exactly which of “his [Turnbull’s] ideas” are “very solid”?

  2. Not always a fan of Conroy but he did really well here I think. Can you believe it; arguments put forward by a comms minister that are actually technical, and not idealogical?

  3. FYI upon re-reading the conclusion to this article I realised it was somewhat one-sided. I’ve added a couple of pars and modified a few sentences somewhat. I’m in a bit of a hyped-up mood this afternoon ;)

  4. “Overall, the core of the problem for Turnbull right not, as I have noted, …”
    Is that supposed to be “now”?

  5. @Renai

    ‘In the speech he gave today, our long-running Communications Minister primarily attacked Turnbull’s rival NBN policy on technical grounds, and on every single one of those grounds he scored points.’

    Well yeah Renai except:

    ‘Wireless? Nope, not going to be enough for our future bandwidth needs — or even those of 2011’

    The Coalition policy is not about total wireless, never has been.

    ‘HFC? Nope, congestion problems, and it’s not open for wholesale access.’

    Well it cannot be opened for wholesale access it won’t be Coalition policy, and see my comment above about ‘dreaming’ up future HFC congestion problems in December 2011.

    ‘ FTTN? Nope, it doesn’t have the same upgrade path as FTTH and Telstra’s copper network won’t support the speeds Turnbull has been waving around.’

    Really I thought many overseas FTTN rollouts did have a upgrade path to FTTH, that’s why they are being rolling out, it is cheaper and faster, and IF it is needed and I emphasis IF, upgrade later to FTTH.

    I agree Turnbull has problem with FTTN, but that’s more to do with the copper owner wanting to do it in two to three years post NBN FTTH rollout, rather than on technical grounds

    BTW why won’t the Telstra copper network support the speeds Turnbull is waving around, I didn’t notice he was quoting any speeds FTTN cannot support?

    ‘Now he’s delivered an extremely powerful closing blow to Turnbull before Christmas, in a very public forum — the National Press Club. And he’s done it on the best of grounds — technical ones.’

    Well that’s if you call the equivalence of being hit over the head with a wet paper bag the equivalent of a ‘powerful closing blow’, there is nothing new there in the content, we have heard it all before, mainly from Havyatt.

    Irrespective of all of the above National Press Club address and your incorrect conclusion of a so called ‘powerful closing blow’,it has nothing whatever to do with the Coalition gaining power in 2013 and implementing their own comms policy does it?

    • “The Coalition policy is not about total wireless, never has been.”

      Wrong. some quotes from their most current ‘official’ comm policy:

      —–
      The Coalition will commit up to $1 billion in grant funding for new fixed wireless networks in rural
      and remote Australia. We will commit up to an additional $1 billion in investment funding for new
      fixed wireless networks in metropolitan Australia, with an emphasis on outer metropolitan areas
      —–

      There is _EXTREME_ emphasis on wireless networks throughout the entire document, something like 60% of CPE aimed funding was going to end up in wireless.

      I can’t be bothered replying in depth to your other points, but straight from the horses mouth (Lib comm policy)

      —–
      The Labor Government sought to implement a policy of building a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network to
      98 percent of the population. It failed because Labor’s FTTN plan was flawed from the start. A National
      Audit Office inquiry found that the proposal was never likely to succeed.
      —–

      Better tell Malcolm FTTN is ‘flawed from the start’ hey?

      Another thing I have heard Malcolm complain about endlessly is the cross subsidy method for remote Australia – ie fixed wholesale prices.

      —–
      To ensure prices to end users in rural and regional Australia are comparable to those for similar services in metropolitan areas, the operator(s) of these wireless broadband networks will be required to provide a service over the network at a price comparable to similar DSL services in metropolitan areas.
      —–

      Lol.

      • Two very interesting points duideka, which beggars belief and shows strange double standards from the opposition.

        The Coalition saying about Labor’s ditched FTTN plan, “A National Audit Office inquiry found that the proposal was never likely to succeed”. But yet they plan on going down a similar FTTN path, regardless of the Audit Office information.

        And also stating, after criticising cross subsidies. “To ensure prices to end users in rural and regional Australia are comparable to those for similar services in metropolitan areas, the operator(s) of these wireless broadband networks will be required to provide a service over the network at a price comparable to similar DSL services in metropolitan areas”.

        Can any of their proud members here ‘please explain’?

        • too easy…

          i/ 98% FTTN is unviable but 40% FTTN is easily do-able

          ii/ directly subsidise (on-budget) rural fixed-wireless to be on par with metro pricing (no cross-subsidy needed)

          all huff and puff over nothing….

          • So, scrap something with a 7% ROI for a inferior system that keeps us paying Telstra for their copper month after month and payout money year after year for wireless subsidies with no return at all.

          • And the other 60%, let them eat cake?

            So rather than have the business subsidise itself you promote governmental subsidies? Seems like a cross between the Kremlin and the Church of Scientology.

      • The Coalition will commit up to $1 billion in grant funding for new fixed wireless networks in rural
        and remote Australia. We will commit up to an additional $1 billion in investment funding for new
        fixed wireless networks in metropolitan Australia, with an emphasis on outer metropolitan areas

        You are LYING

        Please show me, where as you claim here

        “The Coalition policy is not about total wireless, never has been.”
        Wrong. some quotes from their most current ‘official’ comm policy:

        That the coalition policy is about total wireless. Using that logic, and the link you have shown, the NBN is completely wireless. Both political parties have policies to install wireless in rural areas, which is exactly the link you have provided

        The amount of misrepresentation and FUD being thrown around by NBN proponents to smear Malcolm really just makes them look desperate, Malcolm Turnbull has already commented on what he envisages his policy to look like, and just recently he said he wanted it to mirror NZ’s model, which is nothing like “wireless everywhere”

    • “Really I thought many overseas FTTN rollouts did have a upgrade path to FTTH, that’s why they are being rolling out, it is cheaper and faster, and IF it is needed and I emphasis IF, upgrade later to FTTH.”

      i think its down to topology and population alain.

      if these overseas FTTN rollouts are in areas with a lot of vertical high rises and your FTTN net is basically installing a box on ground floor and VDSLing up the floors via copper its pretty obvious how simple that is to work from a FTTN to FTTH plan. (replace copper trunk box with fibre trunk box, re-lay all the floors with fibre).

      with a horizontal spread instead – the way Australia is – the situation is different, and a bit sticky. the way i understood it was the optimum point for a fttn box was largely not the same point as the optimum point for a (however many fibre) splitter box, considering fibre supports much longer runs than copper does, costs to lay etc etc. therefore a fttn net being pushed to FTTH by a future government likely would completely build around the nodes and theyd essentially be scrapped rather than being reused as in the former example. there are a few points in Australia that are like the first example but our MDU system is muddled up to put it frankly, so thats another barrier to FTTN -FTTH upgrades here.

      just because a FTTN – FTTH upgrade might work elsewhere doesnt necessarily mean it does here.

      • FTTN, FTTH there are a lot of in betweens and one geos beyond FTTH. FTTB is a couple of steps up from FTTN, FTTN being the lowest tier.

        From wikipedia:

        FTTN – Fiber-to-the-node – fiber is terminated in a street cabinet up to several kilometers away
        FTTC – Fiber-to-the-curb – this is very similar to FTTN, but the street cabinet is closer
        FTTB – Fiber-to-the-building or Fiber-to-the-basement – fiber reaches the boundary of the building
        FTTH – Fiber-to-the-home – fiber reaches the boundary of the living space
        FTTP – Fiber-to-the premises – this term is used in several contexts: as a blanket term FTTH and FTTB
        FTTD – Fiber-to-the-desk – fiber connection is installed from the main computer room

  6. Conroy should get his technical facts correct. VDSL2 only requires a single twisted pair, and not bonded copper pairs (which is what Turnbull refers to regarding FTTN). Twisted pairs is what’s installed in Aus. Also the FTTH being installed by NBNCo is a shared medium just like HFC (it just has greater total bandwidth)

    • Correct me if I’m wrong but he was never saying VDSL _requires_ multiple pairs of copper, he was simply saying to get the speeds Turnbull is quoting at distances more than spitting distance from the FTTN node you will need to bond multiple pairs of copper.

      • And that is factually incorrect. The VDSL2 standard has twisted pair as a requirement, and and VDSL2 provides speeds in excess of 100mbit synchronous.

        Conroy simply does not know what he is talking about

        • Bzzzzzzzzt

          Pity VDSL doesn’t do much better than ADSL past 1 km from the exchange either. Lets keep that digital disparity for the majority of Australians going shall we?

          • Bumb baooooow!

            Just like normal Murdoch, you don’t know what you are talking about

            The whole point of FTTN is you install cabinets so everyone’s house is within that range, otherwise its not an FTTN and just instead upgrading equipment in the exchange

            Its called FTTN, (Fiber to the Node) and not FTTE (Fiber to the exchange) for a reason

          • And right back at you. You didn’t think it through either.

            You planning on giving Telstra a big bucket of money to maintain their current monopoly hey? Because otherwise, you go back to the exchange and allow (shock horror) competitors, to run out competing infrastructure.

            Typical deteego, can’t see past the end of his own conclusions.

          • This has no relevance to your uneducated claim that of not understanding what FTTN is

            Please try again

            Also giving bucket loads of money to NBNCo is the exact same thing as giving bucket loads of money to Telstra, both are as bad as each other

          • Building infrastructure for all Australians to own, enjoy and have an asset to resell for the nation to profit from, is obviously better than throwing money at Telstra shareholders only.

            I would think that obvious to all but Telstra shareholders and the most conservatively dry.

          • NBNCo is going to be sold as a private entity, its is part of Labor’s policy

            i.e. its Telstra 2.0

            It’s quite relevent. We are in Australia yes? Read it again and try to keep up. FTTN without duplication requires a bucket of money to Telstra and it’s commercial return. FTTN with duplication allows wholesale competition from the exchange out.

            This has nothing got to do with you not knowing what FTTN is

            You claimed that VDSL2 wouldn’t work because people live >1km from the exchange wouldn’t experience the speeds. This is not an FTTN, this is an upgrade of infrastructure from the exchange.

            ROFL at this. Still choosing to remain selectively ignorant, despite information to the contrary presented in articles on this very site.
            Labor’s policy is to sell NBNCo to private industry, hell Rob Oakshott wants to go even further and actually split up NBNCo

            Seems like Telstra 2.0 to me, both initially started as government projects, and both initially end up as private monopolies, and they end up screwing Australia telecommunications in the process, as does heavy government intervention in areas they shouldn’t be intervening usually does

          • It’s quite relevent. We are in Australia yes? Read it again and try to keep up. FTTN without duplication requires a bucket of money to Telstra and it’s commercial return. FTTN with duplication allows wholesale competition from the exchange out.

            “Also giving bucket loads of money to NBNCo is the exact same thing as giving bucket loads of money to Telstra, both are as bad as each other”

            ROFL at this. Still choosing to remain selectively ignorant, despite information to the contrary presented in articles on this very site.

          • NBNCo is going to be sold as a private entity, its is part of Labor’s policy, unless you are saying that Labor is lying

            i.e. its Telstra 2.0

            It’s quite relevent. We are in Australia yes? Read it again and try to keep up. FTTN without duplication requires a bucket of money to Telstra and it’s commercial return. FTTN with duplication allows wholesale competition from the exchange out.

            This has nothing got to do with you not knowing what FTTN is

            You claimed that VDSL2 wouldn’t work because people live >1km from the exchange wouldn’t experience the speeds. This is not an FTTN, this is an upgrade of infrastructure from the exchange.

            ROFL at this. Still choosing to remain selectively ignorant, despite information to the contrary presented in articles on this very site.
            Labor’s policy is to sell NBNCo to private industry, hell Rob Oakshott wants to go even further and actually split up NBNCo

            Seems like Telstra 2.0 to me, both initially started as government projects, and both initially end up as private monopolies, and they end up screwing Australia telecommunications in the process, as does heavy government intervention in areas they shouldn’t be intervening usually does

          • I saw that 6 months ago. It would suck if they did that. If they didn’t the Liberals would as soon as they were in anyway. If they do it they better have some pretty strong and water tight regulation. I can’t see a company with a monopoly like that not try to exploit it. I suggest they sell it to the Salvos :) Unfortunatley humanitarian organisations wouldn’t be interested and couldn’t afford it. Maybe Mr Gates would like to buy it now he’s gone all charitable.

        • If you are talking the VDSL2 30a protocol, the current fastest I know of. It’s only100MB/s at source then falls off rapidly from there. 30a on two pairs can get 200-250 at source and drops to 100MB/s at about 500m

        • “VDSL2 provides speeds in excess of 100mbit synchronous.”

          What percentage of those connected to this VDSL2 FTTN network will get “in excess of 100mbit synchronous” is it 100%? Also what apps require 100mbit synchronous speeds?

          • That depends on how far the cabinets are from the houses in general

            But either way, VDSL2 will easily provide 60/60 speeds on our current copper infrastructure (assuming that a proper FTTN topology is installed with cabinets of an area of around 1km).

            Conroy simply put does not know what he is talking about, he is technologically illiterate, just the same with the internet filter

          • Agreed 60/60 would be possible, probably 800m, 1km maybe 50/50. 80 just wouldn’t be on, you’d have a cobinet on every corner. It may be hard to centre a cabinet in a 2×2 area given the lines radiate from the exchange so say 15 cabinets per exchange by 900 exchanges. What does a cabinet cost? I know the VDSL2 modems are around $300 for the end user. So that’s over a billion in new modems, well maybe less once they start selling larger volumes.

          • What does a cabinet cost?

            Much cheaper then installing cables to everyone’s house. I believe WTW from Whirlpool stated its around 20k, and that serves thousands of premises

            The FTTH installation is around 3-5k per premise

            I know the VDSL2 modems are around $300 for the end user.
            I would appreciate if you stopped spreading nonsense
            http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Billion-BiPAC-8200N-4-port-Firewall-Router-300Mbps-802-11n-VDSL2-Black-/150689912261?pt=UK_Computing_Networking_SM&hash=item2315d195c5

            VDSL2 modems (or routers more specifically) cost the same amount as standard ADSL2 routers, around 150 dollars. That price would actually go down if the modems enter proper high production

            I have no idea what VDSL2 routers you are claiming cost $300 dollars, but its not a typical consumer grade VDSL2 router

          • ND: I know the VDSL2 modems are around $300 for the end user.
            DB: I would appreciate if you stopped spreading nonsense

            Come on, at least be honest. So you found a cheap VDSL2 modem in the UK on Ebay.

            Now search staticice.com.au and see what a typical VDSL2 router with wireless sells for in Australia. Not some cherry picked Ebay deal.. lowest 282.70 plus shipping.

          • How do you know a VDSL2+ router will not be part of the plan deal, the NBN Co doesn’t require each residence to go out and source their own ONT box do they?

          • It just so happens that the VDSL2 modems on static ice happen to be the most expensive ones, and the most common VDSL2 routers which they sell in European countries (such as the UK) aren’t even sold here, and sell for around $150 if converted to AUD

            The ONT that is installed, costs ~$300 per premise, and is just a modem and not a router (it doesn’t provide networking through the ONT), which means the users will have to pay for another router ontop of that

          • Yes I know that, I was just making a point about plan hardware bundling which most ISP’s provide today, so the hardware is upfront purchase price free with a plan sign-up but you have to stay with the ISP for a contract period.

          • Uh, that is because Australia doesn’t have VDSL2, so if you are going to be it locally of course it will be more expensive. If you find VDSL2 modems overseas, you will see they are the same price as ADSL2+ modems.

            Again, if we find the price for a 4 port WAN VDSL2 high end router, in britain (where ISP’s actually provide VDSL2), we find that its 95 pounds
            (http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/ShopDetail.asp?ProductID=11522)

            which is of course ~150 Aus dollars

            Here it is from another shop
            http://electronics-pro.com/networking/billion-bipac-8200n-4-port-firewall-router-300mbps-802-11n-vdsl2-black/

            The point is, the VDSL2 modems actually cost 150 dollars. You just happened to pick a model which is overly expensive, static ice didn’t even have the billion model I was talking about in sale in Australia

          • Yes, I checked for any stores selling that Billion as it seemed the cheapest VDLSL2 Modem overseas. I guess they don’t sell it here yet. Probably haven’t had it approved yet. I agree though, if VDSL2 comes to Australia there should be more availability and better prices. Bit of a bummer Netgear removed VDSL support from my router a couple of firmware revisions ago. Not sure why.

          • “That depends on how far the cabinets are from the houses in general”

            OK so it all depends. So you can’t claim 100mbit synchronous if it’s just a few people getting those speeds right next to the nodes, you should do some research and then get back to us about how many people can expect such speeds otherwise your claims are useless…

            “But either way, VDSL2 will easily provide 60/60 speeds”

            lol and just like that we already are down to 60/60 and that’s before any fibre nodes have been installed and the questions still remain: What percentage of those connected to this VDSL2 FTTN network will get 60/60 and what apps require 60mbit synchronous speeds?

            “Conroy simply put does not know what he is talking about”

            I don’t give a shit about Conroy I’m asking you but honestly it sounds like you are the one that doesn’t know what you are talking about.

  7. I notice people are praising Conroy now. He was being called Conjob on a regular basis, perhaps even byt he same people.

    Don’t forget that this is the same man that championed the internet filter.

    He’s a good Comms minister, having grown into the role over the years he has been in it. Regarding these policies he is right. The Coalition remains ever short sighted focussed on 2010… err I mean 2011.

    On a side note – the internet filter idea seemed to disappear the same time Rudd disappeared from the head office. Coincidence?

  8. I had a couple of goes at watching this and gave up. Conroy had a glorious opportunity at the Press Club to talk up the NBN, to maybe actually get some of these journalists engaged on the project. What does he do? He spends his time attacking Turnbull. What a waste.

    What Conroy should have done is talk about the NBN. Tell the journalists and people watching on TV what the NBN is and what it can do. Tell people what the NBNCo has done and what it is doing. Tell people what the NBN can do for business and government. Tell people what the NBN can do for them at home. Skip the flash dishwashers and talk about ‘real’ things ‘real’ people are doing now. Spend 25-30 minutes talking about the NBN when there are people listening. Maybe leave those people thinking and talking about the NBN. Thinking about how good it will be for them. This was a great opportunity for the NBN.

    Like a drunk staggering out of a pub in the early hours of Sunday morning, Conroy starts a fight. People are talking about the fight and the bloke he hit. Well, those who didn’t think “Oh, just more politics” might. Most people have probably forgotten about it. Not people here of course, but people out there who don’t think about the NBN and now, thanks to Conroy, still don’t.

    The NBN needed a fight obsessed maniac like Conroy to get it off the ground. Credit to him for that. Now it needs a visionary with his/her feet on the ground who can talk to people and get them engaged with the NBN. For that, Conroy is a waste of DNA.

    • I love how everyone is crying how negative Abbot is, and yet we see stuff like this from Conroy being “negative” about the coalition plan

  9. It isn’t a congestion with what I dislike about HFC its how affected by weather it becomes. Hot says signal loss. Cold weather excess signal. Rain corroded equipment.
    While I admit I have no idea if fibre has the same metal based problems as HFC but I kinda can’t see why it would though.
    Fibre to the node and my area’s copper would be the same problem coper corrodes.

  10. Good points.

    Only thing is the HFC argument is a little watery – it’s true that it’s a shared medium, though by the same token if I were rolling out the NBN I would leave any areas with HFC until dead last. If everyone were on cable it would no doubt buckle, but at the moment HFC is having no trouble pushing those almost-as-fast speeds to the 50% odd of the population it covers – those few who realise it’s there, anyway!

    • @Mike

      ‘but at the moment HFC is having no trouble pushing those almost-as-fast speeds to the 50% odd of the population it covers’

      I think Telstra and Optus would be very happy if it was anywhere near 50%!

      :)

      • Given how they rolled it out in battle mode overbuilding each other it will be hard to get high utilisation. If they hadn’t had that stupid battle the HFC would cover nearly twice as many houses.

  11. even a broken (analogue) clock is right twice a day… about time he got SOMETHING right. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that he has finally argued what many of us have said from the start, just taken him a lot longer to get there then I’d expect any normal person to take. Shame as I’d imagine he’d be emerged in it day in day out. some competent advisors finally maybe?
    I just wish it wasn’t Liberals agenda to block this no matter what, I think they’ve back the wrong horse, and don’t want to back down now… I think Turnbull having at least some IT background would realise the strengths of FTTH, however, as the head of the party is trying to discredit Labour, he is backed into a losing corner and its making them look stupid!
    Turnbull was given the task to discredit the FTTH network, and what can you do when it’s the best solution? Liberal thought they had nothing to lose, if it failed they could say see told you so and would discredit Labour, if it succeeds they can still argue at what cost…however I think they are starting to lose face based on having no viable alternative.
    /end rant.

  12. If the libs are going to help us roll out a faster product to my customers (Regional) it would be fantastic. Its difficult building networks in regional Australia – high risk and low margins. What nbn ?

  13. I’m amazed at the comments that Stupid Conroy is a ‘best minister ever’…???…how is it un-medicated potato headed morons are getting access to PCs to write this utter sh!t???
    Conroy is an absolute buffoon, he couldn’t match Turnbull even if Turnball was in a medical coma…fxck me there are some utter sh!t dribblers on here…they must be 12 & under to not know what a MASSIVE disaster State & Federal Labor is.

  14. I reckon Frenchy the owner of this hidiously biased dump should be getting party funding form the Labor …ooh..sh!t thats right he already is…wondered why he never publishes / cutsnpastes from real journo sites, stories telling the truth about what a disaster the Labor really is???…

    hmmmm…Here at Delimiter, we only tell one side of the story, the right side, our side, the Red Side!

    (written and spoken by Ima Puppet for the Labor Party Canberra)

    • @Never Again, (rhyming slang for alain).

      Settle petal. You do realise we are all laughing at, not with you

      • Whinge Commander you have neither the mental capacity nor aptitude to withstand a verbal pummeling I would rain down on your pathetic scrawny shapeless figure, hitch up your nappy, wipe the boogers from your upper lip, the sh!t from your chin and go put on a new bib….you look disgusting, have you no pride???

  15. Thank you for confirming what even the lint in your belly knows….utter utter utter fxcking assclown…and I’m not Alain…but I can sort of see how you make the mistake…those piggy little eyes all squinted up like that…must struggle to discern light from dark let alone identify shapes of any detail….stupid little mole…back in your in your hole!!

Comments are closed.