But looking at the Tasman Hwy, going SE of Scotsdale, Tas on the NBN map (turn sat photo on). I can count at least a dozen premises that <1km of fibre would connect. Another cluster SW of the town. Not everything can be done at once, but rollout from existing areas is supposed to be the plan. With 1km of fibre not being planned there, for so many, not much chance for any deadend street with larger acreage properties.

So being 700m from the last run of suburban size blocks leading out of town, add the rest of the problems, seems to add up to Buckley's chance. Additionally the copper is already burnt out by powering RAM8 units, so any precious top hat or FTN plan isn't going to cut it here, nor many other places.
Liberals are on record as saying the Yarra Valley and Ranges don't need upgraded comms too, not that that means much.

If you do and you are within town boundaries of a town with 1000 premises, then there’s no reason that wouldn’t get fibre to you aerially. You could even HAVE a new trench dug- they aren’t doing much civil works, but they have said they’ll do some.

Is your town on the NBN fibre lists for your state? And how far out from town do you live?

True! ;-)

I’ll never even HOPE that they may do what they say from now on.
Someone could make a killing in politics by stating their promises on a Statuatory Declaration, with consequent risk of jail terms for failing to fulfill the declared promise.

I would love the NBN to come to my area, the town it meets requirements re:#premises, but I don’t expect it to happen, not only due to likely change of government. it would require conduit bored under 400m of trees. Some moron 30years ago decided to put 10pair copper cable direct in ground to service a deadend 2km street with 15 properties.
I see similar cessation of fibre at immediate borders of suburban rollout in Tasmania. Even my 1km wireless link to working internet is to a shed thats unlikely to receive an upgraded line.

Anti-NBN critic A (B, C, D or E, as they all the same person) write a thesis of typical anti-NBN rhetoric and Hubert’s answers is… “false”

Gold…!

While you’re probably right… Premises != Home

Not since after the beginning of Tony Abbott’s leadership.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Just let me confirm: government direction was for 1,000 premises in a town, they get fibre; and for 500 premises in a town, where the backhaul went through the town, they would get fibre?

Mr Quigley : Yes.

——

LOL

“The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Actually, it’s the opposite. Because that 93% is premises coverage, not population coverage as well. There’s always going to be an average of more than 1 person per premises, to account for couples/families/housemates etc.

It’d likely end up somewhere around the same number of premises, but just to more population and a different distribution of population.

It’d be interesting to do the maths actually…. if I could be bothered….

i. All communities with greater than 1,000 premises (determined by G-NAF data) were
mapped, and then remote communities (i.e. those requiring extensive transit backhaul)
were backed out, to provide the minimum FTTP coverage of 90%

ii. Transit backhaul routes required to service this FTTP footprint and 8 satellite earth stations
were then plotted, and any communities with greater than 1,000 premises excluded under i.
along these routes were added back in, resulting in 90.8% FTTP coverage;

iii. All additional communities with over 1,000 premises were then added back in, together with
the additional transit backhaul needed to serve these communities, resulting in 91.4% FTTP
coverage; and

iv. All communities with greater than 500 premises that are passed by the transit backhaul
routes resulting from i-iii were added in, resulting in 92.3% FTTP coverage.”

Page 63 the NBN Co. Corporate plan 2010.

There does seem an inconsistency with the first government expectations:

“2. The technologies utilised should be Fibre to 93% of premises (including Greenfields
developments) (defined in this Plan as the Fibre Network), Fixed Wireless to 4% of premises
(delivering at least 12Mbps) (defined in this Plan as the Fixed Wireless Network or Wireless
Network), and Satellite to 3% of premises (defined in this Plan as the Satellite Network);”

“Connect homes, schools and workplaces with optical fibre (fibre to the premises or ‘FTTP’),
providing broadband services to Australians in urban and regional towns with speeds of 100
megabits per second – 100 times faster than those currently used by most people extending to
towns with a population of around 1,000 or more people;”

These two criteria could very well be in collision, if you did do all 1000 population towns this could go over 93% fibre coverage with corresponding cost increases.

At the end of the day the opposition is late to the party here

For better or worse?

The thing is, it’s always been 1,000 premises, that hasn’t actually changed. And of course, nobody in regional Australia is getting fibre under the Coalition’s plan so their complaints seem quite disingenuous.

Should be:

It doesn’t matter overly much.