Biggest problem with trying to take politics out of this debate, is twofold. The opinion on the role of government in general, and less precisely, where the government-commercial transition should be.

People can agree that government should provide a minimum level of health care, but they can also agree that private heath-care should be allowed to exist to cater to those that can afford to pay. Unfortunately this same debate appears to be happening in telecomms in australia, and since the government interventionists (like myself) are coming from a point of view that is (at first glance) appears to be one where government is entirely divorced from telecommunications, and are now exerting force into the industry.

Sadly, we aren’t there. The ACCC broadly runs our internet access services in all but name. In my opinion, the government needs to spend some money to get out of the hole that was dug by the sale of Telstra, and if you are going to spend money solving a problem, you may as well solve it properly, instead of throwing good money after the same bad decisions.

The FTTN is a ductape solution to our current regulation-heavy broadband market. It takes our current market, waves its hands (which are holding 15 to 30 billion dollars in cash) the money disappears and we end up with a network marginally better than the existing one, and there is no guarantee based on what the coalition has said that the money will be buying assets, instead of buying assets for Telstra.

Do I note a some changes?

I can’t believe even more he puts in $19 billion as the ‘real dollar value’ of the Telstra deal….

At 2.5% CPI I get $14 billion for a start. And second, that’s only relevant if the government were to borrow all the money NOW….which they aren’t….

They can really get away with some crap when labelling it as ‘opinion’. At least they note the total CAPEX will not exceed $36 billion planned….score one for facts….

“http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/changes-to-model-to-boost-nbns-costs/story-e6frg9io-1226445138186″

Apart from the interesting overall tone, the bit that caught my eye
“The key ones are the Optus hybrid fibre coaxial payout, which in real dollars will come out to about $2bn”
Personally cannot see any justification for that assessment unless he has been influenced by this
“http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/03/uk-lords-back-universal-fibre-nbn/#comment-484896″

HMMM

Plain ordinary old practical reality needs to be applied. There are high profit areas where competition could work, however most estates and corporate areas are tied up in private networks. So that leaves SMBE and Rural and residential that will benefit most, plus business now having better National connectivity.
When the only provision of better services and competition is in very select areas, what happens to the rest of the Nation??
This very issue is a factor in the US and is a reason open access wholesaling is very rare on cable and fibre. Let’s face it they are the epitome of the private sector and competition, yet the US govt is forced to spend$350Bill in subsidies and that will not be adequate.

The private sector must achieve a rapid ROI and a high return to be viable, and they do NOT have the economies of scale or cheap financing available. I remember iiNet complaining re the Ballarat NBN install that they could not be competitive as a wholesaler with that local Transact service.

That is why the current reality is that choice in infrastucture creates vertical integration and complete loss of choice of retail product unless all potential infrastructure suppliers install to every possible premise when only few will sign up to them, which raises the point in this scenario of what then will actually be installed and how will all this unused infrastructure be paid for .

Also moving property will truly be a broadband lottery, very expensive to upgrade, whose service are you going to be FORCED to connect to, and what packages are you going to be forced to accept at what price. Will you be FORCED to pay $Thousands to have a fibre run from the node to your new premises, how long do you expect to live there??

The truth is that in any infrastructure development either of the groups could be right. However ideology is not going to produce the best result for the taxpayer or the consumer.

If we look at what the NBN objectives are then the solution must provide:
Broadband coverage for all Australians with ability to get higher speeds than exist at present in the regions.
The capacity for equality of access to the network for all retail service providers
It must be affordable for the consumers
It must be capable of providing the varying capacity requirements of the consumer for the next 20 – 30 years.
It must be able to be upgraded to meet expected demand in the future.

With Australia’s geography and demographics taken into account what is best way to provide the solution for theses objectives? Is being locked in to one or another ideology going to help in making a rational decision on the best solution?

The ideology is really pointless. What we need is the best solution to achieve the objectives for Australia.

The alternative to the NBN… the Coalition’s market driven subsidisation plan, will involve a CBA – from a “Government Dept, The Productivity Commission and by using Telstra’s network, which will also require regulations from another Governmental dept – ACCC.

If the ideologues are willing to accept such inevitable government intervention in their “must be market driven” political partiality… then why not go the whole hog and just do it properly?

The Telstra factor is one thing. But the geography factor is another. Infrastructure is expensive EVEN if you’re only company. If there are multiple companies, having to rollout HUGE lengths of cabling, with little recourse for profit because of 3 or 4 operators and a sparse population?…..

As midspace said on another Delimiter article….Magic 8 Ball says: Try Again….

But, it *can* happen that there would be infrastructure competition. It is the belief of some (as far as I can tell) that if you can pull it off, it is better for everyone hands down. I am not convinced of this, but most importantly, the chance of pulling it off in Australia’s telecommunications environment is very slim (the Telstra factor).

Or spend money via subsidies to encourage people to build newer/better networks.
(monetary incentives to reduce barriers to build cost, then use market competition to increase efficiency in network build/operations, and finally – due to multiple infrastructure competitors – provide competitive pressure to reduce end user access costs).

Fundamentally, that is what people are for or against. Everything else is window dressing. (These 2 positions are pretty much diametrically opposed and ultimately a matter of opinion – free market, vs government intervention. Which is why there is no agreement on the fundamentals).

Anyone else believe otherwise? (I have *tried* to be fair here, but if I have fundamentally mis-characterized something I’d like to know).

Given the many years under Telstra monopoly, you would think that the choice is a no brainer but this is politics.

Perhaps, the best way to sell the NBN to the mums and dads is to boil it down to a simple choice: Telstra or NBN?

Even though, Telstra has many broadband customers, many of them use the company because there is no other choice available not because they love the company or its service.

So why did you infer otherwise above?

Suggesting and I quote – “Infrastructure competition is alive and well in Australia.”

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/03/uk-lords-back-universal-fibre-nbn/#comment-484884

Australia currently has one “Australia wide” provider for last mile, Telstra.

Then there’s two companies (one the same as above and Optus) who offer HFC to a small number of premises.

_____________________

And for today’s inevitable NBN critic’s contradiction: “Optus are supplying HFC competition” – “Optus has neglected its HFC network over the years and relied instead on below-cost access to Telstra’s copper network.”
____________________

So which is it…??????

BTW – Optus are accessing Telstra’s network legally. In fact Telstra were fined $18m for acting illegally, by denying access to competitors as their ownership rules demand (one might say they breached the rules and therefore relinquished their ownership rights all together ;) But that’s digressing… back on topic.

The NBN critics, perhaps even yourself under a yet another different nom de plume, have said the NBN is no good because there will only be 4 or 5 RSP’s able to afford to offer NBN services Australia wide.

So tell us which is better for consumers –

1. Telstra only copper, available to everyone and Telstra (or maybe Optus HFC – which as it, awaiting your answer above) available to a select few?

or

2. NBN Co’s upgraded FttP available from 4 or 5 RSP Australia wide (which is written in the Corp. Plan, will cost the same or less, for a superior product)?

Seriously, we are talking about what’s best for consumers, not what’s best for the *politics and ideology.

Because I’m positive, when you or I go to buy a retail product, we don’t care who the wholesaler is, we are only interested in best retail price.

So why do people such as you apply a different set of rules to the NBN?

For the answer, refer to the Telstra like * above.

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/

“Greater Sydney includes water bodies, national parks and cemeteries, none of which are getting fibre.”

It seems that Rookwood Cemetery in Sydney will be receiving FTTG (Fibre To The Grave). Ok, ok, it seems to be the admin buildings, and sorry for the bad pun.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/287270,nbn-co-targets-the-dead-in-sydney-fibre-rollout.aspx

According to the NBN website, the rollout here commenced in December 2011.