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

  • Featured, News, Telecommunications - Written by on Thursday, January 31, 2013 16:42 - 335 Comments

    Abbott confirms Coalition FTTN policy;
    Hints Turnbull will be Comms Minister

    news Opposition Leader Tony Abbott this afternoon confirmed the Coalition would take Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s fibre to the node-based broadband plan to the Federal Election as its broadband policy and appeared to hint that Turnbull would become Communications Minister in an Abbott administration.

    Over the past several years, Abbott and other figures such as Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey have regularly taken a no holds barred approach when discussing the NBN, with Abbott in particular claiming that the NBN was not needed for Australia’s future and that a market-based approach to telecommunications would be a better policy for the Government to take. Hockey has regularly cited his belief that the future of Australian telecommunications would be better served by a focus on wireless and mobile broadband rather than on fixed-line communications.

    The approach by Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has differed radically from that of other senior Coalition figures, with the Member for Wentworth broadly believing that the NBN project as a whole should continue, but substantially modified, perhaps using fibre to the node technology to see the project “completed” sooner than Labor could with its current fibre to the home model. This has reportedly led to some within the Coalition to be concerned Turnbull’s approach was too similar to that of Labor.

    However, in a major speech delivered this afternoon to the National Press Club, coming after the formal disclosure of the September 14 date for the upcoming Federal Election at the same venue yesterday by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Abbott backed Turnbull’s fibre to the node model for the first time publicly. The full text of Abbott’s speech is available online.

    “Between now and polling day, we will be constantly developing our policy commitments so that you know exactly what will happen should the government change,” said Abbott.

    “On broadband, I’ve often said that the Coalition will deliver higher speeds sooner and more affordably than Labor’s nationalised monopoly NBN. We’re committed to super high speed broadband that’s affordable for everyone and built sooner rather than later. But with so many competing priorities, the last thing Australians need is another $50 billion plus in borrowed money to deliver higher speeds – but only in a decade’s time and at about triple the current monthly price.”

    “We won’t throw good money after bad but we won’t dismantle what’s been built. Our fibre-to-the-node plan will deliver superfast broadband for a fraction of the price and in a fraction of the time required to deliver fibre to the front door. And Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to give Australians a 21st Century network because he is one of Australia’s internet pioneers.”

    The comments reflect the first time Abbott has publicly committed to Turnbull’s FTTN strategy, which runs contrary to the fibre to the home model currently used by Labor’s NBN plan. Coming after a separate acknowledgement by Shadow Treasurer Hockey in a radio interview yesterday that the Coalition would find it hard to “shut down” the NBN and would need to “reformat it” instead, they would appear to indicate that Turnbull has achieved formal Shadow Cabinet approval for his FTTN proposal to become official Coalition policy ahead of the Federal Election.

    Similarly, while Turnbull has been Shadow Communications Minister since September 2010, Abbott’s comments today reflect one of the first times the Opposition Leader has commented publicly on Turnbull’s future under a Coalition Government. Industry speculation in the past in some quarters has run along the line that Turnbull would be regarded as too senior to hold the traditionally junior portfolio, and might instead be given a more critical portfolio such as finance.

    However, with the importance of the multi-billion NBN as a project within the communications portfolio, it is possible that the portfolio is now regarded by both sides of politics as being at a senior level. This is reflected in the current Federal Government by the promotion of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to the additional role to assist the Prime Minister in a whole of government technology role in the September 2010 reshuffle following that year’s Federal Election.

    However, Abbott’s support for Turnbull’s FTTN model does not mean that the model has been fleshed out sufficiently to be compared with Labor’s current NBN plan. Speaking with ABC radio show AM this morning, Turnbull again refused to provide key details regarding to the precise cost of the Coalition’s plan, or address persistent complaints about the Coalition’s vision along the lines that the fibre to the node technology it uses is inherently inferior to the fibre to the home model used by the NBN currently.

    opinion/analysis
    Well! Now we know.

    It’s clear what has happened here. Turnbull’s diligence and extensive research in the communications portfolio has paid off to a certain extent, and it appears the full Shadow Cabinet has now been briefed on and has approved his FTTN vision. In addition, it seems as though that policy has been costed to some extent, due to Hockey’s comments in the area, although Turnbull is of course right that it is difficult for the Coalition to completely cost the policy without full knowledge of the contracts NBN Co and the Government have entered into for the full rollout.

    However, it’s also clear Abbott still doesn’t quite understand what he’s talking about when it comes to broadband. I note from his speech that the Opposition Leader still believes NBN retail prices will be “three times” currently monthly prices. That claim has been thoroughly debunked; and I warn the Coalition that it can rely on fact-checking sites such as Delimiter to keep reminding them where they made factually inaccurate statements during this year’s campaign.

    What should we expect from here? If you believe Hockey, we’ll get more concrete detail from the Coalition with regard to its rival NBN policy in the next few weeks. I wouldn’t be surprised; Turnbull has been quite quiet recently, but I know his office has been diving deep on the NBN. Hopefully at least, we will have enough time to have a very solid examination of the Coalition’s NBN policy before the election in September.

    I would also like to say one thing in closing. Regular readers will know that I regard Labor’s NBN policy as the best communications policy Australia has ever had, even if it is being implemented rather slowly. I don’t expect any FTTN-based policy the Coalition comes up with this year to be better. I just don’t. Regardless of what Turnbull says, there are key technical differences between FTTN and FTTH, and we can’t escape this fact. The NBN has stood the test of time and debate, from its commercial model to the separation of Telstra and the rollout itself. You’ve all been there for that. Almost everyone is on the same page on that

    However, consider how far we’ve come.

    When Turnbull was appointed (coincidentally, on September 14, 2010), Abbott was raring to tear the NBN down, memorably issuing an order to Turnbull to “demolish” the whole thing.

    Fast forward three years and it is Turnbull, the visionary, the technology early adopter, and I would argue, clearly the intellectual superior of the pair, who is more or less getting his way. The NBN will not be demolished off-hand or sold off, although it may morph into a radically different policy. Turnbull’s tenacity, intellectualism and continued engagement with the telecommunications industry over the NBN has generated a situation in which the Shadow Cabinet has had no real alternative but to accept his vision for a better broadband future for Australia.

    Sure, it’s not as good a vision as Conroy’s, but it would have been suicide for Turnbull to merely accept Labor’s FTTH vision and not to put up some form of alternative. The genius of Turnbull’s approach has been that he has been able to formulate a Liberal-oriented credible alternative policy which will, in the short-term, achieve many of the same aims as Labor’s NBN policy, thus virtually neutralising it as an election issue and keeping Turnbull in the limelight along the way; with the eventual result that he may take a senior role in Abbott’s cabinet, and position himself well in the long run for another possible tilt at the leadership.

    Politically, Turnbull’s FTTN policy and his stewardship of the communications portfolio for the Coalition has already been a victory for him.

    The thorn in Turnbull’s side throughout this process, of course, has been the technology press and the industry. Turnbull and Abbott may be able to sell Turnbull’s FTTN policy to the public, but the fact remains that some of the claims Turnbull and others within the Coalition have used to criticise the NBN are just not true, or are misleading at best. In addition, there is the fact that Turnbull’s FTTN policy still remains dramatically inferior and untested compared to Labor’s NBN vision. Good policy is good policy; and the NBN is good policy. Many of us won’t like seeing good NBN policy morphed into mediocre NBN policy in an Abbott government.

    From a policy and technology industry credibility viewpoint, Turnbull’s FTTN policy and his stewardship of the communications portfolio for the Coalition has not been a victory; in fact, if he does become Communications Minister, he will suffer a baptism of fire as he attempts to radically alter an NBN project which has become a technology industry favourite. “Why reform a project which is delivering and represents good policy?” will be the question which Turnbull will face constantly as he tried to morph the NBN into a FTTN project as Communications Minister. I’m sure Turnbull will be able to handle this kind of effort; he has more or less proven that he can handle anything at this point. But it does illustrate the dangers of trying to reform already good policy.

    However you feel about the whole situation, it’s been a fascinating one. Indeed it may be said that we live in interesting times; and more will come in the years ahead. For now, I have confidence that Australia will get a half-decent broadband policy and an excellent Communications Minister, no matter what side of politics wins the upcoming election. And, in the context of the last Federal Election in 2010, when the Coalition’s policy and portfolio steward was a bad joke, that is a very good thing.

    Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

    submit to reddit

    335 Comments

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

    1. Wolfcat
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

      What sucks is I am not in the 3 year roll out plan…. anyone not in the 3 year roll out is screwed if the Libs win. We will have a massive 2 tier system split across neighbourhoods if the Libs win.

      • GongGav
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink |

        Its quite possible you’re right, but not necessarily. Consider this. Most, if not all of the contracts so far have been building out from exchanges. Plenty of the areas not on the 3 year plan also connect to those exchanges.

        So what does LNP do? Put a whole new set of equipment in the exchange alongside the FttP equipment, or extend the footprint to include that exchanges whole area with whats already there?

        Example I give, because I know it well enough, is the southwest corner of Wollongong. Its the only part of the city not on the 3 year plan (at least it wasnt last time I looked) but doesnt have its own exchange. So whats cheaper? Extending the FttP footprint, or doubling up in the exchange?

        Its been a very clear rollout so far, tieing as many exchanges as possible to FttP. Abbott has now said they wont undo whats been built, so now they are in the tough position of utilising existing technology (and hence it be cheaper in the short term they focus on) or adding extra cost to that areas build.

        Its an escape clause they can use to keep a FttP build once they have jumped through the hoops.

      • Adam Nelson
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink |

        the current problem is you have labor in a poor state and every general Australian want to vote them out

        It’s likely replicate what happened in QLD

    2. Nich
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink |

      What are the odds he will become Comms Minister, officially shuffle papers while looking at alternatives to the current NBN via CBA or otherwise, and then decide that, hey, it’s sneaky that the previous Government hid so much detail, and it’s not commercially viable to get out of a bunch of the contracts and plans in progress?

      ie, he placates the Shadow Cabinet, helps win the election for the party, and then makes small changes around the edges for the sake of making some kind of mark on the project but ultimately delivers us the ALP plan.

      • Karl
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:10 pm | Permalink |

        That would certainly be the second best possible outcome (after a Labor win, obviously).

      • Goresh
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:14 pm | Permalink |

        “it’s not commercially viable to get out of a bunch of the contracts and plans in progress”

        None.

        The rollout plan only looks 3 years ahead. Contractys are only let for projects starting in under 12 months.
        If your address isn’t in an area under contract by September 14, you will never ever get FTTP.

      • Ben
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:15 am | Permalink |

        I recently started working for one of the companies who has the major NBN contracts. I asked my boss what he thinks will happen in Liberal win, and he said pretty much what you wrote above. They’ll say it’s too expensive to change it now, but still tell everyone Labor did a bad job….

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

          I’d love to see the nay-sayers faces if the Coalition wins and they come here to gloat about the demise of the NBN and then the Coalition backflips…

        • Cad
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink |

          I have never met a businessman that talks down their own business… esp. not to a new hire they just paid $$$$$$ to a recruiting agency for…. staff turnover is always bad for morale and bottomline… :-)

          *writes memo to broker to buy shares in Leighton Holdings Limited (ASX:LEI) and Service Stream Limited (ASX:SSM) if Labor romps home*

    3. Wakie
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

      So they’re rehashing an ALP policy from 2009? Classy.

      • jasmcd
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:01 pm | Permalink |

        they are not the only ones.
        Duncan Strong’s comment below also seems to be rehashing tired, old, debunked arguments from 2009 as well.

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink |

          They haven’t been debunked, just shouted down. Like what is happening on this thread :)

          • jasmcd
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink |

            Often when arguments are met with facts and reason which prove they are not correct, I call the argument debunked….. what do you call it.

            I will undoubtedly be one of the countless hundreds, to have said this to you already, but if the NBN is cancelled completely, the government will still have no more money for roads or education than if it was to go ahead. In fact, if the NBN is completed in its current form, it will be returning money to the government eventually……

            Just read some more of the posts below….. you are a waste of my time…..

            WOW – if I was into conspiracy theories, I would say that the liberal stooges paid to spread FUD before the election really got out early this time.

    4. Duncan Strong
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink |

      I wish people would have the cojones to leave their full name on these posts. Anyway.

      I disagree that the current government-funded FTTH policy is hands-down the best policy. That can be your opinion, and your opinion can be based on exhaustive research and analysis, however that does not make it fact.

      I will be voting Liberal in order to get Malcolm Turnbull into Federal Cabinet at the levers of a key portfolio such as Communications (key because it is in charge of $40 billion+ project that will change the topology of Australia’s communications networks for generations).

      However I still believe that the NBN is a policy disaster when viewed in light of the opportunity cost – for the cost of the NBN, Australia could have restored free university for qualified candidates *and* added free dental care to Medicare.

      I think about these options in terms of my two children: would I rather they have faster Internet, or would I rather they have universal access to dental care and higher education? I choose the latter, and since we cannot afford all 3, I would have preferred to see the NBN halted 3 years ago.

      Now that the NBN build-out is beyond the point of no return, I share Turnbull’s view that FTTN is a good way to triage the situation. In that context, I view NBN FTTN as a better policy than NBN FTTH at this point in time.

      (I also think overseas luminaries should be free to spout off about whatever they want, Renai, and that your cynical hectoring of this habit is parochial at best and immature at worst.)

      Having said all that: I am very thankful for Delimiter and for Renai’s hard work at providing a platform for these kinds of debates! Cheers!

      • quink
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:13 pm | Permalink |

        > However I still believe that the NBN is a policy disaster when viewed in light of the opportunity cost – for the cost of the NBN, Australia could have restored free university for qualified candidates *and* added free dental care to Medicare.

        Again, for the billionth time… it’s funded not with taxpayer money. It’s not. If you’d cancel the NBN, taxpayers would need to cough up for the bonds that NBN Co then can’t repay with its revenues and you’d have less money for education and less money for dental care.

        If you’re under the illusion that the coalition will make university free or provide free dental care in Medicare, NBN or no NBN, you haven’t actually been following the coalition. And cancelling the NBN will make those things *less* likely, not more likely. Cancelling the NBN won’t save the taxpayers one dollar, but will literally cost them.

        Remember, it was Whitlam, under Labor, that introduced Medicare and free university in the first place – and Liberal under Frasier cancelled Medicare – and Hawke created university fees (limited to $1800), which then rose substantially under the Howard government.

        Everything you’ve said is backwards.

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:06 pm | Permalink |

          @quink: “for the billionth time”, “Everything you’ve said is backwards.” Wow – hyperbole much? LOL. I find it pointless to debate folks who start and finish their statements with rhetorical devices. It also seems juvenile to spar with opponents who hide behind psuedonyms. Lucklily, as I’m not running for public office, I don’t have to try and “win” by. I am simply stating my opinion. But thanks for your breathless feedback!

          • Tim Haast
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:46 pm | Permalink |

            Duncan you entire argument is incorrect. You are falsely claiming the NBN is removing cash from from items such as health or education. This is a false dichotomy. The NBN is funded through debt, government bonds to be specific. This debt will be repaid over time from usage charges, so in the end those who use the internet will pay. Furthermore considering the entire project for the NBN is the same cost as about 1/3rd of what we spend annually on health ($130.3 billion in 2010-11 http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423009) as well as the fact that the expenditure is spread over ten years.

            “Onya for calling me a liar mate. Classy! Education and healthcare are also investments, BTW. In fact, “it has been shown many times by international organisations (which have no interest in Aussie politics)” that education and healthcare are *excellent* investments. And in my opinion, they are better investments than FTTH. But that’s just my opinion, you see. Troublesome things, these opinions of mine.”

            Your confusing social and financial investments, unlike education and health the NBN is both a financial investment and social investment. That is the NBN generates a return above expenditure unlike health and education.

            You are not a liar, just seriously ignorant of what you are talking about.

            • alain
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:37 am | Permalink |

              @Tim Haast

              ‘ This is a false dichotomy. The NBN is funded through debt, government bonds to be specific. This debt will be repaid over time from usage charges, so in the end those who use the internet will pay.’

              No Tim it WILL be funded through debt in the future, at present it is taxpayer funded, the debt negotiations start in 2015, it is interesting don’t you think that as you state the debt will be repaid over time which will be 2033 according to the NBN Co but they don’t even know as yet what the loan interest rate is nor what the repayments terms are!

              • Brendan
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:03 am | Permalink |

                alain,

                Turnbull’s plan (policy is yet to appear) as currently defined is tax funded. NBN has government bonds as security, however it is expected to return on the security and funding.

                Liberal policy utilises tax funding, as it currently stands; that might change but please stop iterating incorrect statements, I’m not sure how many times this has been clearly stated, and yet it never seems to be heard.

                • alain
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink |

                  What false statements?

                  ‘Between now and 2021, the company expected to require $27.5 billion from the Australian taxpayer and a further $13.4 billion in debt funding – a total of $40.9 billion.’

                  http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242325,the-nbn-co-business-plan-at-a-glance.aspx

                  ‘NBN Co has stated plans to raise up to $13.4 billion of funding from debt markets over the next decade, lobbying for a lengthy regulatory framework in order to improve investor confidence in the network.

                  However, it has also said it plans to completely rely on government funding until at least 2015, following the next federal election and by the time core aspects of the build — the fixed wireless and satellite networks, as well as the Tasmanian fibre build — are complete’

                  http://www.itnews.com.au/News/306316,nbn-committee-eyes-sooner-debt-funding.aspx

                  • Brendan
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

                    Funding that is (and I say this again because it’s not registering) due to be repaid.

                    NBNco have a mandate to make a return on the investment. Investment. You are arguing a point that your own preferred solution, FTTN does not as yet follow.

                    Whether it’s tomorrow, or 5 years from now, is a bit irrelevant – NBNco is required to make a return. It’s part of the policy.

                    • tinman_au
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink |

                      I think he’s OK with the Liberals racking up public debt with no return, but Labor should stop it’s waste by asking that NBNCo actually return the money and more…or something…

                      • alain
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink |

                        What have you read in Coalition policy that I have not read that tells there is no return back to the Government?

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:48 pm | Permalink |

                        Just go back through the 2010 policy you posted @ Delimiter a few days ago and see how many times they mention the words “grant funding”.

                        But unlike some… as I have two eyes, granted (pun intended) the Coalition don’t seem to say there won’t be any return to the government… but they also don’t say there will, so…

                        However as mentioned, they do clearly spell out “grant funding”, so the taxpayer, will for all intents and purposes be footing the bill for handouts to private companies. As opposed to the current debt funding/repayment, which costs the taxpayer nothing if all goes as per planned.

                      • tinman_au
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink |

                        What page of their ‘policy document’ does it state they will have a ‘return on the investment’ Alain?

                        Oh, right, they don’t have either…

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink |

                No alain…

                Government funding – NOT taxpayer funding…

                From my comment yesterday *sigh*…

                “In 2015 they plan on releasing “NBN specific bonds”, as opposed to the current “general (government) issuance bonds”. It’s actually quite straightforward…

                But we’ve been through all of this before and you even cleverly (ahem) quipped, “so where can I buy them then…” so I supplied a URL to exactly where you can buy them…

                Curiously you disappeared without even thanking me and repeated the BS elsewhere, just like you have here again.”

                Seriously, you have made literally 1000’s of comments at many forums and I don’t think you have ever made one which wasn’t totally debunked/disproved.

                Is there a reason why you won’t accept the facts?

                • djos
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink |

                  Hi Conservative Ideology wont allow him to accept the facts!

                  • djos
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink |

                    doh “His”

                • Sean
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:08 pm | Permalink |

                  Hmm Alex he has gone missing again lol

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink |

                    Indeed Sean, what a shock ;)

                • alain
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:02 pm | Permalink |

                  @NBNAlex

                  ‘But we’ve been through all of this before and you even cleverly (ahem) quipped, “so where can I buy them then…” so I supplied a URL to exactly where you can buy them…’

                  Any issuance of bonds of any type adds to the public debt as the bonds have to be paid back at maturity with interest every year, as the NBN Co taxpayer funding and public debt is not due to be paid back until 2033 at the earliest I wonder how you think the bond yields and redemption at maturity are being paid for in the meantime.

                  • quink
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:18 pm | Permalink |

                    Pages 64, 72 and from there to 81 of the 2012 Corporate Plan.

                  • Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:18 pm | Permalink |

                    @alain

                    Bonds haven’t been issued for the NBN yet. They will be towards the end of next year.

                    You can see where the interest for those bonds and ALL other government bonds comes from in the yearly budget. Much of it comes from government savings. Such as the $14 billion Labor have saved on the 2011-2012 budget.There’s no single location interest on bonds comes from so saying ‘its all from taxpayers’ is misleading at best.

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink |

                      Indeed 7T.

                      The government earns almost $20B p.a. from non-taxable income (iirc).

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:27 pm | Permalink |

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoS-MCnTPtQ

              • seven_tech
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:33 am | Permalink |

                @alain

                No Tim it WILL be funded through debt in the future, at present it is taxpayer funded

                Actually, you’re incorrect alain. The NBN is being funded primarily from BAF monies currently. BAF monies came primarily from sale of Telstra and the Communications Fund (from current Telstra holdings and dividends) as well as some government interest on bonds. ALL those didn’t come from the taxpayer. They were borrowed money in the first place (bond money borrowed to build Telecom’s network). Approx. $2.5 Billion has been sourced from here. $300 million came from the Contingency fund, which is sourced from so many different locations (including savings from expenses, extra bonds and unexpected tax revenues) it would be impossible to attribute it to taxes. This was for the governments agreement with Telstra, not NBNCo. funding.

                Future funding will come from the BAF followed by AIBs in 2014.

                So no, the NBN is not, being funded by taxpayers, even now. And it will not be.

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink |

                  +1

                  But unfortunately, as we witness daily, the facts do not matter to some on a clear mission 7T

                  :(

                • alain
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink |

                  So why is the NBN Co stating the TAXPAYER will need to be paid back?

                  ‘The quicker users migrate across to the NBN the quicker we can start accruing revenues from them which is good for consumers and good for taxpayers.’

                  http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/28/nbn-co-offers-108-bounty-on-new-customers/

                  and….

                  “Should actual data usage growth exceed the assumed growth rate then NBN Co would be able to reduce wholesale broadband prices more quickly and still maintain the same overall return for Australian taxpayers,” said Mr. Quigley.’

                  http://www.nbnco.com.au/news-and-events/news/nbn-co-corporate-plan-released-aug-2012.html

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink |

                    Nice straw man… nowhere there were the words paid back mentioned. That’s again your warped logic, because that’s what you want it to be.

                    My goodness you are on a mission aren’t you, with all the enless procession of unfounded argumentative, semantics…LOL!

                    “Accruing revenues for” and “return for Australian taxpayers” is not paid back. You do know what return (on investment/ROI) means?

                    Funding is via debt, the revenue will repay the debt and profits will go back into government coffers where it can then be utilised for the benefit of taxpayers…

                    Got it now? And just for shits and giggles…

                    http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/30/the-irony-it-burns-telstras-nbn-price-complaints/#comment-571026

                  • quink
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink |

                    Because when it’s paid off, it will be an asset owned by taxpayers worth dozens of billions, providing a reasonable amount of profit, effectively set by the ACCC to provide the best possible value to NBN users (basically all taxpayers) and providing ubiquitous connectivity and thus greater investment, productivity and efficiency in the public and private sectors – saving taxpayer money and benefitting taxpayers.

                  • Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink |

                    @alain

                    Where does it say paid back? It says accruing revenue for. Why? Because once NBNCo. finish building it begins to make a profit and that profit, once the government equity is paid off, accrues actual cash for the taxpayer for the government to use however they want.

                    The NBN doesn’t use taxpayer monies. I wish you would stop this.

                    • alain
                      Posted 02/02/2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink |

                      oh and one more.

                      ‘Mr Quigley confirmed that the NBN Co would require $27bn from the taxpayer purse to fund the build – $1bn more than the NBN implementation study recommended – and would tap debt markets and use internal revenue to pay for the rest. He said scrapping the NBN would cost “hundreds of millions” of dollars.’

                      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government/quigley-defends-nbn/story-fn4htb9o-1225907166756

                      • Posted 02/02/2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink |

                        @alain

                        I’m sorry, does it have quote marks around what Mr Quigley ‘confirmed’? No. He didn’t say that. What its likely he said was that the government would be required to inject that equity into NBNCo. and the Australian, being the Australian, said he had confirmed ‘the taxpayer’s would pay for it.

                        Cone on Alain. Really?….

                      • alain
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink |

                        Treasury thinks the taxpayer is funding it.

                        ‘Treasury warned of risk to taxpayers on broadband’

                        http://www.theage.com.au/national/treasury-warned-of-risk-to-taxpayers-on-broadband-20110812-1ir23.html

                      • Posted 02/02/2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink |

                        @alain

                        Did you even read that??? Nowhere in that article does it state treasury believe taxpayers are funding it. That article is nearly 2 years old and indicates that before the Telstra deal was complete, they need a no competition clause or revenues from the NBN would be in danger and IF that happened, tax dollars WOULD have to bail NBNCo out. It says nothing about Treasury indicating the normal NBN is funded by tax dollars. We have known from the start if NBN revenues fall below a threshold amount, the government has to pick up the tab. There is no indication so far that is going to eventuate.

                        Will you not admit you are incorrect and we can move on?? Seriously, its not hard. People make mistakes.

                      • NBNAccuracy
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink |

                        Do you have trouble we seeing which parts of articles are quotes and which are the words of the writter? I’ll give you a hint, the quotes are inside quotes. Isn’t that clever?
                        So, reading that article would lead me to believe Clancy Yeates believes the NBN is tax payer funded. Do some more Googles on ‘NBN “tax payer funded”‘ but look for quotes from Quigley or Conroy, not news reporters.

                      • alain
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 7:08 pm | Permalink |

                        lol

          • Cadence
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:53 pm | Permalink |

            Mate, don’t worry about them…

            What you say is quite right. If Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull are correct that the NBN will be worth less than what it costs to build, it will end up costing taxpayers money because it won’t earn back enough cash to repay the borrowed debt. This will add to the budget deficit and crowd out other forms of public expenditure.

            Unfortunately the NBN crowd are very narrow-minded and can only regurgitate the ruling party’s propaganda in a robotic uncritical fashion because it suits their personal interests, and not the nation’s interest.

            • Simon
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink |

              I think you are mistaken.

              If you borrow to invest (say borrow at 5% to invest at 10% return, then you pay back principal + interest and keep the difference), then you end up with a net gain.

              If the investment was in stocks, with an average annual increase of 10%, but four months into the year it takes a temporary drop to -3%, and you choose THAT time to sell, you a) make a loss, plus b) still have to payback the original amount plus interest.

              This is what the Coalition want to do, and it is a self fulfilling prophecy. They will be taking something half built and writing it off, rather than completing the build so you have an asset that is greater than the sum of the whole, which is also generating an income.

              It is like half building a house – you will sell the shell for less than it cost you (it’s not economically viable to re-use the bricks so you can’t sell them at original value, and no one wants to take on the cost of completion on top of the full value of what you’ve already paid), If you complete the house, it’s worth more than the component parts, and you can then rent it out for a return.

              • Simon
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink |

                Meant to add – it is a self fulfilling prophecy when they say it’s worth nothing, and if they sell it off before it is complete it WILL be worth nothing. If they complete it, it will be worth a lot (Telstra’s copper CAN was estimated at $20b to compulsorily acquire. A future proof brand new (no rotting copper) national fibre network would be worth a LOT more).

                • Cad
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink |

                  No, both Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull are inferring that a fully completed FTTH would not earn enough revenue to repay the debt. That’s why the FTTH NBN would be worth less than the build cost. They are entitled to that opinion which is shared by many senior telco executives, for example Paul Broad who is currently CEO of Infrastructure NSW. You are of course entitled to disagree with them. But please don’t abuse people including politicians who happen to hold a different opinion than yourselves. It just reflects badly on you.

                  Also, yes a FTTH NBN will definitely generate more revenue than the current copper network. The question of profit or loss to the taxpayer funding this project then hinges on whether this incrementally higher revenue is proportionate to the much greater cost of the FTTH network (it’s a brand new network after all that takes 10 years of labour to build!!!!! while the CAN is very depreciated). You quote $20bln for copper, well the FTTH capex alone costs $36 billion without even considering the $11 billion in Telstra payments. You can’t argue that average household will pay the same for fiber internet as copper ADSL (no higher revenue to network operator) and then claim that the FTTH NBN will be worth more. that’s a massive contradiction or failure in logic.

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:20 pm | Permalink |

                    Read the Corporate Plan…

                    No it’s not gospel – there will be hiccups, but it’s all been analysed and is spelled out and spelled out by people who understand telecommunications and business.

                    Not by politicians who want to be elected to govern, who have shown they will do and say anything to accomplish this.

                    • quink
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink |

                      Or read the Implemntation Study. It cost $25 million in taxpayer money, so best to take advantage of money already spent for informing exactly for this purpose.

                  • Simon
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:48 pm | Permalink |

                    When asked whether the Coalition would sell the NBN, Mr Hockey said he didn’t believe the NBN was worth anything. That is not inferring a completed NBN, that is if they win the election this year, he is talking about the NBN in the current state.

                    The NBN payment of $11b to Telstra doesn’t add to the $36b to build, it saves NBNCo spending $11b building its own parallel pit and pipe network, and guarantees migration to the NBN as the Telstra copper is decommissioned.

                    I have not abused anyone for holding a diffPerhaps you had better pass the message about abusing people who form different opinions to you along to Mr Turnbull, as he seems to be unaware that this reflects badly on him.

                    As to the value of FTTH – you are saying that an asset that takes $36b to build, providing a huge future growth path for capability, lower operational expense, fixed modest rate of return (to the point where there has been discussion about LOWERING wholesale prices due to the unexpected high levels of uptake of the high end plans, which CANNOT be matched by FTTN) is not worth twice as much as a $20b asset that is old, deteriorating, limited in capability and expensive to maintain, run as a private enterprise out to make as much money as they can for their shareholders (and I am not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that in itself), just because the $36b network can achieve its rate of return with a LOWER wholesale cost.

                    When an old, rotting copper network is worth $20b, a brand new fibre network will be worth a lot more.

                    Ther can be higher NET revenue to the operator when the operating costs are significantly lower.

                    • Cad
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:20 pm | Permalink |

                      That is not inferring a completed NBN,

                      In that particular instance, he may not have… but in general both politicians believe rightly or wrongly that a fully completed NBN will be worth less than its cost. Do I have a link at hand to demonstrate this inference? No. So, we’ll just agree to disagree. I’m too lazy to go digging through boring Lib speeches to illustrate my claim.

                      The NBN payment of $11b to Telstra doesn’t add to the $36b to build, it saves NBNCo spending $11b building its own parallel pit and pipe network

                      Saves? Oh, so we can subtract $11b from $36b because $36b includes brand new pit and pipe? I don’t think so. If the $11b reflects pit and pipe which is necessary for FTTH build, shouldn’t we add that to the $36b as NBN CO is paying for it and its a cost incurred to build FTTH just like the $36b?

                      Ther can be higher NET revenue to the operator when the operating costs are significantly lower.

                      The biggest operating cost for infrastructure assets is “depreciation”. copper network is depreciated long time ago. brand new FTTH network costing $36b CAPEX alone will have massive depreciation charges, hence lower “NET revenue” to use your terminology. Go look up the financial accounts of ASCIANO, they own various major ports in Australia. The “maintenance cost” is tiny relative to “depreciation”. This is typical of every infrastructure asset company with massive balance sheet and big assets like NBN CO will have.

                  • seven_tech
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:06 am | Permalink |

                    @Cad

                    They are entitled to that opinion which is shared by many senior telco executives, for example Paul Broad who is currently CEO of Infrastructure NSW.

                    All 3 of which are Liberals. In both senses of the word.

                    How about you go talk to Paul Budde. Or Phil Dobbie. BOTH are convinced FTTH NBN is the way to go and BOTH have been critical of the Coalition approach as WELL as the Labor approach. But both agree FTTH is the end game and going via FTTN will take much longer than is necessary and cost considerably more.

                    They have also both (I believe Phil has, I know Paul has) indicated the NBN, fully completed, would be worth upwards of $60 billion dollars. It will also likely earn $2-3 billion minimum, per year. Profit. Hence why it’d be worth $60 billion dollars.

            • Tim Haast
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink |

              “Mate, don’t worry about them…
              What you say is quite right. If Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull are correct that the NBN will be worth less than what it costs to build, it will end up costing taxpayers money because it won’t earn back enough cash to repay the borrowed debt. This will add to the budget deficit and crowd out other forms of public expenditure.
              Unfortunately the NBN crowd are very narrow-minded and can only regurgitate the ruling party’s propaganda in a robotic uncritical fashion because it suits their personal interests, and not the nation’s interest.”

              You call us narrow minded and yet regurgitate LNP nonsense? Go back to your bridge troll.

              • NBNAccuracy
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink |

                “What you say is quite right. If Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull are correct that the NBN will be worth less than what it costs to build”
                So they SAY, I very much doubt they believe it.

                “Unfortunately the NBN crowd are very narrow-minded and can only regurgitate the ruling party’s propaganda in a robotic uncritical fashion because it suits their personal interests, and not the nation’s interest”
                Well, you will find that is what the technical community thinks of the Coalition alternative and those supporting it. I personally don’t care if I get faster broadband now, if it’s FTTH or FTTN. I have no personal interest in either solution. What I can’t do is sit by and watch Turnbull lie and distort information, call the tech community zealots and stupid. They aren’t, they can see the holes in his plan, can see how it will put Australia behind the rest of the world and ultimately cost Australia a lot of money, so they comment and try to point out those holes and the problems and ask for answers from Turnbull. Are any answers forthcoming? No, just insults and abuse.

                • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink |

                  Absolutely spot on!!!

                • alain
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink |

                  The tech community as you put it are behind the Labor NBN, but that’s because it’s easy to support the Rolls Royce solution when you don’t have to pay for it and there is no risk in that decision nor massive debt to be negotiated and the worry that it all has to be paid back at some point.

                  • quink
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:48 pm | Permalink |

                    Actually, the existing solution is – let’s face it – that vomit yellow 1979 Holden Commodore that can’t handle unleaded fuel, so you get to buy additive every now and then and that now needs a new gearbox. It’s easy to call, when you have two choices, the one involving more capital expenditure the ‘Rolls-Royce’ solution. But by contrast, FTTH could also be called the slightly used 2009 White Toyota Corolla – $12,000 – solution – because FTTN sure ain’t that and it’d be quite ridiculously dishonest to call it that.

                    And never mind that we’re not talking about cars or individual products, but an investment and national infrastructure. If you were told that you could invest some $10,000 in something that’s on its last legs and without being provided much detail at all other than “you’ll need to invest less” (which sounds quite inane for an investment) or instead $10,000 with a guaranteed rate of return 3.5% above the government bond rate, let me know which you’d choose.

                  • NBNAccuracy
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink |

                    No, you are wrong. I know what I think and not mater how many times you try to tell me and others what we thank and why you will still be wrong.
                    I, and many others are not behind it for being a rolls royce solution. We are behind it because it is a very practical solution. The reason I am against the Coalition plan, even if they roll it out to the same number of people, and it does cost 1/3 and it does achieve 80Mb for the majority (all of which I doubt) is that it is a waste on money. In the end, going the Coalition route will cost much more than the Labor route to achieve the same end goal in 10 or 20 years.

                    • alain
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

                      ‘ In the end, going the Coalition route will cost much more than the Labor route to achieve the same end goal in 10 or 20 years.’

                      That’s based on the premise that the end goal is the NEED for a FTTH very soon after a FTTN rollout and that overrides any cost savings that FTTN brings to the table.

                      No one has defined the time line for this, other than vague feel good stuff like Australia will be left behind if we don’t go FTTH now, left behind who exactly and why?

                      I don’t feel I am at a disadvantage to Greenfield rollouts that have had FTTH for years, nor do I feel disadvantaged that I have 100Mbps HFC running in the street but have not signed up for it.

                      If for example we had gone with a Labor FTTN rollout in 2007 would Australia be in deep shit now in 2013 because of that? – when do we know this crucial FTTN to FTTH cutover date has been reached and we have been left behind? – what are the indicators?

                      • djos
                        Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink |

                        Gets some real facts Alain!

                        To quote from quink in another NBN topic:


                        http://imgur.com/liqxVS9.png

                        The ABS says that downloads are increasing four-fold every 3.5-ish years. FTTN will roughly increase download speeds four-fold. Hence, FTTN would cover about 3.5 years in increased demand.

                        I’m using a bunch of numbers from the ABS and a very simple fact from the FTTN that you yourself have stated frequently. Doing only this shows that FTTN is not a good idea.

                        Adding two more less certain but still fairly ball-park facts, how is spending $15-ish billion dollars and spending until 2019-ish for the FTTN network, according to Citigroup, justified to cover all of 3.5 years in increased demand?

                        You’ve got a plan that’s good for 3.5 years and you’re complaining that demanding politicians look forward more than that is stupid and quasi-religious? It looks like there’s only one thing the coalition cares about, which meshes very well with that 3.5 year figure, and that’s getting elected just about every three years.

                      • Simon
                        Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink |

                        No one has defined the need for FTTH soon after FTTN, apart from all those that have quoted ABS broadband trends showing that our data consumption grows by four times every ~3.5 years. More data requires bigger pipes, the maximum FTTN can deliver is 4x the maximum ADSL2+ can deliver.

                        So – in about 3.5 years, an FTTN solution would be starting to struggle, especially for those at the fringes of a node that get nowhere near 100 Mbps.

                        I am glad you have the option for 100Mbps HFC, but have not chosen to take it up. I get 4Mbps, and that is all I can get, and would leap at the chance for 100Mbps (preferably with better upload than HFC can provide, or even VDSL can provide, as I *do* work from home, and *would* use HD video conferencing as part of that if I could. I use it every day I am in the office).

                        Your opinions of the FTTH NBN seem to be based on “I could have 100Mbps now, but I don’t need it. Therefore, no one does.” I hope you can see the problem with that argument.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink |

                        @ alain.

                        “If for example we had gone with a Labor FTTN rollout in 2007 would Australia be in deep shit now in 2013 because of that?”

                        Yes…

                        Remember the Panel of Experts who said there isn’t a viable business case for FttN, due to the future need of FttP and Telstra owning the copper?

                        Oh that’s right you like to try to rewrite history by simply dismissing the facts don’t you… so carry on…

                        Not viable in 2007 imagine how utterly ridiculous it is in 2013… *rolls eyes*

                      • NBNAccuracy
                        Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

                        Are you arguing we will not need FTTH? Even Turnbull admits as much. Every country that is rolling out anything is stating FTTH is the end goal. FTTN companies state the FTTH is the end goal.

                        As for timing, all major network companies show 80Mb as being needed by 2017 and 1Mb need by 2020-2021. Do FTTN is end of life by 2017 and they better start rolling out FTTH quick as by 2020 it will be less than 10th the expected bandwidth required.

                        “No one has defined the time line for this”
                        They have, all the network industry has, you just choose to ignore it and Turnbull gets vague and mumbles 20 years. It’s not 20 years, 20 years is 2033 and the extimates would have to be off by factors of 10 to be wrong.

                        “I don’t feel I am at a disadvantage to Greenfield rollouts that have had FTTH for years, nor do I feel disadvantaged that I have 100Mbps HFC running in the street but have not signed up for it.”
                        Well good for you, I am happy with I have now too. This isn’t about just you, or just about right now.

                        “If for example we had gone with a Labor FTTN rollout in 2007 would Australia be in deep shit now in 2013 because of that? ”
                        No we wouldn’t, because FTTN would have had a useful life and then when the time is right FTTH could be deployed and FTTN would have paid for itself. Rolling it out so close to end of life is wasteful. The cut over may not be 2017, but it 50% increase a year it won’t be wrong by more than a few years. FTTN rolled out when it may already be sub par by the time it is completed is a waste.

                      • NBNAccuracy
                        Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink |

                        Saying deep shit is a bit overboard. If it had rolled out then as planned it would have been fine. Under Telstra’s terms it was not fine. If they had been a non hostile telco it would have been a good solution until FTTH was needed and cheaper. Now it’s pissing away money.

                  • quink
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink |

                    Also, if you’re asking me whether, if things go bad and NBN Co is $20 billion short of being able to repay its debt whether it’s OK to increase taxes – even for low-to-middle income earners – for five years by $4 billion, to pay for near ubiquitous FTTH then I’m perfectly fine with that.

                    If it means needing to pay, instead of 26% as percentage of GDP tax about 26.25% for five years as a worst, worst, worst case scenario that bears no resemblance to anything like the current NBN takeup or corporate plan or willingness to pay for speeds, and still have FTTH to 93% of the population, then that’s very very much worth it.

                  • OliphanT
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink |

                    Alain Enough!

                    Its quite clear that you do not support the fibre solution in any form. Stop spreading FUD to support your case. The technology and reasons have been clearly stated and you are behaving like a fool. I am sick of hearing you justify your stance with the bullshit and lies from the coalition. All you are doing it regurgitating their mantra and its sickening to watch. The IT industry have evaluated MT’s offerings and found them to be wanting. He does not provide any clear detail and you know this. The government has designed a funding model that will cost the taxpayer NOTHING and we get a fibre network across Australia. Why is this so bloody hard for you to appreciate. If we can get it and it costs us zip then why the bloody hell are you complaining???

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink |

                    And you support the rusty, 700 000 kms, Hyundai Excel proposal, that you don’t have to pay for, but our taxes do…

                    Because it’s faster, better and cheaper, well Malcolm said…!

                    LOL, there’s one born every minute ;)

              • Cad
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:12 pm | Permalink |

                I live in a brick house. It’s too chilly under a bridge even in summer. But I know some homeless people have to make do with a bridge and blankets ( or even newspapers… :( ) Don’t make fun of them :\

                • Abel Adamski
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink |

                  Cad
                  Irrelevant I know, but the reference had nothing to do with homeless people, rather the origins of the term TROLL, who in mythology live in caves and UNDER BRIDGES. Knowledge is a wonderful thing and maybe has a lot to do with the subject matter at hand

                  • Cad
                    Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:30 pm | Permalink |

                    See? That’s what happens when you spend a lifetime filling your mind full of left-wing conspiracy theories…

                    you lose your sense of humour :-)

      • Karl
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink |

        “for the cost of the NBN, Australia could have restored free university for qualified candidates *and* added free dental care to Medicare.”
        NBN is an investment, not an expense like these you list. You won’t get far in comments here spreading lies like that, see the comments policy: http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

        “In that context, I view NBN FTTN as a better policy than NBN FTTH at this point in time.”
        FttN has no obvious method to return money to the government, making it an expense. An upgrade to total FttP is inevitable, it has been shown many times by international organisations (which have no interest in Aussie politics) that FttN cannot meet demand over anything more than the short-medium term. Given these 2 points, how is spending money now in order to how is delaying an investment later and delay economy-boosting infrastructure a good thing?
        Additionally, there is no evidence or even reason to believe that an FttN rollout would be appreciably cheaper or faster than an FttP rollout.

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink |

          Onya for calling me a liar mate. Classy! Education and healthcare are also investments, BTW. In fact, “it has been shown many times by international organisations (which have no interest in Aussie politics)” that education and healthcare are *excellent* investments. And in my opinion, they are better investments than FTTH. But that’s just my opinion, you see. Troublesome things, these opinions of mine.

          • quink
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink |

            Yes, they’re social investments, but they’re not financial investments like the NBN. If I go to you and ask you for $2 billion to provide free education to people, you don’t expect that money to be paid back. If I go and ask you $2 billion to build a network and sell services on that, you’d expect that to be paid back, with interest, by – in the first instance – the users of the network. That’s the difference. And to be chided and my pointing out facts being called basically irrelevant for not using my real name on the bloody Internet is just about the most sad, most pathetic strawman I have ever seen.

            • Nich
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink |

              To be fair, a lot of the talk for the NBN has been about the social investment and flow-on effects. That the NBN will/might also pay a moderate return is a bonus.

              • Tim Haast
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:49 pm | Permalink |

                Duncan has had enough points thrown at him, if he cannot comprehend his ignorance on the matter then don’t waste your time. He doesn’t even use factually correct points.

          • Lachlan
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:39 pm | Permalink |

            Actutall, based on the AASB legally based definition, spending on education isn’t an asset.

            asset
            A resource:
            (a) controlled by an entity as a result of past events; and
            (b) from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity.
            Source:
            http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/AASB_Glossary_30_September_2012.pdf

            The key problem here is the issue on control, given that students can chose not to stay and work, although that could be solved by slavery.

            So, slaves are assets, but educated free people are expenses.

            • Cadence
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:03 pm | Permalink |

              Man, you are so full of it….

              Just to give you one obvious example, if the government spends taxpayers money building TAFE colleges (or universities) and reaps fee revenue from international students studying english or hospitality or whatever, those colleges are ASSETS because they yield an economic benefit.

              In fact education is one of biggest export income earners.

              Slavery? WTF has to do… ?

              • Lachlan
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink |

                The buildings are an asset, as they meet the definition. The government controls them, and they will provide a future benefit. The education that happens inside them isn’t an asset, it’s just an expense as the benefit of the education isn’t within the control of the government. That foreigners will pay for the education are not compelled to provide the benefit of that education to the government at the governments direction, means that the expenditure on education, simply by definition, is not an asset.
                Slavery is simply what’s required as the absurd end point to make education of people directly result in an asset, in accordance with the official definition.
                You seem to confuse sale of education services on the budget P&L with creating an education asset with government showing the asset for educated students on it’s balance sheet..
                And this relates directly to Duncan’s previous confusion of increasing education expenditure on the budget expenses as a false equivalent to the investment in the assets of the NBN co on the governments balance sheet..

              • Simon
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

                What if, instead of building a TAFE that can hold hundreds of students, they build a national broadband network that can stream education content to hundreds of thousands of students? That saves students the transport costs and resulting greenhouse emissions. That saves remote students the requirement to relocate and the associated expenses. That means students can continue to live at home, saving the government higher Austudy payments while still delivering a net financial gain to the student and family.

                A solution that provides an equal or greater benefit to a significantly greater number sounds like a winner to me.

            • Super Ted (CA)
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink |

              Mate, I know we’re getting sidetracked, but what does the AASB have to do with it? “Accounting standards have the force of company law for entities preparing financial reports under that law.” There’s no legally bound definition of the word asset. Seriously, just wow.

          • Observer
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:12 pm | Permalink |

            “Troublesome things, these opinions of mine.”

            You are right. ignorance and stupidity are always troublesome to those who can intelligently argue their case. Using ‘it’s my opinion” as a stock answer does not really show in a good light.

            To help us understand what you are trying to do, please explain this. Do you not understand the points that are being made, are you being disingenuous or are you just trolling?

            • SMEMatt
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink |

              Opinions can be wrong if the information used to form them is wrong.

        • Guest
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink |

          “FttN has no obvious method to return money to the government, making it an expense”

          WTF? are you daft? of course it will return money. it wont be free to use.
          <—–voting liberal btw. after all, liberals say no FTTH. surely they can lie about that. Julia lied about the carbon tax. what a short memory people have.

          • Dean
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink |

            Turnbull has said that FTTN would be paid for with subsidies. So it’ll make money alright, for Telstra though, not for the government.

            > after all, liberals say no FTTH. surely they can lie about that

            What are you talking about? Abbott has been caught lying multiple times in the last year alone… about the AWU slush fund, about the legality of seeking asylum in Australia, about the Olympic Dam mining project, about public school funding, I mean the list just goes on…

          • Simon
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink |

            You mean the quote “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but make no mistake, i will put a price on carbon.”

            That quote? The ones that all the haters conveniently edit to leave out the last part?

            Don’t forget Mr. Abbott’s line about you can only believe what he issues in writing, you can’t hold him to anything he says verbally.

          • Tim Haast
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:07 pm | Permalink |

            Your voting on the hope they are lying? I realize politics is pure stupidity in its curreynt state but are we at the point where we have to assume the opposite? Althought technically the opposite would be no FTTN, not necessarily FTTH.

            I think your voting criteria are a little strange.

            • alain
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink |

              Well if you voted Labor in 2007 based on Communications Policy you voted for FTTN and it gave Labor a landslide 83 seat majority win over the Coalition where Labor gained 23 seats.

              Your point is what?

              • Simon
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:39 pm | Permalink |

                Because, in 2007 Labor had a vision for improving broadband in Australia, the Coalition did not.

                When investigating the feasibility of the FTTN NBN after they won, they found that compulsory acquisition of the copper would cost in the order of $20b, and that is before a single cabinet is installed (let alone tens of thousands). Telstra were extremely difficult to deal with at the time, so there would likely be a prolonged legal battle, and subsidising Telstra to build the NBN would not improve the regulatory challenges that were already present.

                Now, Labor has a vision for improving broadband in Australia that will meet fixed broadband requirements for decades (as fibre has a much greater bandwidth capacity than copper), whereas the Coalition allegedly has a policy (which no one knows any detail about, just “cheaper, faster”) that will be a stop gap method and only meeting the nation’s growing requirements for the next 3-4 years (if the trends shown by the ABS continue).

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

                Once again, contradicting.

                You have said many times that broadband had no impact in 2010 and did not cost the Coalition (even though the Coalition themselves indicated otherwise).

                But you infer that the majority in 2007 was on the back of FttN?

                LOL…!

          • MikeK
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:08 pm | Permalink |

            John Howard lied about the GST

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink |

            @ Guest

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fRMy5rxuM

      • Nich
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink |

        If Turnbull is your local MP, you’re lucky. Otherwise, GL in that.

      • Brett Haydon
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

        Repeat after me: “The government borrows funds to build the NBN which will be repaid BY the NBN through people using it. If I cancel or reduce the NBN then I won’t get free university education or dental because there is no money”.

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:12 pm | Permalink |

          Why would I repeat after you? Wouldn’t that be a waste of time?

          I’m aware that borrowed money was used for the NBN, and I’m also aware that the NBN business plan calls for it to be repaid by the revenue/profit of the NBN.

          Does that make you feel better?

          • Duncan Strong
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:16 pm | Permalink |

            It was remiss of me to not applaud your courage in using your real name on your post Brett. Very refreshing – thank you!

            • Tim Haast
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink |

              Thank you for admitting this details, now can you reconcile this post with your previous post about this takin away from Health and Education which are rarely (really shouldn’t be) funded through debt.

          • Karl
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:31 pm | Permalink |

            So what you’re saying is you deliberately lied, rather than simply relaying falsehood due to being misinformed?

            Not sure how that’s better.

          • Abel Adamski
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:55 pm | Permalink |

            Duncan Strong, if that in fact is your name

            So precisely what was/is your point and intent?

            There are so many levels where the FTTN plan is severely flawed, in an interview with the ABC Malcolm once again alluded that European Nations and the US are going the FTTN option completely ignoring the fact of his investments in French and Spanish FTTH networks, or the many FTTH installs in progress in the US including Google’s.
            Also ignoring the reasons why they chose FTTN also the fact that it is cheap for them as
            A) They own the damn copper infrastructure, pits and pipes
            B) Unlike Telstra they have maintained those assets

            • AJ
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink |

              It is not his real name without any proof of who you are it does not make any difference for what it is worth I am using the name the 99% of people in my real life call me everyday.
              But the whole point of that “argument” is to try an discredit people who dont use there real name as they are not really people or would not say something in real life. Well I can guarantee you this if you were standing in front of me talking face to face or on a forum like this I would say the same thing with the same conviction because the FACTS are the facts.

              “your opinion can be based on exhaustive research and analysis, however that does not make it fact.”
              Actually facts are based on verifiable and repeatable experiments, research or analysis. Your statement is an oxymoron like saying “you can see the sky is blue at midday but that does not make it a fact” actually it is a fact and is true simply stating something is untrue does not make it untrue

              Everyone else has talked to your other point so I will not bother with those Phil or Dave or Steven or whatever your real name is.
              Adrian

              • Duncan Strong
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink |

                I will ignore your childish name-calling (literally!).

                You state: ” facts are based on verifiable and repeatable experiments, research or analysis”. OK (setting aside your ridiculous statement that facts are facts simply because they are based on analysis LOL) – which facts in this debate have been supported by “verifiable and repeatable experiments”?

                These are theories and opinions (and for some of you, religion!) and not facts because none of us have time machines. Only history will establish the facts of this matter.

                I have been brave enough to use my real name (whether you believe me or not) and humble enough to note that my opinions are just that.

                The response of this board seems to be to shout me down and call me a troll. So be it. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking the comments section of Delimiter was a platform for debate. It appears to be more about chiming in with the “received wisdom” of the technocrats and self-styled political pundits.

                • AJ
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:38 am | Permalink |

                  I will ignore your childish name-calling (literally!).
                  You state: ” facts are based on verifiable and repeatable experiments, research or analysis”. OK (setting aside your ridiculous statement that facts are facts simply because they are based on analysis LOL) – which facts in this debate have been supported by “verifiable and repeatable experiments”?
                  These are theories and opinions (and for some of you, religion!) and not facts because none of us have time machines. Only history will establish the facts of this matter.
                  I have been brave enough to use my real name (whether you believe me or not) and humble enough to note that my opinions are just that.
                  The response of this board seems to be to shout me down and call me a troll. So be it. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking the comments section of Delimiter was a platform for debate. It appears to be more about chiming in with the “received wisdom” of the technocrats and self-styled political pundits

                  Fact the biggest cost of building a broadband network in this country is the workforce.
                  Fact Many places in Australia are on pair gain and not able to VDSL.
                  Fact if you are not on pair gain then you are probably on 10 – 15 year old copper that can’t handle VDSL.
                  Fact for VDSL to work on the majority of houses in Australia the copper will need to be replaced.
                  Fact the cost of replacing the copper is the same as running Fibre to the home.
                  Fact you think it is a good idea to spend the same money on something with a lifespan of less than 10 years.
                  Verifiable Facts
                  Fibre has unlimited potential for future speed improvements Copper does not.
                  Broadband download data shows that the amount of data we download is growing exponentially.
                  4K HDTV can not stream 4K movies and TV over the air or through FTTN (Bandwidth Limitations).

                  Your assertion is that facts are not facts because YOU say so.

      • Lachlan
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink |

        “However I still believe that the NBN is a policy disaster when viewed in light of the opportunity cost – for the cost of the NBN, Australia could have restored free university for qualified candidates *and* added free dental care to Medicare.”

        The problem with this assumes that the NBN and Univeristy eduction and dental care are rival choices.

        We can do both. There are unemployed Australians, and if labour availability is a problem, there is always 457 visas. Interest rates are low and the AOFM easily auctions goverment bonds without problems. Capital gooda can be imported or even domestically manufacured, such as the NBN ribbon optical fiber.
        There are few limitations while we aren’t at WWII, aresenal of democracy levels of govement spending/investment.

        The NBN choice is sperrate to any others, and given the large positive NPV of the buisness plan, which is proceeding apace, it stands alone as a good option compared to old copper or even “fraudband” (liberal party term for FTTN from 2007 election), given it’s significant boost to untility to citizens, cost stability, and significant enduring expandable capabilities.

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink |

          You are correct Lachlan, it was foolish of me to state my case as an “either/or” option.

          I should have stated that I believe (ie. it is my opinion) that the NPV of free education and free dental care is higher than the NPV of the NBN.

          Thanks for your reasonable response to my assertions, it is refreshing compared to the heavy-handed rhetoric of the majority of the responses.

      • Adrianrain
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

        Dude. Free education can be achieved with the NBN. Universities can stream their lectures like they’re starting to do in the states. New technology will be made smaller as it’s information will be stored outside of the device. We need to catch up here. We need to get away from renting phone lines so we can get the internet. We need to stop the monopoly on communications in the country. It should be illegal for a Telstra to be a wholesaler and sell to the public. They’ve been ripping Australians off for to long. The internet is the biggest thing in the world. Good internet makes money. Can you imagine if google brought youtube from an Australian for 3.5 billion instead of from an American. Aussies are extremely tech savvy compared to most countries. Where limited by our online environment. We need to stretch out legs.

        If the libs install this they will need to update it again in 10 years because we will have shocking slow internet. Most people wont actually get speed increases because their Telstra rented lines are in such poor condition. People who live in the country will still have to travel a long way to see a doctor or go to school.

      • Daniel
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink |

        Viewing FTTN as a better Policy?

        Hello we been down this road like 3 times, including 1 time under Howard!

        And what did we get? Zero, nothing, 0, zap.

        Duncan Strong, you try for an convincing argument, I’ll give you 3/5 for effort.

        But your voice is again, fell flat.

        Simply because, this debate, has been going on and on about which technology to choose, how we going rollout and how we going to fund it.

        Past revisions for this has all but failed.

        The Labor party did it the correct way of using our BONDS to pay for INITIALLY.

        AND THEN CUSTOMERS PAY BACK THE NETWORK OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT.

        IT is a Really SIMPLE way of explaining but a complex way of dealing with the situation.

        First step is to upgrade the last mile, and in doing so you can add all new legislation, regulation needed for it to work, this is a transformation stage.

        Later on the life of the project you can expect many types of services will be offered, apart from Tripple play.

        Although existing providers may adapt to NBN such as WIFI connections (USA has been doing this for a while now).

        Finally, NBN will pay for it self, just not in the time frame, the Media, the Coalition, and some voters here would like it to be.

      • Dan
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink |

        Nice trolling. I can’t believe so many people got suckered in! Well done “Duncan”

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:25 am | Permalink |

          Oooh, way to rise above it all, “Dan”.

          See, I can do it too! ;)

      • Goresh
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink |

        “key because it is in charge of $40 billion+ project that will change the topology of Australia’s communications networks for generations”

        That’s the whole point isn’t it?

        If malcolm is put in charge of it, it will no longer BE a $40 billion project and the whole point of coalition policy to to roll out more of the SAME topology, more copper, more HFC but NO more FTTP.

      • Ben
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink |

        It’s good that you’d prefer your kids to have a good education and nice teeth, than to be able to get a job. If you think the world isn’t heading more and more to online everything, you’re mistaken. And currently Australia is a third world country when it comes to online connectivity.
        So when your kids have no jobs, because we cannot compete here for business, at least they can smile with nice teeth on the street when they’re begging for money. Sounds like a life most would choose for their kids ;)

      • Sathias
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink |

        Your “opportunity cost” argument is bunk. The main reason being is that there is no goddamn way the Liberals would do either of those things, let alone both. It’s a straw man argument and you know it.

        Put it this way, one of the most expensive policies Abbott has put forward is his paid parental leave scheme. It will cost around $4bn a year, on published estimates. Over the 10 years the NBN will take to build, this adds up to $40bn. Does that figure sound familiar?

        So a better “opportunity cost” argument would be a world-class broadband investment that will make a modest profit, or yet more middle-class welfare which is a revenue cost with no direct return?

      • tinman_au
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:24 pm | Permalink |

        You should think a bit more about your kids (and grand kids) future, education from now on will be more and more online. It’s actually happening right now and a lot of Aussie Uni’s are kicking themselves for being late to the party .

        http://www.afr.com/p/national/education/free_online_courses_will_change_7ngMdHAbNt5JXJFgLqR79O

        Or try Googling “online university”, most of the big names in education overseas are already there.

        Those that can access decent data, telecommunications and video conference infrastructure will be the real winners in the future.

      • Stephen H
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink |

        Wasn’t it the Coalition that abolished a half-decent public dental plan, made every effort to privatise not just higher education but primary schools, made religion a part of government and failed to do anything to improve this country’s telecommunications networks?

        Seriously, do you expect better from Tony Abbott, the man who when Health Minister applied his religious beliefs in refusing approval for RU486?

    5. quink
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

      > But with so many competing priorities, the last thing Australians need is another $50 billion plus in borrowed money to deliver higher speeds – but only in a decade’s time and at about triple the current monthly price.

      1) The capital expenditure is estimated to be $37.4 billion. Not $50 billion.

      2) The peak of the rollout is estimated to be 2016 to 2017 with the network finished by 2021. Not a decade.

      3) The current monthly price for NBN plans is at a price point slightly cheaper – around $10 on average for roughly equal download limits and download speeds – than existing ADSL plans. Not triple.

      But what do facts matter to Tony Abbott. If the coalition has concrete reasons to lay out why they think these statements are inaccurate, they owe it to their electorates to lay out that information honestly and truthfully. But that’s not happening.

      • Harimau
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink |

        Tony Abbott is a shameless liar.

        (See, we can do it too!)

    6. Karl
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

      The title of this article should have been “Abbott confirms FttN policy: starts lying straight away”

    7. Nobby6
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:12 pm | Permalink |

      @quink

      where the fu#$ do you think NBNCo got its finances? Investment or non investment they kicked off with TAXPAYER MONEY, and is it a good investment? WTF knows coz Conartist Conroy did his best to shelve public scrutiny and CBA.

      or are you one of these uneducated (because of labors arse about priorities) kids who believes money does grow on trees. and they planted a whooooole bunch of these money trees in a secret location in some state forest like the dope growers.

      Everyone seems concerned about how they will steal movies faster, get more pr0n quicker, all internetz speedy, no one seems too concerned about the fact it also going to be your phone communications, if power goes out you have 5 or less hours of standby on the battery, just look at Qld and Northern NSW towns without power, but have, at present a working landline, I have family that have been told they got no chance of power until next Tuesday at EARLIEST, so in an NBN world, I certainly hope they, their neighbours and other townsfolks dont need emergency services in a hurry, in a typical good summer storm in SEQ and N/NSW, its common fo some areas to lose power for 6 or more hours.

      Is labor going to give everyone a free mobile? and thats assuming the mobile networks actually work, and in some SEQ N/NSW towns, no power, flat batteries, and no solar charge = NO network. no network on any network. so I know a few towns that hope the NBN never comes.

      There is a bigger picture than just superfast broadband

      • Nich
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink |

        How long will a PTSN line keep power if there is a general blackout for the whole area?

        In a FTTN deployment, where it is fibre between the exchange and roadside cabinet, will the last-mile copper similar be powered for those lengths of time?

        • alain
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink |

          The FTTN cabinet servicing about 300 residences is battery backed, the NBN Co NTU in the residence maybe battery UPS backed but that is at the option and cost of the residence, but in any case ONLY the voice port on the NBN Co NTU will be backed by the UPS.

          • quink
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:35 pm | Permalink |

            At 300 residences, the batteries in an FTTN node last less than an hour going by 15 W per FTTN user and about 70 Ah * 4 batteries. Also, once that’s gone, service is down to all 300 premises and none of those 300 premises have any control over that.

            Meanwhile, FTTH keeps on ticking for literally as long as you want – you just turn on the ONT when you use it, or many hours continuously should you want, and the only thing you need is a crappy $10 lead acid battery.

            If you’re concerned about Internet service rather than just phone service, on the other hand and the power is out in your area, then you can get an inverter, get a generator, get wind power, solar, more batteries, anything… and that’ll enable FTTH Internet indefinitely – and the exchange several suburbs over is likely to have its own generator as well. FTTN will drop dead, phone and Internet, once the batteries in the node are gone – and in the case of 300 premises that’s in less than an hour.

            So, if you’re that concerned about it and if you stand back and actually think about what happens in a situation like this, you should really be championing FTTH.

            • djos
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink |

              The batteries are really only there to protect the fairly sensitive electronics from over/under voltages and power spikes – it also protect the end users equipment to a certain extent by providing stable voltages down the lines.

              All completely superfluous junk if you have an FTTP Network!!!

      • Karl
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink |

        “Investment or non investment they kicked off with TAXPAYER MONEY”
        Wrong. Read: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/NBNBudgetStatements

        “Everyone seems concerned about how they will steal movies faster, get more pr0n quicker, all internetz speedy”
        Impressive strawman, you could work for the Coalition!

        “if power goes out you have 5 or less hours of standby on the battery, just look at Qld and Northern NSW towns without power, but have, at present a working landline”
        And people who currently lose their phone line and internet because there is a light shower and the copper is degraded, that’s a better position to be in?

        “There is a bigger picture than just superfast broadband”
        I’m glad you agree.

      • quink
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink |

        > WTF knows coz Conartist Conroy did his best to shelve public scrutiny and CBA.

        Ad hominem attacks are quite pathetic.

        > if power goes out you have 5 or less hours of standby on the battery

        That’s not a reason *for* building or maintaining a copper network. That’s a reason for ensuring that electric supply is guaranteed (and at the end of the day, copper is just as likely to fail as electricity, even more so, actually) or, if you’re that concerned about it, just getting a generator or solar panels or another backup battery or any number of a dozen viable solutions to that problem.

        Yes, money doesn’t grow on trees. That’s why it’s better to do it once and to do it right – because it’s cheaper. Fibre itself is cheap – but the hard work is getting it in the ground – that’s an inevitable expense that will happen – and only on the date of when it’s going to happen is there disagreement between even the most crazed of FTTH fanatics and Malcolm Turnbull.

        Also, in the FTTN network, you’re reliant on 70,000 nodes, each with their own battery and own power. You’re advocating going for the coalition, which says we should replace the current network with FTTN, but completely ignore that part of much worse power failure management, which is so utterly critical for you.

        • quink
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink |

          In many ways, actually, FTTH handles power failures much better. First, you’re not reliant on power being there anywhere between the terminal, four suburbs over and with backup generators and everything, and your own premise. And in your own premise, you can have solar, wind, many batteries, a generator, pedal power, anything, really, to drive the ONT which uses fairly little electricity – and all provided through a 240 V socket.

          If the power goes out in FTTN it will almost definitely in the node three streets over, and then you’re utterly reliant on a battery backup in that and in that only – you have no control over it, and there sure is hell isn’t a generator supplying a power for it or any way for you to do so. So, if power failures are such a big problem for you, then you should be cheering for FTTH a billion times over.

          • alain
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink |

            So FTTH is a totally passive network is it, there are no power requirements whatever between the head-end until it meets the NTU end point at the residence?

            • NBNAccuracy
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink |

              Correct. No power needed anywhere along the path, only at each end. Also with the ONT you end up with something you can plug network cables and telephones straight in to. With FTTN you are up for a couple of hundred for a VDSL2 modem with vectoring, that nearly another $2B on the price tag for the end users. Sorry I cannot give a more accurate price on the modem as no one sells consumer grade VDSL2 vectoring modems yet. The only ones available are 4-5 thousand dollar commercial units. Remember the examples of vectoring have only been trials. It’s surprising after all these years no one sells a modem yet.

              • quink
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink |

                Vectoring is done on the DSLAM side, so VDSL2 modems should be compatible with it by default. There may have to be some firmware upgrade for some models. And by the time VDSL2 is likely to roll out here, the price of the modems is likely to be just about the same as for ADSL.

                • nonny-moose
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:45 am | Permalink |

                  for anyone curious in the past two days ive received some advertising from Warcom offering such modems – cheapest 266 odd and most expensive a few bucks short of 500. those prices will come down as you state but for the moment they are distinctly more expensive than most other modem/routers. still, i would have to say availability and price of VDSL2 modem/router units would be the least significant issues with the tech :)

                • NBNAccuracy
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink |

                  Yes, any VDSL2 will be “compatible” with it, if they don’t enforce vectoring. I hope they do enforce it. because of someone uses a modem that doesn’t support vectoring it stop vectoring from working properly and others start to slow down too.
                  Seems Noony has spotted some cosumer grade vectoring modems. Last I looked, 6 months or so ago, none were capable of it.

              • alain
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:53 pm | Permalink |

                ‘Correct. No power needed anywhere along the path, only at each end.’

                So the Fibre Access Node (FAN) which is not the head point aggregation Node does not require power?

                • quink
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

                  There will be about 700 Fibre Access Nodes – and on the order of many many thousands of premises connected to each. There will be fewer FANs than either exchanges or FTTN nodes. They also require much less power than existing telephone exchanges, yet will likely be located at existing exchange sites, potentially using backup generators scaled for the copper network. That aspect of FTTH in terms of keeping it up when a power outage hits is going to be more reliable than the existing network, never mind FTTN.

                  • alain
                    Posted 03/02/2013 at 7:46 pm | Permalink |

                    @quink

                    So that’s a YES then, the FTTH network does require power and hence battery backup, thank you.

                    • quink
                      Posted 03/02/2013 at 8:48 pm | Permalink |

                      Network-side: FTTH needs power in 700 places, pretty much a majority if not all would have generators, FTTN needs power in 70,000 places and when the power goes out, it lasts much shorter.

                      Client-side: They are the same for Internet. If power in your house goes out, they are dead, except for inverters, generators or whatever. For phone service, FTTH needs a battery (or you can plug in a generator or inverter or solar or whatever and keep running basically indefinitely) and FTTN keeps running until the power in the node is out, which can be within an hour.

                      The power requirement for FTTH is about a third, so any backup would last much longer. Based on these things, yes, the FTTH network requires power. But on the network side in 1% of the places that FTTN does. So, the answer would be yes, but on a comparative basis, 99% no and can’t ever be 100% no.

                      • quink
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 8:54 pm | Permalink |

                        Also, in the case of FTTN, it depends on whether they keep PSTN, which they may not. They likely will, but we have no answer at all on this, and if they don’t, then it’ll go dead without, unless something like a battery backup like for the UNI-V ports on FTTH is implemented, which may happen to keep the wholesale products NBN Co provides far more consistent and to hide the difference between FTTN and FTTH, which the coalition may very well try to do.

            • quink
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink |

              FTTH like Labor is building, yes. FTTH as a thing using MSANs together with FTTN, which is the upgrade path advocated by MT, no.

            • NBNAccuracy
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink |

              Wait a sec. Alain, is this something you like about the FTTH rollout? C’mon, like one thing and you may gain some credit for objectivity.

      • Tim Haast
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink |

        “or are you one of these uneducated (because of labors arse about priorities) kids who believes money does grow on trees. and they planted a whooooole bunch of these money trees in a secret location in some state forest like the dope growers.”

        Your entire rant is uneducated filth. Not worth writing more of a response to.

      • Goresh
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:26 pm | Permalink |

        No infrastructure provided by governemnt would ever pass a CBA because if it could, it would already be provided by a private interest.

        Government builds infrastructure that is simply uneconomical for the private sector to build, but is essential for the private sector to leverage off in order to make money.

        Would we have a mining industry without the rail lines, ports, airports, roads, dams, bridges, hospitals, schools etc etc etc provided by governments to train, heal, transport workers and the mines output?

        • SMEMatt
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

          That is where you are wrong and a CBA can be very useful in areas where the benefit isn’t direct financial gain. To use the example of above of free university fees for qualified students, it could be worth doing the only way to know is a CBA. The GDP growth(and the corresponding tax growth) from having a highly educated workforce might go some way to offsetting the cost, reductions in youth unemployment associated crime might see cost reductions in other. Then there are social impacts and the prestige of the country that while don’t have a monetary value that we might conclude is worth the cost.

          The reason why the NBN hasn’t been built by private enterprise is the return expectations and time frame for that return. NBN is taking a decade to build(not from now but from when the planning was started) and the repayment is expected for another decade after that. So you have a project with a peak funding cost over the first 10 years of a little over $40billion that won’t see a return for 20years and that return is about 7%, no business will go for it, under those conditions. They will go for it under other conditions as is evidenced by other private sector FTTN builds around the world but those condition don’t apply to areas the NBN was aimed at fixing.

    8. quink
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:08 pm | Permalink |

      > “In spruiking their flawed Fibre-to-the-Node (FTTN) plan, Liberal are doing one of two things; they are either deluding themselves, and at the same time the Australian public, if they think a FTTN will deliver high-speed broadband to rural and regional areas, or they are being deliberately deceitful and are trying to trick the public into supporting a plan they know is flawed. A plan they know is unfeasible, un-costed and whimsical at best. I don’t know which is worse, ignorance or deceit. Perhaps it’s a bit of both, but whatever the case the people of rural and regional Australia know a furphy when they see one. “It’s widely understood in the telecommunications industry that FTTN will not deliver improved broadband speeds to rural and regional areas. Experts predict that not only would Liberal’s plan cost three to four times their estimate, it’s likely to only reach 75 per cent of the population – a far cry from their claims of 98 per cent reach.”

      Who said this?

      Fiona Nash, Nationals Senator. Yes, coalition. And FIVE years ago.

      I replaced all “Labor” instances with “Liberal”.

      If The Nationals considered FTTN to be fraudband in 2007 in terms as strong as these, why should we think of it any differently when the coalition proposes it in 2012 other than for political expediency?

      http://www.fionanash.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/84/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/213/LABORS-RURAL-FRAUDBAND.aspx

      • Guest
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:40 pm | Permalink |

        im sorry, did they have exactly the same plan? no, they didnt. therefore it IS 110% possible to have a flawed FTTN plan, and an alternate not so flawed FTTN plan.

        • quink
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink |

          This s a general remark regarding FTTN and, while very well subjective, clearly in no way specific to whatever FTTN plans Labor did or didn’t have and uttered by a coalition senator: “It’s widely understood in the telecommunications industry that FTTN will not deliver improved broadband speeds to rural and regional areas.”

          Not “this plan” or “Labor”, but “FTTN”.

    9. Joe R
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink |

      Whatever your opinions of Labor, I feel like the Liberals are extremely clueless when it comes to economics. Even the initial privatisation of Telstra (nee Telecom) ignores first year economics at university.

      All monopolies are price setters rather than price takers. While competition in the free market generally brings about the best price through competition, a monopoly can set any price it likes and therefore sets that which it thinks will reap the greatest profits.

      This is acceptable with non-essential goods and services, but frankly cruel and crippling to people on lower incomes with regards to essential services for an entire country. There’s also no incentive to upgrade unless the company thinks it will improve profits, so we were stuck with dial-up when we could have had ISDN, and people are still stuck with obscenely priced ADSL1 and 3.5-4G wireless when they should have the much cheaper and faster ADSL2+ nearly a decade ago.

      Even if Howard didn’t appreciate that the Internet was an up-and-coming thing in the 90’s, I’m not sure how he considered phone services non-essential. Fast forward to now and the Libs are still underestimating the Internet? The mining boom may be giving our economy an edge at the moment, but that only makes up 19% of our GDP at most. The service economy makes up 68% of our GDP, and that can only go up as the mining boom eventually winds down. How does Australia stay ahead then, let alone have to go about finding the money and once again starting construction of something we were already set for decades earlier? They can’t argue ‘siding with caution’ either. FTTH is obviously future proof to anyone who passed high school science (Heck, I was being shown and taught about it in primary school in the early 90’s. Imagine my surprise when I started becoming interested in computers a decade later and found that it still wasn’t being used). Even if the LHC finds some sort of new quantum particle faster than light, I don’t see it being harnessed quite as easily any time soon.

      The copper wires going to people’s houses can be ancient, and even if they’re brand new, they’re still often pair-gain. From my experience this still usually means a rewiring job for ADSL2+, let alone the VDSL2 I imagine FTTN would provide to anyone lucky enough to be within 1km of the exchange. If they’re going to do that, why the heck not put fibre in anyway?

      I have 2 brothers who have started their own entrepreneurial video business. One would generally assume that the Liberals would approve strongly of such a thing. However, where they live is limited to ADSL1 thanks to Telstra. The pricing for this is shocking, especially for the large bandwidth they require. In addition, they frequently have to upload videos for clients. They’re rarely large, but they still take half a day each, and video quality expectations on the Internet keep growing. Consequently they’re quite excited by the possibilities FTTH would provide. To wait for the Liberal version of the NBN and find out they can still only get ADSL2+ would be a fair old kick in the teeth.

      • Joe R
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink |

        Sorry, make that ‘lucky enough to be within 1km of the node’. Much more likely than the exchange of course, but would massively favour suburbs over semi-rural areas.

        Also, the GDP statistics were from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia

      • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:12 am | Permalink |

        Well said. Spot on.

        • LetsBeOpenAboutThis
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink |

          I mean well said Joe!!

    10. Rod
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink |

      Checkout the state of the copper network on this video then make your mind up
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjvTn5Do6GQ
      Liberals / Coalition are just wasting their money

    11. Roostermark
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:51 pm | Permalink |

      Oh well this means i will be voting labor again, it would be nice if the coalition get behind the FTTH version though as i view the NBN akin to the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme.

    12. Brett Haydon
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:10 pm | Permalink |

      Dear Malcolm,

      Where’s the cost benefit analysis that says an FTTN will be better than FTTP..

      • alain
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink |

        Dear Mr Conroy,

        Where’s the cost benefit analysis that says an FTTP will be better than FTTN.

        • Ben
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink |

          Read about the technology and the limitations in FTTN and then come back and be smart about it.

    13. Simon Shaw
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull, internet pioneer.

      Look, FTTN is better than the current system. But how much will it cost, and will switching tracks actually delay the rollout!?

      FTTP is MUCH preferred sorry Malcolm. This is a nation building exercise.

      • Goresh
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:35 pm | Permalink |

        “Look, FTTN is better than the current system.”

        Actually it IS the current system.
        It just happens that the “node” is in the telephone exchange, where it is likely to stay for rural customers.

        All FTTN does is shorten the length of copper cable between the customer and the backhaul fiber by moving the node out of the exchange and into a roadside cabinet.

        Why not put the “node” inside the customers house and eliminate it completely?

        • alain
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink |

          Because the Node services about 300 residences and has it’s own batteries as a back up system, the customer does not have to maintain a battery backed UPS at their cost inside the residence.

          • Tib
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

            and that cabinet has to be kept cool with airconditioning, how long will that battery last :/

            • nonny-moose
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink |

              How much will that COST? To keep the cab air conned (which I would suggest is a wasteful use of power). How much will it cost to keep the network running, at something in the ballpark of 70 thousand cabs?

              That’s just ONE aspect of the cabs that will be a significant cost, and it isn’t the only one – the batteries, the power lead in, vulnerabilities to flooding – especially pertinent following events in Qld in 2011 and just now.

              Having a node means that if the battery goes its not just one residence that goes down, as with the NTU at the end user, but 300. What will be the service level for the nodes for restoration of service? 300 pissed customers at a pop is much more concerning than one. If it takes a significant period for restoration the impact will be much larger than the ftth route.

              I’m sorry alain but these things you are quoting are not advantages over the current model. They are either extra costs not borne in the ftth model or extra costs and disadvantages, mainly in introducing points of failure rather than designing the network to have as few as possible – which has knock on benefits for reduced maintenance truck rolls over time. If the power line goes down, the cab needs service. If the air con dies, ditto. If the battery dies, ditto. If the copper degrades (remembering vdsl of any stripe is more sensitive to line condition) a truck roll will be needed for service, most likely to swap pairs in the manner they do today.

              Where are the advantages?

            • alain
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink |

              Are you asking because you know it is less than a FTTH NTU?

              Irrespective of your insinuation that the FTTN cabinet cooling unit draw down on the battery is of significance I think it would be better than instant off on a NTU that has no UPS (where the UPS only backs up the voice port anyway) don’t you?

              :)

              • quink
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink |

                http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/31/abbot-confirms-coalition-fttn-policy-hints-turnbull-will-be-comms-minister/#comment-572179

              • nonny-moose
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:04 am | Permalink |

                no alain i was not insinuating the aircon is drawing down the battery. you love to put words in my mouth dont you? and your reading comprehension leaves to be desired. let me be explicit then: the cab will normally draw power from the line that will be installed to power the cabinet from the electricity delivery system – whether it is above or below ground power.

                the issue is that VDSL is a powered medium, plus the power draw that the aircon takes, vs a passive optical network. there will be a difference in power costs from those two choices. capiche?

                As for when either service goes into failure mode: since you ask, i would have to say i would prefer the battery solely being used to power NTU voice channel chips vs the battery serving *both* the VDSL hardware plus the necessary cooling – as far as i recall the NTUs are passive cooling (i dont recall seeing a fan in any of the pimp shots) VS. a FTTN cabs’ active cooling.

                again there are failure issues that can come in with the more complex system – the aircon goes, presumably the cabs network performance suffers, or fails completely. the batteries die or are poorly maintained, they will need servicing.the former doesnt apply to the NTU. the latter also applies to the NTU – admitted! – but again *one* persons NTU battery on the wall dying will take out that one persons line. a cabinet dying will have a much larger sphere of effect, and i argue that is much more undesirable.

                i also wonder if the cabinet will be even able to service voice in failure mode – which if it doesnt still puts the NTU ahead.

                • seven_tech
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:38 am | Permalink |

                  @nonny-moose

                  i also wonder if the cabinet will be even able to service voice in failure mode

                  If you mean during power failure, yes. For as long as the battery lasts. Usually 2-3 days max. Well, that’s now in the exchange. It’s possible it will be less than that owing to the cabinet size constraints and power consumption.

                  If you mean once power is removed, no. Just like an exchange.

                  Personally, I’d much prefer 1200 FANs being maintained properly and having large battery banks and room for generator power in long failure situations than 70 000 FTTN cabinets not maintained as often (because there are so many more) and having compact, low capacity batteries that have no generator ability during long outages.

                  • alain
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink |

                    So how many NTU’s are there requiring UPS maintenance which according to NBN Co estimates will be 50% of residents?

    14. CMOTDibbler
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:45 pm | Permalink |

      “The NBN has stood the test of time and debate, from its commercial model to the separation of Telstra and the rollout itself.”

      The NBNCo will have proved itself when it meets its roll out and take up figures and is on budget at end-June 2013. Anything less will be ammunition for the Coalition.

      • Karl
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink |

        My prediction, let’s see how close I am:
        They’ll meet the June target, and Turnbull’s argument will be “Let’s not fool ourselves here, since 2007 they have managed to roll out fibre to just 300,000 premises. That’s only a few thousand a month, and they want us to believe they are rolling it out at 6,000 per day? At this rate (300k per 6 years) it won’t be finished until about 2221! The Coalition will rollout the NBN faster, sooner, more quickly, cheaper, and at less expense than Labor.”

        • alain
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink |

          The premises passed figures is irrelevant, active connections is what the Coalition will target, hence the incentive ‘bounty’ the NBN Co has announced to try and get this statistic higher in election year.

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:32 pm | Permalink |

            Don’t forget alain, to tell us ‘again’ that it’s better for the RSP’s margins, to keep customers where they are, rather than transfer them over .

            Also the bounty is a credit which will in fact make NBNCo (and therefore us the taxpayers) money, by fast tracking customers onto the NBN.

            Don’t you want the taxpayer to make money?

          • Abel Adamski
            Posted 03/02/2013 at 9:03 pm | Permalink |

            Bundled plans, providing cheaper mobile esp 4G that requires a land line rental as part of the bundle, therefor requiring the cost of line rental on top of NBN > more expensive, discouraging take up, also no wireless plans in rural until mid 2013 also discouraging take up as breaks the bundle >more expensive mobile and for rural mobile is of great importance , strange the main offender is also involved with pit and duct remediation.
            I hope they aren’t trying to sabotage the NBN by making its performance appear bad so the coalition just hand it all over to “the professionals” to do with reduced regulation and ACCC oversight

        • Greg W
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink |

          There’s an easy rebuttal. he Coalition rolled out 0 FTTP/FTTN connections for 11 years.

          • GongGav
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink |

            At that rate, it will take years for the Lib’s to complete their plan.

    15. Abel Adamski
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

      One relevant question is why do we have Black Spots and Rim Hells

      Black spots, provisioned before faxes even let alone internet
      Rim Hells, provisioned when the internet was dial up

      In both cases provisioned for what was the perceived requirement at the time for the present and immediate future.
      Much like the coalitions goals with the FTTN, for our present perceived requirements, committing much of Australia to Rim Hells of the future

    16. Chunk
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink |

      Oh christ!!

    17. Hubert Cumberdale
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink |

      “Anything less will be ammunition for the Coalition.”

      Anything more than less will be “fudging” the numbers.

    18. Goresh
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink |

      So, coalition policy is “market based FTTN” ?

      So, all they need do is halt the rollout and allow Telstra to continue with it’s Top Hat rollout which, by definition must be a market based FTTN?

    19. Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:42 am | Permalink |

      I struggle with Abbott producing a speech like this supposedly endorsing what (in theory) could be a decent, if pointless and flawed policy, based around FTTN FINALLY, while for the last 3 days and even in this speech the Liberals STILL continue to mislead on the NBN.

      I’m not interested in discussing their policy at all without reasonable guestimates at cost and information around where those costings came from. Those of you who are somewhat subjective might very well say ‘that’s how Labor went to 2007 election’. But they didn’t. Even Labor’s FTTN then had Telstra based costings. Unless Turnbull can show me how their FTTN network, including CAPEX going forward over at LEAST a decade, can be cheaper to the government AND cheaper to customers, AS WELL as being built before the NBN is due to be completed, he will not be getting my vote. I don’t vote on promises. I vote on costed, detailed policy.

      • alain
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink |

        ‘Those of you who are somewhat subjective might very well say ‘that’s how Labor went to 2007 election’. But they didn’t. Even Labor’s FTTN then had Telstra based costings.’

        Although it is somewhat simplistic to dismiss the Labor costings as just regurgitated Telstra the detail was just a estimated total, no detail other than that was given, if the Coalition simply say at some point before the election in September our alternative will be $xx billion and leave it at that it’s a ‘same as Labor 2007′ scenario.

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/back-to-future-with-labors-fttn-plan/2007/03/21/1174153157432.html

        • NBNAccuracy
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink |

          There is one big difference. At the time there was nothing else being done. They were not claiming to be cheaper, faster, etc. If one policy is to replace another you need to show why your policy is better. I think that is very important when making claims like 1/3 to 1/4 the price. That I’d like to see. If they can do it great, but given that FTTH is only a fraction of the rollout cost I cannot see how it is even possible to save more than a few billion. Then I’d like to see the plans for the eventual move to FTTH. Everyone agrees it will be necessary. They need to show believable time frames til it needs to be upgraded and the cost of the upgrade.

          • Abel Adamski
            Posted 03/02/2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink |

            NBNA-
            Plus let us not forget their obsession with their beloved HFC. What will the taxpayer have to pay to upgrade that to reliably provide a minimum download and upload to ALL premises including MDU’s and also provide business services as well.
            I would suspect the cost will be in the Billions from the taxpayer, not Millions as MT would suggest.
            So add that onto the FTTN cost, and include the very substantial loss of income to the “NBN” making it incapable of repaying debt or returning a profit for all the monies spent.

            Dumb would be a mild term

        • Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink |

          @alain

          And the regurgitated Telstra numbers had detail. You just had to go to Telstra to find them. I’m happy for the Coalition to use Telstra estimates, but Telstra have to show:

          1- What minimum speed they’ll guarantee and

          2- What coverage that will be for

          The previous Telstra details were 98% with 12Mbps. Turnbull wants higher than that for about 60% of premises, so they need to show how much that will cost.

    20. Craig Iedema
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:12 am | Permalink |

      Well all a bit angry here.

      I think the current NBN is good policy, in fact it ended up being the reason for how I voted at the last election.

      That said a well designed FTTN rollout shouldn’t be dramatically different in terms of initial speeds available ie if the nodes are close enough then 100M connections should be able to be achieved at the home.

      If it is well enough designed the fibre can then be extended from the node to the home over time.

      As for those thinking a monoply is bad idea, consider this – we don’t have 2 water mains, power cables, sewer connections or roads running to every house. Having 2 communications cable is similarly inefficient.

      I think a good FTTN policy, while inferior to FTTP, is an acceptable alternative.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink |

        Why should we accept 2nd best, because a political party is too stubborn to say the others actually did something right?

        • alain
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink |

          Because we won’t know that until 2021 (rollout finished) and 2033 (taxpayer funds and debt paid back) maybe?

          • NBNAccuracy
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink |

            Then to onus is on the Coalition to show it can do as it says, have it completed much quicker. So far now detail has been given on how they will achieve this. They can quote a 5 year old BT report as much as they like but there is negotiation, replanning, testing, a lot of stuff needs to be repeated that isn’t needed on an already ramping up rollout.

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink |

            Taxpayer funds?

          • tinman_au
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink |

            “Because we won’t know that until 2021 (rollout finished) and 2033 (taxpayer funds and debt paid back) maybe?”

            That’s still a lot more info than the Libs are giving us ;o)

            How come your so fanatical about the Liberals fairytale?

            • alain
              Posted 04/02/2013 at 8:42 am | Permalink |

              Those date figures where published in the Business Plan that was published AFTER Labor gained power in 2010, they were updated again in Business Plan MK2 published in 2012, so you should be comfortable if after a Coalition win they publish something along those lines in 2014.

              • Djos
                Posted 04/02/2013 at 9:02 am | Permalink |

                The coalition should commit to leaving the NBN the hell alone, there is no legitimate reason to revert to FTTN at all, it costs almost as much as FTTH, doesn’t deliver what business or consumers need and will need to be upgraded by the time it’s finished!

              • tinman_au
                Posted 04/02/2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink |

                When Labor floated the idea, there was nothing else, now there is something, the Liberal party needs to offer something a bit more tangible than a fairytale.

                And sorry, I just don’t trust Tony “Did I sign that non-core election promise in blood and set it in concrete?” Abbott to come through for Australia in this regard.

                • alain
                  Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink |

                  ‘When Labor floated the idea, there was nothing else, ‘

                  Well there was it was called FTTH in 2007 as well and Telstra was rolling it out in their Smart Communities then.

                  Labor could have chosen FTTH as their election platform prior to the 2007 election.

        • Craig Iedema
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:52 pm | Permalink |

          Because generally when a new government is elected, accepting that their policies will be implemented is the mature response.

          Want the NBN? Get out and campaign for the ALP and get everyone you know to do the same.

          At this stage it is extremely unlikely the ALP win the next election. On the basis of that reality, I can accept second best. If the coalition FTTN is well enough designed it should be able to easily upgraded to FTTP later.

          • Observer
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:11 pm | Permalink |

            ” If the coalition FTTN is well enough designed it should be able to easily upgraded to FTTP later.’

            Easily? maybe. Cheaply? unlikely.

            If the whole coalition argument is about getting the job done faster, cheaper and more economically. A cheaper and upgradable option would only be useful if such upgrade was not needed for many years to come. Now, it looks like it highly unlikely to be the case.

      • nonny-moose
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

        I have great doubt it will be specced to allow 100mbit connects. it really depends on the speccing of the cabinet, and there can be consequences of the spec as well, particularly the one vendor lock in inherent to vectoring. thing is the coalition have been adamant in not providing any details so any hope it will be a ‘well designed fttn rollout’ still remains to be seen. The longer they dally, the less likely I think it is to be the case.

      • Abel Adamski
        Posted 03/02/2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink |

        Actually Craig
        The fibre from the active FTTC node has only ever been capable of 350Mb max, whereas the FTTP is 1Gb capable

      • Sammy G
        Posted 05/02/2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink |

        Please Can we scratch a little deeper than just the surface of the coalitions FTN policy.
        there are SO many articles i have read from various websites (a good one from malcolms website provide at the botom) about how the coalition will manage and develop THEIR National Broadband Network.

        item 1. get rid of and bust up NBNco.
        item 2. undo the Optus deal and get them to re invigerate their HFC.
        item 3 pay companys “Subsidies” to building a better network to the bush.
        item 4 try and get the private sector to build the network.

        the REAL reason the liberals are so against the labour NBN plan is becouse of NBNco. it cuts against the very essence of what it means to be liberal. and provide a completely free market.

        as they have said over and over again, if we create a free market. they will build the infrustructure. if there is a market for it and we let private companies have the ideal conditions they will provide it.

        what they cant understand is, NBNco has one goal in life. that is to build an awesome first rate network, and when viable. lower wholesale prices. and for the first time in Australia’s telecomunications market, is the will be a level playing field for all telco’s provided by a wholesaler that will not be selling services to the public.

    21. Maude
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:23 am | Permalink |

      I live in a suburb with HFC in the street, and of one thing I am absolutely certain: I will not see FttN, no matter who wins the coming election. If Labor wins I will get FttH because my area is listed for commencement of a 3 year plan after July this year. If LNP wins I have MT’s statement (to me, personally) that I will NOT get FttH but instead will have ‘high-speed broadband’ (whatever that is defined to be after September) delivered by a ‘variety of technologies’. So, according to the MT definitions, I already have it. No FttN for me. MT never, repeat, NEVER, said everyone will get FttN.
      Sure, broadband over HFC is great when few people are using it, but Malcolm says nothing about timing, either. He chooses his words very carefully.

    22. Duncan Strong
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink |

      Clearly I have a different opinion than the majority of the commenters who frequent this blog. So be it.

      Just to clarify: I was not my intent to run down or otherwise slander the actual individuals at NBN Co. I know a few of them and they are all very sincere, hardworking people with heaps of skill and experience.

      My beef is with the overall policy of the NBN, specifically I disagree with the assertion that:

      1. That there is a chronic market failure in “core” network infrastructure in Australia that can only be resolved through government intervention financially, operationally and structurally (ie. borrowing for, building out, operating and protecting a monopoly service).

      2. That the NPV of the NBN exceeds the NPV of free higher education and free dental care.

      • Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:32 am | Permalink |

        1a) Both the government and opposition have seen fit to intervene in Broadband since as early as 2004 with what was known as OPEL networks. The problem with regional broadband access has bee sitting on the table for a decade, and frankly hasn’t improved much in that time. Metro areas have improved, however there are still some issues, enough that Labor saw fit in 2007 to expand the area to “National” for Broadband intervention. So with all do respect, you’re wrong. There is a problem that needs fixing.

        1b) “Only be resolved by”, well of course the NBN is not the “only” solution, however it is a solution that is active now and has been well designed and fulfils all the goals it should. There are no viable alternative on the table yet.

        2) The only reason the NBN project could be approved by the budget is because it is government underwritten, not government funded. A government funded project must be paid for out of now or future tax revenue, a government underwritten project means taxpayers carry the risk, but ultimately the project is designed, and all indications so far with the NBN point towards, the project funds itself. It’s the difference between getting a loan to rent an investment property and a loan to buy one. The former will pay for itself, the latter you must pay for.

        • Duncan Strong
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink |

          As per below, I have to refocus on work today ;) but will try and come back to this over the weekend as in fact it is my belief that the core driver of telecom services delivery failure in Australia has been the *presence* of government intervention/monopolies. In a nutshell, Australian telecoms has chronically suffered from what is known in economics as the “crowding out effect”. I understand that is a contentious statement so I will try and get back onto this board over the weekend to provide more detail.

          Note that “underwriting” rapidly turns into “funding” if the value of the underlying asset is misjudged.

          • Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink |

            No, it hasn’t suffered from Crowding Out with the exception of the last two terms when the current policy was announced and has since been implemented.

            The previous policies, up to and including the G9 consortium and RFP proposals have all been government subsidies in order to boost coverage into back spots that the providers otherwise refused to provide on their own commercial terms.

            The government determined due with advice from industry experts that the proposals put forward by the companies, namely FTTN, did not adequately address the needs of the future Australian Telecommunications. Hence the NBN as it is known today was born.

            In the past 6 years the promised NBN has been loaming over everyone’s heads, however to suggest that suddenly pulling out of the project will somehow allow private companies to fill the gap is more foolhardy than allowing the project to continue.

            You have misplaced faith in capitalism if you believe that stepping back and letting the market fix things is the right solution here. Unfortunately the market is skewed towards a singular monopoly entity, that being Telstra, and removing power from them has proved difficult. The ACCC has been continually called in to mediate anti-competitive disputes with Telstra, even after an accounting separation was mandated.

            Now, as stated the NBN is meeting and exceeding the targets which means that the accusation that the NBN will fail and government will need to bail out the project are unfounded.

            You’re new here, so let me be clear : this debate has been going on here for approximately 3 years now, and the points you have attempted to bring up have all been brought up before. You are saying nothing new here. My fellow posters may not be covering the points in details that answers your questions or argues against your points but that is only because they feel frustrated for being dragged through all this again.

            I am slightly more lenient. And you seem like an intelligent individual, however you are suffering from the same fundamental problem then Coalition are.

            You want us to stop the NBN, you need to table an alternative. So what is it you propose we do?

            • alain
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink |

              @NightKhaos

              ‘No, it hasn’t suffered from Crowding Out with the exception of the last two terms when the current policy was announced and has since been implemented.’

              It hasn’t suffered from Crowding Out except where it has?

              ‘The previous policies, up to and including the G9 consortium and RFP proposals have all been government subsidies in order to boost coverage into back spots that the providers otherwise refused to provide on their own commercial terms.’

              Yes we all know how it works, the Labor NBN is about coverage in black spots as well, mainly wireless and satellite.

              ‘the government determined due with advice from industry experts that the proposals put forward by the companies, namely FTTN, did not adequately address the needs of the future Australian Telecommunications. Hence the NBN as it is known today was born.’

              But it was not just about that, the effect of the GFC on private companies being in position to bankroll a private/ Government deal at the time was also a factor.

              ‘ however to suggest that suddenly pulling out of the project will somehow allow private companies to fill the gap is more foolhardy than allowing the project to continue.’

              That’s making an assumption that a FTTN rollout will not be achieved at a quicker rate nor will it be less cost than a FTTH rollout nor will a Government/private partnership deal help to mitigate taxpayer and debt risk and the payback period, your ‘foolhardy’ accusation is just unfounded opinion.

              ‘Unfortunately the market is skewed towards a singular monopoly entity, that being Telstra, and removing power from them has proved difficult.’

              Operational and now Structural Separation of Telstra didn’t seem to be difficult, the delay was the political will to do it.

              Perhaps removing power from the new singular monopoly the NBN Co will also prove difficult.

              ‘The ACCC has been continually called in to mediate anti-competitive disputes with Telstra, even after an accounting separation was mandated.’

              The ACCC has mediated on the NBN Co disputes and anti-competitive clauses in the Telstra agreement as well, which is not a bad effort considering it has been only going for two years!

              ‘Now, as stated the NBN is meeting and exceeding the targets which means that the accusation that the NBN will fail and government will need to bail out the project are unfounded.’

              No it isn’t unfounded, it is not 2021 or 2033 yet.

              ‘ My fellow posters may not be covering the points in details that answers your questions or argues against your points but that is only because they feel frustrated for being dragged through all this again.’

              umm ok. :)

              ‘I am slightly more lenient. And you seem like an intelligent individual, however you are suffering from the same fundamental problem then Coalition are.

              You want us to stop the NBN, you need to table an alternative. So what is it you propose we do?’

              For a start the Coalition don’t have ‘the same fundamental problem’, they have tabled an alternative, you and others might not like it but that’s not the same as not having one.

              • Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:23 pm | Permalink |

                Alain:

                For once in your life would you stop trolling.

                It hasn’t suffered from Crowding Out except where it has?

                Yes, this is what the word exception means. You seem to struggle a lot wish basic English comprehension of late.

                Yes we all know how it works, the Labor NBN is about coverage in black spots as well, mainly wireless and satellite.

                That’s correct. *condensing pat on the head*

                But it was not just about that, the effect of the GFC on private companies being in position to bankroll a private/ Government deal at the time was also a factor.

                A contributing comment of merit. However Alain, let me tell you something about logic: If A is asserted to be true, and then someone points of B is true, this does not imply that A is false.

                That’s making an assumption that a FTTN rollout will not be achieved at a quicker rate nor will it be less cost than a FTTH rollout nor will a Government/private partnership deal help to mitigate taxpayer and debt risk and the payback period, your ‘foolhardy’ accusation is just unfounded opinion.

                An excellent point, we’re getting ahead of ourselves again aren’t we. Duncan wouldn’t have heard this before. So Duncan, for your benefit I present to you the following.

                The reason that we regularly assert the FTTN is a bad choice is that FTTN is usually built with the intention of later upgrading it to FTTP, as will be the case here in Australia. So the question then becomes if it will be a cost effective interim measure. I posit that the cost of rolling out FTTN then following later in, say 3 years after the FTTN network is complete, with an upgrade to FTTP, will cost more than a straight FTTP rollout despite the significant extra cost due to the associated with a direct FTTP rollout due to the higher CAPEX. This is due to the fact that in both cases the highest cost will actually be the public works, not the equipment and cabling.

                I further posit that the Coalition will take at least 2 years of planning and tender requests before the physical rollout of a FTTN can be completed. It has been estimated that a FTTN network will take approximately 3-4 years to complete. This means that we are looking at 5 to 6 years to complete the FTTN rollout, which is only 2 years less than allowing the NBN to complete, with you still needing to the FTTP upgrade.

                With these two statements in consideration, the conclusion can be drawn that doing a FTTN rollout will cost more overall and take more time overall.

                Happy Alain?

                Operational and now Structural Separation of Telstra didn’t seem to be difficult, the delay was the political will to do it.

                Thank you for failing to read on about how the problems persisted after the operational separation.

                Perhaps removing power from the new singular monopoly the NBN Co will also prove difficult.

                As stated many times over NBNCo has been designed to provide minimal function and minimise the effects of it’s monopoly. This is by providing an Open Access Network, heavily regulating it, and only providing minimal product offerings which allows competition to flourish on top of it. This is opposed to Telstra which was vertically integrated.

                The ACCC has mediated on the NBN Co disputes and anti-competitive clauses in the Telstra agreement as well, which is not a bad effort considering it has been only going for two years!

                The problem was that the accounting separation should have prevented the complaints of Telstra, in particular the complaints of them charging less for their retail products than their wholesale ones. This is in strike contrast to a single clause in a document.

                No it isn’t unfounded, it is not 2021 or 2033 yet.

                Oh, so, you won’t know if you’re going to pay off your house until you have paid of your house? Get off the grass.

                For a start the Coalition don’t have ‘the same fundamental problem’, they have tabled an alternative, you and others might not like it but that’s not the same as not having one.

                You mean the proposal they brought to the 2010 election, the only one that has actually been tabled? The one that was universally rejected and has nothing to do with the proposals that Mr Turnbull has been making over the past year regarding the Coalition policy?

                Yes, that policy is totally relevant to this discussion. *rolls eyes*

                And you’re going to tell me you’re not trolling in your next post? Give me a break, total contribution to this discussion with the above post is zero.

                • Cad
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:19 pm | Permalink |

                  Once again, you are plain wrong.

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink |

                    Nicely reasoned rebuttal dude…

          • quink
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:50 am | Permalink |

            > the core driver of telecom services delivery failure in Australia has been the *presence* of government intervention/monopolies

            That is true – in the form most urgently of the privatised Telstra. No one else can compete with Telstra, and Telstra hold all the keys – all the phone exchanges and the biggest HFC network by far. It was a delivery failure created through the privatisation without structural separation or splitting up by a coalition government which looked only to create a surplus by sacrificing genuine competition in the telecommunications market. What we have is a failure of the marketplace in fixed-line broadband infrastructure and the fact that HFC hasn’t been extended substantially since 1997 is just one example of that. This is a problem a government created, and this is a problem only the government can fix.

            If NBN Co is privatised in the future, has substantial ACCC oversight and is part owned by Optus, Telstra, iiNet, TPG with a lesser shareholding by the banks, pension funds and the usual suspects then that’s better than if the government owned it. But broadband is essential infrastructure and the current attempt at having three competing networks – PSTN, HFC, HFC on Optus plus a dozen providers having DSLAMs because Telstra Wholesale is effectively unworkable has put a crimp on genuine improvement and left us at an impasse.

            It’s a government created mess, and while Telstra shareholders demand, justifiably, that Telstra be run with profit in mind only the government can fix it – and by it I don’t just mean broadband access but also the Telstra question – for better or for worse.

            • Cad
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink |

              No one else can compete with Telstra

              Over 80% of exchanges serving over 85% of population has third party competitive backhaul (sometimes up to 3 different providers). Is that not infrastructure competition? And the backhaul is so cheap nowadays (precisely because of intense competition between backhaul providers), every tom dick and harry ISP is offering unlimited ADSL. So much for “infrastructure duplication driving up costs”. What about ULLS rates charged for accessing tail circuit you say… ULLS is set entirely by the ACCC and not Telstra. How is there a general lack of competition?

              all the phone exchanges

              Yes, over 80% of these exchanges are jammed pack full of competitor DSLAMs belonging to 5 or 6 different ISPs if not more. Sure it can be a hassle dealing with Telstra to access the exchanges, but once it’s done, it’s done. Nothing in business is easy.

              It was a delivery failure created through the privatisation without structural separation or splitting up by a coalition

              To put things in context…. every single incumbent telco in the world has been privatised without structural separation. As of now, the only truly structural separated telco in the world is Telecom NZ which was only done in the past year.

              government which looked only to create a surplus by sacrificing genuine competition in the telecommunications market.

              Pre-privatisation (Telecom Australia): ZERO ZILCH NADA competition or market choice. Astronomical high prices for local, international calls, internet etc.

              Post-privatisation (Telstra): Completely deregulated market with hundreds of small telcos awarded carrier licences emerging with competing offerings of telephony and internet services. Prices for telco products have been falling every year for over a decade. Go to ACCC website for pretty charts of price indices of basket of services. All show downward trend.

              What we have is a failure of the marketplace in fixed-line broadband infrastructure and the fact that HFC hasn’t been extended substantially since 1997 is just one example of that.

              Take-up of HFC services is piss poor and various Telstra executives have publicly bemoaned lack of interest in superfast broadband on HFC. (Overall take-up of pay-TV on all forms (fixed-line and satellite) is also very poor relative to other countries.) This is despite current HFC footprint being built in most economical and viable areas. Given this lack of demand, extending the network to more sparsely populated areas and costlier to build/install/serve with poorer consumer demographics would be economic suicide. This is an example of a rational market properly allocating resources, and not market failure.

              • seven_tech
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:43 pm | Permalink |

                @Cad

                Over 80% of exchanges serving over 85% of population has third party competitive backhaul (sometimes up to 3 different providers). Is that not infrastructure competition?

                Pardon? Do you have a link for that? I believe you’ll find the number of exchanges with more than 1 provider’s equipment in it is 550 out of 5500. And they serve approx. 65% of the population. Not 85%. And they are almost EXCLUSIVELY in the cities. So yes, IF you live in a city and IF you live in the right area, you have competition. What about the other 35% of the country?

                And the backhaul is so cheap nowadays (precisely because of intense competition between backhaul providers), every tom dick and harry ISP is offering unlimited ADSL.

                Really? From the last report from Market Analysis in May 2012, domestic backhaul was nearly $40/Mbps. And as far as I’m aware, TPG, DODO and Clubtelco are the ONLY ISPs offering ADSL unlimited. Total. Out of the 50 major providers ADSL is available from….

                What about ULLS rates charged for accessing tail circuit you say… ULLS is set entirely by the ACCC and not Telstra. How is there a general lack of competition?

                Until July last year, ULL was $18 in Band 2, which is great if you live in a city. But it was $48 in Band 3 and not available in Band 4. It is now $16 across the board Band 1, 2 and 3 and $100 in Band 4. After 4 YEARS of the ACCC forcing Telstra down. And it’d be another 4-5 years before build out of DSLAM infrastructure happened without any form of NBN (FTTH OR FTTN). You appear to enjoy ignoring 30-40% of Australia’s population because they don’t live in cities.

                Yes, over 80% of these exchanges are jammed pack full of competitor DSLAMs belonging to 5 or 6 different ISPs if not more.

                Please stop spouting incorrect information. There are 550 exchanges out of 5500 that have 3rd party DSLAMs, covering around 65-70% of the population. (7 Million/10 million premises)

                http://bit.ly/XNicYT

                every single incumbent telco in the world has been privatised without structural separation.

                And every single Incumbent has then been heavily regulated, MUCH more so than Telstra, to ensure enhanced competition.

                Take-up of HFC services is piss poor and various Telstra executives have publicly bemoaned lack of interest in superfast broadband on HFC.

                Interesting, considering 400 000 people took up “High speed broadband” last year (that is, over 24Mbps). Of that, 95% would be HFC. HFC has not been popular TILL NOW, because there hasn’t been call for high bandwidth until the last 2-3 years. This is RAPIDLY changing and HFC will not cope.

                Given this lack of demand, extending the network to more sparsely populated areas and costlier to build/install/serve with poorer consumer demographics would be economic suicide.

                Of course it is. Which is exactly why government intervention is needed for the 70% of Australians who don’t have access to anything beyond ADSL….even high contention HFC.

      • jasmcd
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink |

        Duncan, you obviously live in a capital/major city. There are literally many millions of people around Australia who have been completely and utterly failed by the previous telecommunications companies.

        Where I live Australia’s second biggest telco Optus won’t even provide me with broadban. My choice is either Telstra, or someone on-selling a Telstra plan to me. I suffer dropouts several times a day (sometimes several times an hour) and have had an ongoing complaint for over 2 years about this problem which is yet to be solved. Many people even living in capital and major cities also have similar problems with their broadband.

        Obvioulsy you have strong liberal view in respect to government intervention, however on a user pays basis, a single Government entity providing a excellent quality single service at a wholesale level would have to be cheaper than multiple private companies running individual infrastructure. Not to mention the extremely complicated web of ownership that would be create, wreaking havoc with pricing structure. Also there is already electricity, water, sewer, gas and existing telecommunication assets underground, would you see two or three fibre optic cables running down every street?

        Look above your ideologies, if not for a minute, and realise that this is not a black and white argument. A greater number of problems, both present and future will be solved by the implementation of a FTTH NBN. FTTN will solve some of the existing issues, but will raise others which will have to be paid for down the track.

        • Sammy G
          Posted 05/02/2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink |

          @ Jasmcd,
          please tell me you have an open TIO complaint, regarding your service drop outs.

    23. NBNAccuracy
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink |

      They seem to be fair enough beliefs. I would like your reasons on 1.

      I haven’t heard anyone say, other than for political reason that Australian telecoms has been anything other than a failure. In fact there have been many books and papers written saying it is a failure and why. What leads you to believe that it isn’t the case?

      2. I am sorry, but whether those things are of more value or not, the money spent on the NBN cannot be directed to fund them, so that line of argument is pretty much void. Also, even if it could be directed to that, it is unlikely it would even cover a couple of free fillings, let alone student funding. The amount invested in the NBN is only a percent or so of the health or education budget

      • Duncan Strong
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink |

        I have to refocus on work today ;) but will try and come back to this over the weekend as in fact it is my belief that the core driver of telecom services delivery failure in Australia has been the *presence* of government intervention/monopolies. In a nutshell, Australian telecoms has chronically suffered from what is known in economics as the “crowding out effect”. I understand that is a contentious statement so I will try and get back onto this board over the weekend to provide more detail.

        • Haderak
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:49 am | Permalink |

          Duncan,

          If you’re genuinely interested in having your opinions taken seriously on this site – and it seems you’re willing to put in the time – then I’d suggest you provide some of the reasoning behind your opinions.

          I’m particularly interested in hearing why you believe that “That the NPV of the NBN exceeds the NPV of free higher education and free dental care.”

          • alain
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

            Even if he does comes back with reasoned well researched points, you and others will just answer with three words, ‘you are wrong’ and that’s it, job done.

            The Coalition could spend months properly researching a Telstra/Government solution for example in a 60 page document, where the most sophisticated response in here or other forums would be three words, ‘but Telstra sucks’ – end of argument.

            • Brendan
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:14 am | Permalink |

              Alain,

              If a commission is called in to review, and indicates the NBN in it’s current form is preferable over Liberal’s FTTN; would you support that, or claim it’s just propaganda?

              What if LNP accepted the report? Or didn’t?

              Other than “fttn good, ftth bad, alain smash” what is your genuine argument that supports tax funding over investment?

            • NBNAccuracy
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:57 am | Permalink |

              “Even if he does comes back with reasoned well researched points, you and others will just answer with three words, ‘you are wrong’ and that’s it, job done.”

              No, you are wrong. If Turnbull came up with a document that showed in a factual fashion that what he is proposing is possible for the price he is saying with a future upgrade path that is cost efficient and doesn’t mean getting to FTTH from FTTN doesn’t end up costing way more then FTTH now I would heartily endorse it. I would be on here rebutting arguments for continuing the FTTH rollout and if it wasn’t for the Abbott factor, be voting Liberal. Don’t paint everyone in your own colours.

              • AJ
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

                +1

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 3:40 pm | Permalink |

                +1 agree wholeheartedly.

                By saying such things our friend alain just proved he will never accept the NBN, even if all targets are reached and the NBN a rip roaring success…and for reasons which seem to have nothing to do with the actual NBN.

                Whereas, as NBNAccuracy says, if MT could prove those things and give a guarantee that when required FttP would be rolled out… he’d change my view of his current sub-standard to the NBN, policy (that we know of).

              • alain
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink |

                So NBNAccuracy and NBNAlex (a double act?), if the Coalition release the detail that you got when Labor released their FTTN Plan before the 2007 election you would be happy with that?

                It won them the 2007 election with a 83 seat majority, the NBN FTTH lead to a hung Parliament election in 2010.

                • quink
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink |

                  Considering the level of public support for FTTH, regardless of whether it makes sense or not, it basically helped them get just enough seats – even the Liberal Party acknowledged that internally – Google it.

                  And in the 2007 election, Labor could have put a picture of two cans and a string as their broadband policy and still won the election.

                  • Cad
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink |

                    NBN is a complete non-issue for 2013 election.

                    Look at yesterday’s media coverage of Abbott speech. Only policy initiative to get a mention was scrapping of schoolkidz bonus. Replacing FTTH with FTTN did not rate a front page mention anywhere that I’m aware of.

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink |

                      Why would Tony mention the Coalition’s inferior FttN plan, when they are trying their best to hide it for as long as they can?

                      But whether it’s an issue or not, may be found out following the 2013 when post-mortems are carried out, as they were following the 2010 election.

                      Interestingly the Coalition had some interesting findings…

                      http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/07/18/1226096/993940-reith-report.pdf

                      http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/libs_retreat_on_nbn_battleground_TOnH1LHLrE40j2vcJ4AAQM

                      • alain
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:33 pm | Permalink |

                        What is even more interesting is they thought it was of no significance whatever and have adopted a FTTN policy for September.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink |

                        They found their own report insignificant…LOL

                      • alain
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink |

                        @NBNAlex

                        ‘They found their own report insignificant…LOL’

                        Correct, they found the result of the report inconclusive, if they thought they lost the 2010 election because they didn’t have a ‘same as Labor NBN Policy’ they would implement a ‘same as Labor NBN Policy’ for 2013.

                        The obviously feel they don’t need to mirror the Labor NBN to win in 2013.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 10:20 pm | Permalink |

                        Wow nice sleight of hand alain …”no significance” as morphed and softened much to “inconclusive”.

                        So was it of no significance (without influence) or inconclusive (no conclusion)…?

                        I’d suggest it was both significant and conclusive – citing excerpts from the Liberals Party’s Post-Mortem and the Fin Rev as my “evidence”…

                        “the failure to properly explain the Liberal Party’s broadband policy and the Labor Party’s effective scare campaign was a major cause of the party’s failure to win seats in Tasmania.

                        “Policy on the national broadband network had a particular effect in Tasmania for a range of reasons,”

                        “In several towns, Tasmanians could see the NBN being rolled out . . . the NBN provided jobs for Tasmanian contractors and it brought people to Tasmania from the mainland, having flow-on effects for Tasmania’s tourism, hospitality and service industries.”

                        “Post-election polling confirmed the NBN was a major reinforcement for people to vote Labor in Bass” .

                        “The party needs to make a clear and unambiguous statement about it’s intentions on Broadband infrastructure in Tasmania in the future.”

                        ****** Given the tight result, the Coalition winning Bass and another Labor seat in Tasmania, Braddon, would have been the difference between government and opposition. *******

                        Shall I continue? No need…

                        Insignificant or inconclusive…? No.

                        But of course you will continue to say it…LOL, whilst of course telling us that the 2007 election’s 83 seats was won largely on the back of FttN.

                        Unbelievable :/

                    • seven_tech
                      Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:03 am | Permalink |

                      @Cad

                      Replacing FTTH with FTTN did not rate a front page mention anywhere that I’m aware of.

                      And yet 3 days before the NBN got a front page mention in the SMH. Specifically the NBNs HIGH SPEED required for 4K HDTV which is on the way….the one VDSL will struggle to provide for many people.

                      • alain
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink |

                        Front page mentions will be more like this between now and the election:

                        http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-in-turmoil-20130202-2dqut.html

                        The NBN will be a minor player on the political soap opera stage unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view.

                      • Cad
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink |

                        must ‘ave been a slow new’z day.

                        P.S. itz so hilarious Tommo got arrested straight after the PM called an election… LOL… talk about unfortunate timing…. maybe a bad omen for Labor… then again, who knows.. maybe Labor will win a third term… stranger things have happened… those 4K5DHDTV glasses Jools is now wearing might just do the trick.. :-)

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 02/02/2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

                        Actually Tosh on a lighter note… I found Barry O’Farrell’s (who I thought was a bit of a wanker previously) comment very humorous…

                        Where he mentioned something along the lines of… why was Thommo complaining about being strip searched when by all accounts he normally can’t wait to get his gear off.

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:26 pm | Permalink |

                  @ alain,

                  You still carrying on about the 2007 83 seats …FFS

                  And then you’ll rehash how the government changed their mind and make out that that was some sort of devious sleight of hand ‘again’ (three letters POE)

                  And yes I have friends, jealous?

                  BTW here’s an interesting quote for you…

                  “Sensible people change their minds, but mature people never change their values”

                  • alain
                    Posted 04/02/2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink |

                    So does that mean if the Coalition stick with their FTTN policy they will get a 83 seat majority in September?

                    :)

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 11:53 am | Permalink |

                      Wow, just when we all thought your childish comments couldn’t get any more irrational… nice work :/

                      I’ll repeat the quote for you…

                      “Sensible people change their minds, but mature people never change their values”

    24. Ben
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:53 am | Permalink |

      The opposition are idiots with no foresight into the future whatsoever.

      They’re going to kill business in Australia, and destroy the chance of us competing on the world stage through limiting us to telecommunications from the dark ages.

      Why don’t we just go back to dial up. That’ll still be competitive right?

      As someone who has been in the industry for many years, it’s sad to see so many people believing the rubbish that is coming out of their mouths, and they’ll only wake up when they realise how badly they’ve stuffed up this country.

    25. Mud Guts
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink |

      Renai, I have to pick you up on this: “…it is Turnbull, the visionary, the technology early adopter….”

      I think if this were so, he’d be pushing the FTTP agenda in a different Liberal manner.

      Turnbull is not in any way or shape a visionary or technology early adopter. He doesn’t know his arse from his elbow when it comes to technology.

      He’s an astute politician and investor. That’s all.

      • Chunk
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink |

        Damn right.

      • quink
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

        But he has an iPad. iPads are in no way intended for the technologically illiterate market. /sarcasm

    26. djos
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:15 am | Permalink |

      ” Turnbull, the visionary, the technology early adopter,”

      Sorry Renai but you cant call someone a visionary when they are prepared to invest their own money overseas in companies rolling out FTTP and at the same time deny Australia this same infrastructure!

      • alain
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:48 am | Permalink |

        (assuming your story is true in the first place) …. at least it’s his own money.

        • NBNAccuracy
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

          alain, it is true. It is in his disclosures of investments and interests that all MPs must file.
          Yes, it’s his own money. Are you blinded by your bias that you cannot see there is a problem with someone saying FTTH is stupid and a waste of money one one hand and then investing there money in FTTH rollouts and invest no money in FTTN rollouts that they say are the sensible thing to do?

          • alain
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink |

            What investment in which company are you referring to?

            • quink
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink |

              He said, having obviously never heard of Google.

              Telefonica and France Telecom.

              Takes all of ten seconds to Google. Feel free to Google other things too! It’s free!

              • alain
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:44 pm | Permalink |

                Both those companies sell a multitude of communications products much like Telstra and Optus, mobiles with plans ,internet and telephony, in their country of origin as well as other European companies and overseas.

                Their internet offerings are a mix of ADSL, VDSL and fibre, the intended Coalition rollout is intended to be a mix of VDSL (FTTN), FTTH and HFC, your point is what?

                So if any Labor MP has shares in Telstra, Optus or iiNet does that mean they therefore must support ADSL2+ or HFC?

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink |

                  As usual you lower the correspondence to the lowest childish denominator :/

                • tinman_au
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink |

                  “Their internet offerings are a mix of ADSL, VDSL and fibre”

                  That’s the point (the missing of which your raising to an art form). They are both replacing their ADSL/VDSL with Fibre.

                  If it’s “stupid and quasi-religious” for someone to support the roll out fibre, as Malcolm states, then Malcolm himself is stupid and quasi-religious to be investing his own money in it…

                  • alain
                    Posted 04/02/2013 at 10:20 am | Permalink |

                    The point YOU are missing is that those FTTH rollouts by those two companies in no way reflect the NBN FTTH rollout 100% funded by the Government purse at taxpayer risk.

                    ‘Alternative Spanish broadband provider Jazz Telecom (Jazztel) has announced that it has signed a vertical infrastructure access agreement with local fixed line incumbent Telefonica de Espana for the shared deployment of fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks. With Jazztel claiming that the deal represents the start of its fibre deployment via co-investment’

                    http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/10/10/jazztel-inks-ftth-deal-with-telefonica-for-shared-deployment/

                    The Coalition intends to implement a private/Government investment rollout, so in reality MT’s investment is the opposite of a contradiction of their policy.

                    • tinman_au
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink |

                      “The Coalition intends to implement a private/Government investment rollout, so in reality MT’s investment is the opposite of a contradiction of their policy.”

                      You mean the same one that Labor was thinking about…the one that the expert panel said was not value for money and would not met future needs?

                      • alain
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink |

                        The RFP cancellation was in the midst of the GFC where one of the concerns of the expert panel was the sourcing of funding by the private partner in such a deal.

                        Coalition convened Expert Panel 2014? – different ball game.

                      • Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:35 pm | Permalink |

                        @alain

                        Really? So private investors are all over low return investments are they? Silly me, of course we’re in a booming global economy where return is irrelevant…

                        The RFP was cancelled because only Telstra could build FTTN for a decent price because they own the copper. Conveniently for them, that means they don’t have to pay to use the copper.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

                        Oh you mean the expert panel who you have ignored up until now alain, but now that you’ve worked out a new angle, you now admit they exist…? LOL

                        Interesting by doing so, you now inadvertently admit it wasn’t a failed exercise due to government incompetence as you have claimed many times. Because the GFC was a factor and of course, because of the admission that the expert panel did in fact exist (*sigh*)

                        So… you are right to a degree… but please tell the whole story, not just the typical bits which suit…

                        From the PoE findings… “There has been a once-in-75-year deterioration in capital markets that has severely restricted access to debt and equity funding. As a result all national proponents have either found it very difficult to raise the capital necessary to fund an NBN roll-out without recourse to substantial support from the Commonwealth… *** or have withheld going to the market until they have certainty that their Proposal is acceptable to the Commonwealth ***.”

                        So some had funding problems, while others wanted the nod, before biting the bullet (which I think is natural)..

                        Ooh you also “curiously” seem to have totally ignored the other two big reasons, here…

                        “The Proposals have also demonstrated that rolling out a single fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network is:

                        * unlikely to provide an efficient upgrade path to fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), because of the high costs of equipment associated with rolling out a FTTN network that would not be required for a FTTP network (i.e. FTTN is not a pre-requisite for the provision of FTTP); and

                        * likely to require exclusive or near-exclusive access to Telstra’s existing copper sub-loop customer access network (CAN), the so called ‘last mile’, thereby confirming that strong equivalence of access arrangements would be essential. As well, providing such access to a party other than Telstra runs a risk of liability to pay compensation to Telstra. The Proposals have this risk remaining with the Commonwealth but they have not addressed the potential cost to the Commonwealth of any such compensation…. *** In any event, the Panel considers that no Proponent could accept the cost risk and continue to have a viable business case***

                        Nice try, but no banana, but hey, again at least you now recognise it wasn’t a failed RFP as there were reasons for it not progressing further and that there was a PoE…

                        “Sensible people change their minds, but mature people never change their values”

                      • alain
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink |

                        I didn’t say the financial considerations was the ONLY reason, but it was a consideration in the final Labor convened expert panel outcome on the RFP.

                        A Coalition convened expert panel, meeting in 2014 with the history and costings of the existing NBN rollout as evidence, a less confrontational Trujllo era Telstra and a totally different world financial market may reach a different conclusion.

                        Then again the Coalition may decide they don’t a expert panel to help them make a decision, because they have already made one. :)

                      • alain
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:23 pm | Permalink |

                        *they don’t need a expert panel

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink |

                        No you didn’t say it was the only…

                        Err that was my point.

                        As usual you intentionally highlighted the one point which suited and omitted two more which were even more pertinent, IMO.

                      • tinman_au
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:29 pm | Permalink |

                        You mean the GFC where Australia has low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, a massive investment boom, a “safe haven” currency, growing labour productivity, a sharemarket up nearly 20% since a carbon price commenced?

                        Yeah, I can see why a private Australian company might have trouble investing some of it’s record profits back into it’s country or residence under those circumstances…not….

                      • alain
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink |

                        …. err you are confusing me with a member of the RFP panel and the results of the audit from the Government audit office that followed that process.

          • quink
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink |

            Point of correction, Telefonica and France Telecom are rolling out VDSL, but also dabbling with FTTH – also in brownfields. Spain and France are, according to quite a number of sources like netindex.com, not faring well compared to countries where money is invested more wisely like the FTTBase strongholds Romania or Russia.

            They can do fibre for hardly much more than $10, but there isn’t much profit to be made for that price. However, what might be telling is Germany. Deutsche Telekom is hating FTTH and has managed to do vectoring and thus kick out competitor DSLAMs. Just recently they asked for permission to increase wholesale charges, once again at the detriment of competitors. However, lots of very
            localised FTTH deployments are springing up. The real question I’m wondering is why MT would invest, considering home markets, in France Telecom or Telefonica, but not in Deutsche Telekom – a much stronger, VDSL-loving monopoly.

            • Cad
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink |

              Malcolm has already explained that he bought those shares because they are paying a very high dividend yield. There has been a massive rally in high dividend-yielding stocks all around the world stockmarkets in the past six months. Telstra and Commbank locally for example. Malcolm is just a member of the global herd of yield hungry investors looking for some cash yielding investment especially when interest rates on bank deposits everywhere are so low…

              • Cad
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink |

                oh, in investment-speak, utilities like telcos which pay high dividends are “defensive cyclicals” and there has been a massive rally and outperformance of defensive cyclicals stocks over the past 6 months or so. Malcolm was smart to buy into Telecom France or whatever it’s called. Or at least his investment adviser is smart ;)

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:02 pm | Permalink |

                  He still could have chosen other companies which pay a juicy dividend, but he chose a company who is renown for FttP…

                  You don’t find that ironic or hypocritical, taking everything into consideration?

                  • Cad
                    Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:38 pm | Permalink |

                    No.

                    His job in managing his personal wealth is to take into account his personal risk appetite how much he’s willing to risk and on what is appropriate for him personally. purely “self-ish” considerations. His job as Minister would be to take into account not what’s best for Malcolm but what’s best and appropriate for taxpayers. you can’t go gambling with taxpayers money like it’s your own. Malcolm could go buy up all the FTTH-only telcos in the world for his personal portfolio and direct FTTN build in role as minister of comms and not be hypocritical at all.

                    Two completely different hats. separate personal life from office role. what’s best for the risktaker-inside-of-you and your own money is not necessarily what’s best for the public purse when you’re overseeing it as an official or public custodian. surely u can see the huge difference.

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:09 pm | Permalink |

                      Of course ‘you’ don’t ;)

                      And again, he couldn’t have chosen other companies or another company, with equally attractive divs?

                      Nice spiel to try to cover, but…

                      You talk risk… I’d suggest if as you say he has invested in this, a high yield/defensive stock, that the risk is minimal and let’s face it, if he’s investing for the div, then growth isn’t really his aim.

                      Perhaps he knows that being a FttP company he will obtain a juicy div and also very acceptable growth, as FttP become the norm and these other inferior network techniques (like say FttN) are phased out.

                      Anyway, I’d suggest anyone who can’t at least see this as being at best humorously ironic and at worst unbelievably hypocritical, isn’t wanting to see.

                      BTW – that you Tosh?

                    • seven_tech
                      Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:48 pm | Permalink |

                      @Cad

                      I agree. The fact that Turnbull is investing in FTTH type Telco’s should not be relevant to the NBN debate. It is his money and he is entitled to do that.

                      However, Mr Turnbull, as you said, needs to be providing what is best for the Australian people. Is FTTN the best for the Australian people? If you believe they should pay private companies thousands of dollars each to upgrade to FTTP in a few short years after FTTN is built, then yes. If you believe Australians should have access to world class broadband now and for the next 30-40 years, then he is not doing what is best.

                      And suggesting he is doing what is best because he is saving taxpayers from huge debt is entirely untrue- the NBN will make up less than 10% of the total debt the government will raise in the next 4-5 years. And it will RETURN 3-4 times that only 7-8 years later.

                  • alain
                    Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

                    @NBNAlex

                    ‘He still could have chosen other companies which pay a juicy dividend, but he chose a company who is renown for FttP…’

                    They also renown for ADSL ,VDSL wireless networks including LTE and flogging iPhone 5, HTC and Samsung smartphone plans as well

                    ‘You don’t find that ironic or hypocritical, taking everything into consideration?’

                    No, but then you didn’t take everything into consideration.

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 02/02/2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink |

                      We know you don’t because you have never disagreed with MT or Telstra even once…

                      Personally I find it more humorously embarrassingly for MT than anything.

                      But why is it when you are asked to clarify something…anything, you disappear without answer but will hit and run in such correspondences as these?

                      Sad really.

                      • tinman_au
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink |

                        There’s always the chance he’s a paid astroturfer…it’s a lot more common than you’d think.

    27. Simon
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:38 am | Permalink |

      Here is why FTTN with its “up to” just won’t cut it:

      “David Wood, chairman of the ITU-R Working Party 6C, which was responsible for the UHDTV specs, told us at that time that HEVC will mean a single 4K UHDTV stream will require about 25 Mbit/s, while 8K UHDTV will require 90 Mbit/s. The former might conceivably be squeezed over a bonded DSL connection and will be a snack over fiber to the premises connections. The latter remains challenging for most nations’ domestic broadband connections, but as 8K UHDTV is not expected to be widely deployed for some time there’s a big catch-up window carriers and governments can work with.”

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/29/h265_signed_off_by_itu/

      • alain
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:54 am | Permalink |

        What is the future demand for UHDTV in Australia that justifies the FTTH rollout? – or is this just another build the infrastructure we will work out what to do with it later as in wow look at that we have 1000 residences using UHDTV in 2016, see told ya we needed FTTH!

        • NBNAccuracy
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink |

          Who knows alain, it’s the future, we can only make predictions based on past experience.
          1080p TVs seem to have have become the defacto standard now. It seems like yesterdays tech now (my standard for yesterday tech is that Woolies now sell them). I wouldn’t be surprised, based on past takeups of things like colour, digital TV, blu ray, if 4K TV wasn’t becoming standard by say 2020 or so, about the time the rollout completes.

          • tinman_au
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink |

            His answer for anything delivered via FTTP is “We don’t need it”.

            According to alain, there’s a lot we don’t need…

            • NBNAlex
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink |

              What ever Telstra and the Coalition says, basically…

        • Brendan
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

          alain,

          do you use a dialup modem? or an acoustic coupler? surely 2400 baud is enough for anyone, right?

          The notion “no demand” doesn’t stake up. It never has. If there was no demand, we’d never have moved on from 2400 baud modems.

          It’s a line straight out of old-school Telstra thinking. That died when NextG rolled out, and it became apparent to all that we are a nation of speed freaks.

          • alain
            Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink |

            @Brendan

            ‘do you use a dialup modem? or an acoustic coupler?’

            An acoustic coupler, and I posted this from a PMG red phone box with the A-B buttons near to where you put the coins in, but I have run out pennies for the

        • quink
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:28 am | Permalink |

          > What is the future demand for UHDTV in Australia that justifies the FTTH rollout?

          And here we go again with the strawmen. FTTH isn’t being built only because it has higher download speeds. It’s just one aspect. There are many others.

          Just because you flail your arms wildly in the air and mock “but we will never need these download speeds”, looking right past the fact that download speeds have been increasing exponentially, like download amounts, since just about 1980, doesn’t mean that there’s no need for FTTH.

          • quink
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:30 am | Permalink |

            Also, if it’s just about UHDTV delivery, as you that that’s all the NBN is good for, then it could be done much, much more cheaply and more cost effectively with satellites, DVB-S2 and H.264 – maybe even H.265 if it’s ready before too long. But that’s really a problem for FOXTEL to worry about, not the federal government.

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

            “And here we go again with the strawmen. FTTH isn’t being built only because it has higher download speeds. It’s just one aspect. There are many others.”

            It’s funny quink FttN (apparently) has faster speeds than what we currently get on ADSL2+ but I never see anyone questioning the coalition (Turnbull etc) on what applications need that extra speed (I guess they dont exist). The assumption of course is that we DO need more speed now and for future applications but by some bizarre coincidence FttN provides just the right amount… which is about 5-10mbps upload apparently… makes you wonder what the fuss is about the “slow” NBN rollout too. I’m still wondering what are these applications that desperately need FttN before FttH.

            Also here is that quote from Telstra again:

            “investments in content delivery networks to supply next generation multi-media services that are made possible through the deployment of a fibre access network uneconomic”

            4 & 8k sounds like a next generation multi-media service to me. I’ve said before that 4k webcams will be cheap and common in about 10 years if not sooner and the 4k activity of late would suggest that it will be a reality sooner rather than later.

            • quink
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink |

              Best is Robert Kenny, frequently cited by Malcolm Turnbull also just recently when he twittered a blog post of his:

              > Across the world as a whole, there is a weak negative relationship between fixed broadband rollout in 2001 and GDP growth 2001-2006 – a result that holds using 2003 rollout and 2003-2008 growth.

              So, if Malcom Turnbull really trusts his sources – and Robert Kenny is one big advisor for him – Malcolm Turnbull should be arguing for us to have slower Internet, after all…

              > Worrying about where you rank in the league tables [of broadband] only matters if it is a good thing to be at the top.

              Remember, this is a guy MT is quoting or linking to quite frequently. And most relevantly on the topic of TV:

              > I don’t benefit from your (little-exercised) ability to watch the Olympics in high-def while the kids are streaming Toy Story III in the basement.

              And this is where the Liberal “NBN” is in a scarily large proportion from. I wish I was kidding, but it’s true.

    28. Simon
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

      It is an application that will not be supported by FTTN premises at the fringe of the node (4K) or by FTTN premises anywhere BUT right at the node (8K), and for those premises that can support the above on FTTN, there is little to no overhead for anything above a single stream (data, second stream, etc).

      So your position is that there is no need to be concerned about applications that exist today, because there is no current demand. When should we start provisioning for these applications? 5 years? 10? Because that timeframe is when the value of FTTN drops drastically, and reinvestment in FTTP becomes necessary. So your ROI had better be achieved in that timeframe.

      Why not invest in FTTP now, even if the cost is higher (yet to be proven if anyone other than Telstra is doing it, and if Telstra do it there is the cost to competitive industry), if you have a substantially longer timeframe to recover the ROI because an FTTP network can scale further into the future?

      “We don’t need a dual carriageway because no one is overtaking at the moment” also ignores the possibility that no one is overtaking because the ability to do so does not exist. I realise you’re not making that argument about UHDTV (yet) as it is new and there likely IS no demand at present, but that is not to say the requirement/demand is not coming.

      • Simon
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

        Apologies, this was meant to be a reply to alain @ 10:54am

    29. Brendan
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink |

      “It’s clear what has happened here. Turnbull’s diligence and extensive research in the communications portfolio has paid off to a certain extent, and it appears the full Shadow Cabinet has now been briefed on and has approved his FTTN vision.”

      No, Renai, it’s clear that, right after the election date is called, the LNP has suddenly decided to firm up it’s NBN alternative. This after almost no action on the matter, since the inception of NBN and NBNco.

      Like it or not, Abbott will have been advised, in the strongest terms possible by advisors, that this will be a key election driver. He and Hockey have been tag-teaming Turnbull for the last year or two on this.

      Suddenly? They’re apparently supportive. It’s an election year; its not difficult to see the link. If they want to win the election, they have to do more than just pay lip-service to the notion of high-speed ubiquitous broadband.

      Abbott is mistaken on the faster/ better front. It’s cheaper. Sure. If both were non-returnable investments. But it’s not the case. One is based on investment; the other is yet to be formalised, likely a tax based cash injection to Telstra.

    30. Chunk
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 11:24 am | Permalink |

      Telstra fans and Abbott & Turdbull backwards thinking company….

    31. Bruce Wallace
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink |

      I am waiting for a CBA before any talk of FTTN by Abbott and Turnbull.
      And I wish that Abbott would tell the truth.
      Internet services three times the current monthly charge for the NBN is not true.

    32. Quiet Observer
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink |

      “Between now and polling day, we will be constantly developing our policy commitments so that you know exactly what will happen should the government change,”

      Does this mean hey’re only just starting to develop their policies now? If so, it’s yet another (indirect) admission that Turnbull was indeed lying through his teeth about having a “fully costed policy” all those months ago. I’m calling it now – expect another hastily kludged together broadband policy completely lacking in details to be shoved out the door a week or two before polling day. In the meantime, strap yourself in for another 7 months of the same tiresome FUD and sledging we’ve heard from Malware Turnbull.

      • Brendan
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:20 pm | Permalink |

        “Does this mean hey’re only just starting to develop their policies now?”

        The timing, right after the next General Election date announcement, is a bit transparent.

        There have been calls to Turnbull, Abbott and the Coalition to provide a policy. Right back when the NBN was in formation, let alone when the announcement of NBNco and Conroy’s policy.

        Years have passed. Apart from some vague “plans” we have seen exactly squat. And the band plays on whilst every journalist and his/ her dog have been systematically pulling the NBN policy apart.

        One genuinely hopes that the journalistic vigour to which the NBN has been exposed, is repeated for the (eventual) Coalition policy. We need both parties and policies to be held to the fire.

        • tinman_au
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

          Thats been their (winning so far) game plan all along, offer nothing to be picked on, but pick on everything the actual government does.

          That works great as an opposition, but as no so well as an alternate government. The problem for the Liberals at the moment is they have lost their policy skill, because they haven’t bothered coming up with any while “in the wilderness”.

          I expect they’ll churn out a lot of spindoc based policies soon enough, but they’ll be ones that have $70B black holes and that don’t take all stakeholders into account.

    33. Realist
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink |

      I’ll be voting for Labor to get FTTP and i don’t like either party, i suggest you do the same if you want to see something worthwhile built lasting for atleast the next 50 years. The so called white elephant may destroy Abbots ambitions of destroying the NBN if enough people vote for Labor.

    34. Goddy
      Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:22 am | Permalink |

      Don’t allow yourselves to be mislead, folks; this will NEVER eventuate under an Coalition Government with Abbott at his head. Neither will the NDIS, Gonskie or any other notable policy that has been detailed in recent years.

      The only thing that will certainly happen is Upper Middle Class tax breaks rehashed from the Howard era, because we all know how well Howards electoral bribery in Western Sydney worked out for him.

    35. kentlfc
      Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink |

      @Goddy

      Yeah because the ALP has done such a goooooood job with the NDIS and Gonski!!!!!! Next you’ll say their border protection and anti defamation laws have been well done too! LMAO

      • Goddy
        Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:44 am | Permalink |

        So we have the choice between attempting to do it and not doing it at all and you reckon not doing it at all is better, do you? Keep laughing :)

        • SMEMatt
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

          I will be voting for a party who has actually done something since the last election although i guess you can say sitting in a corner crying it’s no fair we should have won is something. Labor, the greens and independents have worked on policy and got it past. How is it the Coalition who have more seats in the lower house have been paralyzed for this entire parliament. How many questions did the coalition use in question time when the NDIS was introduced? Let me count on my elbow how involved was the Coalition in Houston asylum-seeker committee oh that right they weren’t. This points to party not interested in good policy only in power. All we have seem to got out of TA and the opposition is a lot of talk and negativity and no actual action. MT doesn’t even have the courage of his convictions talking a lot about truth and standards of behavior in parliamentary debate while engaged in the same activities he decries.

          • djos
            Posted 04/02/2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

            So true!

            If MT and TA had their way when the power grid was being built we’d all be operating from different power grid voltages including a mix of AC & DC current and no one would be able to get 3-phase power because “no one needs it”!

            *facepalm*

          • alain
            Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink |

            ‘ How is it the Coalition who have more seats in the lower house have been paralyzed for this entire parliament.’

            Because the Coalition DO NOT have a majority of seats in the Lower House maybe?

            • djos
              Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

              Dont be ignorant! All the coalition need to do is craft their own legislation and negotiate with the independents and greens to get it passed in both houses – many european countries have frequent minority gov’s and this happens all the time but Mister -63% is too busy playing Stunt Man and whining that he should have won power to do anything even remotely constructive!

              If we had a media that could think for itself, they would have torn Tony and the Libs a new but-hole but Rupert being a right wing conservative means his media will ever do this!!!

              • alain
                Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:50 pm | Permalink |

                Yes got all of that, the Coalition still do not have the most seats in the Lower House, and the Independents and Greens will back Labor legislation through the Lower House because they backed Labor into power after the hung Parliament 2010 election.

                • tinman_au
                  Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink |

                  And funnily enough, they don’t always back them (See: “Pacific Solution 2″ as one example).

            • tinman_au
              Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink |

              The Coalition have the majority in the upper house (34 seats) verses Labor (31 seats).

              In the lower house, they are even (72 each).

              It’s only due to Tony’s arrogance that the Libs couldn’t cut a deal with other folks to be the government in power…Tony, of course, doesn’t want to share it.

            • SMEMatt
              Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink |

              The Greens and independents didn’t agree to pass legislation only to on confidence and supply. Yes a lot legislation got passed despite Mr No. Mr No could have got legislation passed then he opens his mouth and it all goes down hill from there.

    36. Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink |

      Two questions:
      1) Was the commitment to tear down the NBN (as mentioned above) a blood pledge; and
      2) Is the commitment to the NBN-Ultra-Lite a blood pledge too?

      Without them being blood pledges I have a very difficult time believing that Tony Abbott won’t flip-flop on his position when in power given the past three plus years.

      • NBNAccuracy
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink |

        Well, according to Abbott what he said may not be true unless it’s written down and scripted. That may not be the case though as he just said it, he hadn’t written it down first.

        • alain
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink |

          …. or they could indeed flip-flop like Labor did post 2007 election.

          • djos
            Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink |

            Flip Flop!

            BS, Labor did what they said they would which was setup an independent panel of experts to examine broadband infrastructure upgrade proposals – the experts said the proposals they got wont give the country value for money or meet the required coverage levels and so the NBN based on FTTH was put forward and accepted!

            • alain
              Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink |

              No you are confusing the timing, before the election Labor policy was all FTTN, after the election they changed their mind.

              • djos
                Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink |

                No it wasnt, they never mentioned the technology – go back to Whirpool and read thru all the debates as to what type of technology ppl thought would be in the proposals from the various players – the RFP was technology agnostic but most ppl assumed FTTN would win if Telstra could be separated from its PSTN network!

                • alain
                  Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink |

                  @djos

                  ‘No it wasnt, they never mentioned the technology’

                  ‘Federal Labor will revolutionise Australia’s internet infrastructure by creating a new National Broadband Network.

                  It will connect 98 per cent of Australians to high speed broadband internet services – at speeds over 40 times faster than most current speeds

                  With the rollout of a new ‘Fibre To The Node’ (FTTN) network, Federal Labor will increase speed to a minimum of 12 megabits per second – so fast that household entertainment, business communication and family services will happen in realtime.

                  The remaining two per cent of Australians in regional and rural Australia not covered by the FTTN network will have improved broadband services.’

                  http://www.scribd.com/doc/97328355/New-Directions-for-Communications-2007-Australian-Labor-Party-Broadband-Policy

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:09 pm | Permalink |

                    @ alain, speaking of flip-flop…

                    Less than 45 minutes before this comment you admitted the Government had to change their mind due to the GFC via the PoE… Normally there’s at least a few hours or days between silly contradictions.

                    Yet here you are now, flip-flopping, by saying flip-flop.

                    http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/31/abbot-confirms-coalition-fttn-policy-hints-turnbull-will-be-comms-minister/#comment-573516

                    So which is it?

                    • alain
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink |

                      ahh the chief pro-NBN 24/7 desperate diversion creator pops up, the commitment is outstanding.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:50 pm | Permalink |

                        Speaking of diversion, I must have blinked and missed your answer, which was it?

                  • djos
                    Posted 07/02/2013 at 8:56 pm | Permalink |

                    Alain everyone assumed it would be FTTN including Kevin’s team but the outcome rested squarely on the expert panel review and was not locked in before hand – end of story!

    37. Sammy G
      Posted 04/02/2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink |

      Malcolm Turnbull: “Our approach will be technology agnostic – like most telcos in the world, we would use the technologies which deliver the service levels needed at the least cost and in the shortest time.”

      http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/blogs/reporting-the-real-issues-about-the-nbn-or-why-lateline-missed-the-point/

      I am glad this guy wasn’t around when they were laying electricity cables to everyone’s house. i can just picture him saying:

      “Now, to lay the electricity cables, We will do it sooner and cheaper. were going to use a mixture of technologies. None of this ‘Gold Plating’ that the other government wants to do. some people will have 12 volt systems, and some will use DC and some will use AC. 12 Volts is more than capable of running everything you need to do today.

      NO ONE NEEDS 250 VoltS AC RUNNING INTO EVERY SINGLE HOUSE IN AUSTRALIA”…

    38. Brendan
      Posted 04/02/2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink |

      It all comes back to one single outcome.

      FTTH is the end goal.

      Even the Wizard of Wentworth admits it’s the logical eventual conclusion (even if he’s entirely mum on the topic from a policy perspective on how the Coalition intend to get there).

      Argue semantics until the Sun goes nova, it’s not going to change the outcome. The choice is, do we fund it now, or (maybe) later. Not know how much of, or what it will cost, for “later”.

      I’d rather we kept going now, with a know set of terms and policies, with a defined outcome, that has the support of a typically recalcitrant monopoly owner, than trust a political party (any of) to wrangle the same outcome in future.

      This is a once in a decade (or more) commitment.

      • alain
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink |

        ‘It all comes back to one single outcome.

        FTTH is the end goal. ‘

        FTTH is just the political end goal of Labor Policy, come election time 2013 the electors may decide that end goal is too far away and too costly.

        • tinman_au
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 5:03 pm | Permalink |

          It was the end goal _after_ they were told that would be the best way to go by the expert panel that disected the RFP. You seem to think Labor are a bunch of high tech nerds that must have “the best”, but most of them are probably just as clueless as the Liberals.

          At least Labor knows it needs to actually ask people about the stuff they don’t know about…unlike the Libs who just use a Ouija board for policy…

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 04/02/2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink |

            Indeed, he even admitted it here, less than an hour ago…LOL

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/31/abbot-confirms-coalition-fttn-policy-hints-turnbull-will-be-comms-minister/#comment-573516

          • alain
            Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink |

            @tinman_au

            ‘At least Labor knows it needs to actually ask people about the stuff they don’t know about…unlike the Libs who just use a Ouija board for policy…’

            Perhaps they borrowed the board from Conroy, it has a ‘Labor 2007′ sticker on it.

            • tinman_au
              Posted 05/02/2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink |

              Good point Alain and a great way to show the difference between them.

              Labor at least show the sense to make good policy better when shown the way (FTTN->FTTP), while the Liberals are still stuck in 2007 with their FTTN (We CAN make this work, honest!!).

              • alain
                Posted 05/02/2013 at 2:55 pm | Permalink |

                Coalition policy is JUST about FTTN to the exclusion of all other including FTTH.

                • alain
                  Posted 05/02/2013 at 2:58 pm | Permalink |

                  *is not JUST

                  • tinman_au
                    Posted 05/02/2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

                    Yeah, I know, “business as usual” for them….

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 05/02/2013 at 12:25 am | Permalink |

          alain
          Be carefull, you may just get what you wish for, for better or worse

    39. Abel Adamski
      Posted 05/02/2013 at 12:26 am | Permalink |

      http://afr.com/p/technology/coalition_readies_nbn_attack_plan_5esnL2WyXp75iij8CeP6kI

    40. FEBJ
      Posted 09/02/2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink |

      To clarify some information, the copper network deteriorates with age, this means with the FFTN model with the copper cable from the node to the houses, the cable will still deteriorate with age and decrease your access and we will still experience outages in wet weather due to moisture in the cable. Telstra have already been paid $11B for their network and the Govt promisds Nbn and I want it the way everyone has it already, why should I be disadvantaged because another party gets into Gov and thinks it is not a good idea. The speeds are like nothing we have seen in Australia before, wake up Australia we have to pay for what the rest of the world already has. Stop Abbott & Turnbull from changing that.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 09/02/2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink |

        just to add a correction there, they didn’t pay $11B for the network, they paid $11B for access to the ducts, the network (CAN) is still Telstras.




    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