NBN Co cranking up rollout to eleven – but can it rock ‘n’ roll?

87

ThisOneGoesToEleven

blog A week after the Coalition debuted its anxiously-awaited alternative NBN policy, Labor seems to be cranking the project up to eleven as it works to reverse months of problems and improve the appeal of its NBN policy to voters. Telecommunications industry figures, however, aren’t convinced NBN Co can deliver on its promises, according to a report on technology site iTnews.com.au (well worth a read here):

AAPT did not back the plan partially over concerns that it appeared to benefit Telstra over other NBN access seekers. “In AAPT’s view… it gives Telstra the ability to migrate more customers, more quickly”….Optus raised concerns that the change “appears to remove the requirement for NBN Co to publish on its website the ‘Ready for Service’ date” for the 82 rollout regions.”

It appears NBN Co’s credibility may have been damaged by its recent announcement that it would miss its June rollout targets – particularly given revelations in the Australian Financial Review (also well worth a read that the company has been trying to “cover up” delays in its rollouts:

[Greens Senator Scott Ludlam] said the committee could no longer trust NBN Co at its word and that its role was now to be an auditor, adding he would be demanding more data and documents from the company building Labor’s $37.4 billion network.

Whether or not NBN Co can be taken at its word, the company is certainly working to accelerate its rollout: today, for example, it announced it would offer 1Gbps NBN services in December – with the unspoken caveat that such speeds would only presumably be offered if Labor is returned in the September election – reigniting debate over just how much bandwidth Australia needs, and whether Labor or the Coalition are better positioned to help NBN Co deliver it.

Image credit: Publichall, believed fair use

87 COMMENTS

  1. “NBN Co cranking up rollout to eleven”
    Well no. FTTH at 1Gb would be taking it a little above zero.
    Cranking up to 11 would be FTTN trying to get anywhere near 100Mb

  2. What unspoken caveat? The 1GB speed tiers are just a part of the Active Network Release 5 upgrade, which will go through regardless of the election result.
    Why are you assigning sinister reasons behind a scheduled product roll out that’s part of the original product roadmap?
    The only threat relating to the NBN is that being stuck in Tony’s copper ghetto will threaten my house price.

    • i have to agree.

      there’s no reason why the 1gbs service would not be available to FTTH users under an LNP NBN.

      any inference otherwise is your own doing.

      • While you are completely correct, remember that there was also no reason why Telstra capped their ADSL speeds at 1.5Mbit back in the day.

        • > While you are completely correct, remember that there was also no reason why Telstra capped their ADSL speeds at 1.5Mbit back in the day.

          Except to protect FoxTel and FrameRelay revenues.

        • So BigPond would cap a speed on a FTTH service provided by another wholesaler called the Government owned NBN Co so it couldn’t compete with other RSP’s that do not cap because…..?

          • Because they can do whatever they want, for what ever reason they want, when ever they want … as they chose to previously (even as agreed to by Mathew)…when they again are stupidly handed back complete control of Australia’s communications…

          • Coalition policy is for the NBN to remain under Government ownership until privatised.
            Labor policy is for the NBN to remain under Government ownership until privatised.

            Telstra like any other investor here or overseas can bid if and when the great NBN auction takes place subject to Parliamentary and ACCC approval at that point in distant future.

            Your point is what exactly?

          • @Node4alain

            Wow, after ignoring all of my comments and especially a few questions (one particularly) you have found one you are able and therefore willing to reply too… but then have the audacity to ask a question of me? Really :/

            So firstyy – here’s my question again, for about the 6th time.

            *** Why is it ok for a government to roll out FttN and not FttP?*** It’s not a trick question.

            Anyway since you asked, my point is…so, what you are clearly now telling us is, the Coalition will be building a “Government funded $60B (by the time one includes the typical governmental blow outs the naysayers also forecast/add to the NBN) monopoly, thus forcing us all onto FttN and will be eliminating competition”?

            Gee, all the very same reasons you have bagged the NBN over the past few years. But oddly, you now welcome the same approach with open arms…

            Got all of that thanks.

          • But you said Telstra would be ‘again are stupidly handed back complete control of Australia’s communications…’

            So if you have decided to backtrack from that position.

          • No… I simply responded to your claims :/

            I would have thought that obvious and the polite thing to do, to respond and/or answer another, instead of rudely ignoring them! That’s what forums are for, friendly exchanges of info/views, aren’t they?

            As such, I also note you again didn’t answer me! Why?

            I’m sorry to have to say it, but you are being very rude and not following unspoken protocol! I have asked at least half a dozen times. IMO if you want to be taken seriously and have others answer you, you need to do likewise.

            So again… *** Why is it ok for a government to roll out FttN and not FttP?***

            Also, ***are you claiming that the Coalition will be doing as you have bagged the NBN for… building a government funded monopoly, thus forcing us all onto FttN and eliminating competition?***

            They are or aren’t. So either Yes or No will suffice.

            I await a change in your manners, by receiving actual answers and please no more questions until you do your part.

            This being so, I would also appreciate your answers to be (unlike on the rare occasions you have actually responded previously) sans accusations of me moving goal posts, avoiding, mentioning tap dancing or other such nonsense, as you have been answered and I have not, so if either of us are guilty of such practices it’s certainly not me.

            Thank you.

          • Telstra owns the copper lines any FttN system will be built upon. Its not a hard step to see they willenjoy an effective monopoly thanks to that ownership. They can dictate terms in any way they want to LNP, and they wont have many options to dispute it.

            With Telstra being the control mechanism, you seem to have no issue. Yet when it was a Labor idea for NBN Co to be the control mechanism, you attacked every small nuance of the arrangement, bringing into question the idea of ANYBODY having a monopoly control.

            You’re a hypocrit. End of story. Go away, you bring nothing to the debate.

          • “Telstra like any other investor here or overseas can bid if and when the great NBN auction takes place subject to Parliamentary and ACCC approval at that point in distant future.”

            Coalition policy is to privatise as soon as possible, completing the roll-out is not a pre-requisite.
            The coalition would much rather that the “NBN” roll-out be completed by as many vendors as possible using as many disparate technologies as possible.

    • I am almost glad I am in a HFC area. HFC I can’t get. It means no FTTN in the initial rollout. But hopefully by 2016-2017 it will be obvious to even the Coalition that FTTN will quickly be inadequate for peoples needs.

      • > I am almost glad I am in a HFC area. HFC I can’t get. It means no FTTN in the initial rollout. But hopefully by 2016-2017 it will be obvious to even the Coalition that FTTN will quickly be inadequate for peoples needs.

        NBNCo disagree with you according to their Corporate Plan. Labor considers it perfectly okay for 50% of fibre connections to be speed limited to 12Mbps.

        Labor’s only chance to get back on the front foot is to make 100Mbps the slowest speed tier, I would actually support Labor’s NBN policy if they did that.

        • “Labor considers it perfectly okay for 50% of fibre connections to be speed limited to 12Mbps.”

          So do the coalition.

          “Labor’s only chance to get back on the front foot is to make 100Mbps the slowest speed tier, I would actually support Labor’s NBN policy if they did that.”

          Congratulations. You’ve made it to stage three. Get some prozac for stage four.

          • The Coalition are setting the minimum speed of 25Mbps and improving that to 50Mbps. This is more than four times the speed for the 50% who can only afford a basic service.

            I would hardly call that equivalent, however Labor predicted a surplus when we have a deficit forecast to be in region of $10-20 billiion so I can understand how you might be confused.

          • “The Coalition are setting the minimum speed of 25Mbps and improving that to 50Mbps.”

            Sorry, but clearly you haven’t been paying attention. Please go read “The Coalition’s Plan for Fast Broadband and an Affordable NBN Summary.pdf”.

          • He been paying attention, from Page6 under the heading in bold THE PLAN:

            “……provide broadband services with a minimum download rate of 25 Mbps by the end of 2016 in all areas of Australia and 50 Mbps by the end of 2019 in 90% of the fixed line footprint”

          • “He been paying attention, from Page6 under the heading in bold THE PLAN:”

            Now it is apparent you both of you haven’t been paying attention. Seems the page number you skipped was page 3 in the “The Coalition’s Plan for Fast Broadband and an Affordable NBN Summary.pdf” (The one I mentioned btw) or page 15 in the “The Coalition’s Plan for Fast Broadband and an Affordable NBN.pdf”. Hope that helps.

          • You keep referring to a document without actually quoting anything from it, what actually contradicts what Mathew says and what contradicts the section about future speeds I posted from the full Coalition policy release?

          • “Labor considers it perfectly okay for 50% of fibre connections to be speed limited to 12Mbps.”

            Actually that’s not true. Labor considers it perfectly okay for a user to choose to have their speed limited to 12Mbs. Labor believes that each user should be able to choose the limit placed on their data rate and must also have the equal choice to have 1Gbs if that is what they want.

            The coalition on the other hand says that MOST users should have a choice in the data rates available. Data rates should solely be limited by the technical capability of a copper pair., 25Mbs until some undeveloped technology allows 50Mbs at some future date.

        • Did I miss something, how would 50% of FTTP be limited to 12 Mbps. Wouldn’t they all have the option of increasing their speeds if they wished to pay for it. ie a true user pays system?

          • > Did I miss something, how would 50% of FTTP be limited to 12 Mbps. Wouldn’t they all have the option of increasing their speeds if they wished to pay for it. ie a true user pays system?

            You mean option in the same way that we all have the option of driving an Audi? If this is the case then everyone has the option of fibre under the Coalition plan.

            There is no difference in cost of a 12Mbps or 1Gbps service under Labor’s plan, since the same hardware is installed. Charging more for faster speeds is a sleight of hand to ensure the 12Mbps services cost around the same as ADSL. Under a true user pays system everyone should pay the same for access and data. To encourage take up, access (AVC) should be very cheap and data more expensive especially as it is data transfer that places load on the network.

          • The Audi argument is a misleading choice.

            Under the FTTP NBN, everyone will have the same method of delivery (ie. your Audi), you can simply choose if you want e10, regular unleaded, premium or racing grade fuel. The choices are open to you immediately.

            Comparatively FTTN is an old clunker which can only take leaded fuel. If you want higher speeds you must go out and buy your Audi, without the bulk discount you would otherwise of had.

          • ‘The choices are open to you immediately.’

            Well immediately as in multiple missed rolled targets sort of immediately, FTTN may give a residence a ADSL2+ replacement sooner, but apparently they need 100Mbps ASAP even though the vast majority of residences use the internet for email, browsing, banking and reading the news.

          • To some extent I agree with you. The “need” for 100Mbps is limited at this stage and a FTTN NBN could meet current needs for most into the near future. Most infrastructure projects do provide for more than the immediate need of the population in hopes of not having needs outstrip capabilities by the time the build is completed.

            But assuming the general population is happy to have the slightly higher speeds promised by a FTTN rollout, the LNP’s proposal still hinges on several major points which they apparently just gloss over for convenience.
            – The promised inquiry into FTTN vs FTTP comes up as they hope.
            – The renegotiations of contracts with the contractor/installers etc goes smoothly.
            – Telstra “gift” their lastmile copper to NBN.
            – The roll out speed stated for FTTN is realistic.
            – There are no roll out delays for the FTTN NBN.
            – You actually have decent copper connection to your house in the first instance.
            – The location where they place the node is actually close enough for you to benifit from.

            Seperate to all of this of course is the argument as to whether future upgrade costs of the network should be taken into consideration, what is the true maintenance cost of the last mile of copper and how will competition in cherry picked locations by private enterprise allow for comparative pricing between city and regional areas? Just to name a few.

          • “Wouldn’t they all have the option of increasing their speeds if they wished to pay for it. ie a true user pays system?”

            Indeed they would. No such options exist on FttN, there is no hope of getting faster speeds unless you shell out $5000 or more meaning the poor will be disadvantaged with the substandard Abbott plan. There will be a digital divide as MM has already indicated most people will sign up for fibre on demand this leaves the poor without fibre because they cant afford the exorbitant $5000 plus price or the ISP fees which will most likely be $200 or more per month for 1gbps. Digital divide ftw.

          • The nuts and bolts…

            The Coalition have claimed – “the Coalition’s plan would deliver “fast broadband cheaper and sooner, no matter where you live”.

            I am in the NBN roll out schedule, which is due to start in September 2014.

            So if the Coalition win the upcoming election and I don’t receive “fat broadband” from the coalition before that, their plan isn’t faster/sooner.

            And if I then have to pay for FttP, it isn’t cheaper.

            So “fast broadband” (what a loose term) won’t be available faster and sooner for everyone and FttP will cost more.

          • “So “fast broadband” (what a loose term)”

            Well you know what they are like Alex. Very light on detail so they have enough wiggle room when the inevitable problems arise. That’s another reason why you won’t find any upload speeds listed in their plan.

            “won’t be available faster and sooner for everyone and FttP will cost more.”

            Indeed. It’s even sadder when you consider how much would be spent just to get these slow speeds on FttN.

          • I don’t care if upload speeds are not listed, I can work it out, I don’t care if I get FTTN sooner than Labor ‘it’s worth waiting for’ from NBN Co rollout target amendment number xx FTTH either.

          • “I don’t care if upload speeds are not listed”

            I don’t care if you don’t care if upload speeds are not listed.

          • @ Node4alain – “I don’t care if I get FTTN sooner than Labor”.

            Surely, if you were fair dinkum you would care and you would be demanding that you receive it sooner, because the opposition have said there alternative will be so (remember – cheaper and “QUICKER”).

            Like you said they will here –

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/19/nbn-co-cranking-up-rollout-to-eleven-but-can-it-rock-n-roll/#comment-607196

            Strangely though, some seem to care when NBNCo say they WILL do something and if they miss that target they are the first to criticise… but then, never hold the alternate plan to the same scrutiny?

          • ‘ there is no hope of getting faster speeds unless you shell out $5000’

            That figure is total conjecture, I will use another conjecture figure of $500, see how cheap fibre on demand can be?

          • “That figure is total conjecture, I will use another conjecture figure of $500, see how cheap fibre on demand can be?”

            yep. I can do that too, some premises will only cost $500 to roll out fibre too under the current plan. We are at an impasse it seems… Wait why would you care about me using this $5000 figure when we don’t need to run fibre to every home? Surely if we maintain the logic of “those that want fibre should pay for it themsleves” then it wouldn’t matter what the price is. Remember the big objection from the coalition about the NBN is the price of running fibre to 93% of premises. Are you worried that these big numbers will scare people off fibre? That would imply that lower prices for fibre are a BETTER thing if we want more people on fibre now wouldn’t it? And that more people on fibre is a GOOD thing. Also how does this fit in with the Abbott plan exactly? It says that 25mbps is more than enough for everyone.

          • So we agree no one knows what fibre on demand prices will be here in Australia, assuming it passes the Coalition review process anyway, but no doubt that will not stop you or Conroy or any of the pro Labor NBN anti-Coalition lobby using it continually right up until September and beyond.

          • The NBN could cost $94 billion. Using that logic it is not untrue to say that fibre connections could cost $5000. They could cost $10,000. We just dont know. It’s ok to pull big numbers out of the air I’m told…

          • The interesting thing about people who are pro-NBN is that typically they actually don’t align themselves with a political party.

            Pro-NBN people tend to quote technical experts, *not* Stephen Conroy. They’re interested in getting the best technical solution for the most Australian homes and businesses, that will give the biggest economic benifit for the lowest long term cost (that is, fibre to the premises), whichever political party does it.

            But anti-NBN posts or articles seem to always be made up of figures and quotes from Malcolm Turnbull or Tony Abbott…

          • “The interesting thing about people who are pro-NBN is that typically they actually don’t align themselves with a political party.”

            I can confirm this. The proper NBN is basically the only policy of Labor’s that has my approval.

            “They’re interested in getting the best technical solution for the most Australian homes and businesses”

            I can also confirm this. Technically there are benefits to having the majority on fibre as opposed to a just few people who can afford to get it rolled out to their premises under the rushed Abbott plan. Technically not much more can be squeezed out of the poor quality copper whereas we don’t know what the limit is with fibre. Technically I think it is much more responsible to invest $43 billion on an all new standard FttP network covering 93% of premises that has consistent and future proof speeds rather than waste $30 billion on an inefficient power hungry FttN patchwork with all it’s inconsistencies and then upgrade it piecemeal.

          • ‘The interesting thing about people who are pro-NBN is that typically they actually don’t align themselves with a political party.’

            But of course calling posters who dare to criticise the Labor NBN Liberal shills, Coalition stooges or right wing ideologues and deliberately misquote Coalition policy for their advantage has nothing ever to do with political alignment.

            I quoted the technical expertise of the Openreach rollout in the UK many times which forms much of the basis of Coalition policy, they have real world practical experience of rolling out FTTN and FTTH at the same time and are in a position to know what the relative costs are and what the relative speeds of the rollout is, apparently this doesn’t count and the only technical argument by definition that counts is always ONLY an all FTTH solution.

            It depends how hard you want to look I guess, many pro Labor NBN anti-Coalition supporters spend a lot of time with their heads in the sand.

          • We are here at a forum discussing the NBN.

            But some people ‘always’ bag the NBN and laud the opposition’s many varied positions.

            The same people also can’t debate the topic/evidence and must divert to saying such things as, Labor mismanagement, socialist monopoly and all will be sorted come Sept 14… so really, you have heard about the old adage relating to dogs balls?

          • “But of course calling posters who dare to criticise the Labor NBN Liberal shills, Coalition stooges or right wing ideologues and deliberately misquote Coalition policy for their advantage has nothing ever to do with political alignment.”
            Yes, pretty much. It’s not their arguments on the various NBN policies that show that. It’s that they often get off topic and start bagging Labor as a whole or start cheering for the Coalition to win in September.
            Alain, you are obviously more interested in a Liberal party win than the NBN
            “It depends how hard you want to look I guess, many pro Labor NBN anti-Coalition supporters spend a lot of time with their heads in the sand.”
            The same could be said of anyone with a political agenda, including you.

          • You will have noticed that political name calling is almost exclusively done by the pro Labor NBN supporters, usually when they are backed into a corner and do not have a rational response based on the facts presented.

            Classifying posters motivation as to why they post is the best case of conjecture on top of more conjecture you will ever see here, but of course there are no Labor party political supporters posting here nor are there vested commercial and employee,employer interest comments.

            Pro Labor NBN and anti-Coalition motivation is always but always just based on the best ‘technical’ outcome.

            Yeah sure it is.

          • @Node4alain…

            I note the anti-NBN approach (of a few usual suspects) is to never actually bring anything positive to the table… just keep asking (at times ridiculously, argumentative) questions which are normally, regardless of how serious or silly, always answered. Of course then comes more questions and the nit-pick of the previous answers.

            But more importantly, always ignore answering all hot questions asked by pro-NBNers, especially considering previous contradictions.

            This approach is to divert from all positive aspects of the NBN and hone in on any and all negatives. If there aren’t negatives… invent them.

            IMO, those who are always unwilling to accept answers and nit-pick, are unwilling to accept their claims may be incorrect, are unable to answer questions and who will twist and turn reality into the most illogical warped bullshit… which they only apply to the NBN (not the alternative or in fact anything else), must have a reason for doing so.

            Unless that reason is pig-headed argumentativeness, there is no other rational conclusion which can be made, but political shill.

          • “You will have noticed that political name calling is almost exclusively done by the pro Labor NBN supporters”

            In this one sentence, you are clearly showing how silly you are. Let’s look at the logic of your proposition.
            “political name calling is done by those I politically name call”. Just brilliant. Any more gems you would like to share with us?

            For your information, 41% of coalition supporters also supported labor’s version in the Newpoll survey. So what should we call them pro coalition pro labor NBN supporters?

        • “NBNCo disagree with you according to their Corporate Plan. Labor considers it perfectly okay for 50% of fibre connections to be speed limited to 12Mbps.”

          Hold on, aren’t those numbers the projected take up? So NBN co are basically saying we expect 50% of fibre connections to only use 12Mbps.
          That is a customer choice issue. Not a technical limitation. If 100% of the customers choose the highest speed option, they will be able to, conversely if 100% choose the lower speeds they can as well.
          They are not saying that 50% of the population can ONLY use 12Mbps which appears to be what you are implying.

          Frankly if I am not mistaken, and that is the case then you are deliberately misrepresenting information.
          Why would you do that?

          • > Hold on, aren’t those numbers the projected take up? So NBN co are basically saying we expect 50% of fibre connections to only use 12Mbps. That is a customer choice issue. Not a technical limitation. If 100% of the customers choose the highest speed option, they will be able to, conversely if 100% choose the lower speeds they can as well.

            The pricing model chosen by Labor means that the majority of their policy objectives for eHealth, remote education, teleworking etc. will be limited to a select few.

            > They are not saying that 50% of the population can ONLY use 12Mbps which appears to be what you are implying.

            If people only have 12Mbps then it is only 12Mbps that they can use.

            > Frankly if I am not mistaken, and that is the case then you are deliberately misrepresenting information. Why would you do that?

            Most people are focused on the idea that because the NBN supports 1Gbps it is just like Google Fibre, however if you focus on the outcomes and under Labor’s policy the disadvantaged are further disadvantaged, much more so than under the Liberal plan.

      • ‘ But hopefully by 2016-2017 it will be obvious to even the Coalition that FTTN will quickly be inadequate for peoples needs.’

        In 2016-2017 there will still be the majority of residences without a Labor NBN FTTH connection, but you don’t have a problem with them being stuck on ADSL2+ and it being ‘inadequate for peoples needs’.

        A Coalition FTTN rollout can get them off ADSL2+ faster than a Labor NBN Co FTTH rollout, remember the NBN Co is well behind its published and revised moving goal posts rollout targets.

        In fact I think they should stop publishing rollout targets in hard copy and just use a white board with a web cam link for it.

        The last areas targeted for Telstra exchange swap over under the NBN Co/Telstra agreement is 2023, but the prospect of getting areas onto a ADSL2+ fibre replacement much sooner than that is not a option.

        Apparently it is preferable to w-a-i-t and w-a-i-t for Labor FTTH speeds you don’t really need than a get FTTN connection sooner with speeds that are totally adequate.

        • You are essentially saying “my current needs will be sufficient for everybody into the future”.

          There are a small percentage of homes that require 100mbps now… (Most IT business require at least that much now).

          But in 15 years, the 100 or 250mbps speed tier will almost definitely be what the average Australian household requires (to say otherwise would be as true as saying 15 years ago that ADSL speeds would be unnecessary today and providing anything faster than dial-up a needless expense).

          There’s no point spending billions of dollars that gives us today’s speed in 2019. That’s all the Coalition’s plan is. But a system that will be able to be upgraded over the next 40 to 50 years to provide enough bandwidth is worth waiting two years longer for.

          • Save your breath. Node4Alain has no interest in debate, he’s just here to troll. He wont answer your comments.

            As it is, personally, I think you’re right, and wrong. Right as in FttN giving us todays needs in 6 years, but wrong in us having/needing 100 Mbps in 15 years.

            I think it will be considerably sooner. With speeds doubling every two years we’ll be needing 100 Mbps by around 2019, and be eyeing off 1 Gbps as a standard by 2025. Two speeds FttN cant deliver, so we’ll either be at the mercy of the telco’s (again), or be forced to spend thousands to get what will be the basic service.

            If you rent, best of luck convincing your landlord to upgrade.

    • > The only threat relating to the NBN is that being stuck in Tony’s copper ghetto will threaten my house price.

      You won’t be stuck in a copper getto as fibre is available and a reasonable cost compared with Labor’s $150/month for 1Gbps AVC. Fibre looks like being ~$3000 to install so most likely well less than 1% of the house price and very unlikely to be a big decision for a buyer. Don’t forget that FTTN will be rolled out much quicker so if you happen not to be in the current 3 year plan and are in a black spot it could actually improve your house price.

      The real estate agents I’ve talked to haven’t even been aware about the NBN and didn’t think it was a consideration for buyers even when the area was in the 1 year roll out period (since delayed).

      • Fibre run individually to each property for $3000, whilst in the LNP background papers they used a figure of 3600 to predict a total FTTP cost of 96 billion. Your figures don’t add up.

      • “Fibre looks like being ~$3000 to install so most likely well less than 1% of the house price and very unlikely to be a big decision for a buyer.”

        yep, those poor people disadvantaged by the speed tiers stuck on 12/1mbps always have a spare $3000 or more just lying around. None of them rent either.

        “Don’t forget that FTTN will be rolled out much quicker”

        Oh I didn’t forget, but you must have forgot that you just said fibre would “very unlikely to be a big decision for a buyer” implying most people would sign up for it which would mean what we’ll actually be rolling out is a FttP network so it wont be quicker at all.

      • “Don’t forget that FTTN will be rolled out much quicker”

        Except, it won’t. Debating the roll-out speed of FTTN vs FTTP is a false argument. The choices are:

        1. Continue with FTTP.
        2. DELAY the roll-out speed by starting all over with FTTN. FTTN will take years of prep work before it even starts rolling out.

          • alain (node4me) ‘“Don’t forget that FTTN will be rolled out much quicker”

            Ben_ Except, it won’t. Debating the roll-out speed of FTTN vs FTTP is a false argument.’

            a/n – Not it is not false Ben.

            I agree with Ben… how can anyone say FttN will be delivered quicker (across the board) when some already have FttP, others are underway and others will start soon…. when FttN is at least a year away?

      • I AM in the 3 year plan, even with the Syntheo failures, and I would get NBN FTTH for user pays.
        I’m patient enough to not require the 1Gb option, but I do want the 100mb FTTH option to replace my 4mb copper line. So it won’t cost me the earth for FTTH usage just yet, but fraudband will drop my home price by most of it’s installation cost, just like a broken dishwasher, corroded hot water system or a horrible bathroom.

        The reason that estate agents don’t worry about the NBN yet is that NBN FTTH is going to go everywhere in the cities, as opposed to fraudband where there will be free and unfree FTTH. The copper ghetto has it’s price tag for freedom and the estate agents and banks will take that price out of the house valuations. I think you might need to talk to more competent estate agents.

        How on earth would having to discount my house by the cost of the fiber install if I ever need to sell it, be to my advantage? One of the considerations for where I bought was the 3 yr FTTH install timetable and ADSL availability for the interim. I just don’t want to have to pay twice as a result of crippling deliberately inflicted by spitefully ignorant reactionaries.

        But thanks Matthew, for reaching into my pocket like that.

        • ‘The copper ghetto has it’s price tag for freedom and the estate agents and banks will take that price out of the house valuations. I think you might need to talk to more competent estate agents.’

          Really?

          1. So residences in greenfield estates that have had FTTH for years are worth more than housing on ADSL2+ even from adjoining suburbs that do not have FTTH?

          2. Houses that have Telstra or Optus HFC BB are worth more than houses in adjoining suburbs or in the same street that do not?

          3. The first NBN rollout areas in Tasmania of Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point which are well established now have higher house valuations than surrounding suburbs or areas in the same suburb that are not covered by the NBN?

          • 1. You mean the houses stuck on ADSL1 through a RIM, if you could get a port, like several of my friends houses? The only reason that the Top Hat improvements were rolled out were the transfer payments triggered by the NBN agreement. Those areas were deliberately ignored by me during my house search as a result of those horror stories, and enough people would have expressed a similar negative opinion to drop the house prices for the land.

            2. Assuming that you could get the HFC line into your house, due to being in a MDU or having some disqualifying problem like a conduit being too small (as was my parents house), that would be a plus to house prices.

            3. The failure of your comprehension above is telling.

            “The reason that estate agents don’t worry about the NBN yet is that NBN FTTH is going to go everywhere in the cities, as opposed to fraudband where there will be free and unfree FTTH”

            Suburbs that will have NBN won’t be different that those that have NBN, (apart from an immediacy premium), where as the copper ghetto will result in the have not’s having a lower house price.
            The 25% of the population that right now will pay for 100mb (based on actual NBN usage) will notice that there isn’t fiber to the house and will bargain based on that thousands of dollars of extra costs that will impose to fix the fraudband. Or do you believe that home buyers are willfully ignorant about the homes they are buying?

          • ‘You mean the houses stuck on ADSL1 through a RIM,’

            That’s not what I referred to, it was greenfield estates that have had FTTH for years vs suburbs that have not.

            ‘ that would be a plus to house prices.’

            What research on HCF vs non HCF residential valuations from the real estate industry is that based on?, I have been to plenty of auctions around my area and other areas, the auctioneer or the advertising of the residence never mentions the HCF BB connection type as being of valuation significance.

            Also what do you mean by (apart from an immediacy premium)?

            I referred to the first Tasmanian NBN rollout which you totally ignored where we are now in a position nearly half way through 2013 to get feel for NBN residences value vs non NBN residences value in those suburbs, what Australian research or any research from anywhere backs up your claims?

            You keep referring to all this residential valuation difference because of FTTH BB as if it is some sort of vague valuation thing that will happen in the future, greenfield FTTH has been around for years, or is the greenfield FTTH house value boom coming ‘real soon now’?

            Also congratulations on finding a new degrading term for copper, the ‘copper ghetto’, much better emotional impact than ‘decrepit copper’ or ‘rotting copper’, you should copyright it to Labor.

          • The comparison of greenfield ftth (which only existed due to the current NBN process) was part of the haves vs have not discussion two previous posts ago. I didn’t think you would fail to read my past posts before commenting. I’m sorry for misinterpreting your redundant question to answer a more informative question.

            Regarding HFC house price premiums, there would be a correlation with higher house prices, but there would be statistical issues in determining causation, due to the cherry picking nature of the roll outs. Expensive houses were roll out past, but are they expensive due to the HFC roll out or was the HFC rolled out because they were expensive. But I don’t think either option is good.

            An immediacy premium for having FTTH right now, as opposed to as far as 8 years away, represents the additional utility gained by prospective house purchasers which will inform their bidding process during house purchase. This higher demand by various potential purchasers will give a slight but probably not statistically determinable increase in sale price and time frame (especially considering the heterodox nature of the real estate market).

            You seem to misunderstand the effects of the two plans.
            Under NBN, the only difference between the otherwise identical FTTH and non FTTH houses is just how long the connection will take (days vs years), greenfields or brownfields will make no difference to price or ultimate availability of high speed broadband for 93% of household in cities. Hence why I allowed for a immediacy premium for current FTTH houses.
            Under fraudband, there will be an explicit monetary cost in the thousands of dollars for those non FTTH houses to get high speed internet. This explicit cost, the arbitrary nature of the boundaries, and the ability to get some depth of transactional information will allow “natural experiments” to occur. The experiments can then be researched ecconometrically to give a quantified marginal discount for copper connection vs FTTH, but those arbitrary lines won’t exist until the roll out is crippled.
            So there are limits to the quantifiable analysis I can bring right now, but given that 25% of households have votes with their wallets for speeds higher than fraudband is capable, I think that the onus of evidence lies more with showing there won’t be any price impacts by driving away 1/4 of the prospective buyers.

            Copper ghetto, being left on the wrong side of the information superhighway, digital slum, they are all emotive but descriptive terms for what you seem to support, deliberately choosing a less efficient plan to deliver a costlier option in the range of thousands of dollars per home owner for 70% of Australia’s families.
            And thanks for playing the man, it lets me know when my critic can’t argue against my idea’s.

          • > The comparison of greenfield ftth (which only existed due to the current NBN process) was part of the haves vs have not discussion two previous posts ago. I didn’t think you would fail to read my past posts before commenting. I’m sorry for misinterpreting your redundant question to answer a more informative question.

            WRONG! Greenfield FTTH home estates have existed for a decade well before the NBN existed. In fact it could well be argued that Labor’s poor policy choices made it extremely difficult for private companies that were installing FTTH solutions in greenfield estates.

            > So there are limits to the quantifiable analysis I can bring right now, but given that 25% of households have votes with their wallets for speeds higher than fraudband is capable, I think that the onus of evidence lies more with showing there won’t be any price impacts by driving away 1/4 of the prospective buyers.

            I’m not sure which bit that you have failed to grasp that FTTH is available under Coalition policy for an installation price that is cheap compared to Labor’s $150/month for AVC. Secondly the install cost is likely to be significantly less than 1% of the valuation of a house and also less than most renovations that buyers consider (bathroom, kitchen, flooring, etc.). Thirdly based on NBNCo’s estimates you are looking at less than 25% of the market. Fourthly if you really thought it would add more than 1% to the valuation of your house then you would simply install FTTH in the same way the people preparing to sell have the house painted.

            > Copper ghetto, being left on the wrong side of the information superhighway, digital slum, they are all emotive but descriptive terms for what you seem to support, deliberately choosing a less efficient plan to deliver a costlier option in the range of thousands of dollars per home owner for 70% of Australia’s families.

            You need to move past the implementation and look at the results of the policies. Under Labor 50% will be connected at 12Mbps with Fibre. Under the Coalition, the minimum speed will be 25Mbps (50Mbps in 2019). So under Labor according to the NBNCo Corporate Plan we are going to have a fast gulf between the haves and have nots. Under the Coalition that same gulf will still exist, but at the bottom end people will have network speeds four times as fast.

            While Google’s FTTP policy is the best solution, Labor’s FTTH policy is not even close to it. The Coalition policy while 3rd best from a technology perspective provides the infrastructure for those who need 1Gbps FTTH at a more reasonable cost and for the average person a faster speed. I am confident if you took the technology out of the equation and asked people purely from a network performance perspective which they prefer, based on NBNCo’s predictions, the Coalition policy would win.

  3. Node4alain, what research from the Real Estate Industry are your claims based on?

    Anyway… here’s a reference you certainly won’t want to try to argue with…

    “The Coalition believes all australians should have access to fast and affordable broadband. We recognise the benefits that fast broadband provides to households and businesses and its value (along with other information and communication technologies) in fostering productivity and innovation.”

    The Coalition understand it’s value, do you?

    Copper ghetto… how apt…!

    • > “The Coalition believes all australians should have access to fast and affordable broadband. We recognise the benefits that fast broadband provides to households and businesses and its value (along with other information and communication technologies) in fostering productivity and innovation.”

      Which explains why the Coalition have:
      * set a minimum speed of 25Mbps (rising to 50Mbps in 2019)
      * provided the option to order FTTH at a very reasonable price compared to Labor’s plan
      * are targeting areas of greatest need first (unlike Labor who are overbuilding the HFC network first)

      • * Which explains “copper ghetto”, as NBNCo announced 1Gbps
        * Which shows FttH will be unaffordable and therefore cruely unobtainable for some
        * I didn’t know Tasmania had HFC?

      • “Labor considers it perfectly okay for 50% of fibre connections to be speed limited to 12Mbps.”

        You do realise that this is through customer choice, by selection of the plan that they want; generally based upon their personal budget. Do you pay for the lowest or the highest plan available from your current internet provider? Why should an NBN ISP be any different to an ADSL ISP and not have different plans available for different customer segments?

        “The Coalition are setting the minimum speed of 25Mbps and improving that to 50Mbps.

        Does this mean that there will no plan options? What if I cannot afford the plan available? How am I going to assist my children educate themselves if I can no longer afford the Internet through the Coalition NBN?

        At least with the Labour NBN there are different plans that I can choose that fit within my budget.

        provided the option to order FTTH at a very reasonable price compared to Labor’s plan
        Currently as I read it there is no cost to order FTTH via the NBN, only the ongoing plan rate, but with the Liberal NBN there is both a cost to order and ongoing costs for the plan rate. Or are you stating that with a Liberal NBN once you pay for the FTTH you get the monthly access for free permanently?

  4. Got a cable and a box outside my place in Brunswick Victoria but no sign of any connection Have not heard from NBN although I did register an interest with them

  5. Matthew

    “Labor considers it perfectly okay for 50% of fibre connections to be speed limited to 12Mbps.”

    .” Under Labor 50% will be connected at 12Mbps with Fibre.”

    I think, no I know, you have a serious problem. You are obsessed with this notion that Labor has planned, is happy with, to limit people with 12Mbps. Only last week, you posted this point not once but 3 times in reply to an article in SMH. Despite, many people, including me, telling you that a forecast in not a plan, you relentlessly pursue the same point ad nauseum. Furthermore, please tell me where in the business plan does it say that Labor or NBNco state that they are happy with having 50% of people on that speed. Either you need help with your obsession or you are knowingly being disingenuous. Whatever, the case please give us a rest. It is getting very tiresome.

    “The Coalition are setting the minimum speed of 25Mbps and improving that to 50Mbps. This is more than four times the speed for the 50% who can only afford a basic service.”

    Here, you are trying to imply that the cost of 25Mbps, or even 50Mpbs, under the coalition will be as affordable as the cost of 12Mbps under Labor’s offering. First of all, no one knows what the coalition will charge for any service. Secondly, it is more that possible that those who could just afford the minimum speed under Labor’s plan may not be able to afford the coalition’s minimum alternative, as it is unlikely to be cheaper.

    • > Despite, many people, including me, telling you that a forecast in not a plan, you relentlessly pursue the same point ad nauseum. Furthermore, please tell me where in the business plan does it say that Labor or NBNco state that they are happy with having 50% of people on that speed.

      If NBNCo or Labor were not happy with the Corporate Plan then they could have rejected it. The fact that they accepted it means they are happy with the outcome.

      > Here, you are trying to imply that the cost of 25Mbps, or even 50Mpbs, under the coalition will be as affordable as the cost of 12Mbps under Labor’s offering. First of all, no one knows what the coalition will charge for any service. Secondly, it is more that possible that those who could just afford the minimum speed under Labor’s plan may not be able to afford the coalition’s minimum alternative, as it is unlikely to be cheaper.

      It would be very challenging for the NBN to cost more under the Coalition when the outlay is significantly less and the return on investment occurs significantly quicker than under the Labor plan. The only way for plans under the Coalition to cost more is if there was excessive profit taking. Secondly we know from the NBNCo Corporate Plan that ARPU needs to rise steeply in the future for NBNCo to make it’s financial targets.

      • “If NBNCo or Labor were not happy with the Corporate Plan then they could have rejected it. The fact that they accepted it means they are happy with the outcome.”

        This is really twisted logic and not so clever use of words. If NBNco or Labor were satisfied (not happy) with any aspect of the Corporate Plan, it would have been because it was sufficiently conservative in its estimate, so as to not fail. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, because they were happy that 50% of people would be confined to 12Mbps.

    • Yes Node4Me, I agree with you that this is a disgrace!

      Every residence within the 93% is entitled to a FTTH connection as per the government policy.

      I would suggest that this is only being looked at in an effort to install as many residences as possible before the possibility of a change in direction at the next election from potentially the stupidest federal government decision in Australia ever the project that we have underway now is more than affordable for the country within today’s fiscal environment and the potential change from the current FTTH to FTTN only advises the business community that doing business in Australia come with Sovereign Risk on large infrastructure projects of national importance.

      • > I would suggest that this is only being looked at in an effort to install as many residences as possible before the possibility of a change in direction at the next election from potentially the stupidest federal government decision in Australia ever the project that we have underway now is more than affordable for the country within today’s fiscal environment and the potential change from the current FTTH to FTTN only advises the business community that doing business in Australia come with Sovereign Risk on large infrastructure projects of national importance.

        Businesses have the option of installing FTTP more cheaply and more quickly in most areas than the 1Gbps plans under Labor, so I don’t see where you think this risk to business comes from. Secondly the base speed in Australia doubles and in 2019 quadruples so again this is a benefit.

        People need to stop focusing on the technology and focusing on the outcomes. Remember we only have 1Gbps because Google Fibre was announced just prior to the 2010 Federal Election and Labor’s NBN centre piece couldn’t be shown to be slower. Of course an informed person would understand that NBNCo’s PON architecture is second rate to Google Fibre which is a direct connection offering 1Gbps in both directions.

        • “Businesses have the option of installing FTTP more cheaply and more quickly in most areas than the 1Gbps plans under Labor”

          “Remember we only have 1Gbps because Google Fibre was announced just prior to the 2010 Federal Election and Labor’s NBN centre piece couldn’t be shown to be slower.”

          hey Mathew,

          I’ve noticed quite a few highly contested allegations creeping into your comments, such as the dubious statements above. I remind you of the need to respect Delimiter’s comments policy, which stipulates:

          “Comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate”

          http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

          FYI I have placed you on the pre-moderation list, so I will now be checking all of your comments before publication. We’ve had a number of complaints about your comments not being based on evidence etc.

          Kind regards,

          Renai

          • > “Businesses have the option of installing FTTP more cheaply and more quickly in most areas than the 1Gbps plans under Labor”

            If the costs of the Coalition build are cheaper than Labor, there is less debt, because businesses are paying up front and 1Gbps are not cross-subsidising the other plans then I suggest it is not unreasonable to assume that 1Gbps plans will be cheaper under the Coalition policy. I might be wrong, but I don’t think it is an unreasonable claim, although it probably could have been moderated with an ‘almost certainly’ clause.

            > “Remember we only have 1Gbps because Google Fibre was announced just prior to the 2010 Federal Election and Labor’s NBN centre piece couldn’t be shown to be slower.”

            I thought it was pretty clear at the time and Quigley has admitted that 1Gbps was a response to Google Fibre.

            http://www.zdnet.com/1gbps-nbn-a-response-to-google-quigley-1339314096/
            The chief executive of the National Broadband Network Company (NBN Co), Mike Quigley, has admitted that the company’s announcement of one-gigabit-per-second services on the NBN was in response to media criticism after Google’s one gigabit US network had been announced.

            While I would prefer a FTTP solution, I have significant justifiable concerns that the current Labor policy will create a digital divide, that the NBNCo Corporate Plan is optimistic in many sections and that many people have been seduced by fibre and don’t understand the outcomes.

    • FTTN and FTTB are not equivalent technologies. FTTB makes fiscal and technical sense when the strata refuses access or rolling out fresh cables within the MDU.

      You constantly criticise the ALP NBN when for not being fiscally responsible and risking delays, and when they provide a solution to these issues, still without the technical requirements the policy presents, you criticise them because, well, let’s be frank, they’re using copper and you thought NBNCo and its supporters hate copper with a zealous passion.

      That isn’t how this works N4M. We actually do care about the cost, and are smart enough to realise that what the ALP proposed is achievable. In other words we know what bets we can achieve, and assuming all stratas will play ball with NBNCo is not a bet we’re willing to make. Just like the we don’t think the short term savings of FTTN are worth it.

      You continue to paint us with the fibre or nothing brush if you want, but know this, by doing so you’re no better than the few who you perceive to attack you personally whenever you don’t agree with the NBN. And because of that, like attracts like. You perceived personal attacks are of your own making.

      • Yes it’s amazing when the copper is described as being ‘decrepit’ ‘rotting’ or creating a BB ‘ghetto’ when it is part of Colaition policy but when the Labor NBN Co is evaluating its use for apartment blocks I assume the existing copper in those complexes suddenly takes on a new meaning as being technically the smart thing to do.

        First of all it is wise to change the acronym from FTTN to FTTB avoiding cross pollination to anything Coalition, then you try to downplay the reason to ‘when the strata refuses access’.

        If you read the article that was not given as a reason, it is just smarter technically and cost effectively to use existing copper in MDU’s in apartment complexes, where 30% and rising rapidly of Australians live.

        • “Yes it’s amazing when the copper is described as being ‘decrepit’ ‘rotting’ or creating a BB ‘ghetto’ when it is part of Colaition policy but when the Labor NBN Co is evaluating its use for apartment blocks I assume the existing copper in those complexes suddenly takes on a new meaning as being technically the smart thing to do.”

          Once again you’re showing your poor, or maybe disingenuous, reasoning. Where did you get that evaluating something takes on a new meaming. You are right. You are assuming, wrongly.
          Again mister “pro NBN supporters call me political names”, it is not Labor NBN Co, it is just NBN Co. And evaluating something does not guarantee that it will work, that it will be accepted or even that it is technically the smart thing to do. Additionally, even if it turned out to be, it doesn’t magically make the rest of the copper network, pristine.

          Instead of continually trying to score points, start will the basics: Logical and sound reasoning.

        • Really?

          Look no one is childishly argumentative enough to suggest MT is wrong in supplying FttP where the copper is no longer feasible.

          It is common sense.

          Just like you’d assume no one would be childishly argumentative enough to suggest NBNCo is wrong to not do FttP, where not feasible.

          Because it is also common sense.

          But alas :/

          And… seriously, now you are trying to claim FttB as FttN?

        • Whats so amazing about it? We’re talking about different copper wiring here. The copper that is old and decrepit is the twisted pair copper that runs through the ducts from the exchange to people’s houses. This copper is in a terrible state because its often exposed to the elements. This is the copper that FTTN will be making use of and still results in coppers lines that are hundreds of metres long.

          With Fibre to the Basement (FTTB) all of that decrepit copper is still replaced with fibre. Yes, FTTB will make use of copper cabling, mainly in lengths of 10s of metres running from the basement to individual dwellings. That cabling will be inside of a building, not exposed to the elements and due to its shorter length will probably be able to run thicker, higher bandwidth cable.

        • There’s a big difference to copper that runs outside a building and that inside a building.

          When we build networks, if any part of a cable run is outside a building, you use fibre because copper (especially joints) in buried ducts and external cabinets is subject to corrosion and fibre is not. Also, you use fibre for runs over 100m because this is the limit of the higher speed Ethernet technologies.

          Inside a building though, Cat5e or Cat6 (twisted pair copper) is run because it doesn’t have those problems. But I’d be worried about using the existing telephone cable regardless, since the cable in many buildings is usually far lower quality than network cable.

          Unless the building has high quality network cabling installed, the existing telephone wiring should only be used if the building owner won’t allow any other option.

      • “FTTN and FTTB are not equivalent technologies. FTTB makes fiscal and technical sense when the strata refuses access or rolling out fresh cables within the MDU.”

        I don’t have a problem with FttB either. It is FttP after all. Technically NBNco will have provided the solution. If NBNco install in a “basement” where fibre cannot be taken into individual units then the owner could install cat6 if they wish. Problem solved for broadband. However Quigley mentioned something about analog voice that will still be an issue though.

Comments are closed.