The following article is by Kieran Cummings (@sortius), an IT professional and opinionated writer who writes both for his own blog and a variety of other sites including Independent Australia, Australians for Honest Politics and New Matilda. It first appeared on his blog and is re-published here with permission.
opinion There’s been a bit of hoohah about the use of the hashtag #fraudband recently by [Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull] & his cronies, decrying every use as ‘poor form’ & the like. Yet when you look deeper into the use of the term ‘fraudband’, the reality is that the Liberal & National parties were using it LONG before anyone supporting the NBN was.
I was tipped off to a blog post by Nationals Senator Fiona Nash on 19th June 2007 titled “LABOR’S RURAL FRAUDBAND” (screenshot in case they take the post down) which is the earliest use of the term I can see in regard to the NBN or Coalition’s plan. While I’m no fan of the LNP, nor of their tireless negativity, Fiona Nash raises some interesting views on FTTN & why it will fail rural users.
“In spruiking their flawed Fibre-to-the-Node (FTTN) plan, Labor 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.”
It’s interesting to note, when the same rhetoric is applied against Turnbull’s plan, the shoe fits. When applied against the previous iteration of the NBN, it does too. Even back in 2007, I was sceptical of the benefits of 12Mbps (or even 25Mbps) FTTN. After having worked for Telstra & seen the quality of the copper network first hand, any decision to reuse it instilled little confidence.
While in government, the Liberal Party even saw fibre optics or fixed wireless as the only options for rural Australia, with [then-Communications Minister] Helen Coonan stating of their fixed wireless services ”It’s been specially developed for rural and regional areas, where [with] fixed broadband you’ve got to actually run a fibre optic [cable]“. So I’m not sure what has changed between 2007 & now to mean FTTN is so much better. If anything, fibre developments have ruled out any case for FTTN.
So what does Turnbull know now that wasn’t possible back in 2007? Why does the LNP now see FTTN as the panacea of the catastrophe that rural broadband is? Who knows, all we can do is look at what the Liberal Party said in 2007 & what they are saying now about FTTN to see gross misrepresentations of technology that, even back in 2007, they saw as a furphy in rural areas. The amusing thing is, the Nationals were pushing for FTTN in regional areas, but just 24hrs later, Nash posted her blog post in opposition to FTTN.
The confusion among Liberal & National party senators & MPs alike is there for all to see, with some deriding the Labor party’s plan while at the same time spruiking a similar FTTN plan. It’s clear to see that the politicising of broadband has nothing to do with value for money, technologies, or societal benefits, but decrying anything the opposing party calls for. Both plans were myopic, relying on technology that is, and always has been, a last ditch effort to keep the copper network running.
With all the rhetoric surrounding the early stages of the NBN, when it was $4.7b, FTTN, & a guaranteed 12Mbps, the truth about the Liberal party’s position is laid bare. From $4.7b being “economic vandalism”, to FTTN being the worst thing to deploy in rural areas, to Telstra trying to put the government over a barrell, looking at past cases against FTTN, it’s clear to see rampant hypocrisy in among the Coalition’s ranks. Even back in 2008 OECD were estimating users would require 50Mbps services by 2011. Not far off the reality, with data consumption going up & users demanding higher speeds for their insatiable desire for higher fidelity content.
The more I look into the LNP’s past rhetoric, and failures, on national broadband, the more I see a bunch of hypocritical politicians who don’t actually care about doing what’s best for the country, but instead prefer to politicise technical arguments & muddy the waters with childish rhetoric that can be fact checked in minutes. The irony of the debate is that we’re talking about Internet technology & the detractors of the current plan assume that no one has access to the internet to fact check claims. The LNP’s history with broadband is telling, & I think Conroy hit the nail on the head back in 2008:
“During its 11 years in office, the previous government presided over 18 failed broadband plans. The opposition has a shameful and embarrassing record that has left Australia’s broadband performance languishing.”
For the Opposition to cry about their aspirations dressed up as policy being called ‘faudband’ is laughable, since a Nationals senator coined the term in 2007. One thing Turnbull needs to remember: don’t cry about having the same mud flung at you as you have flung at others in the past.
I think its funny how the Labor party never mentions this. Which they should
*“During its 11 years in office, the previous government presided over 18 failed broadband plans. The opposition has a shameful and embarrassing record that has left Australia’s broadband performance languishing.”*
Probably because both parties have poor form in this area.
If LNP had come up with a policy for FTTH, I’d be just as happy. I’m party agnostic when it comes to fixing the current shambles.
And really, it’s a corrective action that would have benefited greatly from a lot less partisian bullsh*t. We need to fix it, we’re all agreed that doing “nothing” isn’t viable; it’s going to take several billion either way, so lets just get on with it already and do so properly.
NBNCo may be falling behind it’s schedule by a lot, but Labor have done a lot more for broadband in 4 years than John Howard ever did in all three of his terms…
Well it depends on how you look at it, the Coalition Government Broadband Connect program enabled many regional and rural exchanges with ADSL, it also put in place substantial satellite subsidies for regional and rural residences out of the reach of ADSL, the effect in terms of providing a broadband service to those left wanting relative to large city residences in terms of timelines was quite fast.
Fair points, but isnt the real effect of those policies simply to force the private sector to give services to the 30% of the population (or whatever the percentage is outside metro areas – 30% sounds good enough) that the other 70% had been enjoying for years?
The actual results werent to make the overall services better, but to make them more available.
John Howard had years of money being gifted hand over fist to his Government, and could have done a LOT more than just force the incumbents to catch up. Instead nothing was done, and Labor was put in the unenviable position of needing to spend the money Howard should have.
$40b in surplus, or whatever it was, and the Howard government couldnt find any infrastructure to spend it on. Says something about their inability to plan ahead for the country.
We should also not forget that it was Fiona Nash herself – (and her mate Barnaby Joyce) – when they were “senators-elect”, who proposed that a full-fibre network was their preferred solution for rural broadband:
http://michaelwyres.com/2011/08/nbn-the-national-barnaby-network/
Wait a minute. If Labor’s FTTN proposal was considered delusional back in 2007, then what term can be used to describe the Liberal Party’s 2013 FTTN proposal? I don’t know about anybody else, but for me the term “bat**** insane” springs immediately to mind.
Couldn’t agree more mate. Terrible plan for Australia, i’d rather have barbed wire shoved up my arse.
Tony Abbot will organize that for you. At what speed would you like it?
Maybe in the country they could run FTTP, fibre to the paddock. I am sure that most barbed wire is in better condition than the copper and could be used for the last mile to the farm.
Don’t joke, Telstra has been using cable ties to run replacement copper along fences for years. Quicker than re-digging the trench.
And over creeks like one of my workmates had done at his place.
I hope you jest.
Well how bout we do it 2km from the exchange, where i should be getting at a conservative guess 10-13mbps but am getting a massive 3.5 down and a massive .5 up
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t rather that, but I totally agree with the sentiment :)
A government owned Telstra detailed plans to build a fully funded FTTN network in their 1996 Annual Report to be funded from their own coffers. The fact that it was sold off, shows political cowardice from both sides.
The NBN could have and should have been completed by 2002. It’s now 2013 and we’re still having a discission that should have been over a decade ago.
A pox on both houses.
+1 eleventy billion times over…
As the Howard government got in in 1996 and under their control Telstra was sold off, I am not sure how Labor can be blamed on not acting on the proposal?
There was some key differences to the labor FTTN NBN “plan” (if you can call it that)
Bevan slattery explained them pretty well
http://www.pipenetworks.com/docs/media/ASX_08_05_26%20FttN%20FINAL.pdf
Key points from slide 8 and 10
* coverage area for 75% of population is 0.3% (around the size of the coalitions FTTN rollout)
* coverage area for 98% is 14% (around the size of the NBN 1.0 FTTN plan)
* nodes recquired for 75% is 8k (this will be much higher under the coalition plan as they are aiming for a shorter loop length)
* nodes recquired for 98% is 343k, and that is with long loop lengths.
The two plans are more different than they are alike, just because they both included FTTN doesnt mean they are both “fraudband”.
Its a wonderful term to use because its both emotive and undefined. The telecommunications definition for broadband remains anything about 2-3mbits. Implying that a 25mbit minimum isnt broadband is purest rubbish.
Im sure there are many things the author finds fraudulent about the coalition plan but I wonder if they consider this plan more or less fraudalent then the original Labor plan to roll out fttn to 98% of australia (which really would have been fraudband as the project would have colllapsed long before 343k nodes were installed and the economics of installing one node per user in remote areas alone would have destroyed the project).
Technology *has* changed since 2008. Fixed wireless has a much more defined upgrade path than it did back then, FTTN rollouts have become common enough that there are large scale test cases and easy upgradability to fibre down the track.
Something that hasnt changed is this
“Cost to install fibre $30/m (unrealistic for metro, questionable in
regional and possible in rural)”
When it comes down to it NBNco are still using the same flawed price/metre that they were in 2008, modelled on a mix of high levels of optimism/delusion and some reasoning related to the GFC.
The GFC is over and people simply arent willing to work for the small rates NBNco are paying (and they do know roughly how much they will be as they have modelled in the primary contractors cut as well).
I think its fraudulent to say the NBNco is ontrack when it demonstrably is not, and never will be unless more money is injected into the project.
‘Something that hasnt changed is this
“Cost to install fibre $30/m (unrealistic for metro, questionable in regional and possible in rural)”’
So if your figures are correct, under Coalition BB plan for someone 800m away from a Node, and wanting FTTPoD, the cost would be:
800m x $30/m = $24,000
What did Turnbull say the FTTPoD cost is going to be again…
NBN Co didn’t exist in 2008.
“The two plans are more different than they are alike, just because they both included FTTN doesnt mean they are both “fraudband”.”
They are based on the same sort of architecture. The Labor policy was flawed then. The Coalition re-write of it is flawed now. For all the same reasons. Time has not improved the situation.
Slattery’s presentation stacks up very similarly in both cases. In this instance, the relevance is to the fundamental concerns over the technology.
“Technology *has* changed since 2008.”
Yes, it has. As wireless has improved, so have fixed line technologies. What hasn’t changed, is that wireless still represents an expensive option due to spectrum costs, backhaul and the raft of input costs.
It isn’t going to replace an entire fibre or copper network as cost-equivelant alternative any time soon.
“Something that hasnt changed is this..”
We aren’t China. Labour costs are going to be a large percentage of the deployment cost, regardless of chosen technology.
Either solution has a labor cost.
“The GFC is over and people simply arent willing to work for the small rates NBNco are paying..”
No, it’s not over. The impacts are still being felt globally and markets in many places are still in recovery. The difference is that Australia had the benefit of a surplus, combined with a cash injection that helped offset impacts. Both events helped insulate.
Having said that, whether installers deploy fibre, or fibre and copper, won’t impact whether a person is paid or not.
“The reality is it’s either Telstra or it’s no-one”
It was obvious then and it’s obvious now, good luck in your “negotiations” Malcolm…
I believe the article was primarily referencing the fact that the Coalition entities who are currently objecting to the term being applied to their offering should perhaps be aware of the history of the term in their own party.
“People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” as it were.
Frankly the relative merits of both plans at the particular time the term was coined are immaterial.
To me it is the highlighting of the hypocrisy that is the key element here. Frankly the more that is done to shine a light on the pathetic political slandering back and forth of BOTH major parties, the better.
I am sick of the current batch of children who appear to be only interested in their own affairs rather than that of Australia.
““People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” as it were.”
And they should make sure they wear pants!
But seriously, I think the ALP really needs a new head spinner, the one they currently have doesn’t seem to be doing very well for them. I think someone that gets them to drop the bull and just talk to folks would be a great start, most Aussies will be pretty forgiving if you’re trying to be honest and hard working, and while I think (in general) the ALP has been both, they really, really suck at getting that across…
The term fraudband goes back before NP use of it, it was used to describe Telstra’s first tardy efforts in capping ADSL1 speeds, first of all at 512/128 then 1500/256.
It sat at 1500/256 for a long time until Telstra were forced to offer ADSL2+ when ISP’s started rolling out their own DSLAM gear into exchanges marketing ADSL2+ plans.
When Telstra magically upgraded almost 2900 exchanges to ADSL1 full speed overnight and a majority of those to ADSL2+ within a few weeks.
Yeap, no holding the country back there.
Most of the DSLAMs & CMUXs were able to be upgraded via firmware. It was all artificial capping, when I was programming ASDL there were options to take it to full speed, but we were locked out of that portion of the ADSL programming application.
> Most of the DSLAMs & CMUXs were able to be upgraded via firmware. It was all artificial capping
Just like the NBN has artificial capping on fibre. For some inexplicable reason people take issue with Telstra capping speeds, but think it is okay when NBNCo do so.
Matthew, if you are incapable of understanding, just try
“Just like the NBN has artificial capping on fibre. For some inexplicable reason people take issue with Telstra capping speeds, but think it is okay when NBNCo do so.”
Why do you think they do it Mat? Maybe some sort of technical reason? Perhaps it’s to get more money from high usage folks that will then subsidise lower tiers? Maybe something else?
They are artificially capping us with the FTTN network too.
I haven’t seen anywhere saying that you will get your maximum linespeed as a retail product.
Please show me where Malcolm guarantees the products will be unlimited (speed wise).
That is completely disingenuous twaddle. When Telstra were only offering 1.5mbps there were no other options. All that ISPs could offer was what Telstra wholesale were providing, until iiNet and some other ISPs started investing in their own equipment and demanding access to install it in the exchange. ADSL1 was technically capable of up to 8mbps, but Telstra artificially limited it to 1.5mbps for years. I remember standing up at a vendor conference with over 2,000 attendees (all it pros) and after patiently listening to a product launch from yet another networking hardware provider touting the capability to handle up to 24mbps on this new ADSL2+ standard, I stood up and made the point that there was absolutely no point in anyone getting excited about ADSL2+, selling or even marketing devices as long as Telstra limited performance to 1.5mbps. I made the point that if vendors wanted to start selling any of these new products the best use of their time and resources was lobbying Telstra (and the government, if necessary) to enable full ADSL speeds. With more speed available consumers would fall over themselves to buy new modems and routers, but with the situation as it was who was interested in high performance products you ccouldn’t make any use of? I sat down to a standing ovation they couldn’t calm down for about five minutes. It was years before Telstra did any such thing, when they could no longer maintain their stance on speed caps (and could no longer compete with all the ADSL 2+ plans available from competitor’s).
So don’t talk shit Michael, Telstra’s artifical limits were there to bleed consumers and provide a hefty divide / incentive for business to pay the exorbitant costs of business plans. That is nothing like speed tiers that are up to consumers to decide what they want to pay, or caps like 100mbps instead of gigabit while the network is still being deployed and tested.
@ Fibroid
“The term fraudband goes back before NP use of it, it was used to describe Telstra’s first tardy efforts in capping ADSL1 speeds, first of all at 512/128 then 1500/256.
It sat at 1500/256 for a long time until Telstra were forced to offer ADSL2+ when ISP’s started rolling out their own DSLAM gear into exchanges marketing ADSL2+ plans.
Ask the ACCC about this, Telstra did not want to be forced to offer ADSL 2+ speeds at fixed rates set below the rate of return like ULL pricing and ADSL, so they did not offer it, once other carriers offered ADSL 2+ they were able to argue that there was competition in the market so the ACCC could not define the prices.
Whilst it sucked for those who were limited to ADSL when the equipment could do ADSL2+ I understand Telstra’s position as if it was my business, I would do the same thing to protect my revenue base.
They were artificially limited to 1.5 megabits.
Rather than the 8 megabits ADSL1 could do.
The bare-shouldered woman is framed in a manner suggestive of the absence of any clothing. In which case, why is she covering her mouth of all places?
A very disturbing photograph.
Positively scandalous.
Best part of the article IMO… That young lady has very engaging eyes. :-)
But where is the taxi driver?
she’s probably covering up a burp. ..
Interesting how many people often miss the point of articles. But then again, this is what politics does to debates.
To take up the point of the article, it is routine for politicians of either party to accuse the other party of things they previously did, sometimes worse or to a larger extent. When challenged, they usually claim that past behaviour has no bearing on their present or future behaviour. How convenient!
“the truth about the Liberal party’s position is laid bare. From $4.7b being “economic vandalism”, to FTTN being the worst thing to deploy in rural areas” …
I can’t believe people don’t understand the simple idea that Liberals have magically turned FTTN from Fraudband into Golden CopperBand!!!
You can easily see how they have done this in the following details:
Original Labor FTTN NBN cost $4.7b – Obviously Fraudband – it uses rotting copper that degrades both over time and distance and drops out in rain.
New Liberal FTTN NBN cost $29.5b – Obviously Golden Copper Magic is being created here… Spending a huge amount more is all we need to know to understand it is a much better FTTN plan.
Case closed.
But every connection to fraudband will come with a beautifuul illuminated scroll personally signed by Malcolm Turnbull!
Priceless.
Comments are closed.