• Enjoy the freedom to innovate and grow your business


    [ad] With Microsoft Azure you have hybrid cloud flexibility, allowing your platform to span your cloud and on premise data centre. Learn more at microsoftcloud.com.

  • IT Admin: No Time to Save Time?


    [ad] Do you spend too much time patching machines or cleaning up after virus attacks? With automation controlled from a central IT management console accessible anytime, anywhere – you can save time for bigger tasks. Try simple IT management from GFI Cloud and start saving time today!

  • Free Forrester analysis of CRM solutions


    [ad] In this 25 page report, independent analyst house Forrester evaluates 18 significant products in the customer relationship management space from a broad range of vendors, detailing its findings on how CRM suites measure up and plotting where they stand in relation to each other. Download it for free now.

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


  • Reader giveaway: Google Nexus 5


    We’re big fans of Google’s Nexus line-up in general at Delimiter towers. Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Nexus 10 … we love pretty much anything Nexus. Because of this we've kicked off a new competition to give away one of Google’s new Nexus 5 smartphones to a lucky reader. Click here to enter.

  • News, Telecommunications - Written by on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:40 - 202 Comments

    Fairfax columnist prints blatant NBN falsehoods

    false

    news A senior columnist writing for Melbourne newspaper The Age has falsely claimed that the fibre technology used in Labor’s NBN project had a life of only 25 years and that it could be made obsolete by “low earth orbiting satellites”, in an article riddled with inaccurate and highly disputed statements regarding the project.

    The biography of the columnist, Kenneth Davidson, says he has been writing for the age on public policy and economics issues since 1974, winning numerous awards along the way. Davidson is also co-editor of Dissent Magazine, which broadly focuses on ensuring the continuance of the welfare state in Australia. In an article published last week entitled ‘Don’t look now, the white elephants are multiplying’, Davidson broadly argued that Coalition policy on the National Broadband Network was “superior”.

    However, the article makes a number of demonstrably inaccurate or highly disputed claims. For example, Davidson claims that the Government’s NBN project would see Australian households pay $1,200 per year for telecommunications access, which Davidson said was “what they are paying now for the existing copper network”. “But this will only pay for the same speed as customers get now with the existing network,” the columnist wrote.

    Davidson appears to be referring to the fact that NBN Co offers speed plans as low as 12Mbps or 25Mbps — comparable to existing speeds available under the existing copper-based ADSL network run by Telstra. However, in actual fact NBN broadband plans at those speeds are available for significantly less than $1,200 — from $29.95 a month or $360 a year. In addition, even the lowest end NBN plans offer significant advantages over existing ADSL broadband, in areas such as latency and reliability. Speed alone is only one method of comparing broadband technologies.

    In short, NBN customers will be (or already are, in the case of those in early NBN rollout zones) paying the same, or in some cases less, for greatly improved services. They are also able to pay more (but again, comparable to current prices on higher cost plans) for higher speeds generally not available in Australia at the moment.

    Separately, Davidson argued that demand for fixed-line broadband services was “falling”. On this count the columnist is inaccurate. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the period up to 31 December last year shows that the number of ADSL, cable and fibre connections in Australia are all rising slowly. Mobile and fixed wireless connections are also rising slowly. In addition, although the volume of data downloaded over wireless connections is riding only slowly, the data downloaded over fixed broadband connections is rising rapidly.

    Davidson also argued that there was “no credible business case” for the Government’s model, and that to find the construction of Labor’s NBN vision, every fixed-line customer would have to pay $9,400 a year to the NBN. However, NBN Co’s existing business plan would actually see the company make a return on the Government’s investment in the project over a thirty year period of about seven percent, based on customers paying retail broadband prices broadly consistent with today’s prices. NBN Co has also stated its belief that it may be able to return its investment sooner or cut retail prices, due to evidence of higher than expected uptake on the network.

    The assumptions in NBN Co’s business case published in 2010 were labelled as “reasonable” by corporate advisory firm Greenhill Caliburn, in an evaluation published in early 2011.

    Similarly, Davidson also argued that the cost of Labor’s plan was “now estimated by most experts to cost $90 billion to $110 billion”. However, this statement is also inaccurate. The only published analysis putting the NBN’s cost that high is contained in the Coalition’s own rival NBN policy document. And in that document, a $94 billion estimate by the Coalition represents the worst possible case for the NBN rollout.

    The Coalition states that for the $94 billion figure to eventuate, NBN Co’s revenue must grow much slower than currently forecast, construction costs must be significantly higher than currently forecast, more households must pick wireless alternatives than is currently forecast, and the NBN must take 50 per cent longer to build (an extra five years) than currently forecast.

    Lastly, Davidson argued that the fibre underpinning the NBN had “a life of about 25 years”, and that “By 2020, the US will probably have developed low earth orbiting satellites capable of picking up and sending wireless signals at a fraction of the cost of the Gillard government’s scheme.”

    Davidson’s statements in this regard are highly controversial and represent an extreme view in terms of the mass opinion of experts in the telecommunications industry. Australia’s existing copper network, which is much less robust than an equivalent fibre network would be, has served much of the nation’s telecommunications needs for the past century.

    Currently experts expect that in the long-term, fixed fibre infrastructure will form the backbone of telecommunications services in most geographies. It is expected that the NBN’s fibre infrastructure will serve Australia’s telecommunications needs into the forseeable future; at this point no rival technology exists that can handle the same level of bandwidth and latency demand.

    A number of proposals have arisen over the past several decades to deliver broadband through so-called ‘low earth orbiting satellites’ — with companies such as Globalstar and Iridium already having some infrastructure in this area and other companies such as O3b Networks and COMMStellation planning to launch new satellites.

    However, satellite broadband access has generally been found to be unable to provide required broadband speeds and latency performance compared with fixed-line fibre networks (for example, NBN Co’s own satellites, to be launched over the next several years, will only deliver speeds up to 25Mbps). Using low-earth satellites does assist with this situation somewhat, but also requires that terrestial dish antennas implement a mechanical tracking mechanism to track multiple satellites as they rapidly pass across the sky in a low orbit.

    Because of these issues, mainstream telecommunications industry opinion regards satellite broadband access as usually only being suitable for premises in remote or regional areas, or to provide backhaul connections to other fixed points of broadband contact, such as mobile phone towers.

    Over the past several years, there have been a number of misleading articles published by various other local newspapers about the NBN.

    In late June last year, for example, the Financial Review newspaper published an article stating that there was “a real risk” that the NBN’s fibre infrastructure might be overtaken by technical breakthroughs in areas such as “wireless technology”. “One such breakthrough on the technological horizon is Data In Data Out wireless technology, which promises wireless speeds up to 1000 times faster than those offered today,” the newspaper claimed. However, the notion that wireless could serve as a replacement for fibre or other fixed network technologies is heavily disputed by the global technology community and is a view outside current mainstream thinking on the issue.

    The AFR also reported that take-up of the NBN in the areas where it is available so far has been “minuscule”. Unfortunately, this claim is also heavily disputed. In general, Australia-wide, NBN take-up rates have been strong. In fact, in communities such as Willunga in South Australia and Kiama in New South Wales, the take-up rate in the short time the NBN has been active in those areas has been north of 30 percent. This rate is expected to accelerate as Telstra’s competing copper cable is shut down in areas where the NBN has been rolled out, forcing Australians to migrate onto the NBN fibre.

    In December 2011, the Australian Press Council expressed concern about the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Federal Government’s National Broadband Network project, backing a local critic’s complaint that three articles in a short period of time had contained “inaccurate or misleading assertions” about the NBN. Similarly, in March last year, another News Ltd publication, The Australian, published a correction to a story after it inaccurately alleged that a school in South Australia would have to pay $200,000 to connect to the NBN; in fact, the school will receive NBN access as part of the normal rollout.

    opinion/analysis
    Simply an incredible article by Davidson. Wrong on almost every count. How this one got past the sub-editors at The Age, I have no idea. I’ve debunked it here because I’ve received a constant series of requests from readers over the past several days to do so.

    submit to reddit

    202 Comments

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

    1. Posted 29/05/2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink |

      Awesome effort Renai. Will be sharing and linking widely.

      • Simon Reidy
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink |

        +1. A brilliant analysis of a wildly inaccurate article. While Fairfax certainly aren’t perfect, I usually expect better from The Age. Don’t they have an editor any more? Or anyone with even a hint of IT knowledge they could have run this by before publishing?!

      • Djos
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink |

        Agreed, excellent article, great exposé on more flawed liberal party propaganda!

      • Chas
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink |

        + another 1
        Thanks for this…calling so-called journalists out on lies like these is a great public good, and I thank you.

    2. Dan
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink |

      How is junk journalism (classified as opinion no doubt) allowed in the press? Surely they woul have to print a retraction or face some serious questions from the Press Council?

    3. Mr Grump ol the bailey
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink |

      Thank you for this article Renai its good to see “Mr Davidson’s” article squashed by actual facts and not Fud he blew out of his keyboard.

    4. zwan
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink |

      oh god reading that article hurt my brain so much.

      I don’t want to live in this world anymore.

    5. Soth
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink |

      Earth to low earth orbiting satellites, please come in, you’ve left Kenneth Davidson on Earth.

      • Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink |

        To be fair, LEO based broadband is possible, if not very paractical. I wouldn’t say it would compete with fixed line connection, but it could possibly compete with mobile broadband services and fixed-wireless.

        The only problem it it, and why I doubt any sane company will deploy it to compete with LTE networks, is the upgradability, or more precisely, lack there-of.

        • Rohan
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 4:41 pm | Permalink |

          This is about as practical as fuelling my car with my own farts.

          Honestly Davidson should just shut his pie hole.

    6. GongGav
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink |

      ‘Davidson claims that the Government’s NBN project would see Australian households pay $1,200 per year for telecommunications access, which Davidson said was “what they are paying now for the existing copper network”. “But this will only pay for the same speed as customers get now with the existing network,” the columnist wrote.’

      So in his worst case scenario, users are… no worse off than they are now. Gotcha.

      Also good to have it on record that the estimated cost has risen to $110b… Any odds on the figure being $150b by the election?

      • Matts
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink |

        GongGav, did you even read Renai’s piece?

      • MattS
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink |

        GongGav,
        did you even read Renai’s piece?

    7. Charles
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:43 am | Permalink |

      Renai – you should make an offer to Fairfax to get this article (or portions of it) published in reply!

      • Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink |

        I’m happy to negotiate :)

        • RocK_M
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

          It’s in the Opinion piece section… fairly sure you can submit your article for publishing as a response! :D

    8. Jake Cordon
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

      Wow, can’t believe that the article in question was published or how the person who wrote it manages to function.

      Good debunking Renault, though we should not need to in an ideal world.

      • Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink |

        Renault?

        • Jake Cordon
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 12:08 pm | Permalink |

          Auto correct :)

          • GongGav
            Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink |

            Autocorrect really gives me the ships.

        • Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:14 pm | Permalink |

          Broom broom~

    9. Mr.B
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink |

      Renai, you really need to start calling these things for what they really are – lies, or at a minimum a falsification of documented truth.

      Your soft handed approach, and overuse of “inaccurate” does not highlight just how wrong these journo’s statements really are – and since they have all been pointed out as incorrect in the past (by you and other journos) it is about time these incorrect statements were called what they really are – lies.

      Mr.B

      • Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink |

        There’s a substantial burden of proof to describe something as a “lie” — you need to prove intent to deceive and pre-knowledge (rather than opinion or a mistake), which is very hard.

        • Non Puto
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 12:55 pm | Permalink |

          Ok, then instead of calling it a lie..

          Call it what it is “Bullshit”, but then I suppose you would lose readership as your articles are flagged as inappropriate :(

          Your first line could then read as follows (highlighted for fun):

          news</b? A senior columnist writing for Melbourne newspaper The Age has bullshitted that the fibre technology used in Labor’s NBN project had a life of only 25 years and that it could be made obsolete by “low earth orbiting satellites”, in an article riddled with bullshit statements regarding the project.

        • Mark
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:45 pm | Permalink |

          The problem I have with this opinion piece is that in every single area that puts forward a negative towards the NBN it uses either a disputed fact or a demonstrated falsehood. Not once not twice but every single time. This article is NOT a mistake it is deliberate attempt to put false information in front of people as fact.

      • Djos
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink |

        Otherwise known as Liberal Party propaganda!

    10. Hugh Jaas
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink |

      Kenneth Davidson has often show a lack of understanding for many topic he discusses. I have long since stopped reading his articles.

    11. David Allen
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

      I read Ken’s article and I thought, Wow, where did that come from? To be fair his articles are usually pretty good and his facts and figures check out. This article is a real disappointment though. I expect better from him. I found it hard to finish reading after the 25 year fiber age limit line. Is that from the Coalition’s documents too? He must have got that from somewhere.

      Good response Renai.

    12. Brendan
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink |

      “Similarly, Davidson also argued that the cost of Labor’s plan was “now estimated by most experts to cost $90 billion to $110 billion”.”

      The only “experts” claiming this are Abbott and Turnbull. And sometimes in drive-by economic feel-pinions from Hockey.

      Everyone else in the Liberal camp can’t even get their own story straight, let alone Labor’s.

      Iridium? Great example. Here’s a current cost example for the end consumer, note the data capacity:

      http://www.pivotel.com.au/iridium_plans.php

      Mobile Satellite Data
      – Iridium Direct Internet: $1.10 per 30 seconds plus 55c call connection fee
      – Globalstar Circuit Switched Data: Charged at applicable satellite rates
      – Globalstar Packet Data: 16.67c per 10 seconds

      If you think Roaming fees are a bit sharp, welcome to a new world of awesome.

      The author completely misses the point that Sat, Wireless comms are great mobile enablers and work pretty well for their intended purpose. Which isn’t base load for tens of millions of people at cost comparative levels for fixed line.

      Davidson is drawing an incredibly long bow to try and explain why Fibre is irrelevant. Despite that article having a very high probability of being lovingly crafted over, and or sent via a length of it to reach their masthead. Ironic.

      LNP are proposing a fixed-line service for the bulk of their Policy. He’s not even on the same page for either.

    13. Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:07 pm | Permalink |

      I recommend everybody send a formal complaint to newsdesk@theage.com.au and cc complaints@presscouncil.org.au, I just did

    14. Markie
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink |

      Thanks for the analysis Renai.

      In his article Davidson also rather patronisingly states, and I quote; “Customers who need very high-speed broadband are universities, hospitals, schools, government departments and very big businesses – but they all have have very high-speed broadband now…”

      The implied arrogance in this statement alone marks this article down. What about NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY gains? Designers uploading printers files in 30 minutes instead of several hours for instance.

      Using his argument, none of us need bother upgrading to a newer or more efficient motor car because the one we have now will be fine…

    15. RocK_M
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink |

      I’d be outraged but it’s a fairly typical “Opinion Piece” from most right wing columnists these days…

      • socrates
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink |

        But hang on, he’s not some ratbag nutter from the far Right, he’s the one who wants to support and enhance the welfare state and all its attached parasitic impediments.

        It seems to be genuinely difficult to discern any kind of rational intelligence in his approach, unless the rationale is that he is so far Left that he thinks Telstra should be the only service provider in a centrally planned economy.

    16. Rod Tucker
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink |

      I offered an opinion piece to the Age, in response to Davidson’s error-ridden and logically flawed article, but they declined my offer. So I wrote a letter to the Editor instead. My letter pointed out that fact checking is a key requirement of good journalism, but Davidson has descended to a level were accurate facts are just an optional extra. The Age re-wrote my letter, cutting it in half and removing my main points. Their version of my letter was published this morning.

      • Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:22 pm | Permalink |

        Can you provide us with a copy of both your letter and the published one so we can compare the two? I would be curious too see what kind of modifications they made.

      • Deep Thinker
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink |

        I hope you didn’t resort to twisting Mr Davidson’s statements like this article does.

        For example, Mr D never said “fibre technology has a life of 25 years”. He was referring to the physical fibre laid in the ground being depreciated over 25 years.

        He never said “fixed-line broadband services are falling”. He pointed out that total fixed-line services are declining. Just ask Telstra. Is NBNco only building out fibre to broadband customers or to voice-only customers as well? Which is the more relevant metric?

        Three more points:

        Even Telstra and Optus have said in ACCC submissions that NBNco’s investment approach and pricing policy will put upward pressure on retail prices over time. Of course, Delimiter appears to know better than these telco giants who actually sell and price products.

        Only a few pages of the Greenhill Caliburn report were released to the public — in it, the authors clearly question the realism of NBNco’s revenue forecasts. Of course, Delimiter conveniently ignores this.

        Finally, Malcolm Turnbull, the author of the Coalition report on an alternative costing of Labor’s NBN has said that the $94bn does not represent a worst case scenario. Of course, Delimiter reserves the right to misinterpret other people’s written research.

        • Lionel
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink |

          Lol, deep thinker, I bet it took a lot of effort to spin those rationalisations and they are pretty lame at that.
          You seriously believe what you type?

        • Lionel
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink |

          Have to agree on the last point. It wasn’t the worst case, it was just their “likely” case was very unlikely to ever happen. Worst case would be infinite cost.

        • AJ
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink |

          Telstra and Optus are saying exactly what they should to try and force NBNCo’s prices lower so they can make more profit.

          What would you expect them to say the prices are fine well pay whatever you like?

        • AJ
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

          “Fibre has a life of about 25 years.”

          Is Exactly what he said

        • Lionel
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink |

          “He was referring to the physical fibre laid in the ground being depreciated over 25 years.”
          In that case he was still wrong. Physical fibre has a life much greater than that. The figure of 25 years comes from the suggested replacement period for mission critical fibre to keep failure rates to a vanishingly small percentage. With fibre that connected to houses they don’t have to replace it until it fails, even then they have already allowed redundant fibres to every premises. Life times of 50 plus years is more likely.

          “He pointed out that total fixed-line services are declining”
          Yet fixed line internet connections are increasing. Since the network is primarily funded by internet connections, it would have to be seen if a drop in fixed line telephony has much impact on income.

          “Even Telstra and Optus have said in ACCC submissions that NBNco’s investment approach and pricing policy will put upward pressure on retail prices over time. Of course, Delimiter appears to know better than these telco giants who actually sell and price products.”
          Every ISP has always lobbied to say the wholesale pricing of everything under ACCC’s gaze would be bad. It’s simply trying to get the best terms they can. Delimiter is looking at reality now vs the claimed prices now. “about $1200 a year. But this will only pay for the same speed as customers get now with the existing network.” This is obviously false.

          “Only a few pages of the Greenhill Caliburn report were released to the public — in it, the authors clearly question the realism of NBNco’s revenue forecasts. Of course, Delimiter conveniently ignores this.”
          Of course they “question” it, it is the job of the report to assess. But their conclusion was that the plan was reasonable. If you would like to give specific examples where they believe the forecasts weren’t reasonable. until then you are just making inferences. Risks, while mentioned, are purely possibilities that should be kept in mind, not actual occurances.

          “Finally, Malcolm Turnbull, the author of the Coalition report on an alternative costing of Labor’s NBN has said that the $94bn does not represent a worst case scenario. Of course, Delimiter reserves the right to misinterpret other people’s written research.”
          No, it was worst case, but it was very very unlikely. Murphy would have to be working overtime for everything to go wrong way beyond expectations.

          • Lionel
            Posted 29/05/2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink |

            “No, it was worst case” should be “No, it wasn’t worst case”

            I still feel this claim is just playing with semantics. Given that the range of failures was infinite of course it couldn’t be the absolute worst case. But it was the sum of everything going wrong to worst possible extent that they felt it could reasonably go wrong.

        • Tel
          Posted 31/05/2013 at 7:59 pm | Permalink |

          For example, Mr D never said “fibre technology has a life of 25 years”. He was referring to the physical fibre laid in the ground being depreciated over 25 years.

          If you do the research some fibers are better than others. Glass exposed to water (even a little bit of water) does degrade (the water is strongly polar and eventually opens microscopic cracks in the surface of the glass).

          There are two ways to keep the water out: option one is hydrophobic silicone outer coating, option two is a hermetic seal made of deposited carbon. Option three is both of the previous options which is what I would be choosing when labour costs are high.

          Sadly no one has done an analysis of NBN fiber to explain what they are using… if only we had a real investigative journalist around. But where to find one?

          • Tel
            Posted 31/05/2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink |

            Did I mention that copper exposed to water also degrades? It’s almost like you actually have to make an effort if you want your equipment to last — regardless of the equipment. Something to think about.

            • Alex
              Posted 31/05/2013 at 8:32 pm | Permalink |

              Interesting points :)

              Another thing to also keep in mind in relation to FttP vs FttN in relation to degradation, life span etc, is new fibre vs. decades old (non maintained?) copper.

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 01/06/2013 at 3:38 am | Permalink |

            Sadly no one has done an analysis of NBN fiber to explain what they are using… if only we had a real investigative journalist around. But where to find one?

            Not as sad as floks that are too lazy to type “type of fibre used by nbnco” in to Google and click on the first link…

            I’ll make it even easier for you: http://nbnco.com.au/blog/how-fibre-optic-cable-is-made.html

            • Tel
              Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:14 am | Permalink |

              Did you bother reading the page that you just linked to?

              It’s a photo gallery, does not anywhere mention the choice of material for sealing the fiber. The only mention of any material is “nylon and plastic” used to bond the ribbons but nylon is not hydrophobic, water goes right through nylon very easily.

              • Tel
                Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:37 am | Permalink |

                Looking at some of the manufacturers data sheets, that petroleum jelly is probably the primary water protection. If the fibers were hermetically carbon sealed they would make a point of it, so we can presume they are not. Apparently there’s no silicone in there either. Possibly they were worried about toxicity of silicone gels… anyhow, basically it comes down the the petroleum jelly.

                • Djos
                  Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:44 am | Permalink |

                  Doh, By = BT

                  And here is a link to the 400gbps over poor quality fibre article:

                  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/26/fibre_ciena_bell_labs/

                  • Tel
                    Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink |

                    You know as well as I do that it requires a room full of million dollar equipment to do anything near that.

                    Probably in future cheap equipment will get faster too (it generally does) but attenuation is attenuation and there’s no getting away from it. Badly maintained fiber will have all the problems of badly maintained copper in that no one knows exactly what they get until they try it. Then the equipment for everyone will have to be deployed presuming the worst case.

                    This belief that fiber becomes magically immune to aging is kind of whack.

                    • djos
                      Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink |

                      So what, the point is it’s the latest PRODUCTION hardware from Ciena, not a lab experiment!

              • Djos
                Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:43 am | Permalink |

                Grasp at straws much Tel?

                The simple fact is even the poorest, mostly badly maintained piece of fibre will outlast and out perform a brand spanking new price if copper!

                By recently deployed new Ciena gear on their worst piece of 20year old fibre that wasn’t able to do 10gbps with current gen equipment and that link was able to do 400gbps over 410km’s!!!

                It worth noting that in 20 years the quality and consistency of fibre has improved significantly and it’s now rated for 60+ years life.

                • Tel
                  Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink |

                  Can you find a document that rates NBN fiber for 60 year lifespan?

                  • djos
                    Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink |

                    Here is some general Info:

                    http://nbnexplained.org/wordpress/technical-points/the-lifespan-of-fibre/

                    and here’s a whole WP topic to educate yourself with:

                    http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1538857

                    • Tel
                      Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:27 am | Permalink |

                      I did ask for a link to an actual document where the manufacturer or some independent assessor provides some sort of 60 year rating. Not general info.

                      • djos
                        Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink |

                        The 60+ years life span arte just estimates atm, here’s an study from Corning looking at fibre used in real world extreme conditions:

                        http://www.corning.com/docs/opticalfiber/tr3266.pdf

                        item of note from the intro:

                        “To the authors knowledge, there have been no field failures due to fibre aging or material degradation. Furthermore, in examination of other field studies [2][3][4] along with this study, it was found that normal to severe fild-aging of fibre optic-cable systems has had no impact on reliability and handling performance.”

                        So to sum up Tel, you are grasping at straw men as usual in a vain effort to ignore the obvious, FTTN is a bad deal for the country and a total waste of money!

                      • Tel
                        Posted 01/06/2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink |

                        The article you listed describes a completely different cable design to the NBN. For starters the cable in Wisconsin ran the fibers inside a full aluminium pipe, which is not even similar to NBN.

                        Beyond that, the article does not anywhere provide a guarantee of 60 year service life, nor does it even hazard an estimate. It’s kind of an interesting article but not relevant and doesn’t answer the question.

                      • djos
                        Posted 01/06/2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink |

                        Irrelevant that it is surrounded by Alu wire (not pipe), its 25 year old fibre optic cable installed in 1986 above high voltage transmission lines and also serves as a lightning shield for the transmission lines – show me a copper data transmission system that can survive those extremes!

                      • Tel
                        Posted 01/06/2013 at 1:24 pm | Permalink |

                        Go to the article you linked to above, then go to the bottom of page 3 where there is a cross section diagram. OK, you actually willing to read the stuff you post? Just once?

                        Right… the second label from the top of the diagram on the right hand side says, “Aluminium Pipe”.

                        That wasn’t hard was it?

                        Seriously, I think it is time for me to find something productive to do.

                        These types of cables are not even remotely similar design to what the NBN guys are putting under people’s driveways.

                      • djos
                        Posted 01/06/2013 at 1:42 pm | Permalink |

                        You’re playing semantics Tel, it’s called “OPT-GW” standing for Optical-GroundWire for a reason and describes as “OPT-GW cable“, not pipe, 118 times in the document!!!

                        While they do refer to the first Alu layer as a “pipe” this is just and industry term for what is really a sleeve – the entire “Cable” is only 11.9mm in diameter, that’s 1.19cm thick for those not used to mm’s!

                        So in summation, Nice grasping at straws!

              • Tel
                Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:02 am | Permalink |

                I think this is the specification of the single fiber (the purple roll they were starting with). The cladding is listed as “Dual-Layer Acrylate”.

                http://www.us.prysmian.com/export/sites/prysmian-enNA/attach/pdf/Telecom/optical_fibre/G.652_and_Fiber_Code_Addendum.pdf

                If you search on Aging behavior of optical fibers in aqueous environments by Eric A. Lindholm*, Jie Li, Adam Hokansson, Brian Slyman & David Burgess, they regard these as the lowest water protection:

                As the graph indicates, the acrylate fiber dropped below 80% of its original strength after only one day of aging at 80°C, suggesting that the acrylate coating offers little protection as a moisture barrier. After two weeks at 80°C, the strength data started to exhibit a marked increase in data variability with ranges (max-min) often > 1 GPa (145 kpsi). At day 85, the acrylate strength dropped to a low of 3.3 GPa (478 kpsi) whereupon no further significant strength degradation occurred.

                Mind you, Prysmian sell other types of fiber as well, it isn’t clear what exactly is being used by NBN.

          • Clownface
            Posted 01/06/2013 at 4:36 am | Permalink |

            Why don’t we get facts like this in news corp mining conglomerates pages to aid the national debate I hear myself wondering loudly: could it be because they want us to stay they worlds quarry???

          • Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:42 am | Permalink |

            So, let me get this straight Tel.

            You don’t know to what methods NBNCo have utilised in order to protect their cables from water ingress. Instead of trying to find out you are berating the media for not knowing either.

            And for some reason you think this is justification to assume that NBNCo have not done anything to ensure the cables are protected from water ingress enough to provide adequate bandwidth and noise to provide the services NBNCo have been designed to?

            And unless anyone can prove that NBNCo actually know their head from their ass, because as you would very well know being a Telecommunications Expert ensuring adequate cable quality is one of the most essential factors you consider when rolling out new infrastructure, you will continue to use this small lack of information to wedge in doubt about the basic competency of NBNCo’s engineers?

            The very definition of a trolling practice known as Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt? Get of the grass. Unless you have evidence I think we can safely assume, especially because they have the foresight according to that gallery you so elegantly dismissed, to protect against termites, they know their head from their ass and are capable of protecting their cables from water ingress.

            Just as Telstra does, despite attempts to suggest otherwise by certain camps (suffering from water ingress in Telstra’s case is because of lack of preventive maintenance to the pits rather than inadequate cable shielding anyway).

            • Tel
              Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:34 am | Permalink |

              You don’t know to what methods NBNCo have utilised in order to protect their cables from water ingress. Instead of trying to find out you are berating the media for not knowing either.

              Long ago we had this idea that journalists would go out and investigate, provide information, and, … oh never mind.

              Most of it I’ve pieced together for myself. The basic fibers have dual layer acrylate clading, these are bundled into ribbons with nylon (which is no water protection at all) and then the ribbons are flooded with hydrophobic petroleum jelly in their tubes (which also provides some mechanical protection). That’s basically all the water protection you get.

              When the cable gets opened up as it enters a cabinet, the petroleum jelly is removed so inside the cabinet the only protection is the acrylate clading. Hopefully it never gets wet inside a cabinet.

              • Posted 01/06/2013 at 9:48 am | Permalink |

                So basically you found out what protects the cables, it appears adequate, thus there is no story here?

                Which means either those journalists you referred to here didn’t find a scoop, or they didn’t bother because, like I tried to point out, cable protection is pretty darn basic?

                Are you deliberately searching for things NBNCo are doing wrong or are you actually this cynical and nieve?

                • Tel
                  Posted 01/06/2013 at 10:05 am | Permalink |

                  What does “appears adequate” mean?

                  We were trying to estimate the service lifetime of the network, and relationship to the maintenance costs. Where does “appears adequate” come into the picture?

                  • Posted 01/06/2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink |

                    If you want quantifiable you’ll need to do extensive testing. Otherwise all we can do is “appears adequate”, petroleum jelly does appear to be adequate based upon the evidence you yourself have collected.

                    If you want quantifiable look at djos post below, where they have done said extensive testing.

                  • Tinman_au
                    Posted 03/06/2013 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

                    Hey Tel…try this (handily supplied by Google) link:

                    http://www.zdnet.com/the-life-expectancy-of-fibre-1339315322/

                    While it (more than likely) doesn’t answer your specific question, enjoy it as a starting point for your research (if indeed you actually are interested and not just trolling)

              • djos
                Posted 01/06/2013 at 10:05 am | Permalink |

                Tel, chasing straw men still I see, why dont you read up on the testing done in labs as well as the real world study that I posted earlier:

                http://www.corningcables.net/assets/0/433/573/625/629/AEE4DA23-E6AD-4B87-BECE-094113035901.pdf

                In this test they subjected the fibre’s to extreme tests far in excess of what would be experienced in the real world including removing the outer sheath and filler, stressing the cables, extreme ageing tests and even immersion in 100c Hot water!

                And what was the result:

                “Severe ageing of the fibre-optic cable did not degrade the handleability or fatigue behaviour of the fibres within it. The peak strip force of aged fibres is the same as the typical peak strip force of un-aged fibres and is considered appropriate for handleability. In additon, the strength of fibres aged in fill compound and other cable components because no strength degradation was observed after severe cable ageing.

                This work also suggests that the cable components do whatthey are designed to do, which is protect the fibre even in events such as severe ageing.”

                there is more but this study clearly shows your claims of fibre not being robust to be pure fanciful BS!

                • Tel
                  Posted 01/06/2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink |

                  If you bothered to read the article you posted, the 100c water example was only mentioned so the authors could dismiss it as unrealistic. That’s the one where the strength of the fiber degrades after one day.

                  For, example, Figure 1 shows a dramatic decrease in fiber strength, as measured in 2-pt bending, as a function of time in 100°C water. Like the data in Figure 1, nearly all aging studies have been performed on short lengths of optical fiber in the as-drawn condition an in unrealistic aging environments.

                  The actual tests they did (explained further into the article) are at 80°C.

                  They also do not explain which filler compound they used, which I would have thought was the whole critical question. They list their base fibers as just “silica-clad” but also they had a colour, so you would have to presume there was some additional coating on those. Was it the same as what NBN uses? There’s no way to say. That’s also the whole point in question.

                  In short, your article really doesn’t prove anything.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 02/06/2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink |

                    So you believe we should instead roll out copper, Tel?

                    If not :/

    17. Deep Thinker
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 2:40 pm | Permalink |

      I have just re-read Mr Davidson’s article.

      Nowhere in his article does he suggest that LEO satellites are a substitute for a fixed-line communications network.

      The fact that alternative communications platforms might emerge that could erode the revenue base of the Government’s super expensive fibre network is of course a highly pertinent point to consider in evaluating the wisdom of current policy.

      Talk about a complete beat-up and overreaction to a relatively mild piece by Fairfax.

      • Lionel
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink |

        “By 2020, the US will probably have developed low earth orbiting satellites capable of picking up and sending wireless signals at a fraction of the cost of the Gillard government’s scheme.”

        “Gillard’s government’s scheme” being the rollout of FTTH to 93% of Australian’s and wireless and satelite coverage to the rest to provide fixed line communications. You are really clutching at straws to say he wasn’t providing that as an example alternative.

        “Talk about a complete beat-up and overreaction to a relatively mild piece by Fairfax”
        Talk about a completely lame attempt to deflect criticism from an obviously error riden article.
        Even more so, I cannot possibly imagine that you could believe what you type.

        • Djos
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:12 pm | Permalink |

          Lionel, some folk really are that gullible and swallow any old crap their religion, oops I mean party, feeds them no matter how far fetched!

        • Deep Thinker
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink |

          I can see how you are so easily confused.

          In your mind, the Venn diagrams for “fixed line communications network” and “Gillard government scheme” completely overlap.

          Obviously, if you reject the super-expensive FTTH model, you’re rejecting all forms of fixed line communications.

          Laughable.

          • Lionel
            Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink |

            “In your mind, the Venn diagrams for “fixed line communications network” and “Gillard government scheme” completely overlap.”

            So, your conjecture is he suddenly changed schemes he was talking about and he was no longer talking about the NBN scheme?

            “Obviously, if you reject the super-expensive FTTH model, you’re rejecting all forms of fixed line communications.”

            Really? Where did that come from?
            Seriously, take your meds.

          • RocK_M
            Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink |

            Ah the traditional cherry pick a phrase and create a context outside of the article defence…

            I do love seeing these replies :D

          • AJ
            Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

            The only thing which is laughable is you Deep Thinker and the irony of your name

        • Djos
          Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink |

          Btw, has anyone else noticed that almost all the right wingers around here have pompous names like deep this, lone that and truth whatever??

          I guess at least I makes the nut jobs easier to identify!

          • Lionel
            Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

            Well, those that try to be pompose usually look like fools. I could nit pick and twist what he wrote to death too, but it would not address the argument, it’d just be nit picking.

            eg.
            “Venn diagrams for” I assume he meant “Sets in your Venn diagram”.
            But that would be just picking on him for trying to appear super intelligent while saying stupid things, not addressing his argument.

      • GongGav
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink |

        Wow, a new troll on the block. Welcome.

        Now, back to your trolling. Lets break this down a little. We’ll start with the basics we toss to every troll, to get a baseline measure of your mental capabilities.

        Best case scenarios

        FttN cost to Govt = ~$30b
        FttH cost to Govt = ~$31b

        Expected completion of FttN = 2019
        Expected completion of FttH = 2021

        Speed of FttN = guarantee of 50 Mbps at its fastest by the time its finished
        Speed of FttH = guarantee of 1000 Mbps at its fastest by the time its finished

        FttN cost to consumer = cap of retail cost
        FttH cost to consumer = cap of wholesale cost

        There are plenty more on top of that, but thats enough for now. Those are the best case scenario claims of both plans. They’re actually not really that far apart for the most part, obvious differences notwithstanding.

        So lets look at this story. Why does it ONLY mention the Labor plan? Every negative they toss out there applies to the Liberal plan as well. So worst case scenario for Labor also equals worst case scenario for the Liberals.

        $110b for Labor? What causes that blowout in cost, and why doesnt it apply to a FttN build as well?

        Not built by 2021? What causes that rollout delay, and why doesnt it apply to a FttN build as well?

        $1200 per person per year? What causes that cost, and why doesnt it apply to a FttN build as well?

        Every question raised against Labor, valid or not, must be raised against the Liberal plan as well.

        So go on, put those same questions to the Liberal FttN plan and get back to us when you’re done. Theres a good little troll, off you go.

        • Observer
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:25 am | Permalink |

          “Wow, a new troll on the block. Welcome.”

          Not a new one. The same one with different names.

        • Francis Young
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink |

          Gavin, you missed one important comparison.

          Fewer Users x Less Revenue Per User = FTTN fails to cost-recover.

          FTTN revenue is constrained by low bandwidth ceiling = low monthly ARPU.
          FTTP attracts the full range of low and high demand users = high monthly ARPU.

          No of FTTN users = smaller percentage of premises, due to HFC/mobile offering comparable service in many cases
          No of FTTP users = larger percentage of premises, due to the huge service quality differential of fibre over wireless, and the decommissioning after 2018 of end-of-life HFC..

          FTTP cost-recovery is now proven, and ROI will come in sooner than forecast. FTTN will simply not pay its way. Surely the Liberal Party can see this fact?

      • PeterA
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink |

        There is no other technology better than fibre.

        I know people don’t like to use absolutes when it comes to technology. But knowing the science, I am confident saying: There is no better technology than fibre. Nothing on the horizon has been forseen yet. Everything that “might” be better than it is science fiction. “Quantum Tunneling” and every version there of in communications terms is science fiction.

        Lasers have the same theoretical capacity as fibre, but are impractical as they require line of sight. (and are more expensive than fibre).

        Wireless is shared spectrum.

        DIDO is science fiction.

        LEO is too high latency. (10 to 100 times higher latency). and a shared medium (it is the wireless system all over again just this time attached to a satellite – sure that’s cheaper!).

        The future of telecommunications has been discovered, it is fibre. There is nothing better.

        Kenneth Davidson is too uninformed to comment otherwise. He might be very intelligent when it comes to economics or whatever else he might actually know about.

        Put it this way; KD knows as much about the treatment of cancer as he does communications technology. In this article he did the communications equivalent of: “Don’t waste your money on chemotherapy, there are alternative cancer treatments just around the corner”.

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 1:09 am | Permalink |

          “Lasers have the same theoretical capacity as fibre”

          Well, fibre actually is lasers…the use the fibre to get around the line of sight and atmospheric issues.

          • PeterA
            Posted 30/05/2013 at 7:20 am | Permalink |

            Yeah; I was just heading it off :)

          • Tom
            Posted 30/05/2013 at 11:15 am | Permalink |

            Quick! Someone should mention this to Alan Jones!

            or am I a few years to late for that… :/

        • jwbam
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink |

          “Quantum Tunneling”

          Aside from the fact Faster Than Light still doesn’t necessarily provide faster bitrates (metres/second is not the same as megabits/second), what I’ve seen of Quantum Tunneling still requires photons to travel to points A and B, and therefore needs fibre if line-of-sight is unavailable (and even if it were, it can’t be guaranteed available 100% of the time)

          “DIDO is science-fiction”

          Even that is being to kind – DIDO is a FRAUD.
          It’s a CON.

          The famed “white paper” on DIDO notes the limitations (shared medium + congestion) of using a SINGLE conventional tower then shows how adding ADDITIONAL towers can relieve that congestion, while omitting to show that extra towers in a conventional network already can achieve the same thing at the same cost.

          It points out that DIDO works independently of frequency or wavelength, without saying that is no different from conventional networks.

          It explains that each tower can be made small if the power is low and the wavelength is short, but this is also true of conventional networks

          It explains that the signal can reach long distances if the wavelength is long, but this is also true of conventional networks.

          It omits to explain that long range requires higher power, which precludes the advantages of using low power.

          It omits to explain that using long wavelengths requires long antennas HUNDRENDS of METRES in length.

          If you read the white paper closely you can see references to the huge size and power of the antennas used in their long range experiment. (ie. Why else were the antennas in the middle of a cow paddock?)

          It bundles up the advantages of both long wave and short waves as if they were both achievable at once, miraculously.

          The cloud computing thing is just a diversion.

          It’s a classic con.

          To push up the price of his online cloud gaming company.

          • Concrete Gannet
            Posted 06/06/2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink |

            DIDO presupposes some central server knows precisely whether my computer is in range of both my own WiFi access point and my neighbour’s. In a marginal, intermittent situation, it’s useless. I am not an expert in the field, but I’m highly suspicious that it’s snake oil.

            See an analysis at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/01/dido_snake_oil_or_saviour/

            Note that Kenneth Davidson couldn’t even get the words of the DIDO acronym correct.

    18. Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink |

      Hey everyone,

      let’s keep it polite, shall we? I actually find some of Deep Thinker’s views on this to be interesting — casting a light I hadn’t considered previously. Let’s not just reject what they have to say out of hand.

      Davidson’s article was quite … vague in places. It’s possible there could be alternative explanations for some of what he wrote.

      Cheers,

      Renai

      • Djos
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink |

        I find them interesting too …. In a major car crash kind of way!

        :-P

      • Lionel
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink |

        OK, well, will answer them as he wrote them then. Still seems to me he is just trying to twist what has been said.

      • GongGav
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink |

        I’d like to see him raise those same criticisms agains the Liberal plan and see what his story looked like. There simply is no comparison made between the two plans, it solely targets one over the other, which to me is an admission of bias.

        You know I see the FttN plan as viable, just not the better one on offer. And whenever a new troll like this comes along, I’m going to ask the same questions. Specifically, why dont those same criticisms apply to the Liberals?

        And until they answer those questions they are no better than any of a number of other trolls in my eyes. And I’m going to call them that. They need to prove they are willing to add to the discussion rather than repeat tired Liberal propaganda.

        In this case, he does raise some interesting questions. I hope that continues.

      • AJ
        Posted 29/05/2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

        If you want to know what he meant then ask him?

        In the case of the Troll trying to spin it just remember the title of the article

        “Don’t look now, the white elephants are multiplying”

        FttN is the Definition of a white elephant

    19. Tinman_au
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink |

      Nice work Renai, though a fear your on a fools errand if you try and correct all the ignorance of today’s Main Stream Media.

      How this one got past the sub-editors at The Age,

      They don’t have subs any more, they farmed the work out to Pagemasters same as News Ltd did. It shows in both stables really…

    20. Lionel
      Posted 29/05/2013 at 11:18 pm | Permalink |

      I was pointed to this very interesting comment by Dr Hugh Bradlow, Chief Technology Officer, Telstra

      “4.18 In the course of the Committee’s inquiry into the Australian telecommunications network, Telstra discussed where it thought the future of telecommunications was likely to go. One alternative Telstra outlined was that the existing network could be upgraded to provide very high-speed DSL by replacing parts of the existing CAN with optical fibre. However, it said that that architecture was unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in speed for long enough to justify the cost of its deployment. The more likely alternative is that a passive optical network, which delivered data to the home over an optical fibre, would be deployed.”

      http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/broadband_competition/report/c04.htm

    21. Abel Adamski
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 1:54 am | Permalink |

      And now to the News?

      http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/5/30/nbn-buzz/quigley-faces-internal-nbn-revolt

      Hmmm
      I always wondered about the NBN board.
      News Ltd and Murdoch family companies and companies they invest in tend to have faithfull devoted Murdoch people in the key roles.

      Attempt to sabotage the FTTP implementation to minimise the FTTP footprint???

      • PeterA
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 7:22 am | Permalink |

        That article is so light on detail it hurts.

        If the board chairman is checking support for the CEO; it’s only news if there is none. Please note that no information about the answers she got was leaked. Which indicates that the support is still there (firmly).

    22. John,
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 2:28 am | Permalink |

      The thing is, Low Earth Satellites (LEO) showed great promise when they were first proposed.

      LEO offered line-of-site mesh satellite links with low latency and wide bandwidth. Imagine each satellite being a self-contained router in a dynamic point-to-point mesh network, with direct micro-wave or laser links between satellites..

      But it didn’t work out like that. The various countries went into a tail-spin over the proposal that their international telecom gateways be bypassed. They would lose big revenue and control of the network (eg snooping).

      So Iridium had to return all calls back to a local gateway in each country. This meant using conventional terrestrial and satellite links, thus losing the main advantages of a satellite mesh network. No point-to-point satellite, no satellite mesh connections, no low latency and no big cost savings.

      This is what killed Iridium, but perhaps the concept will be re-visited sometime in the future.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

        Satellites, even LEO ones, still have issues with weather and distance to overcome.

        • John,
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink |

          “Low” means “low”.

          The path up to a low satellite, and then hopping around the globe would be shorter and more direct than many terrestrial links.

          • Grail
            Posted 13/06/2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink |

            The “low” in “Low Earth Orbit satellite” refers to orbits in the range of 160-2,000km. This means that in addition to the distance over the Earth’s surface you will need to beam a signal up 180km then down another 180km if the satellite is in the lowest possible stable orbit.

            To get a signal from A to B via a satellite, A and B have to be able to see the satellite above the Earth horizon. In the best-case scenario the end points will be talking to each other through one satellite which is visible just over the horizon at both locations. The distance from A to satellite to B will be greater than the distance over the Earth’s surface directly from A to B.

            This is basic geometry. Draw a circle, then try to connect any two points on the surface of the circle using two straight lines which do not enter the inside of the circle. The length of that path will always be greater than the arc of the circle between the two points.

            Satellite communication is a last-resort scenario, short of simply giving up on communications altogether.

      • jwbam
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink |

        “This is what killed Iridium, but perhaps the concept will be re-visited sometime in the future”

        Low Earth Orbit also means the satellites are NOT geosynchronous – ie. they CANNOT go around the earth once 24 hours following the user. They MUST travel faster to avoid falling out of orbit – going around the earth once every couple of hours. This means that from each user on the ground, the satellites all whiz past across the sky in about half an hour or so. This then means that either

        a) you MUST use a NON-DIRECTIONAL antenna, which means LOW SENSITIVITY and therefore LOW BITRATES. This is ok if, like Iriidum, you are only intending to support low speeds for voice and maybe dialup speeds for data.

        b) if you want to provide broadband speeds, you MUST have AT LEAST TWO or more LARGE STEERABLE DISHES.

        LARGE, because this provides the necessary signal strength and sensitivity,

        STEERABLE because any such dish must have a narrow width beam that must be aimed directly at the passing satellite within a few degrees, This requires high accuracy and lots of power because the dishes are big and heavy

        TWO – because when one satellite goes down, you need to switch to the next rising one IMMEDIATELY. It takes minutes to reposition a dish, and with only 1 you would lose your connection. As the connection is lost every 20 or 30 minutes, this is a significant percentage of time lost.

        All the above makes LEO earth stations EXPENSIVE, not too if one is shared by a community, but far too much to have one per household.

    23. Political Football
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:46 am | Permalink |

      What a load of rubbish and FUD is being report on the current NBN. NBN Co. should sue for such slanderous misinformation and demand a retraction for such blatantly unfounded myths.

      Everyone breathe in and out what do you smell…… BS!! Yeh the entire Lib NBN policy is utter BS. It’s basically an election stunt to divert voters away from Labor NBN policy with what they portray as a viable alternative. Why do I say this?

      1. Malcom Turbull doesn’t believe in his own party NBN policy.
      He has stated privately that he doesn’t support his this NBN policy and is doing it to keep his boss Tony Abbot happy. I explicitly trust my source on this.

      2. The Liberal NBN policy acknowledges that FTP is the best solution.
      Tony Abbott initially wanted to rip up the NBN. MT has managed to twist his arm to keep part of the current NBN FTP policy and roll out FTP upto 20% of the population for greenfield estates. The rest can just eat the existing rotting copper.

      3. Currently NBN Co. doesn’t have current access to the copper network.
      MT stated that he is confident that Telstra will just give the copper. What comprises and backroom deals are they proposing to entice Telstra to just hand over its copper network? Basically Telstra will have the Liberals by the balls to fulfill their election promise.

      4. Why in hell would you want to negotiate with Telstra and Optus to lessor extent? It took years to get to the current satisfactory agreements. The government after a few false starts with previous NBN polices came to the conclusion to minimize Telstra’s dominate position to build it’s own FTP. The mismanaged Telstra sell off and attempted regulations to make them play ball just stalled our broadband progress for the last 10 years. I can foresee the Liberal NBN policy taking 1-2 years just to finalize. More unnecessary stalling for our broadband progress for no real benefit.

      5. The biggest assumption is that the existing copper network is in acceptable working order. Telstra have reported that is has become rundown over the last 10 years, especially within the last 4 years of the NBN FTP being proposed. While their policy will reduce the length of copper from the exchange to the premises with nodes what about the condition of old copper wiring in established homes? I’m assuming that the owner will have to foot that bill.

      6. What about renters, low income, local and overseas students, small business, start up business, multi dwelling premises etc?
      If they require FTP the liberal NBN policy proposes they fork out thousands of dollars just to be connected. What a financial burden and nightmare trying to get owners and/or body corporates and even councils to agree. While it may be possible the hurdles seem overwhelming to even consider viable.

      7. Cost.
      The liberal policy states it will be cheaper. Well you would presume that if they leave 70% of the premises as is by just shortening then distance to the exchange with nodes. Time you factor in the cost of testing the existing copper, maintenance, power consumption of ten of thousands of nodes and the possible building of power plants to power them the “savings” become minimal at best. On paper it seems a cheaper build by pushing maintenance costs into the future and pushing costs onto users that require FTP to pay for construction.

      8. Time of delivery.
      The liberal policy proposes to build the NBN quicker. Their proposal states to shave a few years off the current NBN build. Time you factor in renegotiation with Telstra, ACCC stamp of approval and individual council approval for placement of nodes, construction of thousands of nodes and training up a pool of contractors to actually build it I can’t see how practically there will be much difference. The liberals are using the initial start-up delays of NBN Co to push their point. The same issues NBN Co are currently having to building up a pool of skilled fiber contractors is going to plague their proposal as well. It will take a few years to train enough skill copper contractors. Telstra’s copper network wasn’t built overnight nor will the NBN FTP.

      There are so numerous assumptions, unanswered or glossed over questions with Liberal NBN policy it doesn’t deserve to be treated seriously. If anything it’s a big joke. Broadband in Australia has become a joke to them. Malcolm Turnbull has become a used car salesman without the used car “copper” to sell us. He’s a smart guy and he knows his stuff that’s why he can debate and try and hoodwink us all until the cows come home or until at least he hopes until the election.

      To avoid confusion with the current NBN Co. policy the Liberal NBN policy should be renamed to Liberal NCN policy. The National Copper Network, National Comedy Network or National Crap Network policy.

      • Clownface
        Posted 01/06/2013 at 4:43 am | Permalink |

        How about renaming abbots baby “McNBN”?? Also, why don’t news corp mining conglomerate like the popular NBN-lite????? ~87\/’///,<

    24. Peter
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink |

      There are always better technologies.
      It’s like Buying PC there is always faster one
      around the Corner but you have to byte a bullet and
      then buy one when u needed!!!!!

      There possibly be better technology then fibre
      But when ?

      Fibre now can give 100Gb and there are tests at
      400Gb at the moment .
      1Gb is implemented in most of the PC’s at this
      Moment and 10Gb should be standard by 2021.

      My 2 cents

      • djos
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:39 am | Permalink |

        There possibly be better technology then fibre
        But when ?

        and even if the scientists do find one, how long till it’s actually faster and better overall than fibre? Fibre has been being developed since the 60′s and it’s taken 30+ years of development to surpass copper in every meaningful way!

        So even if sub-space communications get discovered, it will be many many years before it can meaningfully surpass existing transmission technologies and be fully commercialised.

      • Lionel
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink |

        You are correct, there is always a better technology. But think of fibre, not as the PC, but as the cable connects the equipment. It is the enabler of those technologies. Fibre is a big fat wide cable that changing the equipment at the end will easily enable extra capacity as it is required. Copper is a conduit where copper itself is the limiting factor, and most of the cost and effort is directed into overcoming it’s limitations and making it ever shorter, to achieve improvements.
        We have already done this once before. Dialup is basically the same as ADSL in many respects. The difference is instead of the signal travelling through the phone system to entire journey, it is intercepted at the exchange, the next step is FTTN, then vectoring to overcome further copper limitations, all the effort is to reduce the negative effects of the copper. Once it’s gone, speed upgrades to levels undreamed of today will be economic, and common place in the future. That some think demand will magically plateau at somewhere below 100Mb just ignores the past. Every “more than enough” was a mill stone to computing a few years later and the growth in processing, graphics, memory, storage requirements hasn’t ceased so why would the communications requirements to be fed and feed all this data. Cloud computing is in it’s infancy and it’s limits will be dictated by communications speed limits, the same for new media, ultra high def, 3D, 3D printing, maybe interactive TV with bi directional video, the audience part of the show rather than passive. In 10 years all these things may be wrong, but who would have predicted what we have now when they first used and Apple II?

    25. Gordon Drennan
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:48 am | Permalink |

      The high priests of the ideology of fibre are out again demanding that anyone who questions the holy word of NBNCo be burned at the stake for heresy. You lot are just tiresome and boring. No-one is listening to you except you.

      The best decisions come from environments where a range of views and options can be spoken, heard and rationally discussed by people who are capable of thinking flexibly and changing their minds when the facts emerge. But you don’t want and are incapable of that. Every alternative has to exaggerated then the straw man created bashed down, and the speaker bashed down with it.

      • djos
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:28 am | Permalink |

        Maybe if you did some research and learned from the experts you’s have a clue what you are talking about, even Telstra dont think FTTN is worth the effort or cost:

        Here is what Telstra had to say to a Senate committee a few years ago regarding FTTN and FTTP:

        http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/broadband_competition/report/c04.htm

        4.18 In the course of the Committee’s inquiry into the Australian telecommunications network, Telstra discussed where it thought the future of telecommunications was likely to go. One alternative Telstra outlined was that the existing network could be upgraded to provide very high-speed DSL by replacing parts of the existing CAN with optical fibre. However, it said that that architecture was unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in speed for long enough to justify the cost of its deployment.The more likely alternative is that a passive optical network, which delivered data to the home over an optical fibre, would be deployed.[249]

        pretty damning stuff imho

        • Fibroid
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink |

          @djos

          ‘Here is what Telstra had to say to a Senate committee a few years ago regarding FTTN and FTTP: ‘

          When you say ‘a few years ago’ you mean 2003, what you should have said was a ‘decade ago’, since then of course which you fail to mention is the Telstra FTTN proposal of 2008.

          http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls652-NBNtechnologybriefing.pdf

          …..and more recent announcements about the Coalition FTTN.

          “Telstra: FTTN NBN could be more beneficial to us”

          http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/422040/telstra_fttn_nbn_could_more_beneficial_us/

          “Telstra CEO David Thodey has indicated that Telstra’s copper network would be able to achieve 25Mbps download speeds in a fibre-to-the-node scenario.”

          http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstras-copper-can-get-25mbps-for-nbn-thodey-7000014258/

          ‘pretty damning stuff imho’

          Well yeah if you like much Labor pro NBN argument selectively isolate out the stuff you don’t want, link to old material that has well and truly been superceded in order to present an artificial conclusion of your well known pro-Labor NBN bias construct.

          • Lionel
            Posted 30/05/2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink |

            “When you say ‘a few years ago’ you mean 2003, what you should have said was a ‘decade ago’”
            The fact that it was so long ago that they thought FTTN was to short term solution should make it more relevant should it not?

            “since then of course which you fail to mention is the Telstra FTTN proposal of 2008″
            The proposal that was knocked together outside the guidlines for NBN proposals and was basically:
            “Sure, give us enough money and establish our network monopoly again and we will do it”
            Is hardly and endorsement of FTTN as it is another nail in it’s coffin.

            “Telstra: FTTN NBN could be more beneficial to us”
            Yes it could, spoken like a true CEO which knows a gift horse when he sees it.

            “Telstra CEO David Thodey has indicated that Telstra’s copper network would be able to achieve 25Mbps download speeds in a fibre-to-the-node scenario.”
            Yes, I think everyone knows that it could be done. Being able to do something and being long term cost effective are two different things.

            So, one hand we have the Telstra CEO saying FTTN is technically possible and would make them lots of money, and the other the CTO saying FTTN is technically possible but is a waste of money because of it’s limited life. I see not contradiction.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink |

              @Lionel

              “Sure, give us enough money and establish our network monopoly again and we will do it”
              Is hardly and endorsement of FTTN as it is another nail in it’s coffin.”

              The network monopoly that might have been would have been overseen by the ACCC in the same way the NBN Co network monopoly is overseen by the ACCC.

              The key fact is the Telstra 2008 proposal was for FTTN not FTTH

              “Yes it could, spoken like a true CEO which knows a gift horse when he sees it.”

              The Labor NBN payment to Telstra of $11b could be seen as a ‘gift horse’ as well, but that one is ok I take it?

              ‘Yes, I think everyone knows that it could be done. Being able to do something and being long term cost effective are two different things.’

              It’s not your problem to conjecture with, and who to believe you or the Telstra CEO?

              “So, one hand we have the Telstra CEO saying FTTN is technically possible and would make them lots of money, and the other the CTO saying FTTN is technically possible but is a waste of money because of it’s limited life. I see not contradiction.”

              So obviously between 2003 and 2008 they reevaluated their position and ended up putting forward a FTTN proposal, apparently the NBN Co is allowed to constantly reevaluate their position and come up with downgraded rollout figures and amended Business plans, including considering FTTN for apartment buildings in a very short time frame but Telstra in a five year time frame is not allowed to.

              • AJ
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:10 pm | Permalink |

                The proposal was FttN because that is what the government asked for!

              • Lionel
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink |

                “The network monopoly that might have been would have been overseen by the ACCC in the same way the NBN Co network monopoly is overseen by the ACCC.”
                No, not the same monopoly, still a vertically integrated monopoly.

                “The key fact is the Telstra 2008 proposal was for FTTN not FTTH”
                That’s what they were asked to provide.

                “The Labor NBN payment to Telstra of $11b could be seen as a ‘gift horse’ as well, but that one is ok I take it?”
                The portion buying pits ducts and the like is fine. I disagree with the $1500 per customer switched to the NBN Co. They should have paid them nothing for that, or if they did, only the amount to cover costs and should have applied to all ISPs in that case.

                “It’s not your problem to conjecture with, and who to believe you or the Telstra CEO?”
                It’s not just me or the CEO, it’s a lot of industry experts, including the CTO of Telstra who say the life of FTTN is very limited and may not be cost effective.

                “So obviously between 2003 and 2008 they reevaluated their position and ended up putting forward a FTTN proposal”
                There is no evidence they reevaluated their position. They were asked to tender for a FTTN network. They did in a half arsed manner that didn’t meet the requirements for submission and asked for substantually more than was on offer. It doesn’t seem they were that keen, unless there was a large slab of cash and other benefits for them in it. Then there were the comments that they would use the cash to build their own FTTH network to compete.

                “apparently the NBN Co is allowed to constantly reevaluate their position and come up with downgraded rollout figures and amended Business plans, including considering FTTN for apartment buildings in a very short time frame but Telstra in a five year time frame is not allowed to.”
                Producing that document does not mean they have reevaluated their position. It could mean that, but if they really wanted to build a FTTN network they would have produced a bit that had at least some chance on being accepted. It was the sort of document an employee does for his boss because he has to, knowing full well his bosses idea is no good.

                • Abel Adamski
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink |

                  Lionel
                  “The portion buying pits ducts and the like is fine”
                  False
                  The pits, ducts etc are the property as is the copper of Telstra’s shareholders.
                  Pits, ducts and pipes are leased for 30 Years as part of that $11Bill on a fit for purpose basis, i.e remediated at Telstra’s expense and under their oversight

                  • Lionel
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:22 pm | Permalink |

                    I apologise, you are indeed correct. I should have said pay for the pits and ducts.

          • Posted 30/05/2013 at 3:21 pm | Permalink |

            “When you say ‘a few years ago’ you mean 2003, what you should have said was a ‘decade ago’, since then of course which you fail to mention is the Telstra FTTN proposal of 2008.”

            +1

            • Djos
              Posted 30/05/2013 at 3:53 pm | Permalink |

              It just further reinforces that Telstra knew 10 years ago that the copper was a dead end and not worth investing in in the long term – nothing has changed, it’s still a dead end and rolling out FTTN is a waste if money and effort!

              • Posted 30/05/2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink |

                “nothing has changed”

                Actually, I think you’ll find that when it comes to FTTN and FTTP technology, particularly the migration path between the two, a *lot* has changed.

                10 years … that’s a LONG time in the technology field ;)

                • Lionel
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:24 pm | Permalink |

                  I was just wondering. Do you believe that there will be 50% reuse of the FTTN investment toward FTTH?
                  Other than the run of fibre from the exchange/FSAM, whatever to the node I don’t see much has changed, even though you can plug some active fibre into a node, surely that is very expensive compared to just passive splitting if you want to upgrade the whole area. I fail to see that much of a FTTN rollout that could be used if the whole area was upgrade to FTTH.

                • Djos
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink |

                  The only thing that has changed is the copper is now 10 years older – xDSL technology has made incremental improvements and really demonstrated it is EOL.

                  GPON on the other hand is only moving ahead in leaps and bounds with 10GPON and so forth in the pipeline – FTTN is an expensive stop gap that should be bypassed altogether as its not in this countries long term interests.

                  Btw, have a look at the German experiance with FTTN, despite having far higher population densities than Australia they have needed to install 330,000 nodes to guarantee 25mbps as a minimum to all users and to top it off they only covered 2 million more homes than our NBN plans to cover! So can Malcom do what he claims with 50,000 nodes? I doubt it!

                  • Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:11 pm | Permalink |

                    “The only thing that has changed is the copper is now 10 years older”

                    Nope. FTTN technology has improved dramatically over that period.

                    • Observer
                      Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:22 pm | Permalink |

                      But unless the FTTN technology has improved in the way that makes it more useful to improve performance on poorly maintained copper, it is difficult to see the relevance.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:48 pm | Permalink |

                        It works overseas, what evidence do you have that Australia’s copper is so poorly maintained that it is a FTTN deal breaker compared to the rest of the world copper based FTTN rollouts?

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink |

                        Comments from Telstra executives and technicians about the terrible state of the copper network. Though the copper seems to have magical properties. It’s condition self improves when their is money to be made by having it in good condition and it deteriorates, seemingly overnight when Telstra can get money to replace it or improve it. So personally I ignore the execs and listen to the technicians who say it is in bad condition, at least they are consistent.

                    • Djos
                      Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

                      Renai, making xDSL go faster over ever shorter differences is evidence alone of the copper being at the end of its development life! Copper tech has already been abandoned for connectivity above 1gbps in data centers and replaced by om3 fibre links – cat6 is the practical end of the line and cat7 is being ignored completely.

                    • Tinman_au
                      Posted 31/05/2013 at 2:18 am | Permalink |

                      Nope. FTTN technology has improved dramatically over that period.

                      Indeed it has, but I’d suggest it didn’t improve dramatically enough for Telstra to see it getting a viable commercial return from using it it’s self.

                      This seems to be what people are missing. If, as Malcolm says, FTTN is cheap/cheaper than FTTP, why didn’t Telstra do it? Telstra doesn’t care about votes, and it doesn’t care if people love it or hate it as long as they provide a service good enough to keep folks coming back. And yet they decided to stop using copper and switch over to fibre themselves.

                      I know a lot of people can’t trust the Liberals/Labor to make a sensible technical decision, but I’m pretty sure we can trust Telstra to make the right decision when it comes to things like investment and what technologies to use.

                      Food for thought perhaps?

              • Fibroid
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink |

                “It just further reinforces that Telstra knew 10 years ago that the copper was a dead end and not worth investing in in the long term”

                Which makes you wonder why in 2008 five years AFTER that Senate statement in 2003 they put all that time and effort into a FTTN proposal and NOT a FTTH proposal, and why as per the links I have shown they have stated more recently they don’t have a problem with being involved in a Coalition partial FTTN rollout.

                • AJ
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink |

                  Once again just so you don’t miss it the reason it was FttN is Because the Government asked for it to be

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink |

                    Incorrect, thy could submit FTTN or FTTH bids, it was up to the companies submitting what infrastructure or mix of infrastructures they preferred.

                    From the RFP document:

                    “1.1.6. The Australian Government will not let Australia be left standing while the rest of the world races ahead. That is why the Government will build a National Broadband Network (NBN), in partnership with the private sector, which will deliver a dedicated downlink transmission speed of at least 12 Megabits per second (Mbps) over each connection provided to a premises, using FTTN or FTTP architecture, and that will be available to 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses”

                  • Alex
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink |

                    Sorry AJ I should have posted this here too :(

                    http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2008/023

                    • Alex
                      Posted 31/05/2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink |

                      BTW Fibroid, I must commend you…

                      You’ll remember previously (after I claimed the RFP’s included FttP) arguing with me feverishly over many comments that the RFP’s were for FttN only…However I see again, that you not only now agree but actually promote this, even using part of the very URL I supplied.

                      It proves three things…

                      1. Facts are facts.
                      2. No one is always right.
                      3. Even though we disagree on the NBN, everything one says doesn’t “have” to turn into an argument.

              • Observer
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:12 pm | Permalink |

                “nothing has changed”

                Yes something has changed. The state of the copper network is much worse. If the network was at 5 minutes to midnight 10 years ago, we must be talking seconds now.

                With that in mind,I would have thought that for a new technology to make a difference, it would have to include a copper rejuvenating property.

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:39 pm | Permalink |

                  Yes ’5 minutes to midnight’ is a nice emotive statement but what does it actually mean in terms of a % figure that we can relate to of how much copper needs upgrading in a Coalition Policy rollout scenario?

                  • Alex
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink |

                    FYI, here’s what else was said by Telstra 10 years ago…

                    “Telstra’s manager of regulatory strategy, Tony Warren, gave the Senate broadband inquiry details of the company’s problems with its ageing copper network.

                    He said ADSL, the high-speed internet service that runs over copper wires, was the bridging broadband technology Telstra was using until it replaced the network.

                    He described ADSL as the “last sweat” of revenue Telstra could wring out of the 100-year-old copper wire network.”

                  • AJ
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink |

                    Nobody knows how much will need to be replaced Telstra may have some idea but they only record voice faults as faults data problems are not considered Faults by Telstra.

                    This is the reason FttN is very risky Nobody Knows how much it will cost.

                  • Observer
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink |

                    “Yes ’5 minutes to midnight’ is a nice emotive statement”

                    An emotive statement? No, it is a figure of speech to indicate that the network was on its last leg.

                    “what does it actually mean in terms of a % figure that we can relate to of how much copper needs upgrading in a Coalition Policy rollout scenario?”

                    Why don’t you tell us? You seem to have all the answers when it comes to the coalition’s plan.

                    The point is no one really knows. The neglect of the last few years is poorly documented and I guess MT is soon going to find out if you get your wish. Let’s hope, he doesn’t buy sight unseen. That is if his plan is really a plan rather than an attempt to blunt one of Labor’s more successful policies.

                    • Observer
                      Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:29 pm | Permalink |

                      Statement is not a figure of speech but a metaphor.

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink |

                      “The point is no one really knows’

                      Yes I know, but that won’t stop pro Labor NBN zealots purporting to know more Telstra’s copper state than Telstra themselves will it?

                      • Alex
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink |

                        The evidence clearly shows that Telstra know and have admitted the copper needs replacing.

                        It’s quite clear.

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink |

                        “but that won’t stop pro Labor NBN zealots purporting to know more Telstra’s copper state than Telstra themselves will it?”
                        Nor will it stop pro Liberal zealots ignoring what Telstra and Telstra technicians have said about the state of the copper that the mixed Liberal/Labor voting commenters point you to.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 7:20 pm | Permalink |

                        So in the absence of proper evidence like analysis of Telstra fault reports, and a proper analysis like the Coalition want to do post a election win anecdotal evidence as in ‘a tech said’ will be sufficient to stop the Coalition proposed FTTN rollout?

                      • Observer
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 7:42 pm | Permalink |

                        You are misrepresenting my point here.

                        It is obvious that I meant no one really knows how bad it is. Not, no one really knows what the state of the network is.

                        And I am not a Labor zealot.

                        Furthermore, there are enough Telstra technician testimonies, to know how bad and poorly documented repairs or patch ups have been, to get a good idea of how bad the copper network is. I would suggest that it is more likely worse than Telstra senior management imagines.

                        As for Telstra now saying the network is fine. What do you expect? They have found a desperate sucker who is prepared to pay good money for it. What would you do, if you were them? Tell MT, no don’t buy it, it is a lemon. Not on your life. You would say, ” Do we have a nice fully functional network for you to play with? You bet we have.

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:31 pm | Permalink |

                        Many techs have said, as have Telstra as well. Multiple techs, every tech who has commented, has said the copper is bad, that is hardly anecdotal. Nor is Telstra claiming copper is at the end of it’s life. They may or may not have told the truth the numerous times they have changed their story.
                        I never mentioned anything about what the Coalition may or may not do after the election. Do you have evidence they plan to examine the copper networks viability? Never seen that mentioned.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 30/05/2013 at 11:09 pm | Permalink |

                        @ Fibroid…

                        “So in the absence of proper evidence like analysis of Telstra fault reports”

                        There is no absence of evidence.

                        Again … Telstra have clearly indicated the copper network needs to be replaced… period.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:34 pm | Permalink |

                    Hi Fibroid

                    Which part of “Telstra admits to a Senate inquiry in 2003, that their copper network needs to be replaced”, again needs to explained?

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 31/05/2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink |

                      Yeah with FTTN in 2008.

                      • Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink |

                        And had they followed through that might have been an adequate solution, but they didn’t, and now it’s 2013 where we are also 1 year into a FTTP rollout. Something you seem to forget.

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:39 am | Permalink |

                        Easy fix, change the Coalition plan to be exactly the same as the Labor plan, then it will be a good plan, though even though exactly the same word for word, somehow superior.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink |

                        It may well be more like the Labor plan in the end, if you care to read the Coalition Policy from start to the finish it has more if-then-else-goto statements than a legacy Telstra COBOL billing program.

                        :)

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink |

                        Yes, I noticed that, a hell of a lot of ifs. I wonder what will happen if they discover FTTN isn’t viable, do nothing, continue with FTTH? I certainly hope they roll out to a nice cross section of sites as test cases before beginning a full rollout, or even paying Telstra a penny for the copper (sorry, don’t believe Telstra will give it away for nothing, if not money, some other advantage needs to go their way for it to happen)

                      • Alex
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 2:16 pm | Permalink |

                        Two generic, rhetorical questions, on this an evidence based forum.

                        1. What does the evidence suggest about posters who have opposed the current (ok I’ll say it – Labor) NBN, 24/7 and have argued for years that it’s a waste, white elephant, homes don’t need the speeds, we are forced, monopoly etc, etc …but aren’t opposed, or even happy, for the Coalition’s plan to morph into the same network?

                        2. What does the evidence suggest about posters having been supportive of (Labor’s) NBN 24/7… also supporting the Coalition’s plan, morphing into the same network?

                      • Hubert Cumberdale
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink |

                        “morphing into the same network?”

                        Alex you may remember some time ago I suggested just such a thing, if iirc I said something like “they’ll have to be constantly modifying their plan until they finally come to the same FttH conclusion” however I was shouted down by Turnbull apologists…. so we will see what happens…

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

                        “2. What does the evidence suggest about posters having been supportive of (Labor’s) NBN 24/7… also supporting the Coalition’s plan, morphing into the same network?”

                        Who knows, maybe once the Libs do all their studies, they’ll figure out a way to make “FTTP viable” and basically stick to the currently funded, done deal, rather than shaking the “lets renegotiate with Telstra” tree and seeing what surprises/costs fall out….

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink |

                        It says those in favour of the FTTH rollout are arguing based on the merits of the plan, those opposed to the FTTH plan but happy for the Coalition plan to morph to the FTTH plan are arguing based on their political beliefs. Well not even beliefs, as the morphed plan should be the same. More party loyalty.
                        In fact, other than the technologies, the plans are so close in their other elemetns, how it’s payed for, pricing, etc, that it’s hard to see how you could argue on anything but technology, as there are little or no points of difference on an idealogical level.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

                        @ Lionel,

                        My thoughts exactly.

                        :)

          • Alex
            Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink |

            @ Fibroid.

            Here’s what I posted yesterday, where I clearly mention 10 years ago…

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/27/coalition-nbn-plan-to-deliver-25-gigabit-rural-mp/#comment-611323

            Secondly my point then as are those like djos’ here now, is the owners of the copper admitted to a Senate inquiry in 2003 that their copper was no good then, therefore being 2013 do you think it would have improved?

            As for the 2008 Telstra FttN.

            Iirc there were two FttN chances for Telstra one in 2006 and the second in 2008 and on both occasions Telstra were the ones who decided not to go ahead (withdrawing in 2006 from talks with the ACCC and supplying a non-compliant RFP bid in 2008).

            Hmmm, copper shot in 2003… bluff and bluster from Telstra about FttN, then withdraw, twice… all the pieces fit don’t they?

            • Fibroid
              Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink |

              You fail to mention in your selective response that Telstra were not the only ones bidding to rollout a national FTTN network, the G9 consortium wanted to do it as well, so why didn’t the G9 consortium put in a FTTH only bid?

              • AJ
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink |

                Because FttH would have been non-compliant with the guideline laid out

              • Alex
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

                This is an evidence based forum.

                The evidence has been supplied, showing Telstra admitting their copper network was in need of replacement in 2003…

                Unless you have solid evidence to prove the copper has vastly improved since, the evidence clearly shows the copper is ergo 10 years on, even more so in need of replacement.

                But to now throw red herrings such as the G9 into the equation (and strangely accuse me of not telling the whole story, when we were discussing Telstra and Telstra’s copper, not the G9) is at best conjecture or deflection and at worst clutching at straws.

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:40 pm | Permalink |

                  ‘But to now throw red herrings such as the G9 into the equation’

                  It’s not a red herring just because it dilutes your Telstra argument, it is also total conjecture that you make the accusation that Telstra knew their 2008 RFP bid would fail on that technicality because they didn’t want to roll out FTTN anyway – how do you know this?

                  Also you avoid any explanation if as you say Telstra thought their copper was not up to the task in 2008 why they didn’t therefore submit a FTTH bid to the RFP?

                  • Alex
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 6:43 pm | Permalink |

                    Your points are again invalid and this is my last reply to you here, as you are taking the comments around in circles.. simply to avoid the fact that Telstra admit their copper needs replacing.

                    “It’s not a red herring just because it dilutes your Telstra argument, it is also total conjecture that you make the accusation that Telstra knew their 2008 RFP bid would fail on that technicality because they didn’t want to roll out FTTN anyway – how do you know this?”

                    The G9 had nothing to do with Telstra’s copper… did they?

                    There wasn’t any accusations, I said Telstra’s bid was non-compliant… wasn’t it?

                    Telstra said their copper needs replacing and later withdrew twice from FttN discussions. Got a better, obvious conclusion?

                    “Also you avoid any explanation if as you say Telstra thought their copper was not up to the task in 2008 why they didn’t therefore submit a FTTH bid to the RFP?”

                    Another red herring/straw clutch.

                  • Tinman_au
                    Posted 31/05/2013 at 2:02 am | Permalink |

                    It’s not a red herring just because it dilutes your Telstra argument, it is also total conjecture that you make the accusation that Telstra knew their 2008 RFP bid would fail on that technicality because they didn’t want to roll out FTTN anyway – how do you know this?

                    Around the same time as that bid, Telstra switched from the CAN/FTTN thinking and switched to FTTP (it’s called Velocity). They even started to (with only a slight nudge from Anna Bligh who wanted the land the exchange was on for a hospital) to replace copper brownfields areas with fibre (South Brisbane) rather than relocate the exchange.

                    Telstra, like all good capitalist corporations, shows the way with it’s money/actions rather than talking a good game like Malcolm. It also doesn’t get sentimental about ditching a network that has hit it’s “best before”, and I have no doubt what so ever, that if they thought there was still a buck to be made from the CAN it, they’d still be milking it…

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink |

                      ‘Around the same time as that bid, Telstra switched from the CAN/FTTN thinking and switched to FTTP (it’s called Velocity).’

                      But that’s for Greenfield areas only that don’t have any existing fixed line infrastructure to piggy back onto, the Coalition policy is FTTH for greenfield areas.

                      ‘replace copper brownfields areas with fibre (South Brisbane) rather than relocate the exchange.’

                      They did relocate the exchange that’s why they changed to fibre because in reality it was a quasi greenfield rollout with massive changes to all existing residential links that were networked to the old exchange site, so instead of having to relocate pillars and put in new and reroute existing copper FTTH was the smart and cost effective way to do it.

                      ‘ It also doesn’t get sentimental about ditching a network that has hit it’s “best before”, ‘

                      You pick two exceptions which in comparison to the brownfield copper that is out there is almost immeasurable in terms of residences connected and paint that as evidence that Telstra thinks the copper is past it?

                      So if the Coalition gain power you fully expect Telstra to say a firm NO to a partial Coalition FTTN rollout because of the condition of the copper as per anecdotal evidence of known pro Labor FTTH anonymous posters in Delimiter or Whirlpool that say it is bad, even though Telstra comments up to now have indicated no such intention, in fact quite the opposite?

                      • Observer
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:55 am | Permalink |

                        “as per anecdotal evidence of known pro Labor FTTH anonymous posters in Delimiter or Whirlpool”

                        And this from a pro LNP who keeps changing his name.

                      • Lionel
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 11:21 am | Permalink |

                        “So if the Coalition gain power you fully expect Telstra to say a firm NO to a partial Coalition FTTN rollout because of the condition of the copper as per anecdotal evidence of known pro Labor FTTH anonymous posters in Delimiter or Whirlpool that say it is bad, even though Telstra comments up to now have indicated no such intention, in fact quite the opposite?”

                        If you wish to be fair and balance you need to at least admit to the fact that Telstra has on several occasions said the copper network has deteriorated and needs to be replaced. Ignoring they have said that paints you as much a pro Liberal NBN zealot as you accuse those in favour of the Labor NBN plan.

                        I for one do not expect Telstra to say no, no mater what the condition of the copper network is. But if it goes ahead I’d expect there to be a hell of a lot of remmediation required.

                      • Posted 31/05/2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink |

                        You do realise that as, under both tabled policies a new organisation will be rolling out the network they are all acting as a “quasi Greenfield”. Why? Because NBNCo doesn’t own the copper access network.

                        Telstra comments up to now have indicated no such intention, in fact quite the opposite?

                        Actually, as pointed out by Steven in a previous conversation, they haven’t. Telstra have only said that it is possible for copper to deliever the Coalitions aims, not Telstra copper under the current Coalition proposals. Do you understand the difference?

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 1:39 pm | Permalink |

                        You pick two exceptions which in comparison to the brownfield copper that is out there is almost immeasurable in terms of residences connected and paint that as evidence that Telstra thinks the copper is past it?

                        All I did was show you examples where Telstra has obviously changed it’s thinking. One of those things you call an “exceptions” is actually Australia wide (Velocity).

                        They could have just as easily extended the copper CAN to new estates rather than switching to FTTP, why do you think they didn’t keep value adding to the CAN and extracting further value from it?

                        So if the Coalition gain power you fully expect Telstra to say a firm NO to a partial Coalition FTTN rollout because of the condition of the copper as per anecdotal evidence of known pro Labor FTTH anonymous posters in Delimiter or Whirlpool that say it is bad, even though Telstra comments up to now have indicated no such intention, in fact quite the opposite?

                        Telstra will probably be more than happy to help out the Libs, as I expect the Liberals with pay them handsomely to do so, either in plain old cash, or some sort of other favours as they’ve done in the past.

                        I also notice (with some amusement) you didn’t actually comment on the fact that Telstra (the incumbent owner of the copper) never saw FTTN as a commercially viable opportunity within Australia.

                        Why do you think they didn’t?

                      • Abel Adamski
                        Posted 31/05/2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

                        Fibroid
                        “They did relocate the exchange that’s why they changed to fibre because in reality it was a quasi greenfield rollout with massive changes to all existing residential links that were networked to the old exchange site, so instead of having to relocate pillars and put in new and reroute existing copper FTTH was the smart and cost effective way to do it.”

                        Yes the Exchange was moved, yes the trunks needed to be re routed, however the customer “last miles” were largely unaffected.
                        If FTTN was a viable proposition all the requirements were in place. Move exchange , trunk with fibre, install FTTC cabinets and reuse last mile customer copper. Simple, cheaper and demonstrating the viability of FTTN

              • Observer
                Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink |

                “so why didn’t the G9 consortium put in a FTTH only bid?”

                Because the tender was for FTTN. That’s why.

                • Alex
                  Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

                  Before you guys get jumped on by the very person who previously argued with me the RFP’s were for FttN only.

                  They were actually for FttN or FttP…

                  http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2008/023

                  The question of why didn’t submit a FttH bid is invalid because the G9/TERRiA didn’t submit their own RFP bid of any kind, they tagged onto Optus’.

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink |

                    ‘The question of why didn’t submit a FttH bid is invalid because the G9/TERRiA didn’t submit their own RFP bid of any kind, they tagged onto Optus’.

                    umm what has that got to do with it?

                    • Alex
                      Posted 30/05/2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink |

                      It has nothing to do with it, hence invalid.

          • david
            Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

            The point is that a FTTN build has been considered many times in Australia over the past 20 years – by Coalition governments, by Labor governments, and by Telstra – and every time it has been rejected. Should the Coalition win the next election, it will likely be rejected yet again.

      • Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink |

        If you truly feel that way, feel free to dicuss any of the points raised in this article or the comments, and we will engage in rational debate with you.

        However don’t confuse rational debate with looking at all things equally. Just like scientists dimiss creationists for preventing a theory which holds no water under the scientific method, we too will not tolerate positions or assertions that have no basis in reality or evidence to back them up.

      • Observer
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink |

        “discussed by people who are capable of thinking flexibly and changing their minds when the facts emerge.”

        Please do provide us with one example where you have displayed “thinking flexibility” and a change of mind when facts have emerged.

        • Djos
          Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:44 am | Permalink |

          Unfortunately hard core Liberal Party supporters think being flexible with the truth and thinking flexibly are the same thing!

      • Alex
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 11:31 am | Permalink |

        @ Gordon – I agree with you wholeheartedly here…

        “The best decisions come from environments where a range of views and options can be spoken, heard and rationally discussed by people who are capable of thinking flexibly and changing their minds when the facts emerge.”

        Indeed…

        Now keeping that second part of your comment in mind, how does it fit with your opening paragraph, here? –

        “The high priests of the ideology of fibre are out again demanding that anyone who questions the holy word of NBNCo be burned at the stake for heresy. You lot are just tiresome and boring. No-one is listening to you except you.”

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 11:39 am | Permalink |

        Delicious irony there Gordon, your post is the very thing you complain about ;o)

      • Lionel
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

        “No-one is listening to you except you.”
        Well, of course, only people reading theses posts are listening. I thought that was obvious.

        “The high priests of the ideology of fibre are out again demanding that anyone who questions the holy word of NBNCo be burned at the stake for heresy”

        It’s some sort of religion we are discussing? I thought it was facts on communications. I must admit there is a bit of religion in some of the political comments but generally the FTTH vs FTTN have been pretty much factual.

        “The best decisions come from environments where a range of views and options can be spoken, heard and rationally discussed by people who are capable of thinking flexibly and changing their minds when the facts emerge”
        Yes, well please join in. Hit and run attacks aren’t part of a rational discussion, it is just trolling.

        “But you don’t want and are incapable of that”
        Seems to be the pot calling the kettle black I do believe.

        “Every alternative has to exaggerated then the straw man created bashed down, and the speaker bashed down with it.”
        Care for some examples? Gordon, unless you have posted under another alias, I have NEVER seen you once present any argument, be involved in the discussion in any way, and I have lurched here for quite some time. This post it your typical post, attacking and insulting. It only falls short of your usual as it does contain a message about how heart broken we will be because the Liberals will win or some such thing.
        It must be sad to live under a bridge and eat goats.

    26. Gaslle
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:12 am | Permalink |

      Renai lies with his article picture.

      You can’t get all the excess ink that cleanly off a hand stamper by merely pressing it onto a surface. Totally Staged.

      What madness is this…

    27. Jason
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink |

      This article finally highlights the misinformation that’s published daily by the media, of course not only on the NBN but various other topics.

      The most dissapointing part for me is people read these articles in an attempt to make informed decisions based upon the information represented in the article. I’ve had many friends harping on about what the NBN is going to cost and that they can’t wait to vote labor out yet once it’s explained what the NBN can do for them and how little it’s really costing them it changes their position.

      I really do believe that journalists should be fired for putting across their own personal view point, people want the facts presented to them and nothing else, how else can they make informed decisions? people look to the news for the truth!

    28. Fibroid
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 1:47 pm | Permalink |

      ‘ I’ve had many friends harping on about what the NBN is going to cost and that they can’t wait to vote labor out yet once it’s explained what the NBN can do for them and how little it’s really costing them it changes their position.’

      I would be very interested in what you told them to change their mind, especially the ‘how little it’s really costing them’ explanation?

      • AJ
        Posted 30/05/2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink |

        I assume just the truth you know what that is don’t you?

        • Fibroid
          Posted 31/05/2013 at 9:44 am | Permalink |

          The opposite to this post of yours I assume?

          http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/29/fairfax-columnist-prints-blatant-nbn-falsehoods/#comment-611487

          • Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:17 am | Permalink |

            Easy you two. Keep it civil or Renai will step in and put one (or both) of you in the sin bin.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 31/05/2013 at 10:44 am | Permalink |

              Keep it civil? – I get accused of not knowing what the truth is and when I point out the total hypocrisy in that statement from the poster concerned (who has not retracted his error, but you overlook that because he is pro Labor NBN) you then come along with your ‘pulpit preaching’ and try to beat it up as my problem that requires a ban?

              • Observer
                Posted 31/05/2013 at 11:43 am | Permalink |

                I don’t understand why you come to this supposedly nest of pro Labor NBN supported. Are you a masochist? Do you think that your powerful rhetoric is going to sway those who support the current NBN (please note the use of current rather than pro Labor)? Do you feel a need to spread the coalition’s gospel?

                Your problem is as follows.

                FTTP is the superior technology (even MT agrees)
                FTTN will cost 3% less, if you ignore the cost of copper maintenance and eventual upgrade, what has already been spent, and the cost of buying the copper network (or the cost of any deal MT works out with Telstra).
                Question marks remains about many aspects of the FTTN, namely state of the copper, realism of the roll out time table, accuracy of speed predictions, and availability and cost of plans.

                A more sensible debate would not nitpick and speculate. It would simply try to assess whether the coalition plan can realistically be cheaper and faster. The cost of the eventual upgrade should also be discussed beyond MT’s statement that it will be very cheap.

                The debate would also try to determine whether the delays encountered by NBNco in the current roll out are still likely to occur when rolling out FTTN.

                Then perhaps, people can end up making a decision which is good for the country, rather than one that is designed to ensure the election of their preferred political party.

              • Posted 31/05/2013 at 12:22 pm | Permalink |

                Do you understand the Ad hominem arguement? It is when you attempt to discredit a person rather than immediately address his points.

                Often misdiagnoised in Internet forums, I’ll admit, even by myself in prior points. But it’s important to understand the difference between an insult based upon logical reason, and a direct attempt to undermine someone’s position.

                AJ’s response was the former, an insult that comes from logical reasonsing, because you have continiously demonstrated a disregard for agruement, and in fact will completely ignore a thread of conversation where your points have been argued against rather than attempt to counter.

                In eccense his arguement is that “It is obvious from previous conversations what he would argue, as it is has been argued previously countless times on this forum. Are you suggesting you are willing, and able to, to discredit the position of the majority of people on this forum so easily, including the authour of this publication who has publically suggested he feels that the NBN is a far better plan than the one proposed by the Coalition?”

                Your response, on the other hand, was, immflamtory, and a direct attempt to discredit him which allows you to avoid the above inferred challenge. Not an ad hominem, per say, as that requires you to be concious of AJs intent.

                Not only that, but you responded to an attack on your character, with an attack on his character. The only way this type of corrospence can go is a series of character attacks, as Observer has kindly demonstrated by attempting to attack your character and motivations in response to this.

                So honestly, I don’t care who started it, but I am telling you to stop it. Before Renai decides to step in.

                As my mother liked to say: arguements a like a game of tennis, they don’t work when you don’t hit back. So, it’s simple, in the face of a clear insult, like the one AJ made, don’t hit back.

                • Lionel
                  Posted 31/05/2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink |

                  “arguements”, sorry, but that makes everything you have just said invalid ;)

                  • Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink |

                    It’s a typo, understandable considering I’m dyslexic. Why should I have to defend myself, even if you made that in just, against such insults?

                    • Djos
                      Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:47 am | Permalink |

                      NK, there was a winky smilie in L’s post so I think he was having a joke.

                      • Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:50 am | Permalink |

                        I know, of course in sweet irony I said in just instead of in jest.

                      • Djos
                        Posted 01/06/2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink |

                        :-)

    29. LiePAtrol
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 2:29 pm | Permalink |

      Liberal NBN = Lemon (with long term negative effects)
      Labors NBN = Golden Egg (with long term positive effects)

      Do something properly or don’t do it at all.

      Simple as that.

    30. Observer
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink |

      Instead of debating the merits of FTTP and FTTN, let’s instead imagine you were trying to buy a house and it came down to two propositions.

      One of the houses is brand new, it has all modern amenities, energy efficiency and is built with material that will last for many years, will require little maintenance, and can easily be extended.

      The other house is old but it can be renovated and made to look OK. Not as nice as the other house but still presentable for a few more years, after which you will need to basically rebuild some sections of it, for it to be as good as the other one. This house, obviously, is cheaper than the other one (3% cheaper to be exact). The other good thing is that you may be able move in 3 months earlier.

      Which one would you buy?

      Oh, I nearly forgot, you won’t be able to inspect the house before you buy it and the owner may ask for a bit more money when you are ready to buy.

    31. clownface
      Posted 30/05/2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink |

      When does MEDIAWATCH do the story? Where is the twitter hashtag?? Vote 1 NewsMining today if you wish to impress the Joneses!! This country is a global laughing stock!!!

    32. Mr Grump ol the bailey
      Posted 31/05/2013 at 8:34 am | Permalink |

      Anyone who thinks that the FTTN is a better idea really has rocks in their bleeding head.

    33. socrates
      Posted 31/05/2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink |

      Anyone who thinks that the FTTN is a better idea should come up with some detailed factual analysis showing why that is claimed to be the case.

      Not a poorly transcribed digest of some politically motivated ‘could be’ and ‘might be’ assertions, but an objective statement about why they believe FTTN is a superior solution to meet our needs for the next fifty or more years.

      • Alex
        Posted 31/05/2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink |

        Agree 100% socrates.

        As most also agree, the Coalition’s plans have improved at each juncture and now IMO, sit a distant 2nd as opposed to light years behind the current NBN.

        So, after the Coalition having, ‘rightly so’, put the fine toothed comb over every aspect of the current NBN… we need the same done to their alternate plan.

        Seriously, FttN will work because it has somewhere else, or trust us, we are the superior managers, really doesn’t cut the mustard.

    34. Posted 12/08/2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink |

      I complained to the press council and cited this article and another, just got a reply

      Complaint: The Age

      I write in relation to your complaint about the article “Don’t look now, the white elephants are multiplying”, published on 29 May 2013.

      The complaint is proceeding to level 2 for an adjudication. We will be in contact again to inform you of the outcome.

      Thank you for your patience.

      Yours Sincerely,

      Justin

      Justin Levy | Complaints Officer
      Australian Press Council




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content


  • Six smart secrets for nurturing customer relationships
    [ad] Today, we are experiencing a world where behind every app, every device, and every connection, is a customer. Your customers will demand you to be where they and managing customer relationship is the key to your business’s growth. The question is where do you start? Click here to download six free whitepapers to help you connect with your customers in a whole new way.
  • Enterprise IT stories

    • WA Health told: Hire a goddamn CIO already doctor

      A state parliamentary committee has told Western Australia’s Department of Health to end four years of acting appointments and hire a permanent CIO, in the wake of news that the lack of such an executive role in the department contributed directly to the fiasco at the state’s new Fiona Stanley Hospital, much of which has revolved around poorly delivered IT systems.

    • Former whole of Qld Govt CIO Grant resigns petergrant

      High-flying IT executive Peter Grant has left his senior position in the Queensland State Government, a year after the state demoted him from the whole of government chief information officer role he had held for the second time.

    • Hills dumped $18m ERP/CRM rollout for Salesforce.com hills

      According to a blog post published by Salesforce.com today, one of Ted Pretty’s first moves upon taking up managing director role at iconic Australian brand Hills in 2012 was to halt an expensive traditional business software project and call Salesforce.com instead.

    • Dropbox opens Sydney office koalabox

      Cloud computing storage player Dropbox has announced it is opening an office in Sydney, as competition in the local enterprise cloud storage market accelerates.

    • Heartbleed, internal outages: CBA’s horror 24 hours commbankatm

      The Commonwealth Bank’s IT division has suffered something of a nightmare 24 hours, with a catastrophic internal IT outage taking down multiple systems and resulting in physical branches being offline, and the bank separately suffering public opprobrium stemming from contradictory statements it made with respect to potential vulnerabilities stemming from the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug.

    • Android in the enterprise: Three Aussie examples from Samsung androidapple

      Forget iOS and Windows. Today we present three decently sized deployments of Android in the Australian market on Samsung’s hardware, which the Korean vendor has dug up from its archives over the past several years for us after a little prompting :)

    • Businesslink cancelled Office 365 rollout cancelled

      Microsoft has been on a bit of a tear recently in Australia with its cloud-based Office 365 platform, signing up major customers such as the Queensland Government, Qantas, V8 Supercars and rental chain Mr Rental. And it’s not hard to see why, with the platform’s hybrid cloud/traditional deployment model giving customers substantial options. However, as iTNews reported last week, it hasn’t been all plain sailing for Redmond in this arena.

    • Qld Govt inks $26.5m deal for Office 365 walker

      The Queensland State Government yesterday announced it had signed a $26.5 million deal with Microsoft which will gain the state access to Microsoft’s Office 365 software and services platform. However, with the deal not covering operating system licences and not being mandatory for departments and agencies, it remains unclear what its impact will be.

    • Hospital IT booking system ‘putting lives at risk’ doctor

      A new IT booking platform at the Austin Hospital and Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Melbourne is reportedly placing the welfare of patients with serious conditions at risk.

    • Bailey quits Macquarie for non-profit COO role marc-bailey

      Long-time Macquarie University chief information officer Marc Bailey has left the educational institution to join non-profit group Intersect, which focuses on applying advanced ICT technologies to the practice of research.

  • Enterprise IT, Featured, News - Apr 16, 2014 16:49 - 0 Comments

    WA Health told: Hire a goddamn CIO already

    More In Enterprise IT


    News, Telecommunications - Apr 16, 2014 11:46 - 57 Comments

    CBN FTTN test shows speeds of 105Mbps

    More In Telecommunications


    Industry, News - Apr 15, 2014 15:54 - 3 Comments

    Hackett takes 40 percent UltraServe stake

    More In Industry


    Analysis, Digital Rights - Apr 14, 2014 9:40 - 7 Comments

    NAB’s Bitcoin ban a symptom of the digital currency threat

    More In Digital Rights