Experts agree: Labor’s NBN ads are false

144

labor-misleading-costs

news A trio of Australia’s most prominent telecommunications analysts have reportedly backed complaints by the Coalition that much of Labor’s election campaign material about the National Broadband Network contains outright lies or otherwise misleading material.

Over the past several months, media outlets such as Delimiter and Politifact have repeatedly raised the issue that Labor MPs right around the nation have been distributing misleading election material regarding the NBN.

One of the key issues relates to the cost of connecting to the NBN under the Coalition’s rival NBN policy. The Coalition’s policy will see most of Australia covered by fibre to the node technology, where fibre is extended from telephone exchanges to neighbourhood ‘nodes’. The existing copper network will be used to deliver the last mile to home and business premises, but the rollout is expected to significantly boost broadband speeds and availability, with the Coalition pledging minimum speeds of 25Mbps by the end of its third year in office, if it wins the upcoming Federal Election.

Subject to certain conditions, one additional feature of the policy will see the Coalition offer Australians the choice to upgrade their connection to fibre to the premises as under Labor’s existing NBN policy. The Coalition believes it will be possible to offer this kind of service on a similar basis as it is offered in the UK, where wholesale telco OpenReach is offering so-called ‘fibre on demand’ extension services at a price depending on how far premises are from their nearby node.

According to OpenReach’s price list, costs for the fibre extension service include a £500 (AU$823) initial connection fee and ‘annual rental’ cost of £465 (AU$765), plus a specific charge ranging from £200 (AU$329) up to £3,500 (AU$5,762), depending on the distance premises are from local nodes.

Throughout the past several months, this has led a number of Australian Labor politicians, including then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then-Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, to claim that the cost of the Coalition’s FTTP on demand service will be $5,000, with the implication that unless Australians pay for this fibre extension cost, they will be getting broadband little better than that offered today on Telstra’s existing copper network.

However, the Coalition has strongly contested the claim, and in May, local fact-checking site Politifact agreed with Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the claim wasn’t true. Despite this, Labor politicians around Australia have continued to claim that the cost of connecting to the Coalition’s version of the NBN will be $5,000.

This morning the Sydney Morning Herald published an article containing expert commentary backing the Coalition’s claims that Labor’s ads contain false information. The article states (we recommend you click here for the full article):

“Some of the claims being made here are highly contestable and seemingly deliberately misleading,” said Tony Brown, a senior analyst at Informa Telecoms and Media. Other independent telecommunications experts, Paul Budde and David Kennedy, contradicted one or more of the claims in Labor’s NBN advertising.

Brown, Budde and Kennedy are considered to be three of Australia’s foremost analysts when it comes to the telecommunications industry, with the trio counting many decades of experience between them in the field. Budde runs his own telecommunications consultancy and analyst firm, while Kennedy has held a long-time interest in the sector which dates back to the 1997 telecommunications reform process. Brown works across the Asia-Pacific region and is considered a top expert on fibre networks specifically. They also represent broadly differing viewpoints on the NBN. Brown has been critical of some aspects of Labor’s NBN policy, while Budde has broadly supported it. Kennedy has taken a more middle of the road approach to the policy, praising some aspects but also noting its issues.

The comments of the analysts, added to existing criticisms of Labor’s NBN advertising material by Delimiter and Politifact, adds credibility to complaints by the Coalition about the material.

In early May, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull sharply criticised much of the material, and the Liberal MP has also written directly to the ACCC to complain about the issue, alleging potential breaches of the Trade Practices Act.

However, the Coalition has also made a number of misleading statements about Labor’s NBN project over the past several years. In one of the more blatant examples of misleading commentary, Federal Shadow Education Minister Christopher Pyne inaccurately claimed on national radio in October that the National Broadband Network has not connected any customers at speeds of 100Mbps, despite the fact that in fact, 44 percent of NBN customers connected to the project’s fibre infrastructure at that point had taken up such speeds. There have been several dozen other similar examples over that period.

Similar to the misleading infographics distributed by Labor MPs over the past several months, an infographic published on the Facebook page of the Liberal Party of Australia misrepresents Labor’s policy. It conflates Labor’s initial, $4.7 billion policy outlined in 2007 with its reformed 2009 policy, falsely alleging a blowout from $4.7 billion to $90 billion in the project, and a decade-long project timetable extension.

opinion/analysis
I think it’s pretty conclusive at this point. When Delimiter, Politifact, The Sydney Morning Herald, Informa’s Tony Brown, Paul Budde, and Ovum’s David Kennedy all agree that there are questionable aspects to Labor’s current NBN election ad campaign, then it’s fairly clear that there is an issue to be addressed.

Is the Coalition blameless? Far from it. Turnbull and his fellow Opposition politicians have been constantly loose with the truth over the past several years, as I’ve highlighted constantly on Delimiter (see here and here for some great examples). However, this doesn’t justify this kind of outright misleading material from Labor. Both sides (and also the Greens and other minority parties) must be held accountable for their statements. This kind of fact-checking exercise is fundamental to the successful operation of any democracy.

I would also make one further note here with respect to this issue. Many readers have heavily criticised Delimiter’s coverage of this issue, claiming that we have been taking sides in this contentious debate, and that there are grounds to justify Labor’s ongoing claims with respect to the Coalition’s NBN policy. What the comments by these analysts in the SMH this morning, coupled with Politifact’s previous articles on the topic, show is that Delimiter far from being alone on this topic. When several fact-checking websites and a number of Australia’s top analysts — including those who have been broadly supportive of the NBN — agree that there’s an issue with Labor’s NBN election material, it would seem that there is, indeed, an issue.

I want to emphasise that Delimiter will staunchly defend its independence on these sorts of issues, and continue to fact-check and examine the statements made by every political party, no matter how much some readers may dislike that approach. I don’t care which NBN policy you support, facts are facts, and politicians shouldn’t be allowed to get away with making blatantly misleading statements in public. That much should be obvious to everyone.

Image credit: Labor advertisement

144 COMMENTS

  1. Hang on. I read your paragraph about Openreach again:

    The Coalition believes it will be possible to offer this kind of service on a similar basis as it is offered in the UK, where wholesale telco OpenReach is offering so-called ‘fibre on demand’ extension services at a price depending on how far premises are from their nearby node.
    According to OpenReach’s price list, costs for the fibre extension service include a £500 (AU$823) initial connection fee and ‘annual rental’ cost of £465 (AU$765), plus a specific charge ranging from £200 (AU$329) up to £3,500 (AU$5,762), depending on the distance premises are from local nodes.

    Does this mean that if we end up on FTTN and want to go to FTTP we’ll be potentially slugged ~$750 ‘annually’? If so, that’s even more atrocious than if we’d had to pay ~$5k to connect, considering to my knowledge current FTTP don’t have to pay ‘rental’ fees.

    • The Coalition isn’t planning an annual rental fee, to my knowledge, but I don’t think the cost model is finalised, either. I really doubt they would try to charge $750 annually, although, to be fair, again, this isn’t actually a lot of money at all for anyone operating a business that would make good use of FTTP.

      • Neither is 5000 dollars, but that 750 dollars per year also appears to be in addition to the installation fee.

      • I really doubt they would try to charge $750 annually

        “The Coalition believes it will be possible to offer this kind of service on a similar basis as it is offered in the UK”

        There is a reason OpenReach charge the 750 dollars, it is because they are subsidizing the installation. If they are subsidizing the installation then the actual cost to OpenReach is higher than the minimum 1200 dollars. If the coalition is planning on offering the fibre extension on a similar basis to OpenReach then they are going to have to recover these costs. That means either a similar charging scheme, or a (significantly) higher upfront cost.

        One thing I am interested in; is if you pay for your Fibre on Demand, and there is an ongoing cost associated with it; what happens when you move houses. Does the subsequent buyer of the home have to pay the ongoing cost? Or do they get Fibre effectively for free?

        It is all so unclear. This is why people can’t comment on this properly. The fact that the coalition hasn’t announced a price, also means that the “lies” being told by Labor aren’t lies. There is no hard proof other than gut-feelings that the $5000 charge is wrong. I’ll grant you, $5000 sounds completely over the mark to my gut. But, what do I know about drawing fibre?

        My own experience with fibre installations is at work. Over the last 10 years I’ve been present where my work has connected to 2 seperate Fibre providers here in the melbourne CBD, and a quote for a dark fibre installation through Telstra pits for a run of about 400 meters between buildings. The 2 installation’s required concrete cutting and re-sealing of about 50 meters in both instances, with price tags between 5 and 10 thousand dollars a piece (this was the full installation costs), and the dark fibre run (quote which we did not take) came in over 20k, with fairly significant monthly costs as the actual installation cost exceeded 20k, the difference being made up in rental.

        These costs were obviously one-off installations, there was no volume discount or efficiencies, but these are the numbers that clearly represent the upper bounds of what it actually costs.

  2. “Commenters agree: media focus on (relatively minor) factual errors by Labor, while largely ignoring the complete bulldust being spread around liberally by the LNP.”

    Luckily we’ve got some honest & impartial outlets like Delimiter that will call a spade a spade, but unless the TV networks & the daily papers get onboard (and we know the murdoch-owned outlets won’t), then the vast voting public, who will decide this election, will make their decision based on known false information.

  3. It still seems like a very one sided debate against the NBN. The key diffence I see in a lot of the statements from Labor is they stem from them not understanding their own policy and some quite lengthy extensions of the truth. I don’t feel Senator Turnbull is being held accountable enough in the wider media for a number of more than just extensions of the truth, but outright lies.

    All of that is just politics, which IMO is disgusting, but the way it is. There are enough things that could be improved with the way the NBN is being rolled out, that Turnbull does not need to propose a completely different solution. A solution that is not much cheaper for the tax payer ($29.5 Billion of goverment investment- http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/uncategorized/coalition-broadband-policy-frequently-asked-questions/#costly ) than the alternative ($30.4 Billion of government investment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network ).

    The coalition would have my vote in a heartbeat if they were going to do what they claim to do best and fix project. Instead they are planning on doing less than half the job with a saving of only 2 years (2019 vs 2021) and the difference in price is so small that it is basically a rounding error (billion dollar rounding error, but at that scale whats the point of doing half the job to save less than 5% of the cost).

    What the coalition should be doing is removing the requirement for NBNco to manage the hardware, let the RSP do that (as suggested by Simon Hacket – http://simonhackett.com/2013/07/17/nbn-fibre-on-a-copper-budget/ ). They should also remove the requirement to enter buildings, Telstra’s responsibility from my understanding ends at the Little box on the outside of the wall, why are we making NBNco go beyond that? As suggested by Peter Cochrane on Phil Dobbie’s podcast crosstalk ( http://phildobbie.com/main/podcasts/crosstalk/item/1086-another-way-to-roll-out-faster-broadband ) but maybe not to his extreme. Malcom can change Fibre to the Node, to Fibre to the NTU and provide people with self install kits at a cost and let the RSPs provide the hardware.

    Politcally that would be difficult for the coalition to change their tune now though. Thanks to Tony Abott’s bleating on about how much of a waste of money and that he was going to destroy the NBN, to realise that actually it’s something the public wanted and he would most certainly lose the election if they didn’t propose an alternative (can’t propose the solution you’ve labelled as too expensive for years).

    • “The key diffence I see in a lot of the statements from Labor is they stem from them not understanding their own policy and some quite lengthy extensions of the truth. I don’t feel Senator Turnbull is being held accountable enough in the wider media for a number of more than just extensions of the truth, but outright lies.”

      +1 to this.

  4. While the actual figure may not be $5000 it will definitely be a couple of thousand or more depending on circumstances based off other countries experience. It’s disingenuous of Labor to keep using the $5000 figure but its just as disingenuous of the Coalition to claim the NBN will cost $90 billion. And to claim they can get a minimum of 25mb out of 30 year old copper. And they haven’t included the cost of buying Telstra’s copper in their own NBN pricing nor the cost of cancelling contracts that are already underway.

      • Absolutely and I’m glad you’re doing it but the relative scale of being incorrect by a couple of thousand dollars vs the outright lie of adding 55 billion on to an infrastructure investment figure is something that should be emphasised yes?

        • I actually think both lies are on a similar scale. Turnbull’s claiming massive cost blow-out in NBN total cost. Labor is claiming massive cost blowout in individual cost of connecting to Coalition FTTN. I think each is pretty scary for the Australian electorate.

          • I’m going to be an interesting pedant here:

            50,000,000,000 dollars divided by 7,800,000 households is 6410 dollars.

            I think Turnbull is lying 20% more!

            ;)

          • Speaking of costs to the user.
            Starting at a basic 25Mbs often suggested as being adequate for most households then which policy is going to cost those end users more at that level?
            Looking at some of the present NBN 25Mbps offerings I already see plans that would cost me far less than my present ADSL1 plus line rental on similar data caps.
            With the steep increases in electricity pricing I see reports that a FTTN service has around double the network power requirements of FTTH as well as extra costs for node maintenance & regular battery renewal.
            Combine that with copper maintenance, competing networks, less coverage & rural subsidies I would assume that while FTTN may be “Faster & Cheaper” to roll out it certainly won’t be as cheap as FTTH in the resulting monthly ISP charges to it’s home users over the long term.

          • ‘With the steep increases in electricity pricing I see reports that a FTTN service has around double the network power requirements of FTTH as well as extra costs for node maintenance & regular battery renewal.’

            Wow!!! where did that come from, have you cause and effect evidence from overseas rollouts of FTTN that this is happening, and that these ‘extra costs for node maintenance’ are causing electricity price rises, keeping in mind the Node cabinets will be the responsibility of the NBN Co not some neighborhood co-operative negotiating with a energy company, and what ‘regular battery renewal’ interval are you referring to here that is a real problem?

            Are these ‘extra costs’ reflected in FTTN plans being higher than FTTP plans, it is interesting overseas RSP pricing FTTP vs FTTN it is the other way around..

          • Fibroid, FTTN is known in the industry to use twice as much power as FTTP for the same footprint – that is just a fact!

            All standard ~200 user nodes require Battery backup – in the Telco space they function a little like an on-line UPS in that all the FTTN equipment is DC powered and AC-DC rectifiers power the node and charge the batteries. These are just bog standard Lead acid/gel sealed batteries that are similar in size to a large truck battery – they last 10 years when installed in a temperature controlled (~23c) environment – in a Node cabinet with only fan-based ventilation systems 2-3 years is the most one can expect.

            60,000 batteries being replaced every 3 years + double the power bill of FTTP is a massive OPEX cost we the end users will ultimately bear in higher plan charges!

          • That’s not just what I said Alex, you heavily edited my response in your copy and paste, took one point from it out of context and responded to it they way you wanted to rig it for a setup.

          • Err yes it was… you asked where he got the figure of double the power FFS.

            At least be man enough to own up to your own words, please.

            BTW – as Observer said elsewhere, if you are going to complain about comments being (so called)personal, perhaps it would be wise to stop using smart arse bait to intentionally rile posters. Please note, you don’t rile me at all, I find your comments always lack facts, are always politically slanted and are mostly contradictory, so basically invalid, but worth reply to simply to highlight all of this.

            For example, 5 or 6 different people just this week or so, have been accused by you of attacking you personally (most actually attacked your childish nit-picking, not you personally) and/or have taken exception to your less than cordial style (a style you will have noticed, I throw straight back at you and you don’t like ;)

            Seriously, do you actually think it is coincidence, dumb luck, a conspiracy or poor you, that you inevitably end up in such a situation, at pretty much every thread?

            But of course it’s always “everyone else’s” fault, isn’t it?

          • Fibroid:
            It seems you wish to challenge my observations, however I have no more intention of taking seriously or responding to any of your uninformed postings than I would consider listening to Alan Jones on this topic.
            I believe in never arguing with a fool as he’ll just wear you down to his level then beat you with experience.

          • I simply asked you a valid question, what cause and effect studies overseas has shown that electricity consumption and battery renewal are a serious problem in overseas FTTN rollouts that are continuing on today, and how is this reflected directly in the price of FTTN plans vs the price of FTTP plans.

            The lack of linked evidence and avoiding the question by answering in irrelevant personal cliches I assume means you have none.

          • @ Fibroid,

            “I simply asked you a valid question,”… “The lack of linked evidence and avoiding the question by answering in irrelevant personal cliches I assume means you have none.”

            That comment coming from someone who has been asked more questions than probably anyone else here and bluntly refused (read: doesn’t have the facts or intestinal fortitude) to answer, I’d estimate 99% of them… is possibly the most hypocritical comment ever, IMO.

          • Do you ALWAYS have to interject when I ask valid on topic questions to someone else, do you think oh shit that’s a awkward one for him to answer I’ll insert a distracting off topic ‘shoot the messenger ignore the message stuff’ keep it personal and count that as a pro NBN anti-Coalition rebuff job well done?

          • Fibroid, do you always have to argue around in circles setting up straw men at every opportunity and ignoring the questions being asked of you because the answer doesn’t bear thinking about (if you are a right wing conservative)?

          • No, I think it is hypocritical of you to expect others to answer your questions when you refuse to answers the vast majority of questions yourself…

            What it means is, you are completely insincere in your commenting.

          • Attn Fibroid:
            As you’re still persisting to flog this item even after it was explicitly pointed out to you by others that the facts & figures you continue to question exist in tables in those CHARTS YOU YOURSELF quoted earlier let alone many other independent sources.
            Namely: FTTN requires DOUBLE the power needed for FTTP.
            If you can’t understand that the cost of that FTTN extra power, ongoing replacement of thousands of expensive batteries. copper & node maintenance, (not required with FTTP) won’t be eventually translate into higher ISP fees to end users than would be required with FTTP then I have no desire to debate you on this topic as you seem to make a habit of ignoring your own previously supplied “facts” just to suit your arguments of the day.

    • “It’s disingenuous of Labor to keep using the $5000 figure but its just as disingenuous of the Coalition to claim the NBN will cost $90 billion.”

      You bring up a good point here. If the coalition really want everyone to take their $90 billion claim seriously then they shouldn’t be complaining about the $5000 claim at all since it actually “supports” their own claim. Remember the reason why we shouldn’t roll fibre is because it is “too expensive”. They keep telling us it will be $90 billion, so divide by 12 million premises = $7500… Over to you Tumball.

  5. And here we go again with the arguments that the Coalition are telling bigger lies, so Labor’s lies are less important in comparison.

    *sigh*

    *waits for the discussion to turn to FTTP versus FTTN*

    Don’t you people ever get sick of this stuff?

    • I agree with you that both parties lying is important. Lying is what politicians have done since day dot. I also think the relative scale of the lie or in this instance 4 years of almost constant lying about the NBN by the Coalition is an important factor.

    • “And here we go again with the arguments that the Coalition are telling bigger lies, so Labor’s lies are less important in comparison.”

      I don’t think anyone is saying “Labor’s lies are less important” at all. I was making a point that the coalition should simply embrace the lies to support their own plan. Despite the lies a bit of consistency would be nice once in a while.

      “Don’t you people ever get sick of this stuff?”

      “Written by Renai LeMay”

      Apparently not.

    • I’d like to point out; that the image you used is substantially less inaccurate than the claim the prime-minister made that Politifact found was “false”.
      The above lists: “up to 5000 dollars for fibre, OR remaining on the copper network”.
      The upto 5000 dollar charge hasn’t been disputed. Only that the charge wont be that much for everyone.

      Julia Gillard’s $5000 dollar comment was plainly wrong. The image you have used is not outright wrong.

      I will grant however; that Malcolm rarely states outright that Labors NBN will cost 90 billion dollars, but I would be surprised if he has never said that it will, let alone Tony Abbott (the equivalent of JG when she made her $5k statement).

      On the topic of FTTP vs FTTN – its an old debate. We all know FTTP is better technically, there is only disagreements on deployment costs and value. Of which we have all had the same argument a thousand times – and it comes down to what you believe will happen. There is no new information.

      • i think gillard was also the only person to not say the “up to” part of the 5k install fee, so everyone else in the labour party is right according to the available data, that being 5.7k max install fee bt have.

        im also confused about the claims that comparing the max fttp speed against the min fttn speeds isnt fair – fttp speeds are both min and max, they dont fluctuate like fttn speeds so its a perfectly viable comparison.

    • You do know there would be no discussion on FTTH vs FTTN if it were not for several posters with obvious political blindness, right?

    • Renai,

      Lies are lies. Doesn’t matter which side of politics you look at. Both sides have been fast and free with the truth.

      There’s also a lot of misinformation and, frankly, an obvious lack of technical understanding. Again, on both sides of the House. Which is to be expected, they’re politicians, not engineers. Turnbull has spun more than one story that has very dubious origins.

      The important thing is to hold them (all, either side) accountable. When either side tells a porky.

        • Even though I don’t agree with the figure ($5000), aren’t they technically correct when they say ‘up to’? ISP’s do it when guessing mobile/line speed (up to 24Mb/s). Car companies do it when estimating fuel usage (up to 700km on a tank). So what’s the difference?

          • I take issue with ppl believing it will be less than $5k – the shortest fibre extension I managed while working for an ISP as CDM was 150 meters and that cost us $40k using mostly existing pits and ducts!!!

    • “Don’t you people ever get sick of this stuff?”

      I’m well and truly over the “debate” on the costs and purported benefits of the Liberals NBN model, they have lost the right to debate the issue and continuing to debate the need for a change of technology now after so much of the underlying infrastructure and legislation has been rolled out is not only disingenuous but reflects the changes made by NSW in the late 1880’s when NSW, VIC & SA had agreed to a common railway gauge; look at the costs to Australia that that change has wrought, which is still not completely and never will be overcome without many additional billions to be spent.

      Do we want a repeat of this situation with modern data access?

      The Liberals NBN discussion is nothing more than a political talking point of a party bereft of policy for the future and only have this policy as a talking point as they have spent the last 3 years in denial of their loss at the 2010 election.

      I’m over it and I believe that their needs to be a step up in the reporting of why, really why the Liberals think that they need to change this project now, with answers worthy of the boardroom not the school yard.

      • But you are quite comfortable on the other hand with this damming assessment of the Labor anti-Coalition campaign.

        “A trio of Australia’s most prominent telecommunications analysts have reportedly backed complaints by the Coalition that much of Labor’s election campaign material about the National Broadband Network contains outright lies or otherwise misleading material.”

        • Yes I have no problem because at today’s juncture it is not a valid policy.

          Your continuance of support shows that you are welded to the Liberal party, not to the idea. Technically and fiscally it is treasonous to consider the change from FTTH to FTTN due to the additional costs to be incurred from not only the change of technology and it’s inherent delay, but from the increased ongoing costs and creation of technological barriers to an ubiquitous standard of telecommunications.

          Australia has too much history of creating internal barriers to productivity, such as my previously mentioned Rail Gauge to add another to its list for historians to use as points to outline our national stupidity. Lets get past that and just keep on with the current policy being installed.

          • ‘Yes I have no problem because at today’s juncture it is not a valid policy.’

            I wasn’t asking you about Coalition policy, this discussion is about:

            “Experts agree: Labor’s NBN ads are false”

            Going straight into a anti-Coalition policy rant is a typical diversion when unpalatable truths about Labor political campaigns are presented, I see nothing has changed in this discussion ‘change the subject’ quick’ is still the best strategy.

          • @ Fibroid, as someone who refuses to answer most people’s questions, why should anyone take any notice of you, let alone answer you?

          • ‘ I see nothing has changed in this discussion ‘change the subject’ quick’ is still the best strategy.’

          • “Going straight into a anti-Coalition policy rant is a typical diversion when unpalatable truths about Labor political campaigns are presented”
            He never mentioned the Coalition. He talked about changing what was being rolled out changed half way through and the extra delays incurred, increase in cost of rolling out the older tech. This is a tech forum. If the plans were the other way round he would have said the same thing. It’s not a political fanboi comment.

          • ” I see nothing has changed in this discussion ‘change the subject’ quick’ is still the best strategy.”

            I am in awe of your patience and perseverance. I find it admirable that you find the will and fortitude to persist with people that are so unfair to you. After all, you have proven, time after time, that you have a fair and totally unbiased point of view. We all know, deep inside, that everything Labour does is awful and that everything the Coalition does is wonderful but without your constructive and persistent contribution we would continue to be in denial.

          • Ok Fibroid, I’ll type this very slowly so that you can understand.

            It does not matter that the experts agree that what Labour says in their advertisements is wrong; the whole conversation about whether we should stop rolling out FTTH in favour of FTTN is wrong.

            Also look at what else I said;
            “Australia has too much history of creating internal barriers to productivity, such as my previously mentioned Rail Gauge to add another to its list for historians to use as points to outline our national stupidity.”

            This is what we need to focus on, productivity gains which the currently installed NBN is giving us, it’s too late to change tack now not for a technical reason, just plain common sense.

  6. The ad’s are right about one thing tho, under the LNP you will stay on the “old slow” (maybe slightly less slow) copper network UNLESS you can afford to pay for a Fibre extension …. and there’s no guarantee you’ll even be able to even order one as it’s something MT has not given a formal commitment to deliver in the 1st term of an LNP Gov.

  7. Renai says ” I don’t care which NBN policy you support, facts are facts, and politicians shouldn’t be allowed to get away with making blatantly misleading statements in public.”

    I totally agree with your approach Renai but unfortunately it is not just the NBN that politicians of all persuasions tend to make misleading statements about in an effort to “feather their own nest”.

    Clearly what we need is a Political Integrity Commissioner (PIC) who can identify these misleading statements and the politician that is responsible for making or continuing dissemination of that statement. The PIC could than issue a yellow card to the politician and they would be band from Parliament for one week. A Politician who received 3 yellow cards from the PIC would be expelled from Parliament and unable to participate in political life ever again.

    Just imagine what our Parliament would have been like over the last 12 months under that sort of regime. :-D

  8. So we’ve just discovered the bleedin’ obvious… Politicians on all sides will stretch the truth or worse…

    So after that eye opening revelation…

    Which is the better comms policy for Australia?

  9. Who thought up this “$5000” cap for FTTP? Did Malcolm say it somewhere I missed?

    OpenReach sure don’t cap their price, for my situation, I’d actually be in “Band I” on their list, and paying way more than $5k.

    There can also be considerably more cost hidden in the “ECC” (Excess Construction Charges).

    http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/serviceproducts/excessconstructioncharges/excessconstructioncharges/downloads/ECCs.pdf

    “Up to $5000” might make it seem *cough* reasonable, but there is nothing in Openreach’s cost structure that limits costs to that…and Malcolm would be a fool to say he will cap it here considering FTTP can run up to 32Kms…

    • Have you ever analysed what percentage of the residences in a Coalition FTTN footprint will optionally take FoD?

      Have you thought about how many RSP’s will take up the co-funding offer and rollout their own FoD upgrades in FTTN areas, some have already indicated they may be interested, so as far as a residence is concerned they get FTTP anyway just like they would under Labor?

      Is this FoD requirement precentage at the individual residential level significant enough to be even discussing it at length as if it is the mainstay underpinning all of Coalition policy?

      • “Is this FoD requirement precentage at the individual residential level significant enough to be even discussing it at length as if it is the mainstay underpinning all of Coalition policy?”
        It isn’t worth discussing without further details. Why discuss something that would be almost entirely conjecture?

        • Indeed, makes you wonder why Labor are concentrating on that one minor aspect of Coalition policy, it’s because they need to scare the swinging voter who thinks NBN policy is important to them into voting Labor.

          Obviously Labor are worried that FTTP as a concept cannot sell itself, so you never mention the word Fibre when describing the Coalition policy under any circumstances.

          • Twist Twist Twist, try as you might Fibroid you miss the obvious point the Advert is making:

            ALP = this centruies Fibre
            LNP = last centuries obsolete copper

            it’s a very simple message, but clearly too simple for some!

  10. shhh … whatever you do when referring to the Coalition FoD and even in any comparison with the UK Openreach model is the 50-50 co-funding of FoD proposal in the Coalition policy.

      • The information on FoD and co-funding is on Page 11 of the Coalition Policy, under the main heading of ‘Fibre on demand, co-funded fibre and future fibre upgrades’.

        There is a section each for FoD and co-funding, funnily enough they are headed ‘Fibre on demand’ and ‘Co-funded fibre’ .

        • It’s a vague, “we might do this in the future” statement so in reality it’s is utterly meaningless!

          • All policy statements before you get into power can be categorised as ‘meaningless’ because until you get into Government you cannot actually do anything.

            The Labor NBN policy of 2007 is a stark example, except they reversed that principle, they made it ‘meaningless’ after they won Government.

          • The 2007 ALP plan was still far more detailed than what the LNP showed up to the 2007 and 2010 elections with!

            They actually said we will go to industry and look at the best options presented to us, FTTN was considered a likely outcome but when the expert panel recommended against FTTN, the government changed tack as a good government should and now we have a true national Fibre comms network being rolled out!

            Cant say the same for the LNP who are still stuck in the copper age and refusing to look past 2020!

          • You mean the 2007 fraudband (as dubbed by the Coalition) FttN… which the Coalition opposed?

            Hilarious isn’t it that they and you now promote fraudband…

        • Hmmm,

          So why did you agree with Paul Grenfell a couple of weeks ago that the Coalition don’t actually have a definite policy on FoD?

    • We know how sensitive you are about personal attacks. Therefore, it would a good idea not to provoke people with sarcasm.

    • “shhh … whatever you do when referring to the Coalition FoD and even in any comparison with the UK Openreach model is the 50-50 co-funding of FoD proposal in the Coalition policy.”

      If you’re going to be head of the cheer squad, at least please learn the policies.

      “Co-Funding” is not “FoD”, they are two totally separate things…

  11. There is no doubt that the part of Labor’s statement about staying on the old copper network is at the very least disingenuous. Ironically, people on this site lament about the lies because they have a fair idea of what the truth is but imagine how many more lies there are in areas you are unfamiliar with.

    The problem with politicians is that their message is directed to the lowest common denominator, the uniformed, uncommitted and, sometimes, uncaring because they are the ones who decide the outcome in most elections. (I remember a fellow, being interviewed before a particular election, saying he wouldn’t vote for Keating because he was trying to introduce a GST.)

    The problem with the media is that the truth in never pursued with much vigour. So, in the end, politicians lie because they can get away with it without cost to their cause.

  12. The Telstra Optical cable is 15m from my house, I won’t mention what it would cost to get it to my house but it’s a shit load more dollars than the 5 grand that a host of people are quoting round the traps for Turnbull’s fibre. Meanwhile I have to put up with internet that goes soggy every time it rains.

    The prices quoted in the UK for fibre to the home would largely be unacceptable to Australians, if Malcolm proposed “British Pricing” as his model he would be howled down and voted out.

    What if Labor had proposed some form of connection charge, the media would have had a field day with charges like “Labors huge NBN slug” or “the poor and pensioners to be slugged with huge NBN fees”.

    The facts are the facts, Malcolm Turnbull is proposing a Fibre to the Node solution and some form of user charge to run Fibre from the node cabinet to the home for those users that want it. Malcolm is really proposing to fix up ADSL so that most consumers can get what currently those living 200m from the exchange currently get, it’s nothing more than improved ADSL for the first term, the VDSL coming later in the second term.

    What is the “charge” going to be, the real truth is, we don’t know because the Liberals aren’t in government and haven’t billed anyone. The figure of $5000 was bandied about by Mr Turnbull as “an example” but in absence of a published list of the proposed charges for fibre connections, it’s quite fair for people to take Mr Turnbull’s word that the figures he has bandied about are the price, “up to” is a meaningless sales acronym.

    It’s neither a lie, deceit or any other form of chicanery, it’s merely taking Malcolm’s words and using them in absence of any clearly defined policy on charges for the provision of fibre.

    If Malcolm would actually publish his list of defined charges for fibre to the home, instead of talking aboutskies, off the cuff and off the record possible proposals for pricing, then people might rightly criticise Labor for some form of chicanery, at this stage Labor have not done anything remotely resembling dishonesty.

  13. I don’t get where the ad is in error.

    Is the Liberal plan using 1) the old copper network 2) is it slower than fibre system 3) do you have to pay to get fttp 4) could the connection cost up up to $5000?

    As far as I know the answer is yes to all.

    So pay $5000 dollar or get left on the older slower network is accurate!?!?!

    Am I wrong?

    • Actually, if you read in depth the cost is:

      ~800 dollar install fee
      between 300 dollars and 5700 dollars “fibre run” fee
      So between 1100 dollars and 6500 dollars Fibre on demand up-front cost.

      With an additional 750 dollars per year .. err .. rental fee (for renting the fibre you paid for?)

      so in a single year, the cost of fibre on demand under OpenReach (that Malcolm uses as his example)
      is a total cost between 2000, to 7200 dollars (in the first year). with an additional fee of 750 dollars per year.

      (I haven’t looked it up; so I don’t know how long that 750 dollar yearly fee lasts – but presumably more than one year).

      So; basically, minimum install cost is 2000 dollars “upto” 7200 dollars.

      • “with an additional fee of 750 dollars per year.” should say per-year after the first one.
        I don’t want to mis-represent things.

  14. You know, I just love the headline! “Experts agree Labor’s NBN ads are false.” Well no shit Sherlock! But wait. Not a balanced headline like “Experts agree that NBN ads from both major parties are false.” Oh no – that wouldn’t be fair on the dear old LNP, would it? I mean, who could dare suggest that Liberals tell lies, too. Did you know that Sophie Mirabella is putting out a flyer (aka ‘advert’) that claims:-

    * The Coalition broadband timetable is 2014-2019 but Labor’s is “likely 2009-2025”.

    * That the required funding is $29.5B for Coalition but “likely $95B for Labor”.

    * That the download speeds for the Coalition will be 25-100Mb/s by end of 2016 and 50-100Mb/s by end of 2019 but Labor’s NBN will be 25-100Mb/s by end of 2025!!!

    * That the cost to households for the Coalition plan will be $60/month but Labor’s NBN will be $90/month.

    * And – best of all – that the Coalition rollout will ‘prioritise regions with the poorest service’ but Labor’s NBN is ‘prioritised by political considerations’.

    Now come on. I suppose if you are going to tell porkies, you may as well make them whoppers, but every comment here is so outrageously untrue that she should be certified as insane! But – not a word can be said because – well, hey they are only LNP porkies and so appear not to count. At least if we believe the headline.

    A bit more of an even handed approach might help with credibility here.

  15. Do I have this correct ?
    The Liberal party and “some” others are accusing the Labor party of falsehoods in relation to the NBN.

    The Liberal party that states
    1. Wireless can do a better job than fibre.
    2. Fibre to the Node is adequate.
    3. Fibre to the Premises is more costly long term than Fibre to the node.
    and then lets add any statement made by Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull in the last 5 years.

    Despite this particular article attempting to be balanced, the media are trying to make out the liberals are the ethical honest party here.

    What a pile of ……
    Its about time the media, got a case of intestinal fortitude and held Turnbull and the liberal party village idiot (Tony Abbott), and the liberal party idiots DJ (Alan Jones) to account. Its about time TRUE journalists stepped up to the plate and grilled them long and hard and did not back away. Its about time the 3 stooges were challenged at every single statement and forced to discuss FACT.

    Fibre IS without question the best long term solution – FACT
    FTTP is the best network – FACT
    Fibre is the best and fastest technology available – FACT
    Fibre is longest life infrastucture, in comparison to wireless and or copper. – FACT

    Any clown that wants to argue this needs get an education in telecommunications, physics and maths.
    The media keeps allowing utterly inaccurate garbage to be sprouted uncontested or unchallenged.
    The politicians have failed ths country miserably, and when politicians fail the media should be holding them accountable. However the media has been gutless and failed to hold keep the liberal party to stick to FACT.

    • @sb

      ‘The Liberal party that states’

      ‘1. Wireless can do a better job than fibre.’

      No , they have never said that, if you read Coalition policy with regard to wireless rollout it is about the same as Labor NBN policy.

      ‘2. Fibre to the Node is adequate.’

      Correct, FTTN overseas is very popular often at the expense of FTTP, FTTN speeds are adequate.

      ‘3. Fibre to the Premises is more costly long term than Fibre to the node.’

      Yes correct, overseas deployments of FTTN and FTTP show that FTTN is less costly and faster to deploy.

      • I dont know why I bother but here goes:

        1: Hockey and Turnbull and Abbott have ALL said at various times “wireless is the future” while waving iPad’s etc (except Abbott cause he doesnt know what an iPad is).

        2: Fibre to the Node WAS adequate back in 2007 or 2003 – it no longer is. you only need to look at the take up of 50 & 100mbps plans on the NBN to see this!

        3: For the last time, FTTN is fast and cheap when you ALREADY OWN A PSTN NETWORK, NBN Co does NOT own a PSTN network, neither to Google, City Council’s, Power Utilities or even Sony! None of those thought, “lets buy an old PSTN network and upgrade it to FTTN”, all looked at the options and built their own FIBRE to the PREMISES Network.

        Now back to your bridge and stay there!

        • @djos

          ‘1: Hockey and Turnbull and Abbott have ALL said at various times “wireless is the future” while waving iPad’s etc (except Abbott cause he doesnt know what an iPad is).’

          Wireless IS the future ask Telstra, BT, Verizon, AT&T and SingTel where their highest ARPU’s are coming from and it isn’t fixed line BB.

          The NBN Co didn’t identify wireless as a ‘significant risk’ to their revenue in their SAU submission to the ACCC for nothing.

          Also waving tablets around is not really the same as saying ‘wireless can do a better job than fibre’.

          ‘2: Fibre to the Node WAS adequate back in 2007 or 2003 – it no longer is. you only need to look at the take up of 50 & 100mbps plans on the NBN to see this!’

          What I see is overseas telco’s rolling FTTN out in 2013, and BT for one is actually changing it’s priority to FTTN and downgrading it’s FTTP rollout, obviously reality shows us FTTN is adequate in 2013 and beyond.

          ‘3: For the last time, FTTN is fast and cheap when you ALREADY OWN A PSTN NETWORK, NBN Co does NOT own a PSTN network, neither to Google, City Council’s, Power Utilities or even Sony! None of those thought, “lets buy an old PSTN network and upgrade it to FTTN”, all looked at the options and built their own’

          Yes we have discussed this before over and over and over, your assertion is that ONLY Telstra could rollout FTTN in Australia to gain the cost advantage of being the copper owning incumbent, so therefore you can forget anyone else other than Telstra doing it and gaining a cost advantage.

          First of all that copper owning incumbent is under a existing contract to the NBN Co to turn off the copper as each designated area reaches 90% of residences able to connect to the NBN fibre, this doesn’t come free, it is costing the Labor government $11b as compensation to Telstra, otherwise it would not happen, and the NBN desperately needs all those customers.

          If the Coalition can gain access to the Telstra copper for FTTN within that existing $11b payment (remember the deal doesn’t have to be a outright CAPEX upfront cash purchase) then the ‘incumbent advantage’ argument you love to push no longer exists at all.

          • “If the Coalition can gain access to the Telstra copper for FTTN within that existing $11b payment ”

            And what about if the Coalition has to pay another few billions?

            There is 50 % chance of both situations eventuating.

            Perhaps, we should rename the Coalition policy the “What if plan”.

          • A 50% chance is being far too kind, Telstra are simply not going to give their copper to Malcolm for free when it’s not in the existing contract – if they did the directors and management would find themselves facing the class action lawsuit to end all class action lawsuits and possible jail time for breaching the corporations act for failing this in legal duty:

            “Duty to act in good faith and not to act contrary to the interest of the company”.

          • I am confident that the use of Telstra copper for FTTN will be be contained within the original NBN Co/Telstra $11b agreement easily.

          • Wow, I feel so much better now that I know that Fibroid feels confident. What else do you feel confident about Fibroid? I can see how you could singlehandedly relieve the world at large of their anxiety with your confidence.

          • Got any particular reason to believe they will give it away. Because that’s what they would be doing.
            They can still get $11B and keep the copper. MT’s assertion that they will do it to get the money earlier doesn’t really work when you look at the fact that they are getting a couple of hundred dollars a year at least for it’s continued use. That’s a good 10-20% of the money being offered to swith over, so a pretty good return.

          • Fibroid said: Wireless IS the future ask Telstra, BT, Verizon, AT&T and SingTel where their highest ARPU’s are coming from and it isn’t fixed line BB.

            So the future under the LNP is the same as our past, where where telecoms companies gouge users for whatever has the highest ARPU…

          • Sounds like the ideal solution, according to Fibroid, is the one that costs the customer the most…
            I think that is the opposite of what people want.
            Hell, why don’t we do everything in expensive way. Get rid of mass production, that should give the auto industry a boost with higher ARPU. We could rid ourselves of electricity, that’d push profits up, making most things more expensive. Australia post could hand carry all mail between cities rather than use trucks, another winner for ARPU.

          • I doesn’t matter which political party is in power, it has zero effect on private wireless providers ARPU’s, revenue will only increase relative to fixed line BB revenue as they get many more wireless voice and data SIO’s relative to fixed line voice and data SIO’s.

            Telstra, Optus and to a lesser extent Vodafone are not increasing their 4G coverage as fast they can for the hell of it.

            :)

          • “Telstra, Optus and to a lesser extent Vodafone are not increasing their 4G coverage as fast they can for the hell of it.”

            They’re not but most wireless providers acknowledge that wireless is not in competition with fixed line. It is complementary to it.

  16. To address these in turn.
    1. The often quoted ‘up to $5000’ connection cost.
    As you showed yourself, BT can charge even more, and then an annual service fee on top. As the distances in the Australian plan will be slightly longer, and the number of properties increases proportional to the distance cubed, this statement is true. Up to $5000 may even be low, as it certainly cost me more than that to get only 250m of fibre installed.
    Mostly True

    2. HD video conferences for medical.
    Key thing here is upload. If you speak with medical HD video companies (Olympus, Stryker, GE, etc) they will tell you plan for 9Mbps minimum for HD. But they are talking 1080p30 or i60, not 786p25 or 16, which you can do on 1Mbps, depending on codec used. Medical devices can also need the colour bit depth preserved, which most commercial video conferencing equipment does not do.

    Can you do HD conferences on 1Mbps? No.
    Can you do HD conferences on 5Mbps? Yes* (with many caveats)

    Labor claim: if FTTN is 24/1: True. If it is 20/5: Mostly false

    3. Comparing minimum FTTN speed to Maximum FTTP speed.
    Well, what is the minimum FTTP speed. NBN Co have stated that 1Gb/400 will be available on all FTTP lines. So that is the minimum.
    Turnbull has stated that their guaranteed speed of 25Mbps may be delivered as 20/5.
    This means that Penny Wong is incorrect. The correct comparison of minimum speeds should be 25 to 1400.

    True (although direct comparison is even worse)

  17. I’m not going to go into pendantics here about “connection” to the “NBN” “costing” money etc.

    What I will say is this:

    I Read Jonathan’s article. It was reasonably well balanced and fairly to the point. It questioned Labor’s $37.5 billion thanks to contractor pricing. It questioned their timeframe thanks to rollout being behind schedule. And of course, questioned their assertion about the Coalition’s FoD, which, to be frank, is pointless as you yourself Renai have said it’s nothing but a pipe dream so far.

    I then asked him on Twitter if he’s had the same scrutiny on the Coalition plan? He pointed me to his original piece on the Coalition policy release which he called “hardly complimentary”. Now, I can’t find his article, but I do remember reading it. It never questioned the Coalition’s assumed $29.5 billion. It never questioned the rollout period of 2016 for 25Mbps or 2019 for 50Mbps. It never questioned whether 50K nodes or a higher figure was likely and therefore whether it was feasible. Similar questions of which were asked of Labor in this article. It simply gave several experts opinions on whether FTTN WAS cheaper than FTTP and whether it WAS faster to rollout. Both of which are true….FROM SCRATCH

    My issue with these sorts of journalists is they see their own truth as asking questions that they understand from both sides. Not questions that are COMPARABLE, but which they understand.

    While this article may have a good grain of truth in it (I don’t deny Labor are holding on to a pointless attack here that is at best confusing and at worst downright false) it FAILS to apply the same scrutiny to the Coalition policy. Either here OR beforehand. This is what is wrong with Australian “tech” reporting in the MSM- they don’t understand what they’re actually writing about and therefore the “truth” is a biased viewpoint from their limited understanding.

  18. This is laughable. The Coalition spends four years telling a pack of lies and then have the hide to turn around and whinge about Labour doing the same. Whats worse, here you are Renai backing them up at every turn. Connecting to the NBN is free. You still pay for your Internet as usual. Nothing to see here… move along.

    • Labour’s NBN ads are right on the money.

      All MT is doing is arguing semantics. Connection, as in getting physically connected to the NBN costs nothing if done when the service becomes available in your area. You still pay a monthly fee as you do now. So the net cost to %99 of Australians to join the NBN will be zero.

      The net cost to connect and Australian to an equivalent service based on Coalition’s NBN will cost you anywhere from 3000-7000 dollars period. You cannot call copper an equivalent service sorry, it is no where near the same communication capability as a fibre connection.

      I should bloody well know, the copper in the houses down the road from me is full of water and Telstra couldn’t care less about fixing it. I have a hissy and crackly phone line as a result. Fibre is not affected by water.

      • Indeed Kevin…

        Using MT’s rationality (or lack thereof) does that means we are paying twice or more times, for his plan?

          • NBN Co actual costs per premise:

            Stage 1 $5000
            Stage 2 $4000
            Stage 3 $3100

            Is that what everyone means by ‘its free’?

          • Yes got all of that subservient fluff…

            Now I’ll ask the same question again (with the required “spoon feed”)…

            So how much will FttP cost **””ME””** for the physical connection only?

          • Here we go:

            FTTP cost me nothing personally to connect.

            FTTN cost me nothing personally to connect but if I want FTTP a few more thousand dollars. (unless I am lucky and get it before or copper not good enough)

            Hope this helps.

          • Well if you discard Budget deficits, increased Government debt and drawn down on Government equity as having zero effect upon you personally as a individual paying income tax and GST tax, the rates of which are directly linked to the above Treasury figures and many others then yes FoD is a optional extra that you have to pay for at the personal level if a co-funding FoD scheme doesn’t come your way.

            If I end up getting FTTN I won’t be paying for up to [insert any figure here] FoD at all, FTTN or HFC speeds are adequate.

          • Well Fibroid you disappoint me. It is not like you to make assumptions and talk like a rusted on Coalition helper. Incidentally, what happened to your soul mate DT? I guess he didn’t have your stamina.

            Also, I am really pleased to see that you will be happy with FTTN. It’s OK to have no vision or to only care about your needs.

            Anyway, it is admirable to are still trying to convert us to your views but surely you must be realising, by now, that it isn’t working too well. You still haven’t told me if this was voluntary or paid work.

            As for you reply, I would like to express my views more gracefully but words fail me. All I can come up with is: What a crock of shit.

            What has the GST rate has to do with FTTP?

            As you often do, you missed the point. The only policy you have to pay extra for is the Coalition’s. Get it or is this too hard for a coalition loving brain?

          • OK everyone.

            BE CIVIL TO EACH OTHER (INCLUDING FIBROID) OR I WILL CLOSE DOWN COMMENTS HERE.

            FIBROID YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE. PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE COMMENTS POLICY:

            “Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness. For example, a number of commenters on Delimiter over the past year have engaged in the debate, but consistently avoided acknowledging substantive issues raised by other commenters in relation to their argument. Instead, they have deliberately diverted the discussion down another path, annoying many other commenters.”

            STOP BEING ABUSIVE TO EACH OTHER OR I WILL BAN YOU ALL.

            Does that make it clear enough? You should all be aware of the rules by now.

  19. Working in telco, the costs of $5000 to run fibre up to 800 metres seems somewhat reasonable; cheap in some aspects assuming that every building will be 800 metres from a node. As an idea a rounded cost for estimating with a simple trench in soil is around 15-20 dollars a metre. Add more for rock. Add more for bore. Add more for additional permissions. Melbourne CBD ~$200 per metre!

    Less if you use telstra. However you have to take into account rental costs. Hearing these “analysts” and “industry professionals” refute these claims asounds me when its quite clear to me they havent been on the ground constructing in obviously years.

    For a single connection $5000 is cheap for up to 800 metres.

  20. The coalition’s policy is a complete failure and lacks any technical knowhow. Most people in my suburb in north east Adelaide are stuck on dialup because of RIM technology (multiple users on same copper line in the last mile to the home) making the line too noisy for broadband. The coalition policy will not fix this, and tens of thousands will be stuck on 56kbps fixed line speeds for the coming decades if the coalition is elected.

    • Fibre to the Node technology is not a RIM cabinet painted blue with a Liberal sticker on it, and as Turnbull states if your copper is so bad that it cannot support a minimum of 25Mbps by 2016 and copper remediation will not do the job you will get FTTP.

      • Show us where that is guaranteed? MT says FTTP is a last resort if they CANT remediate the copper.

        • Yes that’s what I said about getting FTTP, and what do you mean by a ‘guarantee’ exactly?

          • *facepalm*

            Im done, I’ve tried very hard to be patient with you but Fibroid you are just trolling again as usual!

      • I really hope you’re right that fibre will go to premises in cases of RIM, but I think it is more likely that once elected that kind of thing will get lost in the noise, and not happen, or only happen with great expense to individuals. Connecting up individuals (rather than whole suburbs at a time) is very inefficient and hence costly as you have to manage all those individual requests for connections, send contractors out many times, etc. There is no point having massive capacity and high speeds to the node, only to have really slow bottleneck section of network to the premises. The network will only be as fast as its slowest point.

      • Fibre to the Node technology is not a RIM cabinet painted blue with a Liberal sticker on it,

        Actually, it pretty well is…even more so the RIM’s with Top Hats…

  21. Is the ad really wrong?

    We don’t know the price for fiber on demand. Most people agree that the average price will be less than $5,000. But the ad says ‘up to’. I can definitely see that happening for some folk.

    My brother lives on a property which has a driveway approaching 100m long. It seems likely that he would have to pay a high price for the installation. I am sure there are other people who would be in much more difficult environments for installation. Is $5,000 really unrealistic for the outlying upper limit?

    As for refering to being stuck on the old, slow copper network – is that wrong either? It is definitely copper, it is definitely old. The only contestable word there is ‘slow’. Even with VDSL, the speed will absolutely be considered slow at some point. Maybe not by today’s standard. But by 2025?

    So yes. People will have to pay up to $5,000 or be stuck on the old, slow copper network. 100% true.

    • ‘So yes. People will have to pay up to $5,000 or be stuck on the old, slow copper network. 100% true.’

      No what is true is that if you optionally don’t pay a price yet to be determined for FoD, you will have Fibre to the Node or FTTP or HFC with a minimum speed of 25Mbps and up to 100Mbps by 2016.

      • “No what is true is that if you optionally don’t pay a price yet to be determined for FoD, you will have Fibre to the Node or FTTP or HFC with a minimum speed of 25Mbps and up to 100Mbps by 2016.”

        No, what is true is that both FTTN and HFC are both copper based delivery systems and both will have a maximum speed which is a tiny fraction of that offered by a direct fiber connection.

        Ipso Facto. If you do not have an FTTP connection then you have been left on the old slow copper network.

      • “a minimum speed of 25Mbps and up to 100Mbps by 2016.”

        Or phrased in less deceitful language it means

        a minimum speed of 25Mb/s and this may well be the maximum speed you will ever get, ever (coalition FoD policy specifically includes the word “if feasible” so it may not be available at any cost, ever).

          • They’ll be lucky to have installed the first few nodes by 2016!!

            Personally I’d rather vote for the ALP, with all their shortcomings, because at least by 2016 we’ll have the FTTP NBN in an irreversible position, Disability Care fully established, Dental Care for kids up and running and school funding improved. The LNP have nothing but 2nd rate rate policies in every area bar Disability Care!

            Maybe by 2016 malcolm will be LNP leader again and the Liberals will be worth voting for again, personally I’ll never vote LNP again while Tony is Leader!

          • +100
            Similar sentiments Here.
            Might even have to consider using Labor’s How to Vote leaflet for the first time..

          • “If they don’t deliver boot them out in 2016 then.’

            Much safer to boot them out now. Too little detailed policies, to many ifs. Not everyone possesses your confidence or should I say your unconditional trust.

  22. “local fact-checking site Politifact agreed with Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the claim wasn’t true.”

    But you keep glossing over the fact that one of the reasons that they gave the rating was that their own advice was that it could cost a lot MORE than $5000.

    “Dr Mark Gregory, an electrical and computer engineering expert at RMIT, told us that under the Coalition’s plan, the cost of fibre for some users could tally up to tens of thousands of dollars or more. That’s because distance from the node is only one variable. There’s also the terrain. Cliff-dwellers and island residents, for example, would likely pay far more under the Coalition plan.”

    In fact, it got the rating because the price would not be a flat $5000.00 but rather a variable amount ranging from hundreds to “tens of thousands of dollars or more”.

    I suggest people actually READ the article not just the headline.

    http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/12/julia-gillard/julia-gillard-says-coalitions-nbn-will-cost-househ/

    • Yeah got that, it could cost more and it could cost less, the point is if and when the Australian costing is finalised you need to get the anticipated average based on distance and upfront installation fees etc, then you need to get the average of co-funded rollouts within that, and come up with a individual per residence average figure that has some meaning.

      That statistic also gains more validity when you determine after a period of time what percentage of residences actually optionally take FoD over FTTN anyway.

      Openreach in the UK experience and keeping in mind it is was only made available in May as RSP’s get their resale act together demand for FoD so far is low.

        • Co-funded fibre is a co-funded FTTP deployment, it may come after a FTTN deployment so in effect it is co-funded FoD, in the same way FoD is a individual’s option to extend the fibre all the way to the residence at their cost.

          The stark difference to BT is that I’m not aware that the UK Government has any scheme in place to co-fund FoD deployments 50-50 that are provided by Openreach.

      • Fibroid seriously man,

        What has the individual cost to implement the connection got to do with anything in a debt funded infrastructure rollout that will cost the Australian taxpayer ZERO when it is finished and paid out. Please don’t start questioning *if*, when you have 380 million a month in revenue by 2021 you *will* pay it all out and quite easily.

        The question here is what it costs the individual taxpayer out of there OWN pocket to get connected to the NBN as it is being offered now, a fibre connection.

        The apples to apples comparison is

        Labour NBN = Nothing
        Liberal NBN = $3000 – 7000

        End of story. The Labour NBN advertisements are dead right.

        I don’t understand Renai at all. I thought he was unbiased but its seems I am incorrect.

  23. So Turnbull was interviewed yesterday and he stated that the cost is likely to be around $3000. So your argument against the Labor party overestimating is due to a $2000 discrepancy at worst Renai? I believe both parties should be held accountable but right now MT has no actual figures for how much it will cost and he has stated it will be several thousand dollars. So what the Labor party are advertising really isnt that far from the truth. Pretty sure the LNP quote of $90B for the NBN is far more inaccurate.
    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/07/turnbull-wants-to-charge-you-thousands-of-dollars-to-access-the-nbn/

    • Interesting, still a big impost on people who, if they have copper in as bad condition as in my street, will have little choice but to pay for the upgrade if they want a reliable connection LOL especially when it rains.. I have tried to deal with Telstra before, it was not a worthwhile experience..

      At which point not every household paying the same is true, not upgrading the up to 100 year old copper in the street is true, it is a lemon only that it will cost up to $3k not $5k..

    • Yep.

      I think I have seen some Labor pollies state that it would cost $5,000. From everything we can tell right now that doesn’t appear correct as many people will pay less.

      But when you add in the words ‘up to’ then it looks to be absolutely correct. Like in the ad being shown at the top of this article.

  24. It is a real shame as the coalition policy in comparison to Labor’s can and should be criticized for ongoing costs (at least to taxpayers) for a substandard network that doesn’t solve the worst condition part of the copper network, the last stretch to your home (at least according to ex Telstra technicians I know).. But making silly adds exaggeration issues just stops people from listening to the real problems with the alternative plan..

  25. I live in Tasmania where prices for broadband are more expensive, because Telstra own the copper network and we don’t have every telco down here. But the best thing I can see with have FTTP is the NBNCo will be the wholesaler and it will make things cheaper at the time. If you have FTTN you are probably going to have companies running fibre into your area which means they own it. So for instance you may have Telstra run fibre to your next door neighbor but then you want to go with Internode I Guarantee that Telstra won’t let them link on. So your going to have Fibre running that is owned by all different companies. So if you move in to a house say you rent and you are with Internode but that strand of fibre is owned by Telstra I can guarantee it will cost you more. At least with the NBNCo you will have the same wholesale price. SO I say bring on the FTTP.

  26. One area of great uncertainty in the coalition’s plan is unsuitable copper.

    I would be interested to hear knowledgeable people’s views on this.

    How much complexity will assessing the suitability of the copper add to the design part? It is unlikely that this would be determined in an “as you go” way.

    How much would it slow down the roll out? Areas are not all good or all bad.

    How likely is it to increase the number of premises needing FTTP beyond the 22% and, in doing so increase, the roll out time and cost?

    • I would like to know this as well. This is definitely one of the biggest question marks on FTTN.

  27. Hey, what’s the most intelligent, neutral website with a good “state of the nation” summary of where we’re at and the possible future of broadband?

    Like most of us reading this I am well in the top percentage of people understanding what’s going on, and I’d still like a good overview document to double check myself (and point some friends to) …. but does one exist?

Comments are closed.