• 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 Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:49 - 143 Comments

    Albo slams Turnbull FTTP on demand “lottery”

    Lottery balls

    news New Communications Minister Anthony Albanese has issued a statement damning the controversial fibre on demand proposal contained in the Coalition’s rival National Broadband Network policy, stating that Australians shouldn’t have to take part in a financial and technical “lottery” to obtain the same fibre service which they would get for free under Labor.

    The Coalition’s rival NBN policy, unveiled in mid-April this year, 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, and 50Mbps by the end of its sixth year.

    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 BT 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.

    Speaking on Sky News last week, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull rejected ongoing claims made in Labor advertisements that the cost of the Coalition’s fibre on demand services would be as much as $5,000. Turnbull was asked by Sky News host David Speers if the Liberal MP could “guarantee that final connection if people want it won’t be as much as $5000″.

    In response, Turnbull stated: “Well we haven’t set a rate for it but I can tell you that the typical distance from one of these nodes, the average distance would be around 500 metres. And I can only give you the example from the UK the cost of getting fibre on demand is around £1500 which I think would work out at around $3000. So it is not $5000.”

    “But the reality is, David, this is just Labor misrepresenting the facts,” added Turnbull. “The bottom line is people will be able to get, most people will get 50 megabits per second or better under fibre to the node, no one will get less than 25, some people will get up to 100 mbps. It is a very robust technology so there is not going to be much if any demand for residential areas.”

    In a media release issued late last week, Albanese jumped on Turnbull’s comments, claiming they represented evidence that the Coalition planned to “slug Australians up to $5,000 to connect to superfast broadband”. “The Coalition has confirmed that Australians would be forced to pay up to $5,000 to connect fibre direct to their home or business if they win the election,” said Albanese.

    “Labor’s National Broadband Network will deliver fibre to the home to 93 per cent of Australian premises with no connection cost. Malcolm Turnbull told Sky News that if Australians wanted the same superfast broadband under the Coalition: ‘that would be a charge of some thousands of dollars’. When asked directly to guarantee that the charge would not be as much as $5,000, Mr Turnbull said: ‘Well, we haven’t set a rate for it.’”

    Albanese added: Mr Turnbull went on to give an example of a fibre-on-demand service from the United Kingdom: ‘The cost of getting fibre on demand over that distance (500 metres) is 1500 pounds, which I think would work out about $3000.’”

    “This confirms that Mr Turnbull’s plan is modelled on BT in the UK, which charges up to $5,000. Mr Turnbull also admitted that most households would not want to take up this service. That is not surprising seeing that they would be slugged ‘several thousands of dollars’ to connect to superfast broadband. Labor believes access to high-speed, reliable, and affordable broadband is an essential service, like water and electricity. It shouldn’t be a lottery that depends on how much money you have or how close to node you live.”

    Turnbull’s complaints about Labor’s advertising on the issue appear to be based on the fact that throughout the past several months, a number of Australian Labor politicians, including then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then-Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, publicly claimed that the cost of the Coalition’s FTTP on demand service will be exactly $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.

    Fact-checking site Politifact Australia has fact-checked this specific claim (as made by Gillard at the time), and found it to be “mostly false”, due to the fact that Gillard’s wording stated the cost was precisely $5,000 per premise, and that it also implied that those who did not pay $5,000 would not be connected to the Coalition’s NBN broadband infrastructure at all. In fact, they will be, and the cost of the Coalition’s FTTP on demand service has not yet been precisely set.

    Albanese’s comments last week appear to represent the fact that the Communications Minister has settled on more precise wording for Labor’s attack on the Coalition over the issue — with the Minister specifically including the phrasing “up to”, not precisely $5,000, and also avoiding the claim that those who don’t pay the extra fees will not be connected to broadband at all.

    The news comes as Labor’s new cadre of frontbenchers representing the communications portfolio — Communications Minister and Deputy PM Albanese, Minister Assisting for the Digital Economy Kate Lundy, Regional Communications Minister Sharon Bird and Parliamentary Secretary for Broadband Ed Husic — have increasingly been going on the attack when it comes to the Coalition’s rival broadband policy, since they were appointed last month.

    Last week Albanese a pick axe to the Coalition’s rival NBN policy, describing its reuse of portions of Telstra’s copper network as “bizarre” and “neanderthal”, while this week Bird labelled comments made by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania as a deliberate attempt to deceive residents and businesses in the state. Husic has also publicly debated Turnbull in an event in Darwin, and Lundy has also been actively touring the community with NBN-related events.

    opinion/analysis
    Several weeks ago I took strong umbrage at Labor’s election advertising around the NBN. At the time I wrote:

    “It pains me to say it, but the Coalition is completely right to feel like Labor is unfairly taking the electorate for a ride here. Many of the statements and advertisements being put out by Labor politicians at the moment drastically misrepresent the Coalition’s NBN policy and even Labor’s own NBN policy. Despite the fact that senior Labor politicians such as Stephen Conroy would clearly be aware of the nuances of both policies, they continue to make misstatements that mislead Australians about the issues.”

    What we’re seeing here from Albanese is recognition of the fact that some of the Labor propaganda on this issue has gone a little far. Using Turnbull’s comments on Sky News, Albanese has nailed the criticism of the Coalition’s fibre on demand plans. And Albanese is precisely right to do so. There is a key, massive difference between the Coalition’s NBN policy and Labor’s: Labor’s policy is vastly technically superior. As I wrote shortly after the Coalition’s policy was released:

    “Its critics are right; it betrays a tragic loss of long-term vision for Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure. Fibre to the node is a dead-end technology which will, in several decades, be already fading into memory. By investing in fibre to the node, the Coalition isn’t skating to where the puck is going to be, nor even where it is now. It is looking backwards, not forwards, and by doing so it is throwing away the opportunity for Australia’s economy to transition from digging things up out of the ground to a more sustainable knowledge-based export economy — you know, the kind of economy which countries such as Germany and Japan already have.”

    Finally, Labor has gotten its messaging right on this one, and Albanese is definitely correct: If Australians want to gain the same broadband service delivery under the Coalition’s plan as they would under Labor’s, they will need to pay several thousand dollars more — and there will likely also be ongoing yearly costs ranging into the hundreds of dollars extra, if the Coalition follows BT’s model. This is a fundamental difference between the two policies, and Albanese is right to pursue it. Finally, Labor has the right wording on this one, and it’s good to see the Communications Minister of the day nailing the Coalition to the wall on what is, after all, an inferior policy.

    Of course, there are also wider issues with the fibre on demand feature of the Coalition’s NBN policy. As I wrote on Delimiter 2.0 earlier this month (paywalled), for various reasons, if you examine the current state of the NBN project and its likely future, with reference to BT’s fibre on demand service, which the Coalition’s policy is modelled on, it is very likely that the fibre on demand option will just not be made available. In short, it is a pipe deam. As I wrote on Delimiter 2.0:

    “What I want to do in this article is argue that the Coalition is wrong to even lay out fibre to the demand as a possibility to the Australian public at all. There is no doubt that the concept is a tantalising one; after all, who wouldn’t consider paying a little extra for fibre on demand, given the massive service delivery benefit it will bring? But in reality, it simply will not be possible for a Coalition Government to offer fibre on demand options to Australians any time within the short to medium-term; consequently the Coalition should simply delete this option from its rival NBN policy entirely.”

    The fibre on demand option is proving a headache for Turnbull, and it will continue to do so. I suspect the Member for Wentworth is starting to question why it was included in the Coalition’s rival NBN policy at all.

    submit to reddit

    143 Comments

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

    1. PeterA
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 1:19 pm | Permalink |

      Really shows that there is a change in the way the message is being handled in the comms portfolio.

      It is relatively negative, but at least Albo is trying to keep it factual. Sadly the negativity is something pioneered by the coalition, so not much sympathy is left in me for them.

    2. Brendan
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink |

      Frankly, Turnbull left the door wide open by not actually debating what it might cost to actually order a fiber service under a FTTN policy, when he launched it.

      So, he may argue semantics over how much it might be, and get bent out of shape when someone suggests it could be (up to) $5k, but his policy features a user-pays model for Fibre access.

      He might win a battle here or two, over semantics, but ultimately the war — that there is a non-defined cost built-in — is lost.

    3. Brendan
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 2:05 pm | Permalink |

      Also, to answer your comment Renai, regarding simply removing fibre from the Coalition Policy. He can’t.

      A FTTN only network, versus a FTTH network isn’t going to win votes; the “hope” that it (fibre) might be available, cheaper and faster is very much language Turnbull wants to use; it’s an emotive hook that helps sell the policy as a genuine alternative.

      Which is, again, why he is so bent out of shape over pricing discussion. It makes Fibre sound unobtainable. Exclusive. Which might go over just fine with the affluent bohemian set, but does sod all to sell it to those looking down the barrel of a very big bill.

      Turnbull needs his Policy to be a viable alternative. In many ways, it is; FTTN has been considered as an option previously and technically speaking it’s quite possible. Speed is always going to be an issue, but that’s a function of the technology.

      But in many fundamental ways the LNP policy is simply a decade late.

    4. Posted 30/07/2013 at 2:23 pm | Permalink |

      As you’ve said Renai, they’ve nailed down the wording very well.

      Turnbull set himself up for this by using the sentence “We’ve not set a rate for it yet”. Well, that’s about as wishy washy as you can get in politics and he’s gotten slammed for it. Of COURSE they haven’t set a rate for it. They’ve no IDEA how much it would cost in exact dollar figures- they don’t even have a network design yet!

      We need more criticism at this level of technicality. Now Albo just needs to cane them on uploads and total project cost (which he’s already started on both) and it’s the trifecta of pain against the Coalition’s policy.

      The new minister may be “no tech head” but he’s getting his info straight from those who are….

      • Fibroid
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

        @seven_tech

        ‘We need more criticism at this level of technicality. Now Albo just needs to cane them on uploads and total project cost (which he’s already started on both) and it’s the trifecta of pain against the Coalition’s policy.’

        It won’t happen on a pure technical basis, Labor want to avoid at all costs a pure debate on FTTN vs FTTP, Fibre to the Node is too close to Fibre to the Premise in terminology , Labor is aware the average punter couldn’t really give a stuff what they get as the copper to the exchange replacement, let alone know or care what the speed differences are.

        Labor are concentrating on the ‘scare theme’ that is to insinuate a residence will have to pay to ‘get off the copper’, and so are therefore concentrating on the conjecture costing of FoD based loosely on Openreach examples from the UK, the purpose of which is to correlate the Coalition FoD OPTION with Labor FTTP as if they are one and the same.

        That is the Labor equivalent of FoD is ‘free’ (it isn’t of course) and the Coalition equivalent will cost you up to $5000.

        ‘The new minister may be “no tech head” but he’s getting his info straight from those who are….’

        Yes we know what ‘straight info’ he’s getting, emphasis the Labor NBN is FREE, never mention the Coalition FTTN and emphasise the Coalition will force you to open your wallet bigtime if you want to get off exchange based copper ADSL.

        • PeterA
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

          Continuing on the scare theme?

          They have joined the club where slogans like: 90 billion dollars, 80 years late, asbestos filled ducts, white elephant.

          They are certainly using scary words and arguments. But it is a damn sight better than saying nothing at all. When their primary problem is not communicating at all, they need to start talking about what benefits they have, which is easiest to start with pointing out where your “competitor” fails.

        • Woolfe
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink |

          ‘It won’t happen on a pure technical basis, Labor want to avoid at all costs a pure debate on FTTN vs FTTP, Fibre to the Node is too close to Fibre to the Premise in terminology , Labor is aware the average punter couldn’t really give a stuff what they get as the copper to the exchange replacement, let alone know or care what the speed differences are.’

          I think you do the Australian public a disservice.

          ‘That is the Labor equivalent of FoD is ‘free’ (it isn’t of course) and the Coalition equivalent will cost you up to $5000.’

          Of course it isn’t we pay for it in our taxes, just like we will pay for the base level of the coalition plan in our taxes. So for all intents and purposes there is no additional cost to the “average punter” in the Labor plan.
          Ie if you would like the potentially same technical service(lets say 100mb minimum, not up to) on the Liberal plan, you will not only have to pay an outright fee for installation, in addition to the cost you pay in taxes, but it appears you may also need to pay a yearly fee if Openreach’s example is used.

          So yes, that is exactly what they are doing, and justifiably so it would appear.

          ‘‘The new minister may be “no tech head” but he’s getting his info straight from those who are….’
          Yes we know what ‘straight info’ he’s getting, emphasis the Labor NBN is FREE, never mention the Coalition FTTN and emphasise the Coalition will force you to open your wallet bigtime if you want to get off exchange based copper ADSL.’

          Well is that inaccurate? If you don’t have a re-mediation requirement(and of course re-mediation should not be that common should it?) then the only way you will be able to get the equivalent service on the Coalition plan, that would be available on the Labor plan is to “open your wallet bigtime”, and pay for the additional connection costs.

          • Tom
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink |

            We don’t pay for Labor’s FTTP connections with our taxes. It will be paid for by people paying access fees to ISPs, which will be partially passed on to NBNCo in the way of wholesale costs.

            It doesn’t involve using taxes to pay for it at all.

            • Woolfe
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink |

              My apologies, you are correct. For some reason I had thought only a portion of it was to be recouped as a fund. But no as it turns out Cost o f the build is recouped from user revenue.
              Apparently the Coalition plan is the same in that regard, according to this http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2013-australian-broadband-policies-compared.pdf.

              So let me retract my statement regarding it being paid by taxes. It doesn’t actually affect my point, which was of course that the cost to the taxpayer is in fact 0 except in the coalition plan where you to get the equivalent level of service you would need to outlay a large installation cost, and possibly an annual fee, but thank you for calling me on it, I am glad that misconception is cleared up now. :-D

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink |

                The problem with the LBN model is Malcolm allows completion against NBN Co, his $29.5b will never actually be paid back….

                • Fibroid
                  Posted 01/08/2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink |

                  But it’s much easier to pay back $44.1b , err ok.

                  • jasmcd
                    Posted 01/08/2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink |

                    Fibroid, you know the answer to this one.

                    Turnbull has stated that he will open the wholesale market to competition. This will dilute the revenue the LBN is able to achieve. Furthermore, as per the normal market mechanisms, this loss of income for the LBN will start in the most profitable areas. The LBN will still need to pony up the infrastructure investment in these areas, however these cherry picked sites will be unlikely to produce any ROI for NBNco.

                    The outcome will be perverse. Those who live in the areas that have struggled for years to get decent broadband will be subsidising those in the suburban centres of the major cities who generally have had the least issues with broadband connection.

                  • Observer
                    Posted 01/08/2013 at 9:59 am | Permalink |

                    It certainly is…. If you have a revenue to cover it.

                    Spare us the err ok. Unless of course you want sarcasm back, for which you are a pretty easy target.

                    • Alex
                      Posted 01/08/2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink |

                      … and then strangely, sob personal attack :/

                  • Tinman_au
                    Posted 01/08/2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink |

                    But it’s much easier to pay back $44.1b , err ok.

                    Yes. Let’s see if you can work out why ;o)

                    • Fibroid
                      Posted 02/08/2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink |

                      I have, you subtract 29.5 from 44.1, that’s the difference they have to make up.

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink |

                        If only life were really that simple…

                      • Observer
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink |

                        As usual ignore the points that you can’t debate. Typical of your disingenuous and snipping tactics.

                        I would be nice if you could contribute in a meaningful way but that’s obviously beyond you. The problem with people like you, who are trying to be right at all cost, is that they end up sounding stupid more often than not. It is evident, however, that this doesn’t seem to bother you.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink |

                        +1 Observer

        • Posted 31/07/2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink |

          @Fibroid

          It won’t happen on a pure technical basis, Labor want to avoid at all costs a pure debate on FTTN vs FTTP

          I never said technically, I said techniCALITY. This is a technicality that Turnbull left WIDE open. Turnbull did no better or worse when trying to say Labor had lied by saying connection to the NBN was free- connection to it IS free. USING it isn’t.

          THIS sort of debate is the only way Albanese can win against Turnbull- use his own technicalities against him.

          Labor are concentrating on the ‘scare theme’ that is to insinuate a residence will have to pay to ‘get off the copper’, and so are therefore concentrating on the conjecture costing of FoD based loosely on Openreach examples from the UK, the purpose of which is to correlate the Coalition FoD OPTION with Labor FTTP as if they are one and the same.

          Mate, you’re blaming the wrong party here for getting into conjecture. The Coalition have constantly rambled themselves into conjecture, particularly Turnbull on BT’s rollout. There are a dozen elements I can name off the top of my head that make the likelihood of a BT style rollout achieving exactly the same goals here and for the same costs TOTAL conjecture. Yet Turnbull still persists with it. And when asked BY THE MEDIA a legitimate question about FoD, he engaged in FURTHER conjecture about BT’s usage AGAIN.

          If you believe Labor have NO right or reason to go after total conjecture, then it is quite plain you are not objective.

          It’s not only that, but technicalities such as:

          - Labor NBN- $30.4 billion to the government, $44.1 billion funding. Coalition plan total funding AND total to the government $29.5 billion- difference to the Australian debt load- $900 million for 1/10th the speed.

          - Coalition guarantee of 25Mbps line speed- only guarantees 20Mbps downloads (LESS than many hundreds of thousands get on ADSL) unless Coalition are suggesting a 24/1 split like ADSL.

          - NO guarantee on uploads- a Legitimate and very important part of the growing trend of interactivity of the net

          That’s just 3 for starters. If they can be pushed in the right way, they are extremely powerful and painful technicalities the Coalition CANNOT get around. For example, Turnbull keep saying when the 25Mbps is brought up “but most will get above this”. Fine- then why won’t he promise to enshrine it in legislation? Why? Because he AND Telstra KNOW they cannot guarantee it for the amount of money proposed to be spent in just 3 years. It took Deutchse Telekom 330 000 Nodes to guarantee 25Mbps to 10 Million premises….

          You constantly talk of how Labor are spinning ALL the minor points because “that’s all they’ve got”. Then why is the NBN still receiving >65% popularity after 5 years and all this HORRIBLY slow rollout you keep constantly reminding us is an utter failure…..?

    5. stoffs
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink |

      i’d prefer if we were legally allowed to nail them to a wall …. with really big nails… and a sledgehammer

      • Soth
        Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink |

        *grabs his pneumatic nail gun*

    6. GongGav
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink |

      I’m back.

      Something that gets missed a lot in the BT cost debate is that the BT costs are exclusive of VAT. Liken it to not having GST included, and you’re pretty close. So the costs listed (in this case the $3000 or $5000 amounts) need to be bumped up a further 10% to allow for GST.

      Making the cost to move from FttN to FttP even higher for the consumer.

      I’m also not sure if the prices being used for reference (the $3000 amount for 500m) includes both the connection fee and annual rental in the initial price, which would have to form part of the pricing structure. If there was no annual fee, the base cost would inevitably be higher, so if someone wants to argue that it doesnt need to be there, bump the base 1000 pound amount up to compensate.

      The $5000 claim is simple to calculate from what I see on the Openreach page – 1400 pounds for Band D plus 500 pounds connection, and 456 pounds annual rental totalling 2356 pounds. Roughly double that for exchange rate gets around the $5000 amount.

      While its still misleading, its certainly close enough to the mark to get out of the “mostly false” category. It should be enough to raise questions over The Turnbulls Fibre User Demand (ie FUD) idea.

      • Tom
        Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink |

        To be fair, the numbers for today equate to closer to the $4000 mark. Still well above $3000

        http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=2356&From=GBP&To=AUD

        • GongGav
          Posted 30/07/2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink |

          Add 10% on top of that for GST. $4400 is close enough for the $5000 argument to have merit, which is what I was getting at.

          The 2356 pound amount is exclusive of VAT, or GST here, so you need to add that in as well – its definitely going to be added on in Australia. So 2356 + 235 would be 2591 pounds, or close enough to $4400 at todays rate.

          End of the day though, both parties are using extremes. But the negativity around the $5000 claim is absurd, when the very suppliers being refered to all but say its going to be around that mark for the most unlucky.

          Which, to me at least, makes the “up to $5000″ claim a perfectly valid one to make.

          • Harimau
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink |

            Currency exchange rate isn’t always strongly indicative of differing costs anyway.

            If we looked at the “labour exchange rate” (for want of a better term) for example, the highest rate is 3.82 AUD paid in Australia per 1 GBP paid in the UK (graphic designers) and the lowest is 2.07 AUD paid in Australia per 1 GBP paid in the UK (plumbers).
            Excel spreadsheet screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/GJhXnPL.png
            Source for the data: http://www.bobinoz.com/blog/10153/australian-and-uk-salaries-compared-part-two-2012/

            As labour costs would be reasonably significant in projects like these, I think it’s fair to use those figures as one point of comparison.
            Using even the smallest of those (plumbers: 2.07), we get 2591 pounds is equivalent to $5363.37 Australian.

            Using the Economist’s Big Mac Index ( http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index ), a Big Mac in Australia is AUD5.035 while it costs GBP2.69 in Britain, giving an exchange rate of 1.87. 2591 pounds is therefore equivalent to $4849.70 Australian.

            I think that, therefore, “up to $5000″ is a perfectly reasonable claim, and there’s a possibility the cost could be even greater than that.

            • GongGav
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink |

              Yeah, good point re labor exchange rates. Every which way you slice it, it still comes out at being reasonably close to $5000 as what some people could pay. Making the argument around that number a perfectly valid one to make.

            • nonny-moose
              Posted 01/08/2013 at 1:01 am | Permalink |

              im working to it in slightly different way. my maths is pretty shoddy but i was trying to think of it in a ‘what are the outcomes of the design’ sense….

              MT sez: “…the average distance would be around 500 metres…” average – hmmm im no good at areal density – but im wondering if my feeling that the number of houses within a 500m sphere is likely to be less than the number of houses in the band from the edge of that 500m out to say, 1km, yes? im grasping at a way to reverse engineer towards what his maximum line length is, because thats a bit more useful than the ‘average’ length i would think… in any case, how many people are going to be over that 500m ‘average’. because he goes on to say:

              ‘The cost of getting fibre on demand over that distance (500 metres) is 1500 pounds,’ which he suggests is 3K (~$2534AUD @xe.com, – i dug up the value before i saw the link further down as a matter of fact :lol:). but if thats the AVERAGE distance then there certainly will be people outside that line length who will cost more to get service – and if hes going ‘no, its only 3k, only 3K’ on the *average* distance, i think Albos ‘up to 5K’ is a legitimate stab at outlining the max cost you could be hit for if you get a coalition win and you lost the line length lottery. badly.

              another exercise: if 1500 quid for 500m and the line length is ACTUALLY 50% over – 750m, and we say the cost per m is proportional, so its another 750 quid on(big assumption there but anyways). xe puts 2250 quid at 3800 AUD. if VAT has not been accounted for in that 1500 quid figure, putting that back in gets it over the 4K mark, 20% vat would be a tad over 4.5K actually… it really comes down to how many folk will require a longer line to buy into FoD when it comes to that ‘no, it’ll only be 3K’ claim. if you chuck in the relative buying powers of the AUD vs GBP it gets worse.

              if everyone is on a short run FoD’d be hunky dory, but that 500m ‘average’ has me thinking. and my skepticism of the 3K figure is rising….. and thats nothing at all to speak of speeds attainable over that 500m average either…..

              • GongGav
                Posted 01/08/2013 at 9:04 am | Permalink |

                Picture a residential road 1km long. Houses every 10m, with a node at 1 end or the other. Average distance (100 homes @ 10m intervals) is 500m from the node…

                Want the very simple math, picture same road, only with just 1 home at either end – 0m from node, and 1000m from node. Average is still 500m.

                Not that we’re likely to see that scenario, but thats the extremes – if the term is ‘average 500m’ then half the population needs to be further than 500m to counteract the others less than 500m. Its how averages work.

                And before someone nitpicks, yes, thats not an absolute and there are always exceptions to that (smaller block sizes at one end or other, etc), but its pretty damn close.

                If they put the node halfway down that 1km, the average distance is 250m.

                • nonny-moose
                  Posted 01/08/2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink |

                  but its not servicing just a linear residential road – i was thinking in circular area not linear – i.e. average 10×10 blocks (or however big you like) how many fit in the circle 500m around a node vs the ones in the band 500-1km out.

                  block sizes is similar – its possible theres a case where big houses clustered around the node and lots of smaller ones further out – that would basically skew the FoD cost higher. or more blocks tying into a node from further away – the 500m-1km group above – with the result that instead of your usual bell curve for costs you get one pushed over such that few people pay cheap and most people pay a lot.

                  thats really my big concern, that by going by this $3K 500m average figure its going to dud people that it is not so bad, you might be lucky and be close to the node and not pay much…. but im getting the sense that you are more likely to fall over that line than under. i have plenty of questions about the liberal policy on the FTTN grounds alone but this whole FoD thing basically looks like a mess waiting to happen in a number of ways.

                  • GongGav
                    Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink |

                    I was simplifying it as much as possible.

                    The circular approach is flawed anyway, its based on a distance from the node ‘as the crow flies’, when its going to be a considerably smaller sideways footprint than you expect. The units behind me for example could be 50m from the node in a straight line if it was outside my door, but 300m away via cable length – 100m to the corner, 100m along the cross st, and 100m back up the road to their place. Or, if the node is on that corner, 200m versus my 100m for units that are only meters apart in reality.

                    Because cross streets add right angles, and the like, you’re going to effectively need nodes every 2 or 3 streets. In short, a circular footprint isnt going to happen. Not without considerably more planning and luck than I expect will happen.

                    Might happen in some areas, but certainly not everwhere, which comes back to the same problem.

      • Mark
        Posted 30/07/2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink |

        Isn’t VAT in the UK calculated at 20% for most things and not 10% like our current GST rate?

        See:

        https://www.gov.uk/vat/overview

        • GongGav
          Posted 30/07/2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink |

          Probably. But the Openreach page linked in the story has prices that are excluding VAT. So any price you use needs to have the relevant tax added on top. VAT for the UK, GST here. And when you add that to the calculation, it makes a difference to whatever base distance/cost you figure things on.

    7. Kevin Cobley
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink |

      Turnbull’s NBN policy is a policy for the Kev 07 election the problem is it’s now 2013 and the scale of growth of internet traffic is making his argument for the FTTN look increasingly stupid. He’s marketing a product with a built in obsolescence date that’s before the completion date of his scheme.
      He’s not announcing any pricing policy for FTTH just a few vague hypothetical estimates, the electorate wants certainty and we have a right to know before the election what fibre to home will cost. If Turnbull is unable to supply this information he is unelectable.

    8. Tinman_au
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink |

      I think a point a lot of people are missing, is that FoD will actually be something people further than 500m from a node will actually need/want.

      There are actually 8 more tiers above the 500m price…the last figure quoted is 3,500 pounds for 1,500-1,999m, then there a 4 more above that with “Terms On Application”

      http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLOGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D

      The falsehoods are still flowing…

      • GongGav
        Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink |

        Was going to comment on that myself Tinny, but to be fair to The Turnbull, if their FttN plan goes as planned, the maximum distance by 2019 will be 500m, wont it? Been overseas for 6 weeks (yay me!) so a little rusty, but we certainly shouldnt be seeing those sorts of distances with the FttN connections.

        Doesnt make FttN any more palatable, but its misleading to argue those 3500 pound amounts when reality is we shouldnt be seeing those distances inside the 93% footprint.

        • Daniel
          Posted 30/07/2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink |

          So far we don’t know what we are going to see from Turnbull.

          It’s only recently (you know towards Election) that 500M is being spoken about.

          At first it was about 1km (I believe it was), then slowly to about 800M.

          Moving Goalposts.

          At least with the Labor’s NBN you don’t need to worry about this stuff.

          • GongGav
            Posted 30/07/2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink |

            Yeah, perfectly fair Daniel. I’m just using The Turnbulls best case scenario as the best we can expect from the Coalition, which at the moment is 500m from the node.

            IF they deliver on that maximum, then the maximum cost still isnt very good for the end consumer. Big assumption, but we’re giving Labor just as much respect so its only fair. Point being, lets try to take the crap out of this debate.

            Reality is, for FttN we’re very unlikely to see longer loops than 800m, and more than likely to see around 500m as a maximum.

            I’m willing to concede that myself, and base my arguments against FttN on those assumptions. It takes one more thing from the pro-FttN debate when you use THEIR numbers to show its still a rubbish idea.

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink |

            For the speeds Malcolm is talking about, the nodes will need to be within 500m.

    9. Tailgator
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink |

      Of course, this issue of cost ignores the basic inefficiency of the FoD concept. It would entail a work crew to be onsite to roll out one cable over 0-500 metres and then leave, only to come back 6 months later to do it again for the house next door? As a member of the Liberal Party, a party that espouses and promotes efficiency and productivity, I’m astounded that Mr Turnbull and the Party would put forward a concept that is so inherently inefficient.

      But …..
      - those inefficiencies would be paid for by the consumer,
      - the private sector would be the ones to benefit, and
      - we all know it’s really about political/economic ideology and gaining power,
      …. rather than leveraging efficiency and maximizing productivity.

    10. Anthony
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink |

      Whats more worrying than the thousands of dollars for the connection cost (however much it is – and this I personally dont mind paying, as long as it a choice I have), is the “‘annual rental’ cost of £465 (AU$765)”…. This is on top of the ISP service fee!!!!

      • jasmcd
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:52 am | Permalink |

        Spot on, on these figures the most “controversial” claim of a FoD connection costing $5k seems an underestimate as over a 10 year period cost for a fibre line could cost in excess of $10k. Even if you make the argument that the annual fee won’t be charged here, wouldn’t you have to think that it would be subsidising the lower upfront cost?

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 12:23 pm | Permalink |

          The $5k cost is just a median price, it can be a lot more

          http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/30/albo-slams-turnbull-fttp-on-demand-lottery/#comment-618470

          • Fibroid
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink |

            $5000 is not a median price for anything, it is based on ONE price category of a distance range from a overseas wholesaler in the UK, it is not their median price either.

            The $5000 with a reluctant ‘up to’ that came later in the small print in the Labor anti-Coalition policy spin release is a Labor political construct of their guess of a minor aspect of Coalition policy that is not even on the market yet.

            Of course the realistic statement of ‘ cost yet to be determined’ doesn’t quite have the emotional impact required of a ‘YOU PAY’ and ‘$5000′ in a attention grabbing large font.

            • Alex
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink |

              Yes… it almost has as much impact as the NBN will cost $94B and take 80 years in Tasmania alone….

              Oh no it doesn’t, because FoD could actually cost $5000, whereas the other claims are complete and utter lies…

              But as per usual, don’t let the facts get in the way of your campaigning.

            • Tinman_au
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

              If it’s not the median, why is it the middle price on their list? Hmmm?

              http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLOGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D

              • Fibroid
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 6:30 pm | Permalink |

                The median price is Band D at 1400 pound which is $A2329.

                Even if you add the installation of 500 pound it is still only $3202.

                The median price is not $A5000.

                • Posted 31/07/2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink |

                  @Fibroid

                  I thought you just said it was conjecture to engage in price comparisons as Turnbull “hasn’t set a rate yet”?

                  So why are you trying to prove SO SO hard what the median and/or average price is….when you’ve just said we don’t know what it will be yet!???

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink |

                    So it’s ok for you to correct me about figures like the NBN finish date and I have acknowledged that, but if UK Openreach figures are going to be used as a basis for Coalition FoD costs because we don’t have anything else for comparison with a monetary value it is therefore ok to use figures incorrectly and no one is allowed to dispute them?

                    • Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink |

                      @Fibroid

                      Wait, now you’re arguing you should be allowed to correct for statistical ambiguity on a figure based in conjecture in the first place that shouldn’t be used in the first place by your own argument because Turnbull ‘hasn’t set a rate yet’….

                      Yeah, this is SO a legitimate discussion….

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink |

                        The correction is about the published UK company BT Openreach tabled figures quoted by Tinman_au to make a point, not conjecture, but then you know that.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:01 pm | Permalink |

                        Genuinely… I’m glad the cheque arrived today and you are back Fibroid…

                        After all, sans you, the comments were becoming too rational and there wasn’t any, ridiculous nit-picking, adolescent commenting… in fact common sense actually started to kick in, all round…

                        Phew… that was close eh?

                        Keep up the good work…

                        ;)

                • Tinman_au
                  Posted 01/08/2013 at 2:59 am | Permalink |

                  The median price is Band D at 1400 pound which is $A2329.

                  Even if you add the installation of 500 pound it is still only $3202.

                  The median price is not $A5000.

                  The median (a median is “relating to or constituting the middle value of an ordered set of values” as you don’t seem to know) is actually Band F which is £2500.00 which is $4224.43 AUD (+ the “connection fee” of $844.88 AUD), it keeps going up for another 5 bands…

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 01/08/2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

                    I know what mean, median and mode is, and you and I know why you picked median for your example because you want to avoid averaging.

                    Now back to your linked table, yes the median is the middle value, so in a table you list all the values and pick the middle one , if it is a odd number list of values it is easy to pick the middle, if it is a even number of values you average the middle two to get the median.

                    The value table list of seven in this case stops at Band G because Band H through to K just say ‘Terms on Application’ , so you cannot use them in a value table to determine the Median because they don’t exist as values.

                    So therefore Band D is the median (middle) value of the listed seven values.

                    • Alex
                      Posted 01/08/2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink |

                      Regardless of silly, nit-picking… to get FoD there will be an additional charge.

                      At a rough guess it will cost anywhere “up to” $94B and will take 80 years, in Tassie alone…

                      ;)

                    • Tinman_au
                      Posted 01/08/2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

                      Nice spin, shame it makes no sense what so ever ;o)

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink |

                        It makes too much sense, that’s the real problem.

                        :)

            • Tinman_au
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink |

              Of course the realistic statement of ‘ cost yet to be determined’ doesn’t quite have the emotional impact required of a ‘YOU PAY’ and ‘$5000′ in a attention grabbing large font.

              Malcolm himself was the one that referred us to it, it’s not like we picked it randomly from a Google search….

              • Fibroid
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 6:18 pm | Permalink |

                No this is what he actually said from the text above:

                “In response, Turnbull stated: “Well we haven’t set a rate for it but I can tell you that the typical distance from one of these nodes, the average distance would be around 500 metres. And I can only give you the example from the UK the cost of getting fibre on demand is around £1500 which I think would work out at around $3000. So it is not $5000.”

                Of course everyone wants to ignore the ‘we haven’t set a rate for it’ statement and concentrate on the UK example of a privately owned corporation with shareholders to keep happy called BT because they have actual figures published, so therefore that’s what it will be here, even to the exchange rate conversion dollar including VAT.

                • Posted 31/07/2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink |

                  @Fibroid

                  Of course everyone wants to ignore the ‘we haven’t set a rate for it’ statement and concentrate on the UK example of a privately owned corporation with shareholders to keep happy called BT because they have actual figures published

                  Seriously? You’re going to try and use this argument after JUST lambasting Labor for engaging in total conjecture??

                  You’re saying Turnbull can engage in conjecture, that they might set it WELL below that for some completely odd reason ignoring increase in labour costs, regulations and any number of rollout factors. And yet, BT have published figures which make it NOT conjecture….but that’s ok, you’ve ignored the fact that Turnbull is engaging in conjecture and saying it might be less???

                  Turnbull has NO IDEA what the cost will be. NONE. WHATSOEVER. He is engaging in nothing but total conjecture based on an overseas rollout that may or may not serve as a template for our rollout (which ISN’T up to him- it’s up to NBNCo.) Yet you are willing to say but that’s ok, him guessing is fine, as long as you don’t try and put words in his mouth when he’s said A DOZEN TIMES ALREADY it’s NOT $5K, it’s $3K look at BT!

                  Your argument is completely hypocritical and self-serving.

                  • Alex
                    Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink |

                    Don’t forget typically contradictory too :)

                  • Fibroid
                    Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:50 pm | Permalink |

                    @seven-tech

                    ‘Turnbull has NO IDEA what the cost will be. NONE. WHATSOEVER. He is engaging in nothing but total conjecture based on an overseas rollout that may or may not serve as a template for our rollout (which ISN’T up to him- it’s up to NBNCo.)’

                    Indeed, so you must be really critical of the Labor political campaign based on this conjecture then, at least Turnbull has stated they have not set the FoD rates yet.

                    “Labor still peddling false FTTP-on-demand costs”

                    http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/05/labor-still-peddling-false-fttp-on-demand-costs/

                    .

                    • Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink |

                      @Fibroid

                      I have stated on several occasions to Renai the whole argument is pointless as you cannot directly compare an ongoing rollout in a different country to a hypothetical one in an entirely different one.

                      But just for fun, that statement that he hadn’t set a rate yet was stated AFTER that article was written….

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:26 am | Permalink |

                        Well it’s bleeding obvious that no FoD rates have been set yet, it’s not breaking news, the Coalition policy was released at the end of April there was no FoD rates in it, there has been no addition to that policy since, nor is there likely to be.

                        The Coalition cannot possibly set the rates yet, they are not in power for one and it will be a matter for their NBN Co and their FoD contractors to determine, with approval by the ACCC and RSP resellers some time in the first half of 2014.

                        You know how that drawn out process works , the NBN Co submits its FoD rate table to the ACCC for approval, the ACCC invites industry comment, the industry says it isn’t cheap enough, the ACCC thinks about it and asks the NBN Co to submit modified tables and on and on it goes.

                        Of course all the above assumes hurdle No 1 is in the bag, Telstra have agreed to let their copper be used for FTTN and once again the ACCC has approved whatever agreement is in place between the NBN Co and Telstra that allows that to happen without giving Telstra even more dominance in the market than they already have.

                        So that leaves us with a mighty big vacuum in any discussion on FoD that has to be filled, the stocking filler is BT in the UK as the only example of how it works in a practical sense.

                        What is interesting about the change in the debate in Delimiter and elsewhere over the last year or so is the sudden dropping of the theme ‘you cannot upgrade FTTN to FTTP’.

                        I note also that the expert panel that originally recommended the Labor FTTP rollout back in 2009 had as one of its reasons against FTTN that FTTN was not a transition to FTTP, it would interesting to know what they think of the BT transition model from FTTN to FTTP that is available now in the UK?

                      • Observer
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:50 am | Permalink |

                        No. What is bleeding obvious is that you use so many words to say so little. Notable that at the end of your rant you are trying to start a new senseless debate.

                        What don’t you give us your views on the lottery aspect of this debate? Now that would be more interesting and on topic.

                      • Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink |

                        hey Observer,

                        this is a warning. Be polite or be banned.

                        Renai

                      • Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink |

                        “I have stated on several occasions to Renai the whole argument is pointless as you cannot directly compare an ongoing rollout in a different country to a hypothetical one in an entirely different one.”

                        hey man,

                        I’m sorry, but this is not a rational argument. It is valid to compare broadband rollouts between countries, and many other people are debating those issues. If you continue to insist that the UK and Australia cannot be compared at all, despite the fact that people can and are comparing them in a valid debate about the situation, then I will consider banning you from Delimiter for irrationality.

                        Please, don’t pick sides. Maintain an open mind about the situation.

                        Renai

                      • Posted 02/08/2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink |

                        @Renai

                        I disagree with your assertion I don’t have an open mind Renai. I simply stated it was pointless trying to compare 2 rollouts in different countries directly- such as when Turnbull starts to nit pick about $5K or $3K on a product that BT launched less than 6 months ago to a country with entirely different regulatory systems, labour laws and pay and previous telecommunication industry position.

                        I have no issue in the fact than an FTTN rollout is possible in Australia and the rollout speed and possibilities are possible to compare with BT (AFTER setup of the required regulations and network design, which haven’t been done here yet). It is entirely feasible we could see similar speeds, network functionality and premises covered. But I SEVERELY disagree with any price comparisons. I don’t see how you can agree with them knowing about the differences of our pricing NOW with ADSL & HFC (Approximately 50-75% higher in a direct currency conversion sense).

                        If you feel banning me disagreeing for with a non-evidence based assertion that the Coalition WILL charge $3K instead of $5K on average, or vice-versa in the case of Labor, that’s your prerogative. That has what my entire argument with Fibroid has been about- the pointlessness of conjecture over prices from BOTH sides that aren’t directly comparable. Not the technologies or possibilities.

                      • Posted 02/08/2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

                        @seven_tech

                        Mate,

                        you can have whatever view you want on Delimiter, as long as you can back it up. But what is not legitimate is telling other posters that even debating an issue is pointless. It’s not pointless, because they want to debate it. You can argue against their points, but you can’t argue that the whole debate is pointless, because clearly there are people who want to discuss it.

                        Debate the points themselves, not the meta-debate.

                        Renai

                      • Observer
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink |

                        Renai

                        I will try to be polite. However, it would make it a lot easier if Fibroid was not allowed to make statements that he knows full well will provoke and irritate others.

                      • Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink |

                        “statements that he knows full well will provoke and irritate others”

                        Such as?

                      • Observer
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:44 pm | Permalink |

                        “statements that he knows full well will provoke and irritate others”
                        Such as?

                        If you can’t see it yourself, I don’t think it worth the time or effort to look up the many examples of it.

                        So, let’s agree to disagree.

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink |

                        “statements that he knows full well will provoke and irritate others”

                        Such as?

                        I’ll take a crack at that :o)

                        Statements like the one he makes about “wireless being the way to go’ – as far as demand, revenue and profit is concerned correct”

                        The wireless things been discussed over and over (with him as a part of it), and the general consensus has been that wireless, while a great technology, is not capable of “base load” data supply.

                        TL;DR Most debates with Fibroid devolve into arguments on points that have seen consensus many times previously.

                    • Posted 02/08/2013 at 10:46 am | Permalink |

                      @Fibroid

                      Firstly- Nice change of subject to ignore the dead end.

                      Secondly- I love your optimism- ’1st half of 2014′….have you not seen the ACCC and NBNCo’s SAU?? It’s been ongoing for 3 YEARS. I will pay money if they decide anything of consequence before 2015.

                      Finally- I don’t believe anyone here with a decent technical understanding has ever said FTTN-FTTP is impossible. Only not cost-effective, a slower way to get the same thing, a useless waste of space by half for what will end up powered FDHs because they used to house FTTN and ultimately a bad and stubborn way of getting to exactly the same end as the NBN for more money.

                      • Tinman_au
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink |

                        Dual FTTN-FTTP cabinets are only a fairly recent invention. My problem with them is, network design wise, you don’t need a cabinet every 500m with FTTP, so if the end goal is FTTP, FTTN first is overkill.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink |

                        @seven-tech

                        ‘Secondly- I love your optimism- ’1st half of 2014′….have you not seen the ACCC and NBNCo’s SAU?? It’s been ongoing for 3 YEARS’

                        ha ha, yeah fair enough I did have it at first quarter and changed it to 1st half, it probably still is on the optimistic side of optimistic , but in the priority list the Coalition faces to implement their policy as given I would put sorting FoD out way down at the bottom in the small print with multiple subscripts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 against it.

                        :)

            • Observer
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink |

              ” it is based on ONE price category of a distance range from a overseas wholesaler in the UK”

              And by a strange twist of fate, this is the overseas wholesaler that MT keeps referring to as a model to what his network would be like. Amazing that.

              • Fibroid
                Posted 01/08/2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink |

                If you are going to come up with a FoD concept as part of your policy there has to be some basis of comparison, BT has FoD, and it is also rolling out FTTN and FTTP simultaneously, which also is a basis of comparison to Coalition policy.

                But it is another thing to directly extrapolate the private company Openreach wholesale costing table add VAT convert sterling to Australian dollars at August 2013 exchange rates and directly overlay that as a Coalition NBN Co FoD wholesale first half 2014 costing table and make assumptions that BigPond, Optus and iiNet etc will sell FoD just like BT Retail is post a Coalition win.

                I don’t take London Transports Oyster card which I use in the UK and assume the same prices and zoning should therefore apply to the Met Rail Myki card in Melbourne.

                • Posted 01/08/2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

                  @Fibroid

                  If you believe you cannot extrapolate the cost….then why are you defending Turnbull’s ‘but look at BT!’????

                  Labor could be just as right that it would be $5K. They might be totally wrong too. Know where they got that? BT. SAME PLACE AS TURNBULL.

                  You cannot apply one set of rules to Turnbull and one set to Labor. And no, you can’t say ‘but he said they haven’t set a rate yet’. He’s been saying for months it’s more like $3K before FINALLY backing down and saying they haven’t set a rate.

                  The whole argument is pointless. Defending Labor is pointless and defending Turnbull is pointless. You cannot extrapolate those costs. In EITHER direction.

                • Observer
                  Posted 01/08/2013 at 1:09 pm | Permalink |

                  “If you are going to come up with a FoD concept as part of your policy there has to be some basis of comparison”

                  No, you don’t. You only do when you haven’t done your own costing. This is the problem with MT’s policy all his costings are not based on proper calculation for fttp in Australian but on convenient borrowing from other existing operators or from his very selective imagination (eg FTTP costing $4000 per premises, cost of upgrading $2968 or his network being a third cheaper but trebling the cost of FTTP).

                  The fact is, whether you like it or not, is that the whole is so vague that it invites assumptions. There so many unknown. Just to name a few: cost of copper, cost of upgrading, distance of the nodes and therefore number of nodes, how much of the copper needs to be remediated or replace, upload speed).

                  In answer to these questions all we get from MT is quesstimation, or evasion or better still slogans.

                  So, the moral of the story is: If you don’t like people to speculate, don’t be vague.

                  Feel free to pass the message to headquarters.

                  • Tinman_au
                    Posted 01/08/2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink |

                    This is the problem with MT’s policy all his costings are not based on proper calculation for fttp in Australian but on convenient borrowing from other existing operators or from his very selective imagination (eg FTTP costing $4000 per premises, cost of upgrading $2968 or his network being a third cheaper but trebling the cost of FTTP).

                    In coding, it’s called quick and dirty :o)

      • John Osmond
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 8:57 am | Permalink |

        +1

    11. ungulate
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

      The most galling part of Turnbull’s approach is it ultimately rests upon the unstated assertion that fibre is not the inevitable end game. It’s the act of both exploiting and fostering of ignorance that is even more annoying than the general level of intellectual dishonesty inherent in almost everything the Liberals say.

      Once you take into account the fact that fibre is inevitable then you can only understand fraudband as an exercise in holding back the tide. And an expensive one at that. Spending additional money overall merely to cause delay and wasted opportunity. Why? Politics of this kind goes beyond dishonest. It deserves terms like “evil” and “wicked”.

      And you’ll notice that Turnbull time and again bats off the cost of fibre extension with the hand waving proposition that “only a few need this”. Again the entire tactic is to avoid being brought to heel over the fact that its reckless and wasteful to just spend more money on copper when fibre is unavoidable.

      And of course the most annoying thing is the failure of the mainstream media to seize upon the fact that the game is up, that there is no future in copper, and the Liberals are engaging in fraud.

    12. Daniel
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink |

      I’m more concerned with Turnbull plan for hidden taxes.

      1. Per premises cost rollout initially for FTTN.
      2. Fibre-on-Demand tax costs and this time more construction work.

      As I noted yesterday, the following:

      $900 for the initial FTTN Rollout.
      ~$3000 or so for the Fibre-on-Demand costs (can be higher).
      =$3900

      Now compared that do doing FTTP straight off the bat at ~$2500 per premises you have $1400 dollars head room.

      Fibre on Demand is a distance based product charge, and it’s near a NGA Aggregation Node and not a FTTN Cabinet.

      • jhmos
        Posted 01/08/2013 at 1:09 am | Permalink |

        >Fibre on Demand is a distance based product charge, and it’s near a NGA Aggregation Node and not a FTTN Cabinet.
        That’s something I have not seen before. Everyone is assuming the 500m is from the FTTN cabinet. Can you expand on that, are you saying its likely to be more?

    13. ungulate
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink |

      “The fibre on demand option is proving a headache for Turnbull, and it will continue to do so. I suspect the Member for Wentworth is starting to question why it was included in the Coalition’s rival NBN policy at all.”

      Renai,

      That’s because what the Liberals are doing is not a legitimate and sincere exercise in policy making, but a calculated attempt to deceive as many voters as possible. Its the politics of neutralisation. Its about making Liberal leaning voters feel “safe” to vote Liberal. And the need to throw in the fibre extension is better understood from this context. Its not a good policy. Its not even real policy. Its about telling people what they want to hear. In other words, fraud.

    14. scarytas
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

      From the main article:
      “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”

      So, even if one was prepared to pay out the money, and pay the annual fee, and pretend to be happy about they still might not connect you.
      I can’t remember the exact words from Turnbull’s non-policy document, but it seemed to be an overarching get out clause along the lines of “economically viable to do so”.

      • grump3
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink |

        Perhaps we should ask Turnbull when would their “Fibre on Demand” option be implemented?
        During their 6 year roll out period or upon it’s completion?
        Considering they expect to achieve “25Mbps for all by 2016″ & 50-100Mbps 3 years later I would expect all the available construction crews would be flat out elsewhere & rather too busy to come back to service each & every single request on demand.

    15. Daniel
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink |

      Also I suggest reading the fine print on the Openreach pages to find extra hidden charges.

    16. Mike
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 7:48 pm | Permalink |

      I believe another issue that isn’t being discussed is the maximum speeds that will be available on a LNP FOD connection. It certainly IS the case that FOD via FTTN node doe NOT equal FTTP via GPON (as in the current ALP NBN). If you look at the UK situation, the maximum available download speed is 330Mb/s on their FOD. As everyone knows, the NBN FTTP fibre will support 1Gb/s with all indications it will ultimately support 10Gb/s. Regardless of whether those speeds are needed, it does seem to be ridiculous to offer a fibre connection that is grossly bandwidth limited. It’s just another question that Turnbull can’t – or more likely, won’t – answer. Like ‘how fast is FTTN upload?’ All we ever get from him are weasel words; bullying and ridicule about “zealots”, and a reversion to straw-man arguments.

      Sorry – once again, it is just a pathetic example of the LNP “non-policy”. Just say enough to make you think it is safe to vote for the LNP……. Australia deserves far better than this mob!

    17. Observer
      Posted 30/07/2013 at 7:59 pm | Permalink |

      “We’ve not set a rate for it yet”

      I think this statement is representative of the whole policy. Haven’t set a cost for buy the network, to maintain the copper, or set a rate for plans.

      Even the costing of the policy doesn’t appear to have been calculated. The policy document just states that a maximum of $29.5 billion will be allocated.

      This is in keeping with the way the Coalition are attempting to gain government. I just received Tony Abbott’s little book of mission and motherhood statements, in the mail. It is very light in details and costing.

    18. Fibroid
      Posted 31/07/2013 at 9:17 am | Permalink |

      Typical Labor beat up, concentrate exclusively on the minor part of the Coalition policy, never mention the term ‘Fibre to the Node’ or ‘ Co-funding’ under any circumstance, at least they are holding the line and sticking to the script.

      The reality is the vast majority of residences will be happy with FTTN speeds and will NEVER optionally upgrade with FoD, Labor know this hence the emphasis on the exception, with a hefty boost of that old political fallback when you don’t have much else ‘scare them’.

      • jasmcd
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink |

        Fibroid,

        The reality is the vast majority of residences will tolerate the lower FTTN speeds because
        1.) they can’t afford FoD
        2.) they can’t justify the excessively hight ongoing monthly infrastructure fees.
        3.) FoD isn’t economically viable enough to be offered in their area.
        4.) They are only renting the property

        Customer uptake for FoD will be negligible solely for the hurdles that are being placed around it.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink |

          I have looked at FTTN speeds as promised by the Coalition, I have looked at FTTN speeds available from overseas FTTN retailers and associated plan pricing.

          On that basis I don’t need FoD at all, that’s putting aside I don’t have clue and neither do they how Australian RSP’s like BigPond, iiNet, TPG etc will package it.

          • Brendan
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink |

            I am glad that you are here, once again, to arrogantly example that copper is good enough for you, so by proxy it’s good enough for everyone else.

            You, are not we, just as we are not you. Assuming your example and circumstances are indicative for a broader population and demand set is just plain silly and invalidates most all of your comments.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink |

              No Brendan it’s not ‘copper is good enough for me’, I appreciate the don’t mention the Fibre bit in FTTN just like Labor does but the actual product is called Fibre to the Node, and yes it is good enough for me, 25Mbps is fine and anything above that up to 100Mbps is a bonus.

              • clownface
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink |

                If fibroid (read: MURDOCH) says copper is fine in the 21st century for the minions then copper must be fine for the minions in the clever country in the 21st century!

              • Alex
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

                No, you are arguing that you don’t need FoD (fibre from the node to your home)…

                So yes you are arguing copper from the node to your home, is good enough.

                Or perhaps should I just say typically, you are arguing, and just leave it at that?

          • GongGav
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

            “On that basis I don’t need FoD at all” — in what time period? Now, or in 2019 when the FttN build is scheduled to be completed?

            This is the largest flaw in the Liberal plan – by the time its expected to be completed, the expected needs of society will be more than what FttN can deliver.

            We’ve gone from needing 56k dialup to 12 Mbps in about 14 years. Do the math of doubling every 2 years (which 56k–>12Mb pretty much is), and we’re at the brink of the 80 Mbs FttN can deliver at about the time its completed.

            What do you say then, when you need to fund the thousands to upgrade?

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 12:35 pm | Permalink |

            I have looked at FTTN speeds as promised by the Coalition, I have looked at FTTN speeds available from overseas FTTN retailers and associated plan pricing.

            On that basis I don’t need FoD at all, that’s putting aside I don’t have clue and neither do they how Australian RSP’s like BigPond, iiNet, TPG etc will package it.

            So you’ll just be getting the 25Mbps plan once the NBN rolls out your way then ;o)

            • GongGav
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink |

              Do you think we broke him?

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:30 pm | Permalink |

                I doubt it ;o)

      • Alex
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink |

        Vast majority, done a survey have you?

      • david
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink |

        A large fraction of households in the NBN rollout have taken up a 100Mb service, and it is likely that demand for high speed broadband will increase in the future. 100Mb service won’t be available to the vast majority of people under a FTTN build at a reasonable price. Pointing this out is perfectly legitimate.

        • Brendan
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink |

          A large fraction? Could you possible back that with statements?

          Last I read 100mbit demand has been considerably higher than predicted.

          • Brendan
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:13 am | Permalink |

            Sorry David, have re-read. Your comment reads.. awkwardly and I realise that “large fraction” actually has a different context.

            Yes, the claims around FoD pricing via Turnbull’s policy see some big numbers that may or may not be entirely accurate, but they are non-zero.

            People will have to pay to obtain access to a network that is inferior to the current build. Never mind that all of that money is being thrown into a network that at some point will need to be re-built as FTTH – what happens to existing FoD folks then?

            So many unknowns.

            • Fibroid
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink |

              There is one known, FoD is no cost at all if you don’t need it.

              • Alex
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink |

                And FttN will cost almost $30B, even if you don’t need it…

                • Tinman_au
                  Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink |

                  Nice. That argument holds for both networks really :)

                  • Alex
                    Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink |

                    Yes one can dumb, dumb logic down to the dumbest level…

                    I have also asked many, many times, why is it ok for a government to roll out FttN and not FttP…?

                    So far no answers at all, not even a childish nit-pick or strawman argument…

                    • Tinman_au
                      Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:00 pm | Permalink |

                      Yeah, that’s true too, why, when both governments would be spending ~$30b, is FTTN better??!

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink |

                        The logic in the comparison doesn’t hold, FoD is a optional product, the default fixed line upgrade under the Coalition is FTTN (or HFC) with a minimum of 25Mbps for all by 2016 and a minimum of 50 Mbps for 90% of the footprint by 2019.

                        Labor policy is the default fixed line upgrade of FTTP to 93% of residences by 2023.

                        If NBN is important to your swinging vote you take a punt on what default policy will get you off ADSL sooner, the Coalition FoD option with the associated ‘roll the dice’ costing for many voters is irrelevant.

                      • Alex
                        Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes, but what if “I” don’t need it…Fibroid?

                        I don’t want my tax dollars wasted for you to pirate movies and porn faster, via your fan-dangled new FttN…(remember the iron wires are good enough…lol)

                        Shall we dumb it down more?

                      • Posted 31/07/2013 at 6:11 pm | Permalink |

                        @Fibroid

                        The logic in the comparison doesn’t hold, FoD is a optional product, the default fixed line upgrade under the Coalition is FTTN (or HFC) with a minimum of 25Mbps for all by 2016 and a minimum of 50 Mbps for 90% of the footprint by 2019.

                        Labor policy is the default fixed line upgrade of FTTP to 93% of residences by 2023.

                        If you’re going to be specific, you need to be specific about BOTH plans- The Coalition has NO more or less chance of finishing their upgrade to 50Mbps by 2019 than Labor have of finishing the NBN by 2021. NOT 2023.

                        You can’t even produce unbiased replication of straight facts when you accuse others of ignoring Labor spin on FoD.

                      • Fibroid
                        Posted 31/07/2013 at 7:27 pm | Permalink |

                        You are correct the proposed construction NBN finish date is 2021, I was taking the date deadline Telstra has to get everyone off copper onto the NBN, which is 2023.

                        The point about voter choice of Labor vs Coaltion policies remains.

              • Observer
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink |

                There is another known, you can get Fttp if you don’t vote for the coalition. And there is also a bonus. You won’t have to spend $9.5 billion to upgrade the network in 10 years time (based on Malcolm figures, revised with actual cost of an actual FTTP connection).

                • Tinman_au
                  Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:52 pm | Permalink |

                  The problem with upgrading FTTN->FTTP is you’ll have loads more cabinets than you’d actually need doing FTTP to begin with. And by loads, I mean butt loads…

        • Fibroid
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

          @david

          ’100Mb service won’t be available to the vast majority of people under a FTTN build at a reasonable price. Pointing this out is perfectly legitimate.’

          The ‘reasonable price’ is total conjecture for a optional to the residence product release that doesn’t exist yet in Australia, also pointing out that the vast majority of residences on FTTN probably don’t want a 100Mbps FTTP (FoD) upgrade anyway is also perfectly legitimate, especially if they get near to those speeds anyway under FTTN.

          • Observer
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink |

            “Also pointing out that the vast majority of residences on FTTN probably don’t want a 100Mbps FTTP (FoD) upgrade anyway is also perfectly legitimate, especially if they get near to those speeds anyway under FTTN.”

            How do you know that? Have conducted extensive research or has headquarters told you?

            Also, if 50Mbps is near enough 100Mbps, you wouldn’t mind getting fifty percent of your pay, you would you? Near enough, eh?

          • GongGav
            Posted 01/08/2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink |

            Lets do some math. At some point in the near future, our wants/needs are going to be greater than 100Mbps. Based on historical fact, that should be somewhere around 2020.

            So what happens then? If you accept that every home should pay for the priviledge themselves, and figure a cost of even $1,000 per household, there are over 10,000,000 homes that would need to be connected. Thats $10 billion dollars. If you figure $3,000 per home, you triple that amount.

            Lets look at the alternative – Labor. For around the same timeframe, and for just $1b more than what the Liberals are commited to, they can supply those 10,000,000 homes with that connection.

            Get it into your head that our needs increase, and they increase rapidly. They always have, and there is no reason to think the trend wont continue. So what happens in 2019 when FttN can deliver50Mbps and the population is starting to call for 100Mbps?

            You seem to think its great to waste $9 billion or more. Yet somehow manage to believe its the more cost effective approach…

      • david
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:46 am | Permalink |

        However, I do agree that the focus on FOD costs is a scare campaign. It’s a shame, because they do have a something else : a better overall plan. Unfortunately, arguing about a better overall plan only convinces the small section of the public who actually know something about the topic.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink |

        Typical Labor beat up, concentrate exclusively on the minor part of the Coalition policy, never mention the term ‘Fibre to the Node’ or ‘ Co-funding’ under any circumstance, at least they are holding the line and sticking to the script.

        You know “Co-funding” has nothing at all to do with FoD, don’t you?

        • Alex
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink |

          Indeed Tinman,

          Here we have someone who will nit-pickingly argue until he’s blue in the face over the interpretation of one or two words in an entire document, so as to fit his agenda, screaming beat-up.

          Unbelievable.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink |

          ‘You know “Co-funding” has nothing at all to do with FoD, don’t you?’

          So what is your take on how a Co-funded FTTP rollout works on top of a previous FTTN rollout?

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 31/07/2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

            Co-funded is for “state or local governments, utilities or investors…funding of fibre roll outs in certain areas”

            FoD “will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises”.

            Fibre on Demand does not include Co-funded arrangements.

            There is no “take” on it, perhaps you should try reading Malcolm’s proposal before you back it so hard?

            • Fibroid
              Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:03 pm | Permalink |

              But how it works is the same, it is a upgrade to Fibre to the Node to extend the fibre run to the residence, that’s how FoD works 50-50 funding or not.

              The point is Labor don’t want to mention the terms ‘Co-funding’ OR ‘Fibre to the Node’ in any anti-Coalition discussions or leaflet printing, they don’t want to inadvertently promote Coalition policy by confusing Labor MP’s who could muck it up at media sound bite.

              Stick to the ‘pay bigtime to get off the copper’ theme – keep it simple, scary and repetitive.

              • Tinman_au
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

                Look, it’s pretty simple, if you want the same speed as the fibre areas done already, or areas with HFC, you’ll need to pay.

                If you’re at a standard distance from a node, that cost will start at around $3k and go up from there.

                If your 1.5Km from a node, you’ll be looking at something around $10k.

                If you’re at the maximum distance fibre can run before needing a boost (32Km), the cost is probably more than your house is worth…

              • Alex
                Posted 31/07/2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink |

                I’d suggest Labor would be crazy for not mentioning that they themselves promoted FttN in 2007 when it would have been more feasible, but it’s now 6 years too late…

                I’d also mention that the Coalition then referred to FttN as fraudband… but now promote fraudband.

                And I would also as Albo did, be mentioning those extra out of pocket costs involved for the Coalition’s optional FoD to be connected to one’s home, in comparison to the current NBN, where there isn’t an extra cost.

                And I’d shout it loud.

                However having seen Labor’s ineptness at playing the all round political game, who knows :/

      • ungulate
        Posted 31/07/2013 at 8:49 pm | Permalink |

        “The reality is the vast majority of residences will be happy with FTTN speeds and will NEVER optionally upgrade with FoD”

        Fibroid,

        Thank your for exposing the fatal weakness in Turnbull’s rhetoric. By stating openly the ridiculous premise it hangs from. In point of fact, the copper network will continue to degrade to the point of being unserviceable and demand will increase beyond the capability of copper, and do so in short order.

        Lets get this fact straight. There is no possible future in which we will continue to use copper. Either it degrades and we become the only country in the world without a fixed network, or it degrades and we build a fully fibre network to replace it. That’s your only two options.

        • Fibroid
          Posted 02/08/2013 at 1:35 pm | Permalink |

          No we will not be the only country with FTTN, so I assume Australia the USA and the UK will all go down the ‘digital age won’t dawn for us’ gurgler hand-in-hand together around 2020, which is the year pro NBN supporters love to pull out of the hat, for no other reason than it rounds out the decade.

          :)

          • Alex
            Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:04 pm | Permalink |

            Oh how quickly one forgets (or wishes to forget)…

            Remember when you argued (it was only a week or so ago) that Telstra’s copper wasn’t in need of replacement back in 2003 as per my link because you highlighted that Telstra had in fact said it would need replacing ‘within 15 years”.

            Not wanting to argue the within point again (meaning anytime from 2003 but no longer than 15 years)…

            Q. 2003 + 15 = ?

            And yes I do know the answer thank you… do you?

    19. david
      Posted 31/07/2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink |

      Coalition policy document has $3600 per residence* for the NBN FTTH rollout.
      Malcolm claims $900 per residence for FTTN.
      If running fiber to the home then costs an additional $3000, then we have, according to coalition costings, $3900 to build FTTN and piecemeal FTTH – just $300 more than a single mass FTTH rollout.
      So the $3000 fiber extension program must be very heavily subsidised. Or maybe Malcolm just hasn’t thought it through. Or maybe Malcolm is presuming that no-one else will think through.

      * Although, oddly, this is only when it is done by Labor**. FTTH under the Coalition is $1000 less.

      ** That is, when the Coalition imagines it being done by Labor, not when it is actually done by Labor. When actually done by Labor it costs $2400 per residence.

    20. PeterA
      Posted 31/07/2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink |

      FoD is there to attempt to convince people that Fibre to the Home is possible with a coalition government, but that their plan somehow saves money and time by offering it as an additional charge.

      Just because fibre is “available” doesn’t mean anyone who actually wants it will be able to afford it, and pointing it out means that people re-align the coalition’s claims with reality. Negativity is a poor method of argument in isolation, but is extremely important for making sure people understand both sides of a debate.

      Right now; the coalition is entirely negativity. (their plan takes X longer, their plan costs Y more)
      Labour was entirely invisible, but are now adding negativity, and some positivity (our plan does X, their plan doesn’t Y, their plan could cost +Z).

    21. Observer
      Posted 01/08/2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink |

      Just saw the video of Kolher vs Malcom.

      What a joke Malcolm was at his best interrupting doing most of the bullshitting (I mean talking)/.
      In order to call it a debate you need a vivid imagination.

      To top it off questions from the audience were essentially what you would expect from a largely Coalition/business audience with questions like NBN being a monopoly and wireless being the way to go or BT being enormously successful with their rollout.

      Oh, and I just learned from MT that BT must have added 3.5million premises in the last few. Apparently now the have passed 19.5million premises in the last 3.5 years.

      • Tinman_au
        Posted 01/08/2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink |

        What a joke Malcolm was at his best interrupting doing most of the bullshitting (I mean talking)/.
        In order to call it a debate you need a vivid imagination.

        That’s pretty well his style every time I see him “debate” anyone now days. He was so bad on Q&A last time, Tony Jones had to keep pulling him up (but he didn’t let that stop him :/).

      • Fibroid
        Posted 02/08/2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink |

        @Observer

        ‘To top it off questions from the audience were essentially what you would expect from a largely Coalition/business audience with questions like”

        ‘ NBN being a monopoly’ – correct so far.

        ‘and wireless being the way to go’ – as far as demand, revenue and profit is concerned correct again.

        ‘or BT being enormously successful with their rollout.’ – correct again.

        The audience seem to have a got a realistic handle on what it’s all about.

        • Observer
          Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink |

          I have difficulty seeing what your point is. If this is attempt to provoke him. It is a fail.
          As far as you agreeing with those points, it is hardly surprising.

          ‘and wireless being the way to go’ – as far as demand, revenue and profit is concerned correct again.

          Now, this is a perfect example of how far you will go to be correct. You and I both know that the point made was that it would better to go wireless than fixed line. So, once again, you try to twist the proposition to make it correct by using a different set of criteria.

          “‘or BT being enormously successful with their rollout.’ – correct again.”

          11% take up is enormously successful?

          “The audience seem to have a got a realistic handle on what it’s all about.”

          That can only be a provocative statement which I will choose not to reply to.

        • Tinman_au
          Posted 02/08/2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink |

          ‘ NBN being a monopoly’ – correct so far.

          It has to be, as you’d well know if you look at the history of telecoms in this country for the last 50 years. It is, however, a highly controlled monopoly.

          ‘and wireless being the way to go’ – as far as demand, revenue and profit is concerned correct again.

          How quickly you forget Fibroid…the wireless things been discussed on Delimiter ad infinitum. It can’t provide the “base load” that a connected house needs.

          ‘or BT being enormously successful with their rollout.’ – correct again.

          Not as successful in their rural roll out however, so it’s not “enormously”, it’s more “hit and miss”…

    22. Tinman_au
      Posted 02/08/2013 at 11:41 am | Permalink |

      Anyone else notice Malcolm has taken his FAQ on their LBN down?

      http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/uncategorized/coalition-broadband-policy-frequently-asked-questions/

      He also has an extremely funny article up on his blog where he “fact checks” PolitiFact ( http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/fact-checking-politifact#.UfsMv20-Yr4 ) that is using Germany as an example country now (Germany used 330,000 nodes to get reliable speeds so they can meet EU standards).




    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 - 58 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