This fact-checking article is by Matthew Sorell, senior lecturer in the school of electrical and electronic engineering at the University of Adelaide. It was reviewed by Peter Gerrand, honorary professorial fellow in telecommunications at the University of Melbourne. It originally appeared on The Conversation.
“If people want to access high-speed fibre, they will have to pay $5000 for the privilege… We believe that people in regions should pay the same price as people in Brisbane CBD or Sydney CBD. Under the Coalition plan, there will be different prices, one for the CBD and a higher price in regional Australia.” – Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Anthony Albanese, press conference, 9 August.
Both major parties are trying to convince voters that their plan is better than their competitor’s. So, is it true that the Coalition’s broadband plan will cost more for regional households and businesses?
Competing NBN policies and costs
Albanese’s statement seems to conflate the cost of provision with the cost of access. The National Broadband Network’s (NBN) wholesale price is based on provision, access and usage:
- Provision is the cost of installing a connection to the user premises.
- Access is the monthly fee for being able to use the NBN, covering operations and recovering capital expenditure.
- Usage refers to the charge per data volume or digitally delivered service. (Usage charges would be set by internet providers – not NBN Co or the government.)
The government’s NBN rollout includes both the deployment of technology – fibre, fixed wireless and satellite – and the provision of the connection to the premises itself. All of this is provided to the end user at no up-front cost in all but the most exceptional cases.
The Coalition’s policy brings the optical fibre connection to one of about 60,000 neighbourhood “nodes”, or kerbside cabinets, where that fibre connection is then adjusted and linked to the existing copper wire to the home. This technology is known as Fibre to the Node (FTTN) and is intended for 71% of premises.
The policy also provides for 22% of premises being connected by fibre all the way to the home for many new housing estates and where the copper has degraded to the point that fibre is more cost-effective. Those who won’t be connected by fibre to their home can pay for their own connection or possibly co-fund their connection with local councils or private entrepreneurs (this would then split the cost of connection, making it cheaper for individual households).
If all this technical explanation is confusing, here’s a way to think about how both policies work. Suppose our major roads were sealed, minor roads were gravel, and access roads to homes were dirt. The ALP’s policy is like having all roads sealed, with 93% of access roads being sealed and the remaining 7% being upgraded to gravel. The Coalition’s policy is like having all minor roads sealed, but access roads will only be sealed if this is cheaper than gravel. If you want a sealed road to your home, you are welcome to pay for it yourself.
Albanese claims a self-funded connection under the Coalition’s plan will cost A$5000. It is unclear whether he means this is a typical figure, or a worst case. The comparable figure in the UK is between £700 to £1500 although other sources claim up to £3500. Shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has quoted around A$3000 based on the UK figure for a 500 metre connection from the local node.
But using these UK figures can only give us a ballpark estimate of what it would cost in Australia. The UK and Australian circumstances are different, with different levels of urbanisation and costs of labour. Whatever the actual figure will be, there seems to be broad agreement that it is thousands of dollars, and this will be a significant barrier to the take-up of optical fibre.
Will regional Australians pay more?
The government’s policy has a set uniform wholesale price – that is the price of access to the NBN that NBN Co sells on to internet service providers. For regional users, it’s more likely that they will be getting a satellite connection rather than fibre to the home. This technology is more expensive to provide but the cost of access would be the same. Effectively, this means the cost of accessing fibre in the city is cross-subsidising the more expensive satellite technology used in the country.
But the Coalition policy is subtly different. It has a cap on its wholesale price, meaning that the price could be lower. If there was more infrastructure competition, particularly if a competitor found a cheaper alternative technology, this could drive lower costs and lower wholesale pricing. To compete effectively NBN Co would then need to lower their own wholesale pricing.
History suggests price competition might occur in affluent parts of Sydney and Melbourne, and to a lesser extent in Brisbane, Perth and possibly Adelaide. But competition is unlikely to appear on a significant scale elsewhere in the country, including regional areas.
Modelling of this competition effect provided by the minister’s office suggests a wholesale price difference under the Coalition’s plan of just 7% by 2019 for a 12 megabits per second service. This is a difference of around $1.40 per month or $17 per year. A stronger example, including at a higher data rate, may have demonstrated a higher price.
But with the government’s current modelling, it hardly compares to the broader cost differences associated with the current city-country divide of private and government delivery of services. It’s important to note that reliable internet access would mean other costs of living in regional areas, particularly transport and education, could be reduced.
Verdict
Albanese’s claim that it will cost $5000 for a fibre connection to your home under the Coalition’s plan is no more reliable than the Coalition’s estimate of $3000, as there are so many potential cost variables – but clearly the cost will be in the thousands of dollars.
On the second claim about differences in regional and city prices, modelling provided by the minister’s office suggests a wholesale price differentiation of around 7% by 2019.
Review
The article provides a fair analysis. Regional consumers may pay more, but the user-pays principle under the Coalition’s policy also applies to residents in suburbs of the metropolitan cities. The extra user-pays charge for fibre access rather than copper access will dwarf the likely regional difference in retail usage charges over the first several years of usage, for those who want it. So, along with those living in regional areas, those living in more established suburban homes and single-tenant business premises will also be disadvantaged by the Coalition’s policy.
It’s worth noting as well that the final connection price would be affected by how many households or businesses in a given street decide to petition together for a fibre cable to be connected to their houses. Thus the average price for fibre access will likely be much less in high-income suburbs than in low-income suburbs.
On the article’s last point, few people will be using such a low speed as 12 Mbps by 2019. Even rural residents connected to the NBN by radio access will start receiving 25 Mbps by beginning of 2014. On current predictions, by 2019 the normal entry level for fibre to the home services is expected to be 100 Mbps. – Peter Gerrand.
The Conversation is fact checking political statements in the lead-up to this year’s federal election. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.
The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations. This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.
Image credit: Paul Caputo, royalty free
Completely ignoring the fact that FTTH will be far more reliable and have guaranteed throughput. Copper, being subject to both degradation and interference can never hope to compete with fibre, yet we are trying to provide “balance” in this “debate” by comparing the two offerings as if they were “apple V apples”.
I am truly staggered that the intelligent people of this country allow themselves to be taken for fools by the LNP platform!
I like your roads analogy Peter; every driver in Australia should know that gravel roads deprecate quickly (especially in the wet!), which ties in nicely with the additional costs of FttN required to maintain that last bit of copper connection to us users.
I can also see angst with property investors – do I get fibre laid and charge my renters more?
Digital divide much?
Albanese’s $5000 is a serious underestimate of the maximum price we may have to pay for FttP on Demand, if we rely on the BT Openreach figures (http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/updates/briefings/super-fastfibreaccessbriefings/super-fastfibreaccessbriefingsarticles/nga00713.do) where they state: “Openreach estimates more than half of premises (55 per cent) will incur a distance based charge of between £200 and £1000. Virtually all other premises will face a charge of between £1,400 and £3,500”
Let’s take the maximum distance-based quoted by BT Openreach of £3500. Add the standard connection charge (‘fixed installation fee’) of £500 (flat, for all FttP OD installations), making £4000.
(We can’t overlook this extra £500 – it’s clearly stated on the same page).
Now convert it to $AU. This will result in an underestimate because UK wages are lower than ours, but we’ll stick with this fiction for now.
So we are up to $6940
BT quotes figures excluding VAT, but we will be expected to pay GST on our installation.
Now the maximum connection price is up to $7634 inc GST.
Using a conversion rate of £1 buys $1.73, and including the £500 fixed installation fee and GST, I have calculated what it may cost us at the quoted BT distance-based price points.
£ BT $ inc GST
200……..1335
1000……2862
1072……3000
1400……3626
2000……4771
2120……5000
3500……7634
So MT’s figure of $3000 correlates to a UK distance-based cost of £1072, or roughly what someone 200m from the node may pay, not 500m away.
I think the ‘fact-check’ analysis needs to be rechecked.
correction: I actually used a conversion rate of £1 to $AU1.735.
The Government owned and funded NBN Co with wholesale pricing overseen by the ACCC is not the same as a privately owned company in the UK providing broadband services both at the retail level and at the wholesale level, the corporate aim of which is to provide as high a profit as possible and high dividend returns to all their BT shareholders.
Unfortunately it is near as we can get to a working FoD example in the world, but saying it is ‘near as we can get’ is not the same as translating their costs in sterling to Australian dollars and saying there ya go that’s the Coalition FoD costing table.
Do you have an alternative methodology you’d like to share or are you content with pointing out it’s conjecture?
No I don’t have any alternative costing, I am prepared to wait for the following key decisions post a Coalition win before any FoD costing can be taken out of the simplistic sterling to Australian dollars conjecture basket.
1. Telstra agree to the use of their copper for FTTN and are prepared to back their copper to the minimum speed standards as specified in Coalition policy.
2.The ACCC agree to the above Telstra/NBN Co agreement.
3. FoD costing is determined in consultation with FoD contractors by the NBN Co.
4. FoD wholesale pricing tiers determined above are agreed to by the ACCC after the public consultative process where RSP’s can challenge the pricing.
But having said all of that Labor MP’s will still assert it will cost $5000 (‘up to’ optional) right up to the election.
It will cost ‘up to’ $5000 in the same way Labor’s NBN will cost ‘up to’ $94b – pretty much worst case scenario for either situation.
Or, to put it another way, if you believe Labor’s plan is going to cost up to $94b as the Liberals predict, you should believe the Liberal plan is going to cost up to $5000 per household. Its hypocritical to believe one and not the other, both sides are sensationalising their viewpoint as badly as the other.
Where it ends up in reality, only time will tell. But figure this. $30b for the Liberal plan, give or take a few hundred million. $3000 more for 10,000,000 households is another $30b on top of that, giving a cost of $60b overall. And at some point every household is going to need to upgrade. Might be 5 years, might be 10 or 15, but it will happen.
Labor’s commitment is also around $30b, give or take a few hundred million. If that commitment blows out 50%, thats $45b in total, ot still under what I expect the Liberal plan to ultimately cost.
So why not do it all up front, rather than unravel the copper/FttN mess in a decade to do it anyway?
No, Gav, it’s not an ‘equivalent’ assessment at all.
The cost of an individual fibre pull-through in Australia will in many cases exceed the touted $5,000 limit.
It is likely that more people located on or beyond the limits of FTTN will sign up for FoD, because the alternative for them will be so poor. Couple the distance involved with Australia’s higher wage costs than the UK, and it is clear that for many people the cost will be considerably more than $5,000.
Whereas the claim that the cost of the NBN ‘could’ be $94bn is pure political hyperbole and should be considered in that context.
+1
Couldn’t have put it better myself ;o)
Fair enough. Wasnt whether one stance was better than the other, just that both sides have a bullshit claim that should be treated as such. Its not going to cost $5000 per household, no matter how much us pro-FttH want it to.
There will be shared costs as part of that, and other factors that reduce the cost, such as experience over time, so for most people it wont get near that. Likewise, it wont cost anywhere near $94b either. Both sides use those claims as part of their argument, and really, both of them are rubbish. DIsagree or not, thats my opinion.
Having said that, even if its under $1000 per household, why should they be paying? Its public infrastructure, and the very thing we pay taxes for. And most people wont be in a position to pay that much anyway, nor want to. Business, sure, but do people really expect a household to pay thousands for internet? Not happening.
If it costs more than a couple of hundred to connect FoD, and more than around $100 per month, people simply wont connect to it. It’s too expensive. Even owning my own home I’d be reluctant to connect it up if the cost is too great, and I’m one of the lucky ones that’s about to have it run past my MDU.
Yes, we will have to wait until after the election ( maybe a year, I imagine) before we see the FoD prices from NBN Co. It will take them that long to adjust to the new Statement of Expectations.
That’s the whole problem, isn’t it?
Right now, we are being offered two choices – the Coalition one or the Labor one.
Labor offers us FttP paid for by NBN Co; the Coalition offers us FttP but only if we are prepared to pay extra. How much extra? We are not told, and THAT is the problem.
The election represents the signing of the contract – there’s no going back, no ‘cooling off’ period.
We have every right to demand accurate estimates of costs before we sign up.
@Maude
The election represents the signing of the contract – there’s no going back, no ‘cooling off’ period.
We have every right to demand accurate estimates of costs before we sign up.
^This. 100% this.
This is my biggest problem with the Coalition plan- we are not being told the cost. Not only the possible cost of FoD, but the wholesale cost (and therefore extrapolated retail cost) of FTTN and the wholesale cost of HFC and if it will come under NBNCo. There are too many unanswered questions we don’t get a choice on.
And before anyone says “But that’s what Labor did in 2007”, no, it wasn’t. We had OPEL, a costed, but only very high level detailed proposal with no technical information beyond possible coverage and likely speeds. That’s exactly what Labor offered for their FTTN NBN MkI proposal. This is a whole different kettle of fish. We’ve got all this myriad of data from real-world connections on the NBN and we’re supposed to compare it to a completely theoretical and not even properly costed policy?? Sorry, that pig don’t fly with me.
@Maude
‘The election represents the signing of the contract – there’s no going back, no ‘cooling off’ period.
We have every right to demand accurate estimates of costs before we sign up.’
But you were content I take it that Labor went into the 2007 backing FTTN all the way, that’s what voters voted on, Labor changed their minds to a FTTP rollout well after that election win.
You are also content that the very first NBN Co Business plan with all the detailed costing, rollout rates, OPEX, CAPEX required funding figures etc (we cannot ignore that much of that detail has been proved to be totally inaccurate anyway) was not released until four months after the August 2010 election the result of which was a hung Parliament.
@Fibroid
But you were content I take it that Labor went into the 2007 backing FTTN all the way, that’s what voters voted on, Labor changed their minds to a FTTP rollout well after that election win.
Why wouldn’t he be? Labor improved their policy after the election as a result of being told FTTN from Telstra was far too costly and would lead to further retail monopoly. The Coalition, on speed, capacity and reliability, are worsening the current policy. So, yes, he probably is content with that. I am.
You are also content that the very first NBN Co Business plan with all the detailed costing, rollout rates, OPEX, CAPEX required funding figures etc (we cannot ignore that much of that detail has been proved to be totally inaccurate anyway) was not released until four months after the August 2010 election the result of which was a hung Parliament.
The NBNCo. business plan wasn’t written until November of 2010….so, no it wasn’t released till then because the government didn’t have it until November. The NBN was costed by the Implementation Study in May 2010. It created the assumptions the Corporate Plan was based on. It said the NBN being built to 90% for $44 billion was feasible. The Coalition have nothing even resembling an implementation study for FTTN.
@seven_tech
‘ Labor improved their policy after the election as a result of being told FTTN from Telstra was far too costly and would lead to further retail monopoly.
You let the fact that voters voted on FTTN policy in the 2007 election go through to the keeper, and the reasons you gave was not in any of the reasons the expert panel gave for recommending FTTP.
‘The Coalition, on speed, capacity and reliability, are worsening the current policy.’
This is the current policy where the NBN Co and Labor after six years of being in Government will have had three attempts at a Business plan with correct figures and a supplementary update downgrade in April this year, ,and they are still trying to get it right in the last quarter of 2013 in the latest Business plan, which we will never see before the September 7th election – more bad news is it?
‘The Coalition have nothing even resembling an implementation study for FTTN.’
It doesn’t really matter in the big picture because following the Labor NBN policy historical precedent that apparently you are all comfortable with, the Coalition could:
1. Change their mind after next months election completely, so the actual policy implemented has little resemblance to the current published policy in April.
2. Produce their first NBN Co Business plan anytime in the four months after their second term of Government.
3. That Business plan can be amended again twice if required where funding and costing can be increased and ARPU expectations and connected premises downgraded with a supplementary insertion of rollout downgrades between Business plans, and redefining of terms like ‘premises passed’ to meet targets where necessary.
4. There is no limit on the number of ‘amended’ Business plans produced before the next election in 2016, and if the last Business plan before the 2016 election date contains bad news the Coalition can hold it over until after that election when it doesn’t matter as a election decider one way or the other.
Then you wonder why Labor is slumping in the polls, jeez how could that be, it’s a real mystery, it cannot possibly be anything to do with their record on their implementation of NBN policy.
.
This is the current policy where the NBN Co and Labor after six years of being in Government will have had three attempts at a Business plan with correct figures and a supplementary update downgrade in April this year, ,and they are still trying to get it right in the last quarter of 2013 in the latest Business plan, which we will never see before the September 7th election – more bad news is it?
The current LBN is Malcolm’s third try, I guess that’s a “fail” on the Fibroid marking system too then? All plans change due to circumstances, even Malcolm’s are better for it…
@Fibroid
You let the fact that voters voted on FTTN policy in the 2007 election go through to the keeper, and the reasons you gave was not in any of the reasons the expert panel gave for recommending FTTP.
Yes. Because it was an improvement of policy to go with FTTP. Not a destruction of policy going back to FTTN. You don’t complain when a political party improves policy. And both reasons I gave were included in the redacted recommendations by the expert panel. That’s where I got them….
more bad news is it?
Completely ignored my statement. I said speed, capacity and reliability. None of those are being destroyed by allowing FTTP to continue, even if slowly.
It doesn’t really matter in the big picture because following the Labor NBN policy historical precedent that apparently you are all comfortable with, the Coalition could:
I’m wearying of this argument from you. It’s a “I know you are, but what am I” argument from primary school. Labor have made mistakes on the NBN rollout. The Coalition have the opportunity to correct them. They are choosing not to with their policy and wholesale changing the entire rollout because…ideology.
As @seven_tech has said, yes, I was very happy with voting for Labor when they were backing the FttN in 2007, and even happier to vote for their FttP proposal in 2010.
He has explained the situation quite well, but I’ll still add my own thoughts on the matter.
The NBN Implementation Study released before the election in May 2010 was 500 pages of detailed information, with cost estimates. Pages 54-55, “Achieving the national broadband objective” provide good insight into the design criteria. Chapter 7 describes the cost modelling they used to arrive at the figure of $43 billion. Australians were able to use it to make an informed decision at the 2010 election. I did and I imagine you did too.
Compare it with the Coalition’s “Plan for Fast Broadband and an Affordable NBN” policy statement of April 2013.
Page 1 of this statement contains this: “Our goal is for every household and business to have access to broadband with a download data rate of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by late 2016.”
Then on P8 is a description of the Statement of Expectations which they will send to NBN Co. It contains this:
“We will issue a revised statement of expectations directing NBN Co to provide broadband services with a minimum download data rate of 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016 in all areas of Australia, ..” (which is an interesting variation on the Goal on P1, and why do they talk about ‘areas’?), and ……
“The statement of expectations will specify a limit on the public capital available to NBN Co. This limit will be $29.5 billion.
NBN Co will be required to achieve these objectives while providing a positive after-inflation return on all post-election equity invested by taxpayers.”
That’s it.
No cost modelling, and no scope for NBN Co to go back to the government and say it can’t be done for that price.
The only ways, I can think of, that NBN Co will be able to achieve the goal they have been set will be to make deals with the private sector and to indulge in cost shifting – onto us.
How much? We are not told. Not enough information to make an informed decision, is it?
A take-away message from the two documents is that
Labor’s NBN is being built to a standard
and
The Coalition’s NBN will be built to a price.
But you were content I take it that Labor went into the 2007 backing FTTN all the way, that’s what voters voted on, Labor changed their minds to a FTTP rollout well after that election win.
At the time (2007), FTTN was the best option available to us voters….now it isn’t…
We will see on that one I guess?
:)
No, not really, FTTN will forever be the second rate choice for future Australian networks now, especially with 22% of premises able to get full fibre, even under the LBN…
No I don’t have any alternative costing
So, blind faith it is then…
It doesn’t worry me one way or the other, if I end up getting FTTN I will be happy with that, but then I get an average of 17 Mbps ADSL2+ and I’m content with that.
FoD is of no interest whatever.
So wait, let me get this straight, because you don’t want FoD, us that will should not be concerned with how much it may, or may not cost, considering that is a factor that will directly affect our vote?
Hmm… yes… I see… let’s all vote for the Coalition because Fibroid’s interests are more important than our own when making our vote.
I am only saying FoD which after all is the minor part of Coalition policy is of no interest to me whatever.
I understand why Labor and Labor NBN supporters want to make it a major issue of Coalition policy , but I think it is wasted negativity and is frankly in the main falling on deaf ears, purely because most punters don’t perceive it is of primary importance (assuming they know FoD as a policy concept even exists) relative to the bigger picture of just getting off ADSL or worse ASAP.
I don’t think you understand do you Fibroid. Your lack of alternative costing is the problem here.
Since we need to know how much it is going to cost us to get FoD, we need evidence of how much it costs. All you’re doing is saying “it won’t be that bad, and besides it only affects a small percentage of people anyway”.
And that doesn’t help us, the “punters”, who will be voting (well except me, obviously) in the upcoming election, make an informed choice about which policy, and therefore party, we support.
It doesn’t matter if FoD is of no interest to you, it’s of interest to us. And if you want us to change our vote, you’re going to have to do a lot more convincing than “it doesn’t affect the majority of people” and “well we don’t know how much it is going to be, but surely it won’t be as bad as it is in the UK with BT”.
Unless your purpose isn’t to convince people of the viability of one project over the other, and if that’s the case, why are you commenting here?
“why are you commenting here?”
He already explained it. To defend the Coalition against all these malicious Pro Labor supporters and to keep some balance in the debate.
@Fibroid
purely because most punters don’t perceive it is of primary importance (assuming they know FoD as a policy concept even exists) relative to the bigger picture of just getting off ADSL or worse ASAP.
Yes. At the expense of the future. That’s the point. It’d be great to get everyone off ADSL or worse right now. Under either plan, that won’t happen. The difference between the 2 plans is a few billion, a couple of years build time and decades of useful life. You choose to find that unimportant. We don’t. And anyone with any economic sense wouldn’t either. Including, ironically, the Coalition.
I am only saying FoD which after all is the minor part of Coalition policy is of no interest to me whatever.
After writing so many paragraphs (possibly hundreds) on the subject, you now feign lack of interest? Colour me sceptical…
He already explained it. To defend the Coalition against all these malicious Pro Labor supporters and to keep some balance in the debate.
Well, I’m not pro Labor per se, they just seem to have the smarter policies this time round (apart from the “Northern Australia” stuff, which really needs some firming up if they don’t want to appear as nutty as when the LNP tried it on, though at least the Labor version doesn’t talk about relocation 1/3rd of the public service from Canberra to Darwin).
My comments on FoD are purely about correcting misrepresentations of Coalition FoD as stated in their policy and the correction of the totally conjecture based point of comparison that BT (Openreach) in the UK FoD because it is the only working model we have, so all it involves is just taking Openreach costing tables on distance etc apply the latest exchange rate and Bingo! there it is FoD as will be marketed by the Coalition NBN Co.
This is the UK FoD model that is virtually still in pilot mode in limited areas and UK RSP’s beyond BT Retail are still working out how they are going to package it.
@Fibroid
My comments on FoD are purely about correcting misrepresentations of Coalition FoD as stated in their policy and the correction of the totally conjecture based point of comparison that BT (Openreach) in the UK FoD because it is the only working model we have, so all it involves is just taking Openreach costing tables on distance etc apply the latest exchange rate and Bingo! there it is FoD as will be marketed by the Coalition NBN Co.
But that’s what Turnbull did- we can do a rollout in the same time period and for the same cost as UK. And we can provide FoD, like UK. And when people said “but they are charged upwards of $5K” he didn’t respond with “that’s just conjecture, we don’t have enough information to say how much it will be here”….he responded with “no, it isn’t, it’s more like $3K that the UK charge”.
My issue with your whole argument basis is it holds Turnbull to a different level of rationality to everyone else. You are ignoring the fact that it is Turnbull who is the one who has used the UK as a model for everything. He can’t then very well complain people using it as a model guestimate for FoD.
We know that Albanese left off “up to” from his $5k figure. Perhaps he did it deliberately to mislead, perhaps not, but Maude is right – it came from the BT numbers.
Any pollie continuing to leave off the “up to” bit needs a swift kick in the ‘nads. Any debate that doesn’t acknowledge that it’s “up to $5k” is just pointless hand-wringing.
realistically it could be up to anything at all, turnbull hasnt detailed or costed that part of the network – it may as well not exist at all.
You are spot on there Raymond, the only reason there is any debate as such is because it is a Labor artificial construct as they perceive the two weak spots in the Coalition plan is the FoD where it ‘will cost ya heaps’ to get FTTP, and the phrase ‘old or decrepit copper’.
Of course the key to making that stick is to ensure that you don’t mention FoD is a entirely optional upgrade to Fibre to the Node, you need to assert that paying $5000 is the only way you will get off copper (ADSL) under Coalition policy.
It is the only way to get off Copper.
My god man, if you’re going to nitpick semantics of others the least you could do is ensure your semantics are correct.
Oh, and just because you say “the only reason … is because it is a Labor artificial construct as they perceive the two weak spots” doesn’t magically make all other arguments, like future upgrades, fiscal concerns, etc, that have been pointed out here time and time again disappear.
You can’t just cherry pick the two arguments you find easiest to topple and say that because of this Labor doesn’t have a case.
@NightKhaos
‘ doesn’t magically make all other arguments, like future upgrades, fiscal concerns, etc, that have been pointed out here time and time again disappear.’
I didn’t say it did, I was just referring to the FoD example as posted, and saying translating what BT does to Australian dollars is the equivalence of a Coalition NBN Co FoD costing table in 2014 is just fluctuating currency exchange rate based crystal ball gazing.
That argument also makes the basic mistake that all costs involved in the BT rollout including labor, cost of fibre, and the BT corporate structure etc are the same as they would be here with a Government owned NBN Co.
But most importantly you are making grandiose assumptions that the regulatory approval authorities UK Ofcom and the Australian ACCC and their decision making process and modelling are the same also.
That is the Ofcom approval of the private company BT (Openreach) FoD pricing is the same approval process that the ACCC would go through for the Government owned NBN Co submitted FoD pricing.
‘You can’t just cherry pick the two arguments you find easiest to topple and say that because of this Labor doesn’t have a case.’
I’m not doing the cherry picking here, Labor may have a case in the other areas but their political advertising so far is all about negativity ,that is trying to find flaws in Coalition policy even if they have to make it up, rather than pushing the positives of their own policy.
I don’t know about you but I think the Labor NBN campaign would have to rate a 3/10 so far, and I am sure the closer we get to the election the negativity meter will be ramped up to fever pitch.
It’s informed speculation, not crystal-ball gazing.
It’s no good complaining that the speculation may be wrong when we have nothing but speculation to work with, but let’s look at the speculation more closely.
Yes, BT is a private company which must return a profit, but so must NBN Co, according to the Coalition’s Policy Statement, which says: “NBN Co will be required to achieve these objectives while providing a positive after-inflation return on all post-election equity invested by taxpayers.”
Given the Coalition’s public capital limit is $29.5 billion, there will be nothing left over to contribute to FoD costs. In fact, it’s more than likely that NBN Co will be tempted to make a commercial-sized profit (much more than 7%) on what is, essentially, a value-added product.
Try this scenario:
Salesman at the door: ” Hi, I’m from Telstra. We are contracted to NBN Co and we’ll soon be upgrading the broadband connections in your street. Everyone will get a download speed of 25Mbps.”
Me: “that’s great!”
“yes, but it will still only be the old copper connection to your house. How is your internet connection? Does it ever dropout when it rains, for example?”
“yes – it’s rubbish”
“Ah, well now we are offering to upgrade your connection to fibre which will guarantee no dropouts due to rain AND it will give you 100Mbps or more.”
“Fantastic!”
“What’s more, it will give you 40 times the upload speed. Have you ever noticed how slow it is sending photos to friends or posting stuff on Facebook or YouTube?”
“Yes”
“if you sign up now we can do it for a big discount, but if you wait then you’ll have to pay full price. We can also offer an easy payment plan, allowing you to pay it off over two years, as you use it”
Why? The more people they sign up to the upgrade prior to installation the more they save on having to fix the copper. NBN Co makes more money, and does not have to pay Telstra for my bit of copper, nor do they have to fix it if it gives less than 25Mbps.
Everyone wins!
Except me – I’m sure you’ll agree, Fibroid, that I’ll have to pay more than I would have under Labor’s NBN plan.
And THAT is the difference.
How much more is debatable. ‘More’ is unquestionable.
Well it wouldn’t be free (Malcolm specifically ruled that out in his policy). Of the two alternative ways of paying for it (A capped install price vs pay-by-the-meter like BT), I think the BT option would make more sense.
Lets face it, Malcolm isn’t going to want increased costs on his project, so I really doubt any caps, grants or discount towards FoD. Fibroids “Lets just trust them and see” seems pretty odd considering he is usually so pedantic when it comes to “government monies”…
@Maude
Hey Maude you forgot or don’t know about one key piece of Coalition policy in your zeal to create a conjecture based screenplay based on a poor copper connection.
If your copper connection is not up to supporting a minimum of 25Mbps the copper will be re-mediated or if that is not possible you will get FTTP, supplied by the Government owned NBN Co.
Good effort otherwise.
@Fibroid
Actually…you missed his point. He never said in that “scenario” he wouldn’t get 25Mbps. In fact, that was the first point in the “conversation” mentioned:
Hi, I’m from Telstra. We are contracted to NBN Co and we’ll soon be upgrading the broadband connections in your street. Everyone will get a download speed of 25Mbps.”
He was talking about a theoretical sales scenario of NBNCo. trying to upgrade people to FTTP FoD during the rollout to actually make the money required to give 25Mbps to the whole footprint. Which actually makes sense, because they are unlikely to be able to afford it otherwise.
But you won’t get Telstra (or anyone else for that matter) knocking on your door making that statement, you will have your link upgraded to a minimum of 25 Mbps for you by the NBN Co, if that means copper remediation and FTTN or maybe FTTP, that’s what it would be.
If you decide you want a FoD upgrade later from the provided FTTN upgrade that is already in place you order it from your RSP, it has nothing whatever with emotive conjecture about Telstra cold calling and knocking on your door.
@Fibroid
But you won’t get Telstra (or anyone else for that matter) knocking on your door making that statement, you will have your link upgraded to a minimum of 25 Mbps for you by the NBN Co, if that means copper remediation and FTTN or maybe FTTP, that’s what it would be.
Ok, you’re now showing you didn’t read Maude’s scenario. The scenario was, Telstra, as a contractor of NBNCo. knock on your door and say they’re upgrading your line to 25Mbps minimum but it will still be on copper. If you don’t want that, they give you the option of upgrading to FoD FTTH there and then to get them more capital to upgrade other lines and give you more speed, more reliably. In other words, they sell you the FoD to ensure they can meet their capital requirements to upgrade those lines that don’t meet the 25Mbps minimum. All at a direct cost to the consumer.
If you decide you want a FoD upgrade later from the provided FTTN upgrade that is already in place you order it from your RSP, it has nothing whatever with emotive conjecture about Telstra cold calling and knocking on your door.
Go and read the scenario Fibroid. You obviously didn’t the first time.
You don’t order FoD ‘at the door’ from Telstra construction contractors or rep’s or any other contractors or rep’s that are rolling out FTTN and only FTTN (or FTTP if needed) under contract with the NBN Co.
In the same way you cannot order a NBN Plan from the NBN Co laying the fibre your street.
You order FoD if you want it from your RSP retailer, more likely than not the one you have your existing internet service with, after looking at the contract terms, what’s in the package etc.
@Fibroid
You don’t order FoD ‘at the door’ from Telstra construction contractors or rep’s or any other contractors or rep’s that are rolling out FTTN and only FTTN (or FTTP if needed) under contract with the NBN Co.
Mate, you’ve ignored the entire premise of Maude’s point. The point was, NBNCo., through contractors may decide the best way to raise the money to ensure the CAPEX required to upgrade 71% of the footprint to FTTN above 25Mbps is to actively sell FoD FTTH at the time of upgrade. That’s actually quite sensible. An even more sensible approach would be like that of Google- see if an area (node coverage) has more than 10% willing to put a deposit on FTTH. If they are and more than 30% are interested, you roll out FTTH instead, most of the difference is covered by the 10% taking it up immediately and the last bit by the increase in ARPU from higher tiers available.
But that’s not what the Coalition are proposing. If they were, I might not be so anti-FTTH FoD. But we have no details. And that’s the problem. And without details, I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for that policy. Maybe you can. I’d hate to be you if you do want FTTH in 5 years time and you can’t afford it under a Coalition government….
Thanks @seven_tech, for your clear explanation of my scenario.
I wrote it after reading the Coalition’s Policy document of April 2013, and tried to be consistent with it.
The following quote from P11 of the Coalition’s Policy may help:
“Fibre on demand
NBN Co will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises as soon as possible where fibre does not extend to the premise and this is technically feasible and commercially viable.
Any contractual arrangements regarding any aspect of fibre on demand between an end user and a retail service provider and/or NBN Co must include terms to allow other retail service providers to take over the service, subject to the legitimate commercial interests of the initial retail service providers being respected.
NBN Co is responsible for provision of fibre on demand and will retain ownership of the fibre.”
“As soon as possible” can mean at the time of rollout
and NBN Co is responsible for it (even if through a contractor).
emotive conjecture about Telstra cold calling and knocking on your door
Optus already has plans to do it, why wouldn’t Telstra?
Maude said: NBN Co will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises as soon as possible where fibre does not extend to the premise
I had to check the wording on page 11, and yes, it says exactly that.
Does anyone else think this funny? It’d be fine in a legal document, but really, why would they put in a check to not provide FoD to an already fibred premises in a policy document? It’s like they were being paid by the word :o)
@Tinman_au
Yes, the whole Policy document has a legal document flavour, which is probably understandable given MT’s legal background.
This is why I think we need to read it very carefully, because he chooses his words carefully.
When he writes, on P8: “minimum download data rate of 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016 in all areas of australia, and 50 megabits per second by the end of 2019 in 90 per cent of the fixed line footprint.”
then we should ask why he has not used the words on P2, where he states:
“Our goal is for every household and business to have access to broadband with a download data rate of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by late 2016.”
There is a big difference between ‘households and businesses’ and ‘areas’ or ‘footprint’.
Labor’s NBN is committed to providing fibre access to every one of the 93% of premises;
The Coalition’s NBN only makes a commitment to providing 25Mbps to ‘all areas in Australia’.
What’s the difference?
At this stage, I’m not sure, but you can bet he did not make a mistake with his wording.
MT is a very clever man.
Maybe someone else can tell us how this careful wording could provide an escape clause for a cash-strapped NBN Co.
in your zeal to create a conjecture based screenplay
You’ve been reading Andrew Bolt again, haven’t you?
No actually I am reading The Crucible screenplay after seeing the play in Melbourne, there are some parallels to the NBN debate.
:)
hehe fair enough :o)
@Fibroid
I just completed a production of the Crucible. Some of the attitudes in it are alive and well in many parts of political debate today.
actually its LNP vapourware, based on a BT product
it gives the ALP no real traction but to use the BT numbers – even though they dont provide any actual reality. if the LNP had actually costed this part of the network instead of just making it up, we could actually discuss its merits (or lack thereof), until then we can only extrapolate (which even turnbull is doing – which should make it glaringly obvious that hes just making shit up as he goes along)
the copper is old, and in a lot of places it is decrepit – the whole point of comparing fttp to fod is that is is an equivalent comparison, its fibre vs fibre so it has the same potential to deliver but as you know you will be paying for the optional fod extension, or you will be stuck on the old, potentially decrepit copper getting some crappy “up to” speed.
the only way that wont happen is if the LNP rebuild the crappy copper for those people who get less than 25mbit – and i believe that turnbull has said that 25mbit will be guaranteed – so were going to be paying for new copper to a very large chunk of the population that cant get 25mbit, that wont be cheap, and i think most people will be able to comprehend that if youre going to lay copper why the hell wouldnt you lay fibre instead.
the LNP proposed FOD **is** expensive, the people close to the node getting better speeds will just put up with them, its the people right at the limits that might get frustrated enough to pay for FOD and those will be paying the most for it due to their distance, theyre going to be well into the 5k range and above quite easily.
btw, if you end up on copper then FOD is the only way to get off it under the coalition policy (have you read their policy?)
The coalition FTTN is the same as what we have currently. If the service is theoretically capable of a speed of X, then you will pay for that provisioned speed. You may get 10 % of that speed in the country. So you pay for X and get nowhere near it.
The FTTP plan is to provision X and provide X at your home. You pay for X and receive X (or 99 %).
Is it cheaper? Maybe not. But it is probably better to describe it as receiving what you pay for. Doesn’t matter about the weather, the distance, the verdigris… You pay for a pig and get the pig not just the squeal.
Variables dude
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/speed-check-what-nbn-speed-promises-really-mean-20130807-hv180.html
I understand why they have used the 12Mbps number for calculating possible price differences between regional/suburban and urban areas with competition- it is the only actual modelled data they could get their hands on therefore only reliable source. But when they admit themselves that the majority of users will likely not be on 12Mbps in 2019….then it’s kind of pointless.
My suggestion is that on the higher speeds, 50Mbps and above, the difference would be substantially higher. Perhaps 50% or more over the medium-long term. When you think about the fact that FTTH can provide those speeds as a matter of course, swallowing them up with barely any noticeable change to available bandwidth, compared with FTTN, where only some 30-50% of users would ever be able to get it in the first place (not to mention the backplanes of the ISAM wouldn’t cope with that load without upgrade if more than 25% of users on a node wanted it) it’s easy to see. An FTTH overbuild in urban areas, like that of the previous HFC, with its’ inherent reliability and high bandwidth availability could happily charge a premium for higher speeds, yet keep it well below any medium term cost of FoD FTTH in other areas to get the same service.
I’m afraid, once again, the more conservative policy of the Coalition’s will provide for a few years, but as soon as user average jump over 50-75Mbps (and they will, contrary to Mr Turnbull’s beliefs) FTTH will be required and that will cost regional and urban areas that don’t get overbuilt by competition substantially more than their native FTTH cousins.
The digital divide will be reduced in the short term, but widened once again in the medium-long term without government intervention again….
If you want to quible over word, it has been said that if you want access to high speed fibre….. NOT access to the internet, or the phone, or IPTV…..
Under Labors plan, you get ACCESS to the high speed fibre for free. Then you have to call your RSP to ACCESS services on that fibre.
Under Labors plan, you get ACCESS to the high speed fibre for free. Then you have to call your RSP to ACCESS services on that fibre.
Not quite true. The 4th port on the NTU is reserved for government, health and education purposes. so you can get the NBN and not need an RSP for it to be used for “stuff”.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/350209,nbn-co-to-reserve-data-port-for-government.aspx
@Tinman_au
It may be reserved. NBNCo. specifically made clear that has not been determined yet. It is an idea they are kicking around but would have to be mandated by government to do so.
It may be reserved. NBNCo. specifically made clear that has not been determined yet. It is an idea they are kicking around but would have to be mandated by government to do so.
It seems a bit more than “to be determined” mate :o)
For the purposes of this discussion, we can easily group government and health services under the RSP heading.
Besides, it won’t happen at all if the coalition get their way.
we can easily group government and health services under the RSP heading.
If you think of private health/education companies as being government, sure…
Look on the bright side, those who are wealthy and or run a business can have a home fibre connection and write the expense off as a business tax expense. For the vast majority of us that’s not possible.
The vast majority who get a FTTN connection will be happy with FTTN and have no interest whatever in FoD.
Those who happen to get FTTP under a co-funding deal will be happy with FTTP under those circumstances because they don’t have to pay a FoD fee, otherwise they will be happy to stay with FTTN.
Since you love pointing out conjecture I’d ask you to provide evidence to back up that claim.
Specifically: with the FoD scheme create a digital divide and is that divide worth the fiscal savings that may or may not be gained by the FTTN policy?
@NightKhaos
I have no idea what the FTTN vs FTTP digital divide is, is it those that can get 100Mbps HFC and those that cannot even in well established HFC areas, those that live in Greenfield FTTP estates and I don’t just mean NBN Co FTTP but all those estates that have had FTTP for years from Telstra or Opticomm and others and all those residences that are not in FTTP Greenfield estates?
Those that can get a stable high speed 3G signal and those that cannot because of high tower contention, those that can get 4G and those that are stuck with 3G or slower until the 4G footprint reaches them?
Those that can afford a 4G smartphone and or a Telstra/Optus 4G plan and those that cannot?
The digital divide could mean many things and you certainly cannot define it as only those that can get NBN Co FTTP vs those that cannot and given the above ‘digital divide’ examples how do you quantify its benefits in anyway?
Exactly Fibroid. You, and the Coalition, have not attempted to quantify the impact of FoD in any meaningful way.
This means that to suggest Australian’s will be happy with, in both the short and long term, FTTN with an expensive (but as yet unknown exactly how expensive) upgrade path to Fibre when all you have to go on is the experience of BT, who’s model is unique and as such untested, is conjecture.
Right now FTTN is a good, cost effective, model. But while the plan will take at least 6 years to complete you need to start thinking 6 years hence, where this will probably no longer hold true.
@Fibroid
The vast majority who get a FTTN connection will be happy with FTTN and have no interest whatever in FoD.
Which vast majority? Where? When? Simply stating this as fact with no supporting evidence or caveats is conjecture, as you enjoy saying.
Those who happen to get FTTP under a co-funding deal will be happy with FTTP under those circumstances because they don’t have to pay a FoD fee, otherwise they will be happy to stay with FTTN.
Once again, who? Where? When? And what co-funding? Individuals? Business premises in estates? Whole communities? Council’s? You’re making a blanket statement here you have no hope of backing up, but you lambast people for doing the same.
The vast majority who get a FTTN connection will be happy with FTTN and have no interest whatever in FoD.
Evidence from the UK and the US clearly backs this statement as being true.
“Evidence from the UK and the US clearly backs this statement as being true.”
Then I’d be interested in the reason why NZ has changed their primary delivery to FTTH….
I am glad you brought the NZ example up, let’s have a look at that wonderful NZ example of how it should be done.
“For Chorus, none of these is true. It is “an infrastructure stock missing the necessary characteristics investors require”, Deutsche Bank said on June 19, as it downgraded Chorus to a “sell” recommendation.
It is lumbered with a UFB roll-out facing cost over-runs of about $500 million, largely because connection costs to individual properties are far higher than Chorus originally estimated.
It also faces growing competition from both the mobile and ageing copper networks, and is subject to divergent political views about its future.
Add to that the lack of state interest in going beyond its commitment to a $1.3 billion revolving fund for its flagship UFB project, and Chorus is between a rock and a hard place. ”
“Irrespective of whose fault it is, it looks increasingly safe to say the politically important UFB initiative is at increasing risk of commercial failure. Will the Government that hatched the scheme sit by and watch that happen?”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8846541/UFB-rollout-costs-strike-bum-note-for-Chorus
.
I suspect their problems are more to do with the 3% take up rate…
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/new-zealands-ufb-rollout-20-percent-complete-has-3-percent-take-rate/2013-08-09
Which of course has nothing whatever to do with:
“It is lumbered with a UFB roll-out facing cost over-runs of about $500 million, largely because connection costs to individual properties are far higher than Chorus originally estimated.”
@Firboid
Those cost overruns are mostly due to the high cost (over $5K) over connecting premises in CBDs due to no ducting available. They’re having to build their own ducts at huge expense. That was a major failing of that rollout that NBNCo’s does not have- access to incumbent ducts.
So dense you are Fibroid.
If take up is low they are less flexible when it comes to CAPEX uncertainty because they cannot compensate for bad estimates.
If take up is high they can absorb the extra CAPEX costs and just continue on with the roll-out.
Take up is very important to determing the success of a complex project simply because the higher it is, the better you can account for anything that goes wrong. This is why NBNCo are aiming to, by use of commercial deals, take over 100% of the market, which may be harsh and “forcing people to migrate” but in terms of the rollout success it makes it much easier for NBNCo to absorb any price uncertainties.
Something which the Coalition policy doesn’t have, and presents a tangible, but maybe not “deal breaking” risk to their policy.
Chorus are not the only UFB provider and I have yet to see indications that the other UFB providers are suffering similar problems to Chorus.
I strongly suspect that this is more because Chorus bit off more than they can chew than anything else.
Also with aggressive advertising from Telecom and Vodafone I have little doubt the take-up rate will be increasing over the coming months, which should help Chorus.
Which other Telco’s are rolling out FTTP UFB in NZ?
Northpower Fibre, UltraFast Fibre and Enable Networks are the three other LFCs other than Chrous rolling out UFB.
They are minnows in mainly very select CBD areas mainly targeting Business connections relative to the to the major NZ wholesaler Chorus rollout.
First of all that’s wrong.
Northpower Fibre is Whangerei, a city with an urban population of about 50,000 people. There not a very big CBD in this city to justify business broadband in this city. If you look at their rollout map they are covering almost the entirety of the city.
Ultrafast Fibre is doing a similar level of rollout, but is covering Hamilton, Cambridge, Te Awamutu, Tauranga, Tokoroa, New Plymouth, Hawera and Wanganui.
Enable networks is doing Christchurch and a few sourounding centers like Rollston, Lincoln and Templton.
Chrous doesn’t cover any of these cities or towns with Fibre. They do a select few suburbs that I’m assuming in Christchurch, Hamilton, and Tauranga and a few of the other cities and towns and by select I mean “less than 5” in all cases, fairly randomly distributed. But let’s take Whangerei, for example, there is absolute no coverage in the city provided by Chorus.
Second of all, even if that were correct it is called a “No True Scotsman”. You asked me about the other UFB providers, and I told you who they are. Just because they don’t cover Auckland and Wellington, majority business cities I might add that is where the majority of “business” profit you refer to will actually come from, and fill in a few blank spots that the other providers missed, do not invalidate their status as a LFC.
I recommend you don’t argue with a New Zealander about what is happening in New Zealand with regards to UFB. I have a vested invest in knowing, down to insignificant details for your NBN arguments, about what is happening here. You sir should not come and try and cherry pick useful examples from here that happen to suit your argument.
@Renai
I agree, right now, customers are revelling in the extra speed they are receiving by FTTN. But a few things:
1- FTTN isn’t in Australia at the moment (bar the small, brand nee copper based, TransACT rollout). And it will be many years before the majority have access to it. Will they still be happy then?
2- I’m not aware that even should UK or US customers be unhappy they have a choice- FoD in the UK is only available to some very select cabinets as of April as I understand and in the US FoD doesn’t exist afaik. So the data may show people are happy to take up FTTN but they have no choice of FoD by and large so it can’t be said they’re therefore happy with FTTN over FoD.
I don’t disagree that should FTTN be rolled out, for the first fee years the majority will be happy with FTTN. But how long for seeing as we have no timeline for further upgrade beyond that. It is a major issue I have with the Coalition plan- nothing beyond 2019.
For the first few years after ADSLs was rolled out, people were happy with the speeds of ADSL, and had no desire to upgrade to ADSL2. Today, people on ADSL are there because they have no choice.
Put that into a FttN perspective, its great that people have no need to upgrade today. Thats never been the problem – its when the rollout is finished. By that point, plenty of people will be looking at FttN as the upper limit of their needs, and looking to expand further.
So what then? Pay for FoD, or deal with the every constricting capabilities of FtTN. Wouldnt have been an issue if FttN was rolled out when it was in its prime, but its past its prime, so the user benefits are throttled into a limited timeframe before society’s needs force upgrades.
@GongGav
‘ Today, people on ADSL are there because they have no choice.’
Which doesn’t really explain why most residences who have 100Mbps cable running up their street stay on ADSL2+.
Also more and more residences are making a choice to drop fixed line altogether and use only wireless for BB and telephony, they will stay that way even if FTTN or FTTP passes their door.
Which doesn’t really explain why most residences who have 100Mbps cable running up their street stay on ADSL2+.
So, let’s see, according to the ABS their are 918 thousand cable conections in Dec 2012, which represents, if we assume 2.8 million cable connections , is 32%. Now considering factors like MDUs, and simple market economics, this is an impressively high uptake.
Just because something doesn’t have “100%” of customers using it doesn’t mean it’s not a success Fibroid. Your standards are completely, and utterly, unrealistic.
Wrong According to the latest ABS statistifcs we have, the number fixed line broadband connections is still increasing. If people we dropping their “fixed line” this number would be decreasing, it isn’t.
Do not confuse telephony service for Broadband. They are different services, and the NBN is called the “National Broadband Network” not the NTN.
This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to assert this point, I don’t know why you think you can get away with repeating it, noting that doing so is in direct violation of the comments policy.
@NightKhaos
‘So, let’s see, according to the ABS their are 918 thousand cable conections in Dec 2012, which represents, if we assume 2.8 million cable connections , is 32%’
Before we proceed further how does a ABS stat of 918,000 cable connections ‘assumed to be’ 2.8 million cable connections?
There are approximately 10 million premises in Australia, and the HFC network passes 28% of them. Hence, 2.8 million.
@NightKhaos
‘if we assume 2.8 million cable connections ‘
You meant those are the number of premises that could get cable, not that they are cable connections.
So if 32% are connected that leaves the overwhelming majority of 68% who don’t want it, and you conclude that’s a good result?
@Fibroid
So if 32% are connected that leaves the overwhelming majority of 68% who don’t want it, and you conclude that’s a good result?
Assuming a random distribution in those areas (and for this case, there’s no reason to believe otherwise) at least 30% would be MDU’s. Of them, most would be unable to connect due to the large, long term contracts and/or legal issues of connecting the entire building. So that’s another 25-30% that can’t connect. Plus businesses, that’s another 5-10%. So your 68% is looking more like 30-35% now….so yes, a 50-60% uptake of those who can actually physically have a connection established is quite good I think….considering NBNCo’s total uptake for the entirety of Australia is supposed to be 70%….
@seven_tech
The number of actual cable connections are in the ABS stats, you cannot make them up to how you would like them to be.
@Fibroid
The 2.8 million is functionally equivalent to the dreaded NBN Co “premises passed and connected”, so in 2011 8% of all internet users used cable, and 31% of people able to get cable did so.
Opps, wrong sub-thread before
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/22/factcheck-will-regional-internet-users-pay-more-under-the-coalitions-nbn-plan/#comment-621583
@Fibroid
I never disputed the number of cable connections. Once again, you are selectively looking and quoting. I said the % of connections on the connectable footprint is much much higher than the 31% total connected out of 2.8 million. I gave my reasons and you have not disputed them.
There are 920K cable connections. But there are not 2.8 million connectable premises. There are more like 1.5 million maximum. In which case, that gives a 50-60% takeup rate as I said.
@Fibroid & NightKhaos
That sits well with almost every known analysis of HFC coverage:
http://transition.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=690305&nodeId=e6d85a5da5875697ff0b57c2ff03a63e&fn=Chap+6+Hybrid+Fibre+Coax+(HFC)+Network.pdf
Telstra 2.5 million, Optus 1.4 Million. The cross-over gives about 2.8-2.9 million total.
Oh, and the source used was http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~How%20Australia%20accesses%20and%20uses%20the%20Internet~175
Do not confuse telephony service for Broadband. They are different services, and the NBN is called the “National Broadband Network” not the NTN.
Yep, he makes the same mistake all the time with the difference between “Copper Services” and “Copper Network” in the NBN Co/Telstra deal…
@Fibroid
Ooo! Ooo! Pick me! I know this one.
It’s called MDUs, businesses and average users. Takeup of 100Mbps on the NBN is ~30%….takeup on cable is approx. 30%….wow, what a coincidence….
Also more and more residences are making a choice to drop fixed line altogether and use only wireless for BB and telephony, they will stay that way even if FTTN or FTTP passes their door.
This is so far from true its’ not funny. As NightKhaos has already shown, fixed line connections continue to grow slowly every year. ABS don’t even yet (they do from December 2012) class Naked DSL separately. So those considered “wireless only” are literally those who don’t have a home phone service….not exactly indicative of “wireless only”.
I didn’t make any comment about fixed line statistics, this is what I said.
‘Also more and more residences are making a choice to drop fixed line altogether and use only wireless for BB and telephony, they will stay that way even if FTTN or FTTP passes their door.’
“One in five Australians ditch fixed-line phones”
“Shift to mobiles for broadband substitution also grows.”
“What’s more, due to mobile networks offering faster data connectivity with 4G services and plans becoming more flexible and affordable, people are increasingly using them for their broadband connections in lieu of fixed-line alternatives.”
‘the full substitution category where a person uses a mobile device for both voice and internet services exclusively, this figure was rapidly growing.”
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/349061,one-in-five-australians-ditch-fixed-line-phones.aspx
See the key statement ‘this figure was rapidly growing.”
My point stands.
You made a preposition, that customers are dropping their fixed line connection for wireless BB and telephony, without evidence.
The evidence you do have backs a drop in fixed line telephony, only.
Do you seriously not understand how this is wrong?
No I didn’t make any assumptions about fixed line.
My point:
‘Also more and more residences are making a choice to drop fixed line altogether’
Is backed up by ACMA stats and their conclusion that:
“the full substitution category where a person uses a mobile device for both voice and internet services exclusively, this figure was rapidly growing.”
End of.
How is this hard to understand: according to the ABS figures, the amount of fixed-line broadband connections is still rising.
This means that although there are some customers that don’t have a fixed-line connection, and probably use exclusively fixed line, people are not “dropping fixed line” as you implied. They are dropping fixed-line telephony, and since we have a surplus increase in fixed-line broadband, this implies that, with some exceptions due to overlap the people majority of people exclusively using mobile broadband never had a fixed line connection or fixed line phone to begin with.
End of.
Except the ABS says they are wrong ;o)
@Fibroid
Yes….rapidly growing from 3%. NBNCo’s assumption is 16% by 2020….so I don’t really see the issue here.
There is a issue here because that 3% doesn’t tally with the advice the NBN Co is getting in a report they commissioned, nor does it tally with the figures Telstra are getting being the provider of the copper fixed line to the residence.
“Ovum research director David Kennedy points to the consultancy’s work for the NBN corporate plan, which states that 10.8% of homes are now wireless-only. ”
“The NBN estimates that while 13% of households are wireless only now, that will jump to 16.3% in 14 years. But that comes alongside comments Telstra chief executive David Thodey made yesterday that state the company now has 12% wireless-only households and that could reach 24% “fairly quickly”.
Coughlan believes the 13% figure may be “understated”.
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/internet/042491-20110215-government-report-finds-wireless-networks-will-threaten-nbn-but-experts-say-fixed-connections-still-crucial-2.html
Those figures are well over two years old now in a market scenario of accelerating wireless only households.
.
So you have conflicting evidence from sources 2 years old, but no current data to back it what you believe the likely outcome is to be.
So tell me, what, according to the most recent figures you can find, is the percentage of wireless only households?
@Fibroid
Those figures are well over two years old now in a market scenario of accelerating wireless only households.
There’s a huge disparity between the AMCA measurement (3%) and Telstra’s (12%). Why? Answer that and you’ll likely get to the bottom of whether one figure is more accurate or not. Telstra’s “it could blow out to 24% fairly quickly” means nothing more than that- it could. That’s like saying it could rain tomorrow. It assumes, all things being equal, with the trend we are seeing, it will continue and double. There’s not enough past history for that. Wireless only is a new trend in the last 3-5 years.
Besides which, you’re missing the big picture. So, let’s say NBNCo’s analysis got it wrong. Let’s say it’s 25%, not 16%. What does that mean for revenue? Actually, handily, Turnbull has already done those calculations for us. It’s about $5 billion to 2025. And considering NBNCo’s revenue per year is predicted to be $9 billion from 2023….I don’t see that as a big issue. Why does it make so little difference? Those who are wireless only are low-budget users. NBNCo. don’t make money off low end users. They make money off the 25-30% of high end users who take up high end tiers. So less low end users makes substantially less difference to revenue than less high-end users. And high end users will very, very rarely wireless-only substitute.
@NightKhaos
Depending on who you believe, it’s anywhere from 8%-15%. As I said to Fibroid and no doubt you already saw, even if it rises to 25%, as high as most worst-case predictions, it makes little overall difference to total revenue as it is low-end users who are removed from NBNCo’s cost base. They are the lowest ARPU anyway, so it isn’t a loss keenly felt by NBNCo.
Anybody who thinks wireless-only will just continue to rise is kidding themselves. 4G etc. is faster, but data allowances have gone backwards in the relentless attempt by telco’s to prop up capacity on networks they didn’t allow for and to try and raise ARPU which has started declining for the first time since 3G came out. All major networks have cut back 20-30% in the last year.Your average young, middle-income Australian and Australian family who enjoys iView and Catchup TV, streams a movie now and then and does alot of their reading, gaming and shopping online is not going to dump their landline and try to survive on a tiny data allowance when they can quite easily afford a decent landline connection at 25Mbps on the NBN for $50 a month and a decent mobile connection as a compliment, for $50 a month. Even less if they choose pre-paid.
Everybody I know that’s gone to wireless has done so because they couldn’t get xDSL in their area, not because they wanted it specifically. They also run into cap issues constantly…
@seven_tech
‘Anybody who thinks wireless-only will just continue to rise is kidding themselves. ‘
So ACMA are wrong and you are right because….?
‘Anybody who thinks wireless-only will just continue to rise is kidding themselves. ‘
I actually agree with Fibroid on this point. Wireless will continue to rise, but not at the expense of fixed line broadband.
@Fibroid
Nice out of context quote. You know full well I meant inevitably. Wireless-only will never grow to cannibalise large portions of fixed-line in the foreseeable future. No operator in the world believes it will.
Fibroid said: I didn’t make any comment about fixed line statistics, this is what I said.
Yes you did, “Also more and more residences are making a choice to drop fixed line altogether”.
@ Fibroid.
Here we have another of Fibroids infamous, NBN only rules, mixed with obstinacy in refusal to accept the complete facts and hand-picking those which fit the agenda…
Err, Fibroid once again if wireless only impacts upon FttP it will also impact upon FttN…
Also, as pointed out, the ABS stats do say what you did, but they also additionally say what the others said too…
Seriously this is an evidence based forum where you need to be rational and accept facts… you are not being/doing either.
Why am I not surprised?
Round and round and round we go on the Fibroid musical chairs…
The music stops , everyone sits and… and we are back to…
“Which doesn’t really explain why most residences who have 100Mbps cable running up their street stay on ADSL2+.”
Of course when the music starts/stops again and will all sit the arguments will be..
‘We need competing infrastructure like the wonderful HFC to compete with the big bad monopoly NBN”
Been there, seen that… many times.
Seriously, IMO the insincerity and complete disingenuousness, makes one shake ones head in disbelief…
+1 million
Just like a wind up toy. Putting out a bush fire here, a bush fire there. Easy to get dizzy just reading.
For those interested in statistics, so far out of 182 posts, 96 are from Fibroid or reply to Fibroid.
An impressive one man band show.
Which doesn’t really explain why most residences who have 100Mbps cable running up their street stay on ADSL2+.
I don’t really get a choice, if I didn’t have 100Mbps cable, the next step down is around 2Mbps ADSL thanks to my distance from the exchange (and I’m in the middle of the 6th largest city in Australia). For me, the NBN is about giving people a choice of good internet connections/providers.
And considering I wen’t to 100Mbps recently (from 35Mbps) because I got sick of “Buffering” messages when watching Bigpond HD movies, I don’t think the 25Mbps offered by FTTN will interest me much.
Hi Fibroid,
The same could be said about Telstra 4G, Why isn’t everybody in Australia on the Telstra 4G mobile phone network. It’s ultra fast and works in all locations so why does one of my tech savvy work colleges walk around with 2 phones one on Telstra and the other on the Optus network?
I just hardwired my brother in laws house with cat-5 because he wants to get Netflix form the US and was getting bad wireless on his home network over a short distance.
I also re-cabled his ADSL2+ connections to try and get a better speed by removing all the unnecessary cables
I asked him why he doesn’t just get Telstra or Optus cable and he said straight out PRICE
He already has both networks cabled into the house with points on the wall but still will not get it even though he is one of the best network planners in Australia.
I cannot get cable because I live in a new townhouse that was built 13 years and even though I have multiple connections out the front spare, both companies still will not connect my premises.
Businesses I have spoke to cannot have cable connected in industrial parks also with all the connections available spare directly out the front of the factory.
My father in law was on Telstra cable had such a bad experience cancelled and spent years swapping from one ADSL plan to another but had to reluctantly go back to Telstra cable Mk11, he is now happy except for the price but he only uses it for share trading so does not download a lot.
I think if Telstra had a competitive price and willing to install into new town houses and unit developments more people would connect because like Telstra 4G most people think Telstra cable is overpriced.
Actually, TransACT VDSL (FTTN) isn’t “Brand new” – it was rolled out a decade ago. The only new connections since about 2005 are in newly built MDUs.
Hopefully my TransACT VDSL will be upgraded to VDSL2 in a few months, and then a year after that I’ll get NBN. I’ll happily pay for the faster fibre instead of staying on ~50/5mbit copper, so I imagine that in 2019 when the LBN is finished being rolled out, people will already want faster speeds than it offers.
@Rich
Sorry Rich that wasn’t well explained. I wasn’t expressing the idea that TransACTs VDSL was new. I meant TransACTs copper the VDSL runs on is brand new. As in it was installed for the specific purpose of VDSL. I meant it as that is no comparison to the current copper network, the majority of which is 2 decades old or more and much of which is worked on and fiddled with on a regular basis. The network itself of course, as you say, was put in nearly a decade ago.
@seven_tech
‘1- FTTN isn’t in Australia at the moment (bar the small, brand nee copper based, TransACT rollout). And it will be many years before the majority have access to it. Will they still be happy then?’
Well ‘many years’ as you vaguely put it is a minimum of 25Mbps and up to 100Mbps for all by 2016, if you are waiting beyond that for the [insert downgraded current NBN Co premises passed rollout figure here], that might seem like a better deal.
‘ So the data may show people are happy to take up FTTN but they have no choice of FoD by and large so it can’t be said they’re therefore happy with FTTN over FoD.’
It is based on the demand for FoD for residences that can get it, it also based on residences that have a choice of FTTN or FTTP from multiple carriers.
‘ It is a major issue I have with the Coalition plan- nothing beyond 2019.’
Well that depends on who wins the 2016 election as to what we will get beyond 2019, that construction rollout flow on post 2016 is directly linked to who wins this election as well.
@Fibroid
Well ‘many years’ as you vaguely put it is a minimum of 25Mbps and up to 100Mbps for all by 2016, if you are waiting beyond that for the [insert downgraded current NBN Co premises passed rollout figure here], that might seem like a better deal.
And round and round we go again. There is just as much likelihood that the 2016 timing will blowout as well. And that’s to only 41% of the footprint. We don’t really have any solid idea of when the FTTP are of the HFC wholesaling will/might take place. So it may in fact be worse off for people.
It is based on the demand for FoD for residences that can get it, it also based on residences that have a choice of FTTN or FTTP from multiple carriers.
As far as I know, there are very few areas in UK that offer FTTP at all. There are also areas in the US that offer FTTN OR FTTP but not many that have both. Why would there be? There wouldn’t be any competitive sense in it for commercial companies. So that doesn’t work.
Well that depends on who wins the 2016 election as to what we will get beyond 2019, that construction rollout flow on post 2016 is directly linked to who wins this election as well.
And the sky is blue. Stating the mighty obvious there. It doesn’t change the fact that if the Coalition get in this year there is no plan for 2019 and beyond. And for Australia’s underlying digital infrastructure, as there also should be for roads and rail, there should be.
@seven_tech
‘ So it may in fact be worse off for people.’
Worse off is in the eye of the beholder, if you believed the figures in the first 2010 NBN Co Business plan you are’ worse off’ because targets were missed, if you believed the figures in the NBN Co 2012-2015 Business plan because targets were missed again and had to be amended downward in April 2013, you are ‘worse off’ if you missed out.
‘As far as I know, there are very few areas in UK that offer FTTP at all. There are also areas in the US that offer FTTN OR FTTP but not many that have both. Why would there be? There wouldn’t be any competitive sense in it for commercial companies. So that doesn’t work.’
What we do know is that BT are concerned about abysmally low take up rates of both FTTN and FTTP in areas where FTTN or FTTP is available, apparently most UK residents need more convincing to move off ADSL2+.
‘ It doesn’t change the fact that if the Coalition get in this year there is no plan for 2019 and beyond.’
There is a plan on Page 12 of the Coalition policy, under the heading ‘Future upgrade path’, which should cover 2019 and beyond.
‘And for Australia’s underlying digital infrastructure, as there also should be for roads and rail, there should be.’
There is already a plan and no doubt we will hear all about it further between next month and 2016 if the Coalition win.
@Fibroid
Worse off is in the eye of the beholder
No, in this case, it’s fact. There are people, such as those in the 3 year plan with less than 3 years before construction commences, that will be worse off under the Coalition. Particularly if they’re in HFC areas. Yes, the NBN has been delayed. Doesn’t mean:
1- The Coalition policy won’t be and
2- That they won’t still be worse off anyway.
What we do know is that BT are concerned about abysmally low take up rates of both FTTN and FTTP in areas where FTTN or FTTP is available, apparently most UK residents need more convincing to move off ADSL2+.
Fantastic. That’s the UK. Here, in Australia, we’re seeing uptake beyond what any provider has seen for any rollout that I’m aware of. 12-13% overall and over 60% in some FSAMs still not switched off copper yet. That is unheard of in non-cutover rollouts.
There is a plan on Page 12 of the Coalition policy, under the heading ‘Future upgrade path’, which should cover 2019 and beyond.
Lol. Did you actually read that page? It essentially says “we’ll do our best, but NBNCo. have limited resources (which they’ve limited) and therefore must keep costs down over sensible design for a future upgrade, but ultimately its’ up to a future government”. There is no timeline, no prediction where money fo the upgrade would come from or even any basic design principle to ensure FTTN is designed for the inevitable, not optional, upgrade to FTTH.
There is already a plan and no doubt we will hear all about it further between next month and 2016 if the Coalition win.
Good to see your unbiased thinking coming to the front there. “We’ll just let them deal with it, it’s fine, I trust them.”
‘Fantastic. That’s the UK. Here, in Australia, we’re seeing uptake beyond what any provider has seen for any rollout that I’m aware of. 12-13% overall ‘
That NBN uptake is not much more than the average BT is concerned about as being too low, therefore I have no idea what this means ‘ Here, in Australia, we’re seeing uptake beyond what any provider has seen for any rollout that I’m aware of.’ in that context.
‘It essentially says “we’ll do our best, but NBNCo. have limited resources ……. ‘
I read that section of their Policy again, it doesn’t say anything like that at all, is that your conjecture on what you would like it to say?
It actually states under Future upgrade path:
” Where NBN Co extends fibre beyond an exchange but not to user premises (i.e. deploys FTTN) it will be required to plan and build in readiness for future upgrades that take fibre further into the field.
All FTTN designs must be upgradeable.”
Sounds like a upgrade path if and when it is needed at some point in the future to FTTP to me.
@Fibroid
That NBN uptake is not much more than the average BT is concerned about as being too low, therefore I have no idea what this means
Once again, you miss the context. BT has 16 million premises passed. And has had more than the 200K NBNCo. has for over 3 years. But they still only have 10-12%. NBNCo. have 80 times less premises passed, but the same uptake % figure. If you can’t figure out the difference there….
I read that section of their Policy again, it doesn’t say anything like that at all, is that your conjecture on what you would like it to say?
Allow me some artistic licence. You tend to read a single page in isolation. Taken in the context of the most important and rigid part of the policy, the price:
Total possible public funding- $29.5 billion (this assumes by the way it costs no more for NBNCo. to lease or buy the copper from Telstra and therefore will not have to shift around CAPEX or OPEX to account for it if it does). Includes a CAPEX of $20.5 billion. That means, NBNCo. must work within that $20.5 billion to build the entire FTTN+FTTP network. Anything that is designed into that network included. If NBNCo. do modelling and find that to allow the majority of FTTN cabinets to be easily upgradable (dark fibre, larger capacity backplane, high capacity WDDM modules, etc.) they need more than $20.5 billion….what do you think they’re gonna do? Not make them as easily upgradeable.
The policy is a statement of preference. The over-arching theme is that anything is possible…as long as it is within the price. Otherwise, it’ll get left behind. That is how conservative politics operates. And NBNCo. are unlikely to be able to get private funding seeing as the Coalition have lower the necessary 7% ROI to do so.
Fantastic. That’s the UK. Here, in Australia, we’re seeing uptake beyond what any provider has seen for any rollout that I’m aware of. 12-13% overall and over 60% in some FSAMs still not switched off copper yet. That is unheard of in non-cutover rollouts.
That’s because outside of the major population areas (basically CBD or high-density suburbs), our old broadband is mostly crap :o)
@Renai
Are you locked in on your cable contract mate? I had a nice chat with a tech last night, and he’s transferred me over to casual “Naked Cable” plan, 80Gb for $79/m (@100Mbps). If you’re not locked in, give them a call.
I just signed up, of course I’m locked in ;)
I’m not worried, I’m happy with the deal and I get 35Mbps, which is more than enough for what I am doing.
I found the 35 just wasn’t quite there for HD video (off BP), you’d get into the movie and it’d stop every so often to buffer some more, specially if the wife was on her laptop :/
I was happy when I got dial up but that didn’t last long.
I was happy with adsl 1500 * 256 but that didn’t last long.
Now I’m using mobile broadband, no choice and I’m not happy but I would be happier with FTTN but for how long????
I’m constantly sick and tired waiting for the comms system to catch up, its holding us back.
Exactly, this is about the immediate future, not “the now”.
Once the Governments new satellites are in operation, will prices for say 100gbs of satellite data @ 25Mbps be the same as 100gbs of data on a 25Mbps metro fibre connection?
@Tg
Pretty much Tg. The Satellites are on CSAs (Connectivity Serving Areas) that include fibre and wireless NBN so there’s no issue in providing CVC for satellite only, with fewer customers making it more expensive.
Essentially, there’s no reason a 25Mbps NBN Full Satellite plan with 100GB shouldn’t cost the same as a fibre plan at 25Mbps and 100GB. Only difference is support, but much of that is handled by NBNCo. anyway.
I am finding that increasingly the debate just goes around and around.
Many of the points made by many contributors here will only be found out when the election is over and we see which way things go.
Until we can be certain, everyone can have an option, give overseas examples, and describe possible scenarii.
I suppose it helps with the frustration of not knowing.
“Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.” – The Dead Pool (1988)
LOL
Indeed…
Just read the old, but Labor in 2007and thought WTF, this has been addressed dozens of times, but the same irrational bullshit keeps coming and strangely… is allowed to keep coming
:(
This is why I am not getting involved in the Fibroid One man show.
Renai
I would be interested to know why one of my post replying to your comment
“The vast majority who get a FTTN connection will be happy with FTTN and have no interest whatever in FoD.
Evidence from the UK and the US clearly backs this statement as being true.”
Was first awaiting for consideration and then deleted when it was civil and did not address any contentious issue?
Has the Coalition thought about building 1/3 of the NBN,
Has anybody looked at costing the following:
Contacting all households and ask if they want the NBN.
Still run the NBN down most streets but with only 30% of the fibre currently being installed.
Instead of having 12 fibre’s to every 4 properties only have 4 fibre’s, one per property
Future proof for houses that may want to connect as copper degrades.
Only run fibre into houses that have requested to have the NBN connected and remove copper cables.
All other houses would stay on old copper network all the way back to the Telstra exchange.
Maybe run fibre to basement (MDF) of unit blocks and have a mini node connecting only units that want NBN via less than 50m of the buildings existing copper cable.
Remove Foxtel and Optus coaxial cable network and use the extensive network of conduits installed 15 years ago without asbestos around major cities.
Over long term as houses want the NBN run fibre from pit into house.
Slowly as the copper network degrades it would be replaced with fibre.
The cost of not building 60,000 nodes would more than pay for running fibre to only the houses that want the NBN.
Telstra recently needed to move the South Brisbane telephone exchange and instead of re-routing all cables to a new exchange or installing 100’s of nodes, Telstra instead re-cabled the whole of South Brisbane as FTTP.
@abettertax
Still run the NBN down most streets but with only 30% of the fibre currently being installed.
Instead of having 12 fibre’s to every 4 properties only have 4 fibre’s, one per property
Future proof for houses that may want to connect as copper degrades.
This is an extremely inefficient way to build and run a network. The more people who choose to be on fibre, the less Telstra make from the copper and the less its’ worth their while keeping it running. They would not take that lying down. NBNCo. are also forced into a corner with no expansion possibility (the reason they are putting 12 fibres in their cables). They would have to lay more cables for expansion, which doubles up on labour costs. Compared to labour costs, fibre is cheap.
Remove Foxtel and Optus coaxial cable network and use the extensive network of conduits installed 15 years ago without asbestos around major cities.
They are already using these ducts. That is part of their agreement with Telstra. Much of the HFC network isn’t in ducts. It’s aerial.
Over long term as houses want the NBN run fibre from pit into house.
Slowly as the copper network degrades it would be replaced with fibre.
You can’t. You’ve removed that possibility by only running 4 fibres from FDH to pit. They’d have to run new cable from FDH to pit and double up on labour, like I said.
The cost of not building 60,000 nodes would more than pay for running fibre to only the houses that want the NBN
The cost of the actual fibre in the overall spend of the NBN is small- about $2.5 billion, compared to almost $25 billion for the actual running and installing of it. It wouldn’t save a significant enough amount of money. But they are actually looking at doing just this already. It doesn’t sit well with the Coalition though- the whole idea of NBNCo. is against their ideology.
Telstra recently needed to move the South Brisbane telephone exchange and instead of re-routing all cables to a new exchange or installing 100’s of nodes, Telstra instead re-cabled the whole of South Brisbane as FTTP.
Because they were paid to do so by the government. They didn’t do it out of their own goodness. It was a few million extra for fibre over new copper, so the government ponied up for it. Now those in South Brisbane are stuck on monopoly Telstra infrastructure. Their plans are ok now that the NBN is being rolled out, but straight after it was done, they were shocking. $110 for 30Mbps….
The roads analogy is complete and utter nonsense.
When I drive from my house I drive 5kmh on the driveway, 50 kmh on the side roads and 100kmh on the highway because they are all independent.
On the internet, my data packets are sent one after another in a queue. I cant take the next packet until the last packet arrives and is acknowledged. This means that my data rate can never be faster than the slowest link in the chain.
On an FTTN link, I can drive at 5kmh on the driveway, 5kmh on the side roads and 5kmh on the freeway.
A far more accurate analogy is filling a swimming pool. It doesn’t matter how big the pipe is coming to your house if you are trying to fill it through a straw.
The $5000 simply doesn’t stack up in similar real world scenarios, it is way too low.
Telstra quoted somewhere around this price recently just to do a lead in to a business, it was in all the papers, you must have read it.
Commercial Works
Extend Telstra Network to 325a Moreland Rd
Civil Works
– Supply and Install a lead-in conduit from the existing pit in Haig Ave into the renovated building at 325a
Moreland Road. Includes breakout and reinstatement of pavement.
Cabling Works
– Supply, Haul in, Terminate and joint approx. 15 meters of 10/0.40 CPFUT PE lead-in from the
existing pit in Haig Ave into the new MDF location at 325a Moreland Road.
Commercial Works Fee
The commercial Works Fee for above project is $5,931.90 inclusive of GST.
This charge will be issued on a separate tax invoice; it will not be included on your normal telephone bill.
This is a Lump Sum price (only).
If 15m of cable run costs $5,931.90, how can a fibre extension of at least hundreds of meters come in under $5000?
Good question, Goresh.
We can be sure Malcolm will not save us from price gouging by monopolistic private providers.
John Howard’s Government sold Sydney airport to Macquarie Group ten years ago with no consumer safeguards against monopolistic pricing.
Incredibly, after ten years of gouging travellers, they have yet to pay a single cent in tax.
Gouging customers – it’s in the Liberals’ DNA.
@Maude
‘We can be sure Malcolm will not save us from price gouging by monopolistic private providers.’
Page 10 of the Coalition policy states that any Infrastructure rolled out by private providers will have to make access available to all RSP’s on non-discriminatory terms and the pricing will be the same as NBN Co wholesale pricing for their product, with all wholesale pricing overseen by the ACCC.
So your statement should say to be accurate:
‘We can be sure Malcolm will save us from price gouging by monopolistic private providers.’
Actually, the exact working is:
I’ll say that again for reference products equivalent to NBN Co’s wholesale price caps.
What does that refer to again?
From page 8:
So, actually, Maude is correct, their is no protection from price gouging by the current policy as written.
So you think the ACCC as we know it is going to do a complete U-turn of how they have handled communications policy so far and allow price gauging to happen on the fibre network because….?
@Fibroid
It’s discriminatory and closed access outside of those specific products. Theres nothing the ACCC can do about one company refusing access to another or charging more on private infrastructure not legislated against.
umm what? – I have no idea what you are talking about, Coalition policy states any private infrastructure build must be open to all access seekers, I don’t why you are desperately trying to state the opposite will apply?
The Coalition policy states they must be open to access seekers, but the coalition policy does not enforce uniform pricing with the exception of the entry level tier, meaning that a company could, theoretically, as Telstra has for almost a decade, undercut others who resale their network, and the ACCC will be able to do little, as it has with Telstra for almost a decade, to stop them.
@NightKhaos
” meaning that a company could, theoretically, as Telstra has for almost a decade, undercut others who resale their network, and the ACCC will be able to do little,”
You know that’s not true, BigPond did it once and Telstra were fined heavily for it , which caused a reduction in ADSL wholesale fees across the board at the time, so the ACCC did not ‘do little’.
So other than that one example, what Telstra undercutting of others who resale their network has been going on for 10 years without ACCC intervention are you referring to?
I’m not going to get into a Simon Hackett vs the ACCC vs Telstra flame war with you Fibroid.
@Fibroid
It might be open-access, but when the infrastructure is undeclared (as it would be) then the ACCC can’t set the price for wholesale access….which kind of makes it pointless to be open-access if they can charge any retailer out of the market on their infrastructure.
In greenfields they can choose not to open it to all access seekers.
No they cannot, Page 9 of Coalition policy under the heading ‘Broadband in new housing estates’.
….. provided such networks meet NBN specified standards and their owners make them available to access seekers on non-discriminatory terms”
What exactly do you think “and their owners make them available” actually means mate?
If the owner of the network decides, it’s not actually “enforceable”, is it?
Also the IPA are suggesting a list of suggestions and should the Coalition win the upcoming election, I’m sure they be asking TA and Co to consider them…
One of which is (iirc) disband the ACCC.
Considering the IPA helped found the Liberals, they are a just a shade more than “suggestions”, it’s just a matter of what they think they can get away with implementing off it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs#History
So you think the ACCC as we know it is going to do a complete U-turn of how they have handled communications policy so far and allow price gauging to happen on the fibre network because….?
Because the IPA (one of the founders of the Australian Liberal Party), and indeed many in the LNP, would like to see the back of the ACCC, in fact it’s high on their list of targets:
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-transform-australia
Point 9.
The IPA is not the Coalition Government and that point is interesting about ‘seeing the back of the ACCC’ when in fact the Coalition are on the record as stating they want to increase their powers if they win the election.
http://www.afr.com/p/national/coalition_will_boost_accc_power_5flfOjZcKlps1279AzDocI
and…
“Introducing an effect test – favoured elsewhere in the world and found in other parts of Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act – would make it much easier for the ACCC to win misuse of market power cases.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/coalitions-bruce-billson-wants-to-rewrite-accc-misuse-of-market-power-laws/story-e6frezc0-1226599639364
So your concern is misplaced.
Of course, why would they ignore their founders…
Oh I see, so the Coalition want to increase the ACCC’s powers and shut it down as well.
Sounds like a plan.
Of course they want to do both. Haven’t listened to interviews? Depending on who they are talking to and the point they are trying to make everything changes. It’s quantum policy. The ACCC will be shut down and also it will have its powers increased. As long as you don’t look at a Liberal policy, well fat chance of that, it will exist in both forms. Looking at it, or indeed, implementing it, will colapse the waveform and it will then exist in one state or the other.
Oh I see, so the Coalition want to increase the ACCC’s powers and shut it down as well.
Sounds like a plan.
Large parts of the LNP would love to shut it (and the ACMA) down. I think they realise how unpopular most Australians would find that proposition however, which is why they tolerate them. They aren’t called the “Business friendly party” for no reason, and the ACCC/ACMA and others are all part of the “Red and Green” tape you hear them wanting to cut.
@Fibroid
Page 10 of the Coalition policy states that any Infrastructure rolled out by private providers will have to make access available to all RSP’s on non-discriminatory terms and the pricing will be the same as NBN Co wholesale pricing for their product, with all wholesale pricing overseen by the ACCC.
You missed 1 very important point in that sentence. The pricing must be open-access and non-discriminatory for the most popular basic NBN tier and bundles. What this essentially says is, if NBNCo’s most popular tier is 12Mbps and 12Mbps+Phone is its’ most popular bundle, those are the only products those infrastructure providers are required to offer on open-access and non-discriminatory terms.
All other products are entirely within their control to charge or change. That means, should they want to offer FTTH at, say, 100Mbps for $10/month less than the best possible price and speed on FTTN via NBNCo. and allow no one else to access that product, to gain a monopoly share….there is nothing stopping them doing this. It’s called monopoly underselling. And it’s what Telstra did in the Cable wars. There is no protection under the Coalition to stop this.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/22/factcheck-will-regional-internet-users-pay-more-under-the-coalitions-nbn-plan/#comment-621513
Page 10 of the Coalition policy states that any Infrastructure rolled out by private providers will have to make access available to all RSP’s on non-discriminatory terms and the pricing will be the same as NBN Co wholesale pricing for their product, with all wholesale pricing overseen by the ACCC.
And page 9 says:
So I guess your actually wrong, at least in new estates, where the operator can choose to forgo the “financial incentive” and keep people on their own private network.
Once again, the LNP is setting up a “haves and have nots” system, with loop-holes and flaws built in like the original Telstra sale…they just “don’t get it”…
Did you actually read this , what do you think it means, nothing?
“on non-discriminatory terms at wholesale prices for reference products no higher than NBN Co’s wholesale price caps (or similar price commitments agreed by NBN Co and the ACCC).”
It is not exclusively wholesale price caps, it is ALL pricing agreements between the NBN Co and the ACCC that private infrastructure owners will be held to.
@Fibroid
Did you read it? It says ‘reference product’s. All other products are outside that definition. The reference products are only the most popular bundle and most basic tier of NBNCo’s.
@seven_tech
‘The reference products are only the most popular bundle and most basic tier of NBNCo’s.’
How do you know what ‘reference products’ is defined as and what it is not, other than making up your own definition on the fly to rig the outcome you want?
@Fibroid
You’ve been told this before. The reference products are defined in the Coalition policy. Go do a ctrl+F on the policy. It’s right there.
I don’t make things up. I provide facts or I note what are predictions or estimates.
Let’s get it right, the reference products refer to a Pricing commitment under the following conditions, not to be applied to anything you want it to be.
“In the absence of any such accepted undertaking from the NBN Co to the ACCC, NBN Co will be required to produce its product element pricing over the next 10 years to achieve an inflation-adjusted fall of 10% in the combined wholesale price of two ‘reference products’ for end users.
These reference products will be: the entry level broadband product and the most widely purchased bundled broadband and telephony offering.
This expectation will be subsequently waived if the ACCC approves an undertaking from NBN Co including similar price controls”
In other words the ACCC could override any of it, including defining what reference products mean.
@Fibroid
Could be. Just like the Coalitions rollout ‘could be’ predominantly FTTH if the reviews find it cheaper and more efficient.
Fibroid, you apparently accept dealing in infinite shades of gtey. Governments dealing in infinite shades of grey means there is no impetus to perform. Unless there is a mandate or, better yet, legislation to ensure a requirement, it means precisely nothing as a statement. The Coalition policy has no legislation to protect:
Higher tier wholesale prices
Minimum speeds (therefore they are determined by price and technology- a big change between FTTN and FTTH where the technology does not limit the speed)
Uniform pricing to ensure Regional & Suburban ‘uneconomic’ areas get the same prices as cities.
These 3 points prevent me from agreeing with the Coalition policy. There is no guarantee any of these points won’t fail miserably because it is a ‘goal’ or ‘promise’ not a guarantee.
I don’t have a problem with Coalition commitment in this area, because the Coalition is a mix of the Liberal and National Parties, the Deputy PM will be the National Party leader, there will be more priority given to BB rollout in regional and rural areas than currently with the Labor ‘FTTP or wireless coming your way real soon now’.
In regards to uniform pricing, the National’s won’t let any pricing get through the system that screws regional and rural residences relative to big city residences, neither would I expect the ACCC.
@Fibroid
Hate to tell you this, but the Nationals were the ones who proposed an FTTH network. They backpedalled on that quick smart. They have almost no integrity left as a party anymore. They are, for all intents and purposes, the Liberal party lite. And yes, neither do Labor have much integrity. But they have legislation in place and are rolling out now. It is covered regardless of their poor track record.
If you’re trusting the Nationals, who hold less seats every election for the last 7 elections, to sway the Liberals….I think you’re wasting your vote. I’m at least glad the LNP won’t have control of the Senate which means there will be restraint on the ultra-conservatives who have voice through Abbott, Pyne and Co.
Sorry, last 5 elections. Bloody Wikipedia mobile site cut off 2…
In other words the ACCC could override any of it, including defining what reference products mean.
Actually, what it means is the clause wouldn’t apply if NBN Co voluntarily add other plans to it. It doesn’t mean what your trying to say.
n regards to uniform pricing, the National’s won’t let any pricing get through the system that screws regional and rural residences relative to big city residences, neither would I expect the ACCC.
Is that like how the Nationals don’t like CSG, but back it anyway?
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
You totally missed the “and their owners make them available” bit dude…
umm what?
You know, sometimes it’s like trying to teach primary school level people around here…
We can be sure Malcolm will not save us from price gouging by monopolistic private providers.
Malcolm is only setting a wholesale price, RSP’s can set whatever they want. If, in rural areas, there is limited competition, I expect they’ll pay more…
Malcolm doesn’t set the wholesale price the ACCC does.
@Fibroid
The ACCC only set a wholesale price for NBNCo. on all tiers and other infrastructure only on the most basic tier. We’ve been through this. There is no protection from overbuild or undercut charging for anything other than the most basic tier.
Very good Fibroid, nice to see you keeping up, we both agree the wholesale price is capped.
Now, who sets the retail price?
ISP’s do, in competition with about 208 other ISP’s in Australia, is there a point in there somewhere?
So…all RSP’s are going to cover Australia wide then?
@Goresh
FoD is a optional upgrade to a existing FTTN service that has already been installed by the NBN Co, so you already have a minimum of 25Mbps up to 100Mbps, you are not comparing like with like in your example
I don’t know if it has already been said but we pay more for internet now. I would like to see the same charges all over Oz but I don’t think this will happen. I am well north of the Brisbane line so most things are more expensive. Internet access about 50% more I pay $60.00 for what the city gets for $40.00
Comments are closed.