news Communications Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is continuing to regularly make misstatements about the Coalition’s National Broadband Network policy in speeches and media releases around Australia, in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive the public about the policy.
Under Labor’s National Broadband Network policy, some 93 percent of Australian premises will receive fibre directly to the premise, delivering maximum download speeds of up to 1Gbps. The remainder of the population will be served by a combination of satellite and wireless broadband, delivering speeds of up to 25Mbps.
The Coalition’s policy will see fibre to the premises deployed to a significantly lesser proportion of the population — 22 percent — with 71 percent covered by fibre to the node technology, where fibre is extended to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ and the remainder of the distance to premises covered by Telstra’s existing copper network. The Coalition’s policy will also continue to use the HFC cable network operated by Telstra and will also target the remaining 7 percent of premises with satellite and wireless.
According to the Coalition’s media release issued in April upon the policy’s launch, the Coalition’s policy is based on the core pledge that the group will deliver download speeds of between 25Mbps and 100Mbps by the end of 2016 — effectively the end of its first term in power — and 50Mbps to 100Mbps by the end of 2019, effectively the end of its second term. According to the Coalition’s statement, the 25Mbps to 100Mbps pledge applies to “all premises”, while the higher pledge by 2019 applies to “90 percent of fixed line users”.
The FTTN-style rollout, although technically less capable than the FTTP style used by Labor, has been shown to be viable in a number of other first-world countries, including the UK, where incumbent telco BT recently announced it had passed some 16 million premises with FTTN since 2009, delivering speeds of up to 76Mbps, as well as France, Germany and the United States. And it will see the majority of Telstra’s copper network replaced with fibre.
However, in speeches and media releases over the past week as part of the Federal Election campaign, Communications Minister Anthony Albanese has appeared to make a deliberate, concerted attempt to deceive Australians about the Coalition’s plan.
In a media release issued on Tuesday this week associated with a visit to Tasmania, Albanese pointed out that although the Coalition plans to honour existing NBN contracts, this may not mean that Tasmanians will receive fibre to the premises.
“This would leave more than 85,000 Tasmanian homes and businesses using last century’s copper for their broadband, unless they pay as much as $5,000 to connect to fibre,” said Albanese. “It is clear that Tony Abbott will cut down the NBN, dividing the Tasmania between broadband haves and broadband have nots.”
Separately, in a media release associated with Albanese’s visit to the Far North Queensland city of Cairns, Albanese alleged that if the Coalition took power, more than 50,000 homes and business would miss out on what he described as “superfast broadband”. “They will be left with one of two choices: battle on using last century’s copper or fork out as much as $5,000 to have fibre connected to their home or business – something others in Cairns will get for free under Labor’s NBN,” Albanese said. “Australians now face a clear choice: they can vote for the future and fibre under Labor or the past and copper under the Coalition.”
Separately, in a doorstop statement made in the Queensland city of Bundaberg, Albanese appeared to repeat a similar claim. “We have a huge take up of new technology,” the Communications Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said. “We simply can’t afford to have a city divided with high speed fibre to the home and business on one side, and on the other side of the city have the old, outdated, unreliable copper network of last century.”
The key implication which Albanese is making in his statements is that Labor will be upgrading Telstra’s national copper telecommunications network to fibre, while the Coalition will not upgrade the network at all, leaving Australians on what the Labor MP has continually described as “last century’s copper”. In this sense, Albanese is conflating the Coalition’s fibre to the node plan with the current broadband services (ADSL2+) already available.
However, this implication is factually incorrect, because the Coalition’s policy will see the majority of Telstra’s copper network replaced with fibre, and will also deliver substantial broadband service delivery improvements.
Most telecommunications experts currently consider that both fibre to the premises and fibre to the node rollout styles deliver what can be described as “superfast” broadband. It is extremely common in the UK, for example, for politicians and commentators from all different points of view to describe BT’s FTTN rollout as “superfast”. This is the phrase used by BT itself to describe the rollout, as well as the UK Government. Likewise, the Coalition’s FTTN solution is expected to be as affordable in terms of its retail prices as Labor’s FTTP solution.
In addition, Australia’s own Telecommunications Act defines ‘superfast’ as matching the Coalition’s broadband infrastructure, due to the fact that it will offer minimum speeds of 25Mbps, and eventually, across the vast majority of Newcastle, speeds of 50Mbps or above. The Act defines a “superfast carriage service” as being a service where “the download transmission speed of the carriage service is normally more than 25 megabits per second”.
The copper component of the Coalition’s FTTN network is inherently less reliable than an all-fibre solution, but FTTN networks are widely considered to be sufficiently reliable and delivering sufficiently high speeds for most of the benefits which Labor is ascribing to its own FTTP policy. High definition video links used in education and health, for example, can be delivered through either solution, and the latency offered on each is not significantly different as to affect service delivery.
The Communications Minister’s statement with regard to the “as much as $5,000” cost of connecting to the Coalition’s version of the NBN refers to one additional feature of the policy will see the Coalition offer Australians the choice to upgrade their connection to fibre to the premises as under Labor’s existing NBN policy.
The Coalition believes it will be possible to offer this kind of service on a similar basis as it is offered in the UK, where wholesale telco BT Openreach is offering so-called ‘fibre on demand’ extension services at a price depending on how far premises are from their nearby node. According to OpenReach’s price list, costs for the fibre extension service include a £500 (AU$823) initial connection fee and ‘annual rental’ cost of £465 (AU$765), plus a specific charge ranging from £200 (AU$329) up to £3,500 (AU$5,762), depending on the distance premises are from local nodes.
It is likely that many Australians will wish to take advantage of this ‘FTTP on demand’ option, although it is also likely that the vast majority of Australians will not upgrade in the short to medium term. However, Albanese’s implication that unless they do upgrade, Australians will not have access to next-generation broadband services, is incorrect.
It is believed that Albanese is aware of the key strengths and weaknesses of the Coalition’s NBN policy with regard to Labor’s own policy.
The comments reflect only the latest occasion on which the Communications Minister has misrepresented a situation over the past several months since his appointment. Albanese made similar statements several weeks ago about the NBN rollout in Newcastle, for example. In mid-July, for example, Albanese inaccurately claimed a firm hired by a law firm acting for NBN Co’s board of directors was a “public relations company”, despite the fact that the firm concerned, Bespoke Approach, is listed on the Federal Government’s register of lobbyists and employs former senior politicians for the purposes of providing political management services. Albanese was pushed on the issue by journalists and reiterated his claim.
Albanese has also previously strongly criticised the Coalition’s NBN policy as “bizarre” and “neanderthal”, despite the successful examples of the use of FTTN in several other major first-world countries having demonstrated that the rollout style delivers substantial service delivery benefits to residents and businesses.
Labor MPs in general are also engaging in misrepresentation when it comes to the Coalition’s NBN policy. A number of ALP election advertisements have inaccurately claimed, for example, that Liberal policy would see Australians forced to pay up to $5,000, or else they would be left “on the old, slow copper network”, while connection to Labor’s fibre-based NBN would be free.
However, the Coalition has also made a number of misleading statements about Labor’s NBN project over the past several years. In one of the more blatant examples of misleading commentary, last week Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull appeard to make a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the cost of connecting to the National Broadband Network’s upcoming 1Gbps fibre service, claiming on national television that such connections would cost “at least $20,000″ a month, despite the fact that the Shadow Communications Minister is aware the cost is likely to be much less.
In another example, several weeks ago Opposition Leader Tony Abbott inaccurately claimed that the rollout of Labor’s National Broadband Network in Tasmania will take “80 years” to complete, in what Labor’s Regional Communications Minister Sharon Bird immediately labelled a deliberate attempt to deceive residents and businesses in the state.
Similar to the misleading infographics distributed by Labor MPs over the past several months, an infographic currently published on the Facebook page of the Liberal Party of Australia misrepresents Labor’s policy. It conflates Labor’s initial, $4.7 billion policy outlined in 2007 with its reformed 2009 policy, falsely alleging a blowout from $4.7 billion to $90 billion in the project, and a decade-long project timetable extension.
The ongoing misleading comments has led academics to label the NBN debate as having been poisoned by a constant series of inaccurate and misleading statements.
opinion/analysis
I grow very weary of hearing Australia’s Communications Minister conflate FTTN and copper/ADSL. They are not at all the same thing, as Albanese is well aware, and even Albanese must admit that the Coalition’s broadband policy, although technically inferior to Labor’s own, will still deliver Australians substantial service delivery benefits that will serve the nation well into the mid-term. It is offensive to hear Albanese claim continually that no benefits will accrue from a national FTTN upgrade. I hardly need remind the Member for Grayndler, after all, that Labor took a FTTN-based policy to the 2007 election. Labor wasn’t describing its policy back then as leaving Australians on “last century’s copper”. So why is it OK to do so now?
Of course, none of this is to say that the Coalition isn’t peddling its own half-truths, misleading statements and outright lies during the campaign — we’ve seen a fair amount of that also. But Albanese’s dogged persistence on this issue has been extraordinary. How stupid does the Communications Minister think Australians are? I’ll say it again: FTTN is not at all the same thing as copper/ADSL.
Image credit: Toby Hudson, Creative Commons
Please note that I will delete any comments on this thread where people attempt to make the argument that FTTN = copper/ADSL2+. That is a technically irrational argument; not appropriate for a technical forum such as Delimiter.
> However, Albanese’s implication that unless they do upgrade, Australians will not have access to next-generation broadband services, is incorrect.
I’m on 24 Mbps and under the coalition policy, I’d probably expect it to be upgraded by about 2018 (I’m on a recently upgraded top hat, so would expect to be near the end of the queue) and would expect maybe something like 75 Mbps to come out of that, considering the focus on downloads, the distance from the node where it is and it not being likely that I’d get a closer node, etc., etc.
Mathematically, not speaking about utility or anything, it’s like going from 1500 kbps to 4500 kbps. Is that a new generation of broadband services, Renai? Doesn’t the Earl of Wentworth love to say that speed only matters because of what you can do with it?
Sure, I’m aware that by that definition going from 24 Mbps to 100 Mbps FTTH isn’t next generation either. But going from 1 Mbps upload to 40 Mbps upload with easy upgrades that don’t put a multi-thousand dollar hurdle in the way of this tenant (me), I’m sure I’d consider that to be quite next-generation.
But, that’s only a subjective assessment. But we should take it to heart when we hear them say that they’ll raise the minimum speed from 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps for 90% of the population from 2016 to 2019. Why? I can hardly see the point. It’s less useful than going from 2 Mbps to 4 Mbps, for example.
So, in my case I don’t consider it an open deception, but I can see why someone with a much worse service would disagree. What I’m trying to say, Renai, is that things are not the same for everyone.
> And it will see the majority of Telstra’s copper network replaced with fibre.
I’d redo the math on that, Renai. If you even did any. But I’m sure the 71%/93%=76% that keep copper out of the fixed lines planned outweigh the backhaul network in terms of distance and certainly in terms of effort required. Telstra has already fibred quite a few areas for the top hat upgrade, for instance.
So you’re going to go from 24Mbps to 76Mbps (with a similar jump in upload speeds), and you’re complaining. Why?
“I’d redo the math on that, Renai.”
Most of the copper is between the exchange and the node … if you have evidence that is not true, I’m happy to look at it.
“Mathematically, not speaking about utility or anything, it’s like going from 1500 kbps to 4500 kbps”.
This is an entirely misleading statement since the mathematics of it does not have much to do with it while the utility of it does.
E.g. You could also say it’s like going from 1 terabit to 3 terabits. Which is just as valid a comparison, and similarly not useful.
The utility on the other hand is exactly what you need to consider. Going from 1500 kbps to 4500 kbps makes a large difference because a user can easily saturate small bandwidth numbers like these, and it makes a perceivable difference in many internet related activities (e.g. streaming a HD video).
Going from 24 mbps to 75 mbps makes a much smaller difference to the user because it is much harder to saturate a 24 mbps connection (e.g. it can already stream multiple HD videos, so adding more bandwidth won’t change the user experience very much).
If you graph it, there would be a point on the bandwidth curve where adding extra bandwidth gives no perceivable or useful benefits for the user. E.g. if I give you a 1 terabit connection, speeding it up to 100 terabits will make no perceivable difference to you. But the real numbers we are dealing with are much, much lower. I’m going to make a guess and say somewhere between 20 and 30 mbps on the curve is the point where the vast majority of users will see greatly diminishing benefit from adding extra bandwidth.
Here’s the common perception.
With ADSL2 now, a 500m copper loop cant deliver 24 Mbps, so how can a loop of the same length deliver 50 Mbps just because there is fiber involved?
Personally, I’m about 800m from the exchange. People behind me and across the road get 18 Mbps, I get 6 Mbps thanks to copper line problems somewhere nearby – I believe its between my place and the next corner towards the exchange. Telstra doesnt want to know about it, and if FttN gets rolled out, will just replace that short stretch with copper again as it will be deemed the most cost effective solution.
I’m not sure now where I stand. They are rolling out FttH where I live, and its due to finish in the next month or so. I should be fine to get full FttH. But I live in a unit, so am unsure where I stand regarding that last portion on to the property.
I KNOW a fiber line can be pulled through, I watched them pull through a copper line when I connected my phone line, but the whole MDU issue still needs a resolution for every level of the debate – user, strata, Telstra, ISP, NBN Co. If the Coalition gets in, am I forced to connect to no better than FttN, just because I’m in an MDU, even though the rest of the suburb is FttH?
“With ADSL2 now, a 500m copper loop cant deliver 24 Mbps, so how can a loop of the same length deliver 50 Mbps just because there is fiber involved?”
I’m sure this is rhetorical but…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-high-bit-rate_digital_subscriber_line
@Frank
Actually, VDSL & VDSL2 are not capable of 50Mbps at 500m:
http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/fttn-speed-graph.gif
Note: VDSL2 is capable of higher speeds than that, but not using Profile 17a, which is the most stable profile for vendor equipment on legacy copper. Anything higher rapidly degrades in quality on older/thinner copper.
Turnbull is banking on Vectoring providing for it. There’s no guarantee it will work.
Hmm so it’s not…
Yeah thanks Frank. Was a rhetorical question, was mostly putting it out there because its a common question I hear – copper is a problem already with getting the maximum speed, so what changes with FttN when the length is still so long? And its a fair question.
I have a sibling that helped develop ADSL 2, so have a better laymans understanding than most. Not claiming to be an expert, but I enjoy my tech, and having immediate access to someone that has lectured on the subject around the world, I understand completely that 24 Mbps isnt the cap for copper – do a little hunting, I generally give a cap of 100 Mbps to be a little generous.
I’m very much pro-FttH, but I’m not that one-eyed I’ll fob off FttN as a bad idea, just a weaker one. I will defend it when people get facts wrong though.
The issues that mean copper speeds diminish with distance dont go away with FttN, they just limit the damage. But if the average or maximum loop length is 500m, that still means there is 500m of copper to cause problems. Nothing changes that copper is the weak link in the chain, and inevitably, where there are problems with copper lines now there will be problems with copper lines with FttN.
My personal issue with FttN isnt the idea, but what happens when it cant deliver our needs. Which I figure to be around when its finished.
;)
Well said.
There will be problems no doubt.
Regarding the open-reach pricing, the minimum contract term is 36 months, this brings the minimum cost to approximately 3600 aud (for a minimum 0-200 meter fibre run).
(£500 + £200 + (£465 x 3) = £2095 = $3622.21 exgst (so you’ll add 10% here)
There may be ongoing costs after this minimum contract period; but the minimum spend is the important one. It is left unspecified if you must pay the additional fee beyond this minimum contract term. (But if it is like mobile phones, you wont).
Only quoting the “annual” fee once, when you are obliged to pay it a minimum of 3 times, is I believe the wrong way to go.
Otherwise; I agree, Albanese is being far too “loose” with the truth.
Renai, You can delete this comment if you want, but I pose this question to you.
What technical term do you call a Telstra “Tophat” which is in fact a Alcatel Lucent 7330 ISAMs and which is feed by Fiber back to the exchange? See:
http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/products/7330-isam-fttn-ansi
“The Alcatel-Lucent 7330 Intelligent Services Access Manager (ISAM) Fiber to the Node (FTTN) providers can offer ultra-high-bandwidth services while leveraging their existing copper plant… The 7330 ISAM FTTN supports VDSL2 with vectoring and pair bonding. This enables broadband speeds of 100 Mb/s and beyond.
Also see:
http://broadbandsoho.com/FTTx/Alcatel_7330_ISAM.pdf
and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwpP-ACssjM
You covered these Telstra Tophats on October 25, 2011 here:
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/25/telstra-releases-top-hat-project-details/
I am connected to a Tophat in a new estate. I’m approx. 100metres from Tophat and the Distribution Area cable run goes directly from the Tophat to my home. I was syncing at the max sync rate for a fair while but now I sync at only 18mbps. New estate, new copper go figure!
So my Telstra Bigpond ADSL2+ Service provided by a Alcatel Lucent 7330 ISAM in a Telstra Tophat feed with fiber and (which is technically capable of also providing VDSL/VDSL2 with or without vectoring and pair bonding), is technically called what by you?
Hi Mark,
I’m leaving your comment here as it’s extremely interesting, and I want to reward your effort and follow it up. But it’s still off-topic, as I warned ;) I don’t want to encourage further discussion along these lines.
Renai
*closer to 14Mbps, or closer to 1.4MBps
No need to ask when you’ve answered it yourself:
“The 7330 ISAM FTTN supports VDSL2 with vectoring and pair bonding.”
This is equipment capable of VDSL2, supporting the statement that FTTN does not equal copper/ADSL2.
In this case FTTN equals VDSL2, with backwards compatibility for VDSL,ADSL2+,ADSL2, and ADSL.
My iPhone 5 supports LTE – you won’t catch me calling it 2G because it supports that.
And if the network you’re on doesn’t support LTE, is your phone still LTE capable? No.
The question is still valid: while FTTN is defined to require VDSL2 by the ones who utilise the term, like Turnbull, then saying that something that isn’t capable of VDSL2 yet is FTTN is not helpful. Worse it’s disingenuous.
“And if the network you’re on doesn’t support LTE, is your phone still LTE capable? No.”
The answer to this is yes. The phone is still totally capable of transmitting an LTE signal. The tower is not.
No. Doesn’t work like that.
Do you remember the situation with one of the older generation iPad? They were told they couldn’t advertise the iPad as 4G because in Australia it didn’t support the bands that Telstra, the only provider of 4G at the time, used.
The same argument applies here; while the generally accepted definition of FTTN means VDSL2 a top hat upgrade that uses ADSL2+, even if the cabinet and equipment does support the installation of VDSL2, cannot be called FTTN.
To call it that is being deceptive because it will only serve to confuse the technically uninformed masses which is something you don’t want to do when discussing a political policy.
Beat me to it NK.
@NightKhaos
Fibre to the Node (FTTN) is a generic description, it is often transposed with the term Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) as you well know, depending on what sort of cable run takes place to the residence from the cabinet, and the cabinet location itself , with many large unit complexes having their own cabinet either on the nearest curb or in the building itself.
The NBN Co is contemplating such infrastructure for large multi-story unit complexes itself, you are really grasping at straws if you are trying to pin the Coalition down on a definition of your own making that you conjecture the ACCC will have something to say about.
The ACCC would be more concerned about false advertising by RSP’s about FTTN or FTTP plan capabilities, and terms like ‘unlimited’ etc than getting involved in a wasteful costly exercise of trying to legally define FTTN for the purposes of ‘catching the Coalition out’ on behalf of pro Labor NBN supporters.
I repeat: …while the generally accepted definition of FTTN means VDSL2 a top hat upgrade that uses ADSL2+, even if the cabinet and equipment does support the installation of VDSL2, cannot be called FTTN.
To call it that is being deceptive because it will only serve to confuse the technically uninformed masses which is something you don’t want to do when discussing a political policy.
What happens with small MDU’s? My unit has 8 units in total, and its impractical to offer anything outside the normal node to something so small, so you have the combined issues of FttN, and MDU still to deal with.
Could I simply connect to a FttN connection? Would I need to wait for the strata managers to OK it?
A lot of the debate has been around large MDU’s, which like you I think are going to be relatively simple to solve – FttB or a dedicated node. But there are far more small MDU’s (ie ones taking up a standard home sized block or 2) that havent been addressed at any level of the debate.
To clarify the only condition I placed on FTTN is VDSL2 or better. I did not mention the confusion between it an FTTB, nor did I directly claim the ACCC would care.
You may not like me but that doesn’t excuse blatant strawman arguments.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/23/open-deception-albanese-continually-misleading-public-coalition-nbn-policy/#comment-621650
“And if the network you’re on doesn’t support LTE, is your phone still LTE capable?”
The answer is still yes, the phone is still LTE capable. The tower is not.
Regardless, that was not the intent of my analogy (otherwise I would have mentioned the tower). The intent was to show that backwards compatibility with older technologies does not mean that you define it by the lowest standard that it supports or is currently using.
I don’t call a DX11 video card a DX9 video card if it’s playing an older DX9 game. It is still a DX11 video card using backwards compatibility to support older standards.
No, the answer is “I can use LTE where LTE exists”. Now if no one supplies LTE, or doesn’t support the LTE your phone does, then it’s a redundent feature of your phone and you are deliberately decieveing people if you suggests a device can do something it is evidently not capable of (as per the ACCC rulling regarding the iPad).
You do however use the current standard that is currently can support. A top-hat upgrade performed by Telstra does not include VDSL2 DSLAMS, thus it is not capable of VDSL2, thus it does not fit the widely understood definition of FTTN. I don’t understand why you think you can get away with arguing technical lanuage in a political debate.
Hiding behind a technicality is being deliberately deciecitful, the exact behavour that Renai is condeming Albanese for in this very article.
That’s because there are DX11 games to play, and you can play them in that mode. Now, if you had a game that deliberately only supported DX11 if you had a AMD graphics card and you had an nVidia one, where it only supports up to DX9, you’d feel short changed if they called it a “DX11” game wouldn’t you?
Similary, a customer will feel short changed if their RIM upgrade is called “FTTN” and they only get 5-6 Mbps, because based upon what they have been lead to believe, FTTN implies 20Mbps+ speeds. That is where the problem lies, that is what you’re not understanding, and that is why the question of what to call a “top-hat” upgrade is a valid one: because calling FTTN will decieve, maybe unintentionaly, consumers.
to make it clear, I’m responding to Mark and his discussion of the Alcatel Lucent 7330 ISAM that is capable of VDSL2.
I’m not making a generalised argument.
Go back and see. It’s a long thread – you probably just missed it.
@Frank
Yes, the 7330 is most definitely capable of VDSL2. But is it fed with enough backhaul to ensure useful operation for VDSL2. And do the lines connected to that RIM have sufficient quality and low length copper to provide a minimum of 25Mbps?
Just being capable of VDSL2 is far from useful on Its own.
Hmmm, but if it’s fibre from the node back to the exchange, couldn’t they just swap the card to upgrade the backhaul?
@Tinman_au
Yes and no. The backhaul is provided by the WDDM module. If spare dark fibre is available, which in the majority, there would be, then a swap of the module and card would do it (at both ends). But that doesn’t fix line lengths.
Yes, I realise. But as stated it doesn’t have VDSL2 DSLAMs installed, nor are their any assurances the lines attached are of adequate quality or length.
That is where the problem lies.
Frank,
Go ask the ACCC, they took on apple regarding advertising the IPads as 4g capable when they were not compatible with Austalia’s 4G network. False Advertising. For all intents and purposes in Australia, the IPad is not 4G capable.
Below you requested 7T to stop being a dick. Kindly follow your own advice.
Jasmcd – you tell me where I mentioned an iPad…. rhetorical, I didn’t.
I used my iPhone 5 as an analogy.
My iPhone 5 that supports LTE, and when I pass through some suburbs transmits and receives using LTE, but right now is connected by 3G, yet it is still an LTE phone.
Judge me by my analogy, not someone elses.
You also need to follow my advice.
It doesn’t matter who brought up the analogy Frank. I brought it up because it directly contridicted your statement regarding calling “top hat” upgrade FTTN is acceptable, it just happened to be that jasmd here brought up the same analogy as I did.
I forgot, I’m not suggesting I shouldn’t follow my own advice…
I should definitely follow my own advice.
;)
I’m probably being a bit of a pedant here, but FTTN doesn’t equal any DSL at all, it’s a network topology, not a protocol…
it’s possible to use any of the DSL family over FTTN as long as the node understands the protocol.
Little bit pedantic yes. See my reply to Frank re tech defintions vs widely understood.
Well, not really that pedantic even, Wikipedia says it best:
Even Cable internet is technically FTTN. In Australia, were just using FTTN and VDSL interchangeably, because that’s what Malcolm wants to use, but that’s not the way it works in the rest of the world.
I realise this and it irks me a little but now that Turnbull has Spread to the Australia media it’s the definition we have to use or we’ll confuse people.
Renai, O.K. I’m not trying to bait you or antagonise you in any way. I won’t post any thing further. You may however be interest to also know that Matt Healy, chair of the Competitive Carriers Coalition, is quoted as stating that he was concerned that the Telstra’s TopHat roll-out was potentially the start of a fibre-to-the-node (FttN) approach “by stealth”.
Enjoy your weekend!
Cheers!
It would not surprise me Mark if Turnbull has the figures on the number of top hat roll outs Telstra has and probably knows roughly how many of these could be transformed to use VDSL over night. I know in the Point Cook area I’ve seen a lot of top hats and I always though there is probably very little they have to do to convert them to use VDSL.
@Rob5089
There are about 5500 RIMs. They cover anywhere from 300-1200 premises. But you can’t just slap a a VDSL DSLAM in them and be done. The line length and actual bandwidth capacity of the RIM are very variable. Half the RIMs are barely more than glorified telephone switches with little or no DSL capacity.
Well yes a RIM that has not had the top hat conversion has limited services. To my knowledge a top hat converted RIM has fibre to it so it can support the DSL services that it offers. The whole point of top hat conversions is to supply current Telstra customers on a RIM with DSL. We need to know the current figure of top hat converted RIM’s not just all RIMs converted or not. Though since Telstra already has a process in place of upgrading RIM’s to a top hat it means it could possibly be done relatively quickly. Potentially 1.6 million+ homes on RIM’s (5500 x 300) could have VDSL enabled reasonably quickly if Telstra is involved. Obviously line length might be longer than 400m in some cases but since most RIM’s can only service a small number of homes the line length I imagine is relatively short compared to a big exchange.
Pretty sure the Top Hat roll-out sorted most (but not all) of the RIM issues, didn’t it?
http://exchange.telstra.com.au/2011/10/25/telstra-will-start-rolling-out-top-hats-in-november/
@Tinman_au
No, if you read that article, it says they upgraded about 2000. There are 5500 total. Sure, some will already be upgraded, but I think you’d find there would still be over 1000 not upgraded.
That was the press release from Oct 25 2011 (prior to the rollout). I have no doubt they added more after the initial 2000, as it was a good idea (both for subscribers and Telstra shareholders).
@Mark
‘You may however be interest to also know that Matt Healy, chair of the Competitive Carriers Coalition, is quoted as stating that he was concerned that the Telstra’s TopHat roll-out was potentially the start of a fibre-to-the-node (FttN) approach “by stealth”.’
So what? – Telstra can do what it likes in any upgrade plan for their own infrastructure, what’s ‘by stealth’ mean anyway?
Is a upgrade by any carrier to a wireless tower to carry 4G ‘by stealth’ or is it just a upgrade in the normal context of upgrading infrastructure capacity and speed.
The CCC should be more concerned as to why the two biggest carriers in Australia are not members.
The problem is that, unlike exchanges, other providers can’t access them.
Incorrect.
“The new ports will be available to Telstra customers and those of wholesale customers who resell Telstra ADSL”
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/25/telstra-releases-top-hat-project-details/
@Fibroid
I believe he meant for ULL. Telstra wholesale is the reason ULL was produced and how the market got competitive. Being able to access Telstra wholesale is hardly earth-shattering for competition. In fact, if the area was on an exchange, but was upgraded to a RIM with top-hat for better ADSL on shorter copper….Telstra just removed a small portion of potential ULL ports and therefore competition.
lol – oh I see.
Not your fault, Telstra are pretty good at doing that kind of thing (“hiding” competition road blocks that is).
“How stupid does the Communications Minister think Australians are?”
He, like most politicians, think that some of them are, and they are the ones this is pitched at. Unfortunately, they are the people who eventually decide the final outcome.
While Albanese is about as qualified as Tony Abott to comment on technical aspects of either NBN plan, I still think he has a point when it comes to nodelotto and not knowing what speeds you will end up with on it, though he should say that some users on FTTN will never have the option of 100Mbps rather than using the generic “superfast broadband” which is a useless term that could mean anything.
According to Turnbull’s policy, approx 1,182,216 premises will never qualify for the minimum of 50Mbps. Their only option for faster speeds will be to pay for FoD (if the option is ever made available to them).
Turnbull says that they haven’t even considered what prices might apply for that in Australia, but even if you go off the BT pricelist then it ranges from a minimum of $3,400 (as per PeterA’s comment about the annual charge), if the distance is less than 200m, and up to $7,196 if the distance is less than 1.5km.
Now we know for certain that it will be those who are more than 800m from the node (but there could be more people who are <800m depending on quality/gauge of copper) who will not qualify for the minimum 50Mbps speed under VDSL2 + vectoring (see graph here: http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine/boosting-vdsl2-bit-rates-with-vectoring/) so the $5,000 figure seems reasonably close to the mark for them, if you go off BT pricelist.
Perhaps Renai we need to ask Mr Turnbull why the location of his nodes will determine the haves and havenots of his vision for the NBN. Another good question might be, if vectoring is the bees knees and ready to deploy now, then why is it to be implemented after a subsequent election in 2016? Is it so that we don't get to see it in action before then?
“According to Turnbull’s policy, approx 1,182,216 premises will never qualify for the minimum of 50Mbps.”
That should have read “According to Turnbull’s policy, approx 1,182,216 premises on FTTN will never qualify for the minimum of 50Mbps.” iow, 10% of the 11,822,160 premises Turnbull says will be covered by fixed lines.
“I still think he has a point when it comes to nodelotto and not knowing what speeds you will end up with on it”
He would if that was the argument he was pushing. I haven’t heard anyone from Labor or anyone in the mainstream media use the term “nodelotto”. I’ve written to both. That’s a shameful waste of a killer argument imo. Let people know that with nodelotto their property could be worth less than a similar property a bit closer to the node. That should get their attention.
Thanks for bringing up “nodelotto” in this conversation. Hopefully Labor will pick on the idea and put Turnbull on the spot.
‘Let people know that with nodelotto their property could be worth less than a similar property a bit closer to the node. That should get their attention.’
Which is total conjecture of course, which should fit in with the Labor mainly conjecture based negative anti-Coalition NBN campaign perfectly.
It’s a bit sad Labor feel they can’t really sell their own policy very well, and have concentrated almost exclusively on trying to bag Coalition policy.
@Fibroid
Umm, it’s already being seen in NBN/non-NBN areas:
http://livingspace.commbank.com.au/nbn-lures-buyers
http://www.propertywizards.com.au/impact-of-nbn-on-perth-property-market/
It’s not guaranteed that it will. But if you’re buying or renting an apartment that is exactly the same as another down the street (quite common in the suburbs) and it has FTTH, there’s little doubt it would have a modest affect on the price a seller/renter would be willing to pay.
Both links have nothing whatever to say about increasing property value, with the Perth report actually saying it will have ‘minimal effect’.
The commonwealth Bank think that, if we follow the US, it will have an impact (though they don’t mention how much).
http://livingspace.commbank.com.au/nbn-lures-buyers
That’s because the value of the residence wasn’t under discussion, only that high speed BB access is desirable, that could be Fibre to the Node or HFC as well.
” if things unfold here the way they have in the US, home buyers will soon be putting high-speed broadband access well up their list of desirable inclusions when looking at properties.”
Indeed it could :)
In fact I made sure that the Cable at my current house be in good working order a part of the contract (and that was in 2001). Personally, I wouldn’t by a house with at least Cable or FTTP (though I might consider one with FTTN once they go to 50Gbps, but I’m probably not typical).
Seriously Fibroid…
So you’ve basically spent the thread arguing “conjecture (your new buzzword)” that housing prices will be impacted positively by FttP…
But then mention they could be impacted positively, just as long as the magic 4 letters “FttN” are included?
Your completely slanted comments, never fail to push the boundaries of the WTF… IMO
will ‘not’ be impacted
I will add another in the desire for high speed BB in choosing a residence, 4G wireless, also is a residence closer to the exchange more desirable than one that is not, which could mean residences next door to a exchange are really really desirable, the permutations of ‘desirability’ here are endless.
Oh, so the backflip from, it (FttP) won’t make a difference… has now snowballed into everything makes a difference?
Nothing like conviction to contradiction, eh?
Yes, 4G is desirable too, but with FTTP the “distance from an exchange” point is moot….
+1
I think it’s a bit hard on Albanese to expect him to remove all the soundbites. That’s all politicians have. Even Turnbull uses them- “Labor’s NBN will cost closer to $94 billion”, “We’ll give you super-fast broadband cheaper, sooner and more affordably”. Both of which, without context, are very misleading.
I think we need to at least acknowledge Albanese over the past few weeks has gone from:
“Labor’s NBN will connect you for free, while the Coalition’s policy will have you paying $5000 to connect to the NBN or be stuck on the old, slow, decrepit copper network”
to
“Labor’s NBN will give you access to fibre all the way to your home for free, while the Coalition’s policy will require you to pay up to $5000 to connect your home to fibre, or you’ll be stuck on the copper network”
That was a difference, you, yourself Renai, made, quite rightly, noise about. The “connect you for free”, “up to” “$5000 to connect to the NBN” and the “old, slow, decrepit” were deceitful. All have been amended. By Albanese at least. In only a few weeks.
Now, to keep his soundbite, he’s using the phrases “last century’s copper” and “old, outdate and unreliable copper”. Both are true- copper is last century’s (19th century) technology. That isn’t to say it doesn’t have its’ uses still in modern 21st century society. But fibre is a 20th century technology so is, technically, newer than copper and therefore copper is “outdated”. The copper also, is old. I believe the average age of the network is 20-25 years. In some its’ much older. In some much newer. But it is old on average. It is also unreliable by much anecdotal evidence. However, that claim is unverifiable in quantity, so perhaps is going a little too far.
Nowhere has he said the Coalition won’t be upgrading the network and nowhere has he said you won’t get better speeds. He mentions the minimum. But you can’t really expect him to mention the maximum, when:
1- It is counter-productive to his own argument and
2- Only a minority will get those speeds (80-100Mbps probably <20%)
Turnbull is guilty of the opposite. He regularly harps on about it being unfair people are comparing the lowest speed on copper to the highest on fibre and says, quite rightly, copper is capable of up to 100Mbps (or even beyond- G. Fast). He is, himself however, insinuating most people will, therefore, get 100Mbps (or have the option of it anyway, as on fibre). Fibre, on the other hand, can give 1Mbps, 25Mbps or 1Gbps. To everyone, if they choose. The only limitation is price.
You believe Albanese is insinuating that the Coalition will not upgrade the network. The only thing is, we know, as the tech community, only the minority will get 100Mbps on FTTN. On the other hand, we are only guessing Albanese either doesn’t want the public to think, or doesn’t understand, the Coalition will make a substantial upgrade to the network.
I think the debate can’t shift much further without it becoming far too technical for the average Australian to even hope to understand. Either from Turnbull or Albanese. They’re not gonna move from their positions, as unfortunate as that is, because it is a low quality debate. Politicians will always have their soundbites. The day either side stop using them, I’ll eat my nearest node ;P
And just to add, if “up to 100Mbps” is alright for claimg what the LNP plan can deliver, then surely “up to $5000” to connect is therefore equally applicable?
Sure both have a minimum; 25Mbps when referring to the FTTN speed, an possibly $1500 for on-demand fibre connections, but “up to” is a weasel word combo and politicians, the masters of spin, are always going to use them to push the limits of the truth to further their own agenda
Copper is not outdated as such. Copper cabling has been continually updated. It is capable of terabit speeds. Cat-5 upwards cables are capable of gigabit speeds up to 100 m.The inside of your computer is full of copper interconnects.
If the cables in Telstra infrastructure are 20 to 25 years old then those particular cables are late 20th century technology.
Optic fiber was invented in the 1800s (i.e. 19th century), I just looked it up (and I’m very surprised). The first digital transmission on optic fiber was in 1965 – I’m pretty sure that the speed would have sucked in those first transmissions.
I’m not saying optic fiber is not the better long distance cabling – it is definitely the best. But at reasonable distances there are 21st century techniques that use copper to achieve amazing things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber
@Frank
Copper is outdated as a medium for telecommunications. That does not mean it won’t play a role in electronics. It is, in pure form, a highly stable, low resistance, conductor. It is essential to electronic pathways and will be for many years to come. That does not mean it should play the main part in a national telecommunications system which is based on metres, 10’s of metres, 100’s of metres or thousands of metres rather than the mm of electronic pathways.
Optic fibre, as a medium for telecommunications, is the best technology we have. It isn’t new, but it is substantially newer than copper for communications, substantially more reliable, substantially cheaper to maintain and substantially better for a telecommunications system. Why? On word- digital.
The only way copper can carry a signal is by voltage. Voltage is an inherently analogue form of data transfer. It can transfer digital data, but it is done in analogue form- continuously variable. For that reason, it is all those things fibre is not. Fibre is an inherently digital medium- pulses, on/off, light/dark, whatever you want to call it. It took until 1965 for optic fibre to be pure enough and for lasers to be powerful and controllable enough to use as a purely digital way of transferring data.
The NBN is about communications. Modern communications are digital. Fibre is digital. Continuing to rely on an analogue medium for long distance communications is foolish if you have the choice. We do.
As a note- copper may be capable of Tbps transfer- but I don’t think comparing its’ capability to transfer 5Tbps 3mm in a CPU bridge of a modern supercomputer to fibre’s 1Tbps over hundreds of kms is really a comparison at all. Copper is a short range analogue conductor for digital data. Fibre is not.
“Copper is outdated as a medium for telecommunications.”
I disagree. It’s not outdated (as I have shown above). It’s just not the best medium for long distance digital transmissions.
Time to own up “fibre is a 20th century technology so is, technically, newer than copper and therefore copper is “outdated”…. it’s a 19th century technology.
Everything else you wrote I already know. I did clearly write that optic fibre is better for any long distance transmissions (so you’re preaching to the converted).
Optic fibre it is still an analogue medium propagating a digital signal (just like copper). I.e. photons are not digital, the signal is, voltage potential is not digital, but the signal is ;)
Oh, and what is the NBN? That’s right, medium to long distance communication.
You’re arguments here are pedantry and not helpful for the debate. Of course copper is good for short distance. Turnbull wouldn’t have a case if it wasn’t.
Don’t be a dick.
The argument is whether copper is “outdated” which was a blanket term used by seven_tech that I disagree with and a few other things.
If you want to be part of this discussion then contribute something other than mindless vitriol.
Frank if you are unwilling, or unable, to apply context to any provided argument you are merely arguing semantics.
In this particular case the semantic and contextual meaning are differing in an obvious manner. Since this is an article about the NBN the context is medium to long distance communications.
And do you really think that insulting me invalidates my point? Your points, as per my previously inferred but now overtly stated reasoning, are pedentry and not helpful to the debate.
I read Frank’s points re copper, they seem quite rational and spot on to me.
@Fibroid
I read Frank’s points re copper, they seem quite rational and spot on to me.
That copper can do Tbps? At less than 1m perhaps. That’s not at all comparable with fibre’s kms. So it might be rational, but it’s not relevant to the discussion of telecommunications networks which work on metres and km, not mm and cm.
The fact we continually update copper technology and it’s capable of some amazing things are my points, which are relevant.
@ Frank
Seems to me the only reason they try to wring every last drop out of copper is because of vested interests and the enormity/scale of comms networks… In almost any other sector it would quite simply be out with the old and in with the new, all in the name of increased productivity and improved services for consumers.
But not in comms…
Due to the cost of replacing the copper Australia wide, private enterprise have shown they aren’t interested in the risk (and fair enough) anyone other than the incumbents especially… and then add to this Telstra (and other incumbents worldwide) of course willing to just let the $b’s keep flowing in from the status quo… why would they want to kill the golden goose?
While ever these large corporations who own the copper, try to desperately hang onto their advantage, there will be companies trying to come up with ways to improve the copper and reap the rewards too – and the copper will still be light years behind fibre! This IMO, isn’t a good thing for us when we currently have fibre being rolled out, but it is good for the incumbent copper owners and the companies doing the wringing.
As we saw with Telstra and their 2006 and 2008, so called FttN plans, which ‘they aborted”, once by pulling out and next by submitting a non-compliant bid. I.e. they wanted the status quo to remain and remain it did … until the current NBN came along. This is why this needs to be a nationalised (as recommended by Clive Palmer of all people and I agree).
But technology keeps improving and being so these networks have to be upgraded systematically. But rather than biting the bullet and doing it properly, some have chosen FttN, to keep their copper reliance.
Look of course FttN can be used and FttN would be an improvement… In fact had it been rolled out in the early 2000’s it would have been great for us to have now while we await FttP. Plus, we’d probably now have two FttP broadband options in front of us from the two major parties.
But IMO, FttN is not a sensible ‘people friendly option’ especially in 2013, as it depends upon an obsolete technology owned by a profit driven (and rightly so) corporation, mixed in with dozens of ifs and a government spend only $900m less than FttP…
You opened unkindly, I called you out. If I read you wrong then I apologise.
My initial examples pertain to different techniques used with copper to produce useful results that show that copper is not outdated.
I clearly state that optic fibre is better for long distance (and I’ll add short distances if you have the cash).
My points are clear and make sense, why fight them? Why not just admit that copper can achieve useful bandwidths for internet use, but not as high as optic fibre can? It is the truth.
Context. Please, learn what it means, and apply it to this debate.
I wasn’t arguing your points are invalid, I was arguing that within the context of this debate they are not helpful. In other words, arguing that we can achieve 10Gbps quite easily on less than 100m of Cat6 cable is awesome, but what does that have to do with a telecommications network? Nothing.
I called you out on this because it’s not helpful to the debate, it’s not presented in good faith, and is basicly being a pedent in order to “score points” against 7T rather than directly address his points. You want to talk about advances to copper that directly affect the current debate and will allow us to extend the life of copper and possibly present a valid case for keeping it over a full upgrade FTTH, then that’d be fine, but you’re not doing that.
Sure, but not helpful to you does not equate to not helpful to the debate.
My examples are generalisations about the advancement of copper. They are therefore valid to this discussion.
@Frank
I don’t see how they’re relevant? Once again, you’re talking about copper on lengths that are irrelevant to telecommunications. Therefore, seeing as this debate is about whether copper has a central role to play in modern telecommunications, not does it have any relevance to modern data and computer systems, it isn’t relevant.
Again, for pendants sake, copper doesn’t improve. The frequencies thrown down it simply increase with a law of diminishing returns thanks to resistance and physical effects.
@seven_tech
Well it’s lost on you then.
I think you don’t want copper to be relevant. I also think you can’t see the woods for all the trees in the way (and that’s why you fail to see my examples and discussion of copper as relevant).
@ Frank…
One can make all the excuses under the sun to try to justify obsolescence being preferable to current, for whatever their reasons…
Being so, IMO, your final comment reeked of pot/kettle.
@Frank
Why would I not want copper to be relevant? I have no prejudice against using a medium for data delivery. Without copper, Local Area Networking would be very difficult, not to mention almost all electronics. What I have a prejudice against is using a medium that is known to be unreliable and expensive when we have the choice, means and ability to do otherwise, but then expecting consumers to pay out of their own pocket to get something they’re actually paying for- fibre speeds that are reliable, stable and considerably faster.
I also have a prejudice against paying for something now and repaying for it later. As this policy will require.
Your discussion about copper being able to transfer Tbps is not relevant to telecommunications as I’ve already explained. A discussion about whether copper has a part to play in telecommunications in a transition to full fibre, is relevant. But that is not what you were discussing.
I agree with NightKhaos, my son-in-law is a copper and he is useless.
Cat 5 has 8 cables
You only have at the most 4 cables coming to you premises
With 80% population only have 2 and few more people sharing 2 cables on rim
Even Houdini can not do 100mb of those cables
Most Vdsl/vdsl2 uses dual pairs in lab and as for UK
They have thicker cables installed in ground and yet only guaranties up to 76mb down
When on fibre I can have bigger uplink that that
“Cat 5 has 8 cables”
Yes, I know this. It was an example of what you can do with copper. There is no suggestion that the pits have anything close to cat – 5 cabling.
The suggestion that in the context of a medium-to-long distance telecommunications network debate that copper is capable of Tbps communications is actually wrong.
Copper in an FTTN-within-Australia context is not capable of terabits per second with a budget of 29.5 billion dollars Copper is capable of between 100 and 40 megabits per second – with the majority lying closer to the 40 than the 100.
Copper in a FTTP network is capable of terabits per second!! because it is in your house connected to your Fibre NTU.
I think this article is hilarious Renai. Now you are calling out Labor for inaccurate statements, where were you when the Coalition was spouting rubbish for the last three years?!?!?! The audacity of you to post this article astounds me. Coalition has been spouting bullshit and but do you call them out like this, no…. you just challenge there statements but nothing as dramatic as this set piece!! Malcolm has been spouting misinformation for over 12 months and NEVER have you posted an article like this on anything they have said. You even went so far as to hide behind politi fact to support MT complaint’s about free connection to the NBN when in actual fact connection is completely FREE. Ongoing costs are what the user pays, exactly like they do now.
You sir, are ridiculous.
@Kevin Davies
You sir, are ridiculous.
I’m sorry, but it is you sir who are ridiculous:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/13/20000-for-1gbps-turnbulls-lateline-lie/
That one was last week.
There are dozens more. I may or may not agree with Renai all the time. I don’t happen to on this article. But it is completely unfair and utterly rude to suggest he hasn’t held Turnbull to account. He has. Dozens of times. You may not like them or agree with them. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t.
“That one was last week.”
Which also made reference to the “Labor Lies” highlighted in this article.
“NEVER”
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/13/20000-for-1gbps-turnbulls-lateline-lie/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/07/16/nationals-leader-grossly-inaccurate-on-nbn/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/13/turnbull-inaccurate-on-internet-filter-details/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/25/hockey-repeats-inaccurate-nbn-claim/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/22/turnbull-factually-inaccurate-on-nbn-costs/
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/13/turnbull-opens-defamation-door-with-inaccurate-claims-quigley-was-fired/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/25/nationals-leader-factually-incorrect-again-on-nbn/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/15/nbn-sorry-mr-hockey-youre-still-wrong/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/20/abbott-hockey-mislead-again-on-nbn-funding/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/03/01/turnbull-again-misleads-the-public-on-nbn/
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/31/nobody-has-connected-to-nbn-at-100mbps-claims-christopher-pyne/
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/29/tassie-nbn-will-take-80-years-claims-abbott/
Yup. Never.
@Renai
LOL. Google wasn’t my friend with keywords tonight :P
This wasn’t even trying. As you said, there are dozens more. I just typed “delimiter inaccurate” into Google.
Ahhh, yeah, I did “delimiter turnbull nbn”. I forgot your favourite words- inaccurate :)
I typed Turnbull & bullshit and I got even more.
Yeah well Renai, you may criticise Turnbull, but a “true” objective journalist would post only positive articles about the NBN because it is a total perfect policy with absolutely no flaws.
(I feel like Poe’s law may come to bite me in the ass here, so… for those of you not aware of the ways of humour, that was sarcasm).
:)
Hehe. I stand corrected.
Politicians lie. That’s a fact. Expecting them to not is expecting the tooth fairy to be real.
I’ve raised my concerns in public, direct to Turnbull, here and whirlpool.
Albo is wrong to misrepresent FTTN as ADSL2. There’s a difference.
Do I think Turnbull’s policy is workable? No.
Do I think Turnbull will deliver on his outrageous promises? No,.
Myself and others have pointed out ad. nauseum where Turnbull’s assumptions are wrong, but in this case Albo is just wrong (either through ignorance or outright deception).
“Albo is wrong to misrepresent FTTN as ADSL2. There’s a difference.”
FTTN uses a DSL protocol to provide the service over the copper pair. The coalition cannot use ADSL2 for their roll-out because it’s top data rate is 24Mbps and they have promised 25Mbps, however there are plenty of existing FTTN services around the world that DO use ADSL2.
In some ways it is unfortunate that they did not opt for ADSL2+ since it would have meant that most of the customers could have continued using their old modems rather than wear the expense of buying a new modem that will not provide a vastly superior service over the much shorter copper length FTTN enables than what they would get with ADSL2+ anyway.
The majority of Australians will not be able to reach 100mbit over copper.
Look at the speed you get for the distance in this graph for VDSL/VDSL2.
http://nbnmyths.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/fttn-speed-graph.gif
It only takes being 300m from the node to start getting similar speeds to what we can already get 2 years ago.
The Coalition is not promising that the majority of Australians will be able to get 100Mbps over copper. It’s only promising 50Mbps.
You’re correct. That is why they are doing fiber to the node and not the exchange. They will put nodes at strategic places to keep everyone within approximately 400 m of a node and thus keeping a minimum connection speed of about 25 mbit.
@Frank
Just for pedants sake- it isn’t “about” 25Mbit. They have promised minimum 25Mbit. And frankly, if I don’t see that by year end 2016, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest as there’s only one other company in the world who’s done that with VDSL and they have 3 times the number of nodes Turnbull is suggesting for the same ratio of premises to nodes as we have.
“Just for pedants sake- it isn’t “about” 25Mbit. They have promised minimum 25Mbit.”
Fair enough.
“they have 3 times the number of nodes Turnbull is suggesting for the same ratio of premises to nodes as we have”
The number of nodes don’t determine anything other than contention ratios. The distance to the nodes determines sync speed.
Actually it’s a factor of both. To give you an extreme example: if we only had 1 node in Australia the minimum would produced is zero, or not even connected, as we can’t reach everyone.
The number of nodes provides an average distance from node to premise. The more nodes the lower that average. So, the number of nodes is just as significant, and in fact directly infers the line distance.
“Actually it’s a factor of both. To give you an extreme example: if we only had 1 node in Australia the minimum would produced is zero, or not even connected, as we can’t reach everyone.
The number of nodes provides an average distance from node to premise. The more nodes the lower that average. So, the number of nodes is just as significant, and in fact directly infers the line distance.”
No, the number of nodes don’t directly infer line distance.
If you put 1 billion nodes near each other, all in one suburb of Perth then you will have superb contention ratios, and terrible connection speeds for all the outlying suburbs.
Connection speed is almost solely a factor of distance from the node. Of course you’ll need to have a certain amount of nodes, by definition if you have everyone within 400m of a node as I suggested, then you will need to place a certain amount of nodes to achieve that, but node position is still determined by distance from the houses it is targeting (and from other nodes) and not the total/average/mean/minimum/maximum number of nodes.
Good points Frank,
The nodes in terms of number may be located where existing Telstra pillars are because that’s where the hub links from the residence back to the exchange are, but that depends as you stated where other nodes are planned to be located in relation to existing pillar locations, keeping in mind the location plan for each cabinet is to service around 300-400 premises.
Convience of placing based upon the preexisitng structures like pillars has little to do with line length Fibroid. The piller locations are not a set distance from each other, and like the exchanges the stem from, tend to be put where it is “convienet” rather than an arbitary location to provide a set line length.
You have to remember that voice, what the CAN was primarly designed for, doesn’t have these “distance” restrictions associated with it and the only incentive to reduce line length was the reducing in the cabling required.
Meaning that in a vanilla installation the topology might be optimal for VDSL deployment (not to mention that suburbs in this catagory tend to be newer meaning ADSL2+ would have been a design consideration), but in non-vanilla (i.e. established suburbs) that have undergone massive change (like subdivision and MDU development) would have run the copper over the existing topology optimising for reduction in public works required rather than trying to maintain a set line lenght or contention ratio. This means some pillers may be “top heavy” and others may be “light”.
I think you’ll find whoever engineers the network will have a hard time utilsing pillar locations if they want to give the promised 25Mbps and maintain adequately uniform contention ratios.
Your concern about how the minimum of 25Mbps is achieved is misplaced, your are concentrating on one solution and one outcome, if the FTTN link cannot achieve a minimum of 25Mbps even with copper remediation you will get FTTP.
.
Just out of interest, how do you think they will decide that for people out on the borderline distances?
@Fibroid
It’s not misplaced at all. Doing a piecemeal network raises costs due to inefficiencies. That cancels out much if not most of the gains from using FTTN. The concern is, if FTTN is used for 25Mbps there is no cheap upgrade path or known time for upgrade when 25Mbps becomes not enough. And it will become not enough. That’s fact.
So if you’re going to spend almost the same money anyway….why not do it uniform and save the money from later and provide innovation in the meantime. It is a no-brainer. That is the issue I have with this policy. It is counter-intuitive.
@ Fibroid.
Hmm, so what you are basically saying is… they’ll use a half arsed FttN system and if/when the half arsed system is found inevitably wanting, they’ll actually will do the job properly…?
Got it…
Hmm again, why not just do it properly in the first place?
@Alex
+1
Do it once, do it right :o)
You are all assuming (hoping) that there is so much copper out there beyond remediation to support Coalition minimum speeds that the only solution is to roll out a Labor like FTTP, with all the increased cost and delay pushing fibre to 93% of residences brings.
Big call no matter how you dress it up.
@Fibroid
I don’t think anyone is hoping that. Because the only way to know will be as it gets rolled out, which will then subsequently delay that rollout to the detriment of all Australians. In the meantime it will cost more and likely take nearly as long, if not longer than the NBN is likely to.
You are mistaking our attitude Fibroid- no one is hoping the Coalition policy will fail. We are seriously asking if it is likely to fail and therefore whether it is better in the long run to keep the NBN going, yes, because it is a better outcome.
Incorrect Fibroid, I am not assuming or hoping anything. Your comment is ‘conjecture’ :)
I was simply replying to your comment here…
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/23/open-deception-albanese-continually-misleading-public-coalition-nbn-policy/#comment-621680
Indeed 7T…
I personally believe in technological advancement and no, the iron (oops copper) wires simply aren’t good enough – period. There’s no conspiracy or political subservience here…
As such, no pro-NBNer I know wants the Coalition’s plan to fail, that would be complete stupidity for anyone to even suggest it… I just believe the job needs to be done properly, now. It’s not rocket science.
But sadly, if anyone actually thinks we (or rather I/me, as I can’t speak on behalf of everyone) wants the Coalition’s plan to fail… I think it says more about the psyche of the accusers thoughts on the current NBN, than anything…
Being so, with each day (and an additional daily 20-30 comments) it all becomes clearer *shrugs*
Fibroid
“You are all assuming (hoping) that there is so much copper out there beyond remediation”
No, the only one assuming is you and, as is often the case, you are wrong.
You are all assuming (hoping) that there is so much copper out there beyond remediation to support Coalition minimum speeds that the only solution is to roll out a Labor like FTTP, with all the increased cost and delay pushing fibre to 93% of residences brings.
Big call no matter how you dress it up.
Try looking at this as “Plan Vs Plan” both made up of good, and bad, bits, don’t look at it as “Party Vs Party” because “a party” has nothing to do with the plans…
Did either I, or 7T say “directly infer” or any other similar lanauge?
No, I said it was a factor, meaning their is a causation and colleration between them, and 7T didn’t say anything of the sort to explain the exact relationship between nodes and distance.
However, I would assume from context, that 7T was implying that because, within cities, DT deals with population density comparable (and sometimes higher than our own) that the node density specified would by Turnbull would not be sufficent to supply to promised 25Mbps.
In essence, therefore, you just agreed with both of us, in that node density is a factor in determing line length. They directly affect one another, you increase the node density, i.e. the number of nodes, you’re probably going to decrease the average line length, and visa versa, unless you do something stupid, like put all the nodes in a CBD, which I would assume a competent network engineer wouldn’t do
“Did either I, or 7T say “directly infer” or any other similar lanauge?”
Yes, you did.
“So, the number of nodes is just as significant, and in fact directly infers the line distance.”
But I accept from what you’ve written just now that you did not mean it like the literal interpretation reads.
I think perhaps we’re just coming at this from different view points.
Please know I’m not arguing against FTTH. I’d love to have it. I’m trying to argue that regardless of the drawbacks of FTTN, it still has some merits worthy of discussion. In conjunction with VDSL2 it can achieve some great things with older infrastructure.
I’m trying to argue that regardless of the drawbacks of FTTN, it still has some merits worthy of discussion. In conjunction with VDSL2 it can achieve some great things with older infrastructure.
Indeed, one of the biggest issues is the faster it gets, the closer the node needs to be to the termination (G.fast for instance can go up to 1Gbps, but only over 70m, and because of the frequencies used it interferes with FM radio badly unless shielded). But the up-shot is copper isn’t quite “dead” yet :o) (Proviso: Depending on how your network is designed).
Oh so I did. My phone is being a right prick today and the keyboard keeps crashing.
I thought I edited that but obviously didn’t
if it’s an android, you can download alternate keyboards (Swiftkey is a good one)
“So, the number of nodes is just as significant, and in fact directly infers the line distance.”
I did a posting in Whirlpool in the past that took the urban area of Australia and divided it up as if it was a perfect world with cables running directly to each customer from the node rather than following roads etc and still came up with a figure that was a lot larger than Turnbull’s 60,000 node figure. Maybe he read it because shortly afterwards he started talking about mini-nodes.
By memory, it was about 80,000 for the perfect world and that was for 25Mbps, based on best current technology, that blew out by an additional 100,000 odd nodes to provide 50Mbps over the same footprint.
Steve J has worked this out as well, for a 400m per node LBN, you’d need 154,000
You can check his numbers/assumptions here: http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/nbn-estimating-node-costs-and-numbers.html
@Frank
No, the number of nodes don’t directly infer line distance.
Of course not. But there is a direct relationship. Deutsche Telekom have 330k nodes for 24 million premises. A direct translation would see Australia, at around 8 million premises, getting more than 120K nodes. Why do I mention Deutsche specifically? They are the only company I’m aware of who guarantee over a minimum 25Mbit wholesale product.
The number of nodes determines the number of premises per node. But it also is based around the optimal line length- Telstra said in their reply to the G9 tender in 2007 for FTTN that a FTTN architecture based solely on Telstra pillar locations would not be a good design for FTTN to ensure speed and reliability. They specifically recommended redesigning the existing network if they were given tender for it, to ensure reliability and speed. Therefore the number of nodes and their locations have a direct relationship to line length and therefore speed.
The problem with putting them just at the Telstra pillars, is there is unknown % of premises that are more than 800m from those nodes, meaning they will not get the minimum 25Mbps required. In the UK this % is 25%. Turnbull is counting on it being less than 9%, including all the premises who have a short line, but poor copper he’s promised will be replaced by FTTH. The fact is, an FTTN network would have to be designed based on line lengths to ensure its’ 25Mbps. Telstra are unlikely to have that level of granularity in their records. So it would be a trial and error process of line testing.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/23/open-deception-albanese-continually-misleading-public-coalition-nbn-policy/#comment-621680
“The number of nodes don’t determine anything other than contention ratios. The distance to the nodes determines sync speed.”
Fewer nodes means that distance is greater.
“Except not really, It uses Copper, And Nodes are pretty simular to RIMS, CMUX’s, where they just extend the coverage with the bonus of increasing the speed.”
By definition, Top Hat IS FTTN. The reality is that the frame inside will accept cards to provide any kind of DSL service required.
Very cool, I didn’t know that. So it can be upgraded to newer tech as it comes along.
It think it would be quite reasonable to call VDSL ADSL3 from a technical point of view.
ADSL1 – > ADSL2 involved a modest technology upgrade, and only gave an improvement where the node (exchange) was close to the end user. VDSL also will only give an improvement when the node is moved even closer to the user.
In what way was the change from ADSL1->ADSL2 different from ADSL2->VDSL?
It would surprise me greatly if everyone wasn’t on a 1 gig or higher plan within a decade (or at most 2) given the way the NBN is being rolled out. As the NBN is limited to a profit of 3.5% above the bond rate, the higher demands for faster delivery, and greater downloads on the fiber NBN that we have already seen will force prices to drop faster then anticipated.
Australia actually has a huge advantage with a ubiquitous fiber roll-out, with no competing technologies. When the all users do not have the option of copper or cable (as they do in Korea and Japan for example) but only fiber you can build services that do not have to cater for the common denominator.
IMHO I believe that the NBN went about pricing the wrong way, they should have given everyone a 1 gig service (as is currently possible) and made a return through CVC charges. As we have seen, people on the NBN download twice as much as the Australian average, which is indicative.
From a purely business POV I can see justification for price tiers, but as a driver of innovation and digital economy… not so much.
Comparing a ubiquitous 1 gig service to VDSL… I think only one of those is super-fast.
All DSL is basically the same, the newer ones just throw more Mhz at it to get more bandwidth. That’s why the distance gets shorter with the higher ones, it just gets too noisy for it to carry (in a nutshell).
Be careful Paul, VDSL may fall into the definition of super-fast broadband. With technology, a lot of definitions basically come down to “faster than the previous generation”, in the simplest terms.
Super-fast broadband is 25 Mbps or faster, which VDSL definitely meets, so while its incremental rather than evolutionary, it ticks the boxes. Renai popped a wikipedia definition a few weeks ago that summed it up pretty well.
Personally, I’m not classing it as super-fast, simply because it still relies on the same era of technology that broadband is, but thats only my opinion.
Lets be upfront about this Renai, Albanese is only engaging in the same political grandstanding that Turnbull has been utilizing for the past four years. Does that make Albanese’ actions any better? No, but I’m sure the old analogy of ‘fight fire with fire’ has certainly crossed his mind.
Though the most troubling part of the whole misinformation campaigns that both parties are running, is that we the taxpayers are left without knowing the complete truth of either party’s policy, costings and complete intention.
Turnbull has spent the last four years spreading utter lies about Labor’s NBN, whilst personally investing in the exact same network being built in France. There is one word that comes to mind here, hypocrisy!
Until there is a change in the mantra of Australian politics, politicians will continue to deceive the taxpayer in an attempt to gain political advantage, rather than putting the best interest of the taxpayer at the forefront.
Whilst I don’t want to condone Albanese’ actions, I believe it is right for him to raise as many doubts about the Coalition’s Broadband plan as is warranted. After all, we know so little about the alternate plan that it deserves the focus of scrutiny in order to extract as much detail as possible for the taxpayer to make an informed decision as to which plan they actually support.
It’s not OK for either side to make misleading statements in public repeatedly, and I, for one, will hold both sides accountable.
Which is why your website is my major source of IT related material.
Though I will go on record and say that I tend to believe Labor more in this ongoing debate.
Cheers, much appreciated! I agree, I tend to believe Labor more at this point. They have the far better policy.
The sad thing is, Labor could just alter their wording slightly, and be 100% correct…
singo79,
Exactly what I wanted to say.
+1
Coalition speeds are hardware limitation
NBN speeds are artificial limitation that can be disabled by tick box on setup screen
15 years ago all motherboards have mainly 100mb nics
Now most of them have 1gb nics give 3 years we will start seeing 10gb nics onboard
But you still be stuck with max 50mb of coalition speed
Fibre can give symmetrical 1/1gb speeds if they want
Vdsl and foxtel/Optus coax will not ever be capable of this
Hey Rene, I am concerned that there is no unequivocal statement from LNP that all Tasmanians, under existing contract, will get FTTH. statements have said they will honor existing contract but often day contracts will be renegotiated. So what can Tassie expect?
So, two questions:
Under the LNP fibre to the node, will end-users be connected via copper?
Under the LNP fibre to the node, if you wish to be connected via fibre to your premises will it cost you up to $5,000?
So, two questions:
Under the LNP fibre to the node, will end-users be connected via copper?
Yes
Under the LNP fibre to the node, if you wish to be connected via fibre to your premises will it cost you up to $5,000?
Yes, though I’m not sure Malcolm has actually said there would be a cap on the price (if he has, I haven’t seem it). $5,000 isn’t actually as expensive as it gets on BT’s plans, the last few bands (from 2000m and above) are “Terms On Application” ( http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLOGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D )
Although I suggest you actually check the sterling/$A exchange rate on the day you put the FoD order in just to make sure you have the correct figure, anytime in the period 2014-2016, you never know the UK sterling might fall so low relative to the $A it is dirt cheap.
:)
Well the “cost per metre” of that is $3/m. As an Australian reference, Optus charges $58/m….
If you read the openreach pricing, and given the average cable distance in the Australian context (average of 400 meters) you’ll find that FoD will cost (at todays exchange rate):
A minimum of about $4000
An average of about $5500
and a maximum of about $8000
Data:
Turnbull minimum speed 25-50 megabits (mandates maximum copper of 1.5km)
Average cable distance of 500 meters (quotes from Turnbull)
Openreach (pounds – all ex GST):
500 installation.
456 per year (min 3 years) = 1368
Fibre Runs:
Min (0-200): 200 pounds
Avg (400-600): 1000 pounds
Max (1km-1.5km) : 2500 pounds.
Prices Summed up:
Cost (min): 500 + 1368 + 200 = 2068 = 3567 aud +gst = 3923
Cost (avg): 500 + 1368 + 1000 = 2868 = 4947 aud +gst = 5441
Cost (max): 500 + 1368 + 2500 = 4368 = 7535 aud +gst = 8288
Seeing these prices; if they just changed their sound-bite to: It will cost you over $4000 dollars to connect fibre under the coalition no one could complain. Honestly; the “upto” $5000 is massively low-balling it (since on average it will be over $5000).
And what if I live, say, 6 Klm from the node? How much does it cost then?
Nothing. Should be on satellite or fixed wireless…
800m-1000m I expect will become the new blackspots. Too long to get a decent consistent connection, too close to warrant either their own node, or be in the 7% for fixed wireless/satellite.
Anything further than that will justify one or the other.
There are places that are just in the wrong place. Otford NSW is a good example.
Ok, so you’re not going by the BT price list fully then, just cherry picking parts of it?
http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLOGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D
If you believe teh coalition, You wont live 6km from a node. You will live at most 1.5km from a node (to get 25 megabits on vdsl2).
I should like to add, a very big if to my above statement.
My pricing is intended to show what openreach charge, and more importantly point out that “upto” 5000 dollars is actually massively understating it.
The average price paid for FoD (if everyone that wanted FoD paid for it regardless of the price) will be over 5000 dollars. When talking “upto” figures; the Labor materials should be saying: “Upto” 8000 dollars.
Coalition NBN 4 line each way gravel road called freeway
“The key implication which Albanese is making in his statements is that Labor will be upgrading Telstra’s national copper telecommunications network to fibre, while the Coalition will (not upgrade the network at all), leaving Australians on what the Labor MP has continually described as ‘last century’s copper’. ”
No, the key implication is is exactly what was stated – Renai has dragged the “not upgrade the network at all” implication out of his fevered imagination.
As I have already asked – will the LNP fibre to the node plan be “leaving Australians on what the Labor MP has continually described as ‘last century’s copper”?
And the answer is “yes”.
So Renai has built a whole article and serious charge of “open deception” based on what he has imagined was the secret message behind a straight forward and factual statement.
Was there a detailed description of the network structures of either option included in Albanese’s statement – nope… but that is to be expected in this world of 30 second grabs and the limited public attention span and technical knowledge. The statement is factual and meaningful but would have been lost in an expanded description of the technical detail.
As I have already asked – will the LNP fibre to the node plan be “leaving Australians on what the Labor MP has continually described as ‘last century’s copper”?
And the answer is “yes”.
Actually, the answer is “No”.
They are part upgrading “last centuries” copper with a lot of fibre, and planning to upgrade the rest at some later point (which taken as a whole, will actually be more expensive, but that wont be their problem).
So, there will be fibre running from the node to the premises?
Only:
1. If you pay for it.
or
2. Are lucky enough to have really crappy copper in your area, in which case they may replace it with fibre (For an individual, it’s likely they may replace it with copper, depending on the circumstances…it’ll basically be a “lucky dip” if that’s the case).
Comments are closed.