MTM broadband plan a “dog’s breakfast”, says Budde


Dog isolated on white

analysis Respected telecommunications analyst Paul Budde has heavily criticised the Coalition’s new preferred broadband deployment model, describing its “Multi-Technology Mix” approach as “a dog’s breakfast” of different technologies, which could turn out to be a “logistical nightmare” to deliver in practice.

In early December last year, the National Broadband Network Company released its Strategic Review report into the current status of its network rollout and options for modifying the rollout to better meet the Coalition’s policy aims of delivering download speeds of between 25Mbps and 100Mbps to most Australians by the end of 2016 and 50Mbps to 100Mbps by the end of 2019.

The report found that it will not be possible to deliver the Coalition’s stated policy goal of delivering broadband speeds of 25Mbps to all Australians by the end of 2016 or at the projected cost, and has recommended that NBN Co cancel any new network rollout to up to a third of Australian premises already covered by existing HFC cable networks. It also recommended that a sizable proportion of the remaining premises would be covered by a Fibre to the Node rollout, with about a quarter of premises to received the original Fibre to the Premises model preferred by the previous Labor administration.

In a blog post published in late December (we recommend you click here for the full post), Budde wrote that Labor’s previous all-fibre model had provided a ubiquitous and uniform infrastructure for the whole country, which was essential for the further development of the national digital economy. “In contrast, the new plan amounts to something of a ‘dog’s breakfast’,” the analyst wrote in regard to the so-called “Multi-Technology Mix” option now preferred by NBN Co and the Coalition.

Budde wrote that it was not in the technology being used per se that he foresaw problems, but rather in the execution of the rollout.

The analyst highlighted the fact that the quality of the copper network in particular varied significantly even within individual suburbs, meaning that each of the three separate fixed network technologies might have to be used even within the same suburb — for example, neighbouring streets might have FTTN, FTTP or HFC.

“So one can’t simply select a suburb or town and use one of the above technologies – it is possible that many areas will have to be serviced by three different technologies,” wrote Budde. “This in itself will be a logistical nightmare. Just think about how to design such a network – street by street, house by house – and what would be involved in getting the design right. It will be impossible to know all of this upfront; so again design and developments will take place on the go, as the quality of significant parts of the infrastructure will only become clear once work is commenced.”

Budde pointed out that the new plan would require contract renegotiations with both Telstra and Optus, and would not actually kick off until mid-2014. “The new plan could prove to be far harder to implement, and it could attract significantly more problems than the Fibre to the Home plan,” the analyst wrote. “It could easily take a similar start-up period as the FttH plan (ie, three years).”

The analyst noted that he sincerely hoped the Government and NBN Co could deliver on the plan.

“Staying bipartisan, I sincerely hope that the government can actually execute its multi-technology plan because, if not, we will have again wasted three years … Let me say again that I hope that the government can deliver on its promises, and that the quality of their multi-technology network will deliver the infrastructure needed for digital productivity across the nation. I do sincerely hope this because, if they have got it wrong, it will be our country and our prosperity that will suffer. And that is far more important than the ego of a politician, or that of your analyst.”

The news comes as analysis of NBN Co’s Strategic Review has shown that if a number of changes are made, the previous Labor administration’s preferred FTTP rollout model for the NBN can still be successfully deployed with only modest cost and timeframe implications (Delimiter 2.0 link).

Under Labor’s original vision, as outlined in April 2009, its predominantly fibre-based NBN would have taken until 2020 to be completed, at a total cost of some $43 billion. The Strategic Review finds that if the current model was followed, that cost would balloon to some $73 billion, and the date for completion would be finished by the end of calendar year 2024.

However, under a different model also contained in the Strategic Review, NBN Co could still go ahead with Labor’s all-fibre NBN deployment model. It would be radically re-designed to feature much less costs and to save time. It would be completed at the end of 2023, at a cost of $64 billion if some debt funding is used, and just $54 billion if the Government stumps up the whole funding itself, avoiding the need for interest payments.

NBN Co executive chairman Ziggy Switkowski has acknowledged that some componenents of the ‘MTM’ option preferred by NBN Co and the Coalition would need upgrading just five years after they were built. Switkowski said during testimony to the NBN Senate Select Committee in December: “In areas where FTTN is rolled out, this review expects that NBN Co. will not need to upgrade to a second access technology—presumably all fibre or fibre to the distribution point—sooner than five years after the construction of the first access technology.”

Although he has very deep insight into it and is one of the most experienced analysts around, I haven’t always agreed with Paul Budde’s analysis of Australia’s telecommunications industry. However on this particular issue I think we are in very clear agreement. The ‘Multi-Technology Mix” option proffered by NBN Co as a solution to the Coalition’s impossible policy aims is indeed a dog’s breakfast of different technologies and represents a complete lack of solution to Australia’s long-term telecommunications needs. Even if it was delivered successfully (which I highly doubt it will be), it would almost immediately require upgrades. That’s not visionary. That’s just stupid.

Budde’s view is also notable because historically, the analyst has been one of the most open to considering the Coalition’s views on the NBN. The fact that the analyst, like myself, has now taken a broadly unfavourable view of the Coalition’s plans for the project is highly significant; it means that the Coalition’s latest broadband plan has lost it ground with even those who were being open-minded about the legitimacy of its policies. When even those who are openly bi-partisan start publicly criticising your policy, you’ve got a problem. And it’s an especial problem when the criticism is coming from an analyst as experienced as Paul Budde. The Coalition is out on a limb here. I hope it realises that fact very quickly.


  1. I think he means regurgitated dogs breakfast.. even worse..
    Yeah, I puke at the thought of mtm .

  2. “The Coalition is out on a limb here. I hope it realises that fact very quickly.”
    I hope so too, but it’s probably unlikely given the current government is driven by ideology, rather than rational argument and facts.

  3. the question to ask paul is What Limb???

    they can’t even stick to their own policy guide line..

    I basically see where the current top hat solution is on the playing card will likely end up passed off as the solution of FTTN..

    for FTTN to be a practical install solution you have to go past the D/A otherwise the solutions don’t exactly work and the budget as mentioned barely covers fttn at the D/A nevermind past the D/A where it is actually needed..

    though reality is fibre will need to be laid past the premises anyway so you might aswell install ftth/p and bre done with it, as within 5 years you’d be having to replace the copper anyway, not saving any cost…

    looking at the policy at the election I would have to say the LNP were hoping on a 2nd term before they did a thing..

  4. “I do sincerely hope this because, if they have got it wrong, it will be our country and our prosperity that will suffer. And that is far more important than the ego of a politician, or that of your analyst.”

    Yes it definitely is. I think Budde is aware of the issue, ego. I do hope it can be resolved. Based on previous instances however, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.

  5. Significant hurdles in terms of contractual obligations in the USO, and infrastructure competition, amendments to the telecommunications acts, bills to push through parliament, ACCC negotiations.

    A dogs breakfast doesn’t quite cover it.

    I’ve got a nice photo of what my cat left on the floor the other week which describes what this means a lot better.

    What it means to the average Internet user in Australia who are waiting for faster and more reliable connections…? Is more uncertainty, and more waiting for the Government of the day to get their s##t together.

  6. I cant believe these pricks are having trouble delivering on their promise of 25mb/s when the Labor “REAL NBN” was out there delivering 100mb/s to people that wanted it.

    Thanks again Mal, you certainly have bent us all over and just keep repeatedly raping us.

    I knew this would happen, maybe we should change our name to the unlucky country….


      • Wouldn’t it be “Damn, dude…..”? :)

        I’ve given up on the NBN myself. Its clear the Liberals have no intention of doing anything but put our communications further behind, and arent interested in discussing actual alternative options.

        So best of luck, the sooner a double dissolution is called the better.

        If I get it, I get it. If I dont, its straight up proof that the Liberals never intended on allowing FttH to get a foothold. We’re at the point now where none of the local workers know whats going on, when my property should have access.

        With an expected RFS of November last year, the rollout happening 100m up the road, and no information on why things just stopped south of that ( a wedge of the suburb that gains nothing by reverting to a FttN build), its hard to tell whats going to happen.

        I’m over it. Thanks Turnbull, you piece of shit.

        • You would be correct sir :)

          I’m in the same boat as you, if i get it i get it, if not well thems the breaks. So disillusioned with the whole process..


        • They won’t be able to call a double dissolution because the voters voted away from Labor which in turn meant that the power is substantially in Abbott’s hands.

  7. I recall being told we’ll be fine, that Coalition isn’t just going to ham-fist this. It’s all good. It’ll be copper and lots of it. Fast too.

    No worries.

    Right now I don’t think even the Telstra/ Optus negotiations required to liberate HFC will be done by 2016, let alone any building.

    Meanwhile, infrastructure owners are lining up to deploy bespoke solutions to MDUs, with no clear indication of whether they’ll be part of the NBN, or infrastructure competition (the latter might mean no need to wholesale). And the ACCC is all but silent.


    • Abbott was on the radio on Friday I think it was saying they want to be remembered as the moving forward infrastructure government… I had to laugh very hard at that.

      • I want many things, however I realise I do need to actually do something to achieve them.

      • Because propaganda sound bites resonate with, and are remembered as fact by, the majority of voters. Which is why they vote like they do, which is why short term policies are all that matters, which is why the 24 hour news cycle is king, which is why blatantly dishonest incompetent pricks are running this country (and why another bunch of pricks have so much power on the other side of the room). Until you ensure only people with the requisite knowledge are able to make decisions about who runs the country this will always be the case – I’m not elitist, I believe in equal opportunity for all. But for those who fail to take the opportunity to educate themselves, they should have absolutely no ability to exercise any decision making power that affects others – ie stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote; if you want to vote, you should have to demonstrate your competence to comprehend the issues at hand.

        • A bit off topic…

          @TrevorX: I’ve always considered the compulsory voting in Australia as the lesser of two evils compared to voluntary voting in a broken 2 party system democracy. While yes it leaves a lot of decision making to the plebs at the same time it’s also a huge check on vested interest voting via lobbying as can be seen in the paralysis of the government being unable to act on any form of gun laws in US.

          The only real fix here is the need for a proper “3rd centrist/neutral party” ala Democrats before they self imploded. Greens tried to be “the 3rd party” unfortunately they have far too much vested/socialist policies that really wouldn’t put them as a “balance” party. (Not that I mind those policies myself it’s just that it’s not really idea for a neutral party to be like that)

          • I don’t disagree with your analysis, but I don’t believe those are the only options – both systems have proven themselves to be easily manipulated, because the uneducated and the credulous are easily manipulated.

            I’m not talking about voluntary voting, I’m talking about removing voting power from those incapable of making informed, rational decisions/choices on the subject. You wouldn’t let anyone design a bridge that wasn’t a qualified civil engineer, or do your business accounts that wasn’t a sufficiently qualified accountant, so why do we let people who are demonstrably unknowledgeable and irrational make decisions about who is running the country? Universal suffrage is a great ideal and a necessary step in social, legal and social governance development, but several hundred years of experimentation demonstrates that improvement is clearly still required.

          • “You wouldn’t let anyone design a bridge that wasn’t a qualified civil engineer, or do your business accounts that wasn’t a sufficiently qualified accountant, so why do we let people who are demonstrably unknowledgeable and irrational make decisions about who is running the country?”

            Excellent point mate +1

          • Having a 13 millionth of a say in who runs the country is hardly the same as designing a bridge or running someone’s financials.

            Universal suffrage may have its disadvantages e.g single issue voters, people voting based on gender or skin colour (with little care or knowledge of whether a competent government will be the result), but up against the sort ‘utopian’ societies that history shows us can result from governments being chosen by the chosen, many would feel that full democracies may well be the best option, at least for the foreseeable future.

  8. I am reading they are still running fibre (FTTH) is this purely to greenfield or brownfield still in the mix as well?

    Reason i ask is because my area was just about to be started before the election…. So i still am secretly hoping that i may get FTTH.


    • Thats one of the things that we just dont know any more that I mentioned above. My area was meant to be completed not long AFTER the election (not started, ended) and there is no information available at all. Call NBN Co, they stonewall you.

      Talk to the local installation crews, they think the’re doing busywork and nothing more. They’re still doing pullthroughs, but there are key steps being put aside for now – they didnt elaborate, but they hope its just a Christmas period issue. You just cant get any answer at all, straight or otherwise.

      The “promise” seemed to only include greenfields when you looked at the numbers supplied at the time, but the words suggested brownfields were going ahead as per schedule as well, at least up until they were ready to start the MTM rollout model. But since the maps were “updated”, everything that should have been progressing has methodically ground to a halt, which is suggesting the original numbers supporting only greenfields rollouts is whats happening.

      One of the main reasons I’m over it.

  9. I think a way to clarify the network medium decision would be if our retail services were charged by *link speed*. Not weasel *up to*, but actual, on the day, really truly delivered service level. Sure, charge me for an ADSL2 link, but if the service is only capable of delivering 9mbps, then don’t charge me as if I’m getting 24mbps. If the ACCC, TIO, Fair Trade, etc would get onside with the consumers and advocate for service charges inline with service delivery, then there would be great incentive to deliver actual service levels, as only fibre can. We need to unshackle ourselves from the copper legacy. If it starts with the revenue via billing, then the incentive to actually deliver real network performance will be there for the wholesale infrastructure providers. At the moment the retailers are at the mercy of Telstra, the owners of the copper, and the retailers can’t do anything about the state of someone else’s network. If Telstra’s wholesale price got linked to the quality of the service, they might move a little faster in maintaining their network. And the way forward for a national network would be crystal clear to all.

    • Main issue there is that no line can guarantee a specific speed. Technically, even FttH cant. It gets very close, but there are always overheads that reduce whats available to the actual consumer, which drives down the real speeds you’re capable of receiving.

      Having said that, the issues are in the delivery medium, in most cases being the copper portion. The more copper the signal has to travel along, the further from the maximum speed you end up. So with FttN, if you have a copper loop of 10m from the node, you’re going to get as good a connection as possible, but if you’re at the end of the 400m loop (or however long it ends up being) you’re not going to get anywhere near that. And thats the same as its always been – those furthest from the exchange are thrown under the bus in favor of those closest.

      With FttH, there is no copper effectively, short of in-house very short connections that dont reduce the speeds we’re discussing here. When we’re up to 10 Gbps speeds, its a different story, but our CAT cables by that point should probably be fiber as well.

      So what am I getting at? Well, if there is ANY copper in the line, nothings going to change. You’re still going to have “up to” speeds that can be dramatically different from house to house. The only way to get rid of the issue is to provide a transmission medium that doesnt pass on any significant distortion to the end user.

      In this case, fiber, where the “up to” part basically means you’re getting 95% or better of the potential speed. Not 25% which happens with copper.

      • Why can’t all ISPs simply charge for downloads and supply the same speed to all users? They already monitor downloads for caping purposes. Let’s say they have a tiered plan where the less you download, the cheaper it is.

        Then the incentive would be on the ISPs to get you to download more, therefore making it a profitable idea to increase your d/ls. I haven’t thought this out so there might be flaws, but the idea sounds ok in my head. :-)

        • Same reason – the copper in the connection. My connection speed is roughly 1/3rd of that of the house across the road or behind me, because of a quirk in how the copper lines in the area were rolled out. And to fix that so I get the same speed isnt something any ISP is going to do.

          As long as there is copper involved in any significant way, there will always be varying speeds available, based on how much copper your personal connection has to deal with.

          As I said above, fiber gets around that, because the limiting issues with copper dont apply to fiber, so everyone has the same connection speed and you can do what you suggest. The correct terms escape me at the moment (a sibling is the expert on this, I’m just a layman) but as you push data down a copper line faster and faster, you get more and more resonance in the copper distorting the diameter you have to work with, so it gets smaller and smaller.

          Think of a drainage pipe that gets narrower as it rains heavier. You get to a point where the drain gets so small it cant keep up with the rain, and as the rain gets heavier the problem only gets worse. Poor analogy, but thats kind of where we’re at with copper – the capability to send data is at the point the distortions mean the pipe cant keep up any more.

          Fiber doesnt ‘shrink’ when more data is shoved at it, at least not from whats been observed so far, so the limitation is the drains leading to it (for net connections, that represents the exchange) rather than the pipe itself.

      • My point is that why should consumers pay the price of new, theoretical delivery potential that is never actually delivered. If there’s copper in the loop and I get less than the lab-tested, best case scenario, charge me for the service that is actually delivered. If I buy a second hand car, I pay less. Irrespective of the delivery medium, where is the depreciation factor to reflect the reality of service actually provided? This would get even more complicated on HFC where the sync rate may be 100mbps, but the contention on the line proves incapable of delivering anywhere near that. Just saying, user-pays should reflect actual service delivered. Then there would be incentive to improve the wholesale service delivery networks.

        • That’s silly. Why should you be forced to only be able to purchase second hand car? I want 2014 NBN, just like I want a 2013/2014 iphone 5, 5s etc

  10. Why are we worrying about N B N any by the time it is up running absolute waste tax payers money at least LIB are try to cut down cost to every day Australians.

    • Good input buddy, well thought out and very constructive


      Now go play on the xbox and let the adults talk.

    • I’m not even convinced that the majority of LNP voters like it?

      But seriously, does anyone really believe that this is anything but a smokescreen? The whole concept of having a GBE running communications – at ANY level, wholesale or retail – in Australia is so far removed from the LNP concept of what Governments “do” that I cannot ever believe there will be anything either developed or built at all. Oh sure, lip service will be paid to a ‘faster’ and ‘cheaper’ infrastructure, but this is just leading to the inevitable fire-sale to Telstra. The current government will then be able to wipe its hands of the whole messy business – something they must be itching to do – and we, as consumers and users, will be stuffed for generations to come. Unfortunately, as is often asked, ‘how do you know when Turnbull is lying? When his lips are moving……”

  11. Labor wanted to keep Telstras hands off NBN ,They have fleeced us for decades ,Turnbull wants to give it back to them ,Capitalists ,First to offshore our jobs to India ! This sham of a government has no scruples ,no descency ,no morals ,self satisfaction ,ideology ,scarey stuff ,Newman in Qld ,has gone feral ,he,s out of control .thinks he,s unaccountable

  12. I wrote a plan too, entitled Australian NBN – Half the cost, 10X the speed:

    Please give your feedback. I would agree with the other commentors here, a heterogenous approach
    will increase project risk. I think the right answer is just to deprioritize to the end of a rollout anyone that already has something better than copper, and then make those decisions on a case by case basis.


    • Where to start… if it’s not a joke, good luck with that…

      (It would be interesting to see where the traffic ended up going)

  13. For every different technology deployed a different set of management systems also needs to be adding to cost. The plan simply does not mention POTS at any point either. We are giving CPR to our existing LAS’s whilst this shit is sorted

  14. Here in WA we have power failures due to fuses blowing up in green cabinets during the heat. I can imagine the disastrous problems with the FTTN cabinets that need to be cooled as well. And your land line goes if those cabinets fail.

    • Another power outtage on Saturday (the 44deg day) as I live near where the fire started.
      Was lovely not being able to open the windows or have aircon on… :(

  15. Put don’t forget the 1500 connect fee, how many people are going to pay that??? Any takers??

  16. I disagree. Multiple technologies and solutions will lead to innovations of which, the best will survive. Technological evolution in action.

    • “I disagree. Multiple technologies and solutions will lead to innovations of which, the best will survive. Technological evolution in action.”

      But its not about technological evolution, its about the underlying infrastructure; for the last 40 years there has been no better Telecommunications foundation known to science than optical fibre.

      Over that same period science has shown that all the other telecommunication foundations have limitations that will not allow them to match Fibre as any advances in these medium obtains greater advantage in Fibre.

      Maybe thats the problem its science based, We should be looking for scripture that says that the “Lord Dog says… ” and convert this to a faith based argument for FTTH being the best deployment for Australia because “Dog says so”

      • Actually… “technical evolution” is *already* happening (if not already done)..

        HFC has all been abandoned in most countries already for internet services. FTTN is being phased out for FTTP.

        FTTN was “fine” as a concession for a decent interim technology since the Coalition was looking for “cheaper alternatives” for the mid term. And even that plan was “too expensive”

        The fact we’ve decided to say “restart” the “evolution” process again “just to be on the fiscally safe side” speaks quite a lot in how much this has all boiled down to polictics and idealogy.

      • Agree. Telecomms in particular is usually over 10 years ahead of its self. Vectored VDSL is like bolting an after market fuel injection kit to a Kingswood. What ever you think its still a Kingswood.

        Copper and Wireless are hitting the wall while Fibre is just screaming ahead.

    • That’s all well and good, but the best for who? Will it be the best for the customer and tax payers or the best for the incumbents and shareholders. This capitalist utopian idea that they are the same thing is absurd. The best technological choice is clear and proven… The best cost wise was what the LNP took to the election however now even this has been shown to be on par with the ALP plan.

    • Are you waiting on them to”innovate” a communications medium faster than the speed of light are you?

      Give me a heads up when they are near to it so I can sell my house and invest.

  17. It is interesting to note how quiet the node supporters have been. You could hear a pin drop in that corner.

    • To make you happy, I’ll give it a try.

      FTTH is all well and good but Australia can’t afford it. (Please do not question me on why the money proposed to be spent on MTM is affordable when the same amount on FTTH was gold platting and waste, I would have to hide or deflect you with some empty retoric)

      Because Labor are the worst ever (Andrew Bolte told me so it must be so)

      Why should the taxpayer have to pay for your connection, pay it for yourself (Please ignore that it is paid back, you are probably a taxpayer yourself and having a rollout is way more efficient than each person upgrading individually. It’s because it’s a Labor thing OK, so it must be bad. Besides Malcolm said it’s bad and all you guys must be dumb because Malcolm invented the internet)

      I feel sick.

      • “I feel sick.”
        I think the dog would prefer your vomit then what the MTM is serving it.

      • Actually Lionel, we can’t afford to pay twice. Firstly, $41 billion to boost speed by 1 Mbps and then to replace it all with a real infrastructure project in the future. Who knows, maybe by then the $73 bazillion figure might be somewhere near the truth rather than just the an extrapolated FTTP startup cost.

  18. $41 billion to offer 25 Mbps when the majority of households are already offered 24 Mbps.
    Possibly able to offer 50 Mbps and then 100 Mbps when the technology is invented.
    Please cancel the CBN. I don’t want my money spent on this shambolic ‘dog’s breakfast’

    • “$41 billion to offer *up to* 25 Mbps when the majority of households are already offered *up to* 24 Mbps.”

      I fixed that line for you. 25Mbps isn’t even *guaranteed* with this MTM shenanigans. So basically your paying 41million to do THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN except we’ve decided to take it one step further and go use even older (and for most market purposes abandoned) infrastructure to “take us to the future”

      • “So basically your paying 41billion to do THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN….” — fixed. You put million instead of billion. The LNPMTMNBN is a shambles before its started, imagine what its going to be like by 2019…

      • Thanks RocK_M, I was inadvertently overstating the offer.
        We have had too much BS in telecommunications for too long.
        We pay top dollar for access and if we receive a service of more than 10 %, we are expected to suck it up.
        Sure, I will pay $100 a month for ‘superfast’ ADSL2+ and receive little better than dial up speed and have no right to complain. MTM will ensure this is perpetuated.
        $41 bazillion for no infrastructure and no improvement. WTH???
        Who would pay for a car, only to receive the steering wheel and a bucket seat?

  19. NBN…………..yes I get 90% of my 25Mbps provided…………………………………..I don’t go offshore. Especially during Europe and USA working hours. So I’m no technocat, some of you more superior beings want to dis-enfranchise me. But I had the same result on wireless, so I still can’t stream overseas video, so what are you all getting so upset about? How much of this is my ISP, how much is overseas servers I don’t know and I don’t care all that money and it’s made no difference to me whatsoever.

    As a complete outsider the whole industry needs to come clean on what is actually possible because “up to” seems to mean the minimum I must do to charge a maximum service fee.

    • “NBN…………..yes I get 90% of my 25Mbps provided…………………………………..I don’t go offshore”

      Oh, this tired old one. Just get a decent ISP.

      “But I had the same result on wireless, so I still can’t stream overseas video, so what are you all getting so upset about?”

      As above.

      “How much of this is my ISP, how much is overseas servers I don’t know and I don’t care all that money and it’s made no difference to me whatsoever.”

      As above, and you have near zero say it in it. One selfish person amongst millions, who cares “you make not difference to me whatseover”

        • Him or me?

          If him he was saying the NBN was a waste of money because with he can currently not stream video from overseas providers so what is the point of making the local connection faster.

          My main point is many can and get a new ISP and stop being selfish.

  20. We can have universal fibre if people are willing to pay over $120/month for 50mbps.

    • Uhmmm…. so are you guzzling the Coalitions’ own rhetoric juice or are you just making shit up?

      Currently (at least with iinet – which isnt neccessarily the cheapest) you can get 200gb download, 50mbps/20mbps-up for $75. Heck – even 100mbps/40mbps for $79…. and considering that is what I am paying now for 4mbps I would likely go the full 100mbps.

      99.95 gets you 1gb a month and 100mbps. These are areas already built and paid for….

      Now – How the hell are those figures going to double if they had the full 93% of the population covered? ( not to mention there being a hell of a lot more customers for these suppliers)

      And if you favor FTTN – I suppose the power companies will supply free power to those 60,000 + nodes and the constant maintenance will somehow make it cheaper than FTTP… and the FACT that is will have to be upgraded in 5 years further makes the price go down hey?


      • Read the NBN Co. strategic review, that is all I can say.

        If you are lazy here is a summary –

        “The strategic review’s conclusion was that to deliver its targeted minimum return of 7.1 per cent, NBN Co would have needed to increase prices by between 50 per cent and 80 per cent, or between $27 and $43 a month, relative to the estimated $75-$95 a month for a 50Mbps download and 20Mbps upload service today. Higher speeds, of course, would be even more expensive. In all likelihood, as the review noted, the price rises would have had to be even greater because in themselves they would have pushed users on to mobile-only services, creating a nasty and destructive spiral of rising costs and falling usage.”

        The fact is that stuff costs money. If there are people out there that think that they are going to get a heavily subsidized fast connection, they are wrong, even under the labor model.

        I can afford to pay for a fast connection if it was available, even at $200 a month. The whole NBN issue seems to be a desire of some to have a subsidized connection at the expense of people like me. Like every looter scheme it is bound for failure.

        • I’ll ask again, why is it ok for a government to supply us FttN but not FttP…?

          And apparently, NBNCo Mk2 know better than NBNCo Mk1 then? Even though, NBNCo MK2 have literally done SFA and had no hands on. Whereas NBNCo MK1, built everything from scratch… and yes, were not meeting targets… but as it has now been recognised, were in fact and as they said they would, ramping up (gee fancy that, a mammoth project going slowly in its early stages)…

          :/ amazing

          • There were a great many warning signs about the NBN and many chances to change direction and fix the problems of relating to the NBN Co. even under the previous government. Those warning signs were ignored and now we are in the situation that we are in.

            A full FttP build means that end users will need to pay the actual costs of that. That will mean bills well over $120/month at 50mbps, and much more at higher speeds.

            I live in the Sydney CBD and I pay sky high rent. A lot of people that want a fast NBN connection want me to subsidize their connection to their rural location through hitting people like me with higher subscriber fees. That is the reality. Well, not even that is going to happen now because NBN Co. blew it and were not up to the job.

            Now we are going to get a truncated version of the NBN that is within financial reach. If you are an NBN supporter of type supported by the previous government then you blew it when you failed to hold the NBN Co. to account.

          • Which NBNCo problems would they be, Matthew?

            The prolonged Telstra and Optus negoitiations?

            Asbestos in Telstra pits?

            Troubles with Contractors not adhering to their contract?

            Or simply NBNCo missing their estimations? And again in case you missed it (or were too lazy, your words)…


            Doesn’t sound like the end of the world to me… I wonder why it does to you?

            As for your FttP pricings, they are estimations which are contrary to the actuals. Yes contrary to plans already available to those with FttP access.

            Also you didn’t answer my simple question.

        • Matthew,

          Have you actually read the Strategic Review, or just The Australian’s rewording of it?

          If you think Malcom’s approach is cheaper, for anyone, least of all the end user, you have been misled. Greatly.

          • There is a 32 billion dollar difference between the builds. The reason for that is that it takes a long time to build a full FttP build and revenues from that build come a lot later. I have read the strategic report.

          • Matthew, the price difference is due to careful use of FTTP costs.
            The “Turnbull review” extrapolated from initial FTTP installation costs and rates of installation to arrive at an exaggerated 93% build cost and date.
            The “Turnbull review” MTM installation costs decreased over time and rates of installation increased.
            Voila! 63 % of the population will receive MTM sooner and cheaper.
            I believe the HFC component is almost completed! LOL

          • I’m sorry, but those differences are estimates.

            Based on mathematics that make assumptions on data that’s not available. The report clearly states that HFC and FTTN costings are not considered.

            It also, very clearly, attempts to respond to the ‘mixed technology’ choice with quite some number of risk warnings.

            If the best that you can do, is claim a price difference, when the report has klaxon warnings blaring for all to read regarding the massively heightened risk the ‘mixed technology’ model brings, and the lack of key information for the guesstimate differences – then I simply have no words for you.

            The report paints a very clear picture. Few could possibly argue the choice Malcolm has made is a good one. It’s simply the only one he can make, having been painted into a corner.

        • Matthew, don’t forget how the LNP banged on about fraudband when Labor briefly entertained the FTTN idea. Then when Labor realised the end-game is FTTP, the LNP flipped back to FTTN with their fully costed (not) 50 Mbps by 2016 (not) to 93 % of Australians (not).

          You need to see past the carefully crafted deceptions to form a defensible opinion. His goal is to mislead with half-truths and make the Labor FTTP sound much worse than the LNP MTM CBN.
          The wording of your excerpt is a clue as to whether this is fact or Turnbull / fiction. The statements are assembled by MT’s hand picked fraud squad.

        • So I guess you are “guzzling the Coalitions’ own rhetoric juice” and simply buying into the shit that they have literally “made up”.

          You basically responded with what we all know they are claiming. I know what they have said – I know what they claim – you just ignored me calling out their bs.

  21. If the LNP think their idea is a winner, why don’t we have a referendum?
    Thinking along the same lines – governments are suppose to serve the people; there are many issues our country faces into the future – perhaps we really need a massive referendum where Australians get to vote on what they think is important, and the future we would like to have?

    • Good in theory Nick…

      But remembering the “Republic” referendum and the careful wording used by the then government to obtain the no vote they wanted, I’d sugggest it would also be lost…

      Well after all with a question such as ” do you wish to waste up to $120B of your hard earned tax dollars on connecting fibre to each and every household… Yes or No”, what would the average punter say?

    • In Australia, referendums are only for changing the Constitution. I’m pretty sure “broadband” is not mentioned in the Constitution.

      Perhaps you mean “election”… we had one of them, and the government-of-the-day now claims a “mandate” for anything that pops into their empty heads. What you think or want is irrelevant; you don’t get another say until 2016. Unless there’s a double dissolution – speed the day!

Comments are closed.