Coalition MTM model a ‘$40bn fraud’, says Conroy in epic Senate rant

1. “There are companies out there buying telcos’ copper networks to rip them out off the ground and sell them on the spot market”

   The sad thing is conroys delusion has probably got to the level where he thinks this is actually true.

   • Well it is true.. Copper is being sold for scrap. Making way for full fiber networks.. Excellent pitch by Conroy.. His anger is reminiscent of possibly 70% of the population..

   • http://www.anorak.co.uk/294178/money/bts-worth-more-as-scrap-copper-than-it-is-as-a-telecoms-company.html/

     • Sorry – that story was debunked a long time ago; someone forgot to account for multiple cores in a cable, and then included the weight of all the sheathing as though it were copper too.

       It turns out the value of the BT’s copper is more like £3bn, not £50bn. And that’s before accounting for the cost of getting it out of the ground – which will only ever happen a few years after putting the fibre into the ground.

       http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/sep/23/bt-copper-assets

   • Out of all the delusional near on madness stuff Liberals have said about the MTM.. Yeah really compares.

   • Just close your eyes, shut your mouth and hold your ears. Then you can dream of a MTM future, bought to you by News Corp, where the truth is lies and lies are the truth. LNP ( the Nostalgia Party ) bringing the past to the present for the future.

   • Technically this sort of thing was happening last century, when copper trunk lines were being replaced by fibre. Upgrading the rest of the network is long overdue.

   • You realise what chemical group copper is in, right? I love the claim that Labor’s fibre NBN was supposed to be gold-plated or something (silicon is the second most abundant element on the planet) when it turns out what’s currently in the ground is a hell of a lot closer to that.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_11_element

     • What on earth are you on about?
       No fibre optic access network in the world has a need for any gold, or silver, or platinum….or any other precious metal component.

       Its not a literal term, its figurative….the fibre network is worth more than its weight in gold, the copper network is worth less…

       • Poe’s law is strong in this one.

       • “the copper network is worth less…”

         Ain’t that the truth…

     • What Telstra has in the ground right now is from the same chemical group as faeces, and should be discarded. Malcolm Turnbull invests his own money into companies overseas that have proven his MTM Network plans are unsuccessful and outdated, which is why I don’t understand his reasoning for wanting to install such systems in his own backyard. Is there a hidden agenda? Some sort of, ‘invest in the companies that will be needed to repair the low-grade system in five years’ scheme to make a personal fortune? Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t just need a thorough ICAC investigation, moreso a thorough psychiatric assessment.

       • Not just that, but those companies he has invested in are sound business cases, both on paper and in real life.
         They make money.

         Malcolm Turnbull’s Madness on the other hand, is not sound on paper and makes little sense.

   • I think the term ‘Michaelovian’ may be appropriate here, derived from Turnbull’s childish disparaging but appropriate for the similarly childish and frequently statistically inaccurate carping we have to suffer here…

   • A lot of people’s ignorance and blind faith in Turnbull has got to the point that they think it isn’t true.

   • People were stealing rolls of copper wire from various places in Brisbane a few years ago.

   • @Michael, if you take the TCO into account, especially the costs to maintain what is already a pretty degraded network, then even over 1 year the value of operate – maintain will quite conceivably be lower than the spot value of the copper.

   • Michael – are you an employee , directly or indirectly of the Liberal Party? What exactly is your association with them?

     I’d find it hard to believe you’re doing this for free and astroturfing is an unethical occupation.

   • I think it’s you who is deluded. Try checking the FACTS instead of Liars propaganda

   • Here’s a few resources to kick you off on a trip of correcting your point of view.

     http://press.pwc.com/global/telecom-operators-to-kick-start-network-decommissioning/s/393f03d7-d470-4544-8d14-d4afa5552ead

     http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324439804578104820999974556

     http://broadbandtrends.com/blog1/2012/07/23/verizon-getting-aggressive-with-copper-plant-shutdown/

2. Liberals fruadband a term that does not get used enough.

   • “Fraudband” … well I guess it is a term not used much because it is childish and doesn’t actually add to the debate in the slightest.

     • It might be childish but is is accurate as the entire MTM proposal is built on a number of fraudulent premises.

3. “Both options are also slated to make a modest return on the Government’s investment” — this repeatedly gets mentioned, but nobody ever questions it.

   Does anyone know if someone has looked into whether the LNP claims stand up to scrutiny, because I cant see how they can guarantee a return on investment, when their plan is for private business to overbuild to get to FttB or FttH, and hence bypass their network.

   If its overbuilt, there is no fee to be paid to NBN Co, so no profits to pay down the investment and get into profit territory.

   My worry is that because of that they basically have 5 years to get that $40b back before our society needs force FttH to be built over the top. I just cant see them getting that sort of money covered before we’re on to a FttH platform through privately built upgrades.

   • We it does up to the point in time the uncosted upgrade is needed, then who knows.

   • @GG

     Rumour was there was some sort of…..wow….what was it called again, you know where you measure the value vs the cost of something – oh right, a cost benefit analysis.

     For some weirdly wild reason (and after rightfully attacking Labor for not having one), Malcom Turnball has decided to proceed without one as well.

     • This is a rationale that MT can’t admit, but when he has told them 99% of what to say in the CBA it’s pretty much useless anyway.

   • My understanding is that the claim for comparative ROI is fundamentally based on the assumption that the MTM network can be deployed faster and therefore will achieve greater revenue faster. Additionally, this allows you to incur less expense in terms of the cost of finance. Thus over the period addressed by the strategic review the MTM can reach a position of comparable ROI at the point in time given.

     But this only works because of the assumptions made to support it. Significantly, the assessment period stops just as the FTTP option is hitting its strides whereas the MTM has already peaked and is starting to crumble because of the allowed competition. Or if they end up disallowing competition then they are in the position of having to address the subsequent upgrade circa 5 years later.

     Compounding the situation are the following assumptions:
     1. Ignoring revenue sources outside of ‘broadband’ and greater capacity services which FTTP could support but the MTM will not.
     2. Downgraded expected take-up rates of FTTP despite all evidence to the contrary.

     Various other assumptions were made to cast the original FTTP plan in a poor light but were generally fixed in the “corrected-FTTP” model, but I believe the above are still applicable here. These things serve to suppress NBNCo’s ability to service its debts and therefore extend the time frame it takes for FTTP to make a better ROI.

     Also at no point is any accounting made for the economic opportunity cost of the MTM vs a FTTP model.

4. Well let’s hear The Opposition get some traction on this issue.

5. Good article Renai however this question

   “However, it is not clear why the Coalition is proceeding with the drastically watered down model, given that NBN Co’s Strategic Review published in December showed that Labor’s technically superior FTTP option could be delivered for only $15 billion and three years more”

   imo does have an answer: Ideology

   What other alternatives could there be? Stupidity, ignorance? We know Turnbull is investing his own money in FTTP so that rules those out. The only real option left is ideology; an ideology that believes profits should be the sole domain of the private sector and Governments should let the “free market” do as it pleases with what’s good for the nation being an irrelevant concept thrown into the same “waste basket” as the concept of a “natural monopoly”.

   After all it seems that Keynesian economics, whose theories are largely responsible for the developed world as we know it, has been displaced by Neo-Liberalism which are basically Tea Party style economic theories that only benefit the top 1%.

   If anyone wants to see the results of these theories and proof that the favourite “trickle down theory” is yet another right wing fantasy, just check out what Neo-Liberalism has done to wealth distribution in the USA – it’s frankly shocking!

   http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

   Apologies Renai for sliding slightly sideways from the topic, however I do believe it’s quite relevant to understanding Turnbull’s and the Liberal Parties motives.

   • Of course it’s about ideology. Why wouldn’t it be?

     Since we’re all putting up youtube videos today, here’s a speech by Turnbull that explains the reasoning behind his particular stance on the NBN:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySbkZu0dPhk

     At the beginning (the NBN is discussed in the last half of the video) he talks about the proper role of government, if you can understand what he’s trying to say there then you’ll understand his NBN position (and his views on communications policy in general).

     • Okay so when the people are telling the goverment they want FTTP.. The government tells them they.. know.. best.. and gives us FTTN.

       • Most people don’t even know what FTTP stands for.

         • That’s a damn plus for MT isn’t it then. Now he can tell them what they will be getting, another acronym they don’t understand… You get what we give you.

         • The important thing is the ones who do know what is means are against Malcolm’s MTM. Sorry but an ignorant opinion has zero value.

         • But they can still vote, influenced by a three word slogan or constant repetitions of untruths

         • “Most people don’t even know what FTTP stands for”

           Do you need to understand aerodynamics to desire a flight somewhere?

     • “he talks about the proper role of government,”

       and how exactly is this not a tenant of his idealogical position?

       • This is what I am saying dJOS! The principle is that the government needs to justify any government intervention with extremely good evidence. It’s no good just saying that the revised FTTP option will “only cost $15 billion” more. The critical issue is to answer why the government is intervening in the first place.

         • “The principle is that the government needs to justify any government intervention with extremely good evidence.”

           Twenty+ years of hit and miss telecomms/broadband, even in urban areas let alone rural, isn’t reason enough?

         • “The critical issue is to answer why the government is intervening in the first place.”

           I thought the whole 20+ years of broadband stagnation and the private sector doing *nothing* to alleviate the gross imbalance of such infrastructure and decay *was* the reason the government got involved.

         • The evidence is that Telstra didnt want to play ball with the Howard gov to build FTTN and then didint want to play ball with the Rudd gov to build FTTN being 45rth in world in 2007 with an average of 4Mbps. The experts said by the time FTTN would be complete it would be obsolete.

           So MTM wants to spend $40 on a network the cant guarantee any speed but might give this country an average speed of 25Mbps by 2021 while other countries average speed right now are
           Hong Kong 65.4 mbps
           South Korea 65.6 mbps
           Japan 52 mbps
           Singapore 50.1 mbps
           US 37 mbps
           Britian 35.7 mbps

           So under Turnbull’s MTM we are not even catching up
           If you claim Turnbull promise that 50Mbps to 90% here is a disclaimer from BT on there FTTN 76Mbps and 38Mbps speeds.
           “BT Infinity speeds referred to are download speeds; speeds affected by various factors including distance from the cabinet, time of day and internal home wiring. If your line won’t support our top speed, we’ll offer the best speed available. We’ll always offer the best available speed on your line.”

         • Kingforce, I thought one of the areas that the government “had a proper role” was in the provision of services that the market was unable to provide. Mobile telephony- tick, market covered very well, no need for government intervention. Landline/fixed BB- cross- market failure on a gross scale, cherry picked to within a centilla of loss, and still great swathes of underserved citizens- government intervention required. That’s the gist of where I stand on government.

         • So.. you missed the part where the NBN only originated in response to decades of market failure?

           What a genius.

         • hey mate,

           just as a point of clarification, the only reason Australia’s telecommunications market has experienced a failure to develop further is because of the Govt not setting its framework correctly (ie, separating Telstra). The sector itself is not at fault: It acts, predictably, in its own interest. The issue is with the regulatory settings.

           The NBN was an attempt to resolve that issue forcibly through structurally separating Telstra, while also implementing an extremely populist broadband policy. It was a good attempt, but I, and many others, think that the far better approach would have been, as virtually every other country has done, to structure the telco sector the right way and then let the sector invest.

           This is what is very much happening in the UK and throughout Europe, which all had similar situations to Australia in the late 1990’s/mid 2000’s.

         • I understand your point Renai, however we have a problem with structural deficits, the model you propose will need either ongoing substantial government subsidies in high cost low value areas or some form of equalisation fund within the industry to fund those areas which would be a nest of worms

         • You don’t seem to realize that even in markets where the infrastructure owner was separated from the ISPs, there was still market failure. The infrastructure company invests in FTTN instead of FTTH (like in the UK) because it’s cheaper in the short term and their shareholders aren’t concerned with financial issues 10 years down the road. Rural areas are in general left out of the upgrade path, furthering the digital divide. The government then has to perennially subsidize the buildout to the under served. And of course the profits earned vpby the infrastructure owner goes to shareholders, not ba to the public, so essentially that subsidy also ends up in the shareholders’ pockets.

         • Oh, I completely agree. I just skipped the detail. The failure of the market and the Rudd Labor Government’s response to it (the development of the NBN) were a result of the Howard Liberal Government’s failure to structurally separate Telstra and sell it off in two parts (or only the retail part), due to their ideological commitment to small government and a belief that the market will provide (through infrastructure competition). Prior to that sell-off, while it wasn’t always smooth sailing, the government-owned monopoly was certainly in a better position to provide better quality services to more consumers at less cost, than the post-sell-off market as a whole was due to it being effectively controlled by a gigantic private monopoly whose only interest it was to make additional profit through what is effectively rent-seeking and protecting its monopoly position.

           There was only a limited amount of successful infrastructure competition. Mobile is one example of a success, although arguably limited: we have 4G… but we have to pay Telstra’s prices. DSLAM competition is another example of limited success: we got ADSL then most of us got ADSL2, and the price-to-value ratio has been falling consistently, but there remain blackspots, and now we’re stuck because we’ve reached the limits of the copper lines from the exchange to the premises without making significant investments. We also have an example of failure: HFC. What’s common between the Mobile and ADSL examples and what’s different from the HFC example is, I guess, the ratio between the investment and the number of potential customers. You can put in a DSLAM in an exchange or put up a wireless tower and service potentially hundreds of people. You can bring a cable to someone’s house and service one family at best. Infrastructure competition is only possible with those lower investment to customer ratios. Competition is great, but the “free market” does not always facilitate competition, and it is on that basis that the “small government” theory fails.

           I often think that those with such a strong commitment to “small government” don’t actually think through to the consequences of it. (The biggest consequence can be best summarised by the video linked earlier; capitalism is not a well-balanced game). I find you to be a rare exception among those who espouse a belief in small government, Renai, since you actually supported the tightly regulated wholesale monopoly that was Labor’s NBN. In other words, you have a philosophical viewpoint (minimal interference from the government) but it is not ideological in the sense that it is all or nothing. You are practical: that is, you understand that “minimal interference from the government” is not the same as “no interference from the government”. KingForce, along with many other “Liberals”, on the other hand doesn’t.

           Labor’s NBN was a work of genius in that it left no one out and no one disadvantaged, by delivering best-in-class technology that can be upgraded indefinitely, and utilising a model of cross-subsidy.

     • hey KingForce,

       I understand Turnbull’s approach to regulating industry and I agree with quite a lot of it — like him I am a “small government” advocate. But the problem here is that he is not following that approach. The MTM policy is “half in and half out” — representing the worst of both worlds.

       • Renai, I agree with the observation of being half in half out, as the structural model could indeed change, and potentially for the better. This is why I suggested a closer look out the contractual lock-ins, which may be effectively locking in certain decisions, including structural considerations.

         Also, I do have to point out something that made me chuckle…

         Others have quoted your comment that the old NBN could be delivered “for only $15 billion and three years more”. I know it doesn’t sound like a lot when you say it quickly. But when some say that the $15B and 3 years IS NOT being spent due to ideological reasons, it does bring a chuckle…there may be a shortage of optical fibre but clearly no shortage of glass houses…

   • Calling it ideology is a bit generous I think. If it was ideology then there would be some overarching political philosophy behind it like “small government” or something. That’s not what’s happening here, in terms of ideology the ‘MTM’ is almost identical to the NBN as it was. They’re still investing heavily in infrastructure, they’re still creating monopolies, they’re still picking winners.

     The only thing I can think of is that the Libs changed the NBN because they wanted to score political points. They wanted to maintain their “Labor Waste” mantra while minimising any backlash from killing the NBN. And that cost is a good $40bn invested in FTTN and HFC. Same reason behind a lot of their budget BS, a lot of it isn’t ideological so much. It’s more about trying to score political points.

     …………. a strategy that thankfully appears to be backfiring spectacularly

     • AIUI, “small gov” means getting out of the way and letting corporations charge folks for cherry picked services that governments would normally provide from tax revenue.

       • hey mate,

         this isn’t a logical way of looking at it. Most services will be provided by the private sector in most countries.

         • Only in areas where such services are profitable, like when Telstra/Optus built their HFC networks. Even on what would be considered a successful service/network like mobile, the government is still giving them money for the blackspot program.

           In a nutshell, I agree with you, but only to a point, the free market is not ‘the’ answer, just one part of it.

         • Renai, I’m 70% of the way with you, but free market only caters for profit. There are services that, no matter which way you cut the cake, aren’t going to be profitable to provide to the majority of the population. It’s this “gap” that needs covering, and unfortunately, the best way to cover the gap, especially in a monopoly situation, is to use internal cross subsidisation through either a government agency, or a heavily regulated private entity. The latter hasn’t really worked for us has it?

     • “The only thing I can think of is that the Libs changed the NBN because they wanted to score political points.”

       That’s just a side benefit. I see that people are still tying themselves up in knots because the LNP’s MTM policy appears on the surface to be so crazy and illogical.

       It’s certainly not crazy nor illogical, it makes perfect sense if you just look at it the right way.

       Everyone knows that the broadband network of the 21st Century will be some variation of FTTP. Even Turnbull knows this.

       The MTM is a merely ploy to delay this future and give time for other players to move in and take control of our fibre lives.

       Turnbull’s policy will strangle NBNCo in the cradle and allow for a staggered failure of the entire project. While this is happening, the LNP’s favourite crony capitalists will simply move in and pick up the pieces.

       Time is on Turnbull’s side in this. The longer he delays the rollout of fibre, the easier it will be to marginalise NBNCo.

       The real objection that the LNP has to the NBN is that they didn’t get to determine who owns it.

       If the choice is between evil and stupid, the correct option is nearly always stupid. Not in this case however. Turnbull knows exactly what he is doing and how to achieve it.

     • Don’t forget the Murdoch factor. If Labor’s NBN was installed, Foxtel would lose money and we can’t have that, can we?
       No doubt that was a condition for the News Corpse propaganda campaign to ensure the Liars’ election.
       Unfortunately for Rupert, Credlin is only capable of running interference in opposition.

   • “imo does have an answer: Ideology”

     What do you do when your ‘ideology’ produces results that run counter to other elements of your purported philosophy – maximizing effective use of resources and creating productivity?

     You create a complete stuff up ala Malcolm Turnbull’s Multi Technology Mess.

     Turnbull is flopping around like a stranded fish trying to reconcile the contradictions inherent in his position. And he’s making a right hash of it.

     Just give up Malcolm. Walk away and let NBNCo go back to it’s original brief. The voters of this country will thank you for it. The alternative is …….

6. The only reason the Coalition are buying back the copper (or at least trying to…) is because they inherited NBNco and can’t get rid of it.
   By changing NBNco’s rollout to the MTM model, the Coalition is combining the worst aspects of Labors policy with the worst aspects of their preferred free market approach. We get a big government monopoly that locks out private investment, will likely be several years late, and may lose a few billion dollars, while building inadequate infrastructure.

7. “Labor’s technically superior FTTP option could be delivered for only $15 billion and three years more.”

   You can bet that Malcolm Turnbull and his buddies didn’t factor in the great cost in both time and treasure in turning the ship around. You can’t just turn around such an epic govt action on a dime.

   I would not be surprised at all, if, after all the re-hiring, re-studying, re-negotiating, re-trouble-shooting, etc etc, that the MBN (Malcolm’s Broadband Network) is finished no more quickly and for no less money than what was forecast for Labor’s NBN…at which point they will need to upgrade it.

   • I have a theory on this and I really, really hope I am wrong.

     With the rollout now down to less than 1250 brownfield premises past per week, I fear that all the LNP will achieve in this electoral term is FTTH to home to ONLY MDU to beat out TPG’s FTTB and some bullet-proof contract with Telstra to buy and maintain the copper that future governments can’t get out of.

     God, if the LNP had just kept going with the rollout, imagine how much could have been achieved in just the 6 months past and the next 12 months while ‘haggling’ with Telstra.

   • If fraudband is ever actually rolled out

8. And the video (didn’t see a link in the article):
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqeHXxaIgIc

   • Paragraph 5, last sentence: “The speech is available online on YouTube.”

9. “In addition, especially in the US, a similar trend is occurring with broadband speeds, with companies such as AT&T, Cox Communications and Google, as well as cities such as Los Angeles, all planning to deploy telecommunications infrastructure capable of gigabit speeds. Such speeds are broadly not possible under much of the Coalition’s watered down NBN approach.”

   imo it’s also worth noting that in slightly more than 10 years, Verizon has managed to pass more than 18 Million premises with it’s FiOS FTTP network. Aiui, that is the biggest deployment of FTTP anywhere in the world to date (but will be overtaken by the Chinese by the end of the year, they want to connect more than 35 Million premises with FTTP!!!).

   Links:
   Verizon FiOS
   http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/verizon-fios-still-growing-slowing/374074

   China Telecom:
   http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-03/31/content_14956560.htm

   • By the end of 2012. By the end of 2014, China’s target is 200 million.

10. As much as I hate Conroy for the idiotic mandatory internet filter he was so determined to force on us and for basically labelling people who were against it as “pro-child porn”, his rant here is most certainly welcome and refreshing. I want the entire Labor party to be this angry. I want the entire Aussie telecommunications industry this angry. I want the Australian PEOPLE this angry.

    Makes me wonder if, against all odds, the Labor party does get voted into power at the next election, will they reverse the MTM rollout and go back to FTTP? Will they even be ABLE to do that? Something tells me Turnbull is going to make it as difficult as possible to stop the MTM once it gets going. He’ll lock in as many contracts as he can, make the option of re-negotiation next to impossible, and basically ruin as much of the FTTP prospects as he can before leaving office.

    • The odds are shortening (pardon the pun) daily… self immolation as a policy is novel, but the dufii junta is implementing it quite nicely…

11. Coalition seeks to break Conroy’s NBN committee dominance:

    http://www.zdnet.com/au/coalition-seeks-to-break-conroys-nbn-committee-dominance-7000029462/

    • Let’s not have the truth stand in the way of destroying the nbn.. Remove that obstacle..

12. I Guess extending the Senate committee will make for good reading when MT is called before the impending Royal Commission?

13. The Conroy filter was only ever a mirage, and invention designed to secure the vote of Family First Fielding’s support for the establishment of NBN Co.

    • Rightio then.. Now where’s that tin foil hat of yours.

14. I think most people have misunderstood Tony Abbot when he appointed Turnbull to destroy the NBN. He didn’t mean in opposition he meant once in government !!!!!

15. /ponder

    How angry are people going to be when they figure out the cost of buying the copper + buying the HFC + building FTTN + maintenance of all that = (easily) double the cost of the original FTTP plan?

    My monies on “white hot” :)

    • I’ve been saying that for months now.

      Where are our ‘investigative reporters’ and screaming 48pt font headlines across the front pages of newspapers around the country listing EXACTLY what the LNP Fraudband plan is actually going to cost when you add:

      The purchase of the entire Telstra Copper network + The purchase of the entire Telstra AND Optus HFC networks + the cost of a cabinet/node no more than 200m from every house in the major population centres + the cost of powering all those cabinets 24/7 + the ongoing maintenance of the archaic copper network which currently costs around $2 BILLION PER YEAR to maintain as it is now – a network that guarantees BASIC voice quality and NOT data, according to Telstra executives testifying before the Senate late last year.

      Add all that up then list the speeds you can get from it. Essential NO BENEFIT to MOST PEOPLE over what we ALREADY HAVE!!

      And then list up the FTTP plan, the bypassing of the Telstra copper AND the HFC networks which will get cut off, and the speeds FTTP will offer right now.

16. As somebody who makes a living developing and coaching on negotiation strategies I cannot believe the Coalition is taking this approach.

    Buy Telstra shares now.

    This will not end well for the Australian tax payer.

    • Seems like the Liberals have taken a leaf from the mining industry. They are digging a massive hole for themselves, but bigger and faster, than the mining industry could ever achieve…

      • Big difference, nothing of value will come out of that hole

    • If only enough Telstra shares were not held by investment companies, that we could snap them up, then as share holders say NO to whatever hash Turnbull and Telstra come up with. Seems to be the best option for a reliable network, Telstra saying no to any copper control scheme and insisting on what is already under contract. {and Foxtel can run documentaries on the sudden evolution of flying pigs}

      The former opposition, is still opposing everything… even their own election policies! Is there any promise/policy remaining unbroken? We thought Julia was bad with position reversals, this mob is sinking to new depths. I get the feeling it will definitely be a single term government, and I’ll laugh if the same scrutiny (ala pink batts, nbn) they are dishing out is turned back on the Liberals. Malicious incompetence should be a jailable offence.

17. I’m pleased Conroy raised and pushed the issue of upload speeds. This specific aspect of broadband service has been buried from the outset and needs to be a priority point in determining the functionality of service.

    I have HFC in my area which houses a lot of medical service centres (radiology etc) that are increasingly utilising online services.
    The download speeds are great (assuming the subscription rates per node don’t change too much and become Optus like it’s likely to stay great) BUT upload is very limited so the usefulness is massively watered down from a business productivity/benefit perspective.

    My appreciation of the tech for HFC is that it cannot provide the degree of upload that businesses will want and need?

    • This is incorrect – HFC is fully capable of symmetric 100/100 connections – the upload is capped at “the network level “whatever that means but thats the most I could wriggle out of Telstra.

      The reasons for this are two fold:

      – US T1 providers charge Australian ISPs for the data they send across the U.S – which is most of Aus’s data. It of course costs nothing to pull this data down. but the US are greedy.

      – Differentiate between two demographics. Most consumers don’t really need more than 2 – 3 mbps – it is of course just highly desirable for both file sharing and gaming. Telstra uses uploads as a price point differentiation between consumer and business customers. You are fully able to get a business cable connection that includes these kind of speeds , up & down.

      The thing is that the kind of upload speeds that were being offered by the original NBN would’ve obliterated every Australian web hosting businesses, media portals, content aggregators in weeks. How could businesses that traditionally managed things like co-lo’s now compete in a marketplace where essentially every resident had the equivalent bandwidth. Whilst better technology is always desireable, everybody having access to that kind of subsidised connection would have been madness.

      I’m kind of sick of the characterization that the Liebral Party sabotaged the NBN – the ALP did – it has been as much as disaster as the insulation batts scheme. When you miss hitting even ten percent of your annual rollout targets, year on year, what else can you possibly describe it as? If rolling out these technologies is so simple, why isn’t NBNCo managed to accomplish a tenth of what it was supposed to by now?

      • This is incorrect – HFC is fully capable of symmetric 100/100 connections – the upload is capped at “the network level “whatever that means but thats the most I could wriggle out of Telstra.

        Yes it is capable of these speeds, but at significant costs, costs that private companies are not going to wear. If we could ensure that it was implemented most consumers, evenly technically minded ones like the Delimiter community would support the use of HFC in a hybrid HFC/FTTP model.

        These costs come about because CableTV utilises the majority of the bandwidth on HFC. You would therefore need to convince Telstra (although Options could do this easier because they don’t deliver PayTV over cable) to remove almost all of their PayTV from native cable.

        Technically possible, Vodafone in NZ are doing it to leverage off UFB and standardise their PayTV delivery model across both platforms, but their customer base on CableTV is relatively small, as is their network in general. Scaling it to millions of homes will be a logistical nightmare, just when will you set the date to turn off Cable TV and switch entirely to IPTV solutions?

        Even then the networks in Australia are considerably over subscribed. I’ve heard figures as high as 1200:1 for one for Optus, and half that for Telstra.

        This isn’t the bandwidth oversubscription through, that is thankfully lower, this is the node subscription. 1200 houses are routed to one fibre node. To get the kind of speeds the NBN would have delivered reliably you would have to do at least a quad node split, in the worst case of 1200:1 you might even need an Oct. This is a lot of public works.

        Meanwhile, while Telstra is stuck in the nightmare of migrating Foxtel customers to their new IPTV program, Optus with the extensive public works for its Oct node split, the government also wants them to either allow wholesale access or worse overbuild the network with cheaper FTTN and FTTB options, not to mention better performing FTTP options?

        Because if Telstra and Optus don’t do it the government will need to buy or lease the networks off them with allowances to perform upgrades. This means that it’s actually cheaper to pay them off for migration and do FTTP. Exactly what Labor planned to do.

        – US T1 providers charge Australian ISPs for the data they send across the U.S – which is most of Aus’s data. It of course costs nothing to pull this data down. but the US are greedy.

        Doesn’t matter. With widespread CDNs and the ease of placing a PoP into Australia thanks to the Sydney AWS region, most bandwidth for static content, that is Video and pictures, is actually domestic in Australia. This “all of our bandwidth is to the US” is conflating the situation. Also why should US bandwidth matter? If you’re worked in a commercial sector you know that providers can and do implement different SLAs for domestic and foreign traffic. If I want to send my 12 Megapixel RAW photos to my friend across Sydney because he’s good at Photoshop why should the fact that US bandwidth is expensive mean my ISP limits me to a few Mbits? Because that’s what you just endorsed.

        Most consumers don’t really need more than 2 – 3 mbps – it is of course just highly desirable for both file sharing and gaming.

        Bullshit. Fortunately most of the world market has already determined this and changed to reflect it. In NZ they are offering 100/50, as just one example. Australia is the only country backwards enough it seems to think 100/5 is a good idea.

        You are fully able to get a business cable connection that includes these kind of speeds , up & down.

        Oh yeah sure, with several thousand dollars of outlay unless you happen to live in the CBD or an ex commercial building, you totally can get an SDSL or Active Fibre connection. Because we all have that kind of money lieing around. I mean NZ is being completely unrealistic here, no one needs 50Mbps up. If only someone had warned them.

        The thing is that the kind of upload speeds that were being offered by the original NBN would’ve obliterated every Australian web hosting businesses, media portals, content aggregators in weeks. How could businesses that traditionally managed things like co-lo’s now compete in a marketplace where essentially every resident had the equivalent bandwidth. Whilst better technology is always desireable, everybody having access to that kind of subsidised connection would have been madness.

        Someone think of the businesses. They will have to adapt to changing market conditions and find a competitive edge. The horror!

        Sarcasm aside, there is still going to be a difference between commercial and consumer grade connections. Primarily CIR, SLAs and redundancy. Something you want if you’re hosting a site and little Timmy can’t give you at home. Plus the market place is already having a hard time competing with the likes of AWS charging literally pennies for equivalent service.

        I’m done here, I’ll leave someone else to talk about NBNco financial targets and what the Coalition have done to damage the NBN, but I think if you want to enter this debate you should really consider doing a bit more research, because right now your understanding leaves much to be desired.

      • The thing is that the kind of upload speeds that were being offered by the original NBN would’ve obliterated every Australian web hosting businesses, media portals, content aggregators in weeks. How could businesses that traditionally managed things like co-lo’s now compete in a marketplace where essentially every resident had the equivalent bandwidth. Whilst better technology is always desireable, everybody having access to that kind of subsidised connection would have been madness.

        This completely ignores the number one reason for using a Datacenter in the first place!

        Risk Mitigation

        How many small-medium business (or even large ones) do you know that can afford Tier3 level redundancy for their computer rooms? The answer is not many, even a small 300 rack Tier3 spec DC would cost more than 20 million just to build, not including the cost of the land!

      • ” it has been as much as disaster as the insulation batts scheme”

        According to most economists, it was actually a success in that it helped stop a recession here (which was the whole point of the thing in the first place).

        But don’t let me stop you from rewriting history…

18. It was a cracker.
    and so was Bill Shortens (Oppositions Right of Reply to the Budget), he called Hockey, Foghorn Leghorn (leghorn a breed of chicken) meaning he was a chicken for taking the easy way out and penalizing the young, old and disabled. Quote “This is a budget of broken promises built on lies, and not just lies, systematic and wilful ones.”
    I always thought that Bill was a light weight but tonight I saw the demise of one Prime Minister and the birth of another, great stuff.

    • Loved his speech, even slipped in how essential for our future Broadband was as he knocked them.

      • When shorten mentioned the digital economy, the gallery loudly applauded.. Turnbull was rattled..

19. the ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS is for the liberal party members to resign from their seats unless they get the the original NBN CO POLICY to be put back in place because if enough members disagree with this they may QUIT TO CAUSE A NEW ELECTION or get a member who is willing to reinstate the LABOURS NBN CO POLICY to TAKE OVER LEADERSHIP of the party

20. A D/D may be on the cards, sooner than we think. A lot of people are very angry especially at the grinning, smirking and sniggering from the front bench especially TA and Bishop as Hockey outlined how he would sink the boot into the vulnerable, while blabbering about sharing the load
    That picture will stand out for ever

21. I heard yesterday, one of the Tasmanian senator telling the senate that so far not one reply has been received out of 450 questions on notice put to the department of Communication and contrasted this with the Environment department which had replied to most of theirs.

22. Renai, what would you recommend we do to get more eyes on this issue? I’m at my wits’ end regarding the mismanagement of the NBN. I want to be more proactive on this issue because, and much as the Coalition is in love with cost cutting, they are willing to piss away billions and billions of dollars on a plan that WILL cost more in the long run. Seriously, are they delusional?

    Honestly, I have no idea where to start, so any help from anyone would be appreciated.

    • The biggest problem for the NBN currently is it’s now solidly a political issue rather than a technical one. If the politics can be taken out, at least it could then be looked at/built rationally.

    • Sorry mate, your Death Ray is classed as a gun and as such was subject to seizure and destruction many years ago.

23. As I am completely clueless to how politics works, could someone tell me what the point is of Conroy making all these speeches and points for. From what I’ve seen the liberal party do their own thing and dont care what anyone says since they’re the ones in power. Certainly working like that so far with the NBN plans. Is there any point to conroy making speeches?

    • A crash course in politics, democracy and the system we use in Australia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system

      In a nutshell though, an Opposition is required to hold a government to account, they do this by showing the public where the government is going wrong (as Tony did to Julie/Kevin, so Stephen/Jason does to Malcolm, and Bill does to Tony).

      • Thanks for the info. So I guess its borderline pointless since he cant have anything changed or forced to change. Oh well. Going to be another 2-3 years before I get the botched NBN in my area.

        • Exactly, we’ll need an election and a change of government to fix this mess up, and that’s still a ways off.

          • Sadly it’ll be too late by then. I cant imagine labor winning and then deciding to start up their internet plans again. Too costly. Plus they’d take 20 years to start like before. If they had been on time instead of waiting to use it as a reason for people to re-elect them, we’d all have fast internet by now.

Comments are closed.