news Questions have continued to arise about whether nbn’s planned Gigabit upgrade of the HFC cable networks it is acquiring from Telstra and Optus will be able to deliver on its speed promises, with a number of telecommunications industry sources pouring cold water on the long-term capacity of the ageing networks.
The Coalition’s original revamp of Labor’s National Broadband Network planned focused on partially upgrading Telstra’s existing copper network with fibre, in a technique known as ‘Fibre to the Node’ or FTTN. However, in November 2013 the new Coalition Government confirmed that nbn would upgrade and extend the HFC cable networks currently owned by Telstra and Optus as part of its ‘Multi-Technology Mix’, instead of upgrading Telstra’s copper in the areas covered by HFC.
In early March this year, nbn confirmed it would upgrade the HFC cable networks to the DOCSIS 3.1 standard, which theoretically allows speeds of up to 10Gbps down and 1Gbps up. At the time, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australians accessing the NBN via the HFC cable networks would be able to achieve broadband speeds of 1Gbps down and 100Mbps up.
“The upgrade to Docsis 3.1 will be in addition to more immediate upgrades to the HFC networks which will be undertaken to increase capacity and relieve congestion ahead of the NBN selling products over the networks in 2016,” the Minister said at the time.
However, questions continue to be asked about whether gigabit speeds will truly be able to be achieved for most customers over the ageing HFC cable infrastructure.
This week, telecommunications analyst Paul Budde used his blog to link to an article published by CCG Consulting, a US-based consulting firm of several decades’ experience working with the country’s telecommunications industry.
The article, entitled “Can Cable Networks Deliver a Gigabit?” outlines substantial challenges which CCG believes telcos will face in delivering such services, with particular reference to comments made by US telco Time Warner Cable that it could deliver gigabit services to the city of Los Angeles by 2016, using existing HFC cable infrastructure.
The CCG’s Doug Dawson noted that firstly, the DOCSIS 3.1 standard was just now hitting the telecommunications market and would need to be tested in telco networks.
Secondly, he noted, to obtain Gigabit speeds, telcos would need to have “at least 20 empty channels” on their network – a tough ask, when the HFC cable networks are also carrying a number of other services such as the Foxtel pay TV platform in Australia. Implementing DOCSIS 3.1 will also require end user customers to upgrade to a new cable modem to support the standard, Dawson wrote.
In addition, the architecture of the network remains a challenge, especially the ‘node’ where the HFC cable splits off to residences in each street or locality. HFC cable remains a shared medium, meaning that the capacity in the cable running down streets will be used by all users simultaneously, unlike in copper or fibre scenarios where each customer receives their own cable.
“If a cable company wants to guarantee Gigabit speeds then they are not going to be able to have too many Gigabit customers at a given node,” wrote Dawson. “This means that as the number of gigabit customers grows they will have to ‘split’ nodes, which often means building more fiber to feed the nodes plus an electronics upgrade. In systems with large nodes this might be the most expensive part of the upgrade to gigabit. The alternative to this is to have a best-effort product that only is capable of a gigabit at 3:00 in the morning when the network has no other traffic.”
HFC cable network capacity has been a relatively constant issue in Australia, with reports of continuous slowdown around peak periods (such as when residents return from work).
Dawson added that bandwidth to each ‘node’ itself may also be an issue and may require further upgrades.
Other voices are also being raised in concern about the Gigabit plan. In Australia, local broadband and telephone services provider Engin published an article in June this year arguing that “Gigabit services of the NBN won’t translate into Gigabit Internet for consumers”.
“For cable to be able to deliver these kinds of speeds, the cable networks themselves need a major overhaul, and the technology is prone to sharp slowdowns. While it might be able to offer a Gigabit per second in optimal circumstances, in practice, if too many people on the same connected street are connecting to the Internet at the same time, speeds dive sharply. Optus, which already offers cable solutions, has received plenty of complaints from customers because of these speed drops during peak periods,” the company wrote.
“In reality, the expected download speeds that NBN customers receive will be far lower. The government’s strategic review into the NBN reported the expectation that average download speeds would be as low as “50 Mbps or greater” by 2019.”
“This speed is certainly faster than what most individuals within Australia have access to, with ADSL services typically running at below 10 Mbps. But for the kind of telecommuting, working-from-home, and small business applications that the NBN was designed to champion, the speeds being touted through this technology will not match the benefits that the initial fibre rollout had promised.”
However, nbn itself does have a strong degree of technical support on its side to assist with the upgrade. In June 2014, the company hired Canadian HFC cable expert Dennis Steiger — who has expensive experience with HFC networks in that country — as its new chief technology officer.
In addition, in February this year, nbn signed a $400 million deal with network equipment manufacturer Arris to upgrade the Telstra and Optus HFC cable networks. The company will conduct much of the upgrades mentioned by Dawson as necessary.
“One thing I would like to make crystal clear is that we are putting very considerable resources towards building a substantially upgraded HFC network for the NBN,” wrote Steiger in a blog post at the time. “The best way to describe what we are doing is that while we are re-using the valuable last-mile infrastructure on the Telstra and Optus networks we are actually putting a lot more capacity into the network and taking it to a new level.”
“The key to this will be the state-of-the-art CMTS that we will be getting from Arris that will be deployed on the network and which will act as new and much more powerful engines – kind of like upgrading from a four-cylinder to a new eight-cylinder engine.”
At the time, Steiger wrote that he was aware of the “conjecture” about different broadband technologies being considered for the NBN.
“We don’t need to get back into that debate today, but here is what I can say with a lot of confidence; HFC is a world class, competitive broadband technology solution that is being used all around the world to deliver top class broadband services to consumers and it can do the same in Australia for many years to come,” he wrote.
Internode founder Simon Hackett — who now sits on the board of nbn — has also strongly defended the ability of the HFC cable networks to service Australia’s needs into the future.
opinion/analysis
Will the HFC cable networks which nbn is acquiring from Telstra and Optus be able to deliver Gigabit speeds in future? My opinion is both yes and no.
I certainly believe Steiger and Arris when they say that DOCSIS 3.1, plus a number of upgrades in the networks, will deliver the theoretical capacity for Gigabit speeds to the HFC cable networks. Broadband providers will eventually be offering these speeds, and you will be able to sign up and get something pretty close to this level of capacity.
However, what everyone who works with telcos networks also knows very well is that these networks are not architected with the intention of offering full capacity to all users at all times.
Steiger and the rest of the team at nbn know that you will never get a situation where every household in a street is trying to download data at 1Gbps simultaneously. Some people will be pulling data down on 25Mbps plans, some at 50Mbps, some at 100Mbps, and the occasional one or two at 1Gbps, and all at different times with different amounts of data.
This means that the Gigabit HFC cable promise can be delivered without really being put to the test. Yes, the network will deliver 1Gbps. But not for everyone, and not all the time.
There is just one problem with this line of reasoning: The NBN is not a project which is being built for this decade, next decade or even the decade after. It is a project which will serve Australia’s telecommunications needs for much of the next century. The focus on using HFC cable as a replacement network technology for the technically superior FTTP standard betrays a lack of long-term vision.
In 2015 or even 2020 the number of people who want Gigabit broadband connections to their premise will be very small. But as technologies such as very high definition teleconferencing, wallscreens, 4K television and more become increasingly prevalent, which they obviously will, the numbers of people requiring higher speeds will grow and the HFC network will become further and further stretched in terms of what it can deliver. One wonders whether how well it will cope with the bandwidth requirements of 2030, 2040 or 2050.
Of course, by that stage, Malcolm Turnbull will not be Communications Minister, Steiger will likely have returned to Canada, and even nbn chief executive Bill Morrow will likely be sitting on a number of boards and conducting strategic consulting work rather than running the NBN on a day to day basis. The long-term capacity of Australia’s telecommunications networks will be … somebody else’s problem.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
“kind of like upgrading from a four-cylinder to a new eight-cylinder engine.”
That is of course until the new eight-cylinder engine destroys the rest of the car because the rest of it wasn’t designed to handle anything more than a 4-cylinder :)
Not to mention that everyone else in the world is upgrading to self-driving electric vehicles that cost cents to charge, are quieter, faster, safer, and produce no pollution…
(To stretch the analogy a bit further!)
i see it more as upgrading the donk to 8 cylinder….
but not upgrading the fuel pump, starving it of its fuel needs… and then using the stock exhaust, strangling it on the other end….
i hadnt though of chassis loads tho – quite right; if the chassis cant hack it then its pretty pointless anyway, isnt it?
admittedly with some cars you can improve the emissions and fuel costs with a more modern motor, and done right its a good thing.. but in this case upgrading the network with last years leftovers really isnt going to serve us well. i wish Steiger luck, but i am not sanguine as to his chances….
I used to think this was about the tech. Now I just think the LNP NBN was all an opportunity to allow T$ (and Optus because the couldn’t stop it) to offload aging Copper and HFC assets and then pay T$ to maintain them. If you are a T$ shareholder – it seems like a pretty cunning plan.
Shame.
Indeed, the exercise is a bit like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole or squeezing blood from stone.
What I am curious about is why would GimpCo be hyping these mostly unattainable speeds on HFC when we were already told 25mbps “more than enough” for anyone. Meanwhile in FttP land they seem to be going out of their way to make sure no one knows about their 1000/400mbps products.
Now did not our fearless Comms minister/inventor of the internet emphatically state that 12Mb was more than adequate.
So why are they now talking Gigabit.
Surely he wasn’t lying or shock horror didn’t in reality have a clue about the subject
The only issue is that you will have some on FTTP some on upgraded HFC even though Telstra claims to be able to deliver 100Mbps already. So it already meets the SOE 25Mbps requirement. While people on FTTN will have to FOD to achieve either of those networks potential speeds. Plus when you have the Trolls claiming if they want faster they should pay for it argument. Then why are people on the HFC not paying for those upgrades.
What do you mean Telstra ‘claims’? I’m on Telstra HFC and getting a constant 114Mb/s down. Quit spreading fud as a cursory glance on whirlpool would have shown you this to be true.
The “SOE” 25Mbps requirement is one (very arbitrary) speed, but I don’t see anything SOE about the fact that this is aiming to be achieved across very different equipment, which goes against the whole concept of an SOE.
That FOD has not been mentioned for HFC is a very glaring omission, exactly. It only cements the result of the Coalition’s NBN of having a particular level of service based on which suburb you live in.
This is all just manufactured FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
Here’s the original CCG Consulting article, and how easily the points can be dismissed.
http://potsandpansbyccg.com/2015/07/28/can-cable-networks-deliver-a-gigabit/
* “DOCSIS 3.1: First, a cable company has to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1.”
Upgrading existing networks is cheaper and less disruptive than completely replacing them. The primary reason is that you only need to upgrade parts of the network that need it just before they need it. You are not spending huge amounts of capital putting in place capacity that either won’t be used in the near future, or may never be used.
This is why so much money has been spent on development of VDSL+ etc., that leverages existing network infrastructure, rather than completely replacing it. If FTTP was more economical (i.e., CHEAPER) than either upgrading existing copper or HFC networks, that is what everybody would be doing.
The other benefit is that if the if it is necessary to abandon an existing technology because its limitations have been reached, you’re not abandoning network infrastructure that has never been used.
The number of Australians who are mobile only, no fixed line Internet users is growing, and according to ACMA, is at 29% as of December 2014 (http://acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Australians-get-mobile). If this trend continues, as it has for the previous 5 years, it will be better to only upgrade the existing copper or HFC networks where necessary, so that it will be cheaper to throw those networks away instead of a shiny, brand new FTTP network.
* “Spare Channels: To get gigabit speeds, a cable system is going to need at least 20 empty channels on their network.”
This is ignoring that fact that the TV viewing audience are moving away from broadcast TV, and moving to on-demand streaming over IP. According to Telsyte, there are already over 2 million video on demand subscribes in Australia.
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/579178/uptake-subscription-video-demand-services-skyrockets-australia-telsyte/
The demand for analogue broadcast channels is going to decline, not increase.
If there is still a place left for live, many concurrent, it can be easily achieved over multicast IP, as has been done in many countries for many years.
http://www.afr.com/business/media-and-marketing/tv/freetoair-television-ratings-tumble-as-viewers-get-picky-20150409-1mh7pl
* “New Cable Modems: DOCSIS 3.1 requires a new, and relatively expensive cable modem. ”
The FTTP network also required a “new, and relatively expensive cable modem” a.k.a. NTD. In either case it is paid for by the telco, so it is just part of the deployment cost, and would be being included in the business case as to whether upgrading the existing network is cheaper than replacing it.
* “Guaranteed versus Best Effort: If a cable company wants to guarantee gigabit speeds then they are not going to be able to have too many gigabit customers at a given node.”
FTTP networks are no different. The downstream capacity in NBNco’s FTTP network for a passive optical fibre is 2.4Gbps. So, “If [NBNco] wants to guarantee gigabit speeds then they are not going to be able to have too many gigabit customers at a given [fibre].”, with “too many” being <3.
* "Bandwidth to the Nodes."
Fortunately existing networks only have to be upgraded where they need to be in a piecemeal, on-demand manner.
FTTP networks are no different. The downstream capacity in NBNco’s FTTP network for a passive optical fibre is 2.4Gbps. So, “If [NBNco] wants to guarantee gigabit speeds then they are not going to be able to have too many gigabit customers at a given [fibre].”, with “too many” being <3.
Given that it is east to upgrade to pipe capacity when NBN release an article because of a blog showing current design rules for FTTN delivering an sverage speed of just 5Mbps. But then doesn't help the people that already have a bad connection.
The other question about the 29% on mobile is how many are on mobile because there is not fixed line from not port spare copper only been good enough for phone only.
Because it seems a large chunk considering that mobile data counted for less than 10% if the data Australia has use over the lass few years.
> “Spare Channels: To get gigabit speeds, a cable system is going to need at least 20 empty channels on their network.”
To add to this, I think American cable systems have far more capacity dedicated to TV than Telstra and Optus.
Also, both Telstra and Optus were more advanced at launch (with 750MHz capability) than many US cable systems were (still?) until DOCSIS 3 updates.
So I would be cautious applying analysis from the US to Australia, Comcast and friends have damaged HFC’s reputation somewhat.
The challenge I see with HFC is upstream (even if we move the band split) and putting fibre deeper into the network.
But still it is a far better medium than voice-grade copper.
“The number of Australians who are mobile only, no fixed line Internet users is growing, and according to ACMA, is at 29% as of December 2014 (http://acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Australians-get-mobile). If this trend continues, as it has for the previous 5 years, it will be better to only upgrade the existing copper or HFC networks where necessary, so that it will be cheaper to throw those networks away instead of a shiny, brand new FTTP network.”
There is no sign that this trend will continue and it is highly likely that it will not continue because of the _capacity_ constraints of mobile networks. It can be argued that one of the factors in the recent trend towards mobile broadband is a result of no increase in fixed-line speeds for most people. If so, the trend simply cannot last because of the limited capacity of mobile broadband.
The speed is there, but that speed is shared from day one when there are only a few users and drops sharply as users increase. After that, there is no advantage apart from being able to move around (no advantage when you’re at home) and the number of supported users is still dwarfed by the number of supported users on fixed-line, even if there was a full, money-no-object implementation of mobile.
“* “Spare Channels: To get gigabit speeds, a cable system is going to need at least 20 empty channels on their network.”
This is ignoring that fact that the TV viewing audience are moving away from broadcast TV, and moving to on-demand streaming over IP.”
This point assumes that Foxtel will reduce its broadcast TV offering, which is by no means guaranteed due to the cash cow that it still is.
As for the other points, they have been discussed at length and just don’t mean much anymore, apart from the assumed ability to keep upgrading existing networks into the future, which is far from guaranteed owing to real-world existing networks. They have cable gauges that are simply below the optimal conditions necessary for the hyped speeds on vectoring and G.fast, as opposed to fibre where the speed record on commonly-manufactured cable keeps being shattered, not just broken. 25 terabits per second on one fibre is the current, probably out of date, record.
“There is just one problem with this line of reasoning: The NBN is not a project which is being built for this decade, next decade or even the decade after. It is a project which will serve Australia’s telecommunications needs for much of the next century.”
With respect, I think this is the problem with your reasoning. Imo the MTM is not being built with the above in mind at all. Rather Turnbull’s MTM is being implemented with the very political objective of promoting a competitive market within the telco sector and that is the prime directive.
Remember PM Abbott’s directive to Turnbull to destroy the NBN? It wasn’t so much to destroy the NBN, it was to destroy any possibility of a Govt owned network. Turnbull and this Govt couldn’t care less about 2 decades from now. The free market will look after it, right? Supply and demand? Etc Etc.
What is NOT wanted is a ubiquitous govt owned wholesale network, no matter how efficient or future proof it may be.
And by the time the people of this country realize just what a lemon the MTM is, Turnbull and his mates will be long gone.
Talk about the NBN being a political football. Unfortunately it’s going to cost this country $B’s.
And the rest of the century doesn’t even appear as a blip on their horizon!
@Paul Hahn I completely agree with your post. That is absolutely what Abbott & Co wanted and though I am well aware of the mess that the Coalition govt has made with the NBN, I myself would like to see more investment by private companies into physical networks.
Reality is, however, that no other company (not even Optus) is willing to take on Telstra in the marketplace with a physical network approaching the kind of reach Telstra’s copper network has, because you can bet your house that Telstra would arrive the next day with trucks and workers to overbuild Company B’s expensive network, as happened in the 90s with the HFC networks. Such is the market dominance of Telstra given to the company by its fixed-line copper cash cow, as well as its mobile cash cow that was only made possible by the fixed-line revenue stream. Other companies can see that there is too much capital risk. Kevin Rudd’s intention was to bypass this situation with the FTTP NBN, so even though he generally made a mess of his prime ministership, I don’t blame him whatsoever for his government’s NBN and supported it.
Telstra’s market dominance is the enemy, not necessarily either major party.
“However, what everyone who works with telcos networks also knows very well is that these networks are not architected with the intention of offering full capacity to all users at all times.”
Yawn, applies to all internets.
The article fails to acknowledge fibre has the same limitation; GPON is shared (article wrong), transit network shared (current avg 77mbps per drop), PoI shared (contention high due to CVC pricing), RSP backhaul shared, wider Internet interconnects shared…
HFC is a solid investment for rapid last mile connection rollout. Issues “identified” in article long acknowledged and solutions well understood.
Yawn, seems some people cant think past today. Gpon is shared, true, but as more people want gigabit there are cheap and simple upgrades to allow it, 10gpon, 100gpon, can all exist simultaneously with no change to existing users. Hfc and VDSL2 are all last ditch technologies the sweat the last of the existing networks and will eventually need replacement with FTTH, a short term bandaid that simply delays FTTH at a great cost.
“HFC is a solid investment”
Indeed it is, well that is if you consider wasting billions of taxpayers dollars to buy these decaying second-hand networks a solid investment. Billions that could have been better spent on a much more functional fibre network.
Also why is MTM co buying both (well the big 2 ones anyway I believe there are several other smaller ones as well) … given they overbuild each other pretty well.
I mean they’re only using the last mile as the rest of it needs a complete upgrade/overhaul by the sounds of it :/.
Didn’t (Optus at the very least) the various marketing dept basically deny HFC existed as a product for them as well? (pretty sure Renai tried to get HFC connected way back when and despite having a cable running past/in its existence was denied).
a solid investment or a soft “invention”???!!!
The difference is the contention ratio.
Docsis 3 is 10gbps shared between hundreds.
Gpon is 2.4gbps shared between at most 32.
Overall I am not actually that worried about the hfc upgrade, I think it is actually cost effective.
But to everyone saying “I get the full speed of cable you will all be fine!” Need to look at take up rate of cable.
If cable is going to be the only means of internet access in its foot print, then the number of users is going to more than double (as I understand it take up is at around 30% and that includes tv only subscribers?).
More users means more competition for the bandwidth. Remember, Telstra cable is unaffordable for most right now. Just wait until someone not looking for monopoly rent gets wholesale access
“In June 2014, the company hired Canadian HFC cable expert Dennis Steiger — who has expensive experience with HFC” ….. expensive?
He’s a very expensive man to hire okay! :)
hahaha
Perhaps a quote from someone on how long they intend to – even in very broad terms – keep HFC around?
Turnbull has stated that fibre is the end goal, but NBNCo (or whatever they want to call themselves) have absolutely no plans to do so.
That means that there will be no money to upgrade from HFC to FTTP. Which means that it won’t happen unless someone else, namely Telstra, with lots of cash and access to the infrastructure does so.
So the end result 20 years down the track? An expensive to maintain, decaying HFC wholesale NBN service vs a slick Telstra FTTP retail service (in selected areas only and at select prices).
Thus is the status quo maintained.
My money is on the expertise of the engineers who originally designed NBN CO Mike Quigley and his engineers, they knew what they were doing, HCF was never in there design it was always FTTP.
+1
Whilst fibre may be the end game for fixed line communication it isn’t going to be delivered over night. In the mean time real people and businesses really need service. What are they to do?
Whether upgrade to HFC networks is worthwhile or not is very difficult to know from public information. Are the confident pronouncements substantial or just confident sounding? I can see that upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1 could well be a good interim answer just as ADSL has been to the CAN.
If the economic boost from earlier delivery of improved services outweighs the upgrade investment then it’s a good thing to do.
Andrew from Turnbull’s SR it’s only 3 years sooner or just 7 sec faster per premises
I wonder how that equates now, considering the two years of SFA that’s occurred MTM wise?
I’d suggest, without knowing (opinion only) FttN will now, because of the two year hold up, be no quicker or in fact slower than the already being rolled out FttP…
And we all know MTM is going to cost $70B – from the horses (Treasurers) mouth. So FttN being cheaper than what, the actual figures or cheaper than their own plucked from a hat BS figures?
The fact that before the election the Coalition put down Labor’s NBN for costing $70 billion, combined with the fact of completion only 3 years sooner, gives this dog’s breakfast of an NBN no merit at all. None.
Added to the fact that thousands of workers need to be trained in dead-end technologies, which is very bad for their self-worth (NEWS FLASH)
Is architected a real word? :P
If ‘cable TV’ is going to be an obstacle to freeing up HFC channel bandwidth on the cable, why not force the push TV providers (say over an 18 months period) to migrate across to an IP-only transport in order to put them into the same multiplex as all the other content. Their services will then be delivered in the same tier as the other streaming and data services.
Pretty sure the T$ 11 billion contract states that Foxtel can use the HFC network (exclusively?) for TV broadcasting.
That said I’ve a mate in a rare SA area with HFC …. only when he went to sign up a while back with Foxtel they came out and put a dish on his roof!
Indeed and as I understand it, we the taxpayers will now, thanks to MTM, not only be kindly footing the costly maintenance bills for HFC (and copper) stated to be in the vicinity of $1B per annum, but also paying to upgrade HFC, for the pay TV companies to utilise and profit from further.
” There is just one problem with this line of reasoning: The NBN is not a project which is being built for this decade, next decade or even the decade after. It is a project which will serve Australia’s telecommunications needs for much of the next century. The focus on using HFC cable as a replacement network technology for the technically superior FTTP standard betrays a lack of long-term vision.”
For those that have a million dollars for homes in HFC areas, dividing everyone else.
It’s going to fall over they won’t be able to meet capacity, they won’t be able to free up channels competing with Foxtel. All this ridiculous upgrade for a network that was supposed to be decommissioned in 2016.
I don’t even believe they have the budget for such upgrades they blasted it all buying back an unnecessary network although far superior to FTTN.
Should I be strategically looking in an area now with HFC ? I am still hoping for fibre but I need a home and I am currently on HFC but cannot afford any areas with HFC.
Just wait until they get their first Telstra CAN maintenance Invoice (right after the electricity bill)!
I still can’t believe tax payers are going to pay the company that neglected to maintain their own network (because it was considered obsolete) to maintain it.
Some people are lucky now in that there isn’t much HFC usage in their area so they get full speeds. They should probably imagine if every household in the area was connected what it might be like …. because its going to be an all or nothing approach its not like you’ll have a choice of various MTM products to pick from.
At least with FTTN its far more upgradable to full fibre than HFC is going to be.
Coming from a Tech who actually works on this equipment I can tell you right now the HFC has become second rate. The amount of maintenance Telstra have neglected is insane. Pit and pipe is all blocked fills with water and doesn’t drain, drop cables that have been in for 20 years but won’t pay techs to replace them as they no longer keep water out of the cable. I’ve seen a splitter on a tap with a splitter running off that. It’s crazy. Do not even try to tell me the network is worth what we will pay for it. It’s not. Maybe the PM should talk to us techs before opening his shit spewer about how great it is?
Comments are closed.