news The NBN company this evening revealed it had purchased some 1800km of brand new copper cable at a cost of about $14 million, to ensure that the Fibre to the Node technology model preferred by Malcolm Turnbull’s Coalition Government would function correctly.
NBN chief executive Bill Morrow made the extraordinary admission in a Senate Estimates Committee hearing in Parliament House in Canberra tonight, where the Opposition questioned the NBN company relentlessly on the extent to which Telstra’s copper network would need to be remediated in order to allow the controversial FTTN model to function.
Morrow also acknowledged that the NBN company was needing to ramp up production of copper cable by the company’s partners. The chief company which appears to be producing copper cables for the NBN company is Sydney-based Prysmian, which originally won a contract to supply fibre-optic cable to the NBN company, but is now diversifying into supplying copper as well.
Morrow said the NBN company had sufficient copper for its current needs — about five months’ worth, but would need further copper cables after about five months.
However, Morrow stipulated that the NBN company was not using the cable to replace dilapidated copper in Telstra’s existing copper network between the neighbourhood ‘nodes’ which the NBN company is deploying and customers’ premises.
Instead, the executive noted that the NBN company is primarily using the copper to connect Telstra’s existing distribution ‘pillars’ to the new ‘nodes’ which the NBN company is deploying. In some cases, Morrow noted, Telstra’s distribution pillars could only be a very short distance — right next to — the new NBN nodes.
However, in other cases, the NBN company would have to run a significant amount of brand new copper cable from one of Telstra’s pillars to one of the new nodes, to make the Fibre to the Node model function.
According to Morrow, the company may also have to add new copper cables to areas where there was not sufficient copper pairs running to houses in a certain street, or where the company would need to fix some of the notorious joints that are causing problems in Telstra’s network.
The news comes as the Opposition has been heavily critical of the Fibre to the Node component of the Coalition’s Multi-Technology Mix model for the NBN, especially due the issue that aspects of Telstra’s copper network would need to be replaced.
Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare has described the NBN as “Malcolm Turnbull’s Mess”.
“Massively over budget, behind schedule, a raft of broken promises, an unrealistic roll out plan that doesn’t ramp up until after another election, and dodgy copper that needs to be fixed or is being replaced with more copper,” Clare said in a statement last week.
“The Australian Labor Party is the party that conceived and started building the NBN. A fibre NBN. We are the party of fibre. The Liberal Party is the party of copper. They sold it. They bought it back. And now they are replacing it with new copper.”
opinion/analysis
Is this real? Surely it’s not real. Someone tell me it’s not real and that I’m just hallucinating after 14 hours straight of Senate Estimates. Right? Right?
Image credit: NBN Co
Sorry, Renai. It’s not a dream :( Wish I had a DeLorean that I could go back and fix this mess.
I’m not sure how they proposed to make the connection between pillar and nodes (thousands of them)? Even if locate under 1m hundreds of metres of copper required for 2-4 cores per premise.
Does display a remarkable lack of understanding of the technology by Senators if this is a surprise.
“Even if locate under 1m hundreds of metres of copper required for 2-4 cores per premise”
OK, that’s the firs 2-3000 metres worth…and the other 1.77 Million metres?
Yes Richard the average length is 350M and the a month they have is a 6 month supply
@chas Seriously? FTTN/B for 4.5m premises, 1+m, 2-4 cores each and you can’t see where this copper is going.
Again its a gotcha moment for the fanboys, a surprise to those without the slightest understanding of the underlining technology.
Billions of kms of copper will
be retired upon completion. Less but very large amount will remain in use by FTTN/B (and bizarrely LTE) customers.
The senate evidence does offer a insight, appears they’ll keep exchange side copper going patching customers on demand (aka the BT model). Perhaps retain the 18mth cutoff. Certainly less disruption, partly explaining the relatively high CPP.
“Seriously? FTTN/B for 4.5m premises”
You are also assuming that they are counting the cores individually (which I certainly wouldn’t if I were the NBN). And the copper isn’t for the premises, it is for the nodes only…
Still Name calling how mature.
Well Richard if billions of KM are being retired they can dig it up and reuse remember it’s all about reusing infursturture
Facing reality Richard? This rollout is dogshit.
While you face reality please dig up the studies in the late 70’s/early 80’s in the UK and the US that showed as a CBA that a full FTTP rollout was the best way to do it. There is no reputable argument from any CBA or engineering point of view that a FTTN joke rollout is any good. I will put in capitals what is going on:
THE ONLY REASON WHY FTTP IS NOT BEING ROLLED OUT IS THAT THERE ARE VESTED COMMERCIAL INTERESTS WHO DON’T WANT FIBRE TO BE ROLLED OUT.
Indeed. That is why they are hyping Gfast etc after they previously told us 25mbps is more than enough. 1Gbps is all the rage now… but only if it makes use copper. Haven’t even finished rolling out their FttN patchwork and they are already talking about upgrading because the speeds wont cut it. But honestly and true GimpCo are technology agnostic, just for those within 100m, the rest 25mbps is more than enough. $56+ billion of technology agnostic upgrades.
oh and you remember that information sharing deal with BT:
Turns out it’s actually more of a “promote the idiocy of my company and I’ll promote the idiocy of yours” deal.
Good job GimpCo/BT
@AT Any links? Recent CBA completely disagrees. But I’m torn, how to disagree with stuff in capitals?
“Recent CBA completely disagrees”
Where in that CBA did they mention the rollout of new copper? I must have missed it…
I think this is just another good example of exactly how faulty all that CBA shambles was. Not even the LNP used it to make a decision…
ROFL, here we go again… Richard saying the CBA is great and using it as his smoking gun (lol) when the narrative requires but when questioned abou the CBA in the next breath claiming the very same CBA is “untrue, with cost blow outs” when that narrative is required.
Credibility & honesty = non-existent…. still.
1. “If only someone completed an [sic] CBA, oh wait…” Richard
2. “You could use the figures from the CBA14 ;-)” Richard
3. “Recent CBA completely disagrees” Richard
Wait for it…
4. “The CBA was produced using the numbers provided by the company (NBN), and therefore show the same value. Surprise! However these values we now know to be untrue (what you’ve been attacking), costs blowing out.”
Oh I see Richard… you spruik the CBA as the be all and end all doc, to those who are unaware that the CBA actually stated Quigley’s FttP estimations were good. So you cherry pick the bits to the uninitiated that suit and hope your correspondent remains unaware.
But as soon as they become aware you drop the CBA quicker than the major parties dump an unpopular PM.
Of course this sequence repeats from thread/forum/blog to blog.
Desperately low, I’m afraid :(
Might I suggest referring to the authors as “fanboys”. That is your usual modus operandi isn’t it?
I haven’t got the links and articles right here right now. But I read them a few months ago. Just google Thatcher wrecked UK internet and that will probably led you there; she threw the UK’s CBA that said “go all FTTP” right out the window. Come on. Take some initiative. Don’t be a leaner. Be a lifter.
So much for being the best alternative because it simply utilises existing infrastructure eh?
Yet another claim now disproved.
But as above I see there’s an excuse (lame excuse) for every occasion, to justify this third rate mess.
I think Andrew T has pretty well summed it up.
How else were are they going to connect the NBNCo nodes with the copper in the existing Telstra pillars?
Fibre, wireless, coax?
Or was the expectation that with FTTN, the pillars would become redundant, with the copper from the premise going straight to the nodes and bypassing the pillars, with the nodes having to be closer to the premise than the pillars, which could be a problem if at any one pillar, the copper from the premise comes from 2 different directions
Well, that little bit of info pushes my 750 metre FTTN connection (when it happens) to a 850m FTTN connection… Not exactly great news for total speed possibilities.
In western sydney they have abandoned putting the fiber underground and are running it on the poles!
Liberal ideology at it’s finest. At a time when the copper needed to be completely ripped up and recycled. What better way to defend themselves but throw money at it. Good economic managers my ass. Economy killers taking tax payers for a ride.
It just keeps getting worse. What happened to the “less worse” version of the NBN??
So Morrow is saying $14 million of copper needed just for the bits they can actually quantify – connection between pillars and nodes. This is just a starting point. They still need to remediate a substantial amount of copper that they haven’t been able to quantify, and wont be able to until they actually get into each individul area. How many more millions are going to be wasted on that copper? More importantly, will the public ever be told how much is being wasted on new copper.
Its 2015 – why are they even considering rolling out any new copper. Why are they still planning it for the next 3 years? Its just defies comprehension!
Indeed. I’m personally expecting that they will be needing to purchase much, much more copper before this sorry exercise is complete.
So they pay Telstra billions for a broken second hand copper network and then buy even more copper to make it “work”
Unbelievable.
$56 billion.
Money well spent according to coalition clowns.
HC, Richard will be right along to explain how it is money well spent.
3…. 2…. 1….
Great!
On another topic I love reruns of crappy 50’s shows too :-)
Well when Marty and Doc land from the 80’s “to the future, today”, I’m sure they’ll laugh at our new futuristic copper ;)
HC wonder how many people will get the fable min 50Mbps now since the average copper length from node to pillar is 350m puts g.fast out of the question.
It’s not $56 billion for just copper ‘to make it work’.
The revised costing is $46 to $56b, so the correct term is peak funding MAYBE up to $56b, and that is for all the NBN , FTTP, FTTN , HFC, wireless and satellite.
No shit Sherlock.
Yay $10 billion error margin for a minute there I was worried they didn’t know what they are doing.
Hey Richa- Reality, that’s the best you’ve got? That response makes this situation redeemable?
Maybe my ass. They have no idea of the quality of the copper between the nodes and end users.
I am expecting this to end up costing more that a clean FTTP to every end user in Australia would have. Especially when you start to look at all the increased operational costs – I have seen a range of estimates, but an extra Billion a year doesn’t seem too far off the mark for the first decade or so.
As other posters have noted, Fiscally responsible government no longer!
“I am expecting this to end up costing more that a clean FTTP to every end user in Australia would have”
That is certainly a very strong probability…
This appears to be just the latest in a series of “surprises” that the recent NBN management are passing on. Strangely, most of the engineering types on the internet have been predicting them for 2 years now…
So you might want FTTN to be the preferred technology of the Liberals, because then you’ll have a windmill to tilt at.
The reality is however that both Malcolm Turnbull and Mitch Fifield have both said that their approach is technology agnostic.
“NBN rollout still ‘technology agnostic’, says Fifield”
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/585172/nbn-rollout-still-technology-agnostic-says-fifield/
“Our NBN Policy”
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/our-nbn-policy
“We do not regard technology as an ideological issue. We are technologically agnostic. We want to ensure that all Australians have very fast broadband as soon, as cheaply and as affordably as possible. ”
If replacing some of the copper is cheaper than replacing the same copper with fibre (as in many cases it will be), then it is a completely valid approach if you’re being rational with the public’s money.
But keep titling at windmills Don Quixote, if it entertains you (or more particularly, gets you page clicks and advertisement impressions.)
You think because they say they are agnostic that means they are? If they were agnostic they would use the best technology for the job, but they can’t do that because that would mean Labor were right all along. They’ve always been the party that puts their image above the good of the nation, that’s not going to change now.
Coalition clowns said that they are “technology agnostic”. Free country, they can say what they like. Not many believe them. Apparently that is reality.
“Technology Agnostic” is code for ignorant in the ICT industry!
“technology agnostic” is just Orwellian nonsense created so that they can portray anyone who criticises them as an irrational religious zealot.
An “agnostic” is someone who does not know. As soon as they make a choice they are no longer agnostic.
Here I was just thinking that they were stating the opposite of reality on nearly every matter.
“We’re not bullying people, unlike the opposition”
“We’re not tied to a technology”
“We use facts”
“We’ve done great things for education and health”
“There will never be a GST under our government”
I’m sorry, how does spending the same amount, rolling it out 4 years later than promised (when initial expectations were to complete the build 2 years earlier) and ending up with a 10x + inferior service come across as valid?
Those are some fancy coloured straws you’re clutching at, there.
You lot need to stop your sooking and accept what is on offer. If copper is required, so be it.
Or, instead of just allowing the government to waste over $50b of taxpayer funding for little to no benefit we could scream and shout as responsible consumers aught to do. There NEEDS to be a Royal Inquisition.
+1 HC, MtM is blatantly engineered to be a Liberal Party Crony Gravy Train – the multiple steps now required to get to full FTTP will line the pockets of those cronies and their preferred companies for the next 2 decades as a result of the Liberals interference!!!
As much as I am opposed to FTTN, I was expected this. And it is legit. It will be mainly large multi-pair cable.
When they put in a “node” cabinet it is 15 or more metres from the “pillar” or pit where the existing multipair cable from the exchange is split out to the two pair cable that runs to individual homes. The new copper will complete the pillar to node link. It would be crazy to pull up the old exchange cable, cut a bit off and use that! Besides, that would hugely increase the down time of the service on changeover day.
Having said that I am a bit dubious about what a techie will do if he finds neither of the subscriber pairs are good enough to meet the speed guarantee. I will be surprised if they just make that one house in the street FTTP. Much easier to pull new copper. These guys are working under huge pressure from managment, so they will take the easy way out.
They won’t give that one house fibre they will replace the copper
In the statement from nbn in this article they said this copper will also be used in streets where not enough copper pairs are available for houses so I assume that also means where the copper is not good enough
They aren’t saving a significant anything by pulling copper through where the Cu is borked.
Cable costs are basically (ie measured in millions) insignificant in regards to the labour costs (ie measured in billions).
Much easier not to offer FTTN to any customer whose subscriber pairs are not good enough to meet the speed guarantee, than to pull new copper or make one premise FTTP.
I’d hope that borrowing a better condition copper pair from another customer to service the FTTN customer and then having a new copper pair installed for the ADSL or Telstra voice only customer whose service mysteriously broke, would not be an option deployed by under pressure in the field workers.
So, if there’s an unknown length of copper between the noise and the pillar, how are they going to run the fibre for the touted ‘fibre on demand’ product?
Wow that translates to $7.70/meter. Jaycar or Dick Smith must have got a huge order.
We’re talking the 200 pair cable here, right? not 2 pair…
Depending on the amount of existing services / number of customer’s to feed off of every node, that will determine how many copper pairs are required to link pillar to node. It can be anywhere from 100-800.
Another thing worth investigating is the NBN website which has announced the 3 year roll out plan.
Out of the 1300 something Regions, not towns, across the country, only 17 have been planned for some sort of FTTP.
Now including the areas THAT already have fibre, what was the percentage of FTTP promised under the MTM?
20% down from 24% that labor paid for via the existing contracts. (ie half of Tassie is going to miss out now).
Copper? Omg lol!
Well we know how long copper lasts, gotta love the company now diversifying from fibre to producing copper, now that’s being flexible, pun intended. ?
Sorry Renai I usually like your articles but this one is just ludicrous. If it was an opinion piece maybe could be more useful.
Article summary:
News:
nbn buys equipment to make their FTTN network work. It costs money.
Are you that Whirlpool troll called Nick?
Read the article again. Did you stay at home and smoke weed instead of attending your English comprehension classes at high school.
Just for you I read it again.
I still stand by my original statement. Sorry Renai but this is really making a mountain out of a molehill. There are plenty of actual mountains to tackle with regards to FTTN.
@Nick
It seems to me that the entire argument for FTTN was based on using existing infrastructure to reduce costs. The fact that this is proving incorrect in almost every way (this is just another example) should help folks understand just how duped they were during the last election campaign.
I think that it is quite an important story…
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/10/15/labors-wrong-says-nbn-co-were-not-replacing-substantial-copper/
They’re right, they weren’t replacing kilometers, they were replacing megameters.
@nick
You just conveniently changed the word copper to equipment to misrepresent the original meaning. Misquoting is still lying.
The whole idea of fttn was that it doesn’t have to purchase and install new cables. Otherwise we might as well purchase and install new fiber optic cables.
You mean they can connect the copper tails (in the pillar) to the nodes with magic instead?
It amazes me how far some people will go to argue against something. Even when it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Were people expecting that the nodes would be connected to the pillar with 2nd hand copper?
“Were people expecting that the nodes would be connected to the pillar with 2nd hand copper?”
Can you show me where the copper purchase was released in the campaign literature? Can’t you understand that it is just another example of the misinformation that was publicized by the LNP?
Do you actually have confidence that it was part of the original PR determination, or is it part of the massive miscalculation and blown budget?
How can we know what the price for FTTN vs FTTP actually is with so much of these numbers kept under wraps? 1800 km of copper line is a HUGE amount and far more than I would have ever guessed would be needed to just hook up to a pillar…
“Do you actually have confidence that it was part of the original PR determination, or is it part of the massive miscalculation and blown budget?”
No idea personally. Don’t think we’ll ever know. Still hardly a surprise that they had to purchase cable to connect to the existing CAN. This all my original comment was about.
I think the incorrect assumption is that FTTN cabinets would replace pillars, in some locations the cabinet MAY be next to a pillar, but other considerations come into play in determining cabinet placement a key one of which is running power line ducting to the nearest power pole.
“I think the incorrect assumption is that FTTN cabinets would replace pillars”
Understood…but then we are using far less of existing infrastructure than we were led to believe. So the question (that they seem determined to hide the answer to) is what is the actual Capex cost difference between FTTN and FTTP? With these extra issues continually cropping up, the case for FTTN continues to erode. IMHO, it is well past making sense and a reversal of this policy should be considered strongly!
@Reality No, the assumption was that the distribution cable would be cut and wired directly from the pillar into the node removing the exchange from the equation.
I’m guessing Telstra didnt like that idea as it would have cut the PSTN voice functions out of the equation and made the cut-over to FTTN more dramatic.
The pillar to exchange link will be removed from the equation once the pillar which acts purely as the in place distribution hub using existing copper runs to residences is linked by copper to a FTTN cabinet.
The fibre link out of the cabinet will act as the high speed data and voice link in most cases to existing Telstra exchange buildings.
There is also a requirement for exchange building use in regards to FTTP, the exchange building contains the Fibre Access Node, which requires power and power backup facilities.
“The pillar to exchange link will be removed from the equation”
No, it really won’t…that would require bypassing the pillar and wiring homes directly to the node, which is not going to happen.
“the exchange building contains the Fibre Access Node, which requires power and power backup facilities.”
Absolutely…albeit a small fraction of the power required by any of the copper transmission modes. It is a far better solution to create a singularly engineered building for this rather than requiring thousands of cabinets on the street to do the same thing.
“No, it really won’t…that would require bypassing the pillar and wiring homes directly to the node, which is not going to happen.”
Yes it will. The pillar contains two sides. The multicore distribution cable back to the exchange (or other aggregation point) and the copper to each house. The pillar – exchange link will be decommissioned hence removing it from the equation.
“@Reality No, the assumption was that the distribution cable would be cut and wired directly from the pillar into the node removing the exchange from the equation.”
So customers would experience days of downtime while a node was being installed? Somehow I don’t think that would be acceptable.
“Were people expecting that the nodes would be connected to the pillar with 2nd hand copper?”
What is the point of spending $11billion on the stuff if we aren’t? The whole point of FttN is that we’re using existing infrastructure.
Why does the Node now suddenly need to be that much farther from a pillar etc?
“What is the point of spending $11billion on the stuff if we aren’t? The whole point of FttN is that we’re using existing infrastructure.”
Which is being done. To use existing infrastructure one has to connect to it no?
“Why does the Node now suddenly need to be that much farther from a pillar etc?”
Could be a multitude of reasons. Gotta do what ya gotta do though.
I guess that explains where the extra $15 billion is needed then.
STOP PRESS: NBN buys patch cables to plug nodes into pillars.
“STOP PRESS: NBN buys patch cables to plug nodes into pillars.”
My thoughts exactly. Renai seemed to be first but plenty others jumped on the bandwagon (some seemed to do a better job than others though).
Why can they not just use the copper in the ground already from the pillar to the node? A few days of downtime should be nothing when the government is promising “world class superfast” internet for a pittance?
Are you trying to tell me there won’t be any downtime when they have to pull out the cabling from the pillar to patch in the new leads?
Most of the problems aren’t in that larger cable either (as its newer for one and a better guage and quality). The issues and plastic bags happen after the pillar on those individual pairs.
“Are you trying to tell me there won’t be any downtime when they have to pull out the cabling from the pillar to patch in the new leads?”
It will be minutes for a single customer. Not days for hundreds of customers.
Have you ever tried to keep public facing systems going during work? Doesn’t sound like it.
Oh. My. God. Dr Strangelove and how we learnt to love the copper.
But..but.. Morrow said the copper was in better shape than they thought?
I note the share price of copper is on the rise. Nice little earner for some peoples portfolios.
Well we are the worlds third biggest copper producer…….
Now if they can just work out how to work coal into th….
Oh. Nodes. Powered nodes. It all starts to make sense now.
Oh to be a miner. Only Agriculture gets as much of a leg up as the mining industry…
Er… have you seen Agriculture lately? Its been steadily declining since the Howard years. Coincidentally about the same time the Mining boom started…
Steam trains for the win!
We can’t afford fancy Rolls Royces you know.
Set up your tent. Throw away your computer. Watch our country slide further backwards along the world broadband speed rankings. Welcome to your technology shithouse.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about how FTTN works, but surely one would expect Fibre to the Node to have ‘Fibre’ to the Node?
Yes but then existing copper to the house. the reason FTTN was meant to be cheaper and faster is because you don’t have to run fibre all the way to every home and use existing copper. But if you have to replace the copper, then FTTP is actually cheaper. Thus buying copper to replace copper seems to mean that the FTTN will not be anywhere near as cheap or fast to rollout as promised. Also why replace copper with copper?!?!
I get that. I was commenting because while I get there being new copper run from the node to house, the reason given for all this copper is to run TO the Node. CTTN?
Justin
” But if you have to replace the copper, then FTTP is actually cheaper.”
That would be true if every single residence in the planned FTTN footprint required new copper, they don’t.
” Also why replace copper with copper?!?!”
Because that’s how FTTN into a residence works.
Very true, but could you not replace the copper with fibre?
I personally don’t understand the exact engineering requirements, but the suggestion I had was that a Fibre to the Node Box could run either Copper or Fibre from it.
So assuming a premise has copper that is substandard and needs to be replaced, wouldn’t it be logical to run fibre at that point?
What’s wrong with copper anyway?
No it wouldn’t be logical, say a pillar acts as a distribution point to 300 residences (example only this would vary) and five of those require new copper, are you saying if I understand you correctly it is not economically viable to run new copper to just five residences and they should forget FTTN for that pillar cluster of residences and go FTTP for all 300?
No but running fibre to those 5 houses would cost the same as running new copper (expense is all in the labour costs).
Simon M
So setting up FTTP for five houses in a majority FTTN area is economically viable?
More economical than running new copper and the having to run fibre afterwards.
Also its not like its magically foreign to NBN either given there’s already 20% of country wired up like that. Everything is well within scope and abilities (including the node cabinet as you’ve already said ala FOD) to run fibre.
@Reality
I believe you misunderstood me.
We have 3 elements here. Home to pillar(copper), Pillar to node(copper), and node to exchange(Fibre).
What I am asking, is that in the situation where the Home to Pillar(Copper) is so badly degraded that it is determined to need to be replaced, you should in theory be able to go Home to Pillar to Node(Fibre)? Obviously not directly connecting to the pillar simply using it as the “pathway” for the fibre to run.
Costs would be based on
Home to Pillar Replacement (Copper)
vs
Home to Pillar(bypassed) to Node replacement(Fibre).
This assumes of course that the greater distance is the Home to Pillar, and that the cost of running Pillar to Node should be fairly low as the infrastructure should be in place to replace the cable in a simpler manner than to the home (cable runs, less manual labour etc)
“That would be true if every single residence in the planned FTTN footprint required new copper”
Not quite…since FTTP is less than a tenth the cost of FTTN to run and maintain, then there is a balance between zero and all that crosses that line.
Even without taking into account the fact that FTTP is the only end game possible, even in the interim it is quite probable that FTTN is not only slower but more expensive as well.
Where did you get that 1/10th cost figure from?
Keep in mind also there is a upgrade path for a FTTN cabinet if required in the future, and the NBN Co have designed their network for this.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/getting-the-balance-right-on-building-the-nbn-network.html
Hi Reality (great moniker)…
Simple question as you seem to like FttN.
If FttN is actually the way to go why did the present government who now roll it out, deride FttN as fraudband and refused to support it some 10 years ago?
Cheers.
@Rizz, you’ve asked Richard this question before, is he going to reply now when he has a new name?
@Reality that upgrade to fibre still requires the nodes to be powered (which is where the 100’s of millions of extra $ per year in OPEX occur for FTTN)
The original FTTP was a passive fibre network the ‘nodes’ don’t need electricity to keep shining the light down the fibre Just the FAN’s (POI etc).
vs 70000 (assuming no more are needed) powered cabinets. + whatever HFC needs to run. (The strata’s are copping the FTTB power costs).
You left out the powered ONT box and optionally the UPS required in each and every FTTP residence.
I think you will find in any power analysis of FTTP vs FTTN it is so line ball the difference is not a significant factor in choosing one over the other.
Just making sure it IS Richard and not another of the faithful mate ;)
Umm reality could you answer my simple question please?
I thought not.
Thank you
@Reality, the powered ONT box? You realise that is powered by the premises and not by the network… right?
@Reality
“You left out the powered ONT box and optionally the UPS required in each and every FTTP residence.”
I did not as its not something NBN needs to pay for.
“I think you will find in any power analysis of FTTP vs FTTN it is so line ball the difference is not a significant factor in choosing one over the other.”
Wow! (please spend a few minutes and research the Tech we’re talking about).
Labour NBN aka Fibre 101:
PON = Passive Optical Network = un-powered (ie 0 electricity usage outside the POI’s)
It uses beam splitters (sort of like prisms) to split light into 2-64 separate signals. Under the current ratified standards (ie in use today … not some lab test) those split signals can travel 40km without degrading the bandwidth (40Gbps/10Gbps). That is 40km from the Node (not the POI).
Electrical costs : $0.00
Liberal MTM:
FttN: 70,000 powered cabinets (optical to Cu signals requires power to function) at a minimum. Approx. Costing based on similar cabinets used elsewhere (using Aussie power costs) was ~$150million per year.
Powering the 121 POI’s is assumed to be the same (unsure on how HFC might change that) as they are all fibre based anyway.
Simon M.
“I did not as its not something NBN needs to pay for.”
Pays for what the ONT box or the power for the box? you say you didn’t leave it out then you leave it out.
You offered no power figures for the battery backed up FTTP FAN equipment housed in a exchange, which is not the same as a POI.
“Approx. Costing based on similar cabinets used elsewhere (using Aussie power costs) was ~$150million per year.”
What cabinets used elsewhere mirror Australian NBN FTTN cabinets and what Aussie power costing are you using, unless you know the details of what the NBN Co wholesale contract is with the different region power companies all over Australia to power the FTTN cabinets.
Well, if I could choose the title I would call it copper FROM the node. Because that’s really what it is: the “last mile” copper is still the weakest point and it negates a lot of the fibre before the node.
Isn’t it funny how all the apologists (who can only bag FttP for what was said to be a 3 month hold up and cost) will excuse new copper, $15B blow outs, way higher proportionate costs, 2 year hold-ups and for what … an obsolete third rate network?
WTF?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the only reason anyone I’ve ever corresponded with in relation to Australia’s comms is against FttP is because of their own immovable political ideology and/or their own wallets.
To some of those who commented above, hearty thanks for simply concreting this view.
It’s not a $15B dollar blowout, it maybe UP TO $15B of peak funding, the revised estimate is in the range $46B-$56B of peak funding requirement.
I understand why you need to use the worst case estimate, a blowout of $5b in peak funding from $41B to $46B doesn’t quite have the same zing.
Also the blowout range is not just about NBN FTTN, it is also includes NBN FTTP, Wireless and satellite.
I don’t how anyone can draw a conclusion that if we just took out the FTTN component substituted it with FTTP everything would have been ok and on budget and on schedule (despite the rollout history) and no blowouts would have occurred.
I look forward as you and all voters should as the election gets closer in reading the Labor costing on rolling out FTTP from 2017-2018 and the year of completion after then.
What happened to fully costed 25Mbit to all by the end of 2016?
That is honestly no better. That they have a a$10 billion error margin on their figures isn’t exactly awe inspiring! Its not like that’s a small % comparatively either!
One baits the apologist hooks and wham…LOL
Priceless.
Another hearty thanks…
*sigh*
Up to $15B… is that like up to super fast 25mbps by 2016?
“The Australian Labor Party is the party that conceived and started building the NBN. A fibre NBN. We are the party of fibre. The Liberal Party is the party of copper. They sold it. They bought it back. And now they are replacing it with new copper.”
*this is why Labor need to use the current polling as an excuse to replace Shorten, not to install Clare (competence yes, experience no,public face no) but to make sure that the party leader can actually speak as well as half his cabinet do.
“We are the party of fibre. The Liberal Party is the party of copper.”
You actually think slogans like this is all Labor have to do convince all voters who think the NBN is key policy that will determine their choice of Government to vote for them?
It worked pretty well for the Liberals. “Stop the boats” was one such bullshit slogan that won them power.
I think next time around the subject of NBN policy Labor vs Coalition will be of less importance than the last election, if that is at all possible.
There reaches a burnout point after nearly nine years of NBN discussion , I think for the majority their eyes have already glazed over, and it’s reached the ‘whatever’ phase.
Indeed I agree. The average Joe, has been hoodwinked into beliving this mish mash MTM BS is “the NBN”, so…
I also think –
a) Mal has a little more class and a higher regards for the Australian people and their intelligence, than to again dumb down politics to 3 word slogans and death cults.
b) Those who didn’t vote Coalition accordingly, may now do so.
c) Even the Australians who Tony dumbed it down for, surely aren’t dumb enough to fall for the 3 word slogans again.
d) Just like the FttP naysayers/FttN cheerleaders… I might be wrong about a, b & c ;)
NBN was never a key policy for the voters. Time and time again, it was shown that FTTP was the preferred methodology even amongst those who voted coalition.
Unfortunately, I believe NBN and Broadband was ranked 6th, which whilst high. Was behind things like the Economy and other factors, which the coalition has also shown it can’t manage.
Interesting viewpoint on the copper purchase.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/yes-of-course-the-nbn-is-buying-copper-but-so-what/
Interesting for those who want to make never ending excuses for a government who called such a network fraudband previously, but now embrace, err, fraudband.
So I’ll say it again. IMO…
If this government truly believes a FttN based network is the best for Australia, yet they opposed it tooth and nail and referred to it as fraudband years ago, well they ought to hang their fucking heads in shame…
One National Party Senator’s comment from 2007 is not ‘this Government’ in 2015.
Ah, the old “just one goat eh”?
Always a winner.
BTW it wasn’t just one.. but please attempt to rewrite history as your guys always tend to…
*shrugs*
FTTN was also the Labor NBN policy, they won Government on that policy.
*shrugs*
@reality
As usual you have it wrong, FTTN was taken to the 2007 election but we all know Telstra blocked it by refusing to submit a complaint response!
And let’s not forget who created the 800 pound gorilla, the liberal party!
@Reality … nice edit, you clearly paid attention in Troll school!
Ha! thankfully email alerts preserve the original:
@ Reality,
The policy they (the Rudd opposition) took to the election (yes HC the 2007 election ;) and the ensuing RFP they presented when they were elected, actually asked for FttN or FttP.
But why do you blokes always contradict yourselves to suit the narrative! In one breath you claim broadband has little/no impact on elections and then say “they won government on that policy”.
Also, no comment in relation to your completely incorrect statement about “one Nat Senator”’ only, using the term “fraudband”?
I actually did a quick Google and within seconds found quite a few. I’m sure if I bothered to do more than a few seconds, as you too may like to, we’d find that “fraudband” was primarily the go to line used by many or all Coalition politicians (Federal & States) when speaking of broadband back then.
Now you can desperately try to separate the government in 2015 from the 2007 Coalition, but the Coalition objectives and ideologies have for many decades and are still the same, so please?
Anyhoo… yes there was that one Nat. Sen – Fiona Nash.
But what about then Minister of Comms – Helen Coonan (Lib)?
And look… “Deputy PM and Nats leader – Michael Vaile”.
So ignore and misquote all you want but Ministers and even the Deputy PM claimed FttN fraudband.
And interestingly, Andrew Constance now Minister for Transport in NSW (I believe) then NSW Treasurer was another.
So fraudband wasn’t only claimed by the Coalition federally. It seems it was an agreed position universally.
These are just a few quick examples of those who described FttN as fraudband. But ‘m sure none of this will matter and you’ll simply repeat one Nat Senator in the future as facts are obviously, counterproductive.
So I will now update my comment.
As a former Coalition Deputy PM, Communication Minister and other high profile MP’s clearly, previously referred to FttN as fraudband, it’s hypocritical that now, if the Coalition truly believe FttN is the right way forward for Australia’s telecommunications network to progress, that they in 2007, disgracefully put their own selfish political agendas ahead of Australia and Australians by opposing and even disgracefully referring to FttN (yes – their now very own policy) as “fraudband”.
You’re welcome.
So that’s correct then, the FTTN policy won Labor Government, interestingly enough the FTTN component of their NBN policy won the Coalition government in 2013, some what ironic eh?
:)
*bit of a worry that some of you need to look at a post before a edit and correction which is what the edit function is for to try and score a point – really?
Edit function is usually used to correct spelling mistakes. Not Completely change posts “to try and score a point”
@ Reality,
For all the dummies let me repeat… they (Rudd & Co) won on a platform of FttN OR “FttP”.. got it this time? Or should I repeat just in case? Even though broadband policy is of no consequence anyway, according to you.
So it seems you are strangely trying to make a point on nothing… but at least you did reply even only to save face (most just disappear when the facts come out, so kudos)
But speaking of disappearing and saving face, I see you quickly brushed your one Nat Senator lie…
It’ll be interesting (but typical of the species) if you indeed disappear this time. As such I look forward to your comment about those who screamed fradband.
Oh dear. What a lot of finger pointing and name calling. I guess that’s what we’ve all learned from our elected representatives.
Reality folks. Both major parties had to do a lot of guessing to put together any sort of model for something that no-one could realistically cost (or figure out a timeframe for).
It was all pie in the sky, and either model would have remained so – blowing out in time and cost – until the day whatever work is done is completed.
Meanwhile the model not used (i.e. the other party’s) could be touted as potentially so much better or cheaper or whatever … but without sliding doors that claim would never be provable.
In the end, all you can compare is how many nodes there are with how many premises. Therefore it’s fair to suggest that connecting whatever to 5100 things should be quicker and more cost effective than connecting whatever to 8.5 million things.
And, in the end, we’re all paying for it … and waiting for it.
@Murray
“Reality folks. Both major parties had to do a lot of guessing to put together any sort of model for something that no-one could realistically cost (or figure out a timeframe for).
It was all pie in the sky, and either model would have remained so – blowing out in time and cost – until the day whatever work is done is completed.”
Go back and look (at delimiter if nothing else) at all the pre election MTM commentary.
All the Telecom and Tech folk were yelling at the LNP that their $ estimates were off by at least 50% and that they were dreaming about the time schedule. Things like the Telstra deal were accurately predicted by hoards of commentators as taking at least 2 years (seriously the last set of negotiations took that long!!) but MT ignored them all.
All the issues we’re complaining about and highlighting now are ones we doing so 4 years ago.
I will agree with you the tit for tat that is starting to go on around here is rather tiring and as you said somewhat reminiscent of the politicians themselves.
Whats the associated cost of burying that much cable at an appropriate depth? Surely its not all telstra ducts and whathaveyous.
Comments are closed.