news The former chief executive of the NBN company has released an extraordinarily detailed and highly referenced document analysing the company’s costs, to back his claim that the up-to-$15 billion blowout in the cost of the NBN was due to the Multi-Technology Mix imposed by Malcolm Turnbull.
In August this year, the NBN company revealed the project’s funding requirement had blown out by between $5 billion and $15 billion compared with the Strategic Review conducted by NBN Co executives in late 2013 after Malcolm Turnbull became Communications Minister.
In August, Turnbull stated that the new cost estimates — including the multi-billion-dollar funding blowout — were based on the fact that the NBN company now knew more about deploying high-speed broadband than “anyone else” in Australia. “All of that information and experience,” the Minister said, had led to its revised funding estimates.
Turnbull accused the previous management of the company — led by chief executive Mike Quigley — as being incompetent when it came to its financial modelling.
However, in an interview with the ABC’s Background Briefing program this week, Quigley stated that the cost blowout was in fact due to the Multi-Technology Mix imposed on the NBN by Turnbull. This model reuses the ageing copper and HFC cable networks owned by Telstra and Optus and is technically inferior to the original near universal Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) model instituted by Labor.
Following the release of the ABC program, Quigley also released an extraordinarily detailed document detailing the financial basis on which he had made the claim. The document can be downloaded online here in PDF format.
The document starts by examining the five major cost elements of the NBN that are common to Labor’s original version of the NBN and the Coalition’s revised plan.
In each of these elements — FTTP brownfields and greenfields, fixed wireless, satellite and the transit network required to connect cities and regions — Quigley compared the NBN company’s original costings during his tenure at the company to costings contained in the two major documents released under the company’s Coalition management — the November 2013 Strategic Review and the August 2015 Corporate Plan.
In each of these cases, using the raw figures, Quigley found that the NBN company’s estimates had not varied significantly over the past few years, meaning that costs in these areas would not account for the up to $15 billion blowout disclosed in August.
The cost regarding the NBN company’s FTTP rollout in brownfield areas (areas where there is already competitive infrastructure such as copper networks) is the main point of contention between the Coalition and Labor, as it would make up most of the cost of Labor’s version of the NBN.
In his analysis, Quigley found that this cost was actually planned to be lower on a cost per premises basis in the 2015 Corporate Plan than the 2013 Strategic Revew.
Quigley wrote: “So in FTTP Brownfields, the cost per premises is lower than in the Strategic Review and the number of premises being covered is lower than in the Strategic Review. So FTTP Brownfields must, if anything, have resulted in savings against the Strategic Review.” The executive published a table with this cost comparison.
“The team of consultants and management put in place following the September 2013 election were solely responsible for the assumptions in the December 2013 Strategic Review. The assumptions that relate to the ‘legacy’ parts of the NBN inherited from the Labour Government (FTTP Brownfields, FTTP Greenfields, Fixed Wireless, Satellite and FTTP Transit) appear to be largely consistent with, and in some cases below, the assumptions in the Corporate Plan, June 2013. And well below those in the Strategic Review,” the executive concluded.
“On balance, they would have resulted in a lower funding requirement than assumed in the Strategic Review – notably because of apparent reductions in FTTP Greenfields, Fixed Wireless and Satellite spend.”
Quigley also addressed other elements of the NBN company’s financial assumptions in his document, such as its revenue projections for the FTTP infrastructure it was rolling out.
The executive said that the Coalition had slashed revenue estimates from the NBN company’s FTTP network based on three ideas: That the take-up of FTTP services would be much less than previously forecast, that the average revenue per use would be much less than previously forecast, and that the rollout of FTTP would take many years longer than previously forecast.
In his document, Quigley addressed all three of these arguments, giving evidence to show that each assumption was “wrong”, as well as giving examples to show that the trend amongst telecommunications companies globally was towards FTTP, not FTTN or HFC.
“Telcos around the world are recognising that FTTP is the most cost-effective way to provide the broadband infrastructure that is needed to stay competitive into the future,” he said.
“The NBN is not – and never was – about providing enough bandwidth for people to stream Netflix at home. It is about providing the vital infrastructure that Australia needs to stay competitive in the 21st century. And that should have meant a ubiquitous FTTP network, not a mishmash of technologies using old cable, with higher operating costs.”
“It is time to stop trying to blame the previous Government and management for the problems with the costs and timing of the MTM and admit that the cost to role out HFC and FTTN and the timescale that would be needed were grossly underestimated by the Coalition. That is why we are now seeing a $15 billion increase from the Strategic Review and a $26.5 billion increase from commitment in April 2013.”
“In fact, the only thing that the past two years has demonstrated is that the only parts of the MTM that are providing services to end users of the NBN are those parts that continued the work of the previous Labor Government.”
Delimiter is currently working on a full analysis of Quigley’s document, comparing it with the NBN company’s own statements regarding the reasons behind its cost blowout, and expects to publish this on Friday 6 November.
Waiting, waiting… popcorn, waiting…
“Delimiter is currently working on a full analysis of Quigley’s document, comparing it with the NBN company’s own statements regarding the reasons behind its cost blowout, and expects to publish this on Friday 6 November.”
Can’t you work quicker Renai?! :P
Mmmm can’t wait for it!
It is … a lot of work :)
@Renai something to get you started.
The blowout from SR13 to CP16 is certainly the result of MTM (as that’s the solution going forward). Quigley ignores is the blowout in the FTTH model (pointed out for many years).
Quigley’s pdf is outstanding given both his forecasts and performance are now part of the historical record. NBNCo’s forecasts published in their Corporate Plans (CP), prepared (or in this case at least approved by) the company’s management team. Historical performance published in the company’s annual reports (AR).
I’ll highlight FY13 as it was well after NBNco’s Apr 09 incorporation yet before the election. Therefore 100% Quigley / Conroy.
The first CP11-13p15 forecast FY13 fibre premises passed of 950k (Brownfield), 70k + 249k (Green + third party contracted build-operate-transfer). The definition of permises passed was also supplied:
“A premise is passed / covered when the shared network and service elements are installed, accepted, commissioned and ready for service which then enables an end user to order and purchase a broadband service from their choice of retail service provider.”
Activated fibres premises (customers ordered a service) forecast FY13 260k (B), 60k + 191k (G).
Unbelievably the rollout was predicted to ramp up to 6k premises passed a day by FY14 (CP11-13p16).
Capex to end of rollout (FY20) was expected to be $35.9b, peak funding of $36.5-44.6b (yes they once supplied ranges) mid-range $40.9b (CP11-13p25). Gross annual revenue in FY13 of $160m.
CP11-13 lasted just 12 months before failing. Revised to take account of the 9 month delay in Telstra/Optus negotiations (worth a staggering $11b for the retirement of infrastructure and non-compete clauses) a new CP was prepared.
The failure of a corporate plan in under a year is extraordinary (in my experience unprecedented). That management could be so uninformed for a multi-billion project beggars comprehension. Warning bells ringing, attempts to highlight risk shouted down.
A new corporate plan was prepared, costs already blowing out. Original and revised figures (CP12-15p10&73):
Completed: FY20 -> FY21
Capex: $35.9b -> $37.4b
Peak funding: $40.9b -> $44.1b
Revenue to completion marginally down ($0.6), opex up ($3.2b).
Rollout hugely downgraded, but still not enough for their snail-paced performance. FY13 forecast in first and second (CP12-15p36) CP shown vs actual (AR12-13p16) shown in brackets:
(B) 950k -> 280k (163.5k)
(G) 319k -> 55k (44k)
Activated:
(B) 260k -> 44k (20.4)
(G) 251k -> 10k (13.1)
The massive failure to meet even revised targets obvious DESPITE altering the definition of premises passed to include service class zero premises (contrary to their own published and reasonable expectation that only premises ready for service should be counted).
By FY13 NBNCo had burnt through $5.5b in equity or 12.5% to service some 2% of premises, averaging just 539 premises per day.
NBNCo at this time had 3.5k staff (inc a 50+ media team). Rollout wasn’t keeping up with population growth. So overstaffed an employee could individually welcome every new premises passed and take the rest of the week off. If welcoming actual paying customers they could nearly take off the rest month. Such performance is incomprehensible, yet every year senior management awarded performance bonuses.
Revenue forecasts, actual in brackets (CP12-15p61):
FY13 $18m ($17m AR12-13p82)
FY14 $120m ($60.9m AR13-14p78)
FY15 $529m ($161 AR14-15p70)
New management appointed Q4FY13, yet already revenue half forecasts. A year later the performance continues to deteriorate. NBNCo was losing close to $1b a year by FY13, in FY15 over $2b (read peak funding).
The next revision CP13-16 was intentionally withheld by the minister before the election, perfect example of that managements’ transparency (today lauded by some). No surprise blowouts continued (CP13-16p13):
Peak funding: $40.9b -> $44.1b > $45.6b
Revenue down further ($1.4b).
However even these figures destroyed on review (as predicted). CP13-16p58 required fibre CPP of $1100-1400 to meet budget. Actual performance never got below $3000.
New management’s CP16 revised brownfield fibre cost per premise (CPP) to $3700 (ex $700 lease charge). As noted by Quigley this increased after new management contract renegotiation (contractor’s collapsed under Quigley, demanding more).
However using Quigley’s ambitious $3106 (Quigleyp10) x 12m (CP12-15p15) = $37.3 his “on time and in budget” mantra collapses: fibre cost alone his entire capex ($37.4b) budget even though excluding transit & satellite ($5.5b), fixed wireless ($1.1b). The add losses to breakeven, opex including $11b promised to Telstra/Optus and his claim demonstrates an unbelievable contempt for the financially numerate (fortunately not many).
Quigley’s on target claims demands either a high level of financial illiteracy or deliberate deception.
MTM costs have blown out, but also destroyed are the FTTH financial predictions.
His talk re telcos abandoning FTTN/HFC is another misdirection. More internet upgrades globally are reusing existing infrastructure than the few running replacement fibre. The upgrades are proof of the suitability of the technology and the cost and time savings. Argue it’s worth the additional money for FTTH but 1) explain why & 2) PUT A COST on it.
As predicted!
You started off well with the first proper paragraph and then descended into farce. Oh well at least you’ll still keep getting those IPA checks in the mail!
MTM, supposedly the solution to “going forward”
*giggles*
“Argue it’s worth the additional money for FTTH but 1) explain why & 2) PUT A COST on it.”
http://www.ericsson.com/news/1550083
From within…
‘A new report, conducted jointly by Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC), Arthur D. Little and Chalmers University of Technology in 33 OECD countries, quantifies the isolated impact of broadband speed, showing that doubling the broadband speed for an economy increases GDP by 0.3%.
A 0.3 percent GDP growth in the OECD region is equivalent to USD 126 billion. This corresponds to more than one seventh of the average annual OECD growth rate in the last decade.
The study also shows that additional doublings of speed can yield growth in excess of 0.3 percent (e.g. quadrupling of speed equals 0.6 percent GDP growth stimulus)’
You know this Richard because “YOU SUPPLIED THIS LINK INITIALLY” so why the complete continued, dishonesty?
As for cost refer to Mike Quigley :)
@rizz yawn
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/16/analysts-expect-unchained-turnbull-to-return-nbn-to-fttp-model/#li-comment-701610
It wasn’t yawn when YOU posted it Richard… only when the tables were embarrassingly (as usual) turned… funny that eh?
But it’s all there sans your lame excuses. Faster speed equates to greater growth. Which part do you not comprehend.
As FttP is the fastest, guess what?
And why ask and when you receive (your own info…lol) then argue or yawn at your err, own info… gold.
Richard will argue with everyone even himself. where need be, nice.
You seem to have taken alain’s illogical ideology to a new level of … FFS.
@rizz it’s impossible for me to see how you can’t understand the retort. Not only does the report not detail what you claim, the links provided specifically warn against doing so. Please read the actual reports.
Err, Richard your retort is nothing but a lame excuse…
Wow, you managed to write so much without addressing one point made by Quigley in the pdf, well done.
“The failure of a corporate plan in under a year is extraordinary (in my experience unprecedented).”
Yet we have a minister with a fully costed plan that failed in cost and time in just 3 months but apparently it’s ambitious.
“That management could be so uninformed for a multi-billion project beggars comprehension. Warning bells ringing, attempts to highlight risk shouted down.”
To have a minister so uninformed for a multi-billion project beggars belief (for his fully costed plan to be out by $26B) with warning bells ringing with fully costed plan and reviews that are incorrect and attempts to highlight the risk shouted down.
Ah yes JK, but who could have been commissioned to write the MTM plan?
Say no more.
@jk you believe anything a politician says?
A CP is a much more significant document. Never have I seen one collapse so quickly. For the preparing senior management to keep their high paid positions unimaginable.
@Richard, you believe anything a hand-picked management team of cronies says… so what is the difference?
Richard
Yet if you count last years CP as it was just a rehash of the SR
Plus only hitting 5% of there pre election target by 2016 or only hitting 15% of there target by 2016 of the SR. Would you call that a success.
Plus how withheld the CP13-16 Turnbull.
Yes Rizz now Richard saying he can’t be trusted lol
@rizz & jk you continue to post a contortion of what I said, HC posted the full comment. What’s new?
I’ve also been very critical of the coalition policy well before the election, other’s imagined a liberal connection (wrong) some (including senior Melb Uni lecturers) claiming I’m paid.
@R0 difference is I can analayze what is being said.
Richard
Yet the both CP prove how wrong the SR was and how much a waste of money MTM is. We are yet to see the rollout of the SR claim. What was all the HFC by 2016 doesn’t even start now to 2018 another 2 years delay on top of a 2 years delay. MTM is just getting slower and slower and more expensive and they have hardly even started but apparently that’s ambitious while Quigley is a fail.
A bit 2 faced there.
Plus Richard yes we can compare the SR scenario 2 as the cp16 states
“Management and the Board have not taken
a view on assumptions beyond that time, and no
better estimates exist than the assumptions applied
in the Strategic Review dated December 2013.”
Only because that’s what YOU said Richard…
Would you like yet another copy/paste of YOUR comment Richard…?
Only for you to again cry because the very copy/paste you ask for, to show exactly what you said, has your name on it… to err, show exactly who said it…
WTF
Turnbull does alot of misdirection as well, talks about few countries that do FTTN or FTTB.
‘methinks the man doth protest too much’
Richard you talk about miss connection targets.
Yet before the election is was 10 Million premises by 2016
3 Months after the election was say between 4-4.5 Million premises by 2016
CP16 now is only 2.6 Million premises by 2016
every its rollout gets cut in half next year will prob see half again considering they like there target to beable to hit if the roll over in there sleep
Well he would if he had NBN and not Fraudband. ;(
Waits for Richard to tell us that black is really white and white really black…..
Pass the popcorn please Rizz.
Richard is that Keisler spin doctoress in disguise.
Dick Keisler… yes sounds familiar?
Maybe a Nat Senator?
Funny how we have all read the article, yet, humorously we await the naysayers to see which tack from the playbook of FUD and disingenuousness is utilised “this time”…
Will also be interesting to count the contradictions… something I have found they actually excel at.
Sorry Derek HC didn’t leave me much popcorn, so I’m onto choc tops now, if you’d like one of those :)
Choc tops FTW! Thanks Rizz :-D
yeah, I’m out of popcorn for the moment, but I wouldn’t mind some of that broadband fruit salad you were discussing yesterday :-)
Remember, everything Quigley says is a lie, so when he quotes figures directly from NBN documents after the Coalition got into power… They must also be lies.
Hi Renai….looking forward to your full expose…
In the ABC radio interview Paul Budde described the conversation he had with Turnbull as “beyond reason”.
I found this surprising as even though we know Turnbull has been caught out often with “twisting” his words to mean something different to what he said, he always seemed to be very good at that…..did you ever experience Turnbull as “beyond reason”?
That M Q document must be a powerful addition to your book….looking forward to that too.
Alfred
So the lesson to parents is don’t go telling your children how intelligent they are. They develop personality disorders that causes them to ignore reality because they couldn’t possibly be wrong and then go and cost the good people of Australia tens of billions of dollars.
At least the moron got rid of Abbott. He truly is a high functioning psychopath though.
Turnbull never became a villain in James Bond movies. So being PM is one way to satisfy those 007 fantasies. Drax? Or Blofeld?
Blowhard would be more appropriate.
Has anyone from the Libs or NBN (other then Keisler) responded to this at all? Surely some non “limited” media outlets would be asking questions by now.
Would love to see the next senate hearing when asking morrow why it hasn’t produced the real facts to Turnbull claims since they try everything else when an article comes out to discredit the MTM.
The clowns running the NBN right now have got to go. Time to bring in people who actually know what they are doing and knows what’s best for this country. Two years of blaming the previous Government about cost, slow rollout, missed targets yet this Government has only begun to provide FTTN services with HFC still in its trial stages. This mishmash of technologies has only slowed the rollout and ended up costing way more than it should. Who is incompetent now? The debate about broadband has made this nation the laughingstock of the world and politicians sure are working hard at keeping it that way.
No use blaming the people running NBN.
The current government is the one and only customer that is telling NBN what they want and NBN is unfortunately obligated to deliver what the customer wants. Its irreverent what NBN thinks or know is best, even if you replaced the people running it with more experienced people that have the countries best interest in mind, the current government can not be convinced otherwise.
Don’t shoot the messenger. They are just doing there job.
Customer is always rite remember.
Actually in this particular case we basically have a bunch of mercenaries happily charging around making a mess while lining their own pockets – this contrasts sharply with the previous board and management team who were building 1st class infrastructure to serve the national interest!
Sorry Don, under normal circumstances where a nonpartisan arms-length government enterprise was simply adjusting to a change of government, that would be a fair comment. But the board and executive management team was wholly replaced by political appointees and Telstra executives with significant Telstra shareholdings. The management of NBN Co are wholly complicit and even crucial to this sabotage. In order to take the NBN back on track, not only will the entire board and executive management need to be replaced (again) but every one of their management hires will need to be carefully scrutinised and many will need to be replaced to avoid ongoing deliberate sabotage from within. I believe there is a strong argument for criminal investigation and prosecution for corruption and fraud, too, but that’s not necessary to get the NBN on track to deliver a good infrastructure outcome – replacing them will do that.
+1 we need a royal commission into the liberal parties destruction and handling of the NBN!
Everything MT says in his new job should be seen through the prism of his performance and statements in his old job. He is either untruthful or incompetent.
Malcolm Turnbulls Mess (decided by TA and Murdoch) I do hope it comes home to roost! The LNP has MUCH to answer for.
“The $15 billion increase from the Strategic Review of December 2013 to the August 2015 Corporate Plan has nothing to do with FTTP costs and the decisions made by the previous NBN Co management.”
However FTTP costs blowout are demonstratively much greater from his CP to SR13.
“The reduction in HFC and FTTN paying customers between 2015 and 2018 can be expected to have a significant impact on NBN Co’s revenues – thus contributing to the $15 billion increase in total funding required.”
True, however ignores FTTH rollout performance and why he stops at 2018.
Number of premises passed from 2018 is far in excess of Quigley’s FTTH rollout performance despite the delay in Telstra/Optus contract negotiation. HFC alone will bring 2.5m premises passed within 18mths, more than double NBNCo achieved in 5 years.
“A significant part of this [opex] increase is no doubt attributable to increased payments to Telstra under the new Definitive Agreements as the network is rolled out. It will also presumably include a substantial increase in salary costs as NBN Co has announced its intention to increase its workforce from 3,600 to 4,500.”
True with faster rollout opex is incurred earlier. Quigley’s slow rollout entirely responsible for being under capex budget, however CPP higher. Given the policy goal of universal high speed internet faster rollout is assumed by most to be a positive.
What’s ignore is earlier revenues. The major lost parts of the network (Transit,Sat,LTE) are already committed, losing far more the longer customers are delayed. SR13 predicted 8 years longer for fibre, losses to breakeven even more.
“The assumptions that relate to the ‘legacy’ parts of the NBN inherited from the Labour Government (FTTP Brownfields, FTTP Greenfields, Fixed Wireless, Satellite and FTTP Transit) appear to be largely consistent with, and in some cases below, the assumptions in the Corporate Plan, June 2013. And well below those in the Strategic Review. On balance, they would have resulted in a lower funding requirement than assumed in the Strategic Review – notably because of apparent reductions in FTTP Greenfields, Fixed Wireless and Satellite spend.”
Quigley is right re SR13 and CP16. Switching to MTM has cost money (billions). However much less than the blowout in SR vs his CPs.
Put the figures in perspective SR13p15 peak funding for S1 (Quigley) is $73b, S2 (revised FTTH) $64b, S6 (MTM) $41b.
“Quigley is right re SR13 and CP16. Switching to MTM has cost money (billions). However much less than the blowout in SR vs his CPs.
Put the figures in perspective SR13p15 peak funding for S1 (Quigley) is $73b, S2 (revised FTTH) $64b, S6 (MTM) $41b.”
Or maybe… just maybe…. the figures in the SR were more than just a little fudged…. Nah, couldn’t possibly be that. Must be that Quigley was lying the whole time, and just magically the costs for FTTP have reduced by $400 since the SR and the costs for rolling out FTTP would never have dropped any further than that.
@R0 then you’d have to ignore the CPP declared by Quigley, until now undisclosed (CP13-16 talked $1100-$1400 to make budget).
An extraordinary admission, as post above destroys the original management’s CPs. All of them. Fanboys heads exploding (well if they understood it).
As usual poor old Richard sidesteps the B in cBa and focusses on dollars. Ah conservative bean counters gotta love ’em.
Of course it would be cheaper (on paper) to keep patching arterial roads and making people drive further, rather than building new multi-laned roads.
But the reality is looking at the CBA, the benefits of better roads outweighs the costs.
In this instance with MTM vs. FttP the comparison is so much more stark and obvious in FttP’s favour, due to the nature of copper and the need for fibre anyway. Plus a long list we have all gone over and over yet, you ignore, whilst repeating a page number from some bean counter friend of Mals as being gospel.
Well I suppose if you don’t have facts try to baffle with bean counter BS. Nice try though, I bet you impressed Richard, Richard.
@rizz for years rollout delays denied, fibre cost above forecast denied, CP failures such as revenue denied. Quigley steps in an slaps you down on the ‘C’ side.
‘B’ never was ignored. It just you’ve never put a figure on what is not captured using MTM vs FTTH to offset exploding costs.
Quigley’s pdf is the greatest gift to the “bean counters” ever. From the fanboy’s hero’s mouth came the confirmation the uneducated, without real experience, ideologically driven were right all along:-)
It ‘s an exercise in futility trying to rationally correspond with someone who will blatantly demonstrate complete dishonesty, to try to save his battered (huge) ego, as I am finding with you Richard…
Seriously, how someone can say something and then even when his very comment or link is posted, then bluntly deny it, beggars belief.
Anyhoo…
Incorrect, FttP roll out delays have never been denied. They were behind their own aggressive targets. Period.
FttP roll out costs were marginally increased not denied, but as the ramp up and Project Fox (yes the project you never even knew about – because your heroes try to brush it under the carpet, as it further justified FttP) demonstrated, both costs per premises were reducing and hold ups were being addressed/improved.
As for you being critical of MTM… LOL. Maybe twice you played the libertarian card when accused of extremism and took to MTM and the Coalition with a feather.
But of course whilst you continue the folly of aligning with what ever the far right does and says, by bagging FttP for Australia, you readily accept, even with years of MTM hold-ups (remember all Aussies by 2016, blah) and after 2 years only having 67 MTM clients, relating to a plan which includes obsolete copper, costly copper add ons, costly maintenance, costly HFC add ons etc, etc, which already has an UPTO $15B blowout to $56B (from a promised fully costed and ready to go $29B plan) because…
…even as you try to hide (or even deny) it … remember, you said you could have been commissioned to write this farcical MTM plan, which is laughably the only reason you must defend it, come what may…
*shrugs*
Stop trying, Richard is arguing the only point he can, that being the differences between old cps and reality.
I don’t know why he isn’t comparing to the old 5bn dollar fttn tender because that would look even better (5bn blow out to 46!!!11)
Some of them do argue that… they argue the “napkin on a plane” FTTN plan taken to the election being blown out to a $50bajilliongajillion boondoggle white elephant plan.
@ Richard…
“I particularly enjoyed quigley’s quote re MTM obviously being faster to deploy. Another fanboy smackdown.”
Wow, yet another contradiction from one of our two contradiction kings. Disputes everything Quigley says but his smoking gun is Quigley said… ROFL. Ever thought about seasonal fruit picking? You’d make one hell of a cherry picker.
But sad, the pedantry of the blinded rad con, where absolutely everything has to be spelt out, as they only seem able to decipher what ever the party tells them :/ Anyhoo…
I’ll try to explain it… now open both eyes, ye? Remove pinky’s from both ears, ok? Check the calendar (fuck it’s 2015 not 1950) … now take a few seconds to settle, I don’t want any heart issues from the 2015 realization and understand…
Those here (well I believe I speak for most) pre- Sept 2013 thought that although FttN/MTM was dumb, retrograde and guffawed and still do, at the FRAUDBAND tag (those now rolling out FRAUDBAND admitted it was) nonethless agreed that FttN “should” (READ SHOULD) be quicker to roll out, for obvious reasons that even a bean-counter could see.
We even crazily sorta thought Mal may have actually been telling the truth that he had a costed $29B plan, all ready to roll out. It sounded feasible in comparison to $45B FttP. Understand though – it didn’t make a mish mash FttN/MTM any wiser or any less FRAUDBAND, it simply meant that the last millennium technology, of UPTO BS, “should be rolled out a little quicker”.
That’s was the theory anyway… but here is the reality…
The smackdown or rather facepalm is on you Richard, because the Coalition lied to us all (you too, but you took it hook, line and sinker and even after seeing this woeful mess still do… OMFG). They never had a fully costed plan and as a consequence “have lost 2 years.”
*** Remember “25mbps-50mbps for all Aust. households by 2016”?
It’s those two years of stagnation (and continued MTM woefulness) that now makes a dumb FttN/MTM option, even dumber and no faster than FttP (especially FttP which was being rolled out/ramped up with PF to implement)…
Surely that’s bleedn’ obvious to those who are actually fair dinkum.
Not to mention the unprecedented, UPTO (lol) $15B blow out in MTM.
FttN is quicker pp to deploy (because the whole second site visit doesn’t occur if nothing else), its not rocket science Richard and along with Rizz I’d suggest most don’t really give a rats behind. (current progress is about 50k passed per month behind given their own schedules for FttN and climbing).
Its not providing a significant advantage to warrant all this effort when that effort is so close to what doing it properly would end up costing. (especially since the minute its finished it needs to be upgraded)
Its yet to be seen if its cheaper per p and even looking back at the flawed figures (ones with a $10billion error margin attached) its so close so as to not make the slightest difference if you bother to think of the overall effects on economy and GDP. (I mean 1-2 years difference in GDP alone covers the difference between N and H let alone the other 18+ years).
@Rizz
I’ll go ahead and disagree with you here. FTTN was only ever going to be faster to deploy if:
A) The incumbent telco was rolling it out – because the CAN had to be purchased/negotiated the delays introduced by that would have eaten up any significant rollout advantage
B) The copper network did not need significant (which doesn’t mean most of it, it just means enough of it to delay the project) remediation. Given that we knew Telstra themselves had stated the network was five minutes to midnight more than a decade earlier, and given the substantial anecdotal evidence about last mile damage and problems, it was reasonable to assume the CAN wasn’t fit for purpose in its current state. Remediation would blow out the FTTN deployment time line, and again eat up any advantage in rollout timescale.
C) Due to population density being substantially lower than international examples, we know that deployment time frames of international examples couldn’t readily be applied. Lower population density automatically equates to more node cabinets. The more node cabinets required the greater the cost and the longer the project will take to complete. It’s not just connecting up the cabinets, it’s all the additional fibre to the nodes, copper to the distribution pillars and electricity from the grid feeding the nodes that has to be factored in. Decreasing population density will also not have a linear effect on node cabinet numbers – it is more like a factor of four, due to our sprawling urban development pattern. So it is obvious that international examples where FTTN has been shown to be faster than FTTP to deploy aren’t applicable and thus, again, the advantage will be eaten up.
So what that means is, if the advantage can and would be eaten up by multiple, predictable factors, not only would it not be delivered faster, it would likely have been slower.
As for giving credence to the $29.4bn plan, I completely disagree that that was in any way believable. To start with, Malcolm and the LNP had a track record over the preceding five years of being totally and utterly disingenuous throughout the whole broadband and NBN debate. That is, when they weren’t outright lying. They had no credibility and zero trustworthiness.
But analysis of the original LNP policy and supporting documents showed that they hadn’t bothered to do their homework. Costing for the FTTN portion of the NBN was, literally, calculated by dividing the NBN Co business plan’s allocation for FTTP by four, with the justification that several international examples had ‘shown’ FTTN cost a quarter what FTTP would have. Apart from the ludicrousness of such a statement, what they based their assumptions on wasn’t even remotely plausible – they were PR statements made by incumbent telcos justifying their FTTN design choice by trying to make FTTP look as bad as possible. So it was clear from the very beginning that the LNP had a) no costed plan, b) no idea what they were doing and c) were quite happy to sit on a platform of fiction based on the fiction of others and they thought this was perfectly reasonable policy. It turns out that most of Australia was too stupid to know better anyway, because not only did we then give them the thumbs up, in the process pretty much every journalist in the country was willing to give Turnbull a free pass on his ‘election promise’ so-called ‘guarantee’ on 25mbps minimum by 2016, despite there being nothing to guarantee it and no way in hell they were going to be able to meet that deadline. It was an empty promise that was transparently obvious from the moment the words left his lips.
So no, I didn’t for one moment believe FTTN or anything the LNP has published on the subject has been remotely plausible or reasonable. Which is not because I’m some kind of fibre zealot, it’s because the facts never stacked up, there was no basis in reality, no reasonably compelling evidence to suggest that anything they were saying, at any point, was remotely feasible or believable.
And interestingly enough, it turns out that as time wears on, reality is inexorably grinding it’s way towards the predictions some of us made – that FTTN and HFC is slower, costs more, cannot be cash flow positive and is crippling the entire feasibility of the project. In a few more years we’ll see the end game, too – the NBN abandoned as a long term government controlled and owned network, as it haemorrhages cash, a constant drain on the budget. It will be sold off at a substantial discount on construction cost, the loss explained as a necessary hit to avoid billions in annual losses, and Telstra will own a nationwide fibre network, subsidised by taxpayers, just like they were trying to get the government to swallow at the turn of the century.
@ UG
You make some very good points indeed…
All I was really attempting to do was perhaps try to find even the slightest common ground, where the naysayers might actually think for once, instead of just toeing the party line…
You know give them the ‘3 word slogan’…lol.
But I think you’ve actually put a much more detailed position/comment together which completely covers “FRAUDBAND.”
Nice job… unfortunately, I’d suggest too good a job for the naysayers to even comprehend, let alone accept or heaven forbid, actually agree with ;)
@Rizz
Mate I completely understand where you were coming from and what you were trying to do. But I objected because I have a fundamental problem with those who naively trusted that Malcolm and the LNP would deliver on their promises despite their track record, who should have been scrutinising the plan forensically, but were giving them a free pass because they’d managed to get their homework in on time, regardless of the content.
My major beef was with the press, because people trust them to do a decent analysis, not to hop on the worry free wagon of propaganda without engaging their faculties of critical analysis and skepticism. It is extremely difficult to bring the problems into focus for most people when there is no media analysis even touching on those problems. I recall a conversation I had with the editor of Delimiter at the time, where he dismissed my concerns as very much ‘on the fringe’, that accepted thinking was that FTTN was feasible and reasonable and the LNP had come up with a reasonable (if not great) alternative plan. He obviously made a public apology and retraction, but that’s after he spent six months shouting down those critical of the LNP’s policy, shutting down conversations and even banning people who continued to vocally oppose his position. He censored conversation on the topic, in a rare place where people actually had a chance of understanding the policy and it’s problems, at a critical time for people to be discussing it and helping others understand why it was fundamentally flawed.
So I’m sorry if I seem to have brought a sledgehammer to crack an egg here – I realise we’re very much on the same page these days :-) But a small number of us were vocal opponents of the LNP’s plan from the very start, because it was a terrible policy based on ideology, with the barest lip service paid to supporting evidence and documentation, which didn’t even remotely pass scrutiny unless you were looking for excuses to give them a free pass. Which a lot of people were back in 2013 with all the ALP leadership fiasco, and Renai is ideologically libertarian and strongly capitalist, so he wanted to believe that Turnbull could deliver on his word. So I understand *why* people took the directions that they did, but I didn’t agree, in fact I was vocally opposed, which did me no favours – it’s pretty annoying being told you’re a zealot because you’re simply pointing out that the facts fly in the face of generally accepted thinking. Even when Alan Kohler wrote a piece highly critical of the LNP plan, pointing out that the financials were fundamentally unsound, we were still told opposition to the LNP’s plan was ideological and unreasonable.
Unfortunately being proven right is hardly vindication – I would have preferred to be wrong and a high quality network rolling out apace. Watching the situation unfold as we knew it would is just immensely depressing, because it *was* entirely predictable and thus preventable. The question is, will Australia repeat it’s vast mistake and give Turnbull another free pass to ruin the country?
Yes indeed MTM is very bad policy.. :)
And FYI – in case you aren’t aware, I am actually second, only to the undisputed king (alain/reality) in relation to Delimiter banning durations.
In fact I believe I was the first ever given a banning/sin bin, here..
@pa most here have never accepted the old CPs failed, continuing to quote their peak funding numbers as a realistic alternative to the MTM CP16 figures. What Quigley has done is expose this fantasy I’ve been calling out for years.
Unsurprisingly the fanboys have nothing, competely unaware of the significance of this information undermining their main argument.
FTTH true cost has been exposed. And only one part of the expenditure failures (see CP analysis above). Claims only 1b difference sunk, posting of CPP figures from other markets as if they apply here blown away. Complete destruction of the main fanboy position. One of us was right all along:-)
Still arguing white is black and black is white I see Richard!
Later…..
You obviously never read the articles and comments when Renai lamented each cp that missed targets.
EVERYONE was critical of NBN co at those times.
Please go away if you can’t accept that we already agree that missing the initial targets of the first few cps was terrible.
But whilst you continue to rail against missed cps, why don’t you rail against the current one? Which took a Sr conducted over 3 months for an established company, and threw it out.
At least the cps failed for a reason (Telstra negotiations, primarily but not entirely). What excuse did the SR have for missing the mark by 30%?
Richard
Nailed it.
Oh look, Richard has his own little right wing fan club, how cute!
Derek O
Oh look, Richard has his own little right wing fan club, how cute!
You mean he just changed his nick name? :)
Nah, I think it’s his colleague from the IPA, Alain.
@pa Renai was never a fanboy. I remember the criticism directed at him for making sensible comments re MTM pre election. His preference for FTTH acknowledged, his view of history perhaps now questioned as finally details emerge. What was obvious at the time, denied by many, supported by their hero.
I particulalry enjoyed quigley’s quote re MTM obviously being faster to deploy. Another fanboy smackdown.
Wow you actually have achieved a first Richard… a factual claim, congratulations… woo hoo.
Renai did indeed say some positive things about Mal and MTM in the past… because he was one to take people on their word…
But since you obviously missed this (or as usual are just being completely dishonest)… let me conclude…
https://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/12/please-accept-apologies-wrong-turnbull/
As for Quigley, I answered your contradictory tripe above…
Thank you for popping in .. BTW I hear Argentina is nice this time of year ;)
“HFC alone will bring 2.5m premises passed within 18mths”
This doesn’t sound right according to the recently released 3 year roll out plan. It says that by H2-2017 they will have commenced HFC construction on just under 2.5 million premises in total, but that there will still be less than that ready for service in H1-2018. The rate of the roll out appears to peak in H1-2017 and scale down after that, with the job barely half down. http://whrl.pl/ReqCVp
The strategic review was saying that 2.6 million would be ready for service by the end of 2016, so they sure got that wrong (some say the negotiations with Telstra took much longer than expected, but that sounds like a weak excuse, given in retrospect, to have not factored that in).
The nbn seem to have begun construction early (in comparison to the published start times in the roll out plan) in some areas under the guise of the HFC construction trial, so I think they are rather anxious not to fall behind schedule.
The dates the NBN published via their website (vs the spreadsheet that surfaced) are the ‘start’ dates the actual can get a service (for the ones I look at) seem to lag a good year -18 months there after (which isn’t untoward one would expect things to take a while to do its just deliberately misleading)
The HFC networks, as they stand, are not an answer to anyone’s vision of a high speed broadband future. With DOCSIS3.0 in place the existing fibre nodes will need to be split at least 4 times (maybe more). Historically fibre nodes were never designed for data services. The DOCSIS standard was fudged together to allow them to be used for data, alongside TV (all downstream) and LAT telephony services.
The DOCSIS 3.0 standard allows for up to 320mbit/s downstream to an entire node (and a ‘node’ in DOCSIS speak has only ever been around 20% of homes passed by the cable in the street… NBN plans to cable up 100% of homes passed). So.. you need to split the nodes to the point that 100% of homes passed can share 320mbit/s (you can send 2 x 8 channels onto the node if you remove TV and telephony services, and reuse the spectrum for data). This is only downstream bandwidth.
Upstream channels use the lower frequency spectrums, making them more susceptible to ingress (noise impacting certain frequencies), so you are limited to lower bandwidth modulation schema like QAM64. Which will only allow for around 15mbit/s per channel.
DOCSIS 3.1 addresses a lot of these issues, narrower band frequencies… and more of them, providing more channels to each node. The catch? Even Arris (the overwhelming leader in headend hardware, used by most US cable providers and Telstra here in Australia) have a roadmap to introduce DOCSIS3.1 in the US in 2026. No sooner…
The MTM is a farce, and it always has been.
DOCSISNerd,
“The catch? Even Arris (the overwhelming leader in headend hardware, used by most US cable providers and Telstra here in Australia) have a roadmap to introduce DOCSIS3.1 in the US in 2026. No sooner…”
Makes you wonder why Arris released DOCSIS3.1 modems last month.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/arris-unveils-next-generation-docsis-120500437.html
Also this from the USA’s largest internet ISP.
‘Using DOCSIS 3.1, Comcast has announced plans to offer 1 gigabit per second download speeds over the hybrid fibre-coaxial network in 2015.’
http://www.zdnet.com/article/comcast-to-offer-1gbps-on-cable/
Looks like a hell of lot sooner than 2026.
“However FTTP costs blowout are demonstratively much greater from his CP to SR13.”
You forgot that main purpose of the SR13 is to make the previous management’s CP13 look bad.
The current CP15 with regarding to the FTTH part is quite similar to CP13. In Quigley’s article, in his CP13, the CPP is $3900, and the MTM CP15, the CPP for FTTH is 4400, and Quigley’s has explained where the difference of $500 is coming from.
Even with the 4400 CCP figure, the cost of full FTTP roll out would be 52.8B (4400x12M), plus 5.5B for Sat, 1.1B for Fixed Wireless and 11B for Telstra/OPtus (as you mentioned in your earlier comment.) The total comes to 70.4B. The current MTM has as cost of 56B. The difference is only 14B. But there is the unknown factor of how much remediation work is required for the pits, and the unknown speed people will get because of the quality of the copper, and also there is less revenue because with current FTTN and HFC, there is no higher end users to sell to.
And that 4400 current CCP in the CP15 is also when they are ramping down the roll out. If they are to continue with FTTH roll out, due to economy of scale, the cost is likely to come down. For not much the extra cost, we get a much better network.
If LIB don’t like the previous NBN management, and think they can make it more efficient, then by all means, change the management. But don’t change the technology because it was proposed by LABOR. This politicize of our technology future makes me sick.
@hotp Quigley’s pricing confirms the numbers used in SR13 were ballpark. His company’s performance figures makes the old management look bad. That the blowout in costs (obvious from the released numbers, posted to fanboy denial) was never publicly acknowledged is worth ASIC investigation. Compare with the published cost blowouts under the management, coping the much deserved political heat. The SR13 rightly called out the deception, as did the other reports.
But now we have acknowledgment of CP16 figures from the fanboy’s hero. Your use of figures confirm their usefulness.
You missed transit ($3.5b) but same applies to both models. However, there’s nothing that can be done about transit / sat / fw / exisitng ftth / opex : money been spent (common to both models). What savings is achieved by substituting future fibre with HFC (1/3 cost), FTTB/N (1/2)? The answer given the scale of the project is huge numbers.
Again you’re correct re risks CPP figures for MTM are underestimated. These risks acknowledge in the CP16 and capex contingency increased to 20%. I’ll be watching for actual performance data and expose dicreptancies (as I did before).
Also available evidence suggest revenue isn’t much affected by the lower speeds. Only thirty 1gbps connections, 77% choosing 25/5 or less. Also coller technology continues to advance, offering cheap upgrades in the future could customer’s start demanding it.
NBNCo didnt make anywhere near the cost savings at scale they believed were possible. The numebrs are in.
It is popular in certain crowds to advance the idea current management is against FTTH simply for political reasons. Of course they provide no supporting evidence. The board and senior management are directed by the company’s statement of expectations, a powerful corporate governace document.
FTTH is being reduced because it isn’t as cost effective as the alternatives nor as quick to deliver. Finally confirmed by Quigley himself.
“Also coller technology continues to advance, offering cheap upgrades in the future could customer’s start demanding it.”
So far, all the upgrades to increase the speedn on the HFC/FTTN network required the to move the node closer to the premises. Once a node is deployed, it will not be changed.
And how do you test the demand out there? How do you tell that people don’t want higher speed when it is not there. In the stats you gave above, 23% “demended” speed higher than 25/5. Will they upgrade the FTTN/FTC (adding more smaller node closer) when the demand is 30%, 40%. People don’t demand the service when it is not there.
All these so called upgrades are just carrots dangling in front of people to make them think they can get faster speed when they need it later. It will never happen. In around the world, most of the upgrade from FTTN is to FTTH. G.Fast and vector and whatever new copper technology are only good for high density cities where it is easier to move the node (just look at NZ). You are just taking a long detour of FTTN/HFC to get to the FTTH finishing line with all the added cost in between.
MTM, yes, in theory might look cheaper, but in the long run, the cost to Australia is more.
You can take it from me. Mike knows his shit inside out and backwards. He also lacks much of a sense of humour. If you’re reading this, Mike, you’ll remember I once jokingly asked if NBN could just buy The Australian.
Turnbull and his idea of rolling out the NBN with a technology mix was a stupid idea. Voters bought the deceit and lies that the Liberals blurted out to win the election and they continue to lie to this day.
Unfortunately labour couldn’t sell their FTTP idea properly to the public to counter the Liberals. FTTP is the only way. The current tech mix NBN will be outdated by the time the roll out is finished. Mobile internet (4G and the like) will become way faster – I already get over 70 Mbps down & 30 Mbps up on Telstra 4G.
India (a country many still call 3rd world) is rolling out FTTP all over the country – my Dad has it at this house. I used it when I was there this January and it is so quick. He had ADSL2+ before. The copper lines are now used for telephone only.
I am hoping Labour will be back in 2016 – rip out the tech mix NBN and give us FTTP.
The damage is done.
Regardless who is in power after election time, the money wasted on Telstra’s copper, and the contracts to deploy FTTN to the majority of the county will already be deployed and expensive to break. So it will be too expensive to reset it all again. The best you can hope for is Labour win the election and there will be a little more FTTP deployed in the areas that don’t have a deployment plan by then. Even Jason Clair mentions on the radio interview that he cant click his fingers and put things back. Liberals are pushing hard to make it impossible for any changes to happen if they loose the next election.
Time to bite the pillow, liberals are coming in dry.
Don,
Which is exactly what Labor tried to do prior to the 2013 election, unfortunately after six years of their fanciful vision of a NBN rollout of FTTP to 93% so little was actually accomplished in that time that the Coalition MTM model was easy to implement.
What I want to see from Jason Clare is definitive statements about what they are going to do about HFC and FTTB and are they going to redo any active FTTN areas with FTTP.
I won’t hold my breath on that one, I think they will just stick with the ‘Labor is the party of fibre, Liberals are the party of copper’ line, more detail beyond simplistic slogans is too hard.
More unsupported claims, how predictable!
“unfortunately after six years of their fanciful vision of a NBN rollout of FTTP to 93% so little was actually accomplished in that time that the Coalition MTM model was easy to implement”
Just like after almost 3 years we have 58 FTTN users and 69 FTTB users.
Part of the $15b cost blowout was blamed on changing of the IT systems in NBN from the FTTP to MTM model, so if you call that easy to implement then sure why not.
Reality
so little was actually accomplished in that time
Except for the 121 POI
But then the NBN will miss it’s pre ejection target by only have 5% connected by 2016 or missed its SR target only only having 15% of that target connected by 2016.
But then the FTTP must have been going at light speed compared to the rollout of the MTM so far how much has been accomplished what 100 people connected with 400 days to go to get 10,000,000 connect by the end of 2016.
NBNCo was also a start-up/from scratch… Whereas, NBN had all the groundwork from NBNCo already in place, they just needed to dumb it down to the hugely inferior third rate FttN/MTM…
So to put it bluntly FttP was slightly behind schedule as a start up and on budget, in supplying a world class network. MTM with groundwork already done for them (with that fully funded $29B inferior, third rate obsolete, network) is now (UPTO, lol) years behind, has blown out to UPTO $56B and is ergo, as an apples/apples comparison, a complete and utter fuck up.
Indeed Rizz. Of course when revising history as the copper zealots usually do they like to omit pertinent details like this.
Indeed HC, the Right-Whingers* would have us believe that NBN Co popped out of Rudd’s Policy Napkin fully formed with a fully signed Telstra agreement in its back pocket and then sat around drinking coffee from their expensive coffee machines for the next 3 years!
*intentional typo for those wondering
“Which is exactly what Labor tried to do prior to the 2013 election,”
[Citation Needed]
”’Citation”’ only required for anti Labor FTTP or pro MTM comment, nothing whatever is required for the bashing Coalition MTM agenda, even misquoting of MTM blowout figures is accepted as normal.
Alain, it’s the numbers they provided 5-15 Billion dollars over budget, take it up with clown co if you dont like them!
Reality
Does that include the misquoted speeds that the MTM can deliver min 50Mbps when it’s an up to but is accepted as normal by the right.
So in other words, ‘Reality’, you’ve got nothing.
Your infantile rebuttal of two wrongs making a right falls flat in the face of overwhelming evidence, as is constantly linked for you.
Choosing to ignore the evidence does not constitute not being given any evidence.
When resorting to outright lies as your only form of defence, maybe it’s time to take a step back and figure out what your goals really ought to be.
“FTTP to 93% so little was actually accomplished in that time”
I hope you mean just that so few premises were connected with FttH because otherwise you’re so far off the mark.
NBN Co accomplished a lot in that time just it wasn’t shiny and visible like all the MTM photo op’s next to cabinets.
Indeed Simon…
“FTTP to 93% so little was actually accomplished in that time”
Says our friend alain, who faithfully supports MTM regardless of reality (pun intended).
MTM which err, even with NBNCo (Quigley’s) “from scratch groundwork”, could most un-amazingly only fucking accomplished 67 MTM customers in just shy of two years…
Wow talk about misguided or to be blunt, FOS…thinking FttP underachieved.
http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=BDIGeneric&aid=C98EA5B0842DBB9405BBF071E1DA7651077B1B5B&tid=AAD647A63E074C7FA4710A44F1E87D3C&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.perthnow.com.au%2fbusiness%2fbreaking-news%2fis-the-nbn-business-model-off-the-rails%2fnews-story%2f1345115e8f6192d26c51910c439c652a&c=fwp4eOHAdRE_3h3Fs3cXYWEGgn8–t9DrW6KpkUXJzY&mkt=en-au
Looks like Paul Budde is getting out the big guns….saying pretty much what you just said…..
MTM’s looking uglier by the minute …
Why Quigley want to get sued and piss NBNco off
I would LOVE to see nbn try to bring this to court. That’d turnout close to the much needed Royal Inquisition.
Indeed, they wouldn’t be able to hide behind CiC and would get their a$$es handed to them on a plate!
Yes there was one slip up Turnbull said out side parliament considering all of his defamatory attacks on Quigley protected by parliament privileges, too which Quigley had the dignity not to sue.
hey folks,
I just wanted to apologise. I had planned to get the analysis of Quigley’s document published today. But there is some stuff going on behind the scenes today that has made that impossible. I’m sorry for this, and it will be published on Monday.
Renai
No worries, if you get a chance can you please belt the hapless spammers with your Ban Hammer?
Yah I’ll take a look.
Well then time to go to the pub! :)
All good Renai,
No need to worry now, Richard did it for you ;)
Please renai, can you enable the feature to hide downvoted comments. People can optionally read some annoying anti’s muddle when it gets hidden, but at current you have spin and disinformation driving any rational discussion to the ground just because a small, disliked minority have fast typing speeds and too much time on their hands.
Seriously.
What? How can you enable hide downvoted comments when there is no upvote/downvote feature enabled to begin with?
Regardless I’d rather not have any comments hidden by default, I believe everyone has the right to be heard no matter how retarded what they say is. The good thing about this approach is that their comments are there for the whole world to see. On a future date we can then point back to these comments just laugh at the absurdities.
I agree. Let Richard’s buffoonery flower. Let the true Richard display his “you are all fibre fanboys” T Shirt.
Andrew I was speaking in general, I actually didn’t have anyone specific in mind.
Richards comments too will be archived on the internet for all to see for all eternity. The ones on Zdnet are already providing much popcorn eating entertainment. The very telling thing is because he choose to use his full name on that site he believes linking to them should be off limits when pointing out his hypocrisy.
@ HC
“Richards comments too will be archived on the internet for all to see for all eternity.”
Yes… but …his ZD comments (like his link to Ericsson stating speeds improve GDP and his original comment stating it’s as if he could have been commissioned to write Mals MTM plan) even copy/pasted with exact words, staring him in the fucking face… will deceitfully be flatly refuted…WTF?
Remember the Telstra saga years ago. Us mentioning the asbestos fiasco and how Telstra was responsible and to blame. But Richard said, “not everyone is willing to jump on your bandwagon and blame Telstra for NBNCos woes” (or words similar).
But within 24 hours to suit another narrative he said ” no one has suggested it’s not Telstra’s responsibility” (or similar)…
Remember? When I pointed out the absolute contradictory hypocrisy, he argued I was wrong and blamed me… exactly as he is doing again now… FFS, MAN UP
Like seriously, how are we as a community wanting to thrash out the issues legitimately, for a better outcome for us all, supposed to progress when people like this and alain, will blatantly lie and contradict their own claims, for what ever their own selfish reasons may be?
Seriously such BS just enshrines the us/them gap and makes friendly and healthy correspondence as well as giving and taking ones views, absolutely impossible…
Indeed Rizz. I do remember the Telstra asbestos saga on Zdnet and the mental gymnastics is Olympic gold medal worthy for sure. However just as I said on Zdnet many years ago either way the NBN goes we get to be proven right. And here we are in 2015 NBNco transformed into GimpCo, run by clowns for a government of clowns. “I told you so” count in triple digits already and we haven’t even hit the 25mbps 2016 deadline. Those that disagreed cant even man up as you say and admit they were wrong. Still defending the patchwork mess even though it morphed into an even bigger disaster. They are still obsessed with faults of the previous policy rather than delivering the even same amount of scrutiny for a much much worse policy. They’d much rather blame it’s shortcomings on the previous government and management than admit they were wrong about it. But that is exactly what we expected and predicted too.
HC the best Richard can say about the fully costed plan done by 2016 was that its ambitious
@HC
Unfortunately it’s the right wing way, they know full well the facts aren’t on their side so use the Nazi method, create big lies and repeat them often on the hope that the sheeple will fall for them.
@hc more untruths. I love the historical record, very unkind to others. Very supportive of my position.
Link to as many ZDNet posts you like, I simply corrected Alex’s assertion my last name wasn’t posted. Your link proving his & JK’s misrepresentation of my claim (still repeated). Then there’s Abel classic brisbane line post (and your gullible followup) .
Google also refutes your claims re asbestos and only require 25mbps.
Then the memory of the many has constantly been shown to be lacking. Little posted but bile. Calls to silence dissenting opinions isn’t new nor attempts to intimidate. Let’s see the result:-)
Except it’s not a misrepresentation. They are presenting exactly what you said and looking at what GimpCo is today and laughing at YOUR effective endorsement of the clusterfuck. I’m laughing with them only difference is I’m trying not to choke on the popcorn.
Wtf? What are you even talking about? Please try to be a bit more coherent. As I said last time I cannot recall this “brisbane line post”, I’m fairly sure I missed that article so if you could please provide a link to it so I can follow what you are saying.
What was my claim about asbestos exactly? I’m pretty sure I said it was Telstra’s responsibility. You have a link that says I think it was NBNco’s responsibility? Post it.
The only one that has tried to “silence dissenting opinions” is you. Your intimidation tactic is being a relentless whiner. Something you have in common with SJW nutjobs unfortunately. I have said many times I would defend your right to say whatever you like, can you say the same for me? Of course not, your arrogance won’t even allow you to recognise that I would do this for you.
HC
Looks like he has take one right out of the Abbott play book of lying about lying
“Except it’s not a misrepresentation. They are presenting exactly what you said and looking at what GimpCo is today and laughing at YOUR effective endorsement of the clusterfuck. I’m laughing with them only difference is I’m trying not to choke on the popcorn.”
+1 HC
Exactly, even with a copy/paste of what was actually said, the copper cheer girls will keep denying their very own claims, as history proves them 100% wrong…just as we said it would.
Disgraceful :/
“misrepresentation of my claim”
“use of existing infrastructure, priority for areas where market failed, access to infrastructure for competition, review of NBNCo past activities, CBA, etc It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
So “use of existing infrastructure” which has now almost doubled in cost and more than double in time to upgrade it before its even started. Guess you could have wrote that too?
So “priority for areas where market failed” well the writing on the wall for that one lol. Awesome writing on that one.
“access to infrastructure for competition”
Put even more restrictions on but leave telstra exempt.
“review of NBNCo past activities,”
New CP shows they over estimated FTTP and completely under estimated MTM on cost and rollout. Guess you could have wrote that too?
“CBA”
use ecominist hack that even a judge said you could trust his figures. PLus uses his own review with flawed calculation. Instead of the promise of using infrastructure Australia. Guess you could have wrote that too?
@JK,
You just discovered another doozie…
An admission by a libertarian who swears private companies (market) is the be all and end all and has even claimed that if it weren’t for Conroy’s NBN, these companies would have supplied…
Yet…
“priority for areas where market failed”…
Wow as we said and our friend stated (d’oh) the market failed, hence the need for the NBN…
I await silence, or of course this comment err, being my fault too…
*sigh*
I also enjoy when these fools bang on about the “free market” – there’s no such thing and never has been! If the markets were really free the 0.1% would be insanely rich and the rest of us would be working 80 hour weeks for a pittance and be renting property from the 0.1% just like in pre-industrial revolution times!
Yes Rizz
It’s not where the market had fail is that it completely failed.
Don’t worry Rizz, since he’s been obliterated he won’t comment on this thread again. He’ll just say the same old bullshit on some other article.
I like this Quigley guy.
They also deserve everything they get. NBN Co decided to play personal politics rather than argue on the merits and now will be either embarrassed or forced into a war of words – which can never be a win for a Government owned company.
The only chance of a change of NBN direction is a change of Government, this PDF is not going to do it, and as far as NBN policy is concerned for those voters that consider that NBN policy is a vote decider I think the camps are already in place in 2015 and most likely have changed very little from prior to the 2013 election, that is, Coalition NBN support – same %, Labor FTTP support – same % , don’t care – same %.
What should be worrying for the FTTP supporters is that Labor fixed line NBN policy will have to change, it is not possible to go back to the sweeping ‘93% of residences with FTTP by 2021’ policy, whether Labor like it or not it will have become a MTM NBN policy.
The reason I say this is I think rationally Labor won’t drop HFC and the planned DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade, and that’s a reasonable wack of the higher density populations in our inner suburbs of our capital cities at a proposed 34% of the total MTM mix providing a nice per residence ROI, the HFC infrastructure has already been paid for and is or shortly will be owned by the Coalition NBN Co and ownership will flow to the Labor NBN Co.
I also don’t think Labor will touch the Coalition FTTB model at 11% of the MTM, which only leaves the brownfields FTTN at 29% of the mix as being the target for a resurrected FTTP rollout.
Subtract from that 29% active FTTN connections at election time 2016 and FTTN build contracts carrying over into 2016-2017, the percentage left is what is available for a new brownfields Labor NBN FTTP build with a realistic restart date of 2017-18.
So predicting fixed line pre election 2016 Labor NBN Policy vs pre election 2016 Coalition NBN policy I don’t think there will much in it, with any difference solely based on a Labor <29% FTTP to some brownfield areas.
Yes thank you alain,
Enough said…
Well done Alain, your prediction is exactly what both parties have been saying they are going to do for months now. Repeating that is hardly “prediction”
Indeed Darren, actually this is what many of us were saying before the last election too. It was just another reason why many of us objected to the patchwork policy, because once you break something it is hard to fix. Australia had one chance to get it right with fibre and fucked up big time. What ever happens from now on the FttP end goal will be much further away than it should have been. It will also be much more expensive than it should have and it’s all thanks to the politically motivated GimpCo policy. As such Australia will languish just as we always have but at least there will be no debate about who is to blame this time. Every time you see a GimpNode on the street (most likely emblazoned with graffiti) you’ll be reminded of just how destructive and short-sighted the coalition clowns were.
Hmm we should distribute stencils… So we can tag each cabinet with its cost. Or maybe use the full text of Quigley’s “Exploding Malcolm Turnbull’s Myths” document? ;-)
‘Hmm we should distribute stencils… So we can tag each cabinet with its cost.’
To be fair we need to tag each Fibre Distribution Hub with the cost of FTTP as well, and what original CP rollover target it should have been built by.
‘ Or maybe use the full text of Quigley’s “Exploding Malcolm Turnbull’s Myths” document? ‘
You could if it did but it doesn’t.
Ah yes always a deflection back to what was, to desperately attempt to hide this current absolutely shameful self described by those who now roll it out, FRAUDBAND sham..
How predictable.
lol, good idea :-)
Just a link to the document would make more sense and fit :-)
Darren,
I am not aware Labor has categorically announced they won’t touch the Coalition HFC or FTTB rollout models, and it may not be politically smart to announce that before the election, they don’t want the voters to see them as a Coalition NBN ‘same as’, they will have a review (yep another one or two at least) after a election win then say that’s what we are doing.
Pre election I bet they will keep it vague and push the we are the ‘party of fibre’ line, the fact that the ‘party of fibre’ bit will be less than 29% of some brownfield areas with a construction start date of 2017-18 they hope the electorate won’t be able to work out.
Reality
If you read the awesome new deal that Turnbull has done with Telstra you would have read that as soon as they start using HFC they have to maintain all of it. Can only charge Foxtel a set amount even if the cost of keeping it all running is more than what there charging. Plus have to keep it all running until Foxtel decides not to use it.
Jason K
“If you read the awesome new deal that Turnbull has done with Telstra you would have read that as soon as they start using HFC they have to maintain all of it.”
Who is ‘they’ that have to maintain it, Telstra or the NBN Co, and what is the problem anyway?
“Can only charge Foxtel a set amount even if the cost of keeping it all running is more than what there charging.’
Foxtel is not the only contributor to HFC revenue, ISP’s with wholesale BB agreements with the NBN Co selling BB plans to their customers will also contribute.
Pay TV will be a minor player when 34% of residences come on board paying for high speed HFC BB plans.
“Plus have to keep it all running until Foxtel decides not to use it.”
Doesn’t matter at all if Foxtel decides not to use it, it’s primary role will be high speed BB, and the targeted upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1.
Reality
First question They are NBN
Second so are you happy for customers on BB to pickup the cost of maintaining the HFC when it exceeds the cost they are charging Foxtel. Are you also happy that Foxtel gets a free connection to 34% of residences at the cost to the taxpayer.
Telstra claims its HFC next can already deliver 100Mbps shouldn’t the customers on HFC be paying for the 3.1 upgrade since someone on FTTN that can only get an upto 25Mbps has to pay to get a better service.
And therein is the disingenuousness, I spoke of before…
Alain, you know full well who they are in relation to HFC repairs. Yet instead you choose to be argumentative (read a smart arse) about it.
I see nothing has or will ever change for the illogically ideological on a crusade.
*shrugs*
Jason K
“Second so are you happy for customers on BB to pickup the cost of maintaining the HFC when it exceeds the cost they are charging Foxtel.”
How do know you what the cost of maintaining the HFC is seeing as it not due for release until 2016, which means you would not know if it exceeds the cost they are charging Foxtel anyway.
Also you are referring to two different uses of the HFC , one is for Pay TV for some HFC residences who elect to take Foxtel the other is for high speed BB where eventually all residences who want fixed line BB will have to take a HFC plan.
” Are you also happy that Foxtel gets a free connection to 34% of residences at the cost to the taxpayer.”
umm what? first of all you say Foxtel is under a set amount charge contract then you say they are getting a free connection, which is it? – also only a small percentage of that 34% of residences will sign up for Foxtel.
“Telstra claims its HFC next can already deliver 100Mbps shouldn’t the customers on HFC be paying for the 3.1 upgrade”
How do you know the DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade cost when it happens won’t be incorporated into the NBN Co BB plan HFC wholesale charges to ISP’s?
Reality
You are really clutching at straws.
First NBN from the SR to the CP are expecting an extra $4B in OPEX when it’s complete.
And yet for people taking up Fast BB have a chioce of getting Foxtel as Foxtel getting a free connection to that house curtesy of NBN.
It’s a service charge for using the network and cover the cost of keeping it running. NBN can’t charge Foxtel anymore than the agreement if the cost is found out to be higher. But then NBN still has no idea of the condition of the HFC is.
So what you saying the last statement is NBN should be charging FOD feed in there wholesale plans for the premises it can’t deliver better than an upto 25mbps service. Sound like the plans on FTTP are going to be a lot cheaper than FTTN or HFC
Jason K
” Sound like the plans on FTTP are going to be a lot cheaper than FTTN or HFC”
No they won’t, anticipated Cost Per Premise (CPP) from the NBN CP 2016.
FTTP (Brownfields) $3,700
FTTP (Greenfields) $2,100
FTTN $1,600
HFC $1,100
Lol reality you go from one tangent to another. You claim that NBN going to charge ISP more on HFC to cover the cost of 3.1 then you go and talk about NBN connection cost. So which is it lol.
So again is it fair for HFC which already provided 100Mbps on 3.0 get a free upgrade to 3.1 while someone on FTTN has to pay $1k’s to get the same level of service.
Jason K
“You claim that NBN going to charge ISP more on HFC to cover the cost of 3.1 then you go and talk about NBN connection cost”
Yes I anticipate customers that take a high speed DOCSIS 3.1 plan will pay more than those who don’t, just like customers pay more for higher speed FTTP plans than those who don’t , I still don’t see what the problem is.
“So again is it fair for HFC which already provided 100Mbps on 3.0 get a free upgrade to 3.1”
It’s not a free upgrade, and the upgrade will only take place if the demand is there, if it does happen I anticipate customers who want a very high speed DOCSIS 3.1 plan will pay more than those that are happy with high speed DOCSIS 3.0, my bet is the vast majority will be happy with DOCSIS 3.0.
“while someone on FTTN has to pay $1k’s to get the same level of service.”
Assuming you mean upgrading your residence from FTTN to FTTP, because as you can see from the CPP table it costs more to provide FTTP to each residence in brownfield areas, if you want it pay for it, but I bet the overwhelming majority don’t.
Very good point Jason K. For years the religious copper zealots told us “If you want fibre you pay for it” seems to me if we want to be consistent those wanting faster speeds on HFC should pay for the infrastructure upgrades required too. A “Technology agnostic” rule should apply.
LOL Reality
“will only take place if the demand is there”
1 if the demand is there is NBN paying for the upgrade or is the customer?
2 The intent is to evolve the HFC network to the forthcoming Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification(DOCSIS) 3.1 technology. apparently nbn thinks there demand is already there.
“Assuming you mean upgrading your residence from FTTN to FTTP, because as you can see from the CPP table it costs more to provide FTTP to each residence in brownfield areas, if you want it pay for it, but I bet the overwhelming majority don’t.”
So first Simon Hacket has been quote as saying the FOD average is already more the the FTTP $3700 price tag. if we look at BT priceing there average is $5K au.
So again why does someone get a free +100Mbps connection when NBN only deliver an up to 25mbps on FTTN has to by $5K+ to get the same level of service or just better even than up to 25Mbps.
HC,
” those wanting faster speeds on HFC should pay for the infrastructure upgrades required too.”
How much is it to upgrade DOCSIS 3.0 infrastructure to DOCSIS 3.1 infrastructure?
I want to make sure you have a complete understanding of the cost of the problem in relation to FOD, that’s a DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade figure in dollars.
Jason K
‘1 if the demand is there is NBN paying for the upgrade or is the customer?’
Did you blink where I stated I anticipate HFC DOCSIS 3.1 plans will be more expensive than DOCSIS 3.0 plans?
“2 The intent is to evolve the HFC network to the forthcoming Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification(DOCSIS) 3.1 technology. apparently nbn thinks there demand is already there.”
Time will tell, as you said it is just a intent, the NBN Co would have no idea in 2015 if the demand is already there.
‘S’o first Simon Hacket has been quote as saying the FOD average is already more the the FTTP $3700 price tag. if we look at BT priceing there average is $5K au.’
The brownfields FTTP CPP is not the same as a FOD cost, it’s based on mass rollout costing, it’s not equivalent to a one off cost to upgrade ONE residence that has FTTN but wants to pay to upgrade to FTTP.
‘So again why does someone get a free +100Mbps connection when NBN only deliver an up to 25mbps on FTTN has to by $5K+ to get the same level of service or just better even than up to 25Mbps.’
Residences are on NBN, FTTN, FTTP, FTTB, HFC, fixed wireless and satellite, with mobile data we have 3G, 4G and 4Gx.
All have different speeds and different pricing, that’s the way it is here and the world over.
” when NBN only deliver an up to 25mbps on FTTN”
What is the source of this statement?
LOL Reality
plans are also more expensive for FTTP above 100mbps too
does not mean the customer is paying for the upgrade now are they.
“All have different speeds and different pricing, that’s the way it is here and the world over.”
Can you link any provider that charges difference cost to FTTP and FTTN or FTTB on the NBN? Just asking for one. lol. So if someone is paying for 50Mbps and only getting 26mbps that real value for money right there.
” when NBN only deliver an up to 25mbps on FTTN”
What is the source of this statement?
Turnbull SOE is that NBN is only required to deliver at least 25Mbps but since NBN only guarantee that speed to ISP not premises so its only an up to 25mbps is all they are required to deliver.
Or better yet name an ISP in the world that delivers a MIN service on HFC or FTTN just asking for one.
So again why should someone have to pay $5K+ to get speeds NBN wont deliver on the FTTN. While they are already talking about delivering 100+mbps speeds on other services.
Nonsense argument.
Yes thanks again for that pointless childish waffle alain…!
Useful commentary . I Appreciate the specifics , Does someone know where my company might be able to get access to a blank FL DH 527 document to use ?
Comments are closed.