news Communications Minister Mitch Fifield has rejected detailed analysis by former NBN CEO Mike Quigley that the up to $15 billion blowout in the NBN company’s costs revealed in August was due to the Coalition’s Multi-Technology Mix model; but without providing contrary evidence to show how Quigley’s analysis was incorrect.
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. Turnbull accused the previous management of the company — led by CEO Mike Quigley — as being incompetent when it came to its financial modelling.
However, in an interview with the ABC’s Background Briefing program several weeks ago, 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.
Speaking at an NBN forum event held yesterday in Sydney by Communications Day, Fifield rejected Quigley’s analysis.
“I am sure you are aware of the heightened scrutiny of the Corporate Plan and peak funding forecasts over recent weeks,” the Minister said. The full speech — in which Fifield tackles a number of subjects with relation to the NBN — is available online.
Fifield said it was “important to place such opinion in its appropriate context”.
“Even critics acknowledge that the multi-technology mix will see fast broadband reach communities sooner and at less cost than the alternatives previously considered,” the Minister said.
“Headline-grabbing terms like ‘blowout’ take little account of the multitude of financial projections and operating parameters that underpin peak funding estimates. Some elements have gone up, while others have decreased compared to the assumptions that were used in the 2013 Strategic Review.”
“Clinging to what might have been in some parallel past takes no account of the billions already spent on the NBN, and indeed, of the revenue foregone given the underperformance of the early years.”
However, Fifield said, one thing was “abundantly clear”.
“Any reduction in operating costs claimed for an all‐fibre network would be miniscule when compared to just the interest payments on the extra investment required for such construction,” he said.
“And while we are on the topic of cost, I do want to highlight that NBN’s understanding of the true costs associated with the network build has improved as the rollout has progressed.”
“It is only because of the thorough review process undertaken by the company, as requested by the Government, that we know that the estimated cost of rolling out the network has increased, for both an all-FTTP and multi-technology mix rollout.”
Fifield pointed out that the NBN company had calculated in its Corporate Plan published in August that reverting to an all-fibre rollout plan for the NBN would cause the company’s peak funding to balloon to as much as $84 billion.
“Not only would the company be saddled with negative cash flows out to the horizon but the construction phase would not end until 2026 and potentially as late as 2028. In such a rapidly evolving sector it’s hard to imagine what user demand might look like more than decade from now,” he said.
However, the Minister did not directly address Quigley’s detailed analysis, and did not provide any evidence for why the former NBN CEO’s specific claims were inaccurate.
Quigley’s document examines 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.
Quigley’s analysis appeared to be a coldly forensic examination of the NBN company’s various financial disclosures.
In comparison, Fifield did not go into detail to explain his view for why criticism of the NBN’s cost blowouts, such as Quigley published, was inaccurate. The NBN company has also not published analysis showing why Quigley’s analysis is inaccurate.
Delimiter has contacted the office of Senator Fifield to invite the Minister to provide further evidence for why Quigley’s analysis is incorrect, and will publish any response in full.
opinion/analysis
Do I expect Minister Fifield to either respond directly to Quigley’s analysis, or provide substantial evidence for why his own view of the NBN’s finances and costs is inaccurate? No, I do not. It would be unseemly — and, from the Government’s point of view, unnecessary — for Fifield to do so, and Fifield is nothing if not composed and assured. He does not want to get into a debate on the nitty gritty details with Quigley.
However, that does not mean that Fifield should not back up his views with facts, if he is truly interested in debating this topic in the public interest. Quigley has done so, and in detail: If Fifield expects his views on NBN costings to be treated with the gravity that Quigley’s are, then he must necessarily provide a similar level of detail and evidence.
The NBN debate is an extremely detailed one: Headline claims without granular evidence attached rarely carry sufficient weight to make an impact on the debate.
Image credit: Parliamentary Broadcasting
Why does if feel like the NBN lost a leader with immense experience and who was was the best in the field, and replaced him with a political party stooge?
+1
I would not describe Morrow as a stooge — or Fifield. They are both competent and highly intelligent.
But they are pursuing a different agenda than Quigley, that’s for sure.
Hi Renai!
Are you still planning on publishing your findings on Quigleys “Busting Myth” PDF?
Or did I miss that altogether?
Thanks for keeping them honest…..
Regards
Alfred
In this instance Renai, I think that “stooge” is precisely the correct term…and their competence just adds to that description. While a stooge CAN mean someone who is the butt of jokes, it can also mean “a subordinate used by another to do unpleasant routine work”.
I would say that both Fifield and especially Morrow fall into that description.
If left to his own devices, I would bet that Morrow would have recommended against the MTM from the outset (in fact, I recall that he agreed with Quigley on these points to a degree).
He is therefore acting as a stooge (disregarding his own opinions and capabilities) for Turnbull and the LNP.
@Renai I would have agreed with you had Morrow not walked the LNP party line hook line and sinker (he did a decent job of pulling vodafail out of a tailspin after all) along with his colleagues (it starts at the top after all).
He’s not mindless shill/Stooge nor inexperienced but I doubt he’s better than Quigley and certainly has much less moral fortitude.
He’s gone and politicised a GBE that was already struggling under the political strain to its detriment. That’s just not copacetic!
Renai LeMay > However, that does not mean that Fifield should not back up his views with facts,
Fifield > The world is flat – because I said so…
Facts when your looking at the MTM and the coalition are few and far between.
He’s wrong, because…
Doesn’t he have a whole department full of staff who’s job is to be up to date on the communications portfolio? He can continue to schmooze with liberal party lobbyists and charge the taxpayers thousands for high society lunches while his staff knock out the nitty gritty and show us in plain english and with facts.
Or is that too much to ask of our elected officials and their offices any more? A simple ‘I don’t accept that’ is enough of a rebuttal nowadays hey?
The liberals have got so much to answer for with the recent quality of political discourse. I know it’s too much to hope that it may ever be pulled from the gutter again, but maybe down deep I might continue to keep this hope.
Didn’t Morrow already admit the blowout was due to the MTM? So… who is correct? Morrow or Fifield?
partial admittance and more fluff/deflection than real substance and wouldn’t answer directly anything relating to ‘The PDF’.
Note to Fifield: Mitch, the world has moved on from when you were a boy. The electorate (you do know what an electorate is, don’t you?) no longer takes anybody’s unsupported word. That disappeared when too many lies were uncovered. The electorate wants verifiable facts. If you want to shut Quigley out, YOU NEED FACTS, not pious imaginings. So cough up.
Nave you seen the latest polls? The electorate is solely interested in personality and persuasiveness. It has no time nor interest in facts. Otherwise soundbites would have no cut through. The Labor party is floundering because they still don’t understand this. The electorate needs someone charming, someone approachable and human, someone who gives them genuine hope that the ALP are not just another side of the same coin. Wooden, monotone, middle-right robot Shorten is none of those things. He’s not even the man the Labor party membership voted for. Is his arrogance and ambition too great to allow the Labor party (and the country) a fighting chance against the Turnbull Tsunami?
Yep, same stinking turd policies but add a charming salesman and ppl lose their minds!!
Im guessing Hitler was pretty charming back in the day too!
Good olde Godwin’s law..
But yes actually he was the perfect charismatic leader back in his day. How else do you manage to completely convince a whole generation to accept what was morally reprehensible in a span of a few years?
He was literally the best political salesman of his time. So much so that people never really questioned what he was saying or pointing at because they heard what they wanted to hear instead of looking at what he was trying to do until it was far far too late. Something that a lot of people still haven’t learnt from when it comes to politics sadly.
Hitler was one of the legendary orators. He was one of the greats. He could lead a nation with a microphone. He was also leading that nation into some of the most demonic atrocities since the time of Genghis Khan, but the general public were too busy consuming a Hollywood romantic comedy.
Similarly, Australians who just don’t know any better are being led in the name of democracy by politicians into another government money pit, something that the same politicians claim to despise and expend all their energy bagging the opposition for, which will yield an ongoing jackpot to the same people who put it in place. They sold out yet again. Australians were conned.
What hypocrisy it is to state, “Clinging to what might have been in some parallel past…” while at every turn reiterating some warped assessment of some alternate past. Fifieldism is really bad.
Look. I know I’m no oil painting but for the love of God can someone buy that man a neck.
I would settle for just a little bit of common sense………HE NEEDS IT
Hmm, even Morrow sided with Quigley’s analysis about the cause of the $15B (sorry all pointless pedants – UPTO $15B) blowout, Mitchy…
I suspect there is a very good reason that the minister won’t be using facts to back up his claim. That would require those facts to exist in the first case.
Fifield doesn’t even have to reference the Quigley analysis at all if he doesn’t want to, it’s quite simple, redundant NBN Labor Policy of 2013 is not the Coalition NBN Policy they won the election with in 2013 and is being implemented through to 2016, and if they win again will be implemented through to 2019.
The Quigley analysis is late by 2 years, even if Labor win next year they won’t be implementing the 2013 NBN policy.
But, but, but…
Says the first person to talk NBN 2007 – 2013, to try to deflect from the current BS 9/10, but as usual, this time contradicts himself…
Thanks for popping in alain.
Ok I really think we need this now:
http://forum.delimiter.com.au/t/voting-for-article-comments/301
Will help in identifying partisan troll droppings for the unwary.
How do you decide when to post as Rizz and when to post as Derek O?
I’m not Rizz and he’s not me, the only other alias I’ve ever used here is my WP alias dJOS.
And yet again it comes to this…
Nothing ever changes does it alain?
You continue the childish, argumentative, blindly politically motivated stupidity, in the face of reality and when so easily shot down you invent (as you have done previously) some extra stupidity to deflect from your normal stupidity.
Absolute GOLD there… in a pitiful sort of way.
He thinks because only you and I call him alain (wink – the worst kept secret on Delimiter and something HC actually mentioned elsewhere weeks ago…lol), Derek, that we must be one and the same… and we must also ergo be HC too… wow/
Oh I just noticed Darren must be us too… *sigh*
Priceless perception.
Lol, comedy gold!
I must be you too, because I switch between referring to him as alain and Reality…. So maybe I am only you sometimes, or maybe I am simultaneously you and not you.
Schrodingers “You”.
More to the point alain…
Just how do you decide to choose between commenting/replying, via simple factless, contradictory, nitpicking? Or purely factless contradictory argumentative adolescence? Or completely childish, factless, contradictory nonsense?
It must be a real chore just to decide just how ridiculous your daily replies will actually be… but yet you seem to exceed even our expectations…
The up to $15B blowout in peak funding is due to the NBN MTM , we know that because FTTP, FTTB, FTTN, HFC, fixed wireless and satellite are being rolled out, yep I think we well and truly understand.
Reality
Cost from the SR to the CP16 for FTTP wireless and sat has reduce so the cost blowout is the HFC and FTTN/B
Jason K,
So no blowout figures are due to the brownfield and and greenfield FTTP rollouts under the MTM, that’s incredible that the all new fixed line infrastructure model with the highest CAPEX doesn’t have any blowouts but infrastructure that uses existing infrastructure HFC and FTTN does.
It’s even more incredible when you know that the Labor FTTP NBN rollout required a increase in peak funding.
So what is the blowout figure for HFC and FTTN/B exactly as proportion of the up to $15B increase required in peak funding, and how would this be significantly less if you substituted FTTP for HFC and FTTN/B?
Lets give you a vegie maths example so you can grasp it.
You have
1) Apples
2) Oranges
3) Lemons
Each week you buy the same amount of each. This week the total price rises from $43 to $58. You look at the docket. The price of Apples has gone down, the price of Oranges has gone down, you don’t know the price of the lemons because they redacted it. Which fruit went up in price?
Good luck…
He couldn’t answer 1 + 1 = ? … and I even gave a hint the second time.
:/
*claps*
Brilliant work Darren!! :-D
Darren,
Oh a obtuse analogy.
“You have
1) Apples
2) Oranges
3) Lemons”
So what NBN infrastructure models does each of those represent Darren?
I am especially intrigued by the ‘redacted lemons’.
Alain, they are all fruit, none of them is an NBN model. Try hard and you might be able to work out which has gone up in price.
Darren our dear friends typically childish reply to your analogy proves why some just can’t grasp (or aren’t allowed to grasp) well anything beyond what they are told and/or their own confimation bias, let alone the big issues such as FttP being the best avenue even for, err himself and his family.
Darren,
“they are all fruit, none of them is an NBN model. Try hard and you might be able to work out which has gone up in price.”
Oh I see, you don’t know either, and have to talk in riddles to ‘pretend’ you have made a point.
With obtuse meaningless criticism like that the Coalition MTM has nothing whatever to worry about with their NBN model being any risk whatever to them losing the next election.
Sorry, I see you can’t handle even a simple question like that. I can see why something more complicated like the analysis Quigley did went over your he’d. My apologise, I had thought you were a LNP when in fact you could just be clueless.
BTW, it’s the lemon that must have risen in price. Try to apply that to the NBN reports, cost of FTTH down, cost of satellites down, cost of wireless down, that only leaves HFC and FTTN.
@Reality
Wow really… Just Wow.
So I am honestly curious now, ARE you a Shill, Troll or just an idiot?
Based on posting history, i’d say all of the above!
Reality
here is an easy one for you can you point in the CP16 where cost have increased for FTTP Wireless and Sat. It would really help your claim of the $41B now $56B
Plus still waiting on you to show an ISP charging for FTTN less than FTTP.
Or Reality
NBN said it would pay Telstra x amour for the 200,000 trial which worked out to be $700 per premises now the CP16 is $1300 for FTTN. Lol there is part of your cost blowout right there
Jason K,
Yes I can see the strategy, when it gets to awkward divert and talk about something else, when questions are asked about the diversion subject matter, divert again and talk about something else.
“So what is the blowout figure for HFC and FTTN/B exactly as proportion of the up to $15B increase required in peak funding, and how would this be significantly less if you substituted FTTP for HFC and FTTN/B?”
It’s ok, you can actually say “I cannot answer this”.
Alain, what you are asking is a diversion. It has nothing to do with Quigley’s assertions in the PDF.
He was refuting Turnbull’s claims that the rise was due to the FTTH rollout. The PDF shows the increase is in the MTM portion of the rollout.
Your questions are just trying to distract from that and have nothing to do with Quigley’s nor Turnbull’s claims.
@Darren, apparently the fact the FTTP costs per premises have dropped from the SR to CP16 and yet there has been a blowout in costs is too hard to understand that the blowout can only be related to the non-FTTP portion of the NBN.
R0ninX3ph,
Cost Per Premise is always relative R0nin, CP16 has the following CPP CAPEX by infrastructure type, I have posted this at least twice before from the CP16 table 8 on page 67, ‘back to 2013 FTTP’ supporters prefer to ignore it even exists.
FTTP Brownfields – $3,700
FTTP Greenfields -$2,100
FTTN – $1600
HFC – $1,100
Fixed wireless – $4,100
Satellite – $7,900
Reality
Well I did answer your question but as with your blinkers on here it is again so NBN was going to pay Telsta x amount for the 200,000 trial which worked out to be around $700 per premises since the SR has the FTTN and HFC figures redacted so much for transparency.
But the CP16 FTTN figure is $1600 which is more than double the trial cost of $700 and most likely more than double the FTTN cost in the SR.
You still ignored the two FTTP CPP costs as if they don’t exist, I know it hurts the eyes when you see them next to FTTN and HFC but exist it does.
Obviously there is a shitload of denial involved in supporting a ‘Back to 2013 FTTP’ rollout.
Reality
No you ignored the cost as the SR has FTTP at $4700 and the CP15 has it at $3600. But apparently a reduce in cost is a cost blowout to you and a cost increase is not a blowout. But then your the one in denial. BTW has the 2013 policy going to deliver 25Mbos to all by 2016
@ alain… regarding the fruit analogy…
“Oh I see, you don’t know either, and have to talk in riddles to ‘pretend’ you have made a point.
Seriously dude I like playing with you and your dumb yes man comments…
But you really are just being a complete argumentative dick now… it’s gone past cute and again proving why you are the undisputed king of Delimiter bannings.
*sigh*
“that’s incredible that the all new fixed line infrastructure model with the highest CAPEX doesn’t have any blowouts but infrastructure that uses existing infrastructure HFC and FTTN does.”
It’s only what experts around the world already know and what every technologically-minded citizen of Aus was screaming prior to the election and post-election backed up with endless streams of figures for the last 2 years.
WHO WOULDA THUNK IT
Glad to see you’re finally cottoning on, a bit slow but still better late than never eh?
Yes Jason some of us do understand…
And then there’s the illogically ideological and their FRAUDBAND stupidity.
Have you ever stopped to really think about what you are saying, Reality? How much rope you are prepared to play out for a belief?
It is a belief, isn’t it. That we can survive on copper. It’s not all bad. Is it. I mean look at what’s coming. Years left. Right? And HFC can help. Maybe g.fast will be a godsend for MDMs.
I mean we own (well most of it, now, sort of) the network (apart from bits we don’t, like Telstra Fibre). So we’ve gone through all of this. All of the deals. To buy someone else’s network. To “maximise value” in someone else’s network.
For what? To build something faster, sooner, cheaper. Right? I mean it is cheaper. All this. Yes?
At what point do you recognise that input factors are no longer solely labor’s fault and that both the current and ex NBN CEOs admit MTM is a driving factor in cost?
Ignore what the politician is saying; they always blur the lines. Look at what Morrow has said. MTM is a causal factor for the extra funding requirement.
And what happens when they ask for yet more, Reality? How much rope do you have left?
To prove copper can do it.. (at any cost)
The MTM in a nut shell.
Brendan B,
” Look at what Morrow has said. MTM is a causal factor for the extra funding requirement.”
Yes I know, that includes brownfield and greenfield FTTP as well.
“And what happens when they ask for yet more, Reality? How much rope do you have left?”
So many guesstimate scenarios to fix the ‘rope’ problem:
!. Drop all FTTN rollouts immediately use FTTP
2. Drop HFC sell it all to Foxtel just for their TV use (hang on they are selling BB as well, bit of a curve ball that) and use FTTP in HFC areas for NBN BB.
3. Vote Labor in and that will guarantee that all peak funding increases will stop, because they have the vast experience with FTTP rollouts and will keep estimated funding in check and meet rollover targets?
On historical reflection forget No 3.
I don’t know what you and others are alluding the solution would be to stop the NBN Co either Labor or Coalition jacking up the peak funding estimates as the rollout progresses?
What is your solution?
It has nothing to do with solution. The MTM has screwed that good and proper. The mess has been made. It’s about honesty. The governments, even your honesty, if you know what it is. Turnbull grossly underestimated the cost of the MTM technologies, he was wrong and badly so. Not much can be done about it other than upgrade when needed and just accept we will end up paying more than if Turnbull hadn’t stuffed it.
You mean act like a responsible government?
Like when New Zealand started rolling out FTTN and how bad it performed for the cost and then stopped rolling it out?!
Madness!
The total FTTP rollout in NZ is the approximate equivalence of the population of Melbourne to the size of Victoria, yeah no worries, rolling out FTTP to 93% of residences Australia wide with the same cost and timeline as Chorus in NZ should be a no brainer.
Reality
NZ already had FTTN but have now switched to FTTP but it’s good to see Australia 15 years behind our neighbor
When country is larger and rolling out FTTP
*cricket sounds*
When country is smaller and rolling out FTTP
“omg it’s smaller no comparison yarda yarda yard”
Fact is, FTTP rollouts start at a certain cost and drop yearly as shown from countries rolling it out.
@Reality
Economies of Scale. The cost advantages enterprises obtain due to scale of operation, with cost per unit of output generally decreasing with increasing scale, as fixed costs are spread out over more units of Output.
Your idiot analogy that it costs more than New Zealand because of population size, flies in the face of basic economics.
Oh and NZ didn’t have existing HFC infrastructure in place passing a population of about double that of NZ, plus some.
Oh and the Chorus rollout of FTTP/B is to only 75% of residences by 2020, so other than the reasons given and my previous post above the Chorus and NZ Government decision to rollout FTTP can be mirrored here – no worries.
Yet NZ rejected the offer to purchase the HFC. Pretty smart since the HFC and FTTN has given us a cost blowout by $26B from the cost of the $29B 2013 policy.
Jasonk,
“Yet NZ rejected the offer to purchase the HFC.”
Which has nothing to do with the comparison I stated.
‘existing HFC infrastructure in place passing a population of about double that of NZ, plus some.’
The Vodafone rollout in NZ was only in a portion of Wellington and Christchurch and passed only 145,000 residences, there was also perceived problems with re negotiating the NZ FTTP contracts with the NZ build contractors so it wouldn’t apply to HFC areas.
Nothing like the Australian experience where purchasing the Optus and Telstra HFC to service 34% of residences was a smart move and there were no contractual conflicts with other infrastucture and the future upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1 that overseas HFC infrastructure owners are implementing validating that purchase.
“Pretty smart since the HFC and FTTN has given us a cost blowout by $26B from the cost of the $29B 2013 policy.”
Show me where FTTN and HFC are directly responsible for a $26B cost blowout, you can rapidly divert to another subject if that proves impossible.
Reality
Well let’s see we had Turnbull fully costed plan of $29B with most of it FTTN. Now 3 months after the election there policy changes as with the price tag and rollout. Now with a blow if $12B in 3 months the only change to tech is the added HFC. Now the over inflated price of FTTP in the SR only counts for about $3B. So that’s a $9B cost blowout of the HFC. Now I have stated before the cost difference of FTTN from mostly the SR cost of $700 per premise to now $1600 per premise.
But then you have failed to show where FTTP wireless and sat has caused the $15B blowout from the SR to the CP16. Consider all those cost has reduced.
Jason K,
“Well let’s see we had Turnbull fully costed plan of $29B”
Incorrect, the Coalition Plan was never fully costed at $29B.
“with most of it FTTN.”
Incorrect, there has been no announcement that FTTN was or is most of the $29B (a figure incorrect anyway), other than you making unsubstantiated guesses.
” Now 3 months after the election there policy changes as with the price tag and rollout.”
Incorrect, it is now 2 years after the election.
” Now with a blow if $12B in 3 months”
Incorrect, it is not $12B in 3 months, it is UP TO $15B in required funding, which won’t be required until mid 2017 onward.
” the only change to tech is the added HFC.”
Incorrect, HFC has always been a key part of Coalition NBN policy from Day 1, it is not a change to tech just added.
” Now the over inflated price of FTTP in the SR only counts for about $3B.”
Interesting how you concluded the FTTP price is over inflated, I assume it is the only component of MTM that is over inflated, only because you say so, and I have no idea where you got the $3B from anyway.
” So that’s a $9B cost blowout of the HFC.”
It is? how do you work that out, and is that figure over inflated as well?
“Now I have stated before the cost difference of FTTN from mostly the SR cost of $700 per premise to now $1600 per premise.”
Yes but according to your weird logic the prices in the SR are over inflated , so the $700 figure is over inflated.
“But then you have failed to show where FTTP wireless and sat has caused the $15B blowout from the SR to the CP16.”
You have not shown it was caused by FTTN and HFC, so I have no idea why you are rabbiting on about FTTP, wireless and satellite, other than a futile attempt at diversion.
Reality,
MT stated (many times) that his plan was “fully costed” and “bulletproof”.
Are saying that he was wrong?
Reality LOL history lesson no. 2
Turnbull own youtube channel
April 8 2013
Abbott and Turnbull NBN policy announcement at foxtel studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2QUvcShNzg
2:03 min to all 25Mbps to by 2016 50Mbps by 2019
2:52 in fibre to the node (no mention of HFC)
2:55 delivered under $30B
9:02 min 25Mbps
23:54 $29.5B
30:00 allowing Telstra and Optus HFC to compete against there NBN FTTN.
Or would you like to read the liberal NBN policy on there website
http://www.liberal.org.au/fast-broadband-and-affordable-nbn
So if i am incorrect so must be Turnbull and Abbott
So
“Incorrect, the Coalition Plan was never fully costed at $29B.”
Wrong
“Incorrect, it is now 2 years after the election.”
there $29.5B FTTN policy before the election 3 months after being elected the SR had MTM at $41B so a $12B blowout in 3 months.
Now after 2 years we have another $15B blowout in cost to $56B.
“Incorrect, HFC has always been a key part of Coalition NBN policy from Day 1, it is not a change to tech just added.” Please show there pre election policy showing there use of HFC. But then there statement at Foxtel said they would allow Telstra and Optus to complete with the HFC.
“Interesting how you concluded the FTTP price is over inflated, I assume it is the only component of MTM that is over inflated, only because you say so, and I have no idea where you got the $3B from anyway.”
CP13 FTTP cost pp was $3300 the SR is $4700 CP16 FTTP cost is $3700. But then a an increase in cost of FTTP on the SR only accounts to $3b of the 2.5Mil premises there where going to rollout to.
“It is? how do you work that out, and is that figure over inflated as well?” So $12B -$3B = $9b for HFC.
You have not shown it was caused by FTTN and HFC, so I have no idea why you are rabbiting on about FTTP, wireless and satellite, other than a futile attempt at diversion.”
FTTP cost from SR to CP16 has gone down.
Wireless cost from SR to CP16 has gone down.
Sat cost from SR to CP16 has gone down.
So if all of them have gone down then HFC and FTTN cost must have increased to a blowout cost of $15b
LOL keep trying to rewrite history.
Ah good old Alain, using the alias “Reality” to helpfully highlight something he has zero grasp of!
FttP
I’m asking you, Reality, when do you hold the current government and the current NBN leadership team accountable, for current government policy?
Because I see “blame labor” buried in a lot of obfuscation. And the usual a vote for labor is a vote for more expenditure sabre rattling.
You know what, I don’t believe you do actually know how much rope you have to give. Because your solution is to blame a government that haven’t been in power for the best part of three years.
My solution?
Hold the current people accountable for the current cluster-fuck. That’s my solution. We are spending a huge amount more on technology that is increasingly seeing the last mile shrinking; this is not sustainable.
Malcolm may have had a point early on; but he allowed the department to be endlessly lobbied, let political ideal cloud technical sense and reason – and damned it to deploy a network designed for an incumbent, despite not being one.
So here we are, buying up large portions of someone else’s network. Apart from some bits that are profitable that they refuse to let go (which ironically, being fibre, would have boosted income) and deploying a network that successive governments (from both sides of the house) once refused.
FTTN – or ‘fraudband’, as the coalition originally called it.
Meanwhile we have claims that we both don’t need high speed (which then helps tank the publics interest in high speed services that actually have the potential to make more money) and isn’t g.fast amazing.
The NBN has to make a political ideal a technical fact, and I steadfastly believe the money train for FTTN is only getting started. Because when you look overseas (the same place Uncle Malcolm once did) most are throwing in the costly towel and just deploying fibre.
My solution Reality is to give you my TARDIS. Set it to 1820 when copper telephone technology was developed. That’s right. Copper was never designed for the internet. It was a telephone system. Fibre is designed for the internet.
Andrew T,
I don’t know where you are going with that copper example, wireless transmission was developed in the 1890’s it was never designed for the internet, and here we are in 2015 with 4Gx, 4G LTE, fixed wireless, and constant upgrades to Wi-Fi speeds, all designed for the internet.
Realty
Get some glasses no where is the a mention wireless
“…and here we are in 2015 with 4Gx, 4G LTE, fixed wireless, and constant upgrades to Wi-Fi speeds, all designed for the internet.”
Yes all copper related technologies… oh wait.
I was obviously comparing the history of copper with the history of wireless, both started out in the 1800’s , both have been developed over the decades to carry data at even higher speeds, and still are being researched and tested for higher speeds today.
I know Andrew T didn’t mention wireless I did, you don’t like it but that’s not a rational reason why it is not a valid comparison of 1800’s discoveries still being used today.
Reality
How’s the Coalition election winning policy of delivering 25mbps by 2016 for only $29B going.
@ Reality…
Yes we can see the strategy, when it gets too awkward divert and talk about something else, when questions are asked about the diversion subject matter, divert again and talk about something else.
Alain’s behaviour is pure trolling, he’s not interested in debating using facts, he just conflates and conflates and sets up so many strawmen Delimiter has become a fire hazard!!!
Indeed Derek nothing has changed in the last 5 years…
Oh apart from the government but even then our dear friend was dudded when they booted the extremist and instilled a comparatively liberal leader…
LOL
Jasonk,
Didn’t MT say that the cost was bulletproof? What happened to that?
@ Reality
“I was obviously comparing the history of copper with the history of wireless, both started out in the 1800’s , both have been developed over the decades to carry data at even higher speeds, and still are being researched and tested for higher speeds today.”
…..and yet we would have none of these if the early pioneers would have listened to their accountants and business advisers. It would have been much cheaper just to upgrade the existing gas lamps, who needs electricity just to run some light bulbs? It was only after the electricity grid was laid that multi billion dollar business developed and new invention started to arrive (and continue to do so). So based on history, we should build the REAL NBN because “they” will come…..(would have been interesting to see what the “smart Country” would have come up with)
Regards
Alfred
Alfred Q,
“So based on history, we should build the REAL NBN”
‘Back to 2013 FTTP’ supporters don’t have the final word on what REAL NBN is defined as.
Typical alain..
Lets not warp back to 2013…you say
But back to 2013..you say
Seriously grow up disgusting little boy.
“Back to 2013 FTTP’ supporters don’t have the final word on what REAL NBN is defined as.”
I think you just proved my point……
“The up to $15B blowout in peak funding is due to the NBN MTM , we know that because FTTP, FTTB, FTTN, HFC, fixed wireless and satellite are being rolled out, yep I think we well and truly understand.”
So much for cheapa!
Hotcakes,
So what would have been cheaper brownfield FTTP to 93% of residences at a CPP of $3,700 vs FTTN to 29% at 1,600 and HFC to 34% at $1,100?
So how does $3,700 become the same as or less than $1,600 and $1,100 – magic?
ROFL… say no more
“Any reduction in operating costs claimed for an all‐fibre network would be miniscule when compared to just the interest payments on the extra investment required for such construction,”
Sorry… you’ve practically lost any credibility the moment you spout ad hoc rubbish like that w/o any form of at least some cooked up “analysis” by your cronies. And then attempting to conveniently trying to deflect the issue that somehow for the past 2 years a “well costed and ready” plan wasn’t.
At the very least most of the more staunch MTM defenders attempt to link some form of (if misguided or out of context) information.
He didn’t even claim to use a coaster to do the maths on. Pretty pathetic from a party apparently aligned with “business”…
Here’s the thing.. at the end of the day the whole claim that “we’ve only just finally understood the real funding” excuse is a whole load of rubbish..
Even if you discount the “well costed” fallacy, or even the fact that “unknown roll out costs” can come up. You can more than safely extrapolate extra costs that would turn up from a change to the “cheaper” MTM even during the original NBN days… why?
Because EVERYONE HAD FREAKING ACCESS TO THE MONTHLY COSTINGS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE COMPANY! EVERY FREAKING ONE!
Quigley made it a point of transparency when he was in power to publish all the costings and estimates every month ready for scrutiny under the monthly senate estimates committee!
The only way these “sudden blow-outs” could ever occur is if you closed your eyes, plugged your ears and screamed la la la really loudly till the sun don’t shine and pick a random “cheaper” number as an estimate from the sky and pursue said estimate as “gospel” until you take over and reality decides to throw cold water on your plans!
Aren’t the opex costs of the copper network in the order of 1 to 2 billion dollars per year for maintenance?
I mean, that’s a lot of interest if he is claiming that that additional opex pales in comparison to higher interest on the capex of fibre.
At 5% that’s still another 20-40 billion dollars in capex (at a single time, as opposed to gradual as the rollout spends it) isn’t it??
Unless I got my maths wrong (not unlikely!)
Assuming my maths are right, I doubt the government would be paying 5% interest… More like half that.
He’s a dud and is only there to peddle what has been setup. The Liberals have ignored every single bit of criticisim from the start. All ideology , they don’t give a shit about end users.
Malcolm’s credibility is showing through his dud appointments.
Now who do I believe, Mike Quigley (the father of the NBN) or Mr Potato Head.
Comments are closed.