Detailed analysis of NBN Co’s finances shows FTTP better value than FTTN

149

Note: The calculations in this article have been modified slightly since they were published. You can find details here.

news A researcher from Monash University has published a detailed analysis of the NBN company’s costs which appears to show that Labor’s technically superior Fibre to the Premises model represents better financial value than the Coalition’s preferred Fibre to the Node technology only a scant few years after FTTP was deployed.

Under Labor’s previous near-universal Fibre to the Premises model for the NBN, the HFC cable and copper networks owned by Telstra and Optus would have been shut down. However, the Coalition’s Multi-Technology Mix plan instituted by Malcolm Turnbull as Communications Minister in the Abbott administration is seeing them acquired and upgraded by the NBN company instead.

Turnbull has repeatedly stated that Australia would benefit more from a situation where more Australians got access to high-speed broadband speeds faster under the MTM model, rather than taking longer to deploy the technically superior FTTP option.

In addition, the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the cost of deploying Labor’s FTTP model would be substantially higher by many billions of dollars than using the MTM model.

However, analysis published by Monash University researcher Richard Ferrers in December appears to show that the FTTP option would actually deliver better value than the FTTN alternative.

Ferrers is a research data analyst at Monash, with a PhD in Technology Innovation Management. He is a part of the Australian National Data Service, which focuses on making Australia’s research data assets more valuable for researchers, research institutions and the country at large.

On his personal blog (we recommend you click here for the full post), Ferrers noted that the release of internal NBN documents late last year had, for the first time, provided the opportunity to compare the costs of the NBN company’s various technologies, using the company’s own financial figures.

Ferrers’ analysis suggests, he wrote, that FTTP ended up being better financial value than FTTN when the NBN company’s operational expenditure and projected revenue figures were examined six and a half years after each technology was deployed.

This fact, he said, came from the fact that FTTP was significantly cheaper to run on an ongoing basis ($90 less per connection per year), but also generated more average revenue (close to $25 per month or $300 per annum per connection).

“This difference totals about $30 per month,” in favour of FTTP, Ferrers wrote. “This is a total net benefit of $390 per household per year for using FTTP over using FTTN.”

Consequently, the analyst wrote, the capital expenditure difference between the two technologies (FTTP costs about $2,300 more per premise to install than FTTN) would be earned back in 76 months — or about six and a third years.

Over the long term, according to the analyst, this would add up to many billions of dollars — for example, $9 billion in total over ten years. “The longer FTTN remains in place, the greater the foregone benefit for not switching to FTTP,” he wrote.

And there are also other factors which would also inflate the cost of FTTN. For example, as the FTTN network was gradually replaced with FTTP over the long-term due to growing demand, this would cause additional costs to accrue to the FTTN option.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence showing that the MTM option chosen by the Coalition Government will add an extra cost burden to the NBN company’s finances.

For example, 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 early November, the former chief executive of the NBN company, Mike Quigley, released an extraordinarily detailed and highly referenced document showing the blowout was due to the Multi-Technology Mix imposed by Turnbull. Shortly after, NBN chief executive Bill Morrow broadly confirmed the analysis.

However, the NBN company also still maintains that it would cost dramatically more to deploy FTTP than its current MTM model. In October it was revealed that the NBN company, after a request from Turnbull, had produced analysis showing the FTTP model would cost peak funding of $74-$84 billion to deploy, compared with $46-$56 billion for the MTM model.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

149 COMMENTS

      • Failed, just like Luddite Turnbull!

        didn’t cha know, no one needs anything more than mobile broadband!

        • Yeah, the major player is Telstra and the default News service they provide is The Australian and Sky news. Google apps give access to other sources, but the average Joe Blow just goes with what is there.
          No wonder the population is increasingly ignorant of so many extremely important areas in our lives

    • I’m shocked too!

      Seriously, article title should read “Detailed analysis of NBN Co’s finances confirms what we already knew about FTTP vs FTTN”

        • He did, about 4 years ago…

          Back when you were arguing that HFC had completely failed, only good for pigeons to sit on across from your place… to without foundation, ridiculously suggest FTTP would fail too.

          Oh, I almost forgot, that was of course after you told us only days/weeks before that FTTP couldn’t help but be a rip roaring success, because it was a monopoly…

          “Remember alain” ?

          But look now.

          Lol (in fact ROFLMFAO) indeed.

  1. Nothing of surprise here. Don’t need a Monash researcher to come up with those conclusions. Any open minded common nerd could have worked that out.

    • The conclusions are there for one and all to see and tech experts have been saying as much for some time now!

      It does help having some firm numbers from someone who’s done the hard yards to compare the options (which hasn’t been done before to this level of detail) based on the NBN figures they have provided though.

  2. Richard Ferrers follow up blog post http://valman.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/fttn-vs-fttp-2-fast-cheaper-sooner-vs.html conclusions include

    “FTTP is much more profitable for NBN Co. than FTTN, even when running eight years later.”
    “FTTN never makes a profit, nor generates positive cashflow even after 20 years.
    “FTTP is generally superior to FTTN whenever the gap between availability is less than four years.”

    Ferrer’s still to come next post deals with
    “Can the PM’s statement that $30B is saved by using his MTM (ie FTTN, HFC) rather than FTTP really amount to a $30B saving?”

    • “FTTN never makes a profit, nor generates positive cashflow even after 20 years.”

      That is the scary one, if there’s no return there’s just debt for the Aussie taxpayer to pickup and cover. (I know its not a budget item now as its an investment that is meant to provide a return but if it doesn’t it’ll have to hit the budget in one form or another sometime).

      Try and convince someone to lend the money to just finish the damn thing with out taxpayers underwriting the debt and/or getting bent over re interest rates would be very hard as well imho.

      • What’s the chance of NBN Co increasing it’s wholesale prices across the board to attempt to improve it’s financial position, soon after the 2016 Federal Election?

        • It would still be political suicide imho, I don’t see them being able to hold off a Royal commission since their plan is meant to save us $30b. They have said cheaper,faster, sooner too often for it to be forgotten etc.

          ISP backlash would be extreme (cvc pricing is contentious now) and you can be darn sure the ISP’s will let their customers know why their net bill just went up!

          • The Federal Coalition can just claim that FTTP were going to have to rise anyway under the Labor plan, and that MTM price rises are no larger than the ones that would have occurred under 93% FTTP.
            Cheaper not cheap.

            nbn RSP’s can blame and complain all they like, but I think there’s little risk of much political damage after what is shaping up as a very comfortable 2016 Federal Coalition election win. ISP’s that also own substantial mobile broadband networks or other networks that compete with the NBN, won’t be too disappointed with increases in nbn wholesale prices.

            Any nbn price rises, without corresponding non nbn ADSL/HFC/FTTN price rises might slow down the migration to nbn in nbn RFS areas, but I doubt this issue will outweigh the benefits nbn wholesale price rises would have on the longer term valuation of NBN Co assets.

        • Turnbull did claim it would be cheaper for the average user not cost more or ATM being the same cost as FTTP lol

          • yeah taxpayers will have the figures in billions go over their heads readily enough but increase their ‘fixed’ bills by even a $1 they’ll jolly well notice that!

      • “FTTN never makes a profit, nor generates positive cashflow even after 20 years.”

        AND the taxpayer has to fork out AGAIN to build the full FTTP network, to replace the aging, slow, ugly and expensive FTTN that Turnbull stitched us up with.

        • If Labor are going to run a Royal Commission into anything when they get back into government (and they will eventually, if not sooner), it should be into this textbook example of utter incompetence and recklessness with public policy and finance, quite possibly with political corruption somewhere in the picture as well.

          You gotta give it to Abbott: he does know how to wreck. He wrecked not only the NBN, but also Turnbull’s reputation to the bargain.

          • Two corrections – a) it is not incompetence if you’re getting the result you planned for. If anything, on the score of competence, Turnbull has demonstrated he is extremely competent getting precisely the outcome he was shooting for. You can’t say that about many infrastructure projects ;-)

            B) Turnbull’s reputation isn’t wrecked, or the public wouldn’t want him as PM. Based on reputation, Turnbull will win by a landslide and he’ll probably get a majority in both houses this time. And we will be categorically #@&*ed.

      • Infrastructure that provides community benefit by way of increased efficiency (and, consequently, economic benefit) can be funded by the use of credit generated by government. There is no need to “borrow” from banks because the National Government has the constitutional power to issue money. In other words, do what banks do (create money) for the benefit of the nation.

    • This is all from the department of the bleeding obvious for anyone who understands even the basics of these technologies and their costs.

      Still is great to have yet more evidence out in the public domain to show just what a bunch of crooks the libs are!

  3. Devil’s advocate, but could this be because nbnco is only rolling out FTTP where it is financially viable (cheap) to do so, lowering the average CAPEX per premises as reported in its figures? Would the average CAPEX rise if you tried to roll FTTP out to a greater proportion of the population (e.g. through asbestos-filled pits, into internal wiring in old strata complexes etc that are currently being served with other MTM technologies)?

    • They’ve been doing the opposite of cherry picking with the P roll out as they were focused on black spots and underserved area’s first (ie the more expensive ones). I would imagine the FttB would still be FttB for MDU’s as well (prior Labor plan had no real option for MDU’s per se).

      MTM tech has been the ones attempting to cherry pick.

      Costs have also increased slightly for FttP options due to contracts nearing end of life, LNP suppressing results of quite promising cost savings of latest P trial methods (USA,NZ both have seen and project to see further cost savings in their roll outs). One can only imagine what 8-10 years of experience would do for FttP costs.

  4. “In October it was revealed that the NBN company, after a request from Turnbull, had produced analysis showing the FTTP model would cost peak funding of $74-$84 billion to deploy, compared with $46-$56 billion for the MTM model.”

    Please remember that the counter-factual wasn’t that NBN Co prepared was to switch back to “Labor’s Policy” after NBN Co and Turnbull et al had instituted the MTM. Mr Rue testified that this included assumption like the rollout ramping down to zero premises passed for an extended period of time while they switched back. This does not seem to be credible to me.

    Also note, that I expect the counterfactual in switching back to FTTP includes going back to the older FTTP architecture and not architecture 2.1 which is what NBN Co were working to prior to the change of government.

    Essentially, the counterfactual is an admission of what a mess NBN Co and Turnbull has made of the MTM. If it was true, things have gone wrong for the apparently technology agnostic approach. They are meant to be choosing the best access technology and if they have dramatically driven the cost of FTTP up then they have failed terribly, almost negligently.

  5. Nice to have figures analysed. Let’s go to the numbers.

    False is the assumption the opex figures (slide p5) are per annum, notes clearly identifying FY2019-22.

    The variation in opex is also clearly explained :
    “Lower forecast opex for FTTx relative to HFC largely reflects the impact of delay in rollout of timing of Telstra Infrastructure lease payments”.

    Faster rollout and therefore earlier lease payments results in smaller opex savings, not because of lower FTTP opex.

    Similarly revenue is not per annum but over period analysed. FTTN/dp is expected to be completed earlier (1.7yrs vs 2yrs). Also noted is it is assumed activation constraints will affect rollout for FTTN.

    The figures used are wildly misinterpreted (data analyst?). The very purpose of the document (alternate scenarios and impact on peak funding) would have made this obvious for anyone with commercial experience.

    Surprising the cost argument continues to be used, FTTP is expensive. Fanboys continue to fall for it. We know opex for fibre is lower (previous post I’ve quantified it), however opex savings is some 20+ years to break even when discounting capex at 0%. Using industry standard 9% the payback is indefinite.

    Next…

      • Oh have sympathy for him. He drinks from the same sexist, male boy’s club culture of Briggs, Dutton et al: “fanboys” is in Richard’s every post. Richard can’t help it. It’s all that iron-pumped testosterone, it’s the daily office sweep to win an arm wrestle, it’s the machismo energy of the 2015 conservative. It’s Richard’s way. It’s his zen, dharma and soul path. Let him be. Let his samsara accumulate He will follow the copper road to his bitter end. It is his fate.

    • So everyone else is wrong Richard?

      Such as, Prof Tucker, Mark Gregory, Paul Budde, Simon Hackett, Monash Uni and the list goes on and don’t forget Mike Quigley (until as you did, you find he said something you agree with and then he’s your smoking gun…*sigh*)

      Ok, I’m now convinced. MTM/FttN must be great, why, just look at it’s only vocal supporters (apart from the party and the party faithful, of course)…

      * Mr he was so good at what he did he went broke. So here’s $1.5m for an “impartial” (wink) report.

      * Mr, I’ve got my money invested in FttP abroad (rather than shitty FRAUDBAND ;) and me and my colleagues use FttP here in Canberra.

      * The $3m p.a. man… Mr blowout by as much as $15B, Mr having to renew rather than reuse existing infrastructure, Mr years behind schedule, Mr Vodafail.

      * and of course Richard, the self proclaimed, world’s leading expert in, err, well everything. Who is never able to say the plan was actually wrong because he claimed he could have been commissioned to write this very plan… (add, no I didn’t, for the circle of BS to continue….. here)

      4 people only, spruiking MTM. All who have a vested interest in MTM/politics/ideology (not that the others I mentioned above don’t necessarily, but they certainly aren’t as obviously blatant)…

      So three cheers for the four new amigos…

      FTW chaps, what a crew.

      • @rizz of course you don’t understand my post. The figures he used are misinterpreted as explained, the explanations are in the very document he links to. This isn’t even contestible. Expect a retraction, no data analysis could allow such misunderstanding to stand (embarrassing).

        Pointing out the obvious failure attracts the usual bile. Enjoy your ignorance.

          • Laudable intent (lol) but missing the point by a country mile.

            If all you want to do is convince the flock of people that already agree with you, near enough is good enough.

            If you want to put forward a compelling case (or in this case, put forward someone else’s compelling case) that politicians will have to listen to (because we all know that they never dismiss out of hand completely proven evidence let alone proof with holes in it… ; ), then you have to make sure your data is f#cking flawless… You leave a loophole, pollies will wriggle/walk/sail the QE2 through it.

            That you disagree with Richard ideologically is neither here nor there, he points out fairly obvious flaws in the analysis, particularly in regards to mislabeling multi year periods as ‘per annum’. Instead of addressing the points or debating them (see David Coopers response further down), the crowd jumps on Richard for pointing out they exist…

            The fact that such obvious problems exist completely undermine the intent of the document. If Richard said water was wet, would you argue just because you do not agree with him? \= )

            But yeah, as long as you guys get your snide zingers in, WIN right?? X D

          • If anything the analysis Richard Ferrers is overly kind to NBN’s figures, Richard (Delimiter’s resident Right Wing nut counter) is trying to say those errors invalidate the analysis carte blanche, which they dont.

            The real world knows this to be true which is why Bell Canada, Comcast, councils, and telco’s the world over are all replacing copper networks with Fibre.

            Here’s a real world example of FTTP costing less to run and maintain while delivering higher revenues which more than off-set the higher up-front capex.

            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/11/13/bell-canada-plans-10gbps-speeds-for-easier-to-maintain-fttp/

            “40 percent less truck rolls in Fibre to the Home areas versus FTTN areas”.

            “50 percent reduction in preventative maintenance compared with FTTN.”

            not only that:

            “In addition, the executive said, the “capital intensity” for Bell Canada in terms of rolling out FTTP over the past few years had been lower than the company’s HFC cable competitors.”

            So why are we wasting money on obsolete copper again?

          • Org
            But we did say the same for the SR but that didn’t stop Richard, you and others taking it as gospel and what has happen with those figures MTM cost has increased to use Richard’s own words by a significant amount.

            While the CP16 has shown FTTP cost is cheaper than what was in the SR.

          • Derek O,

            Of course what you consistently ignore when using USA examples of FTTP rollouts by private companies is that these rollouts are selectively and tragically placed in lucrative areas of the USA, mainly based on what other competitor infrastructure is in the area.

            To compare it with a nationwide government backed rolled like the NBN in Australia that has pricing and access control vested with the ACCC is complete and utter rubbish.

            But you know all of that.

          • Ah good ‘ol Alain, ignoring reality as usual, oh the irony!!!

            Fact is Alain, Bell Canada has more PSTN lines (13 million) than Telstra so they know a thing or two about providing services over copper and Fibre. About time you stopped being a troll.

          • @ Alain…

            “Of course what you consistently ignore when using USA examples of FTTP rollouts by private companies is that these rollouts are selectively and tragically placed in lucrative areas of the USA…”

            Thanks for once again demonstrating the folly of private enterprise and just why we needed the original national NBN (sadly now bastardised to the self proclaimed FRAUDBAND).

          • Fact is that private company carefully selected cherry picked rollouts in the USA has no relevance whatever to a government backed national rollout in Australia that will be using already paid for in place copper and HFC infrastructure.

          • Maybe not to you, but it does to everyone with two eyes.

            But then if need be you’ll simply say the opposite tomorrow, as per usual anyway, soooo.

            But if you can’t comprehend the way private enterprise works (err, even after you even said it your self) and can’t ergo then see why a nationalised network was required, I guess that explains a great deal.

            You’re welcome.

      • Rizz
        The hypocrisy of Richard
        “The modelling behind the summary is not disclosed.”
        Yet the modeling of the MTM int he SR was not disclosed heavily redacted but didn’t stop him claim there was so much better lol and we now know how accurate that modeling really is.

          • @rizz is your point to label those in their mid-forties old or to expose your ignorance of 1950s economic policy?

            @jk you don’t need modelling to use the summary data presented, you do to draw conclusions from data not presented.

          • Richard
            Yet you don’t want to compare S1 or S2 for FTTP against the current cost of MTM and to use your own words “using the best number available”
            Since the S1 and S2 are the best numbers available for if they had continued. So until such time as NBN releases new figures on if they had continued with FTTP I will still use those embarrassing figures.

            But then you still haven’t answered which is faster over 2km ADSL, VDSL or g.fast. Since you claim of “speeds over copper at all lengths continue to improve”

          • Since you asked Richard, “no”, my point is not.

            See that? it’s easy to give an actual BS free answer, as I do regularly. You ought to try it even only once, I promise it won’t hurt.

            So to reiterate, no not at all, Richard…

            As such, I’m deeply hurt that you, my dearest pen pal and feisty, nostalgically obsessed adversary, could actually decipher my comment in such a manner …

            And to prove it, my apologies to you, if you feel I was appearing (unintentionally of course) to cast you personally, in a less than respectful light, due to your race, colour, creed, age, sexuality or obvious cyclopic political perpetuity ;)

            But since you spent so much time on the abacus, neglecting the basics of language and are seemingly ergo unable to comprehend basic English, just let me translate for you. You’re welcome.

            IMHO, the views you selflessly enlighten us with daily, certainly appear to fit warm and snuggly within the Abbott/McCarthy/Bush/Trump mould, of fear-mongering, ultra conservatism, with a rearward vision and double pike, in the tuck position…

            And as for you suggesting my ignorance in relation to your comment above, let me also say, I was simply commenting topically, but generically, not in relation to your further enlightenment, per se`.

            My comment was aimed not at your comment, but more towards you and your brethren three (other) amigos antiquated views. Views which, for example, openly promote the visionless stupidity of obsolete FTTN/fraudband… well the other three amigos (no not Bush et al) are thinking of dumping frauband (obsolete?) anyway and altering to FTTdp, but that is mere conjecture ATM. So you aren’t totally alone and still have the amigos… for now.

            But frankly between pen pals/feisty adversaries, with all your cherry-picking of the facts/figures that fit the Abbott/McCarthy/Bush/Trump visionless and dumbed down redneck mantra and the complete ignoring of the vast, outnumbering, majority of facts/figures that do not, the simple question is why?

            Think of the children, Richard…

          • @rizz Trump an ultra-conservative? Ignorance unprecedented in my experience.

            I missed what your continual references to 1950s is supposed to mean or how it applies to my position. McCarthy?

            True my basic English doesn’t extend to your alexisms; obsolete (adj): technology that’s being deployed on commercial scale worldwide and under continuing research.

            Think of the debt you’re gifting the children.

            @jk see long reach vdsl2. Unbelievable you’re still fighting my position in 2016. How’s it possible anyone would deny continual technological advance?

          • @Richard “Think of the debt you’re gifting the children.”

            Your idiotological mates have pushed our country’s debt from 180 Billion in 2 years to over 500 Billion with nothing to show for it, so dont play the debt card with us, Hypocrite!

          • Richard, mired in amongst all of your redneck hang ’em, mentality, mixed with absolute narcissism and accompanying rubbery figures (speaking of debt, I think of your arguments as the $667B debt argument – contrived nonsense).

            Again I ask the simple question – why?

            At this point may I refer back to where you may recall, you asked a simple question of me and boom I answered it, straight up, no BS, no worming. You asked I answered NO and I invited you (genuinely) to do likewise, even only once remember, it was only a few hours ago?

            But I digress… you find these $667B like furphies, to desperately but unsuccessfully attempt to support your crusade (and justify your previous humiliating comments now found to have been absolutely incorrect)… you know about writing plans and so forth…

            But as such, it demonstrates just why you are either too blinded or sorry, just too dim, to even grasp the simple underlying fact “YES FACT” that fibre has made copper obsolete…

            But it does explain the complete downfall in the rest of your (dare I say) visionless 1950’s argument…

            Obsolete: v. cause (a product or idea) to become obsolete by replacing it with something new.

            Hmm you tell us… hasn’t fibre became the NEW standard for NEW roll outs? I.e. Greenfields or even (again dare I say) the main NEW part of FTTN and/or FTTdp?

          • Richard
            If Lr VDSL is so successful why NBN is looking at FTTdp there would be no need to get fibre closer to the premises past 1km as you claim delivers a better speed then adsl2 which fits in the upto 25mbps. Or the article of NBN switching people from there copper ADSL to sat. But then hey should have to as VDSL would give them a better service. Remember using existing infrastructure.

          • @rizz you know what the (v) means? The English word you’re looking for is “obsolescence” (adj) or “obsolesce” (v), though neither are applicable to your usage. Perhaps your Latin needs refreshing;-)

          • @ Richard,

            I said I wouldn’t chase you (read: chase your cyclopic comments) in 2016, but your complete nescience, naivety, servility and need to cherry pick a word or two from within one’s comment to argue over, rather than answer or address the crux of the issue, beggars belief…

            For someone who claims to be ultimately intelligent, your egotistical vanity/need to be right even when proven wrong, either stifles this intelligence or indeed you vastly over estimate yourself.

            Now would you like to answer my simple question this time – or can you find another word or two to pedantically and semantically try to avoid ‘reality’ (now there’s an irony)?

            So again…

            Q. Hasn’t fibre become the NEW standard for NEW roll outs? I.e. Greenfields or even the main NEW part of FTTN and/or FTTdp?

            Yes or no (remember just once, it won’t hurt)…?

            Better still, you being a L/libertarian (ahem)… why don’t you tell your ridiculous, antiquated views and talk about the v… to one of the world’s highest profile people of your ilk…

            http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/11/copper-wire-technology-whose-time-has-passed.html

            Here let me spoon feed you, as I regularly need to, with another here. You’re welcome…

            “In the last century, we have seen many technologies come and go. Before the car, came the horse and buggy; before computers, there were typewriters; and before wireless and fiber broadband networks, there was copper wire.

            There aren’t many horse and buggies on the road and most of us don’t have typewriters sitting on our desks. So why are copper networks still so widely used although they “HAVE BEEN” rendered “OBSOLETE” by next-generation technologies?

            The simple answer is that federal, state and local regulations are stuck in the past…”

            Federal, State and local regulations in the US aren’t the only ones stuck in the past eh Richard? Our previous government for all their flaws had us climbing out of the past and into the future and the new government (with your plan in their hot little hands ;) kicked us right back there again.

            Sad part is, when a (former) American Republican Presidential candidate can see it (even back in 2013) IMO, there’s something woefully wrong with those here who… still cant.

          • @rizz Obsolete does not describe FTTN. Period!

            I’ve always agreed that fibre is a superior technology, but it comes at a significant cost; arguing most of the benefits of universal broadband can be captured with alternatives for less money. I’ve also said (you’ve quoted me) we’ve used fibre for greenfields (cost compatible, superior product) for years.

            Your own Forbes article is about the silliness of govt regulation requiring copper be reinstalled in areas affected by natural disasters. A perfectly libertarian position, he doesn’t propose govt run monopoly overbuilding copper infrastructure around the country. Note his use of “rendered obsolete”.

            I’d also point out there is no one libertarian position (broad school of thought). Unlike leftoids I don’t seek reaffirmation through group think (or +1), comfortable with my own intelligence and ability to reason. Being right is not a vote.

            If you want to use words, or create inferences then it’s useful to know (not superficially) what they mean and be civil. Then I’ve been asking the same thing of you for 8 years (not expecting a change).

            The analyst’s figures are wrong (as demonstrated). You go off on group think, bile, and factually incorrect statements. Not once did you address the obvious errors. A few commenters made valuable contributions, might pay to reread them.

          • @ Richard this will be my last post to you ‘for now’, as we again go around in circles and never the twain shall meet, so it seems…

            Look feel free to spin those few words of Forbes and grasp part while ignoring the crux (where have I seen this before) as you wish, to fit the narrative…

            But it’s clearly there for all to see (the simple analogy of car/horse and buggy, PC/typewriters and fibre/copper wire) well, it’s there for those who want to see.

            FTTN not obsolete, you say? So for the pedantic and semantic. The copper section of FTTN (the bottleneck part that’s been in the ground for decades) is obsolete and as this copper is an integral part of FTTN… can see where this going?

            Let me help, going back to Forbes’ headline. “Copper Wire — A technology whose time has passed”.

            Yes I agree fibre is the way to go – thank you, we are getting somewhere and I agree again of the folly of government replacing “obsolete infrastructure” with “obsolete infrastructure”, it’s ludicrous… just as ludicrous as NBN proposing to do exactly that here with MTM (remembering the previous NBNCo had progressed beyond such stupidity with FTTP)..

            But it still remains, the underlying factor was, that “private enterprise failed” to deliver and government needed to take over. Being so, the previous government got it right IMO and now looking at the constant financial blow outs, timeframe extensions, “replacing obsolescence with obsolescence”, possibly having to overbuild current Optus HFC instead of using this existing infrastructure (an integral part of the plan) etc, etc and “fibre being the superior technology”…

            As the “B – benefits (yes that widely overlooked and poor cousin to C in our mates, mates CBA)” of FTTP are widely known and with the roll out cost alone (not even including anything else) of MTM seemingly increasing daily and the cheaper gap is becoming at best negligible and at worst a no brainer in favour of FTTP.

            Then add the MTM timeframe of to all Aussie by 2016 now (iirc) blown out to 2020, once again the sooner gap again is at best negligible and at worst a no brainer in favour of FTTP.

            As such, I believe it is apparent to anyone who isn’t bogged down in ideology or political skullduggery, as the topic alludes to… that FTTP is clearly the better all round “value”.

            Have a nice day Richard…

          • @Richard…
            “Obsolete does not describe FTTN”
            In point of fact, it probably does…certainly as a rollout format it does. FTTN is now a form of repair for old systems and is certainly not a solution for new networks to take.

            “Think of the debt you’re gifting the children”
            Actually, by delaying FTTP, the LNP is adding to that debt to a far greater degree by limiting economic growth and reducing GDP revenue. FTTP has been proven to be a far greater revenue generator than FTTN…

            “The analyst’s figures are wrong”
            I don’t necessarily agree, but even if I did, they are still exponentially more accurate than the figures currently relied upon by the LNP and NBNCo.

    • A few of the issues you noted were pointed out to the author on WP when he posted them. It’s a shame that they weren’t corrected because it undermines a very good point.

      When correctly estimating the costing of the OPEX, Revenue, RFS Timeframes and factoring in Lease payments the final outcome does not vary significantly. FTTP, with significantly higher revenue and lower operating costs, will provide a return on investment in a far shorter period than FTTN. The Lease Payments to note are also a consistent cost across FTTN and FTTP, and only a slight variation in timing (3 months), making it irrelevant in your point above.

      I had estimated that a full FTTP deployment for the specific Optus area, including peak debt (but excluding interest), would see FTTP return on value in a decade, with FTTN over several. And that would not take into account that FTTN will be subject to increasing OPEX costs through Pole Rentals, power cost increases, active component replacements etc. Nor does it take into account that FTTP is likely to see a higher ongoing increase in revenue with less limitations on increasing utilisation.

      In addition, when calculating the cost of deploying FTTP based on the Optus HFC document, the FTTP CPP for these areas was in fact ~$3,300, and not ~$4,400 (including lease payment). It’s another flawed measurement that is based on activity to date, and not projection on an area by area basis.

      Of course, NBN Co could actually be transparent in the financial projections, actuals and issues so we wouldn’t be having these arguments

      • @dc do you have the link to the wp (presumably whirlpool) discussion? Intelligent commentary would make a pleasant change.

    • Richard, my favourite chap. Sigh.

      Tell me, if FTTN is so great then why did all Federal politicians in mid 2013 have FTTP installed at taxpayers’ expense to their offices?

      Hmm. Why? Surely FTTN must have been a better option /s

      • @at for the same reason they give themselves pay rises & increase perks, exempt themselves from legislation, file fraudulent declarations with impunity, etc

        They have scant regard for the citizens they represent and the taxpayer money they spend. What possible reason could MPs (most technically illiterate) have for a point-to-point fibre connection? They’re laughing at us.

        Your post above encapsulates the fanboy bile perfectly. Im sure the hypocrisy of your abuse eludes you.

        • Sorry I’m not going to chase you (and those 3 others who support FTTN – who all look like they may desert you and go FTTdp anyway) in 2016, it’s obviously pointless…

          But just to respond, the hypocrisy of you forever repeating fanboy, bile, claiming others ignorant etc whilst forever sobbing about others being personal towards you…

          Once again/as usual eludes you.

    • The numbers Ferrers used for revenue are $275 million for FTTP and $225 million for FTTN. This is the per annum figure quoted in the nbn document, not the 3 year figure. The only 3 year figure quoted in the nbn document is for the HFC option.
      Actually he has overstated the case for FTTN, because the $225 million is described in the nbn doc as being for “~1.3y of revenue”, while the $275 million FTTP is for “~1y of revenue”.
      Taking the 1.3y into account, the benefit of FTTP relative to FTTN comes to $285 per annum per residence = $24 per month per residence.

      On the operating costs side, Ferrers has used $125 million per annum (=$360 per residence per annum), which looks correct from the nbn document (Note $125 million per annum comes to $3.5 billion per annum for 10 million residences, which is not too far from the figures in corporate plans). However his figure for Opex for FTTN is probably inflated since the $200 million is probably for 1.3 years. Taking the 1.3 years for FTTN into account, $200 million Opex becomes $150 million Opex per annum for FTTN. $150 million / 350k residences = $440 per annum. This gives a difference in OPEX between FTTP and FTTN of $80 per residence per annum. Note $80 is about double the figure given in the strategic review.

      And Richard, explicitly, the lower forecast OPEX footnote refers to the difference between HFC and FTTx not FTTP and FTTN.

      However, having said all that, I’m not at all confident in any of those figures. There is plenty of scope for ambiguity regarding what the figures in the nbn document really refer to.

      • @d The figures represent the impact on peak funding expected from various alternative scenarios to utilising Optus HFC network (FY19-22). The modelling behind the summary is not disclosed.

        Revenue figures represents that expected to be realised using the alternate technology vs Optus HFC. The differences largely as a result of the longer time to rollout (activation capacity constraint noted). All figures are for the period summaries, not per annum. The expected impact on peak funding summarised (Telstra HFC and FTTN clear winners). It is not a per premise figure, but reflects forecast premises passed & activated.

        Opex footnote is as you post (but also as I posted figures for various FTTx in table).

        The direct opex costs related to FTTN was contained in another leaked document, Renai and others focusing on copper remediation blowouts (already incorporated in CP16).

        Your figure close to mine, $~100 per premise per year (inc power and line maintenance). Offset by much lower capex and faster revenues (plus customers connected earlier).

        • So MTM is spending $1B a year more than FTTP OPEX. But you now claim a much lower capex when you believe FTTP figure is between $8B – $15B more in cost than MTM. That isn’t much of a lower figure now is it.

        • For revenue, they are for the period summary as you state. It’s 3 years for Optus HFC, 1.3 yrs for FTTN/FTTdp and 1 yr for FTTP. FTTP revenue in the single year still blows away FTTP at $275m vs FTTN at ~$175m

          It’s a shame there wasn’t greater detailed analysis on the FTTN leak, as it was very insightful.

          • @dc indeed there is. Without access to the modelling, only 470k premises make sense to derive the capex figures (note lease payments separated):
            700m / 470k = 1489 (2150)
            850m / 470k = 1808 (2500)
            1200m / 470k = 2553 (4400)**
            1000m / 470k = 2127 (2700)
            650m / 470k = 1382 (2100)

            FTTP is massively understated, using 3700 * 470k the total would read $1.793b or +$1b over HFC budgeted. Either the CPP for FTTP is now under $3k or the total presented is in error.

            Ferrers analysis assumes 350k households. This doesn’t work on any of the table.

      • Thanks for the catch. Have posted an NB on the blog post. Makes the OPEX diff $5 per month, and the Revenue $25 per month in favour of FTTP over FTTN. So about the same overall.

    • Actually Richard, your wrong too. The OPEX was PA for FTTH and for 1.3years FTTN, they were calculating the figures for an a 3 year period where it seems they assume FTTH takes 2 years to build and FTTN 1.7 years (note the amount of revenue). The whole set of figures are a garbage anyway. All they are working out is peak funding 3 years from 2019. Why? Because if you calculated it over a longer period FTTH would be the clear winner. Even assuming FTTN could generate the same revenue, the OPEX will always eat up any savings with FTTN. Your assumption of 3 years of OPEX is garbage. They are going to maintain it BEFORE they build it? What a load of bollocks Richard.
      What we are looking at is a quick and dirty renovation, trying to minimize cost to produce something to sell. Trouble is, unless they find a company of morons, the sale price for the patch up home that was about to be demolished will never reach the prices of a new built for purpose home.

      • @d Actually I’m not wrong. Your explanation is the same as mine; figure not per annum.

        Again opex differential for FTTN v FTTH will never recover increased capex for fibre using any reasonable discount rate. I’m not sure how else this can be stated.

        • No, you claimed the OPEX was for 3 years, it isn’t.

          Richard, cut the discount rate BS. Discount rate isn’t applicable to the NBN. They are not using cash that would be used elsewhere with a better return.

          • @d it is. opex covers the 3 years, rest of the time zero.

            You need to understand discount rates and their application. All cash can be utilised elsewhere. NBNCo’s equity is borrowed (guaranteed by taxpayers), not zero cost.

            This is beyond tragic, please the whirlpool link!

          • Richard, FTTN isn’t built until 1.7 years into the 3 year period, the OPEX was for the remaining 1.3 years.

            Richard, I know exactly what a discount rate is and it’s not applicable to the NBN when funded by the government. If an when it is privatized a discount rate makes sense, but it isn’t privatized and the money used to fund the NBN isn’t money that can be used elsewhere. Come, explain why a discount rate is applicable. Where could money be used elsewhere that borrowing to fund the NBN makes them unable to fund something else. The whole application of a discount rate is BS started by Turnbull for his FTTH > FTTN +FTTH fantasy scenario.

            What Whirlpool link are you talking about?

      • sure, OPEX savings alone don’t justify FTTP, particularly with nbns worst-in-class performance on FTTP construction costs. However, OPEX savings plus higher revenue do justify FTTP. You can see this around the world – FTTP is being installed in high value areas. Verizon for instance has converted the high value half of their customer base to fiber, and is gradually converting the rest when the opportunity arises.
        The HFC was only installed in high-value areas, which is probably part of the reason it has come out so favourably in Ferrers analysis.

        • @d right opex saving not enough to recover cost differential, thank you.

          Increased revenue would close the difference, however what number are you proposing? The analyst’s figure is completely misinterpreted (why fanboys don’t typically provide any).

          We know the ARPU figures today $41 / mth (AR14-15p28). Fibre alone likely to be a little higher. Of the $500 per year what amount won’t be captured without the higher speeds available with FTTH vs revenue captured with sync speeds matching demand and lower contention?

          Remember 77% of FTTH users are electing services at or below 25/5 (AR14-15p28), speeds deliverable over MTM. Also CVC more important to future revenue than AVC charge.

          • NBNCo themselves have projected that the take up rate of high-tier plans will be higher on FTTP and HFC than they will be on FTTN over the next 5-6 years. It would also explain in the Optus HFC document why they project ARPU will be higher for FTTP/HFC than FTTN.

          • “Of the $500 per year what amount won’t be captured without the higher speeds available with FTTH vs revenue captured with sync speeds matching demand and lower contention?”

            What do you mean lower contention? How is this relevant as it is a provisioning decision of the RSP?

          • @dc thanks, fantastic. If we apply the numbers provided (from link) with NBNCO’s price list we get an average AVC revenue profile (FY22 per month per user):
            fttn $29.54
            ftth $30.04 (+1.7%)
            hfc $30.48 (+3.2%)

            The additional $0.50 in revenue doesn’t materially alter the conclusion, indeed dwarfed by both revenue and direct opex.

            CVC could, however as noted previously the impact is related to offered RSP contention ratios. Lower peak speeds, low contention ratios and layer 2 goodies deliver an excellent connection (end user education required). IMO such connections will capture the majority of available revenue at significantly lower investment.

            CVC pricing is under review. Likely impact to be reductions at the large data users end further undermining the equivalence claim.

          • @Richard, like you said, AVC isn’t much, and CVC will be the interesting question as that is where the difference will come into play. I’ve seen limited suggestions on lower contention rates on FTTN once loaded which may also impact CVC rates.

            I’m also tracking take up rates of FTTN vs FTTP. What I’ve seen to date is that the FTTP take up rate following RFS is significantly higher than FTTN. Needs a few more months of data though to be conclusive.

          • @dc take up rates for the alternatives will indeed be interesting. I look forward to reading your data.

            Failing access to the complete financial modelling (good luck Clare) direct opex for FTTH and HFC would complete a simple model for the last mile, fixed-line alternatives. Still insufficient data for this to be calculated; using NZ Chorus’ info I’m assuming ~$100 vs ~$50 per user per yr; devastating for FTTH on the cost side of the ledger.

            Plenty of risks and uncertainties remain. Cost explosion confirmed, watching revenue with interest (predicting over estimated).

          • Richard
            But you do believe FTTN cost $10 month more than FTTP. That is a large chunk of the $29 isnt it? FTTP $30 is already $10 better off according to you.

          • @jk simply amazing. Please reread the figures and try again. Then add capex differential to derive time to break even (wait already been done above, full circle;).

          • yes Richard ARPU $500 year which is what FTTP is generating atm what’s the ARPU on FTTN?

          • @dc FTTN vs FTTH vs HFC ARPU (modelled)

            Extending DC’s link figure to CVC:
            FY22 Avg Down Speed (Mbps)
            fttn 41.60
            ftth 49.88 (+20%)
            hfc 50.86 (+22%)

            FY22 Avg CVC ( 17.5c/Mbps, 50:1 )
            fttn $14.56
            ftth $17.46 (+20%)
            hfc $17.80 (+22%)

            ARPU FY22
            fttn $44.10
            ftth $47.50 (+7.7%)
            hfc $48.28 (+9.5%)

            Substituting AR15 actual speeds, 50:1 contention accurately predicts actual ARPU.

            FTTH generates $3.50 / mth or $42 / yr in more revenue than FTTN (assuming contention ratio for all speeds the same – unlikely). Plus addition FTTN direct opex of $~50 per month it would take (4400-2300)/92=22.8 years to recover the additional capex assuming a zero discount rate (ridiculous).

            Assuming HFC direct opex isn’t massively expensive (anyone with figures?) it is the clear winner. Lowest CPP, available bandwidth capturing all demand, high value customers; its return is outstanding. That it wasn’t considered a damning indictment of Conroy’s original policy. 3.5+m more premises would have been connected years ago.

            Finally putting to bed the fallacy FTTH is close to FTTN. Time to move one.

          • Richard wrote…
            Assuming HFC direct opex isn’t massively expensive (anyone with figures?) it is the clear winner. Lowest CPP, available bandwidth capturing all demand, high value customers; its return is outstanding. That it wasn’t considered a damning indictment of Conroy’s original policy. 3.5+m more premises would have been connected years ago.
            Of course Richard, you conveniently overlook one very important point… negotiating the deal with Telstra for access to their HFC network. Turnbull was only able to reach an agreement the second time around by giving the farm away it seems.

            Telstra have dramatically limited their remediation responsibilities, the amount of FTTP deployed is dramatically reduced, the HFC remains encumbered as Telstra has control of the disposal of the asset by NBN Co.

            But not only that, we know the implementation study recommended looking at the HFC as an interim or ongoing solution.

            Conroy made it clear in the Senate committee that Optus had offered their HFC network, which is known to be in poor repair and needs a lot of work. This contradicts your assertion that HFC was not considered.

            I suspect that Telstra played hardball and NBN Co couldn’t come to reasonable terms with them and it wasn’t worth acquiring the Optus network on its own.

            In the end the additional costs from the greater network complexity and IT systems meant that HFC wasn’t considered viable. And we are seeing this play out now, not a single commercial HFC end user has been connected by NBN Co. I suspect the IT systems are some time off being ready and won’t be for some time yet.

            Also, at the time of the initial negotiations, Docsis 3.1 was not around. Building a network and hoping that it will be upgradeable rather than knowing it will be upgradeable is dumb.

            All evidence points to not using HFC in the initial design to be a pretty sound decision.

          • @cw interesting take of history, alternative here:
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/11/26/fifield-misleads-senate-on-labors-nbn-policy-history/#li-comment-708477

            Trujillo was a big impediment, he had already left before NBNCo was even formed. The incoming CEO Thodey had consistently expressed his wish to work cooperatively with the govt.

            Turnbull renegotiated Conroy’s (obscenely generous) $11b to be paid to Telstra for access to both their copper and HFC networks for zero. An exceptionally good deal, dismissed as impossible by most before the election.

            Another $800m from thrown at Optus, given Conroy’s subsequent claim he knew it wasn’t fit for purpose you might want to ask why anything at all was offered.

            My figures show not only was the option viable but extremely profitable. NBNCo’s advice, had it been prepared, would have been the same.

            DOCSIS 3.1 wasn’t required, nor could be claimed its development was not realistic. In fact Trujillo was going to upgrade Telstra’s HFC network (3.0) to compete against NBNCo before being threatened by Conroy (future rf spectrum). HFC technology was being used to deliver high speed internet in 2007 to millions in many markets (pointed out by me at the time). As it is today.

            Comcast recently announcing their first 1gbps HFC customer.

            HFC option has been delayed due to contract negotiation. However no one in this field would contest over the next few years will this technology will deliver an excellent service to millions of premises for a price significantly below FTTH at a rollout pace unimaginable with the fibre alternatives.

            The policy from its inception a total disaster. Positions claimed as surprising today were pointed out at the time by some of us (ask Rizz). Amazing what analysis can be performed without a single cent of taxpayers money:-)

    • Thanks for the comment R1. Checking… Let’s see one by one.
      1. “Lower forecast opex for FTTx relative to HFC largely reflects the impact of delay in rollout of timing of Telstra Infrastructure lease payments”.
      The $450M Opex for HFC seems to be for three years; $150M pa. Whereas FTTP is $125M pa, and FTTN is $200M pa. Less time in use, means less Opex.

      2. “revenue is not per annum but over period analysed”
      The NBN Co slide suggests FTTP revenue is $275M pa, while FTTN is $225M for 1.3 yrs. I previously included the FTTN costs as pa but they should be per 1.3 yrs. The $30 per HH diff is unaffected by this change. I did not take account of any activation constraints.

      NB: As mentioned in the comments below; I did allocate the FTTN costs/revenue over 1 year not 1.3 years, which inflates the OPEX and the Revenue for FTTN. The total diff FTTN vs FTTP being about the same, as the Rev and OPEX changes offset. Great to see Delimiter readers paying so much attention to the detail. Added a note to this effect on the blog post.

      3. Cost of capital. My calcs use undiscounted costs. The 9% you quote as industry standard would change the figures considerably. Whether 9% is appropriate for NBN Co, or a Govt org is an interesting question. I would like to add a Cost of Capital variable into the model, to see how this would affect the outcome. I would model several interest rates e.g. 1%, 3%, 5%, 10% to see the impact. This is on my to do list, but if you would like to add it to the model, I would welcome that.

      Cheers
      R2 @Monash

      • @r2 I feel you’re on the wrong track. A large portion of the opex quoted for the period reported is one off lease payments. You’re treating them as recurring.

        The number of premises assumed is also incorrect.

        On the revenue side the numbers can’t be annualised, we don’t have access to their modelling (note rollout constrained).

        We have direct opex FTTN figures from another leaked document. Telstra provisions for line repairs is $~100 / line / yr. However most of the copper (pillar to exchange) is redundant with NBNCo’s FTTN design. FTTH direct opex costs are claimed to be 0% (AT&T) to 50% (Chorus) of FTTN.

        DC’s link provides the majority of forecasted revenue when combined with NBNCo price list. IMO the best available. My figures and assumptions above accurately predict actual ARPU FY15 when using AR15 actual customer speed profile; indicating it is one the right track for revenue. It would be interesting to repeat with AR14 numbers.

        I’d love direct opex figures for FTTP (NBNCo would have accurate data from their 1+m premises) and HFC (Telstra would have accurate data). Hopefully Clare wins the release of the financial modelling or another leak.

        However with the information known to date your figures, and therefore conclusion appear off. I don’t believe the summary data presented in the document has sufficient information to derive the numbers you’re after.

        • HI R1

          Happy to reapply the model with your Opex no.s for FTTN. Please provide, preferably with sources to assess reliability/completeness.

          Happy to reapply the model with your Revenue no.s. Please provide, preferably with sources to assess reliability/completeness.

          Or, you can put them in the model yourself and report back the results. Up to you…

          Have also done some work on a DCF model, for the totals.. But their usefulness will of course depend on if the base data is any good. I can’t assess the NBN Co. base data quality, but relied on them as a more reliable source. Of course as NBN Co said the no.s were unauthorised by NBN Co. Management, who wouldn’t usually report down at the level of detail needed to make a complete detailed assessment. But use what you’ve got, I guess… just include the chain of data, sources and use that to gauge the level of reliability of the result/outcome.

          Cheers
          R2 @monash

          • @R2 I agree access to figures is far more restrictive than justified given the largess of taxpayer money at risk. No point waiting for authorised numbers from management, however we must be careful interpreting other information. The draft document is riddled with inconsistencies as highlighted, likely reflective of the company’s competence.

            ACCC regulates pricing and access to Telstra’s copper. Pricing determined using cost recovery. Telstra CAN is broken into Band 1 (CBD), Band 2 (Suburbs), Band 3 (Rural), Band 4 (Regional/Remote).

            FTTN predominantly Band 1 & 2 outside HFC areas.

            ACCC dictated ULLS cost today is $16/mth (Bands 1-3). This figure covers full cost recovery of all equipment including ducts as if rebuilt today (ignoring possible design improvements). Most of this copper/equipment is retired in FTTN, others covered by specific lease payments (ducts).

            Telstra doesn’t release copper only costs. However in submissions to ACCC ULL determination the figure is below $100 pa, see BIS Sharpnel $2b / 24m services in 2015. This covers all bands (ironically the most expensive copper is retained under NBN: Sat & FW).

            I’m conservatively using $55 pa pp for pillar to premise copper maintenance.

            Other FTTN direct costs include pole access, electricity, spares & equip maintenance, etc of $35/yr pp. These covered in a leak doc here:
            https://delimiter.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/new-leaked-NBN-doc.pdf

            Renai and others focused on copper remediation blowout (largely underestimated bridge-taps), but the real story was the destruction of the fibre fanboys opex position.

            Revenue model uses DC’s link (evidence to senate estimates) above, using calculated weighted averages and NBNCo’s price list here:
            http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-price-list_20150201.pdf

            Opex cost for FTTH near impossible to obtain (Telcos talking differentials). ATT&T has claimed their FTTN & FTTH network opex are little different (0%), Chorus and Verizon claim a 50% saving. I’ve again gone with the figures most generous to FTTH (ie against my position).

            Capex numbers from NBNCo’s Corporate Plan 2016.

            The advantages of FTTN & HFC are devastating. You’re welcome to update your model, it’ll be interesting to see the new outcome. A cost of capital of 5% would be minimal. Rizz might help;-)

  6. Basically Turnbull’s business experience was the turnover model, where you put as little into your ISP (OzEmail) and seek to sell it for as much as possible. The resulting profits make it possible for you to co-own a yacht and run for politics. However, with the NBN, even when it is privatised it is still serving Australians. Even if ownership changes hands, at the end of the day, like a utility or road, the government is still responsible for ensuring its ongoing operations. You can sell an ISP to a bigger company (with some fancy accounting that makes it look great) but you can’t get rid of the NBN–by definition it is the national network, and what is the government except to oversee national interests?

  7. “Value”… indeed taking everything in to account in relation to performance, cost, future needs, benefits (that always ignored by the faithful, B in cBa) timeframes, etc…

    In amongst all of the faithful screaming MTM is cheaper to roll out and then ignoring absolutely everything else (which then makes it not only inferior, but offering less B’s and inevitably more expensive in the long run), isn’t value what everyone else here, have been saying about FttP all along?

  8. This (which most already knew) pretty much explains why so much of NBNs accounting figures have previously been redacted. Even they knew they would be left high and dry after any kind of analysis.

  9. Turnbull’s shitlist grows ever longer.

    Queue ad hom attack from government/nbnco on Richard Ferrers in 1, 2, 3, ….

  10. *waits for Monash University to be declared a “Fibre Zealot” after the Earl of Wentworth gets wind of this report*

    • *waits for Lord Monckton or that Danish climate denier guy to be given Ferrers’ post. The new name will be the ‘Anti Fibre Zealot Council’ “.

  11. No wonder they want to sell off the whole stinking mess and the public will pay the price yet again.

  12. Seriously NBN, who releases a batch of corporate figures with some numbers per annum, some at 1.3 yrs, etc., unless you really don’t want Joe Average to do a comparison for themselves…..Oh…….

  13. Hey Renai,

    Can I suggest using ‘technologically’ as opposed to ‘technically’ – the latter sounds (to me) more like it’s a procedural/theoretical difference, rather than it being a technology difference.

    Cheers.

  14. One of the worst parts about this is anyone with half a tech brain knew it and we have a weak as piss opposition in Shorten that wouldn’t have a clue about how to use this information to tear Turnbull to shreds. After all, it’s his parties plan that is being destroyed.

    • Based on the Optus HFC leak, which may be specific to Optus areas, FTTdp is a significant improvement over FTTN in revenue and OPEX. As a result it has a pay off in the ~15yr period, rather than the FTTN decades. (FTTP is closer to ~10yr)

  15. Ok so… let’s get this straight.

    The liberals decide that they need to break up telstra (which was incredibly profitable because of the overseas work) back in the Howard Government in order to promote competition in the telecommunications industry.

    They try to break telstra up between residential (sell that off), and keep the R&D and wholesale – but can’t because both wholesale AND residential are relying on the old crappy copper network.

    So they decide to sell the whole, thing – selling the ice cream store right before summer.

    Then they sell it for around $33b all up over the years…

    Suddenly, everyone wants and NBN becauase they realise we are bleeding talent to the USA because of our lack of internet, so they bring in the FTTP and NBN Co. And we have to rebuild a national carrier in NBN Co. – Linesmen, training, work crews, equipment…

    Then turnbull pulls a marketing 101 trick, and differentiates his product “faster, cheaper, smarter” in the abortion we know of as MTM – FTTN.

    He then goes back to telstra and get this – buys back the copper network for almost half of what we sold telstra for $11b.

    And finally a report comes out and tells everyone what every expert, introvert and teenager in the country has been saying for 10 years, that the FTTP is the only way to go….

    And people are STILL going to wonder tomorrow why the country is in so much debt…..

    Almost unbelievable.

      • Not surprising when they are flat out lying about paying down the national debt on tv and not being challenged at all despite actually doubling the debt!

    • Fun fact : The country was in a lot less debt (~3x) before the Liberals came back in.

      Also, have little faith in teenagers – kids these days are taught to believe feelings over facts. No different to ideological belief systems. The number of kids these days that still believe everything the MSM feeds them despite the internet being right in their faces 90% of their life is astounding. Saddening.

  16. More misguided drivel by someone at a uni (probably a unionist) who does not understand the complexities of the rollout. Those ROI figures quoted are blatantly wrong and……bugger it, what’s the point.

  17. Surely this is enough data for a complete u-turn and swtich back to FTTP.

    Or… if they like, a Royal Commission!!

    • Yep, as expected more b.s. Spin by the political hacks and yes men at NBN co!

      I note that they didn’t actually provide any numbers to disprove the analysis, just tried to claim they aren’t current and that rollout speed is more important. What a load of b.s., Rollout speed is irrelevant if you are delivering a steaming turd, because it’s still a steaming turd!

      • And they can’t even get that right – just ask Flude! According to him waiting 2.5 years to roll out *anything* is better than rolling out a superior technology now.

  18. Now NBN are pouring cold water on the analysis saying speed is their motivating factor. I think by the time it is complete we will find that the very minor time difference (from the full FTTP version)(if there even is one) will not get within a bulls roar of being anywhere near cost effective.
    The one big thing missing from the analysis is the subsequent upgrade to full FTTP. The LNP and NBN have all said full FTTP will follow in the long term, and basically will begin on or before completion of the MTM. My logic therefore says when comparing both versions one should look at the FULL cost to FTTP. I challenge Turnbull, Fifield or NBN to find anyone in the country who would say damn the expense give me 25Mbps sooner (sic) and cheaper (sic) and gigabit speeds later on rather than waiting an extra 3 or 4 years for gigabit at half the price and time.

  19. How many years have I been hearing about this stupid NBN. Nowhere near me, not going to be near me anytime soon. Meh.

  20. It is no surprise! Let’s see the coalition did everything to distinguish itself from Labor at the last election and each example was of basically a case of saying ‘black is white’. So they knew it wouldn’t stand the test of time or be cheaper but of course it had to be sold as being cheaper and quicker, whether it would be or not. As long as the electorate believed them all was good. It doesn’t matter that they were lying and still are. So long as enough people believe them all is good.

  21. @Jasonk 05/01/2016 at 1:47 pm
    “Org
    But we did say the same for the SR but that didn’t stop Richard, you and others taking it as gospel and what has happen with those figures MTM cost has increased to use Richard’s own words by a significant amount.

    While the CP16 has shown FTTP cost is cheaper than what was in the SR.”

    And this is what I’m talking about…

    At no point in my post did I say the data was invalid, merely that a flaw in it will be easily exploited to dismiss it entirely. As for the SR, I don’t recall posting much about it (you’ll have to refresh my memory) let alone “taking it as gospel”… =)

    You want to successfully wage some form of guerilla war against Turnbull and the MTM, you’re going to have to do it with information that is flawless. It’s not particularly fair but unfortunately you don’t really get to choose the battlefield or the opponents.

    If all you want is more Dorothy Dixer-esque fodder to get all worked up amongst yourselves while parking yourselves firmly on the sidelines of the debate in the ‘irrelevant’ zone, keep doing whatever it is you think you’re doing. ; )

    • @ Org

      “You want to successfully wage some form of guerilla war against Turnbull and the MTM, you’re going to have to do it with information that is flawless. It’s not particularly fair but unfortunately you don’t really get to choose the battlefield or the opponents.

      If all you want is more Dorothy Dixer-esque fodder to get all worked up amongst yourselves while parking yourselves firmly on the sidelines of the debate in the ‘irrelevant’ zone, keep doing whatever it is you think you’re doing. ; )”

      Gee where were you 4 or 5 years ago when the knives actually were out for FttP and baseless FUD/lies were the name of the game? Fuck me, the MTM is getting a dream run from the media (apart from Renai and those herein who aren’t afraid to call out their BS fraudband) in comparison.

      And isn’t MTM (as much as $15B/4 year blowouts) proving to be such a rip roaring “faster/cheaper” success *sigh*

      • @rizz and yet the author of the document agreed with my initial assessment and corrected his post (as predicted). Still many glaring errors to correct; dc & I providing a solid revenue model and direct opex figures to work from (works for FY15 actuals).

        Interesting rereading your response. Many would take sometime to ponder such an outcome, however I don’t expect you’ll learn anything from it. After all to some an understanding and experience (technology, financials, modelling) is actually a negative;-)

        • Ooh, you aren’t being personal there are you Richard…?

          Think about your continual hypocrisy, before your next poor Richard sob…

          *sigh*

          • @rizz as expected. At least we have a model to work with (excluding HFC direct opex).

  22. So really FTTP = Better, so anyone CLAIMING FTTN its cheaper is clearly cherry picking the numbers for the sake of being politically different at Australia’s expense!

    Turnball need to be a man, admit he was wrong and do the right thing for Australia’s future, he may even pick up some votes for doing so.

  23. I guess a Coalition government commenting and criticizing Labour’s wasted millions is as hypocritical as you will ever get given their joke of a solution being FTTN. I for one am glad that NBN has not arrived at my place with FTTN because I would have put it off as long as possible before eventually selling up and moving which was on the cards for me anyway so why would I bother having to put up with hideous alternative that is FTTN when when I buy my new place the first thing I will check after practicality and price is does it have FTTP ? Ultimately this is what is going to dictate property prices and values in the future.

    The TV market has completely changed dynamic gone are the days of Pay TV monopolies FOXTEL and Telco monopolies Telstra Optus. People now use Netflix and Presto and people now stream alot more than ever before meaning the demand for a much larger bandwidth is highly on demand therefore people need super fast Internet to watch their favourite shows.

    Wake up Australia we are already in the technological dark ages with TV stations only broadcasting in SD at 480 to 720p at max whilst other countries are enjoying 8K broadcasts.

    • I feel the same. My date is years away. Was always at the end date either system. What annoys me, They have it to the north and south. Live between the ocean and a lake. Can’t work out why the narrow strip has been left to last.

      I have friends west of the lake that have just neeb connected. Seems one also pays now.

      They tell me it is faster than the slow wireless, with many black spots but slower than my ADSL2. Which by the way is usable but no way fast.

      There are media reports of complaints in this region, of being slower than ADSL 2. Seems they are true.

      Also since Turnbull spent so much on fixing mobile blackspots, Y would love to know why this region is worse.

      No, I am glad not to be connected. Maybe if the moved boundary of Dobel further north, I might have more chance speedier connection.

LEAVE A REPLY