news The NBN company has confirmed plans to terminate the ADSL connection of a customer living in metropolitan Adelaide and replace it with a high-latency satellite connection, due to the installation of Fibre to the Node services to neighbours in the same street.
South Australian Matthew Wilkinson lives within sight of the Adelaide central business district in the Adelaide Hills region. He currently has access to an ADSL2+ fixed-line broadband connection.
Wilkinson’s suburb was originally slated to receive a full Fibre to the Premises rollout under the previous Labor approach to the National Broadband Network, along with the vast majority of Australian premises. However, due to the geographical position of his residence, Wilkinson was slated to receive a fixed wireless connection.
Due to this issue, in 2012 Wilkinson sought a quote from the NBN company to extend its Fibre to the Premises rollout all the way to his premises. The proposed fibre extension would stretch a mere 1.3 kilometres from the nearest NBN network boundary.
In August 2012 the NBN company provided a quote for the proposed extension work of $150,000. However, it ultimately realised Wilkinson’s property was in a ‘Band 2’ Exchange area, and should have been slated to receive FTTP from the start. Consequently, the NBN company had planned to deploy FTTP to Wilkinson’s property.
However, Wilkinson revealed in late December in a series of posts on broadband forum Whirlpool that under the new Coalition Government’s Multi-Technology Mix, the NBN company had substantially changed its approach to his suburb in a way that would drastically impact any future NBN rollout to his premise — and even his existing ADSL2+ connection.
According to the South Australian, the NBN company now plans to deploy a Fibre to the Node service throughout his suburb.
The deployment firstly means that the proposed FTTP network slated for his property would no longer go ahead. However, secondly, it also means that Wilkinson will no longer even be able to use his ADSL2+ connection, as the service’s copper wires will be neutered (to avoid signal interference) to make way for the new Fibre to the Node connections to his neighbours.
“I live in Metropolitan Adelaide (in the hills) and am about 7km’s (as the crow flies) from the Adelaide GPO. I currently have Naked DSL service that has been rock solid for nearly 9 years,” Wilkinson wrote on Whirlpool. He has discussed the issue directly with the NBN company.
“… after FTTN is switched on a few hundred metres up my road next year, that I will be forced to disconnect my DSL service, and be forced to connect to NBN Co’s Satellite service that was meant for all of you that actually live in Rural and Remote Australia … There is no plans for fixed wireless for my area, due to the cost of installing a new tower.”
“My DSL service has to be disconnected, even though I get to keep my copper line for voice calls being in a [satellite] area. The DSL service runs in the same cable bundle as the rest of the road, and 18months after FTTN is switched on, the ramp up the power for VDSL. My ADSL 2+ service will interfere with the VDSL service, so it will be disconnected.”
“I receive a good 4g signal (Telstra) though, so may end up having to resort to that once my DSL service is disconnected.”
Wilkinson’s situation appears to run directly contrary to the ongoing rhetoric from the Government and the NBN company that the Multi-Technology Mix model would see Australians receive better broadband than they currently had available.
In terms of latency and download quota, Wilkinson’s forced shift to the NBN’s satellite service will represent a substantial downgrade on his existing ADSL2+ service, although the service will be substantially faster as the existing ADSL service only provides speeds of between 2.5Mbps and 3Mbps.
Wilkinson’s premise will not be the only one in his area affected. The South Australian noted that there were another 15 or so premises on his road in the same situation, and another 15 or so on another nearby road. It appears that a number of the premises may actually require physical infrastructure such as trees to be removed to allow satellite dishes to be installed — even though they are already served by existing copper cable.
There appears to be no technical reason for the NBN company’s rationale for abandoning fixed-line infrastructure in Wilkinson’s area and planning satellite access instead. It would be possible for the company to deploy fibre to the premises concerned using Telstra’s existing pits and pipes infrastructure where the copper cable already runs.
Instead, the NBN company appears to have made the decision based on financial considerations, as well as the fact that it has previously committed to serving only a certain proportion of Australian premises with high-speed fixed-line technologies, using satellite and fixed wireless to serve the remainder.
Wilkinson’s small area is not the only area of Australia where residents are complaining about the NBN company’s decisions with respect to its rollout.
For example, there are widespread complaints emanating from Tasmania’s West Coast at the moment, where business and residents are concerned that the satellite services planned for the region will provided little better broadband access than the ADSL services they already use. The area is also concerned that it will be left behind compared with other regions in Tasmania, which are receiving Fibre to the Node or Fibre to the Premises infrastructure.
opinion/analysis
I don’t usually highlight individual cases of NBN issues on Delimiter, because there are always edge cases to any network rollout where things get a little hairy. However, I decided to make an exception in this case because of the farcical nature of the situation.
The residents where Matthew Wilkinson lives in the Adelaide Hills already have ADSL2+ broadband and have had for some time. It’s not tremendously fast, but it works, and it’s good enough in many ways. Those ADSL services run on existing Telstra copper cables which run through Telstra’s existing infrastructure in the area.
All the NBN company would need to do, to upgrade these services, is to run a few fibre cables out to the area. I don’t think anyone would expect the company at this stage to do full FTTP installations, but it shouldn’t be too hard to run a bit of fibre out to the area and then use the existing copper to speed up these ADSL services, in a FTTN or FTTdp-style scenario.
This would be costly, but such a service would provide services that would meet the needs of local residents, with gradual upgrade, for many decades. It would likely repay itself over the years, perhaps with a little upfront help from the residents or even the local council.
Instead, the NBN company will delete the ADSL service, rip up a bunch of trees and install satellite broadband dishes on these premises. Despite the fact that they can literally see the Adelaide CBD from their porch.
Now, it is possible to argue that the NBN company will be providing a better service than Wilkinson and his neighbours are getting. It is true that the NBN’s satellite platform will provide higher speeds, even if the latency not as good.
But it is also true that you don’t need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars launching satellites into orbit in order to provide fast broadband to outer Adelaide, in areas where copper cables have already been laid.
It is precisely this kind of situation which is garnering the NBN company a reputation Australia-wide for inflexibility and for working against the public interest. This is a company which is overbuilding existing high-speed broadband networks in cities throughout Australia, frantically trying to compete with “commercial” rivals like TPG and Telstra.
And yet, it will not stretch itself for a few hundred metres to bring decent fibre broadband to people who live in the outskirts of our major cities, where copper cables already reach. In fact, for some people, it is neutering their existing broadband services.
This is a company which appears to have completely forgotten what the concept of “in the public interest” means, and that its job is not merely to make money, but also to provide for the needs of the Australian public. And that attitude stems directly from the ludicrous policies which the Coalition has put in place to guide its behaviour.
What a fucking joke.
Outrageous. The Satellite service is going to be horrendously over-saturated at completion time due to moronic decisions such as this.
Your last line pretty much sums up NBN Gimp Co. in its current state
I saw this on the whirlpool forums. As it currently stands the Adelaide facing side of the hills has the tress marked as significant or something. So how they plan on getting satellite I have no idea.
If I’m wrong feel free to correct me.
Its still dependant on the size of the tree and even significant trees can be trimmed to an extent (although that would be more difficult).
If he has to be switched off because of the VDSL, then why can’t he be put on the node in question it even if the line length is ‘too long’?
I was under the impression it would still work, still be VDSL to not cause line issues for others, but work at ADSL2+ speeds?
Is this some NBN accountant’s way of saying they have a 25Mb capable service off satellite when the customer would be better off with a 12-18mb VDSL connection? (I presume the new node would have to be closer than the current exchange so in theory he should get some improvement out of it)
It’s a farce. They advised me the node will be installed ~500m too far away for me to receive the mandated 25/5 min speed. So it’s onto Satellite to ensure I meet the required min speeds.
I’ve got another Tech Choice application in, but they won’t even look at it until the adjacent area (read: a few hundred metres up the road) has their FTTN built and RFS. I’m advising all my affected neighbours about the situation (to try and get them all on-board for an Area switch). Given the planning has already been done, we wont save any $$, and it’s going to be a hard sell to everyone to ask for (likely) tens of thousands of $$ to pay for even a FTTN extension with a micronode nearby. (Everything is direct buried – no existing conduits. That pushes the cost up significantly.)
All they have to do is install the node/Install a micro node closer to the end of the road a few hundred metres closer and everyone on the road receives the same service.
Fibre had no guaranteed speed promise (that I knew of), and that’s because in every case, unless there was physical problems with the fibre, the speed was exorbitant and was limited to 12/25/50/100 by routing software, not by physical limitations of the product.
Fibre also had no guaranteed latency because of the same phenomenon.
Replacing fibre with some kind of speed guarantee completely ignores most of the reason that fibre was being installed.
yup and its not merely a lab experiment either NG2 PON can manage 40/10Gb @40km range.
If they upgraded to using that suddenly a bunch of fixed wireless sites would end up with FttP.
“Replacing fibre with some kind of speed guarantee completely ignores most of the reason that fibre was being installed.”
It’s exactly this that has formed the basis of this entire MTM/FTTN fraud.
“They advised me the node will be installed ~500m too far away for me to receive the mandated 25/5 min speed.”
Well this is the problem. The political rhetoric was all about speed with no understanding.
Have you lobbied your MP? Your problem has been caused by political types detaching from reality. If your user experience would be better on FTTN then they should be told the error of their oversight. After all the new PM says he want a dialogue……
My local MP is retiring (LIB) Dr Southcott. I’ve already spoken to him and he’s not interested.
The electorate boundary is where the FTTN serviceability cut-off is, incidentally. Council boundaries also change at that point too.
The other electorate is held by (LIB) Jamie Briggs. He’s probably wanting to keep out of the news atm…
Have you tried contacting some senators? Since they’re not so limited to geographical boundaries. You have twelve to pick from though probably worth contacting them all.
If you were a woman at least Mr Briggs could kiss your neck
I am also in adelaide and I should of had FTTH under the original plan however now 3 years if I am lucky for the FTTN
I ended up moving to Nuskope WDSL been brilliant and a lot faster that I could get on Naked ADSL
Excellent suggestion. And with Line of sight to the CBD, shouldn’t be an issue to get service either!
Matt, imo this it’s another symptom of the dodgy Telstra deal Turnbull’s cronies did. under the original agreement Telstra would have had to remediate the pits and ducts in your area. Under the new crony edition of the NBN, nbn has to pay Telstra to remediate pits and pipes in your area and so because your copper is direct buried, they don’t want the expense.
You are just another part of Australia being fk’d over by the liberal party!
There are no pits/ducts (direct buried utlities etc) to remediate which is part of the problem (it will be a common one too).
That said being its crafters west and sheok road etc I fail to see how they manage a 150k price tag legitimately.
Maybe it includes the cost of laying proper conduits. They probably also quoted for a worst case scenario and possibly even over quoted as a disincentive for going ahead. Then the question is, who would own the fibre? If it’s NBN Co, would they be able to sell off access to other customers without compensating the individual who paid for it? Sounds like you’d be better off getting a carrier license and running your own fibre in this scenario.
@Simon and that is my point, under the old agreement, Telstra had to make the pits and pipes fit for use by NBN Co at Telstra’s expense. Under the new Crony Co deal, NBN has to pay for any remediation and in your case they arent going to spend money installing the pipes and pits needed to deliver even FTTdp.
The $150k was clearly a quote designed to shut down the option – like when a tradesman grossly over-quotes on a job they really don’t want – sure, they may still get it, but then the payoff for the work is substantial.
$150k doesnt surprise me at all, a 150m fibre extension in a CBD using existing infrastructure can easily cost $40k, Matt doesnt even have the pipes/ducts to run fibre thru as his copper is all direct buried so they’ll need to be installed – I doubt backhoe crews are cheap.
$40k for a 150m fibre extension in the CBD using existing infrastructure is a ripoff of epic proportions. You can’t use that to justify the expense of other work.
A backhoe isn’t required in many cases, and even if it is, only for a small amount of the run – there are dedicated trench digging machines these days which are run by a single operator and can move at quite a decent clip.
It wasn’t a rip off at all, the amount of BS you need to go thru (council, Telstra, building access etc not to mention the 8 week lead time as a result of all this) before you can start pulling fibre is insane. The cost of the fibre was only $5k, the rest was people, equipment and paperwork.
It’s prolly a bit cheaper now (this was 5 years ago), but we hired the fibre contractors ourselves (I was Biz Customer Delivery Manager) and they were a firm we used for quite a lot of work including internal Data Centre cabling.
It’s simply not as economic to do one-off builds, this is why FoD is FUD! One off builds are really expensive. Rolling fibre to everyone is much more economic as you spread the costs over multiple premises.
Derek is right, in my experience. While distance is a factor, it’s proportional to the difficulty of the specific environment. CBD for example isn’t always cheaper/easier either, particularly when councils use obscenely expensive pavers…
In this circumstance, if someone has to cause traffic issues, dig new trenches, drop conduit in, haul fibre, drop pits, joints, do the splicing etc…then it adds up very quickly and the cost of the physical fibre itself is a very small component.
VDSL has a much higher drop off than ADSL. He would recieve significantly less bandwidth than he currently does with ADSL.
FTTDp may be an option, but remember that it is just as expensive as FTTP in many cases, and still delivers signficantly less in the way of services, and still has the low reliability issues that nbn have admitted with FTTN.
@ma again not true.
The premise is being refused VSDL2 because it is beyond the distance to guarantee the policy mandated 25mbps (~1.2km). Even at 2km he would receive a vastly improved connection than current ADSL (2mbps). He should be given the option (likely his voice will be cut over anyway).
Low reliability and less services also untrue.
“premises” ffs, not “premise”.
Are you under MT’s spell?
+ 1 TimJ
But to be fair, you can’t expect the world’s (if not the universe’s) most (self proclaimed) eminent number cruncher, to also actually understand English, as I have clearly discovered whilst trying in vain, to explain in layman’s terms (i.e. dumbing down) already simple comments/concepts, purely as a sign of good faith ;)
A skill with an abacus, doesn’t not necessarily translate to fluency within the realm of language.
But to answer your question… yes.
“Now, it is possible to argue that the NBN company will be providing a better service than Wilkinson and his neighbours are getting. It is true that the NBN’s satellite platform will provide higher speeds, even if the latency is appalling.”
It’s the last sentence that is the critical one here. Latency is a bigger killer than bandwidth – many applications that work fine on a 3Mbps ADSL service with low latency will fall over spectacularly when you add the latency of a satellite connection – irrespective of the bandwidth that’s provided.
Then add the bad news that the max DL quota’s for satellite are capped at a quite expensive 75Gb too.
This is assuming its possible for him to connect to said service as well (which isn’t a 100% Guarantee).
I tried not to look at the nightmare when NBN paid Telstra $11miiliard for the copper.
But, nightmares do come true. Telstra –> NBN.
We have been (Malcolm) Double-X’ed.
There are a couple spots in my local area that look to be up for similar treatment according to the roll-out maps. For the sake of the poor sods living on those streets I hope it’s incorrect mapping data, but I’m not counting on it.
Here’s an example: http://www.mynbn.info/map?address=Timberland%20Road%2C%20Jubilee%20Pocket%2C%20Queensland%2C%20Australia
well draw little 800m wide circles over the FttN footprint then add that that NBN are cheaping out as they’re waaay over budget and there’s going to be 1000’s of lil gaps everywhere that there isn’t easy over saturation (ie bog std 1/4 acre suburbia all those ‘profitable areas’). Anyone living anywhere remotely hilly should be sweating bricks as a basic start. Anyone on any kind of long Telstra line or who doesn’t have many neighbours should join them!
I don’t get it. If he’s got ADSL, why isn’t he getting migrated to VDSL2 (FTTN)?
He says “My ADSL 2+ service will interfere with the VDSL service, so it will be disconnected.” So if his copper pair runs alongside (and interferes with) a VDSL2-enabled service, isn’t that saying his line will be going thru a Node that he can then get VDSL2 from? Even if it’s a couple of KM from his house, VDSL2 offers the same speeds as ADSL2 at such a distance.
Also, in the opening paragraph you presumably meant “high-latency satellite connection.”
Edit: After reading his WP posts, it seems that NBN have determined that being too far along the copper to get 25/5Mbit means he can’t have fixed-line at all. That’s kindof stupid.
“Also, in the opening paragraph you presumably meant “high-latency satellite connection.”
Cheers, fixed.
No more stupid than Telstra used to be with ADSL. They artificially capped the speed of the first ADSL services to 1.5Mbps/256Kbps so that they could offer an “equal” service to people at different distances from their local exchange, even though ADSL itself was fine for up to 8Mpbs/1Mbps service.
Of course, if we still had a FTTP NBN model, this wouldn’t be an issue.
T$ also ignored the range extended options for ADSL some ISP’s were able to offer those outside the std 5km limits on a best effort basis.
They also artificially capped ADSL to 1.5Mbps as to not entice business away from the far more expensive and profitable Frame Relay and ISDN connections.
We have our answer as to what the nbn MTM really stands for – “Lowest cost, at any cost”.
Lowest cost, at any cost = Should have just stuck with FTTP you morons.
His copper would be in the same bundle, but the copper from the house to the pillar is only cut over to the node (via the pillar) when the person at the house orders an FTTN service. Which is what they are talking about with regards to interfering with the VDSL signal.
Basically if all the people in his area switch over to FTTN, the left-over copper cables that NBN deem as being not able to move to FTTN because they won’t hit the min-speed of 25/5 would still be on ADSL and causing alien signals that the VDSL hardware can’t handle.
FWIW – There are no pillars servicing my area. There is a fibre fed CMUX/RIM at the end of the road which services my road and the next one down.
My existing DSL connection is Internode Naked DSL which uses a direct copper connection back to the exchange/bypasses the CMUX completely.
I was one of Internode’s trial customers for their Naked DSL service before it was released. Never had an issue with it in around 9 years (apart from the two times it was disconnected by Telstra techs trying to find a spare pair to fix faults on the road… The existing cable is direct buried, and there are quite a few dead pairs on it!)
Matt W,
I think I pointed out in your thread to that satallite is likely a no go too, with the requirement of 10degrees of LOS.
Your area is surrounded by trees you cant cut down either as they are significant and the local council wont allow it for ‘a satellite’ service.
I note this wasn’t covered in the article here.
The Adelaide hills area he’s in would be a bushfire zone most likely, which means you’ll probably find whether the trees are significant has no bearing on what you can do with them.
“That’s kindof stupid.”
I agree more with “What a fucking joke.” personally.
Rich
The problem he has and his neighbors is distance. From the sound of it NBN would have to run 2 maybe 3 nodes or acouple more FTTdp to cut the distance down to get a serviceable 25Mbps which is around 1km.
An extra Mini-node a bit further down towards the end of the road would “fix the issue”.
The next road down from me (another dead end road, but further from the exchange. Emmett Rd) is going to receive FTTN for the whole length. They will likely put 2 nodes on that road to ensure they are all covered for the mandated 25/5 min.
Comment:I think you will find that RIMs/CMUX etc will be nodes. Telstra upgraded the fibre to ALL CMUXs a few years back so there should be duct to these sites. The other requirement for a node is power and CMUXs are powered sites so this simplifies things. Basically I wouldn’t trust anything NBN call centrex tell you as the design is still fluid.
They aren’t nearly close enough to folk and you have to remember Telstra fibre NBN fibre (MTM bought the CAN only afaik).
Basically everywhere there is a pillar there ought to be a node cabinet and by the sounds of it there should be even more except their penny pinching in a bad way :/
It’s more that nbn specify that if you are further than 400m away from the nearest node in your suburb they will connect you with fttp and this more than likely leads to why they are pulling out the dsl service, so they do not have to supply him with fttp and then his neighbours will be complaining that their fttn is slower than his fttp therefore waking people up to the reality that mtm was a load of crap
Man. Even that fttn extension quote is hilarious. At that rate no-one ever will get an extension.
Wasn’t turnbull talking prices of 5k or less for such extensions?
To be fair (I’m in SA) its sounding like the region I think it is there’s no aerial cables, no conduits so its all direct buried services and we’re talking rocks and cliffs etc to get thru as a starter so I’m guessing the quote is a worst case because they’re assuming it will be a nightmare to do (~1km+ of fibre needing to get laid).
One for a green leafy suburb will(should) probably be far less
Turnbull actually mocked the idea that it could possibly cost 5k. We were assured through the experience of BT that it would be up to around 2k. Just more stinky bullshit from the horses lying mouth.
@m he’s not in a FTTN service area?
FoD quotes will be interesting though.
Have you seen the inside of the FTTN cabinets Richard?
There is no room to run FoD from them, FoD is vapourware!
No you are right he is not technically in an FTTN area so it’s not really an appropriate point to make, it just gets my goat up so I had to whinge
Turnbull says a lot of things.
It’s still listed on his website (http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/policy-faqs/coalition-broadband-policy-frequently-asked-questions#$500):
“Labor’s reference to paying for a connection is classic spin. While we anticipate that for the vast majority of consumers in the areas serviced by FTTN the speeds offered will be more than adequate, there is the technical possibility to run fibre to one or more customers in an area served by a node. In the UK this product, known as “fibre on demand” is made available for a fee. For a customer living 500 metres from a node, for example, the charge is GBP1500 or about $2,250.”
Comment:the NBN quote to have fibre installed in $660 inc GST
Your article says that he will continue to have a copper fixed-line connection for phone calls as part of the satellite package.
So how does that work.. will the voice services be provided by the nearest node? If so, how does that work for interference considering the voice lines will introduce cross-talk? Like almost every street in a suburb it will be fed with a 30/50 pair cable which is jointed onto a 100 pair cable which is then jointed back to the main 400 pair cables running from the exchanges to the DA (where the node will be).
That presumably means that some people who are on the FTTN rollout will likely be jointed back to the same 100pair as these guys.
My god this whole thing is such a clusterfuck, and everyone told the senate committee this would happen.. why didn’t they listen? Criminals.
+1
Wow what a farce!
more evidence NBN is now operating like a belligerent corporation instead of the nation building GBE it was setup to be, thanks for nothing Lieberals!!!
Remember, the satellite services are currently scheduled to be 2.5x oversubscribed compared to the initial plans laid out for them by Labor.
Also, I know for a fact that they’re only connecting people to the satellites at a rate of 1,000 per month. I can only assume that will increase over time given that it will take 10 years to connect just 100,000 people…
I am guessing these situations will come under the umbrella of cost cutting. Given the already massive cost blowouts for the MTM, and how bloody minded the LNP are, they will do anything to keep costs down to make it look as cheap as possible. They don’t care that some will end up worse off. I predict towards the end of the build we will see a lot more satellite and fixed wireless to keep costs down.
Family show version: NBN are a cross between Basil Fawlty and Dr Strangelove.
Non Family Show version with offensive language, violence, drug use, adult themes warnings: NBN – a circus tent of total fucks, run by arsehole central better known as the Coalition.
Non Family Show version supplement: this country is fucked. Agile Turnbull? Innovation? 21st century government? We may as well drive around in rickshaws.
@Renai – Has anyone got a map pin of where he lives? Punch Adelaide Hills into Google Maps and have a look at the sat photos. He has a very different definition of metropolitan to me.
I am not sure I agree with your use of ‘mere’ when talking about hauling 1.3km of fibre.
Probably Mount Osmond which is part of the Adelaide Hills area but is only 5-6km from the CBD.
He mentioned being across from Sheoak Rd in whirlpool. TBH his place looks like it is in the middle of nowhere to me.
Only on Delimiter or Whirlpool would someone going from 2/stuffall mbps to 25/5 mbps get turned into an SJW whinge because his tax-payer funded upgrade doesn’t have the desired latency.
How would you react to the following?
Your neighbours a few hundred metres away will be able to enjoy a plethora of ISP’s to choose from, low latency, “Unlimited” plans and more. You on the other hand are kicked off your existing DSL service, will have 7 ISP’s to choose from with massive latency and 75Gb a month (peak) for all your internet needs into the foreseeable future.
Of course I’m going to kick up a stink. Any person in my shoes would.
edit – 20mins by car to the Adelaide CBD is not “in the middle of nowhere” in my book!
I would react to the following by doing something constructive for my own situation:
a) lease a property pole of a neighbour and self-install 2 x ubnt airmax units and get VDSL to their premises.
b) pay to get fibre installed.
c) if it were that important to me, move.
It seems that Delimiter exists these days to be hypercritical of anything NBN do and posts like this are just trolling for ad-views from the whinepool crowd. OMG – we have found a broadband injustice! Activate the lynch mob!!
Your place looks like the Brisbane equivalent of living on the back of Mount Coot-Tha or Sheldon. Living in the bush is a lifestyle choice.
FWIW, I live 1.5 klm from the Brisbane GPO in Fortitude Valley and we’re not even on the 3 year plan. Go figure!
Hi Matt, I do feel for you, but for those of us in the bush, a third rate satellite service is all we have to look forward too!
I’d love to have a decent low latency, high data allowance ADSL2+ service over satellite any day!
You’re not in a rural or remote location, just outer metro – you should be able to set up an inexpensive WiFi outdoor link to a willing neighbour, if you have line of sight, and share a big fat fibre plan!
That’s what I’d be doing…
We run 6km+ WiFi links on farms between neighbours, getting 100Mbps + link speeds, and the gear is cheap! Even 20km links are not hard these days, so long as you have line of sight. Why can’t the NBN do this?
Luckily, I’m on 4G mobile broadband, 30k’s out of town, getting up to 36Mbps, averaging around 12Mbps.
The NBN can’t even match this, so I won’t be bothering with their satellite service, as it doesn’t give me anything I don’t already have really, except for a slight increase in data allowance. Pathetic really…
Also, $150000 for only 1.5km of fibre is absurd. Someone’s pulling the other one! I think the contractor middlemen are the only one’s making money here!
I feel lucky being in one of the only regional townships to receive FTTN at least now.
I live in the South East of SA between nowhere and a desert in a pop 1000 town.
we’re closer to the city than noarlunga is
@Gavin draw an 800m circle around in your township and you might find people there will be outside it and not so lucky. If NBN decides to only deploy a single node could be quite a few people will be out of luck.
Basically whats happening to MW here.
You said SJW as a pejorative.
Why should I listen to a biggot like you about anything?
(Ps. You have the right to say whatever you like, but the only way society stys civil, is if people call you out on your bigotry and ignore you)
Crafers West.. It’s Metro according to the ABS, Dept of Health and every other Local/State/Fed Govt dept. I may be in the Adelaide Hills, but it’s still within the Metro area.
In practicality though you’re on a hill surrounded by parks and reserves: https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Crafers+West+SA+5152/@-34.9940143,138.6638865,9241m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ab0cebd1a99f5ab:0x5033654628eacd0!6m1!1e1
Yet they can manage to install FTTN for everyone else on the same road, while also spending even more $ duplicating infrastructure in already well served areas in the eastern states. Farcical.
FYI in general we’ve and over abundance of trees and greenery around in SA (concerted efforts by councils to make it so) even some real 1/4 acre suburb area’s look far more ‘remote’ on the satellite images than you might expect.
The problem will occur in Sydney as well in the hilly outer suburbs even though the density there will be higher. Heck given some of the terrain it could be worse there lol.
Anywhere you can’t just dump another node cabinet and have it 100% utilitised chances are those remaining folk too far away are going to get screwed (anyone 800m away etc), same thing if the terrain and existing infrastructure causes issues by the sounds of it). If you think the 5km limit for ADSL was bad you aint seen nothing yet!
Why doesn’t NBN under their new Multi-Technology Mix approach, think outside of the box?
If they can’t do a full fixed wireless, they could do possibly a microwave link for the 15 premises involved.
Put a small tower near the closest node or something like that.
The real question here is why was the fixed wireless scrapped? That is what they are supposed to deploy when fixed line is not possible.
It costs $500,000,000 to launch 1 satellite for a few thousand customers you cannot seriously tell me that fixed wireless is more expensive for these 15 premises than satellite is.
I’m sure the homes would love the upgrade from 2.5 or 3 mbps to 50mbps on fixed wireless.
Under fixed wireless the copper must remain connected to the premises for voice services in-case of outages.
FTTP is out of the question. Do you want to pay $150,000 for a single of these 15 homes to get FTTP out of your taxes? That’s millions for all 15 most likely. A sensible solution is a wireless solution, or a microwave solution or a FTTx (DP or Node) solution, hell even long range Wi-Fi or Ethernet over power. There’s probably another dozen cheap technologies that I am not even thinking of.
You can buy an ADSL DSLAM on eBay for a few hundred dollars, stick it near these homes and at least give them the same ADSL they already have. Don’t take away what they have at least that’s terrible. Shame on NBN.
To go from fixed wireless ‘skipping’ straight over that straight to satellite, the absolute rolls royce half a billion dollar satellite solution is completely ridiculous and if repeated more than a few times across the country would completely take up all the capacity that was ment for the true bush NBN customers leaving everybody on it with little better than they already have got now.
“If they can’t do a full fixed wireless, they could do possibly a microwave link for the 15 premises involved.”
fixed wireless is very expensive in comparison to any other option other than satellites which is/was more expensive.
Reason they are ‘using’ satellite as a fall back is they are over subscribing the service by 2.5x what it was designed for. So basically the 2 satellites are bought and paid for so pushing extra people onto it probably doesn’t cost much more just means all those on it get a far worse service.
They are not pushing anymore on satellite, it is still 3% of premises or approx 360 000 premises.
Fact is anywhere on the outskirts of towns will be getting satellite, they always were. But the satellites are still identical to what labor promised and since there were no objections before about satellite everyone must still agree they are wonderful and good. Skymesh released some proposed plans. 60GB download between 7am and 1am for $200 a month. uploads counted of course and no free data websites.
Yes labors NBN vision is wonderful.
Original projections for the satellites were for them to cover 200k premises. MTM basically doubled down on that number. They aren’t great when compared to ADSL2+ they’re just good when compared to what the ‘bush’ was getting before (ie basically nothing).
This isn’t an outskirt of a town its not rural anything, the area could have cables buried had MTM bothered with a half decent design but its so over budget they have to cut corners due to bad tech choice.
I’m sure those folks in $30m+ homes on Sydney foreshore’s wouldn’t mind satellite because they’re on the ‘outskirts’ … pfft.
“Fact is anywhere on the outskirts of towns will be getting satellite”
Outskirts of a capital city, in this case. This just gets worse as time goes on.
Doesn’t it just JCL … sigh.
“They are not pushing anymore on satellite, it is still 3% of premises or approx 360 000 premises.”
Absolutely incorrect. As Simon correctly informed, the original projection was for 2 satellites to cover 200k premises. That same region has now expanded to 360k premises (so yes Labors satellite usage was already compromised going by their own figures) however the latest Liberal plans have grown this number to encompass 500k premises.
That is 2.5x over-subscription of a service that was never going to be all that delightful to begin with.
Exactly right HC, I covered it back here:
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/12/16/truth-the-nbns-two-satellites-will-be-nowhere-near-enough/#li-comment-710543
but just for the lazy I’ll copy/paste:
I was just comparing CP’s for a sceptical friend of a friend and came up with the following to confirm that the Libs have in fact doubled the number of premises to be covered by the LTSS and reduced the number of Fixed Wireless premises.
So page 71 of the 2010 Corp Plan has “up to 200k users” for LTSS and page 16 of the 2016 Corp Plan has “more than 400k” for LTSS.
2010: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/nbn-co-3-year-gbe-corporate-plan-final-17-dec-10.pdf
2016: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/nbn-corporate-plan-2016.pdf
The CP2016 also now says “~590k Fixed Wireless” vs 800,000 FW for the CP2010 plan (1mil -200k for LTSS page 77)
@do 200k refers to users (activations), 400k to premises passed (coverage). 3% remains unchanged.
I provided an extensive background link to the new numbers. Obviously not understood.
CP11-13p12
FTTH 93%
LTE 4%
SAT 3%
CP16p39
FTTH 20% (2.4)
FTTN/B 38% (FTTB 8% ~1m SR13 p87) (4.5m)
HFC 34% (4m)
LTE 5% (0.6m)
SAT 3% (0.4m)
2016 looking like a terrible year for the fanboys.
“2016 looking like a terrible year for the fanboys.”
2016 is looking like a terrible year for anyone with any interest in the future of technology in the country.
On the contrary…
2016 is the year “all Aussies will be receiving the blistering speeds of 25mbps-50mbps”…
Oh wait.
Yes Rizz
2016 where a policy that some could have writen them selves doesn’t happen lol but then he did claim it was an ambitious target lol
“FTTP is out of the question. Do you want to pay $150,000 for a single of these 15 homes to get FTTP out of your taxes? That’s millions for all 15 most likely.”
That’s not really thinking outside the box is it? For one, the $150,000 quote was for one household assuming the nearest node was 1.3km away. So presumedly the cost would come down a lot when you connect all 15 households, provided they’re not all 1.3km apart. Once they get the fibre into the neighbourhood the cost to connect each customer would be far more reasonable, perhaps anywhere from a grand to a few grand (obviously I don’t know exact distances). So you might be looking at $200,000 total, which might take 20 years or so to recoup. Rather than thinking of it as a burden on taxpayers, you could think of it as an investment. After all, that’s what the NBN should be. The government borrows money at low interest rates to build infrastructure that could last 50+ years. In return, they collect subscriber fees and the government gets its money back and possibly more. Instead with the MTM NBN the government is going to spend billions and probably won’t make much back because the technology will be obsolete in 20 years time.
Even if it was $200,000 for all 15 premises via FTTP, which I doubt it would be (probably more), that’s $13,333 per premises, which is WAY above the few thousand normally allocated to connecting a premises to the NBN.
They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere with regards to how much money per premises can be spent and they have done so in this case.
Forget FTTP its clearly not a fiscal alternative.
What they do need is something better than Satellite, which I’m sure there MUST be a solution either wireless, even if they had to subsidise a 3G or 4G cellular connection that would still be better than satellite and still way less than $13,333 per premises.
You’re missing the point when you DISMISS the fact the guy was quoted $150,000 for ONE premises.
The cost of installing a fibre serving area module to service 15 premises is many hundreds of thousands of dollars GO LOOK IT UP. ITS FACT. Not political rubbish, FACT.
You guys have GOT to get over this obsession with FTTP and fairly land ‘SHE’LL BE RIGHT MATE’ unlimited free money economics it doesn’t work in REALITY where most of us ARE.
You right wingers need to get into your thick skulls that this is supposed to be a nation building project providing next gen communications infrastructure to the country, just like the PMG did with the phone system.
Therefore your corporate economics don’t apply! Only building were it’s cheap and easy using a mish mash of obsolete copper tech doesn’t build the nation and provide uniform access for us to use for the next 60+ years!
Wait a minute.
Economics don’t even apply?
What if it cost 2 million dollars to connect these 15 premises. I guess under your thinking WE WOULD JUST PAY IT.
Despite the fact that 2 million dollars can cover pensions for 100 people at $750 per fortnight for an entire year.
Do you not get it that you’re taking food out of someones mouth to put a high speed fire optic connection to a house that may or may not even be able to pay for it themselves??? Maybe the guy who lives there is wealthy HE SHOULD PAY FOR IT not tax payers!!!!!
The connection to a premises HAS GOT TO EARN A REASONABLE RETURN. AT THE VERY MINIMUM IT HAS GOT TO BREAK EVEN. You can’t hand out blank cheques to people to connect their house at unlimited cost when that house will NEVER probably in 1000 years be able to return a profit for NBN.
You just don’t get it buddy.
If you put $150,000 or $200,000 IN to connecting these 1 – 15 premises, it will take probably 100 years before they ever earn enough revenue just to pay back what it cost to connect them.
I’m glad you don’t run a company you’d go broke on day 1.
The build cost averages out over 9 million premises, the expensive builds are in the minority and by building FTTP as originally planned you lower your opex and raise your ARPU.
You also don’t have to throw away tens of thousands of powered nodes in ten years or likely less when it’s time to upgrade.
You do it once properly and it’s cheaper in the long run!
The government doesn’t even like paying pensions or welfare. So the money probably won’t be going into feeding those who are hungry. The original NBN plan did include wireless in areas where it’s too expensive to do FTTP. Though if this area was being considered for FTTP over wireless then it mustn’t have been as outrageously expensive as you suggest. It’s absolutely insane that the government is now even leapfrogging wireless and they’ll be getting satellite instead.
@Aaricus
“Do you not get it that you’re taking food out of someones mouth to put a high speed fire optic connection to a house that may or may not even be able to pay for it themselves???”
Wow, did you now in 2016, actually just claim that? Seriously, or is there a candid camera here somewhere?
Perhaps we have (via the cutting edge MTM) beamed back to 2009/10, to revisit the the silly comments of the then (and some still now) usual FUDsters.
Though under the original plan it wouldn’t have just been the 15 premises, it’d also include the other houses in the street that will now be getting FTTN. I guess we won’t know the exact cost per a household for sure unless there are some publicly released figures from NBN Co for a similar neighbourhood. Though if you consider the return over 50+ years then I’m sure it’ll be feasible.
Geez, we managed it with electricity and telephones. It’s hard to believe that a nation that was once so progressive with technology is now so against it. Indeed, there were electric skeptics back in the day too.
Pathetic isn’t it, imagine if the power grid was done like MtM with some getting 48vdc, some 110vac, some 240VAC and so on, ppl would never stand for it but here we are getting exactly this from the libs!
RE: “The government doesn’t even like paying pensions or welfare. So the money probably won’t be going into feeding those who are hungry.”
I can assure you they do pay welfare, massive amounts of it.
In fact one in two working people, all their taxes go directly to welfare.
That is another liberal myth!
http://www.glennmurray.com.au/think-your-tax-supports-dole-bludgers-think-again/
Hilarious given our real welfare bludgers are multinational corporations!
Jeebus Aaricus… I’m now awaiting the “get a haircut and get a job” spiel…
Rizz
I don’t think Aaricus realised that NBN is charging the same prices on all networks.
With all due respect, having suffered our new friends comments, clearly reincarnated from the usual suspects circa 2009, I don’t think he realises, err, anything Jason… :/
The cheap way is the expensive way.
Doing things on the cheap will cost more in the long-term.
It’s called economies of scale. Go look that up.
Hopefully we are witnessing the LNP “End Of Days”.
Indeed, this is a Fucking Joke!
The NBN satellite service will ‘not’ be better than ADSL2+ !!!
For starters, there’s latency ~700ms on sat, compared to ~40ms on ADSL. A HUGE difference.
Then the plan sizes, ~ 60GB peak time maximum, or 35 – 40GB for affordable plans.
Nowhere near ADSL’s 1000GB or more allowances.
As for sat speeds, they’re only ‘upto’ 25Mbps, I doubt anyone will see anything like these speeds at peak times, more around the 3- 4 Mbps that a current ADSL subscriber would get now!
This is a massive downgrade in anyone’s language, and I’d be p….d off too!!!
Don’t forget capped at 150Gb :)
My thoughts and observations:
* Matt’s area has direct buried copper, this is fundamentally the problem as there are no existing ducts
* Many areas have direct buried copper across the country, this is going to be replicated many times and is not an “individual” story but more a waring to those unfortunate people
* If the significant trees at Matt’s and/or his neighbour’s properties can not be trimmed sufficiently under the planning regulations then NBN Co can (and most liekly will) declare the property frustrated and not provide a service
* If Matt and/or his neighbours go for a non-standard satellite install because they can’t trim their trees they could be up for $1000s in costs
* Despite the MTM cutting costs by making decisions like this there has still be significant cost blowouts, possibly with more to come, compared to the 93% FTTP plan where he would have received FTTP
I’m sure there is more, but that is just off the top of my head.
Spot on, need clear LOS for satellite.
It’ll come down to the most cost effective solution i.e. finding a neighbour who’s quote for fibre service is the cheapest and then running line of sight wifi/cat 6 from that person’s house who would sign up to, as soon as possible a gigabit fibre service.
This kinda defeats the purpose of the whole NBN if you have to ‘roll your own’ broadband to your nearest neighbour. I think you’d probably want to do fibre instead of cat 6 between different houses though. The cost isn’t that great. Legally I think you need a carrier license to run telecoms between different properties as well. My brothers mate has just spent a few grand and a few weekends just to get 3G internet to his mum’s house in a valley. Even when NBN satellite becomes available, I’m sure that’ll be a better connection for many applications.
Policies like this are a direct result of Labor mandating that NBNco is to be profitable, so that it is kept off of the government’s books.
Of course the Gen Ys and later will argue that it should be s government agency instead. They are wrong, because they haven’t experienced what a government monopoly telco is like. Look how much Telstra resisted ADSL in the first place, and then wholesaling it, and then deploying uncapped ADSL2+ when they had the equipment to do it, and then imagine what would have happened if there was no other Telcos to do or demand those things instead.
Telstra for the most part was not a government entity when ADSL arrived, so you are referring to a monopoly yes, but it was a private monopoly at the time.
What on Earth is wrong with you?
“Policies like this are a direct result of Labor mandating that NBNco is to be profitable, so that it is kept off of the government’s books.”
Given that it was due to be profitable in a matter of years after completion, the infrastructure serving us for 50+ years later is a no brainer – that is until you cut corners on more expensive technology under the guise of saving money which reduces profits to less than zero and requires another overbuild in a matter of years after completion anyway.
“Of course the Gen Ys and later will argue that it should be s government agency instead.”
Remember the PMG? Or Telecom? The government agency that built Australias telecomms and lasted us over 60 years? Yeah, that was wholly unprofitable, wasn’t it?
What on EARTH is wrong with you?
“What on EARTH is wrong with you?”
Likely the same thing that causes politicians who received free education to mock those who would settle for affordable education, these days.
Honestly… is it too early for I told you so?
Not for you… Oh, and say “Hi” to Hartley for me can you?
It’s not too early. I will even summon Johnny Warren from his sky high football stadium.
Did you notice that NBNCo has it’s own definition of “non-metropolitan” that does not comply with the legal definitions for planning? “‘Metropolitan Adelaide’ is a geographic area legally defined by a declaration by the Minister responsible for planning and development matters (under section 4 of the Development Act 1993). The most recent declaration was made on 11 November 1993… East: through the Adelaide Hills, east of the towns of Bridgewater and One Tree Hill.” Adelaide metropolitan area extends through the hills to (but not including) Mount Barker. http://www.atlas.sa.gov.au/resources/metropolitan-adelaide-boundary pursuant to Development Act 1993 http://www.atlas.sa.gov.au/files/metro_Adelaide_bnd.pdf
http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5STI Looking at Stirling and doubtless other “metropolitan” areas, NBNCo designates these areas as “non-metropolitan”. Seems like they can override legal definitions now. Sure makes for fancy accounting tricks though! Throwing the harder to deal with into the rural basket will hide the cost overruns. They might as well. Is there no external accounting?
I should note that “Adelaide Hills” is considered outside Adelaide Metropolitan region according to some sa.gov.au websites, for whatever reason. But I could not find any legal designations, only informal ones.
Gawler is “non-metropolitan” but within the “metropolitan” legally defined area. http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5GNG
Lenswood is in Metropolitan area I noted above, but “non-metropolitan” http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5LEN
Onkaparingam 2184 premises, designated “Non-Metro” by NBN but within “metropolitan” as above. http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5ONK
Stirling has 9390 premises, but is also considered “non-metropolitan”. http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5MTB
Mount Barker has 12,047 premises. It’s barely outside the Adelaide metropolitan area as defined above, but large towns are apparently “non-metropolitan”. http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5MTB
Mount Gambier is also a considered a major town in South Australia. It’s well away from the Adelaide metropolitan area by whatever definition, and projected over 16000 premises. http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5MTG
On another note, most metropolitan areas are designated “metropolitan”, but I see at least three areas, Henley Beach, Gepps Cross and Golden Grove, show up as neither “metropolitan” nor “non-metropolitan”. In the database they are “Metro”. Is someone typing these in manually? (Goddamn are NBN database skills wretched. This is not the first big error I’ve seen. They changed their database after Libs took it over, and lost data along the way, my address no longer existing!) Sure hope nobody is generating reports using a search like “SELECT area FROM nbncrapdb WHERE designation = ‘metropolitan'” — that’s going to miss and undercount those designated ‘Metro’. If you know anything about computers, when you notice several problems in a given system, there are invariably many more. http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5HNL http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5GPC http://www.mynbn.info/sa/5GNG
NBN policy is a joke, however NBNCo’s job is to invest taxpayers money wisely. Seriously a story about a user being switched from fixed wireless (old model) to satellite (new)? Hundreds of thousands of regional users upgraded to better connections under MTM not reported.
Tasmania west coast mentioned without analysis of the ridicous cost!
Millions of customers outside the fixed line footprint, now one more. Taxpayers already spending billions to service them (and climbing).
“Seriously a story about a user being switched from fixed wireless (old model) to satellite (new)? ”
I’m in a Band 2 Exchange. There are some corrections in the article to come.
Under the old/real NBN, it was resolved, and I would receive a FTTP connection.
“Hundreds of thousands of regional users.”
Really only 50000 connected for FTTN and only 1000 active of it. HFC still in trials. Or are you talking about the Sat which Turnbull claimed there was already enough capacity and wireless that was the orignal idea of labor?
Stop spreading lies Richard.
What Taxpayer Money? NBN co was being paid for using government bonds. IE it was investment money. The only investment it needed to protect was those who bought the bonds.
And the original FTTP was getting an ARPU 11% greater than the expected ARPU(Or 56% better if you use the Coalition’s figures). Which shows it would have paid for itself and then some.
Of course now we are building FTTN and using HFC which both have significantly higher operating costs.
@w govt borrowing is future taxpayers money. NBNCo wouldn’t raise one cent without taxpayers guarantee. All equity is owned by ministers on behalf of citizens (whilst only only of us net contributors, all citizens taxpayers).
ARPU is tracking marginally above expectations, however total revenue well below forecasts due to the troubled rollout. Costs have exploded.
IRR of all scenarios now negative. The lie is to claim equity will be recovered (any model), much less the commercial return required of a GBE (ABS time to pull GBE status and bring money into the budget).
The customer in question wants tens of thousands more spent for a lower latency connection. His contribution through revenue will recover a tiny fraction of the money spent (as with all regional users). The policy is a costly disaster (all parties).
@mw if the article is in error it should be corrected.
The fact is though, if they did a proper FTTP build to all houses in his street, it wouldn’t be a cost of tens of thousands per a customer. The original NBN was a good investment. This one is pure shambles.
Exactly right Jeremy, when you roll out fibre to everyone in the street you get the economies of scale kicking in and you spread the cost of having all the workers and their equipment on-site over all the premises.
“ARPU is tracking marginally above expectations, however total revenue well below forecasts due to the troubled rollout.”
You mean that Malcolm Turnbull Mess that halted progress 2 years longer than expected and is now forecasted to take 4 years longer than expected with a guaranteed outcome worse than promised pre-election?
Agreed. If only the FTTP rollout was allowed to ramp up things would be looking pretty peachy at this point – as proven by even Liberal costings.
“Costs have exploded.”
You don’t say? By approximately $30b and counting…
Richard, you as a “finance” person wouldn’t be attempting to mince words in order to prove your point would you? You know very well that Government bonds are not Taxpayer money. No Taxpayer dollars are spent unless the Government defaults on the bond.
I can only assume this means that you now support the original FTTP solution. As we can show that the FTTP portion of the network was tracking at 11% above expected ARPU. (Your use of the term marginally is hilarious, an 11% improvement on an already expected profit margin is very substantial)
So a higher than expected ARPU on a product that at the lower ARPU was going to be able to pay the 4% and spend on further expanding the network. As planned as it turns out.
The only failures here are with the MTM and the “Economically smarter” coalitions changes that have now resulted in a lower CAPEX but a higher OPEX, which will likely not be able to cover the ROI.
Which if that is the case. Then the only recourse to “protect” the Taxpayer money. Is to ensure the company can make ROI. Logically this means going to the solution that addresses that. Which based on the figures we have seen puts FTTP at ARPU 11% higher than expected a very good option.
As to the customer in question. The issue he is having would never have occurred under the original FTTP plan, because of course economies of scale would have absorbed the additional costs you are speaking of. Kind of the point of the Mass FTTP rollout in the first place.
Yes woolfe
Richards words “marginally” for a 11% in crease but the CAPEX is “significantly” cheaper at a min 12% of last known figures.
Considering 8% is considered good for Telco wholesale returns and NBN Co were forecasting ~7%, 11% is a bloody good showing!
@w Govt borrowing is taxpayer money, simply brought forward from future years. There is no other way of saying it.
For those with a memory of a goldfish please bookmark; tiring covering exactly the same data for years. Unsurprisingly my position is correct:
ARPU (FY13, FY14, FY15)
Forecast CP12-15p69 $~22, $~24, $~39
Actual AR14-15p28 $37.33, $37.34, $40.45 (+4%)
Note the ridiculous early forecasts and actual ARPU expected to fall due to CVC capacity bought by RSPs due to activation ramp up. 4% is marginal.
Premises passed (FY13, FY14, FY15)
Forecast CP12-15p61 661k, 1681k, 3664k.
Actual AR14-15p22 227k (-66%), 553k (-68%), 1153k (-66%).
Premises activated (FY13, FY14, FY15)
Forecast CP12-15p61 92k, 551k, 1615k.
Actual AR14-15p22 70k (-24%), 211k (-62%), 486k (-70%).
Revenue (FY13, FY14, FY15)
Forecast CP12-15p61 $18m, $120m, $529m
Actual AR14-15p27 $17m (-6%), $61m (-49%), $164m (-69%).
The above numbers are a matter of the historical record. FY13 & FY14 is the responsibility of the previous management. Original NBNCo performance disastrous, yet management paid themselves bonuses every year (on top of generous salaries).
Fibre rollout significantly improving after the old dysfunctional management removed. Additional capacity constrained by lack of qualified personnel.
Cost per premise well above forecast. Do we need to repeat that detail as well?
@sm astonishing misunderstanding of even @w data. Cmon guys we’re more than 6 years, perhaps time to start to comprehend financials.
Yes Richard you your copper fanboy model are have has the same rollout problems and revuene problems.
What was target by the end of the year. 10m oh wait it got changed to 4.5M (55% reduction)oh wait it got changed again to 2.5M(45% reduction on the SR target or 75% reduction in there pre election target.). Still waiting on that faster rollout.
And yet the new management giving them selves even larger pay grave and bonus then the previous and still missing targets by a long way.
SR epected to have all of the HFC connected by 2016 doesn’t start until Connecting 2018. 50000 FTTN in 2 years when they where expecting to have most of it done by now is pretty impressive don’t you think.
@jk the fixed line upgrade would’ve been completed by now utilising MTM, and at far less cost. If negotiated with the private sector even significantly faster and lower cost. The above figures proves my point re the previous performance disaster and marginally higher ARPU.
We’ll be watching current progress vs CP16 forecast. Expect failures to be called out by me as they always have. Many more to come, the policy from its inception a disaster. Taxpayers will be forking out tens of billions, majority of customers realising very little value (video,gaming).
Says Richard, the kind of mercenary nut counter that would approve of this sort of accounting dishonesty!
https://foragerfunds.com/bristlemouth/dick-smith-is-the-greatest-private-equity-heist-of-all-time/
@do I’ve always conducted myself personally and professionally with the highest standards. Abuse I’ve / I’ll cop, slander I won’t. Careful…
I dont recall mentioning your personal conduct Richard. ;-)
Richard
I do remember labor tried that back in 2007. But then you also claimed there was $B to be invested before then. So has or has not the market failed since by 2007 we where 44th. Even back in 2003 Telstra wanted to install FTTN at the taxpayer expense and be the only provider how is that for you competition.
“Expect failures to be called but by me”
Well Richard you have stated yet with the $26B blow 4 year blow. You said that target was ambitious. The SR has a $1k increase cost to FTTP compared to cp16. You claim the cost of Quigley FTTP been grossly underestimated yet it’s only $500 less than the CP16.
So when are you going call out the failures of the MTM without trying to lay blame to the previous.
@R
Government Borrowing is only Taxpayers money if they pay it back with Taxpayers money. This was borrowed against the NBN co as a profitable asset.
Mixing your figures again I see. Comparing NBNco figures (CP12-15) with Actuals from the NBN company after it changed direction to MTM.
So of course the Actuals will be lower.
Lets run with those figures tho. Lets take your ARPU of $39 vs actual $40. That is still an increase on the assumptions, which based on the simple premise that the stated ARPU was required to meet the expectations and pay for additional growth, means that you still prove the point I am making. The FTTP plan would have paid for itself.
Cost Per Premise was not “well” above forcast. The difference of $500 or so extra, came from additional costs and renegotiations brought in by NBN in 2014. Pointedly after the management change.
Not only was FTTP paying for itself (above the expected rate of return, no matter how much of a dampener you think you can put on that – it was still above the expected rate), but it was paying for itself WITH ONLY ~1/3 premises estimated to be connected. That indicates that when the target premises passed finally been met, the ROI would have been THREE TIMES higher than EXPECTED. A staggering TWO HUNDRED PERCENT increase on expected ROI.
And you think that somehow you can dampen this?!?
As you say, it’s all in the history books now.
“Original NBNCo performance disastrous, yet management paid themselves bonuses every year (on top of generous salaries).”
Let’s ignore the well known, well publicised fact that Quigley donated his to charity and concentrate on current management who pay themselves 1.5% more and have done a stellar job of criminally demolishing Australians interests in what has to be a record timeframe.
“Fibre rollout significantly improving after the old dysfunctional management removed.”
In what way? Because it crawled to a halt?
Your own figures above show how much damage the new team has managed to do between FY14 and 15, and the results of FY14 are clearly tainted by Liberal influence in the first place. Ramp ups don’t typically perform worse than the initial years…
Richard
Wasn’t Turnbull expecting an ARPU of just $18 for his FTTN.
@w NBNCo has never been profitable, I predict never will. It couldn’t borrow a penny. It’s taxpayer money they’re spending.
CPs contain management’s forecasts, Annual Reports actual performance. We use the two to assess performance.
This is basic stuff.
Switch to MTM has delayed, expecting improvement this FY. Doesn’t alter previous management a disaster vs their own expectations.
@hc writes “Not only was FTTP paying for itself…”
NBNCo has lost money every year, will lose around $2b this year alone. Your claim is ridiculous.
Predicted FTTH FY22 ARPU of $47.50 would generate about $5b pa (80% take-up, 11m premises). FY22 Opex predicted as $3.1b. $2.9b, IRR 7% (not ROI) required capex below $41b (ignoring inflation). The entire income required to service just the FTTP asset (using Quigley’s own CPP), forget transit / satellite / fixed wireless / common / …
Let’s get a grip.
Richard, lets not trot out this idiotic red herring again shall we please!
The vast majority of infrastructure projects make a loss when they are still being built, try to keep that in mind please?
The aim of NBN Co as a public entity shouldn’t even be to make a profit. Where there are profits to be made in some areas (urban), these can be used to cross-subsidise other areas (rural). It’s already been established that they’re using government bonds, not taxpayer money. I see no issue with this form of government borrowing to invest in infrastructure, provided the costs can be recovered over time and there are benefits in doing so. The benefits are not just the direct return on investment though wider economic growth, along with social and environmental benefits as well. Some of these other benefits could indirectly lead to an increase in government revenue. So to say that no government revenue should be invested in something that can grow the economy, which would in turn lead to greater government revenue is a fallacy. Indeed the government has already been investing in infrastructure where telecommunications is completely privatised, such as improving mobile coverage in the bush because the private companies don’t find it profitable. I also think that FTTP will provide the greatest value over the long term. The NBN MTM is more of a write off than an investment, since the technology will be obsolete before it’s even rolled out and it’s proving to be just as expensive as FTTP.
@jl NBNCo is not a govt department, it’s a GBE. As such it is required to generate a commercial return. The ludicrous 7% IRR was picked out to obtain GBE status, failure of rollout / CPP and impact on revenue pointed out for years (to abuse). SR13 put a figure on it, disastrous (actual CPP confirmed by Quigley after years of denial).
Sr13 S6 MTM IRR marginally meeting GBE requirements (just thanks to falling rates), however costs has since blowout (up to another $10b). It’s IRR would now be negative. Time for its GBE status to be revoked (and Aust Post). Failures of its corporate plans pointed out from day one.
CP13 $3106
SR $4800
CP16 $3632
Yes Richard who’s figures are correct.
Between the SR and CP16 that $12B off S1 price tag?
Seriously? Your own figures show the FTTP model to be providing for a 200% increase on ROI and the best response you can come up with is:
“Give me X money”
“OK”
*next day*
Flude : “Why haven’t you made X+1 money yet?”
“Let’s get a grip.”
I think you’re clenching entirely too hard, have cut off circulation to the thing you think with.
Wow…
IMO we have just reached a new low even for the lowest of low, copper throwback, far right rad cons.
Be careful Derek, because if you embarrass and humiliate our copper throwback, far right rad cons with those terrible things known as FACTS (and people’s own ridiculous contradictions) our copper throwback, far right rad cons will have you in court for slander… WTF???
The ego and narcism of the copper throwback, far right rad cons of 2016 (but living in 1950) is unheralded IMO.
What do they say about heat and kitchens and glass houses and stones?
This really is a new low in commenting by trying to quell people’s opinions with threats.
Really? Because what I read suggests that said person would be happy to stay on ADSL, but that is not an option.
“NBNCo’s job is to invest taxpayers money wisely. ”
Yeah, what’s with them spending the same amount of money on technology that can’t cope with todays demand, let alone 50 years from now, with a view to overbuild AGAIN in a decade?
“NBNCo’s job is to invest taxpayers money wisely”
Well no need to read any further then when they made the decision to invest in a Datsun120y and add some hubcaps to it.
Don’t forget the helicopter blades.
As a matter of interest how is the UK FTTN and FTTC going with their weather, especially as it is continuing and they face a conga line of deluges possibly until April. Comes with Global warming, more moisture in the atmosphere and more energy in the atmosphere
*premises
Atleast he can apply for a Fibre connection or befriend a neighbour into running a private Gigabit wifi p2p link
I actually live a few doors down from matt and am an avid gamer. I get around 100ms ping to the DOTA2 servers currently (assuming when there isn’t congestion). Sure it’s not the fastest speed ever but i have a buttload of data with telstra (500GB) for a reasonable price as well as a good enough service to game. I don’t really see how forcing my family onto satellite is an upgrade at all considering i will most likely get lower data allowance as well as higher ping.
In terms of infrastructure, our phone line comes in via telephone poles and once its within our property boundaries its an underground copper run to the main connection point at the side of the house
THANKS A LOT MATE
This is exact my story NBN fixed wireless 4.5kms as crow flys, however 50 metre ridge 800mts away in the way, with 30mtr tower can get a service, but NBNCo says computer says no.
So im stuck on LTSS come May 2016 if lucky
I could receive an NBN wireless signal at my proposed house site with a 12 metre high tower, or with a 1 metre high post near the house but NBN says satellite only for me.
Something about the terms the author is using doesn’t seem quite right.
WTF is fixed wireless if not 4g – either he can get it or he can’t. As for satelite being faster than ADSL – not last time I checked with download speeds measured at around 400Kbps.
And it’s a long stretch to blame the entire Coalition policy of MTM which makes much more economic sense on the back of the billions of dollars of waste because one customer gets a raw deal – as the result of poor planning by one project manager.
I think the author really needs to check his facts here.
“And it’s a long stretch to blame the entire Coalition policy of MTM which makes much more economic sense on the back of the billions of dollars of waste because one customer gets a raw deal – as the result of poor planning by one project manager.
I think the author really needs to check his facts here.”
Certainly some fact checking needs to be done and you ought to start. Billions of dollars of waste? First of all, this problem and many others would have been avoided entirely with the original rollout. Second, this MTM solution is currently projected to cost just a few billion (out of tens of billions, namely ~$50-60) less than the original NBN model, with costs skyrocketing and no signs of it slowing down – in just two years the projected cost of MTM has gone from $29b to up to $56b. In addition, this MTM model is projected to bring in little if any profit (and looking likely to incur massive debt instead) compared to original model projected to bring in a profit in mere years after completion. Additionally additionally, by Turnbull and nbns own admission Fibre is still the end game, with Turnbull own reviews stating that the country will need to start working on FTTP some 5-10 years after the MTM is completed, compared to the original NBN only being need to be build once and servicing us for 50-60 years or more.
So, billions being wasted? Yes, precisely – the Liberals have committed Australia to spending TWICE AS MUCH and making Australians wait up to 15 years longer for communications infrastructure that actually works. This article is just the first of what will be many stories detailing the fallout of this ill conceived Mess of a plan.
There NEEDS to be a Royal Commission. I believe this to be criminal, rather than negligent.
Type “VDSL repeater” into Google. Really there are lots of ways to connect someone in this situation without resorting to Satellite. They all cost a bit more but then satellite isn’t exactly cheap either.
Liberals don’t mind expensive if it is satellite. They just don’t like fixed line expensive.
except when you just keep adding people to a sat service above and beyond what it was designed for after its built and paid for ;)
… except when everyone starts complaining about how slow the satellite service is and they have to launch another satellite.
I think they will start blaming labor for them over subscribing when it’s unable to deliver a decent connection
Looking at this article it seems Frank and Mr Shark already are…
ROFL
Ooh and Anaryl
Like Jason said they’ll blame labor again for not originally doing 3 satellites use the interim service debacles as an example regardless of the truth (which will be safely hidden behind a ‘more transparent’ govt chant).
The problem with LTSS NOW is not speed, but data quantity, which is constrained in practice by the NBN FUP to under 75GB/month (I know some retailers are offering higher, but these appear to be unsustainable under the policy). My experience with LTSS is perceived speed for everyday use is similar to a good ADSL connection despite the high latency (I did not expect this). Speed tests almost always give speeds very close to the nominal 25/5, but particularly with relatively few connections, congestion can exist directly as a result of NBN restrictions on how much CVC retailers can buy. And, of course, results will depend on how much CVC and backhaul the reailer actually does buy.
So far, the system has been notably less reliable than the ISS service, with downtimes for hundreds of customers running into days, and some reporting difficulty reaching some websites that are accessible by wireless, although I have not found any. In addition, there seem to have been significant organisational problems with installations. Hopefully, this reflects teething problems that will soon be overcome.
However, satellite customers are stuck with some other significant handicaps, including the need for a separate fixed phone line (and bill), and the high power consumption of the equipment.
This is unfortunate for Mr Wilkinson. He is yet another Australian that the NBN has given the “screw you” to. Not only is he not getting FTTP as originally planned, he isn’t even able to get FTTN which is being deployed in his very own suburb! So some of his neighbours in the same street get fixed line while he gets satellite. How the hell can a person whose house is a mere 7km from the CBD only able get satellite? He is bloody 7km away not 700km. NBN is doing one hell of a job aren’t they? FTTN is becoming very problematic and this is definitely not the end of this debacle. We will certainly see more complaints from people in the future as the FTTN rollout progresses.
Its simple he and others live ~500m past the 800m range limit for a node and since Cu MTM is so expensive they cannot afford to put another node in to cover that low # of users.
I’ve no doubt that is why fttdp is being considered to try and alleviate some of these shortfalls in distance.
… or a fig leaf to have less FTTx, more FTTdp, same amount of the rest (HFC, FTTP, fixed terrestrial wireless, sateliite wireless).
After all, 2016 is an election year?
Which adds more complexity to the mess that we already have. NBN was to be simply FTTP, wireless or satellite. Instead, it is now FTTP, FTTN, HFC, FTTdp, wireless, satellite. This is only going to cause confusion among customers as most probably won’t even know what each of those means. The more confused people are, the easier it is for Turnball to con them into believing his lies going into the election I guess. This has gone from MultiMix to MultiMess.
Hmm, smells.
Has DSL over copper, might go mobile terrestrial wireless (commercial Telstra 4G).
Got a quote for nbn/ NBN access network extension.
No FTTx? (Let alone HFC or FTTP, or fixed terrestrial wireless.)
Satellite wireless, expensive to the taxpayer, latency rich for someone “7 kilometers” from central Adelaide, as the crow flies?
Why? But seems to fit more in PMG mk2/ lite how and whats akin to overbuilding FTTP, FTTx (like TPG FTTB, TransACT FTTx, …), HFC …
Sounds like there needs to be a wired and wireless adequately served policy either from the ACCC or Comms Dept.
Or a community initiative given the feds …
Tasmin Archer would change her hit song to Stinking Satellite.
People in this situation should consider setting up a point to point microwave connection, possibly going for one of these open / public mesh solutions. You can buy the nodes that will reach up to 10k for well under $1000. (A friend recently picked up a pair for under $400) Then you’re left with the issue of who / what you connect to. It’s a pain, but will be far better than a congested satellite.
Failing that, dig out your old 56k modem – you might need it.
I’ve always wondered why no one has thought about putting some sort of NBN tower on Mt Lofty for those unlucky few who will not be in position to get a wired NBN connection. Mt Lofty can be seen from pretty much anywhere in Adelaide. Not as great as a full FTTP or FTTN connection, BUT surely better then a satellite one.
I think Mr Wilkinson should harden up and be thankful for what he is getting.
He should be thankful that he’s getting an “upgrade” downgrade… yep makes sense.
January 12, 2016
To: European Commission
From: Citizens of the world opposed to space-based wireless radiation deployments on the basis of hazards posed to
human health and the environment
We the undersigned are knowledgeable about the health and safety effects of electromagnetic fields and microwave
radiation. We bring to your attention that Google Inc. has applied for an experimental license from the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to implement an internet/communication wireless network of balloons called
“Project Loon”, over the United States beginning on January 1, 2016. Project Loon is already operating on an
experimental basis in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, United States and other locations. Google states that it plans through
Project Loon to deploy a global wireless communications network to both the developed world and the most remote
parts of the Earth. The FCC and other U.S. Government agencies have a pending application by Google to begin
Project Loon “experimentation” on an expedited basis. However, such approval has prevented the level of scrutiny,
public notice and review that a proposal of this size and scope warrants. This expedited process may have subverted
critical analyses required to ensure that environmental protection and aviation safety standards are met.
We know that millions of people in the developed world have already become functionally disabled, due to the
electromagnetically polluted environments produced by terrestrially based wireless communication infrastructures.
Many persons have been forced to flee their homes and jobs, experiencing great difficulties finding a safe and
sustainable place to live. Some have sought refuge in remote areas where wireless internet is spotty or nonexistent.
With the deployment of Project Loon and other space-based wireless communications projects proposed or
underway, and the Project’s widespread deployment of microwave radiation, such persons will have no place to go.
In May 2015, a large group of international scientists, each of whom had published peer-reviewed research on the
biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from extremely low frequencies through microwave
radiation, appealed to the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the U.N. Environmental Programme
to institute precautionary measures and to revise international EMF exposure guidelines that are obsolete and
inadequate. Presently, 218 scientists in 40 nations have signed The International EMF Scientist Appeal, which
states: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well
below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress,
increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive
system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in
humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both
plant and animal life.”
The Brussels International Scientific Declaration on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity, released in 2015, builds on several prior resolutions calling for greater protection to prevent what may
become “a major public health concern in years to come worldwide, i.e. in all the countries implementing
unrestricted use of electromagnetic field-based wireless technologies…”
Given the compelling scientific evidence demonstrating harm from the proliferation of terrestrial wireless
communication infrastructure and devices; and given the emerging human rights, public health and environmental
crises there from, we find the deployment of space-based wireless communications hazardous on the largest scale,
and hereby call attention to the biological plausibility that such deployments will increase rates of global species
decline and extinction.
We therefore…
Heads out of the sand everyone. Wi Fi damages DNA and causes Cancer. It is a travesty against human rights to microwave all living things.
Next you’ll be telling us vaccines cause autism….
This is a fact based site, please take your unscientific gibberish some place else.
Anna, the baloons proposed are to be around 20km above the Earth’s surface I believe.
At this distance, the power loss of the radio signal at 2.4GHz would be a minimum ~126 decibels,
or in simple terms, 0.00000000000025 times what they were at the antenna of the balloon!
I may have missed a zero or two perhaps, but you get the point.
In other words, even if the transmitter power at the balloon was 10 watts, (probably harmful if sitting right on top of it for more than a few minutes yes!), but by the time the signal gets to us on Earth, more like 2.5 pico Watts! This level of power is no risk at all.
Same applies for all radio signals, the power decreases exponentially with distance.
I have to admit I’ve been extremely lucky where I live. First, I got access to a Top Hat right before Telstra shut down the whole project. Subsequent to that, some enterprising local IT businesses got together and formed a WiFi based ISP using Ubiquiti AirMax radios. I now have ADSL2+ fallback at 20Mb/s and a primary link of 100/100Mb/s.
NBN apparently rolls around in 2017 here, using FTTN. I’m not sure how much I trust it anymore.
Couldn’t the NBN run the fiber along the power poles in the instance of there being no pit? This has got me worried as I live in the Perth hills and expect FTTN in Q4 this year. From reading the conversations here, we had a similar situation in WA recently when the former Labor government built the two desalination plants. So many Liberal party mouth breathers were screaming about how it was going to put the state into financial ruin and how the government were gambling our future away. We would have run out of water two years ago if we went down the good enough path. FTTP is what we need. IDGAF if it costs twice as much, I’d even pay a tax levy to cover the extra cost, because I know that in ten years time it would be seen as one of the great infrastructure investments in Australia’s history. I know there’s a whole heap of 50+ baby boomers who have trouble understanding the importance of this investment, but you need to pass the decisions of our future to the younger generations.
Johnny
Being 50% older than your ’50+’ dump age, Kindly do not include we elders with the admittedly technically challenged Boomers
My generation initiated designed and created the computer and Comms systems the boomers do not understand
I have been agitating with rest of you young people more fiercely and fir longer for Fftp as nation building productive infrastructure is what we built and it’s so sad to see these debates from those who don’t even understand public sector cash flow discount rates correctly. I am now with real nervousness awaiting my HFc Bbn down grade (as it shows every chance of becoming) from nBNco as the incoherent policies of the LNP in particular are busy devastating our essential connectivity to survive in a low latency high bandwidth rest of the world.
Comments are closed.