“There’s not even a plan to show us how much it will cost to build, access, or an ETA for completion”.

Now that that very plan asked for is available and has been for quite sometime, the new cry is…

“We don’t believe you”.

Can you please substantiate those figures in toto?

Meaning, the Coalitions policy as it stands in comparison (as I believe this is)? Then factoring Telstra’s possible network compensation for FTTN? Then factoring later upgrades to FTTP, when needed in the future.

And let’s not forget about the other 25% of Aussies who, apparently just miss out, or otherwise please factor those costs (subsidies) too?

And where is the money to come from, the taxpayer or through the sale of bonds, debt/securities etc, who will own the network? What is to become of the current NBN already built?

And what about the difference in productivity outputs?

Thanks.

Why on earth would the Coalition document their policy and provide the media and knowledgeable with the amunition to shoot them down in flames when it’s far more effective to scream – the cost, the cost?

Coalition Policy

We can do it cheaper
We will do it faster
Trust Us

yes Telstra have proven how much cheaper they can be at south Brisbane exchange

What a joke the coalition policy will be affordable

the coalition policy (what we know of it which is very little) is to set us back 20 years and has no vision for the future

sorry but I don’t want a government and a leader running this great country who don’t have any vision for the future and wants us all to go back to 90s

which will save the tax payer 54.5% each year compared to labor’s policy

from “Explaining International Broadband Leadership” published by ITIF:

In Japan, the government owns more than 30 percent of Japan’s incumbent telecommunications provider NTT. The government’s adoption of a policy to establish a nationwide fiber network, along with its threat of breaking up NTT, contributed to the company’s ongoing investment in fiber-optic networks in Japan.

The South Korean and Japanese governments have also used regulations to ensure that broadband providers to keep prices extremely low.

Two reasons why Japan’s NTT has invested so aggressively in fiber deployment ahead of consumer demand may be because first, it sees this as its civic duty and second, the equity markets do not “punish” NTT the way they would companies in the United States. In addition, NTT was able to invest in fiber as aggressively as it did, in part because it used profits from its mobile division, NTT DoCoMo. (cross-subsidisation)

The Japanese government provided similar incentives to Japanese companies to invest in broadband, including more recently in high-speed FTTH. The government allowed providers to depreciate during the first year about one-third of the cost of the broadband capital investments, as opposed to the usual depreciation schedule of up to 22 years for telecommunications equipment. In addition, the government reduced fixed asset taxes for designated network equipment.

Thanks to the ubiquity of both fiber and DSL in Japan, consumers have a wealth of high-speed options, the “slowest” of which is ADSL, from 1 Mbps to 50 Mbps, followed VDSL at advertised speeds of 30, 50, and 100 Mbps. But given the fact that FTTH costs about the same as these two options (around $40)*** and provides advertised speeds of 100 Mbps, it is not surprising that most subscribers in Japan are opting for FTTH services.

compare this to NBNco’s business model, where rising ARPU is driven by consumers paying more and more for faster and faster broadband services. Japanese consumers pay the same for a speed upgrade. this is precisely the point Malcolm Turnbull is making — which is that telcos worldwide are unable to extract a premium for superfast services, but NBNco’s entire profit model is built around extracting a market premium!

*** the Takita presentation you link to suggests that FTTH is actually cheaper than DSL in some instances.

Actually I didn’t patronise you. You did to me though. Quote:

“You just don’t get it at all do you. ”

“You don’t seem to understand the difference between a fibre network in general, and the NBN, which is a FTTP network”

I wrote “One petabyte of data is way bigger than most people realise. ”

Do you see me writing “you don’t realise”? No you don’t.

“So does our current broadband infrastructure. So does the alternative plan proposed by the Coalition.”

Yes, but our current infrastructure has a minimal fibre backbone, the Coalition plan would greatly extend it with FTTN. These are differences you must recognise.

“Second, home clients will not be doing the brunt work of the processing for SKA. They cannot. If we use your figures: how much does it cost get a plan capable of downloading 3 terabytes a month in today’s market? With the exception of Unlimited plans, you cannot actually get a plan with that much quota. Do you really expect that to drop drastically under the NBN by the time SKA is up and running? Further how much will the equipment cost to process 100GB of work packets a day?”

Firstly I didn’t say home clients in my example – I left it open and just called them clients. They could be universities or businesses or whatever. You’re reading stuff into it. Either way it’s obvious that you will need the NBN – even if you’re sending it to a million universities.

Secondly data like this would be classified as peering data. Just like a lot of inter-ISP data is not counted towards a quota, I don’t expect a significant amount of Australian data to be counted (SKA data included).

Thirdly, the SKA is slated for finish in 2019. So yes, even if the data is not peered I expect people to have internet plans in the multi-terabyte range by 2019 and they could take on this sort of processing.

Fourthly, assuming every one of those million clients is a university as you suggest, then you would need a million connections all faster than ADSL. What is the best way forward for that? FTTP of course (ain’t nobody rolling out a million cat5e cables from the scant fibre backbone we have).

Fifthly, depending on the calculations performed, an average quad core pc from today could easily process 100GB of data a day. In 2019, I expect the 16 core PCs available won’t have much trouble. If GPUs can handle the calculations then it becomes almost trivial.

“People maybe generous, but they aren’t that generous. Home clients will therefore by doing a fraction of the work of an equivalent SKA processing system at a University. So I stand by my statement, FTTP is useless for the SKA.
Thirdly: the @Home initiatives are global. They will need to be designed to operate on the smallest constraints possible. You wouldn’t put bandwidth constraints on potential clients. That is a retarded move”

As above – you’re thinking in todays internet – not 2019s internet. Plus you neglect peering data possibilities. Either way in 2019 an average home user will be in the position to participate to the degree I suggest. Also, of course there would not be a bandwidth constraint – if you can only download and process 1GB of data then everyone would be just dandy with that. But the SKA will be asking for more (and will get it) from the ubergeeks out there.

“Jesus. Talk about not reading what you’re replying to. So suddenly we’re talking about the NBN being a utility? I thought I already said that, it was mobile networks I was saying that weren’t a utility.”

I simply made the point that the NBN fit into your classification as a utility. I then wrote about “telecommunications” in general. This obviously includes wireless (a telecommunication sector).

“So what is an acceptable level of profit then? Go on, tell us.”

It doesn’t matter what I see as acceptable. It is an individual metric. What is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for another.

“Do you have specific examples as to how the ACCC have failed to prevent the oligopoly as you put?”

Sure, the fact that they still exist in almost all major industries.

“The idea that Australian’s allow themselves to be taken advantage of is conjecture. The Vodafail movement is evidence against this position.”

How is it evidence? People left because of poor service – not bad prices. My point is about pricing. If we get overpriced – we don’t move to cheaper plans in general. If we did then Telstra would have been dead long ago.

“Also, it’s not 97%. The NBN is a good indicator for how many people live in dense urban areas adjacent to cities, and that puts the figure at about 93%. So where did you get your figures?”

So what’s your point? If my figure was out by a few percent (I did it from memory) then what difference does it make? This is obfuscation – you are not arguing the point – you argue over a figure that is off by a few percent instead.

“So why did you bother replying?”

To say my view. I’m still bored by this.

No matter what I put up I’m sure you can quickly google something to find a reply and say “well what about this?” or “hey your number was off by a statistically insignificant figure”, etc., etc.

This time I’m leaving for sure. Say what you like – it will make no difference to the outcome (neither will what I write).