NBN Co joins Whirlpool in Internode retort

81

The National Broadband Network Company has joined broadband forum Whirlpool in an attempt to better inform the public about its muli-billion dollar project, with its first post last night being an extensive entry providing information around its ISP pricing plans, in an apparent attempt to reply to sharp criticism of its model by Internode MD Simon Hackett.

In a major speech several weeks ago, Hackett described the National Broadband Network’s pricing model as “insane” for small internet service providers, warning that none will survive their walk through the “valley of death” transition from the current copper network to NBN’s fibre future. According to Hackett, the NBN’s pricing model will only be feasible on a national level for ISPs with larger than 250,000 customers – which only five retail ISPs in Australia can boast – Telstra, Optus, TPG, iiNet and Internode itself.

However, in a post on Whirlpool yesterday, NBN Co head of product development & sales Jim Hassell again pointed out that Hackett’s argument was based on the assumption that an ISP would want to provide services nationally around Australia.

“Many of the smaller service providers may not wish to do that as the costs of marketing and of servicing a small but geographically dispersed customer base may be quite high,” said Hassell. “As a result, many of those may focus on a geographical area or set of areas.”

The NBN Co executive gave a range of examples for per-user pricing for ISPs who had less than 5,000 or even less than 1,000 customers, arguing such examples could be apt for regions such as Newcastle. The city’s point of interconnect would serve a market of up to 160,000 end users, Hassell said.

In addition, Hassell said the fact that NBN Co’s wholesale prices were uniform across the country meant that ISPs would be able to extend their services beyond the cities “without the dramatic increases in cost and potential loss of performance that can occur in today’s environment”. Much of the backhaul links currently needed to connect up rural broadband customers are provided only by Telstra on a monopoly basis — with ISPs long arguing the cost of backhaul in the bush made providing services there unsustainable.

“NBN Co will not give any volume discounts. This means the smaller service providers should be able to compete with the larger ones based around their service levels and the value proposition which they offer to customers,” said Hassell. The executive pointed out that yesterday NBN Co announced it had signed up 12 ISPs in total — representing both small and large providers — to deliver NBN services as part of upcoming trials in early stage release sites on the mainland.

NBN Co’s post on Whirlpool was largely welcomed by the forum’s denizens. “Thank you, Jim. It’s nice to finally get some NBN Co representation on Whirlpool!” wrote one.

The news comes as Communications Minister Stephen Conroy also yesterday criticised Hackett’s argument. “I think some of Simon’s arguments have been very valid but that doesn’t mean they are the answer to all the solutions,” he said.

Image credit: Hanspeter Klasser, royalty free

81 COMMENTS

    • If you read the posts made on whirlpool, his calculations are a complete joke because they only take into account data in the local area. The minute an RSP tries to prove national services, then the CVC charges skyrocket.

      Which means, as Hackett said, that new RSP’s are basically forced to be local, and even then, the plans that they will be able to provide will be competing directly with the already incumbent telcos.

      So basically starting a local RSP won’t be worth it, the only new RSP’s into the NBN market will probably be companies with massive capital that will try to venture into the internet market (Vodaphone, Woolworthes, Coles etc etc)

      Whether thats a good thing is for people to decide, but even for relatively local areas the rates for contention is ridiculous

  1. With respect to Senator Conroy’s criticisms of my propositions, as reported yesterday by ZDNet, I have written a response to those criticisms that points out the several mistakes in the statements made by the Senator:

    http://blog.internode.on.net/2011/04/09/further-correction/

    In a complicated world, things are made harder when people shoot the messenger and make claims about my propositions in terms of pricing without having actually read them.

    I’d ask anyone interested in this topic to take the time to read my response (linked above) to the latest comments from Senator Conroy about my ideas.

    Regards,
    Simon Hackett
    MD, Internode

  2. Come on Renai, you’re actually taking Whirlpool forum posters as a valid source of information?

    That place was good 8 or so years ago but now it’s just full of fanbois, haters and trolls. Put simply if the information being posted doesn’t come from a source like Simon Wright, Phil Sweeney or the select few of the sites moderators that aren’t themselves biased, then it’s very very questionable as to it’s motives.

        • Right, so you are essentially saying that I agree with Hackett regarding CVC costs and the fact that Jim Hasell is being disingenuous in calculations of pricing

          I am pretty happy with that position, to be honest ;)

          • I said what now??

            Maybe you should read the threads instead of posting from your behind

          • You are saying that I am “essentially saying that [you] agree with Hackett”.

            I am saying you agree with Hackett because it agrees with your negative view of the NBN. I have no doubt that if you were an NBN supporter you’d completely disagree with it, just as passionately.

            I have no pricing concerns in either direction, and think both models could and would work similarly – but that more POIs offers greater overall flexibility for service providers in designing value-added solutions in the future.

            The NBN is not just about basic data services over the next few years, but for the applications and services that will develop over the next 30 years. Committing to a small number of POIs right now would significantly reduce scope for innovation in the future, if more distributed architecture is required.

            This is over and above the “stranding of existing infrastructure” argument.

            No doubt you’ll accuse me of “fence sitting” here – (you’ve accused me of basically everything else) – but I honestly don’t believe this is as big an issue as some would make out.

          • Exactly MW, another issue that those posters who oppose the NBN have tried to blow out of proportion, due to the fact they really have nothing else!

            Apart from, of course … “it will cost too much”… sigh!

          • I am saying you agree with Hackett because it agrees with your negative view of the NBN. I have no doubt that if you were an NBN supporter you’d completely disagree with it, just as passionately.

            And your point is?

            We are both correct, and thats all that matters

            You are splitting hairs here, or making an argument out of nothing. Take your pick

            I have no pricing concerns in either direction, and think both models could and would work similarly – but that more POIs offers greater overall flexibility for service providers in designing value-added solutions in the future.
            The NBN is not just about basic data services over the next few years, but for the applications and services that will develop over the next 30 years.

            Leave your empty rhetoric at the door please, it won’t work here

            Committing to a small number of POIs right now would significantly reduce scope for innovation in the future, if more distributed architecture is required.
            I disagree with Hackett regarding POI’s, but then again I think his argument on POI’s is on the assumption that the CVC’s actually reflect transit costs for NBNCo’s network (when they don’t, they are there to pay back the CAPEX along with its interest). So even with 14 POI’s, the CVC costs would have been restricted so they are similar in cost as they are now.

            The amount of money NBNCo needs to get from CVC is static every year, regardless of how many POI’s there are, because that amount of money is needed to pay off the debt. If this isn’t the case, and NBNCo didn’t remodel their CVC costs due to the amount of POI’s, then they are idiots

            No doubt you’ll accuse me of “fence sitting” here – (you’ve accused me of basically everything else) – but I honestly don’t believe this is as big an issue as some would make out.
            Figures say otherwise, those CVC costs start becoming ridiculous when you actually use the fiber to its potential

            I think companies such as netflix stating that their business will not work under the NBN because of CVC costs is a big issue, but then again you ignore these matters or dismiss them

          • Because the point you are making is irrelevant. You are essentially trying to make me look bad because someone else happened to have the same point that I did.

            If you are trying to smear me by stating that I agree with Hacket since he shares my view, that is incorrect.

            I agree with him because he holds more credence then other opinions because he is actually running an ISP, just as I hold more credence to the other ISP’s without a conflict of interest (i.e. anyone apart from Telstra) which have stated the same things. Of course credence doesn’t actually account for whether you are saying is correct or not, and in this case I happen to be correct (where as you are still in denial about the issue, trying to twist stuff around so it doesn’t look like you are incorrect)

            In any case, you hold no credence on this matter, and frankly I don’t care if you used to work for some small ISP or have experience in the industry, since you are so brainwashed that any “facts” you present are twisted, or taken out of context.

            Being passionate comes at the cost of neutrality and impartiality

          • Above all I agree with him because he is correct, just as I am ;)
            Or maybe not, see where this reasoning gets you?

          • Just like you were right [sic] about the Senate forming government and with those disgracefully FUDged figures????

    • outside of the select NBN threads, Whirlpool is a great forum.

      but when you have NBN supporters (debate-censoring trolls) dominating the “Why the NBN shouldn’t happen” thread, talking among themselves and attacking imaginary enemies while NBN critics are gradually bullied and harrassed out of the threads, you know something’s NQR with forum moderation…

  3. The crux of this for me is that Simon’s model is very valid – (I’ve discussed this elsewhere in another NBN thread here) – and the NBNCo model is also very valid.

    They are two different ways to achieve the same outcome.

    I have always been of the opinion that 14 POIs is far too few. I also believe 122 is too many. Too few makes solution design less flexible. Conversely – (obviously) – more of them makes solution design solutions far more flexible.

    I’m not sure exactly how many exchanges Internode currently services with its own DSLAMs. There are certainly a great many more than 122 exchanges in Australia currently.

    In the current environment – before any “NBNness” is rolled out – any ISP wanting to be national has to provide backhaul to many more than 122 locations. Under the NBN, the number of “exchanges” is structurally limited to 122.

    Even 122 is an improvement in my opinion. I am with Simon that 122 is too many, but 14 is not enough, purely from the point of view of flexibility.

    • “I’m not sure exactly how many exchanges Internode currently services with its own DSLAMs”

      Well it’s in the public domain, it’s not too hard to find out.

      https://secure.internode.on.net/webtools/dsl-coverage-table?carrier=EasyBroadband

      “Even 122 is an improvement in my opinion. I am with Simon that 122 is too many, but 14 is not enough, purely from the point of view of flexibility.”

      Wow pick a number between 14 and 122! – sounds like a ‘every child player wins a prize’ game at the fair, I know the NBN rollout is largely based on smoke and mirrors but surely a super guru like you can do better than that?

      • I’ve been on the record for months that I believe the “correct” number is 66 – to match the number of call collection areas, which would closely match much of the existing infrastructure, and all of the existing core exchange locations.

        That is my “opinion”, and yes, it happens to be a number “between 14 and 122”.

        Internode, NBNCo and the government all wanted 14. That’s their opinion. The ACCC – after assessing submissions from MANY different parties – (of which Internode was one, despite what Conroy initially thought) – settled on 120.

        The number has moved a little since that initial ruling – several POIs were split into two, and a few were combined together to come up with 122, after a further review of existing infrastructure.

        The bottom line here is you’ll never please everyone on the “correct” number. At this stage 122 is the number, as stipulated by the ACCC. The ACCC has very strong powers enshrined to them in the three pieces of NBN legislation as passed and given royal ascent.

        Arguing about the number now will get nowhere. It’s “get on with it” time, not “change all the details again” time.

        • @MW

          “Arguing about the number now will get nowhere. It’s “get on with it” time, not “change all the details again” time.”

          Yes the ‘get on with it’ time seems to be all about getting the NBN spin and PR department to up the RPM, hence the presence on Whirlpool and Conroy grinning at PR stunts like at the announcement of the NBN Guide for punters.

          We also get wondrous spin like this from the above article:

          “Much of the backhaul links currently needed to connect up rural broadband customers are provided only by Telstra on a monopoly basis — with ISPs long arguing the cost of backhaul in the bush made providing services there unsustainable.”

          Of course it is conveniently NOT stated that such monopoly backhaul infrastructure is under ACCC pricing and access control, ISP’s can make submissions to the ACCC if they feel the Telstra or any sole backhaul provider price is too high.

          How about getting on with ACTUALLY BUILDING IT! – oh that’s right the build tender process has to start all over again, best to increase the budget on the spin while we think about that one and the potential massive cost blowouts – time for the smoke & mirrors to kick in.

          • Dear oh dear elaine… why do you always have the damned if you do/don’t mentality? Do you not have even one impartial bone in your body…?

            You have bagged the government’s woeful (and I agree 100%) selling of the NBN… and now that they are listening to those of us telling them that and doing something about it, what do you do… bag them for it…

            Here’s what you now say – “Yes the ‘get on with it’ time seems to be all about getting the NBN spin and PR department to up the RPM, hence the presence on Whirlpool and Conroy grinning at PR stunts like at the announcement of the NBN Guide for punters”.

            My friend (and I call you that with utmost “insincerity”…LOL) you are a walking FUD contradiction…!

            BTW elaine you still have unanswered questions here (under one of you many other personas…advocate)…

            http://www.zdnet.com.au/hackett-s-nbn-rejig-costs-customers-conroy-339312918.htm

            You and your FUD can run but you can’t hide…!

          • Well I suppose you can try (as you do) to hide behind all those other names you post under.

            BTW have you and dat ego ever actually been seen in the same room, together?

  4. Internode use to be a pioneering ISP, now Internode are just one big Reseller.
    At least 70% of Internode’s customers Australia wide would be on resold Telstra or Optus infrastructure.
    Internode stopped doing major rollouts of DSLAM’s way back in 2006.

  5. “Internode use to be a pioneering ISP, now Internode are just one big Reseller.”

    That statement is false.

    “At least 70% of Internode’s customers Australia wide would be on resold Telstra or Optus infrastructure.”

    That statement is false.

    “Internode stopped doing major rollouts of DSLAM’s way back in 2006.”

    That statement is also false.

    Thanks for playing, but attacking Internode is effectively an ad-hominem attack intended to avoid addressing the issues here – which are about how the environment will work post NBN – and about ensuring that environment promotes competition as well as possible for consumer benefit.

    Have you read my response to the latest comments from Senator Conroy before posting this irrelevant attack of Internode?

    http://blog.internode.on.net/2011/04/09/further-correction/

  6. Whether it is the right forum or not, or full of whingers etc is irrelevant, it still has a major following of people who are interested in technology. The issue for me as a bystander is the lack of education on the topic as a basic user of the services. The NBN Co has a major task to educate everyday users about what they are doing and why it will benefit all of us, what it will cost and when I will need to make a decision and what that will be. If they aren’t on the front foot, the scaremongers will win this battle. The papers will write what suits them and we will not be informed and make the right choices.

    The benefit of the forum is that it can be Q & A, not just another press release which is a staged statement. If NBN Co participates in this then we have take a step forward.

    • Oh there has been plenty of education on the NBN, its just that any education critical of the NBN is immediately labelled as FUD, even though its happening to come true (and criticism isn’t FUD).

      CVC charges are a good example, just as the issue with tender process is another one (labor shortages, costs, etc etc)

      • Dat ego… stating baseless negative claims (i.e. your biased, negative politically motivated opinions) about a project which is yet fully completed, which does not have a predecessor to gauge from (this is the first nationwide NBN we have built, we can use the PSTN as a reference to a degree, but) is spreading FUD.

        F = Fear
        U = Uncertainty
        D = Doubt

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

        From within… “Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs”.

        My friend (and I say that with the complete “insincerity” you deserve) FUD is primarily all you promote.

        You have forwarded incorrect/misleading figures and argued off on some strange tangent to try to prove the government didn’t really have a mandate for the NBN… that the “Senate forms government”!

        Such is the level of your FUD (or your own egotistical narcissism) you still to this day have not retracted such FUD and refuse to even acknowledge your FUD as the FUD it is. In fact even when there are positive NBN articles you (and a few FUD clones) endeavour to turn something/anything therein, into doom and gloom, by spreading FUD!

        This is FUD at it’s worst…

        Just yesterday you suggested over two or three posts, that two NBNCo resignations equated to the NBN (seemingly) collapsing? FUD, FUD, FUD!

        To be fair I believe you are reasonably knowledgeable/intelligent… however (and perhaps I am guilty of the same, but from the reverse viewpoint) you let your “obvious hatred for the NBN (or perhaps, rather the Labor party) stand in the way of you ever offering rational, fair and level-headed correspondence… IMO!

          • LOL…Is that the best you can come up with “dat ego”…Tourette’s? My, you and the party faithful are slipping…!

            Well, at least I only say the letters FUD, not practice it!

            But you never did explain that Senate FUD or those FUDged figures of your’s did you… you just ignore and pretend it never happened…how FUDtastic.

            Anyway… since YOU brought up syndromes, here’s 2 URLs for you “Tolstoy”, which perfectly describe you and your FUD clones…!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation

          • I guess we are lucky that I didn’t go further then

            There are plenty of other accurate descriptions I could make of RS, but that would make us loss faith in humanity

          • I think you should be asking yourself that question

            I was making light of RS, not tourette. You got it the wrong way around

            If you think I was making light of tourette, you need to get your reading checked, or get less personal

          • Right, which is why a shitstorm gets thrown every time people say that I am retarded or delusional. You do realize that those are all disabilities as well? Idiot is another one

            I wasn’t making fun of any disability, I was making fun of RS. Again you have issues with reading comprehension

            Also this is the internet, if you want to know what the definition of unacceptable is, go to 4chan please

          • Yes it can be used to describe a disability it can also be used to describe a ‘foolish or senseless person’

            idiot (ˈɪdɪət) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

            — n
            1. a person with severe mental retardation
            2. a foolish or senseless person

            Where as tourette syndrome can only be used to describe Tourette’s Syndrome and if you look it up in a dictionary only says

            tourette

            noun
            French neurologist (1857-1904)

          • And poor reading comprehension is a learning disability, suffered by many people. You should just stop sliding on this slippery slope before you get yourself in deeper.

            (This is not an admission that I have such a problem, which no doubt you would try and twist in that direction, if left unstated).

          • retarded and delusional can also be used in other ways than referring to a mental illness

          • And poor reading comprehension is a learning disability, suffered by many people. You should just stop sliding on this slippery slope before you get yourself in deeper.

            If you are finding this overly offensive (and selectively I might add, because RS and others have said much worse things and you never commented on those) then

            1. Get less sensitive
            2. Get a reality check (this is an internet forum, not a freaking national disability convention on national television)
            3. Get less personal (the fact that you singled me out already demonstrates that you are looking for reasons to bash at me)
            4. Stop being hypocritical

            Yes it can be used to describe a disability it can also be used to describe a ‘foolish or senseless person’
            Yeah, and I am using tourrette to describe a person that can only say the same thing, over and over and over again.

            Where as tourette syndrome can only be used to describe Tourette’s Syndrome and if you look it up in a dictionary only says
            Why, because you said so?

            tourette
            noun
            French neurologist (1857-1904)

            Uh, thats describing the French psychologist, which is how the disability got its name, its not proving your point at all

            You clearly don’t understand the English language very well. People call someone retarded because they are making a comparison to a person that has an intellectual disability.

          • Go as far as you want boy, because I will reply, by continually highlighting your FUD…! gee some people would have enough intelligence to leave well enough alone, when thay have been caught red handed, but no…LOL!

            Obviously… I have dented “dat ego” by demonstrating highlighting his incessant FUD and now he sobs..!

            If I am wrong, explain your Senate comment and those FUDged figures of your’s, instead of cowardly hiding or begone FUDster…!

          • Dear oh dear… look what your disrespectful name calling and becoming personal has done “dat ego”…

            You will note that my correspondences to you are in reply to your FUD (bias) and/or you claiming that you do not spread FUD. I refute that, as you do indeed spread nothing but FUD (ooh and we can now add ridiculous, childish name calling to your list too).

            I clearly outlined above why I believe you spread FUD, which you interestingly were unable to refute, so instead you took the only way out and lowered the correspondence to the psychological problem/name calling route, instead…disgraceful!

            Mine was simply my perception of your commenting style, not a slur upon you personally! But the gloves are now off…!

            The fact that you were unable to control your anger (friendly advice – perhaps a quick trip to Dr Rydell’s Anger Management classes may be in order)…and had to state such utter rubbish is a clear indication that I was hitting a bit too close to home…me thinks!

            So if you want to no longer be accused of spreading FUD… stop spreading FUD…! And ANSWER THE SENATE/FUDged FIGURES FUD OF YOUR’s… Well…!

            Ooh and please, grow up…!

          • There it is, FUD again

            If I got a dollar every time you said FUD, I would be one rich man.

          • And if we all got a dollar every time you spread FUD Mathew, we’d all be very rich.

          • Yeah, but you see, FUD actually has to be false

            What I said about CVC charges was never false, and if you argue otherwise then you are in denial

  7. It would be good to see the general public educated with the information they requre to make an informed choice in regards to the NBN. During the week a joint report was published by the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC) and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN). The National Broadband Network: Guide for Consumers at http://www.accan.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=263&Itemid=319 aims to provide end users with plain english information to clear away all the technical jargon and provide a better alternative to what is currently available…

  8. Winding up the debate on Whirlpool might better inform the very deep technology community – but it will certainly not better inform the general public, because again the debate is framed around acronyms and poorly defined concepts.

    So I repeat my plea of a couple of weeks ago – can somebody please create an everyday guide to the NBN that is both accurate (correct) and understandable in the language of common people? A couple of people did try last time but sorry folks – those tries were still waaayyyy too technical – we need something that talks about the NBN at the same level as describing a road network – with none of the technical detail of how roads are constructed and road surfaces are made.

    Cheers,
    Mark.

    • *we need something that talks about the NBN at the same level as describing a road network – with none of the technical detail of how roads are constructed and road surfaces are made.*

      1. every house in Australia is already accessible by road.

      2. the road system is heterogenous and highly complex – not all roads are equal.

      for example, shared routes between major population / industrial / transport centres are serviced by larger, higher capacity roads (e.g. in the form of 6 lane expressways).

      3. now, the vast majority of roads are in satisfactory working condition and are adequate.

      4. many roads would benefit from relatively affordable investment in road widening at certain points or junction redesigning to improve traffic flows. also, a small minority have potholes.

      5. the sensible solution is targeted investment aimed at improving traffic flows and fixing potholes/blackspots (i.e. “highest benefit / lowest cost” optimal investment path)

      6. instead, the Government proposes that we rip-up the entire road system and build 6 lane expressways right up to the front door (driveway) of every house.

      7. this is highly costly and a profound waste of money because not every house needs to be serviced by a dedicated 6 lane expressway.

      hope this helps.

      toodles.

      • Mock as hard as you like Tosh – it doesn’t help the average joe understand the debate.

        But since you want to play that game, may you forever be condemned to drive the last mile to your house with a man walking in front of your chariot waving a red flag, so that you don’t frighten the poor cows and goats.

        I presume that you objected just as strenuously to the advent of the first generation of ADSL, an order of magnitude higher in capacity than the 56kbps dialup that you previously had. You might not be able to imagine households consuming 100Mbps – but your lack of imagination won’t stop them doing it. I’m quite sure that it will happen, and remarkably soon. The only thing I don’t know in this regard is exactly how they will consume it.

        Meanwhile, you completely miss the point of my post – which is that in order for all stakeholders to engage in the debate they need a framework in which they can understand the central issues. Are you able to benefit us with an insightful, but concise model of the NBN so that an informed debate can happen, or are you going to merely add to the fud and confusion?

        Toodles to you too, sunshine. And for your next post, please consider giving us some insight to your credentials for profound statements.

        • *Mock as hard as you like Tosh – it doesn’t help the average joe understand the debate.*

          WTF?

          flashback – *we need something that talks about the NBN at the same level as describing a road network*

          maybe i shouldn’t take your requests too literally – my bad.

          *may you forever be condemned to drive the last mile to your house with a man walking in front of your chariot waving a red flag, so that you don’t frighten the poor cows and goats.*

          not planning on moving to Bangladesh anytime soon… but you never know ;)

          *I presume that you objected…*

          on the basis of…… ? if you spent less time “presuming”, you might *learn* something.

          *You might not be able to imagine households consuming 100Mbps – but your lack of imagination won’t stop them doing it. I’m quite sure that it will happen, and remarkably soon.*

          are you familiar with the concept of “cost”, “marginal value” or “present value discounting”?

          *The only thing I don’t know in this regard is exactly how they will consume it.*

          that comment says it all: “i’m gonna spend XX billion on a brand spanking new infrastructure, but i have NFI how it’ll generate value which is commensurate with the massive cost of acquisition”.

          i can hear the distant rumblings of elephants…

          *in order for all stakeholders to engage in the debate they need a framework in which they can understand the central issues.

          no, we don’t need more mindless, misleading NBN propaganda (e.g. fibre will cost the same or less than copper, etc) – just click on http://www.nbnco.com.au/announcements/press_releases. enough taxpayers’ money wasted on this as it is.

          Are you able to benefit us with an insightful, but concise model of the NBN so that an informed debate can happen, or are you going to merely add to the fud and confusion?

          an “insightful, but concise model” of the NBN that solely focuses on the undisputed technical superiority of fibre but completely disregards the resultant MASSIVE cost burden (which is disproportionate to the marginal benefits that’ll arise from it)? one word – NO.

          there’s already an informed debate happening – the only ones blind to it are those who’s only contribution is to scream “FUD! FUUH-FUDD! FUUH-FUUUH-FUUUDD!”…

          *please consider giving us some insight to your credentials for profound statements.*

          mate, it doesn’t take a PhD to understand that the NBN will be totally disastrous for our communications cost-efficiency-wise. thanks for the compliment – but don’t mistake “commonsense” for “profound” ;)

          i don’t need a “press release” from NBN Co. to know that “1 + 1 does not equal 3”.

      • 1. False.

        2. True.

        3. Partially true, only if you don’t account for future demand.

        4. Partially true, only if you don’t account for future demand.

        5. Partially true, only if you don’t account for future demand.

        6. False. Although the plan is zealous and could be trimmed to achieve stated goals it isn’t a 6 land highway to every home. It is more akin to a comprehensive overhaul of the entire network.

        7. See 1 through 6 and note that this is automatically invalidated.

        Primary take away: Roads and Fixed Broadband? Not analogous.

        Secondly take away: Yes, the NBN is expensive and a more measured approach is preferable but only if it addresses future demand.

        Tertiary take away: Sorry Mark, the NBN can’t simply be explained as you desire.

        • *Yes, the NBN is expensive and a more measured approach is preferable but only if it addresses future demand.*

          mate, do you see single, young Mormon males at Brigham Young Uni driving around in Mitsubishi “people-mover” vans and taking out mortgages on 12-bedroom houses because they plan to have 6 wives and 20 kids “someday” down the track…. ?

          cheerio.

          • Listen to a word I said? I think not. Did you miss the whole “measured approach is preferable” and the associated meaning of “it can be done cheaper yes, but we need to be careful that it addresses future demand for Australia.”

            It’s an infrastructure project. With a 30-50 year timescale. Not some teenager just getting into Uni buying his first car. Government planning needs to look at future demand. Otherwise you find you’re missing out on building vital transport routes because of lack of space because the land is too expensive.

          • *It’s an infrastructure project. With a 30-50 year timescale. Government planning needs to look at future demand.*

            well, that’s the whole problem isn’t it? the NBN isn’t your typical government infrastructure project which is funded from general taxpayer revenue [on an ongoing basis] with cost benefit audits performed by various government agencies.

            the NBN is being built by NBN Co which, in turn, is sold as a “self-funding” investment vehicle with a view to eventual privatisation down the track. if you believe NBN Co’s financial models, the only “government assistance” NBN Co will receive is “subsidised” rates of financing during the risky build/roll-out phase, with payback of government equity happening pretty soon after project completion.

            according to the Labor pollies, it’s destined to be a “viable” commercial entity with the $XXbln capital base to be serviced from access charges.

            the analogy to public roads, bridges and hospitals is totally WRONG. these are funded from general tax receipts on an ongoing basis.

            NBN Co will (supposedly) receive ZERO funding from taxpayers during its lifelong operation. the entire capital servicing burden falls on the shoulders of broadband subscribers. as such, the NBN itself has to be commercially-VIABLE in its scope, reach and structure. otherwise NBN Co will surely go bankrupt.

            if you want to build some grand political vision stretching “30-50 year timescale”, scrap NBN Co and fund the NBN directly, on-budget, using federal tax revenue. stop trying to dress the NBN white elephant in empty political rhetoric and pretend that it’s commercially-viable.

          • Relevance?

            But since you ask. Cable (VirginMedia) was not available in my area and this was before BT Infinity. I had ADSL2+ that synced at approximately 18Mbps/2Mbps. Fortunately, unlike Australia, there was decent back-haul investment meaning that I actually got that speed the majority of the time.

          • *I had ADSL2+ that synced at approximately 18Mbps/2Mbps.*

            18Mbps!!!!! how far from the exchange were you???

      • I would say it’s more like replacing the dirt horse-and-cart buggy tracks with paved roads, but that just goes to show how silly such analogies are.

        • *I would say it’s more like replacing the dirt horse-and-cart buggy tracks*

          that’s one hell of a “dirt horse-and-cart buggy track” if Australian ISPs are getting sued by the various media organisations because we download too many Blu-Rays, DVDs, CDs, ISOs, etc….

          just sayin’…

          • Looking at what was possible twenty years ago and thinking about what will be possible twenty years from now, I’d say we’ve only just barely begun to see what is possible.

Comments are closed.