news A senior telecommunications analyst has praised the Coalition’s new telecommunications policy as being worthy of respect, while warning the fallout from its commitment to halting Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project would remain its biggest problem if it took Government in the next Federal Election.
In early August, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull gave a landmark speech to the National Press Club in Canberra in which he outlined a new telecommunications policy approach for the Coalition, focusing on separating Telstra, developing the existing HFC cable in urban areas and using wireless and satellite solutions to serve the rest of Australia.
In an extensive analysis of Turnbull’s new plan published this week, Informa senior analyst Tony Brown wrote that the Coalition’s previous policy — announced during the 2010 Federal Election and predating Turnbull’s role in the portfolio — featured such ineptitude that “it looked like it had been drawn up on the back of a napkin at a cocktail bar”. However, Brown said his first reading of Turnbull’s new approach showed that “it at least gets the Coalition a seat at the adults’ table”.
On the upside, the analyst noted, the policy was cheaper than the current NBN model, and Turnbull’s approach of targeting current broadband blackspots and attempting to boost national speeds quickly through HFC was “a well-targeted counterpunch to the NBN’s current 10-year deployment timeframe”, which he noted would leave many Australians with sub-standard speeds while the network was being built.
In addition, Brown praised Turnbull’s plan to maintain the existing copper and HFC cable networks, noting the planned closure of the networks “has left even some NBN-friendly commentators squirming”.
However, the analyst noted, Turnbull has not yet outlined how he plans to separate Telstra, and under the plan the company will likely still have a huge role in Australia’s wholesale telecommunications market. Turnbull’s plan wouldn’t target those in outer metropolitan areas, who might be only receiving low ADSL speeds, Brown added, and most importantly, the task of “untangling” the NBN, which may take most of the Coalition’s first term in Government, would be “daunting”.
“It is possible that Turnbull will spend his entire first term as communications minister without even getting his own [New Zealand-style] deployment off the ground, simply because wading through the legal and commercial minefield of renegotiating a deal with Telstra – not to mention renegotiating with other operators, such as Optus – would chew up so much time,” wrote Brown.
opinion/analysis
Brown has nailed it with this superb analysis of Turnbull’s new policy. There is no doubt, as I have previously written, that the Coalition’s new policy approach has legs, and it does represent a viable alternative telecommunications policy … something the party had lacked for a few years now.
Furthermore, I like the fact that we now have a choice between two telecommunications policies which are largely drawn down political lines. Labor has taken its standard, big government, big spending, highly regulated approach with its NBN policy. In contrast, we have a more minimalist approach from the Coalition which acknowledges and tackles market failure where it exists, but aims to stimulate the private sector into investing in competitive solutions where it hasn’t.
However, and this is something I’ve also consistently argued, and as Brown noted, the Coalition’s biggest headache is the threat that the NBN rollout will have gained a substantial head of steam by the time the next election rolls around. It will be very, very hard for Turnbull or any other Communications Minister to stand up on national TV and cancel the NBN … when some 1.7 million households already have it, and the entire industry has restructured itself around the project.
The NBN has always been a substantial industry restructuring initiative wrapped in a sweet coating of juicy populist policy (100Mbps to every home). It will be fascinating to see how strong a future Coalition Government’s resolve is if that populist policy turns out to be very popular indeed.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
“It will be fascinating to see how strong a future Coalition Government’s resolve is if that populist policy turns out to be very popular indeed.”
Well that’s the key to it all, if we look at who is going to win Government next and why it is obvious that the Labor NBN is not the key to winning Government no matter what stage it is at, if all Abbott and Turnbull do between now and the next election is to grin a lot, pat babies on the head and add nothing to Coalition communications policy beyond what’s on the table now they will still romp it in.
“if all Abbott and Turnbull do between now and the next election is to grin a lot, pat babies on the head and add nothing to Coalition communications policy beyond what’s on the table now they will still romp it in.”
That’s pretty much it … the Coalition’s job has been done at this point. Labor has shot itself in the foot so many times, all the Coalition has to do is hold the ship steady and not shoot itself in the foot.
Sad, really.
You are all forgetting the absolutely massive tax rebates that are going to kick in next financial year with the carbon tax.
Money makes people change their mind quite quickly. (especially in the order of 15% of 15,000 dollars which most low income earners are going to gain instantly)
Turnbull has to get Telstra to structurally separate off the CAN, including exchanges, to create his CANCo. Without separation his policy is dead in the water.
He has the stick of the spectrum auction and the carrot of whatever NBN has been built. No separation, no spectrum. Separate and we’ll put the NBN infrastructure into the CANCo at a sweet price. Telstra shareholders will still have the same Telstra retail/wholesale organisation as with the NBN. They won’t have the $11bn but they will have shares in the CANCo. It’s a million to one chance, Renai, but it might just work.
+1
“Without separation his policy is dead in the water.”
Seriously CMOT do you really think the punter voter really gives a stuff that Telstra is structurally separated or not or that the Coalition policy depends on it in any way shape or form?
The average voter does knows absolutely nothing technical about communications, but they sure as hell know what their bill is every month – ‘inviting’ Telstra to upgrade broadband in metro areas (SEE: SOUTH BRISBANE EXCHANGE) is a good way to drive that bill up.
Well that was a contract between the Qld Government and Telstra, it might influence voters in that exchange area not to vote for the Bligh Labor Government next time around, but that’s about it.
After the QLD floods, and the general popularity boost shes’s recieved – you’ve got about buckleys to none of her getting booted.
Most voters here STILL dont like Campbell Newman. Hes wasted money, wasted time and generally turned out to be the political opposite of his federal bretheren.
He had the Clem7 Tunnel built. An absolutely colossal waste of cash that noone uses because they charge over $7 one way. His party may be liberal, but he sure as hell doesnt follow their trend …
After the QLD floods, and the general popularity boost shes’s recieved – you’ve got about buckleys to none of her getting booted.
Most voters here STILL dont like Campbell Newman. Hes wasted money, wasted time and generally turned out to be the political opposite of his federal bretheren.
He had the Clem7 Tunnel built. An absolutely colossal waste of cash that noone uses because they charge over $7 one way. His party may be liberal, but he sure as hell doesnt follow their trend …
Who’s to say that structural separation of Telstra won’t happen before the next election?
More than likely the dust will settle just as the election comes around and Turnbull wiill stand up and pat himself on the back for such an awesome job.
I’m pretty sure Telstra won’t be doing anything until that 11 billion is safely in their pocket. IE post election.
Why would you risk 11 billion dollars by structurally seperating right before an election?
I’m pretty sure Telstra won’t be doing anything until that 11 billion is safely in their pocket. IE post election.
Why would you risk 11 billion dollars by structurally seperating right before an election?
Because the deadline for structural separation of Telstra is 2018.
Turnbull has to get Telstra to structurally separate off the CAN, including exchanges, to create his CANCo. Without separation his policy is dead in the water.
He has the stick of the spectrum auction and the carrot of whatever NBN has been built. No separation, no spectrum. Separate and we’ll put the NBN infrastructure into the CANCo at a sweet price. Telstra shareholders will still have the same Telstra retail/wholesale organisation as with the NBN. They won’t have the $11bn but they will have shares in the CANCo. It’s a million to one chance, Renai, but it might just work.
“Turnbull’s plan wouldn’t target those in outer metropolitan areas, who might be only receiving low ADSL speeds”
Looks like I will be moving house if I dont get NBN before the next election.
Sad really it is a very nice house but not being able to get any internet other than wireless is a MASSIVE problem.
Next G in my area is so congested that it is much SLOWER THAN DIAL UP AT PEAK TIMES.
+1 . you can stick your coalition policy until I see some better promises of ditching wireless!
+1 . you can stick your coalition policy until I see some better promises of ditching wireless!
What is most dissapointing is that the Coalitions plan is nothing but a short-term solution to communications infrastructure in the country.
HFC is not a credible or suitable medium for communications for the next 50 – 60 years. To skip going to FTTH is just wasted money as it will need to be done eventually even if it’s 10 years down the track.
Just need to suck it up, lay the fibre and will not have to worry about it for at least the next generation of Australians.
You are totally right Marc. The biggest problem with HFC and the coalitions patchwork plan in general is that upload speeds are still appalling and in the case of HFC most of the population simply misses out. So like AJ mentions moving will be the only option if you want decent broadband… I guess some politicians have missed the point of communications infrastructure. Not surprising really.
The Coalition plan is not just about keeping HFC, but then you know that.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. Your point?
He doesn’t have one Marc, please ignore him, he is just naturally drawn to my posts like a moth to a flame…
I have made it.
Is there anything in my post which suggests that? Nope just the opposite: “HFC and the coalitions patchwork plan in general. Did you miss the “and” in there?
Your incessant agenda driven mantra of ‘ Coalition patchwork plan’ doesn’t mean anything, so no I didn’t miss anything after the ‘and’.
So no problems reading, it’s the comprehension part you are having trouble with… Somehow I’m not surprised.
“Coalition patchwork plan” isn’t keeping what we have and fixing things where needed the definition of patching?
You are defining what patchwork is, it is meaningless because you have politically defined a mix of infrastructure types to replace the Telstra copper as being ‘patchwork’?
Overseas countries have a mix of infrastructure types, doesn’t seem to have bothered their internet uptake nor their standing in economic OECD rankings.
Defining 93% FTTH as being the only solution and anything less than than a massively expensive $43 billion taxpayer fed rollout is inferior is just opinion and Coalition policy doesn’t see it that way.
Labor doesn’t have a very good history of being able to reign in costs and come up with cost effective options, the Coalition policy of being fiscally responsible in these times of economic upheaval will not lose them votes, in fact quite the opposite
You say the coalition doesn’t see their patchwork plan as inferior? Wow that sure is some amazing insight, just remember Mr Abbott even admitted he was no Bill Gates so when it comes to judging what is and isn’t acceptable as a last mile solution I wont be listening to him or the coalition that is for sure.
As for patchwork and what does and doesn’t constitute a patchwork. I see you are still whining about this but as I’ve said before perhaps you just dont understand the meaning of “patchwork” when describing a new broadband network. Yes the whole internet is a patchwork but that doesn’t mean you need to cobble things together in a patchwork like manner when designing new network topology just to keep the tradition alive.
Yes but you can define patchwork anyway you want it to be depending on what agenda you want to push.
You could call the Labor NBN a ‘patchwork plan’ because it is a mix of FTTH, satellite and wireless coupled with wireless from three private suppliers.
All FTTH is doing is substituting ADSL (well it will in about 10-20 years), even the Telstra HFC is being kept.
You can call it whatever you like, you wont hear any complaints from me… makes you wonder though with the coalition plan being an actual patchwork why you take offense and whine every time it is pointed out. You seem to be very sensitive to it’s inferiority.
You can call it whatever you like, you wont hear any complaints from me… makes you wonder though with the coalition plan being an actual patchwork why you take offense and whine every time it is pointed out. You seem to be very sensitive to it’s inferiority.
You can call it whatever you like, you wont hear any complaints from me… makes you wonder though with the coalition plan being an actual patchwork why you take offense and whine every time it is pointed out. You seem to be very sensitive to it’s inferiority.
Good so we have two patchwork plans, a Labor one and a Coalition one, another epic milestone sorted
Sure do. One is a future proof and efficient network proposal the other is a substandard patchwork proposal.
“HFC is not a credible or suitable medium for communications for the next 50 – 60 years. To skip going to FTTH is just wasted money as it will need to be done eventually even if it’s 10 years down the track.”
Wow you are predicting infrastructure need out to 2060-2070 and making the amazing assumption that all Governments and Telco’s intend to keep HFC going for that long and are you postive FTTH will be around then as well?
:)
I live less than 15km from the Brisbane CBD in an estate less than 10 years old, my area is covered by ADSL2+ (but not Optus or Telstra HFC) but because of old copper and a RIM I can only get about 2.5Mbps on a good day. What will the LNP’s policy do for me? Very little, I suggest.
They are claiming 50-60mbps down and 5-10mbps up. While that might be ok for the short term you also have to be smack bang right next to a node to get that speed so no sure way to know exacty what speed you will end up getting.
I just realised somethign else I wonder if people that actually do want slower speeds and are right next to a node will they have an option to get a 12/1mbps plan at a lower price with the FTTN patchwork plan the coalition are proposing.
The Coalition plan is not just about FTTN, but then you know that.
News at 11? Do I have to mention other parts of their patchwork plan when discussing one component (FTTN) just to placate your pedantic attitude?
I don’t care what you do, I am just correcting your biased highly selective quoting the purpose of which is too support your pro NBN FTTH rollout agenda at the expense of any objectivity whatever across most tech websites discussion groups in Australia.
Good then you recognise that in fact my comment did in no way allude that the coalitions patchwork plan was in anyway FTTN only. Right, glad we cleared that up but speaking of agendas have you read The Australian lately?
What you get is maybe FTTN. From maybe some competitors. But most likely just Telstra because there won’t be any money in building an FTTN.
If you are lucky Telstra will have a new name and wholesaling. Lets call it: “Not NBNCo” If you are lucky, that FTTN node will give you VDSL speeds. That is if they actually spend enough on the FTTN. Given this is a coalition plan and big government spending is a horrible concept that they will take to their graves, you’ll get ADSL2+ speeds. (~20 megabits).
You will be better off. Basically you’ll be getting what I get now.
If you are lucky maybe you’ll get HFC extended to your area? If you are really lucky not many people in your area will take up internet services on it, and you might be able to get 100megabits during business hours.
Telstra and Optus are about to release LTE, which means you might be able to get ~20 megabits/second wireless. (LTE really is quite good) again however, pray no one else in the neighborhood takes it up, because if they do you’ll end up with 20megabits during business hours only. Alternatively, you can hope Telstra LTE costs a BUCKETLOAD to actually get any download quota, if you hope really hard it will be so expensive no one will actually use it (like NextG was until recently). Its Telstras method of reducing contention ratios. (very effective method too).
Is that good enough Alain? What have I missed? Should I have said Maybe a little more often? how about “if you are lucky” one or more times.
Alternatively, you will get fibre services at upto 100 megabits, ranging to gigabit speeds in the future. But, again thats if you are lucky. (and conversely only if you see alain frothing at the mouth come the day after the next election, sadly unlikely given current polls)
The contracts that were signed with Silcar are only for 3-4 years, so its really not going to be an issue to halt the NBN, it will halt byitself (the reason why originally none of the companies were willing to do a tender with NBNCo is because the contracts being offered were around 10 years, when many of the construction companies knew that a change of government in a few years was very likely)
In the worst case scenario, coalition will do to NBN what Labor did to OPEL, or they can just freeze the funding entierly
I’m sorry Renai, but you must be entirely delusional to suggest that the Liberal’s broadband policy has ‘legs’ – it does not even have a skeleton, I don’t know how anyone can even call it a plan.
His entire plan makes practically zero commitments, he crapped on for the longest time about how if Labor went into a bank and asked for a loan for the NBN they would get laughed at, shit at least they have almost every single technical detail in the world already fairly set in stone and have produced a business plan that includes wholesale costs making it fairly easy for people to work out what they will need to pay, but I tell you what – they would have a hell of alot higher chances of getting a loan approved than the Liberal’s.
The Liberal plan only seems to be a bunch of suggestions, nowhere do they actually make commitments, for me- despite being able to see the Perth CBD out my window, all he will do for me is “invite carriers to offer broadband based on a common set of carrier principles”
How will you invite them? Shower them with public money? A nice smile?
What are these common set of carrier principles?
Then we get to HFC- something about a upgrade that ‘could’ speed up HFC (no commitments) being implemented, again, will this involve showering private closed-access networks with public money?
You can rag on the NBN all you want, but at least everyone knows exactly what they are getting if they have the patience to look at NBNco’s website, we know how much it’s going to cost, how it will be delivered, all of the wholesale costs, POI locations…
And people have the urge to suggest the NBN was drawn up on the back of a napkin? AT LEAST THEY USED A NAPKIN – Turnbull’s policy seems to be all in his head! ;)
I forgot to add some words about cost, he never mentions how much his plan will cost – although I guess it’s pretty easy to avoid costings if your essentially going to do stuff all.
You mean just like the NBN rollout?
You mean just like the NBN rollout?
Generally the most critical part of a network rollout is testing. It takes ages, it looks bad to directors – but when it finally works smoothly, it saves a $^&%load of time down the track because you’ve already ironed out the hard bits.
What’s so hard about rolling out FTTH, Australia and overseas have had it for years, what ‘hard bits’??
I am not actually trolling or anything, but are you saying they haven’t spoken about the cost of the NBN?
Because everyone knows how much it is going to cost.
~36 billion dollars.
(x2 if you don’t like the NBN, x3 if you are using hyperbole)
I was referring to a CBA (cost benefit analysis), it was never done for the NBN FTTH, but apparently it is crucial to the viability of the Coalition plan.
I understand that costings are important for a cost benefit analysis, but I didn’t think that went both ways…
You don’t need a CBA to provide costs, as evidenced by the fact that the NBN is building things, presumably with an *idea* of how much they are going to cost (even if people disagree).
All of that however, without a Cost Benefit Analysis.
I don’t believe Duideka was asking for a CBA to be done on the coalition plan, but at least some costings to be released.
Though, I suspect Malcom has at least done a handwaving “it will cost X billion” ball park to compare the NBN to?
No one seems to mention it however… (Or I am not paying enough attention, which is entirely possible)
Well it it didn’t seem to bother anyone re the Labor NBN costings, absence of a CBA not withstanding, let’s look at the history of the timeline of the NBN Co Business plan, it was released December 2010, the last election which led to a hung Parliament was August 2010.
On that basis the Coalition don’t have to release any NBN Co Business Plan equivalent type of costings until four months after the 2013 election, assuming they win.
I think the napkin remark in this instance was referring to the coalition plan. As for Turnbull it has to be in is head, he cannot commit to anything of substance since he has to modify his plan every time NBNco makes progress.
Where has he modified his plan?, the NBN Co Business indicates how many premises will be passed by June 2013 and Turnbull has said the Coalition will utilise whatever FTTH rollout is out there if and when they get into power?
Also your memory is very selective when it comes to the history of the Labor NBN rollout, Labor changed their minds AFTER the 2007 election as to what they would do.
The Coalition could also change their minds AFTER the 2013 election, that seems a ok sort of political precedence on policy to run with don’t you think?
*NBN Co Business plan…..
yeah not much of a plan LOL, one minute it’s “wireless will save us! opel is awesome!” then it’s “oh you know that fttn plan everyone came to the conclusion was rubbish let’s go with that now!”
My memory is not selective at all, the big difference here is that FTTH is the ultimate goal. There is nothing to modify once you reach this stage.
If they change their minds to continue the NBN rollout as planed that is fine with me.
“If they change their minds to continue the NBN rollout as planed that is fine with me.”
That would be my personal ideal scenario.
I would prefer The Coalition in government because to me it seems they have a better grasp on how to run the country.
However I will say that when it comes to thinking ahead and pushing for big changes, Labor is far better (though they suck at implementation).
In an ideal world (according to me at least), Labor would put big forward thinking policies in place, then The Coalition would take power and get it done properly.
“one minute it’s “wireless will save us! opel is awesome!”
Turnbull never said that, you made that up.
“then it’s “oh you know that fttn plan everyone came to the conclusion was rubbish let’s go with that now!”
Turnbull never said that, you made that up.
“the big difference here is that FTTH is the ultimate goal.”
It is who says so? – oh you , doesn’t count sorry.
“If they change their minds to continue the NBN rollout as planed that is fine with me.”
No they are not, bad luck about that, you have to roll with the Government of the day, you might mind but the majority of the electors couldn’t give a stuff.
Apparently not: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/26/conroy-must-acknowledge-wireless-threat-turnbull/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country
News at 11.
“Apparently not: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/0…”
Those words you attributed to Turnbuall quoted are not there, you made it up.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…”
Quoting a generic all encompassing Wikipedia reference on fibre is a answer?
LOL
“News at 11”
The standard HC256 exit statement when it all get too hard, it gets too hard often hence the boring repetitive occurrences of its use.
Apparently you dont know what paraphrasing is. Also: http://www.cio.com.au/article/377767/nbn_fixed_focus_reckless_turnbull/
You asked: It is who says so?
You seem to be mistaken, none of this ever gets hard for me. In fact with you it’s all a bit too easy…
Oh I see the HC256 spin for ‘making it all up’ is called paraphrasing is it – classic!
LOL
It’s obvious that I was paraphrasing, any dummy can figure this out… did you actually think Turnbull said: “wireless will save us! opel is awesome!”?
Yeah like I said, you made it up, even the paraphrasing is wrong.
Apparently you STILL dont know what paraphrasing is.
Not really, you just fail at paraphrasing HC
Either quote directly or don’t quote at all
It’s my paraphrase. I can restate it however I see fit. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of paraphrasing either. Considering how trivial this is one wonders why you two are so fixated with it.
It’s my paraphrase. I can restate it however I see fit. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of paraphrasing either. Considering how trivial this is one wonders why you two are so fixated with it.
While i agree with your post in general, i don’t know how possible it is for the opposition to get that level of detail. I assume that it would take a lot of resources hence why only the government of the time would be able to formulate a complete plan.
Someone may be able to answer this for us, in the meantime at least he has set out a general plan which we can compare to the NBN.
Humble post here — The NBN hasnt exactly done much to get any broadband solution into regional Australia. (Are we up to 100 customers yet) My question is — stop what ?
There are alternatives to nbn spin waiting in the wings.
.
my understanding is they are at least past 500 customers over the test areas. as to not getting into regional aus – Tassie and Armidale and Kiama dont count? they are to leverage the NexGen rural broadband blackspot program backbones as well – expressly intended for regional Australia.
this is not a network that you can wave a magic wand for and *poof* its there… (nor for that matter is Malcolm/Tonys FTTN substitute). weve had initial testing, then modification testing (what works for Tassie or Armidale will be different to that for Brunswick, etc.) and going to full rollout in the near future. it was never possible to say ‘RIGHT! we’re building a next generation network for Australia!” and have customer signups the next day.
a company structure has been mooted, built, people hired to fill positions, contracts nutted out and several signed, negotiations (hefty ones) made with the incumbent and test areas for various types of rollouts mounted. that takes time – something very pertinent to the alternative offering from the Coalition. Had the last election gone with the independents siding with the Coalition, they would be in the exact same position – providing a lot of ‘spin’ while the thing gets off the ground. the exact same question could be asked of them…. “stop what?”
fortunately most of the time consuming work of setup has been done so full rollouts will come on stream soon. if you really want Tony to have government tomorrow, expect that work to stall and moulder as they nut out their alternative vision with exactly the same leadin work required – contracts written, test cases worked through etc etc etc. if you are antsy for broadband solutions in your area, id suggest that putting the whole thing on hiatus by voting in a Coalition govt wont make you any happier.
NBNco are actually running a satellite service trial, which a few hundred people are using as we speak in regional Australia.
The question that needs to be asked (and answered) is are the two broadband plans designed with the same result in mind?
There’s no questioning that the NBN is designed for the future, completely ripping out the existing copper network and replacing it with a modern future-proof fibre optic network.
However, what’s the driving force behind the Liberal’s plan? Are they planning for the future as well, or were they pretty much forced into having a broadband plan because the NBN is in existence? And after that, how much of their plan is so they can say at the next election ‘look, we have a plan too so now you don’t need to vote for Labour to have a broadband policy’.
What they’re (Turnbull) not saying though, that while it’s cheaper and no doubt better in the short term, is how future proof is the Liberal’s plan? You can argue about whether we’ll need faster internet or not, past trends suggests we will, but are Turnbull and Abbott just being shortsighted and thinking about the next election, or are they really believing that their plan is a genuine policy comparable to the NBN with future generations in mind?
@CUFCfan616
You need to explain why nothing less than a 93% FTTH rollout funded by the taxpayers is the only option that will meet our ‘future needs’ (whatever that means).
If we don’t have 93% FTTH by 2020-2025 how will Australia ‘suffer’ exactly relative to those countries that do not?
maybe in 2025 we will be able to jack ourselves into the net and control the net via our brain, but then, with the intelligence that a lot of people in australia have 1.5mbps will be fast enough for that!
I’m not saying that nothing less than 93% FTTH is what is needed, but given that that is what NBNco is aiming for then there’s little use discussing alternatives for Labour’s broadband policy. Their line is drawn, that’s their objective so that’s one half of the arguement pretty much in stone give or take a few alterations down the line to include a town here or there that would suddenly want in on fibre instead of satellite.
I don’t know what’s going to be used in the future though regarding the internet, but past trends do indicate that usage, bandwidth and the need for greater speeds will increase. Say that isn’t true or explain to me why these trends won’t continue in the future? I’m not saying that Australia NEEDS 93% FTTH to be future proofed, but I am saying that when you put the two plans as they are at the moment side by side, the plan that is more likely to tend to the future is the NBN, while the Liberal’s plan is likely to need upgrading again in the future (coincidentally long after Turnbull and Abbott probably intend to be in office should they get there. What do they care when it’ll be someone else’s problem?)
But that’s besides the point. You haven’t answered my question. What is the motive behind the Liberal’s broadband plan? Do you believe they have the long term prosperity of Australia in their minds, or are they thinking about 2012/13 and the next election and doing whatever they can to get into power. No doubt having a cheaper internet plan will come along with tv ads branding the NBN as overpriced when they can do something different for cheaper, while leaving out the costs and benefits of each plan.
Stop focusing on one issue and consider other issues surrounding this and answer the questions I put forward. Answering a question with another, loosely related, question gets us nowhere
+1
+1
“I’m not saying that nothing less than 93% FTTH is what is needed, but given that that is what NBNco is aiming for then there’s little use discussing alternatives for Labour’s broadband policy.’
So you are not sure it is needed but because that’s what the NBN Co is aiming for it immediately follows that therefore it is needed – umm yeah ok.
” Say that isn’t true or explain to me why these trends won’t continue in the future?”
I don’t see a problem with future trends, it doesn’t necessarily follow that 93% FTTH is the only solution to that trend, especially if you take into account residences that have the option of taking the highest speed BB today give it a miss, when that is pointed out as a historical precedent the comment is ignored.
” I’m not saying that Australia NEEDS 93% FTTH to be future proofed, but I am saying that when you put the two plans as they are at the moment side by side, the plan that is more likely to tend to the future is the NBN,”
So on one hand you are saying you are not sure Australia needs FTTH but on the other hand you are saying that only FTTH NBN is going to fulfill the future needs that you are not sure what is anyway!
“while the Liberal’s plan is likely to need upgrading again in the future (coincidentally long after Turnbull and Abbott probably intend to be in office should they get there.”
So if it needs upgrading in the future it is upgraded, what’s the problem? – if it doesn’t you have saved yourself a bucket load of taxpayer cash.
“. What is the motive behind the Liberal’s broadband plan?”
It is more fiscally responsible than the Labor plan, who as a political party have a history of stuffing projects like this up, mainly with budget overruns.
“Do you believe they have the long term prosperity of Australia in their minds, or are they thinking about 2012/13 and the next election and doing whatever they can to get into power.”
They don’t have to do anything with Communications policy and still get into power, if you think Australia’s long term prosperity hinges on being able to deliver HD video conferencing to four points in the home our future is not that bright.
:).
” No doubt having a cheaper internet plan will come along with tv ads branding the NBN as overpriced when they can do something different for cheaper, while leaving out the costs and benefits of each plan.”
You mean like there is no CBA for the Labor NBN rollout, well that’s ok then isn’t it?
“Stop focusing on one issue and consider other issues surrounding this and answer the questions I put forward.”
I have.
You pretty much nailed it here. The biggest problem with their patchwork solution is that there is no clear upgrade path to fibre and they can argue that these speeds are not or will not be needed but all the projections completely contradict them. Every thing we do on the internet is getting more bandwidth intensive and shows no signs of slowing. I know some people that are still on ancient 1500kbps ADSL plans they are quite happy to use this speed now since all they ever do is webbrowsing and email however if I ever mention dial-up to them they wont have anything nice to say about it. These are way below average users and even they recognise the need for more speed even if they themsleves wont use it. However by 2022 they will need ~40mbps and we will need about ~250mbps. NBNco have planned for this Abbott and his zoo crew have not.
“You pretty much nailed it here.”
Well no he hasn’t at all, I asked him a couple of questions which he has not come back to.
” The biggest problem with their patchwork solution is that there is no clear upgrade path to fibre”
Yes there is.
” and they can argue that these speeds are not or will not be needed but all the projections completely contradict them”
All projections completely contradict them – really?, so that’s ALL projections even the ones that don’t contradict them actually contradict them?
” Every thing we do on the internet is getting more bandwidth intensive and shows no signs of slowing.”
Yes but that doesn’t mean the ONLY solution is FTTH to 93% of residences in Australia bankrolled by the taxpayer for billions.
“I know some people that are still on ancient 1500kbps ADSL plans”
Note the use of the word ‘ancient’ in front of 1500, just in case you missed the emotional emphasis HC256 is setting up for what’s to come. lol
” they are quite happy to use this speed now since all they ever do is webbrowsing and email”
They also use it for streaming video ,streaming internet radio, downloading files, playing on line games and VoIP as well, to say that everyone that is on 1500/256 only use it for email and browsing is complete and utter BS.
Perhaps you are just ‘paraphrasing’ .
“however if I ever mention dial-up to them they wont have anything nice to say about it.”
err ok, always on internet is better than dial-up, that’s a known, not sure where you are going with that statement at all, no one is saying anyone should revert back to dial-up.
“These are way below average users and even they recognise the need for more speed even if they themsleves wont use it”
Well they are not ‘below average users’, the vast majority of internet use is for email and browsing, the exact opposite to what you stated, they recognise the need for speed even if they won’t use it? – that doesn’t make sense, perhaps it’s not meant to.
“. However by 2022 they will need ~40mbps and we will need about ~250mbps. NBNco have planned for this Abbott and his zoo crew have not.”
You saying that’s what the needs are by 2022 doesn’t count for much, because history shows most residences do not sign up for the fastest speeds available to them even in 2011.
Well actually he did.
Tell us what it is then.
Show us the ones that dont contradict them then.
Boo hoo hoo taxpayers whaaaaaaaaaa. Ok I have another solution I propose 76% FTTH build for VIC & NSW plus wireless and satellite covering the rest, how about you?
Note alian is bothered by the word ancient to describe 1500kbps ADSL plan, just in case you missed his relentless emotional whining.
Um I think I know what my friends and relatives are using the internet for, you do not, you are simply wrong, all they are using it for email and browsing.
Nope. In this case you have just failed to comprehend the words again…
See.
It’s almost as if you are not comprehending what you are reading… again.
just suppose (for the sake of argument) that Telstra spins off $10bln worth of assets into Netco and the Federal Govt contributes an equal amount of NBN assets into Netco. (in reality, a big chunk of NBNco assets will have to be written down substantially.)
so current Telstra shareholders will own 50% of Netco while the remaining 50% will be owned by NBNco (or the Federal Govt).
you will have half the Board of Directors running Netco representing private shareholders and the other half will be appointees from within the senior ranks of the Public Service.
who the hell would want to own shares in a company which is half-controlled by bureaucrats in pursuit of a Government agenda?
basically, Malcolm is right about FTTP being a complete total white elephant and impending fiscal train wreck.
however, he’s wrong on the supposed benefits to Telstra shareholders of voluntary structural separation. that’s just nonsense. Telstra would be a thousand times better off under the NBNco deal where:
i/ they are getting a positive NPV deal;
ii/ merely leasing certain parts of their infrastructure (i.e. still retaining ownership);
iii/ transitioning to an access platform which is so costly (in the long term) that it advantages players with scale such as Telstra and Optus vs the smaller little ISPs;
iv/ new product possibilities from FTTP for specific segments of the market in general, and services that rely on high speeds in particular due to NBNco’s artificially flat port speed pricing curve.
this, as opposed to permanently spinning off the CAN into a new vehicle whose value will entirely be dependent on how generous the ACCC is in terms of setting returns. based on past history, the new Netco will get totally raped — there’s no way in hell the ACCC will allow Telstra to structurally separate in a way that results in billions of dollars of positive NPV from the spin-off of the CAN. more likely than not, it will result in negative NPV vs the status quo of vertical integration.
also, strategically, the ACCC will want to set the base value of the current CAN as low as possible to minimise the upward pressure of any FTTN upgrade on future wholesale pricing.
both Minchin and Turnbull are on the record condemning the CCS Bill as draconian for forcing Telstra to structurally separate by giving it a Clayton’s Choice of “separate” or “kiss goodbye to 4G”. Turnbull’s NPC address also couches everything in terms of voluntary separation on Telstra’s part.
sure, the future Government will inherit a loaded gun, but who knows… maybe they will craft a deal…. repeal separation law and transfer NBNco’s white elephant fibre assets to Telstra in return for releasing NBNco from its contractual obligation to lease Telstra’s infrastructure, or something along those lines.
well, having now read the Grant Thornton report in some detail, i must say it is potentially a highly misleading report for those who fail to appreciate how GR have artificially framed the issue.
for example, we already have one article claiming that the NBNco deal is “sweeter than revenge” for Telstra:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstra-NBN-Grant-Samuel-report-independent-expert-pd20110901-LA48Z?opendocument&src=idp
this is not true at all and completely misleading. the Federal Govt has basically backed Telstra into a corner. if Telstra doesn’t co-operate with NBNco, they are threatened with the loss of future wireless spectrum. it goes beyond structural separation. not only must Telstra structurally separate, they must also do so in a very specific fashion — i.e. they must gradually migrate customers over to the NBN while it’s being rolled-out.
while plans for the NBN are still operational, it’s not feasible for Telstra to structurally separate by spinning off the CAN without realising a big loss because investors will perceive the value of the CAN as rapidly declining over time due to competition from the NBN.
also, there isn’t much scope for Telstra to compete against the NBN using the HFC network because cherry-picking provisions in the NBN legislation mean that Telstra’s HFC will immediately become a “declared, open access network” that has to offer access pricing on similar terms to the NBN, if it’s further upgraded to superfast broadband capability.
this is why GR posits the two extreme scenarios of full collaboration with NBNco or head-on competition with the NBN (with loss of wireless spectrum fully-factored in), and no “in-between” scenarios. the Fed Govt has basically manufactured a situation where there’s no “halfway” scenarios for Telstra to shelter under.
what the $11bln NBNco deal achieves is that it essentially allows Telstra a “way out” by delivering the company sufficient cashflow over the period of the agreement to offset the loss of wholesale copper revenues as it is gradually “separated” from its wholesale business. Telstra will also be able to participate in the wireless auctions and keep the HFC/Foxtel assets. so, it’s very much preservation of “status quo” in a financial sense. Telstra shareholders do not “gain” from co-operating with the Govt.
the “incremental NPV benefits” that GR talks about are more accurately “avoided costs”, i.e. by co-operating with the Fed Govt, you avoid the cost of not being able to acquire additional wireless spectrum and losing market share to the NBN without financial compensation. specifically, the “incremental NPV benefits” that GR calculates are based on a default scenario of competition/co-existence with the NBN where each company has 50% market share. hence, the “absolute dollar benefits” calculated are totally arbitrary and must be viewed relative to the assumed “default scenario”.
bottomline, Telstra doesn’t really benefit in absolute terms from the $11bln deal with NBNco relative to the pre-NBN world. it’s more accurately interpreted as a form of financial compensation for voluntarily handing over the fixed network monopoly over to NBNco. of course, in relative terms, Telstra are much better off than competing head-on with NBNco with the guaranteed loss of market share and wireless spectrum. also, even if the NBN was cancelled, just focusing on the issue of structural separation alone, there is a substantial risk that they will extract even less value from divesting the CAN if they had to negotiate with the ACCC instead of NBNco.
valuable excerpts from an excellent article from Informa:
http://www.telecoms.com/30002/questioning-the-unquestionable-is-fibre-to-the-home-really-the-future-of-broadband/
QUOTE:
“As such, the rate of decline in cost per Mbps has exceeded expectations as operators have slashed their prices after realising that few people are prepared to pay a significant premium for faster speeds. In some markets, operators have even priced superfast services below those on their current-generation networks in order to encourage apathetic subscribers to migrate to their next-generation infrastructure.”
“But such an analysis ignores some fundamental principles that Nielsen built into his law. First of all, the law applies to connection speeds only for high-end users, not all users. And as Nielsen notes, average connection speeds will diverge ever further from high-end one as the mass-market of customers get online, as they are more likely to be low-end users.”
““Unfortunately, I can argue as much as I want: most users still save on bandwidth and prefer a $20/month ISP over a $30/month one with better service,” he states.”
“Nielsen wrote that in 1998, when few people had dialup connections let alone DSL or fibre ones, but the sentiment remains true to this day. In most markets, at least 80% of all broadband users are subscribed to low-end services with speeds well within the means of current-generation networks.”
“Surprisingly, the same is true of FTTH networks. The vast majority of FTTH customers are subscribed to services with speeds ADSL2+ could easily deliver. The top-tier 100Mbps+ services are akin to the most expensive bottle of wine on a menu; they’re aimed at making the restaurant look more sophisticated and the mid-priced and house options most people actually order appear more affordable.”
“The exceptions are countries such as Japan and South Korea where for reasons related to market structure and regulatory concessions, 100Mbps+ services are the only ones available over FTTH networks. Even then, take-up has been slower than operators have wanted.”
“Simply throwing bandwidth at the problem won’t work for another reason: the emergence of popular online content and applications is dependent on factors that have little to do with broadband speeds. Did you know, for example, that average Internet users in the US, Spain, the UK or Italy generate more traffic than those in Japan, despite the fact that some 20 million homes are subscribed to 100Mbps FTTH/B services there?”
“The key question is when – or even if – operators will feel the need to make those multi-billion dollar investments in FTTH. To serve high-end users prepared to pay for superfast broadband now? Certainly, the shrinking premiums operators are able to charge this small sliver of customers suggests that the business case can’t be justified on increased revenues alone.”
“Top speeds in the advanced markets of Japan and South Korea have been defying Nielsen’s law for some time, having been stuck at 100Mbps for three or four years. KT offers 1Gbps WDM-PON in Greater Seoul as a showcase trial, but is already losing money on IPTV and so sees no point in upgrading on a wider scale and throwing good money after bad. Speeds offered by NTT East and NTT West have stalled for similar reasons, although IPTV is not as advanced in Japan.”
“And as Nielsen predicted, price has trumped speed in consumers’ minds time and time again. Demand for telecoms is also shifting away from standalone broadband to bundles that include telephony, TV and other services. Who’s to say that broadband speeds won’t become increasingly unimportant to consumers, and so fail to justify the multibillion dollar investments FTTH requires? Could operators simply hold their nerve and compete for the mass-market of less-demanding low-end users on well-priced bundles alone? Certainly, we’ve seen numerous ISPs use low-priced no-frills ADSL2+ services to neutralise the supposed threat posed by FTTH in many markets.”
END QUOTE.
NBNco will go bankrupt faster than you can pronounce “patchwork”.
Fixed.
http://blogs.informatandm.com/authors/rob-gallagher/
Rob Gallagher:
Areas of expertise: Multiscreen services and bundling; superfast broadband and next-generation access networks; partnership models for the connected home.
Rob is responsible for directing Informa’s global research into broadband, TV, digital media and the connected home.
Under his guidance, Rob’s multinational team of analysts and consultants produce authoritative analysis, forecasts and consultancy covering four key areas: broadband and pay-TV operators; network technologies; connected-home devices; and digital content and applications. He is a frequent speaker and chair at international conferences and frequently briefs and advises operators, content providers, policy-makers and vendors on industry trends and developments. His recent research interests include multiscreen services, superfast broadband pricing and content delivery networks (CDNs).
Rob joined Informa Telecoms & Media in September 2003 as a senior reporter for two of the company’s flagship research services about fixed and mobile telecoms, Telecom Markets and Mobile Communications. Prior to that, he was Editor-at-Large for business information provider Penton Media, working across several print and digital media publications about e-commence, ISPs and enterprise IT.
You have to remember Tosh anything that is not 100% behind a FTTH rollout is a ‘fluff and a opinion piece’, any links to reports used to support FTTH rollouts are not.
It is the natural order of things in the pro-NBN world.
Wow. Even you didn’t bother to follow the link. It is clearly labeled “Opinion” tosh has tried to present this in the best possible light to support his “argument” by calling it and article and mentioning “Informa” which has no real relevance anyway… now he’s copy/pasting a blog profile… lol
So what is it that is factually wrong in the quote Tosh copied, or is just easier just to say it’s fluff (no explanation why) stating ‘now he’s copy/pasting a blog profile… lol ” as if that is not allowed or is there something factually incorrect in the blog profile you wish to correct or is just ending it with ‘lol’ sufficient to negate its use?
I was simply pointing out that this is an opinion piece not an article. Now what is your assessment? Is it an opinion piece or an article? Careful with your answer it might reveal that you are biased.
So you cannot find anything factually wrong with the ‘fluff opinion piece’ or the bio reference, good glad we have that sorted.
lol I’m not even going to bother reading it, tosh misrepresenting what it actually was enough for me… since you have actually read it you can settle it for us. Is it an opinion piece or an article?
“lol I’m not even going to bother reading it”
Well I guess there is nothing more to be said after that little gem.
Actually there is. This a comments section not a copy/paste wads of text from other websites section. Do you have an answer btw? Was it an opinion piece or an article?
This is less a quote and more a direct copy of his article.
Liberals once again will MAKE ALL country people 2nd rate citizens, instead of the 7% that the NBNco will be putting on wireless and Sat, I would keep the copper wired connection IF they did that. the amount of data required in the future will be incredible and ONLY a wired connection via fibre can handle that increase. Anyone who say wireless can handle it dont know what they are talking about including Turnball. However this guy DOES know what he is talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2ne1WKxek take yer time its on the long side and it shoots Turnball down.
The Coalition solution is not all wireless.
i just listened to every word of that presentation.
God, that’s 56min 37sec of my life i will never get back.
the first half of supposed “myth busting” is embarrassing in terms of the quality of the arguments presented.
the second half of the presentation suddenly morphed into boring, pointless engineeringeese (like reading out a technical manual) where it seemed like he was just trying to fill space ‘coz he had nothing interesting to say.
the most interesting bit is the first minute or so where he clearly states that NBNco is just executing a political mandate or just following “government orders”.
that really encapsulates the entire presentation which is just GBE propaganda justifying its very existence and sorely lacking in substance.
0.5/10
“God, that’s 56min 37sec of my life i will never get back.”
LOL
Since the NBN pays for itself, why is the coalitions ” incentives” (cash giveaway) cheaper? How will maintaining redundant cable infrastructure lead to cheaper prices?
Assuming the coalition gets in, will voters punish them in term after term when their policy is found to be dearer (No private network will be willing to accept 7% return) and slower to be built?
Why can’t the coalition just steal the NBN from labor, make it their own and be voted in with a landslide?
Why can’t the coalition just steal the NBN from labor, make it their own and be voted in with a landslide?
Because they will be voted in with a landslide irrespective of what their Communications policy is.
The 7% ROI are based on assumptions that are extremely optimistic, and are actually being revisited by NBNCo itself (such as NBNCo admitting that it underestimated the impact of wireless etc etc)
the ALP will collapse within 12 months. The Libs will be swept to power.
The NBN will be systematically destroyed, bit by bit (it’ll take af few years), or perhaps even sold to Telstra (now there is an idea for turnbull to wipe his hands clean). A useless, far cheaper (but one that lines the pockets of Liberal supports) scheme will be launched, nothing will be solved and we’ll be back where we started (and probably even worse off).
meh
sadly that seems so chugs1984…
however… http://www.news.com.au/national/labor-could-win-if-kevin-rudd-returns-poll/story-e6frfkvr-1226134379464
add the sympathy vote… stranger things have happened.
the ALP will collapse within 12 months. The Libs will be swept to power.
The NBN will be systematically destroyed, bit by bit (it’ll take af few years), or perhaps even sold to Telstra (now there is an idea for turnbull to wipe his hands clean). A useless, far cheaper (but one that lines the pockets of Liberal supports) scheme will be launched, nothing will be solved and we’ll be back where we started (and probably even worse off).
meh
Just on OPEL. Don’t forget this was WiMAX ‘d’. A total dead-end technology. So, even if it did get rolled out, it would have condemed those areas to absolute maximium 6Mbps for many many years because it was not upgrade possible and would need an entire replacement to… wait for it… LTE just like NBN.
Just on OPEL. Don’t forget this was WiMAX ‘d’. A total dead-end technology. So, even if it did get rolled out, it would have condemed those areas to absolute maximium 6Mbps for many many years because it was not upgrade possible and would need an entire replacement to… wait for it… LTE just like NBN.
NBN Co said a number of contractors were interested in securing the work and it was in discussions with them. I think waiting is the best solution . The report NBN Co Yet To Finalise SA/NT Rollout Deal shows this
Comments are closed.