Conroy’s attacks lack “hard evidence,” claims Turnbull

1. And Turnbull continues to lose the technical battle…

   • I like how you claim to be sit on the factual holy grail, but actually if Conroy bothered to look up basic wikipedia articles, half of what he claimed is downright incorrect, just like your fibre physics charade

     Its what happens when people don’t even do some basic research before spouting nonsense out of their figurative near end, which Conroy has an unmatched ability to do so

     • I’m sorry.. is Wikipedia now considered a reliable source of information for political debate?

       • Well as a reliable source it has to be better than a politician.

       • Its reliable enough for checking facts about Technology (like the fact that VDSL2 requires a twisted pair, not a bonded pair) or that *PON is a shared system in the exact same way HFC is

         • Sorry man, what conroy meant is a bonded twisted pair, so 2 twisted pairs.
           Here’s the wiki quote you’re after:
           “VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mi) its performance is equal to ADSL2+.”

           Bonding essentially doubles this by using two pairs to try and double the low speeds you get, this is quite useful for longer line lengths.

2. Could someone point me to SOMEWHERE Turnbull uses any “hard evidence” in this “debate”?

   • SHORTER TURNBULL: “Nuh-ah!”

3. In some ways I do feel sorry for the guy. He is in the position he has to opose the FTTH roll out and implement it in manner XYZ. The Coalition method to implement broadband is pretty much been set in stone as FTTN to the city areas. So he is in the position of justifying a predetermined plan. It be any way as long as it’s FTTN. I am sure anyone who has been in the IT industry knows that feeling. The boss telling you how it will be done and it’s your job to implement it, and your fault if it’s not possible.

4. *I also want to draw attention to one further thing: This is the second time in a week that Turnbull has made misleading statements about something to do with the NBN.

   As I wrote on Friday, as far as I could ascertain, Turnbull was incorrect with that statement, with the Commission in fact stating that NBN Co had not currently breached competitive neutrality.

   Now, making these kinds of mistakes is out of character for Turnbull. *

   what a load of codswallop.

   • A thought-provoking rebuttal.

     • i could point you to my detailed explanations here:

       http://delimiter.com.au/2011/12/09/nbn-co-largely-cleared-over-greenfields-competition/

       but why bother? you’re clearly not here to have your “thoughts provoked” but to cheerlead the NBN.

       these clearly biased attacks on Turnbull are frankly embarrassing. i mean, in terms of interpreting the AGCNCO report, who are we to believe?

       a tech journo with a limited grasp of economic issues or a former top-level corporate advisor, co-founder of a boutique merchant bank and former executive chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia?

       not only has delimiter got the story on the AGCNCO report completely and utterly wrong. to then try to accuse Malcolm Turnbull of “misleading the public” or “making mistakes” is seriously delusional and downright embarrassing. (but i guess it plays well to the WP ignorancenti.)

       • “but why bother? you’re clearly not here to have your “thoughts provoked” but to cheerlead the NBN”.

         You may be right ToshP300, he may well be here to “cheerlead the NBN”. Similarly, it appears obvious that you are here simply to perform the exact opposite task and perhaps, even more so.

   • Would you care to extrapolate on that statement, Tosh?

     • a GBE that does not earn a “commercial ROR” is prima facie in breach of the policy of “competitive neutrality”. in order to comply with competitive neutrality, the “non-commercial objectives” of Labor’s NBN have to separately delivered and transparently funded via a CSO, and not opaquely embedded in NBNco’s uniform wholesale pricing mechanism.

       and the fact that the breach is not “current” is completely beside the point. of course, it is an “ex-ante” breach — the NBN roll-out has barely begun! trying to downplay it because it is a “future” breach is like saying “an illegally modified car is fine as long as it remains parked in the garage”.

       • If they drive the car out of the garage before implementing the changes that have been told are required to make it legal then they are in breach. Until that time they haven’t done anything wrong. Potential and actual aren’t the same.

         • so, you’re going to ignore the fact that DBCDE has completely rejected the AGCNCO report’s recommendations on implementing CSOs?

           please troll elsewhere.

         • I am not attempting to troll at all. If they have been told and they rejected the recommendations, ok. They could be in breach in future and may have to suffer consequences if their belief was wrong. But still saying someone is in breach of something when it says they maybe in future is misleading. Just as to say the person with a modified car in their garage has broken the law by driving a illegally modified car on the road when that car hasn’t left the garage. I know preemptive strikes have been popular over that last 10 years but they were frown upon after the fact.

       • “ex-ante” does not mean “they will definitely, in the future, be in breach of competitive neutrality.” The AGCNCO defines what they mean by “ex-ante” in the introduction:

         Unlike other AGCNCO investigations, this investigation is of a government business activity which is in its infancy. As yet, the business model has not been sufficiently implemented to yield data on what would be viewed as ‘normal’ costs and revenues. NBN Co’s infancy has resulted in the AGCNCO examining, in some respects, whether NBN Co is potentially in ex ante breach of competitive neutrality policy. In effect, it is examining whether NBN Co is operating in line with the principles set out in the Australian Government’s Competitive Neutrality Policy more so than whether the commercial results achieved to date are consistent with this policy

         Secondly, the AGCNCO notes that by using a broad-band risk assesment, it believes a “commercial rate of return” for NBNCo should be more along the lines of 10.4%, rather than the current 7% that NBNCo is aiming for.

         They suggest that the way to correct this would be for the government to outline NBNCo’s CSOs, and provide separate, direct funding for those CSOs so that NBNCo could achieve a ROR closer to the 10.4% mark.

         They certainly don’t say anything like what Turnbull is suggesting they said (that is, that “projected returns on the project were so low they are in breach of ‘competitive neutrality’”). A simple correction to the government’s policy, as I outlined above, would assuage AGCNCO’s concerns. To take what the AGCNCO actually says, “the government may potentially be in breach of competitive neutrality, if they don’t take these steps to correct it” and try to make out that they said the government is in breach of competitive neutrality policy is simply incorrect.

         • I should just point out that I actually agree with AGCNCO’s assessment. The government should outline NBNCo’s CSOs and fund them explicitly from the budget, rather than just hiding them in a lower rate of return.

           But just because I disagree with that particular aspect of the government’s policy doesn’t mean the whole thing should be scrapped.

         • what you guys are attempting to do is to deliberately downplay the substance of the AGCNCO report by completely misinterpreting it in a legalistic fashion.

           nothing that comes out of the Productivity Commission has legal implications. the Productivity Commission, including the Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office, is purely an economic advisory body. note the complete absence of any references to legislation or case law in the economic reasoning employed by the authors of the AGCNCO report to evaluate the NBN. (the report refers to the existence of specific legislation in describing the legal framework surrounding the NBN, but does not draw on the content of these legislation to formulate its economic reasoning.)

           instead, reliance in the economic analysis was placed solely on two documents: “Competitive Neutrality Policy Statement” and “Competitive Neutrality Guidelines for Managers”. neither of these documents are “law” — they are purely policy statements of an economic nature.

           this is why Senator Conroy and DBCDE are able to deride AGCNCO’s findings and brush off the recommendations contained in the report. in fact, the Productivity Commission could issue a thousand reports containing millions of detailed recommendations, and the Federal Government can immediately click and drop these reports in the Recycle Bin without even bothering to read or respond.

           all these reports are of an economic advisory nature and have zero legal implications and carry no legal sanctions. hence, reading them in a legalistic fashion merely demonstrates your complete ignorance of the nature and function of advisory bodies such as the Productivity Commission.

           Dean: ““ex-ante” does not mean “they will definitely, in the future, be in breach of competitive neutrality.””

           any GBE that is earning below the “commercial ROR” is prima facie in breach of the policy of competitive neutrality. this is why the report asserts that, in order to comply with the policy of competitive neutrality, the means of delivery of the “social objectives” of Labor’s NBN policy have to be completely revamped. the report specifically recommends that broadband services which cannot be delivered by NBNco on a commercial basis have to be restructured in the form of “transparent CSO funding”, i.e. explicitly accounted for in the Federal Budget and not buried deep in NBNco’s opaque pricing cross-subsidies.

           this is the substance of the report. the implications of the AGCNCO’s recommendations are hardly trivial — they constitute a direct attack on the very essence of how Labor’s NBN policy works. (if you can’t see this, you are either blind or delusional. when tech media commentaries ignore this, they are clearly politically biased in their reporting.) failure by the Federal Government to adopt the report’s recommendations is an unambiguous breach of the policy of competitive neutrality.

           note, however, this “breach” is not a “breach” in a legal sense. no law has and will be broken if the Federal Government chooses to proceed with its NBN policy in the current form. this is why it is completely nonsensical to interpret the AGCNCO report in a legalistic fashion. while none of the AGCNCO’s findings are of a legal nature, the report, as you would expect of an official report by an independent statutory advisory body, frames its assessment in very scrupulous language because of the politically-sensitive nature of its work.

           the reason why the AGCNCO report frames its findings in terms of “ex-ante” and “future” breaches of competitive neutrality is obvious. they are not carrying out an assessment of an existing GBE with a long operating history and reams of actual financial data on revenues and expenses. instead, they are assessing an entity that is, in operational tems, still getting off the ground.

           so, instead of analysing historical financial performance, they have to resort to assessing Labor’s NBN policy in terms of the planned outcomes by NBNco. in this respect, various public assertions by NBNco that the NBN will not make a “commercial return”, along with the central case 7% ROR projection contained within NBNco’s corporate plan, clearly put it in breach of competitive neutrality.

           if i was to follow your logic in downplaying the substance of the AGCNCO report because the “breach” necessarily refers to “future planned outcomes” as opposed to “existing outcomes”, i would be writing articles arguing that “NBNco is not guilty of being a fixed-line monopoly” because the copper and HFC networks are still currently operational and “the NBN doesn’t cost $36bln” because most of the money will only be spent in the future.

           also, it is completely nonsensical to distinguish between a “current breach” and a “future breach” in a pedantic fashion when these breaches are not “breaches of law”. the “actualising” of the breach does not trigger any criminal penalties or legal sanctions. all of the AGCNCO’s recommendations are of an economic advisory nature, and not punative. to totally ignore the substance of the report and laser in on the trivial distinction between “current” and “future” breaches is to completely misunderstand the nature and purposes of AGCNCO’s examinations and reports.

           Dean: “To take what the AGCNCO actually says, “the government may potentially be in breach of competitive neutrality, if they don’t take these steps to correct it” and try to make out that they said the government is in breach of competitive neutrality policy is simply incorrect.”

           Labor’s NBN policy, as presently formulated, is in breach of competitive neutrality. the AGCNCO report is completely unambiguous on this point. and because DBCDE has rejected all of AGCNCO’s recommendations, Labor’s NBN policy will remain in breach of competitive neutrality.

           Dean: ““In the absence of a quantification of the non-commercial benefits to be delivered by NBN Co, the targeted rate of return of NBN Co represents a potential ex ante breach of competitive neutrality policy.”
           Does not translate to “projected returns on the project were so low they are in breach of ‘competitive neutrality’””

           NBNco is targeting a ROR below the “commercial ROR” commensurate with the business risks the GBE is bearing — this is a direct breach of the policy of competitive neutrality.

           more below.

           Renai: “Precisely. A potential breach in future on a certain condition — not a definite breach right now.”

           AGCNCO’s findings and recommendations are not “conditional” on anything. the report clearly states that in order to comply with competitive neutrality, the Government has to fundamentally transform NBNco into an entity which earns a “commercial ROR” by separately implementing CSOs to deliver the “social objectives” of their NBN policy. if the Government fails to follow “GBE best practices” exactly as prescribed by AGCNCO, their current formulation of NBN policy will remain, as it is presently, in breach of the policy of competitive neutrality.

           it’s the whole manner in which NBNco is established to operate that makes it in breach of the policy of competitive neutrality. to argue in a legalistic fashion that the “breach” is “conditional on quantification of non-commercial benefits” completely miscontrues the real function of the AGCNCO as an economic advisory body in recommending “best practices” for the Government to follow (as opposed to exercising judicial powers and making technical findings of law).

           following your chain of logic, the Federal Government could set-up a string of GBEs which are mandated to earn a sub-commercial ROR and then refuse to “explicitly quantify the non-commercial benefits”, and by doing so, evade having its policies being technically labelled as being in breach of competitive neutrality. this is plain rubbish. the Government’s “Competitive Neutrality Policy” is not some technical game of legal semantics, but an economic policy of substance.

           the desperate lengths you guys will go to to defend Labor’s NBN policy and NBNco is embarrassing.

         • the desperate lengths you guys will go to to defend Labor’s NBN policy and NBNco is embarrassing.

           Well, I’m not the one writing pages and pages of rants.

           if the Government fails to follow “GBE best practices” exactly as prescribed by AGCNCO, their current formulation of NBN policy will remain, as it is presently, in breach of the policy of competitive neutrality

           No, even if they don’t implement AGCNCO’s proposed changes, it’s still only a potential breach. From AGCNO’s report:

           GBEs [government business enterprises] are specifically required to achieve, over time, as a minimum benchmark, economic rates of return on assets for their commercial operations equivalent to the long-term bond rate plus an appropriate margin for risk.

           And:

           A rate of return that exceeds the long term bond rate is a necessary condition to ensure compliance with competitive neutrality principles. However, it is not, of itself, sufficient, in that the policy also requires a return which includes an appropriate margin for risk.

           The DBCDE does not say what it considers to be an appropriate margin for risk, but the long term bond rate is around 5.4%. AGCNCO estimates an appropriate margin for risk between 3 and 7%, meaning a commercial rate of return from NBNCo should be between 8.4% and 12.4%.

           But as you say, AGCNCO does not make the law, only recommendations. The government is free to disagree that a 3% margin for risk is higher than required.

         • *No, even if they don’t implement AGCNCO’s proposed changes, it’s still only a potential breach.*

           if you are still fixated on the difference between an “actual breach” and a “potential breach”, all that shows is that you still don’t understand the significance and substance of the AGCNCO report.

           *The government is free to disagree that a 3% margin for risk is higher than required.*

           the report says, “to comply with CN, the Govt must do X”. what it doesn’t say is, “to comply with CN, the Govt must do X unless they disagree with our analysis”.

           nice try.

         • tl/dr

   • Too right Tosh! Turnbull makes WAY more mistakes than Renai points out, good to see you pointing this out!

5. Just on the PC point here is an extract from their conclusions which speaks for itself:-
   ”
   In the absence of a quantification of the non-commercial benefits to be delivered
   by NBN Co, the targeted rate of return of NBN Co represents a potential ex ante
   breach of competitive neutrality policy.

   ” In the absence of a quantification of NBN Co’s community service obligations,
   the expected timeframe for achieving a commercial rate of return represents a
   potential ex ante breach of competitive neutrality policy”

   • “In the absence of a quantification of the non-commercial benefits to be delivered by NBN Co, the targeted rate of return of NBN Co represents a potential ex ante breach of competitive neutrality policy.”

     Does not translate to “projected returns on the project were so low they are in breach of ‘competitive neutrality’”

     Your statement is factually incorrect. The AGCNCO is not saying the government is in breach of competitive neutrality.

     • Precisely. A potential breach in future on a certain condition — not a definite breach right now.

6. On the FTTN point, as I noted in my statement Conroy’s criticism flies in the face of his own experience. Remember until April 2009, FTTN was the Government’s policy, indeed both Telstra and Optus developed nationwide FTTN roll out plans, so the suggestion that for some reason or other this doesnt work in Australia is, excuse the pun, loopy.
   The insight that the longer the copper loop the greater the attenuation is hardly novel and no, copper loops are not longer in Australia than anywhere else. It depends on the area and the length of the loop is a function of where the cabinet (node) is located.

   • FTTN is a pretty broad term. Cabinets could be up to 2km away. Is there a planned maximum cable distance from cabinet to premises? Or if not decided, some sort of approximate indication?

   • hey Malcolm,

     firstly, thanks for responding to these issues directly — I know Delimiter’s readership appreciates it. And sorry for being so hard on you today!

     I agree with you, FTTN was Labor policy for several years. However, at that stage Labor policy also only guaranteed 12Mbps speeds, if I remember correctly — which could easily be achieved under a national FTTN scheme. As I understand it, you’re discussing somewhere above 40Mbps and possibly as high as 80Mbps. That’s a completely different technical proposition.

     • I’ve read several of the articles on the earlier FTTN proposals and I believe you are correct. 12MB/s was the target minimum. Surprisingly NZ 2010 target was only 5-10MB/s for FTTN. With some quick calculations. VDSL2 if line contidion is good at 50MB/s would require a cabinet within 1km. 900 exchanges each covering an area to 5-6km away (at least in the areas they would probably considered viable and not covered by wireless instead). Say 10 cabinets per exchange up to 20 (hard to tell if a cabinet can service a whole 2×2 km area from the centre since the telephone cables generally radiate out from the exchange and it may no be possible to have a cabinet connect back towards the exchange). Somewhere between 9000 and 18000 cabinets. A lot but less than the 80,000 I had seen thrown around. Cost? NFI.

       • The whole point of FTTN is you install nodes so houses are within that radius, if you are not going to install extra nodes for FTTN, than you are not doing a FTTN and you are just upgrading equipment in the exchange (just like ADSL was upgraded to ADSL2 or dialup to ADSL)

         Its called FTTN for a reason, its Fiber to the NODE, the whole point of it is that you install nodes

         • Yes? Why are you telling me this? I did say 10-20 cabinets per exchange, I didn’t mean AT the exchange I did mean in the area covered by the exchange.

   • Telstra’s own FTTN proposal only offered a minimum of 25Mbps for 65-75% of the 5 capital cities and only offered a minimum of 12Mbps for the remaining 25-35%.

     This is for Australian copper loops – this is what Turnbull should be looking at, not overseas copper loops.

     http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls650-nbnproposal.pdf

     It is the minimum speed that is important, not the “up to” speeds.
     Equally important is the minimum upload speed – which was not specified by Telstra.

     You will also note that it came with the condition of NO structural separation of Telstra and NO sub-loop unbundling.

     • Wow, the prices they want to charge customers is obscene. It also assumes no one but them can supply broadband. They allow for other phone providers but it ups your broadband $10 a month. Phone plan $29.95. Now the broadband… 1MB/s down, 256K up, 200MB quota $29.95 no other plans prices shown due to confidentiality. What I can see is scarey enough.

     • Thats because when Telstra’s proposal was released, VDSL2 only just came out and was only just standardised

       • Oh seriously…fail…VDSL2 as a standard was rationalised in 2005…

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscriber_line_2

         Further, VDSL as a basic working model has been around since 1991.

         • Yes, and the proposal just came out one year later. I already said in another thread it was standardised in late 2005

           For ISP’s to adopt a major technological thing like VDSL2, it requires at least a year to implement. Also VDSL2 is bounds better than VDSL

         • Actually, that proposal was Nov 2008. I could understand the rediculous prices in 2006, but but just 3 years? That’s why I called them obscene. 100GB quotas on uncapped ADSL2+ for $50 were around then. A counter offer of 1MB/s with a 200MB quota for $29, that is just rediculous.

   • @Malcom Turnbull

     The main problem I see with implementing FTTN is not technical but more about the copper owner Telstra’s motivation post 2013 after three years into Labor’s NBN rollout which should be reasonably extensive by then, in wanting to be a part owner of a FTTN rollout.

     By mid-late 2013 they will be wholesaling NBN and will also have thousands of BigPond NBN FTTH customers, if you could get Telstra coming out saying they don’t have a problem with a Coalition FTTN Plan it would give the plan much needed boost from the major infrastructure owner, but that isn’t likely as Telstra has just ratified a locked in NBN agreement with majority shareholder support.

     Although I think FTTN is viable and would have been quicker and more cost effective to implement, that window of opportunity has all but gone.

7. He mentions a whole bunch of countries as places that are delivering broadband over FTTN.

   He may be right, but he only looks at the FTTN rollouts in those countries, not FTTH. He goes ‘hey! look at them! they have some FTTN!’ but will ignore the fact many of the countries have FTTH, and most of them are shifting towards FTTH.

   We probably have many rotary phones in our country, it does not mean that many people have moved on to digital phones or even mobiles.

   Using his examples I will put forward some examples:

   United States: Several cities have FTTH, as a example http://www.epbfi.com – up to 1Gbps – and the most widespread rollout would be Verizon FiOS http://www.verizon.com/fios/ – this currently sells up to 150/65Mbps

   Canada: Several of their large cities have FTTH rollouts, for a example look at http://www.novusnow.ca – they cover alot of the highrise apartments in Vancouver. Speeds start at 25/10Mbps and top out at 300/300Mbps.

   Britian: http://www.hyperoptic.com is likely one of the largest and based in London. Offering 1Gbps. By 2012 they hope to expand into other cities.

   France: France Telecom are rolling out FTTH en masse with the aim of 1Gbps to 60% of homes http://www.orange.com/en_EN/press/press_releases/cp110721en.jsp – there are also a bunch of smaller retailers like SFR and Bouygues but most of their website is in french.

   Germany: Deutsche are converting VDSL to FTTH in Germany, google around, lots of sources

   Italy: Telecom Italia is rolling out something called ‘NGN’ – information: http://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/news/Telecom-Italia-to-roll-out-100-Mbps-FTTH-network-in-Catania-106519003.html – in short 50% coverage of 100Mbps by 2018

   Netherlands: A subsidiary of KPN called XS4ALL is currently rolling out FTTH in the netherlands, given the name of the company ‘Access4All’ you can guess what the coverage aim is – they are doing 100Mbps.

   Denmark: In alot of the cities the various state-owned energy supplies have built FTTH networks and are wholesaling it to verious companies, in the capital Copenhagen for example NESA provides it, speeds are mostly 100Mbps.

   South Korea: FTTB is NOT FTTN! They are upgrading existing 100Mbps FTTB/FTTH service to 1Gbps http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/html/490/2900490.html

   Japan: Do I even need to comment? 100Mbps+ FTTH is extemely popular here.

   China: The Chinese are going crazy with FTTH rollout (considering their population): http://www.telecomasia.net/content/china-telecom-targets-30m-ftth-users-2015

   I posted a bunch of other responses to his comments on WP but it is too big to post here, I think the above is the important one.

   • Why are you trying to paint the picture that Malcolm is against FTTH, he isn’t

     He just wants FTTH installed in the most logical places to do so, and FTTN to be installed in the most logical places to do so

     Showing figures of where FTTH being installed is meaningless (apart from showing its far lower in % compared to FTTN installations or HFC upgrades)

     • “He just wants FTTH installed in the most logical places to do so, and FTTN to be installed in the most logical places to do so”

       What are the most logical places to install FTTH & FTTN? But why use fibre at all when according to you, turnbull and others FTTN is sufficient. Explain what the few who get fibre will be using it for and are there any productivity benefits to a specifically smaller percentage having fibre speeds?

       • What are the most logical places to install FTTH & FTTN?

         Thats what a CBA is for, it answers that question, and thats why Malcolm wants to do it An analysis on Australia’s population density and network topology needs to be done to find the best places for FTTN and best places for FTTH, in the same way it was done for the NBN

         But why use fibre at all when according to you, turnbull and others FTTN is sufficient.
         Because in some areas, if the density is low enough, FTTN is not worth it, due to the distance from the exchange (FTTH doesn’t have this issue). Also if there are areas where there are issues with copper, and the last mile is replaced, the extra cost in installation of FTTH is trivial.

         Also in real high density areas, you can offload FTTH installation costs with economies of scale (which is exactly what has been done in Japan)

         The problem with fibre is that installing the cable to the last mile costs typically 3-5k per premise, regardless if its copper or FTTH (where an FTTN node costs around 20k and typically serves thousands of people). So if you are forced to do last mile installation, you may as well do FTTH.

         Its like if you have a 2 year old computer that just broke down, if you can fix it for a couple of hundred then then you would do so, however if you can’t fix it and are forced to get a new computer, you may as well get a new one (using the assumption that new computers cost the same as old ones, which ofc isn’t the case in real life). The NBN is like replacing every single computer with the latest, newest model, even though there is clearly a majority of people that would only use it for things like word processing or email.

         • “Because in some areas, if the density is low enough, FTTN is not worth it, blah blah blah”

           I think you’ll find the coalition would argue for wireless in these cases. I mean they are the ones insisting on a mix of technologies for the sake of using a mix technologies why wouldn’t they want wireless here.

           “Also in real high density areas, you can offload FTTH installation costs with economies of scale”

           You’ve just described the NBN.

           “The problem with fibre is that installing the cable to the last mile costs typically 3-5k per premise”

           That is not a problem. That is just what it costs.

           “The NBN is like replacing every single computer with the latest, newest model, even though there is clearly a majority of people that would only use it for things like word processing or email.”

           Nope. The NBN is like replacing something old and redundant with something new, improved and much more efficient. People replace computers all the time and they are not broken at all.

         • I think you’ll find the coalition would argue for wireless in these cases. I mean they are the ones insisting on a mix of technologies for the sake of using a mix technologies why wouldn’t they want wireless here.

           Density is not a binary thing, it has a scale

           For really really low density, you have wireless (again this requires mathematical analysis)

           You’ve just described the NBN.
           Unless you are claiming that cities like Sydney have the same population density as Tokyo, then no I am really not

           That is not a problem.
           That is your opinion, many people see that cost as a problem, because it has to be paid back somewhere

           Nope. The NBN is like replacing something old and redundant with something new, improved and much more efficient. People replace computers all the time and they are not broken at all.

           You just rephrased what I said, but you totally missed the point where people are fine with old and new stuff

           I am wearing jeans that are 4 years old, I don’t go buying new jeans every single month, or day or whatnot. I might if I am a model, but you are missing the crucial point that normal people do not upgrade their “old” models to something more efficient and new unless they see a need to. Hell my parents have never opted for the higher HFC speeds on Optus, because they never need it

           Ironically my friend who supports the NBN, is also on Optus HFC, and I asked him why doesn’t he just upgrade to a speed pack if he wants greater speeds, and he is like it costs too much money and he doesn’t really need it (and he is a gamer/downloader). I was like /facepalm

8. Hrm, posted a comment here but it didn’t show up.

   I’ll try again.

   I feel like Malcolm only nitpicks the other countries doing FTTN rollouts, and ignores the fact almost all of them are also rolling out FTTH generally with emphasis on FTTH.

   Every country in the world still likely has dialup internet or rotary phones operating in some form, it does not mean that is something we should look to as a role model.

   Some examples of FTTH rollouts in the countries Malcolm quoted:
   United States: Several cities have FTTH, as a example http://www.epbfi.com – up to 1Gbps – and the most widespread rollout would be Verizon FiOS http://www.verizon.com/fios/ – this currently sells up to 150/65Mbps

   Canada: Several of their large cities have FTTH rollouts, for a example look at http://www.novusnow.ca – they cover alot of the highrise apartments in Vancouver. Speeds start at 25/10Mbps and top out at 300/300Mbps.

   Britian: http://www.hyperoptic.com is likely one of the largest and based in London. Offering 1Gbps. By 2012 they hope to expand into other cities.

   France: France Telecom are rolling out FTTH en masse with the aim of 1Gbps to 60% of homes http://www.orange.com/en_EN/press/press_releases/cp110721en.jsp – there are also a bunch of smaller retailers like SFR and Bouygues but most of their website is in french.

   Germany: Deutsche are converting VDSL to FTTH in Germany, google around, lots of sources

   Italy: Telecom Italia is rolling out something called ‘NGN’ – information: http://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/news/Telecom-Italia-to-roll-out-100-Mbps-FTTH-network-in-Catania-106519003.html – in short 50% coverage of 100Mbps by 2018

   Netherlands: A subsidiary of KPN called XS4ALL is currently rolling out FTTH in the netherlands, given the name of the company ‘Access4All’ you can guess what the coverage aim is – they are doing 100Mbps.

   Denmark: In alot of the cities the various state-owned energy supplies have built FTTH networks and are wholesaling it to verious companies, in the capital Copenhagen for example NESA provides it, speeds are mostly 100Mbps.

   South Korea: FTTB is NOT FTTN! They are upgrading existing 100Mbps service to 1Gbps http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/html/490/2900490.html

   Japan: Do I even need to comment? 100Mbps+ FTTH is extemely popular here.

   China: These guys are going nuts: http://www.telecomasia.net/content/china-telecom-targets-30m-ftth-users-2015

   ——

   Let’s see if it posts this time…

9. Hmm. I have been trying to post a reply here but Delimiter keeps rejecting it – is there some sort of maximum amount of hyperlinks allowed in a post? Maybe Delimiter thinks I’m a spambot or something.

   • ..worked instantly that time.

   • I’m not seeing anything caught in the spam trap, weird.

     • Ah they are showing above now, as it’s a double post it would be awesome if you could delete one of them :)

     • There is also a post down below me that is not showing

10. Renai, to be fair, Conroy is simply technologically illiterate. As I have stated in the other thread, VDSL2 (the technology typically used for FTTN) can provide 60/60 speeds easily, and only require a TWISTED PAIR, not a bonded pair, which is what Conroy claims (bonded pairs is whats required for phantom DSL and the likes, which is speeds > 500mbit on copper)

    Furthermore HFC is a shared medium, and so is GPON, so Conroy again is completely incorrect in that regard. In fact, the only non shared medium network that australia uses is the current copper network, which is a direct copper link (i.e. non shared) from the exchange to the house, where as HFC and *PON both incorperate nodes and splits. The only difference between HFC and *PON is that *PON is capable of a higher pool of bandwidth (GPON is 2.4/1.2 gbit, HFC is 1.5/1.5 iirc). Yes current networks don’t provide those speeds, but thats because they are not fully upgraded (there is barely any demand for anything above 20mbit in residential areas)

    And the FTTN proposed by Labor in 2007 only provided 12mbit, because VDSL2 standard only arrived in late 2005, it was still a very premature technology.

    Also you are taking Quigley’s comments out of context, when he stated that FTTN was not viable for Australia, he was talking about a FTTN rollout covering the same area of Australia as whats proposed by the current NBN. This however is not what Turnbull’s plan is, he never asked for a 93% FTTN (remember that Turnbulls agenda is to do a CBA to analyse the right mix of technologies in the right areas, which include FTTN/FTTH/HFC/Wireless). What the % of FTTH and the % of FTTN is going to be, will depend on what the CBA produces

    • My only worries with FTTN are:
      1. When will Australia need bandwidths greater than it can provide (my guesstimate is 8-12 years)
      2. How much will it cost to upgrade to FTTH when needed
      3. Will is establish Telstra (or whoever puts in your local cabinet) with a monopoly, ie. Can other parties have their own equipment in the cabinet and run their own backhaul to avoid this monopoly. Also, is that even viable since they are then likely to have to install at 15x as many points as putting DSLAMs in an exchange.

      • #1. You will need to do a statistical analysis on this. Its kind of a moot question, because so far such speeds have only been used for entertainment reasons (for residential premises), this is clearly evident if you look at South Korea and Japan (note that I am not denying that there are people who do use such speeds for productive purposes, its just such a small marginal % compared to the amount of people that they installed onto fiber)

        #2. If you use the same type of chorus cabinets that were used in the new zealand FTTN rollout, its basically trivial. The cabinets installed are able to be fitted with GPON cards, so you just need to replace the copper from the last mile to the node with fibre, and bingo you already have your FTTH

        #3. Im not sure why you are worried about specific Telstra monopoly, when NBN will also be a monopoly, and a much worse one than Telstra will ever be because they will be protected and no one will be able to compete again them. Complaining about Telstra’s monopoly when NBNCo will also be a monopoly is laughable, even more so when NBN will completely kill fixed line infrastructure competition (you won’t be able to install any equipment of your own under NBNCo)

        • 1. I have looked at the speeds in the past as increases in speed over time. That says it’s obsolete sooner but there will be a point of slowing, that’s hard to predict.

          2. and equipment in the cabinet and backhaul capacity. Through out already paid for equipment. It does seem a waste, how much depends on VDSL2s useful life.

          3. The first is a government run enterprise with very strong regulation and the other a private company trying to maximise profit, work around any attempted regulation and do all in it’s power to kill competition. The encumbants haven’t had a good track record on being nice.

          • The graphs that show speed increases in time only indicate how fast the technology available is able to deliver internet speeds

            It has no bearing whatsoever on the the average speeds that people use to access the internet, and especially not how productive the use of the internet is at those speeds

            As an example, Fibre has 50% FTTH penetration, yet their average speeds is only double of ours in the best case

          • I did some reading on the vectoring require to get these speeds on VDSL2. It makes it impossible for other providers to have their own equipment or offer different technologies within the same copper bundle. Unless all the copper in the bundle is vectored from the same source vectoring quickly deteriorates. It relies on being able to sample and cancel the noise on the majority of the bundle.

    • I think you are being unfair on Conroy deteego, he was clearly saying to get the quoted speeds of 80Mbps you will need to bond multiple pairs if you wish to do it for more than a handful of people who can see the node from their window.

      iiNet did a trial of VDSL2 in a apartment building in Perth and it topped out at circa 85 megabit, in the same building.

      Noone denies that VDSL2/FTTH can provide incredible speeds, what is debatable is how far these speeds will actually reach, and even then there are a huge amount of facts to go by.

      EG what Eftel found when they tested VDSL on AUSTRALIAN COPPER LINES:
      http://www.eftelcorporate.com.au/cache/images/196/549×402/VDSL2%20Graph.JPG

      This graph suggests that when you hit 1km VDSL is no better than ADSL2+

      Yes, HFC is a shared medium like GPON – if you compare a straw to a fire hose, I think you are missing the point with the first intro – you also say that HFC shares 1.5 / 1.5Gbps – that is definately not correct, you are overestimating the capacity of HFC by a huge factor. If I am not mistaken the real shared pool is measured in the few hundreds of megabits.

      Also, consider that HFC will share the ~whatever~ pool over potentially hundreds of houses, often multiple streets, NBNco are only sharing the 2.5Gbps over 32 houses.

      Furthermore, there is room for future upgrades to 10Gbps or 40Gbps GPON.

      There is barely any demand for anything above 20Mbit? http://i.imgur.com/Rb3mq.png

      • Also if people are misrepresenting the crap and being unfair on Malcolm Turnbull, I can be as bloody unfair as I like to Conroy, which as I have shown, knows completely jack all about what he is talking about, and is just trying to spread FUD about FTTN while smearing Malcom Turnbull

        Unlike you, I am not a blind zealot, and I am not going to defend either Malcolm Turnbull or Conroy if they say something ridiculously stupid or something that is outright deceitful (like Conroy currently, as he has said many times before).

        It just so happens that Conroy has said a lot more stupid stuff than Turnbull, which is hardly surprising

        • The legitimacy of that comment is at best questionable.

          Considering it’s being claimed by one who continually criticises one side while lauding the other and who just this morning, even admitted that he completely ignores all information from anyone even remotely seen as pro-NBN.

          • I’m sorry, but I don’t listen to zealots, either someone provides the information in a factual and unbiased manner, or they may as well not provide the information at all

          • It appears that you do listen to zealots, anti NBN zealots and no one else.

          • You calling Renai and Dobbie anti NBN zealots?

        • “Unlike you, I am not a blind zealot”

          You are a blind zealot and you seem to be the worst kind. VDSL2 and FTTN yay!

          • Last time I checked, promoting all technologies (VDSL2/FTTN/FTTH/Wireless) is exactly the opposite of what a zealot is

    • “(there is barely any demand for anything above 20mbit in residential areas)”

      Yet you seem to be endorsing a 100mbit or 60mbit FTTN network, why is that? Are you anticipating a need for speeds greater than 20mbit? Wouldn’t doing nothing be cheaper than spending the money on such an upgrade and wouldn’t it be a waste considering there is “barely any demand” for speeds that people can already get on ADSL2+?

      • A FTTN type topology is required to get the mandated 12/1 minimum out of the copper sections of the network regardless of whether you are going to provide VDSL2 services or not

        Also replacing equipment at the exchange (or node) is trivial compared to last mile replacement, which is what VDSL2 will be when a FTTN is installed.

        • Sorry none of that drivel answers the questions I am asking however now we have dropped from 60 to 12mbps so now you have to explain what will those getting 60mbps need that speed for that cannot be achieved on 12mbps?

11. Maybe Turnbull has resigned to the fact that Libs are drowning with Tony Abbott.

    In reality, he doesn’t care about the NBN or overseas travel. He’s waiting/wanting Abbott to fall on his sword so he can retake the reins.

Comments are closed.