news Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project is here to stay in one form or another and won’t be discontinued as a whole, telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said this week, even if the Coalition was to take power in the next Federal Election.
When Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull was appointed to the role in September 2010, the ABC reported that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had ordered the Member for Wentworth to “demolish” the NBN. At the time, Abbott said he believed the NBN would “turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale … school halls on steroids”.
Despite denials from Turnbull several weeks later that he would seek to “wreck” the project, the comments were seized upon by various figures in the Labor Party. Prime Minister Julia Gillard, has repeatedly claimed that a Coalition government would “rip up the fibre out of the ground” if it won power. In general, many Australians believe that the Coalition remains stalwartly against the NBN on philosophical grounds and would cancel the project if it won government — at a cost, according to the recent Federal Budget, of at least $1.8 billion.
However, that’s not the case, according to one leading telecommunications analyst. Writing on his blog this week, Paul Budde noted that while changes would definitely be made to the NBN if the Coalition wins the next Federal Election, he stated that the Coalition “also agrees that in some way the NBN is here to stay.
In separate posts over the past few months, Budde used a speech given by Turnbull to the CommsDay conference in April 2012 as well as other communications made by the Liberal MP to make his argument that the Opposition would retain key features of the NBN.
“The Coalition’s policy is, as you know focussed on achieving a comparable outcome (ubiquitious very fast broadband) but achieving it sooner in terms of rollout, cheaper in terms of cost to taxpayers, and more affordably in terms of consumers,” said Turnbull in the speech. “All of that follows from taking a pragmatic and technological neautral approach. But above all, at the front of our priorities is reducing risks for taxpayers and risks for consumers.”
“Very important and very positive was his statement that the Coalition’s aim is to achieve a comparable outcome for the NBN, sooner and cheaper,” said Budde in a post several weeks ago. “This confirms BuddeComm’s earlier claim that some form of a National Broadband Network is here to stay.” And then in April: “There is a lot of chest-beating going on, but in reality the Coalition’s views have been moving closer to the NBN as it is currently being rolled out,” wrote Budde.
The key plank of Budde’s argument regarding the Coalition appears to be that several components of the Coalition’s gradually evolving NBN policy are the same as the Government’s. For instance, the analyst noted in April that there was currently “more or less” bipartisan support for the structural separation of Telstra and the need to service rural areas with wireless and satellite broadband solutions, as opposed to fixed-line telecommunications.
One of the key differences between the two sides of politics’ policies, according to Budde, was that Labor is focusing on fibre to the home solutions, while the Coalition is focusing on fibre to the node, which would see fibre rolled out to streetside cabinets. However, he said, a FTTN solution would eventually “also need to be upgraded to FTTH”.
Perhaps the main key difference between the pair, Budde wrote, was actually not in the area of infrastructure investment at all, but the question of how to incentivise activity taking place on top of that infrastructure.
” … regardless of what the parties agree and don’t agree on, any technology solution will need to be based on a clear vision of the future for Australia in relation to the digital economy, e-health, tele-education, M2M, digital media and so on; and on the role of ICT in all of this,” the analyst wrote. ” … it is very clear that the current NBN is not there simply to deliver fast internet access.”
“The problem we have about the suggestions, comments and criticism from the Coalition is that so far we have no idea what their vision is on these matters. Do they see the need for a transformation towards a digital economy, e-health, tele-education, energy efficiency, etc? Do they believe that ICT has a role to play in this process? And, if so, what does that role have to be? If they were to present a vision on this we could debate what would be the best way to technically enable this transformation.”
opinion/analysis
I also believe that the Coalition’s telecommunications policy has shifted ever closed to the Government’s, and that the NBN project is broadly here to stay.
As Budde mentioned, both parties agree on the need to structurally separate Telstra and upgrade most of Australia’s broadband infrastructure using fibre, either to the premise or to neighbourhood nodes, and both parties agree on the need to provide rural broadband with wireless and satellite links.
Perhaps the areas where the Coalition most radically diverges from the Government’s view on the NBN are the issues of how this should be carried out, and what should be done with existing infrastructure. Clearly the Coalition wants to continue to use existing infrastructure such as the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus, as well as some portions of Telstra’s copper network — and just as clearly, the Government wants to shut such platforms down. However, in both cases, the aim is to keep on providing better broadband to Australians — so at a high level the policies are not dissimilar.
One other area is really quite unclear with respect to the Coalition’s telecommunications policy. That is the issue of how its policy would be carried out. Will NBN Co continue to exist as a corporate entity, owning telecommunications infrastructure — potentially even Telstra’s entire copper network? How will the Coalition incentivise Telstra and Optus to further upgrade their HFC cable networks and convince Telstra to help with the upgrade of its copper network?
Will the Coalition continue with NBN Co’s plan to launch its own satellites, instead of leasing capacity from existing satellites? And how and by whom will fixed wireless broadband be rolled out in rural areas? These are all questions which Australians currently have with regard to the Coalition’s telecommunications policy.
Personally, I don’t see how the Coalition could possibly get away without some form of a company like NBN Co to manage all of these issues. And with — at the very least — hundreds of thousands of Australians already having access to the NBN by the time the next Federal Election rolls around, likely in 2013, it seems that a strategy of transitioning NBN Co itself to a new model is going to pretty necessary for a Coalition Government, rather than simply abolishing the company wholesale.
In any case, I think at this stage we need to start counting our blessings with regard to telecommunications policy in Australia. While there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the political climate, the truth is that on both sides of politics we have very capable and senior leaders in the telecommunications portfolio, with deep understanding of the sector and a commitment to improving it. Whatever happens at the next election, that can only bode well for the nation’s telecommunications development as a whole.
I will be much happier if Conroy would remove his Mandatory Internet Filter off the table once and for all. I have a strong distrust of him around this and if Labor should get a majority next election and their stance remains the same, we could have a potentially super fast, but highly filtered NBN
I believe Conroy is planning a way out for the Government on the filter eventually. He definitely does not want it on the table any more :)
Exactly.
I think regulation of online content in some shape or form is ultimately inevitable, but the filter as it’s been proposed is simply not going to happen.
If the government were that adamant on doing it they would’ve pushed it through long ago. (Don’t for a second think they couldn’t get LNP support with a few tweaks.) They’ll keep it on the books for now, but have no intention of implementing it.
While the Coalition and the Greens continue to oppose filtering, it is a non-issue. Labor is not likely to gain control of the senate any time soon.
Even then, it’s trivial for a future government to amend in an opt-out to the hypothetical filtering legislation, or throw it out entirely.
However, one does not simply “amend in” a national broadband network.
After reading this articale on the daily mail, I’m all for an Internet Filter. It’s the Mandatory part I don’t like.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135203/Jamie-13-kissed-girl-But-hes-Sex-Offender-Register-online-porn-warped-mind-.html?ICO=most_read_module
Comments such such as requiring parents to use Net Nanny are implauseable, as there are more and more mobile devices which don’t work with the software. Filtering can only work properly when applied by the ISP. You need to have a centrally maintained list for IP addresses and domain names maintained in only a few locations. However it goes against our freedoms to make it mandatory.
I think comments like this from Paul Budde are very dangerous. All these kind of comments do is give excuses to those considering voting LNP, but wanting the FTTH NBN to continute,
The FTTH NBN being rolled out to 93% of Australians under ALP – 30% more to regional and rural Australians then an LNP NBN – the NBN as planned is going to be STOPPED under LNP. There is no question on that.
The FTTH NBN as currently planned will STOP if LNP get in at the next election, simple as that. We do not need these silly, and confusing, headlines saying NBN is here to stay under LNP – they give the wrong message, regardless of the content in the article.
A more realistic and truthful heading would have been:
A cut down, drastically altered version of NBN is here to stay under LNP, says analyst.
Or perhaps even:
Built or currently contracted NBN builds here to stay, but everything else changes under LNP, analyst says.
Those reporting on NBN need to be more diligent in making their article headlines accurate, to ensure those who see headlines without reading the articles don’t go regurgitating the headlines as truth to people who do not know any better (ie. a fair chunk of the AU public).
I disagree. I think they’ll keep it. I’ve written on here a few times that it’s easier to continue it under the premise that it’s too far into the project to effectively scrap it – then you can blame failure on the previous government or take success and say your last minute changes saved the project from failing.
Either way – nobody can say with any form of certainty what will happen because we aren’t at that bridge yet.
What we do know NOW is (according to the evidence – as this is an evidence based forum)…
Vote ALP you will get the NBN as it currently being rolled out and with an upper house majority, they will also introduce a net filter.
Vote LNP you will not get the NBN as it currently stands and no net filter.
As for maybe’s, guesswork and opinions, well I believe, looking around the globe, if elected the LNP will also adopt filtering. As for the NBN it will be watered down and become a shadow of the fully encompassing network it currently is… under the a Coalition government.
“Vote LNP you will not get the NBN as it currently stands and no net filter.”
If you are interested in being evidence based, you cant claim there will be no net filter under the Liberals. They have supported net filtering since back in Howards day. They just wont do it the same as Conroy proposed.
If you care to read the rest of my comment… “I believe, looking around the globe, if elected the LNP will also adopt filtering”.
In fact to be correct rather than mandatory ISP based filtering, the Coalition already support internet filtering, but via PC based filters.
You don’t need an NBN to get a filter – ISP’s already do this.
“What we do know NOW is (according to the evidence – as this is an evidence based forum)…”
You show no evidence that your future predictions will definitively eventuate.
“Vote ALP you will get the NBN as it currently being rolled out and with an upper house majority, they will also introduce a net filter.”
I beg to differ, but you don’t know if they will finish the NBN to their current plans, to some altered plans, or even finish it at all. You are guessing based on their stated intentions.
“Vote LNP you will not get the NBN as it currently stands and no net filter.”
Again you are guessing based on stated intentions.
If you want to be accurate based on evidence you can say “A person or party has said in the future that he/they will do such and such”. You can’t say if they will or will not deliver their stated intentions until it is actually delivered.
So I’m wrong Frank?
Labor aren’t building an NBN and don’t want filtering and the Coalition aren’t going to halt the NBN (as it currently is) and will introduce a filter????
Hmm please elaborate!
What I said is FACT, as best we know it (yes it may change FFS)… but that is the current evidence, everything else is conjecture or BS.
You see this is where the anti-NBN people have no credibility in such arguments and Renai is 100% correct.
What we do know (EVIDENCE) with the NBN is, that there are projected estimations (as happens with projects) from NBNCo, which clearly map out exactly how and why the NBN will work…There is SFA to suggest otherwise, apart from the opposition’s perpetual negativity. Nothing of substance, whasoever to dispute NBNCo’s plan.
It’s a bit like me saying I believe it will be sunny tomorrow because the BOM has forecast sun for tomorrow and you say no it won’t, it’ll rain.
Neither of us can prove it until the time comes, but I have the forecast as my basis/evidence to form my opinion and debate from. Whereas you have SFA… geddit now?
Wow, they are reduced to arguing since something hasn’t actually happened and is merely planned to happen anything could happen. Well yes it could. It could rain broadband capable fish and the NBN may not be needed. I’d go with a plan though.
Imo Broadband-capable Kittens would be better.
Come on people, let’s not get stupid now….
It’s quite obvious to anyone it’s the broadband capable unicorns that are more likely than the Coalition keeping the NBN the way it is….
“So I’m wrong Frank?”
In general, yes you are wrong.
“Labor aren’t building an NBN and don’t want filtering and the Coalition aren’t going to halt the NBN (as it currently is) and will introduce a filter????”
Yes, Labor is currently building an NBN. No, Labor DO want filtering.
No, the Coalition aren’t going to halt the NBN – they are not in government. But, they have stated that they intend to do something different if they do get in government. No, the Coalition have not stated they want to introduce filtering (and a core belief of their party is not to interfere in that area). Keep in mind that what Labor originally planned and what will eventuate will be different things also (so their intention will not line up with the outcome).
“What I said is FACT, as best we know it (yes it may change FFS)… but that is the current evidence, everything else is conjecture or BS.”
No, everything you have said is not fact.
“You see this is where the anti-NBN people have no credibility in such arguments and Renai is 100% correct.”
That’s your opinion. Credibility and correctness are relative to who is measuring it.
“What we do know (EVIDENCE) with the NBN is, that there are projected estimations (as happens with projects) from NBNCo, which clearly map out exactly how and why the NBN will work…There is SFA to suggest otherwise, apart from the opposition’s perpetual negativity. Nothing of substance, whasoever to dispute NBNCo’s plan.”
Yes, they are estimations – by definition they will not work out because they are not exact. Also, the party may change leadership. The party may do anything between now and the end of their stated intentions. Look at all the broken promises politicians make – they are innumerable. That includes the incumbent party who have a good history of broken promises and botched plans.
“It’s a bit like me saying I believe it will be sunny tomorrow because the BOM has forecast sun for tomorrow and you say no it won’t, it’ll rain.”
No it’s not. It’s like you saying some event will definitively happen in the future just because someone else told you it would (an event which is based on human interactions, and therefore not currently forecastable – which is not at all like the weather), and me saying to hold on and wait, because this event is dependant on further developments which have not happened yet and which you do not know the outcome of, and also dependant on the fickleness of human beings.
“Neither of us can prove it until the time comes, but I have the forecast as my basis/evidence to form my opinion and debate from. Whereas you have SFA… geddit now?”
True, neither of us can prove anything – this is called conjecture – I’ve been trying to get this through to you for a while now and you have the gall to try and say it back to me – hahaahaha – please go back to the beginning and re-read it all. You’re the one who has SFA and who doesn’t “geddit” but doesn’t yet realise it.
Keep in mind – I clearly don’t mind conjecture – but I make the distinction between conjecture and fact when it comes to future possibilities like this.
Oh please…
I see it’s still going to rain even though the BOM says sun…
The pedantics and childishness of some is unbelievable.
Come on guys. We’re all on the same team here. Alex, we get that these are the facts as they stand right now, but Frank is correct in saying it could change, from either party, at any time. Labor is LESS likely to change IMO, as the NBN is politically popular. But that doesn’t mean they can’t. Just as the Coalition may.
Let’s move on and concentrate on ACTUALLY changing the Coalition’s stance through FUD reduction and a positive pro-NBN campaign.
Yes, true…seven_tech and I genuinely appreciate your POV.
But I have clearly said to Frank, I agree, the detail from either and/or both sides of politics can of course change, that’s common sense.
Sadly though, what the critics (who are NOT on the same team, BTW) seem to ignore are the ACTUALS/FACTS as they stand NOW…
Again I reiterate and again agree 100% that of course things can (and probably will) change… But we can only go by the information we have at hand, anything else is pure unadulterated (biased) speculation.
Seriously, to suggest an unfounded guess relating to possible changes of position is more pertinent and factual than the current actual positions of all concerned, is idiocy…!
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/05/coalition-will-complete-nbn-objective-says-turnbull/
LOL… now read the rest…!
I did. It’s just it’s funny how things turn out. My conjecture was a pretty good guess. And the “facts” didn’t stand the test of time. Sort of supporting why I was saying that we just don’t know what’s going to happen.
Anyway, I’ll take a massively upgraded backbone (which is what I read from their promise) over nothing. But I take their promise with a pretty big grain of salt – it’s nothing until my house has faster access – just like the NBN is just a hollow promise at the moment for me (allegedly a man and his dog have access to it).
:)
“But I take their promise with a pretty big grain of salt – it’s nothing until my house has faster access – just like the NBN is just a hollow promise at the moment for me (allegedly a man and his dog have access to it).”
I think you’re being a little unfair here Frank.
We currently have 0- absolutely zip- detail on the Coalition plan.So you are right there that we have to take it with a MASSIVE grain of salt.
The Labor plan, while currently experiencing delays, ACTUALLY HAS RESULTS. Right now. And I think we will see many MORE results over the next year before the elections.
So to be fair, you’re comparing trust of a non-existent plan to a plan that is already on it’s way to completion. 1% it may be, but that is far FAR along compared to the Coalition’s, which could take 3 years to enact at the least.
Just can’t let it go eh?
Err, had you read it properly you’d have seen that nothing’s “actually” changed. Especially since your argument for arguments sake comments, from a couple of weeks ago.
Granted though to show you “I’m not here to argue for arguments sake”, the Coalition have spelled out a bit more of what was already common knowledge, as even outlined in the article…
Here from PB – “In separate posts over the past few months, Budde used a speech given by Turnbull to the CommsDay conference in April 2012 as well as other communications made by the Liberal MP to make his argument that the Opposition would retain key features of the NBN.”
And here from MT – “We are not going to rip it up or tear it up or abandon it. But we will complete the objective, but we will do so in a much more cost-effective way.”
In other words AS THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED AND NOW SAID –
* They will build “an NBN” (the objective)
* Using what ever NBN is already there
* But a cheaper NBN – so to be cheaper, it can’t be the current FTTP to 93% objective (so it WILL be different).
So as they give no actual detail – lets guess what their NBN might be. FTTN/HFC in the cities. FTTN/ADSL in regional. Satellite and wireless in rural (as they have inferred since before CitiGroup did their analysis Nov ’11)?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17532784/NBN_CoalitionPolicy_Nov11.pdf
Hmm, where’s this big change? Seriously NOTHING is different in actuals. But feel free to argue the words and approach to saying the same thing certainly has been softened…!
So let’s agree to disagree on that and let me ask, which part of my comment here… “Again I reiterate and again agree 100% that of course things can (and probably will) change…” needs to be explained further?
I even agreed 100% with you and you still want to argue…? Whatever, dude…!
“Just can’t let it go eh?”
If that’s true then neither can you. Either way I don’t need to nor do I have any obligation to. New information came to light and I thought I’d share it with you. Is that bad?
‘Granted though to show you “I’m not here to argue for arguments sake”’
Sure – so why write anything at all?
“the Coalition have spelled out a bit more of what was already common knowledge”
If anything they said were common knowledge, they wouldn’t have to spell it out.
“Hmm, where’s this big change? Seriously NOTHING is different in actuals. But feel free to argue the words and approach to saying the same thing certainly has been softened…!”
The big change is that they are moving to the official position whereby they will keep some of or perhaps even all of the current NBN plans, goals, and infrastructure.
“So let’s agree to disagree on that and let me ask, which part of my comment here… “Again I reiterate and again agree 100% that of course things can (and probably will) change…” needs to be explained further?
I even agreed 100% with you and you still want to argue…? Whatever, dude…!”
I know you did and I’m not being critical of you. I’m just pointing out some new information. Something that does in fact relate to my conjecture about how the Liberals would treat the NBN and my argument about the fickleness of change in regards to political policy (i.e. you can’t really trust it).
Your own interpretation of my words and the context in which you interpret them will always change my intended meaning with that which you decipher. Such is the nature of the word.
At the end of the day your guess is as good as mine. :) (note the smiley – to me it’s all just some fun banter about what’s happening in the world).
Err I did let it go a week ago, but another decided to try to save his ego and re-hash with bullshit, so I replied as I am entitled.
I can clearly see why the NBN concept is beyond some, if they can’t even see the basics for what they are…
(Tough) Turnbull before – we will halt the wasteful Labor white elephant, do a CBA, evaluate and then continue with a NBN which won’t empty the pockets of the hurting taxpayer.
(Conciliatory) Turnbull now – we will complete the NBN objective, following a CBA, evaluate and then continue with a more cost effective approach to our NBN.
Come in spinner…!
So feel free to have a free parting shot, because as far as I’m concerned this thread was gone a week ago and nothing has changed…!
“So feel free to have a free parting shot, because as far as I’m concerned this thread was gone a week ago and nothing has changed…!”
So obliging of you.
If it was “gone a week ago” then you wouldn’t have replied under any circumstance – but you did reply.
You say one thing but you do another. Basic hypocrisy. Don’t worry we’re all guilty of it.
Now I in turn invite you to continue this thread with respect towards open communication.
Cheers!
Seriously dude nothing has changed but a softening of the words (but the same meaning).
As such I hope your approach to adjudicating facts aren’t duplicated by the police..
The evidence shows he didn’t do it, but he may change his mind and do it one day, so arrest him…!
And I agree. It should be clear to anybody that the coalition’s policy isn’t to provide broadband to everybody, it’s to get elected. They didn’t have any policy to that extent in the previous election and that’s why they lost, so now they suddenly have a policy to give everybody broadband. They can’t possibly concede that Labor had the right idea all along, that’s why they have to stand firm on the premise that Labor’s idea was right, but their execution is wrong.
The reason we don’t know what their views are on satellites, NBNCo, ICT and all the other real details, is because they don’t have any views on them. Their policy is “well, the people clearly want faster broadband, so we’ll tell them they’re still going to get it if they vote for us.”
Budde’s doing the gov’ts PR – end of story.
Next generation networks as it is known in the telecoms industry has been on the table since early 2000s. Its not like Labor invented this in their policy.
And by the way, what Budde keeps pushing as trans-section industry benefits from virtualisation you could do with FTTN at a small fraction of the cost. But of course, he never once says this – thought you would if you were an objective industry analyst.
Err he doesn’t say it simply because he not foolish enough to do so…!
Budde has been one of the biggest spruikers of Labor’s NBN which “tragically” looks like it will be demolished by Abbott. He’s just backtracking and engaging in a bit of face-saving exercise to preserve his credibility in the face of the inevitable 2013 wipeout of NBNco’s biggest bankroller.
I haven’t been the biggest fan of Paul Budde’s prognostications over the years, but I do think he’s got this one right.
Look at Paul Buddes main point he always pushes – ie. Trans-sector gains.
Firstly, these technologies do not exist today, if they do, they are at an infancy. Even with a big drive & support by trans industry and government agencies, it would still take a long time before things like eHealth comes into any realistic form for mass application.
Given also that inorder to effectively roll out such trans-sector solutions, a company must set a standard for what it thinks will be the network that customers will use, ie. the common denominator network used in the majority of western markets.
Since Australia is the only country that is pusing for a 93% fibre coverage (which should be enough to raise an eyebrow in itself), and no other major western developed country is following this path, the trans sector technology would be geared towards copper deployment, most likely based on FTTN and xDSL.
Paul knows that transector industries will start on copper based technologies, very likely to be FTTN , but will work on full copper networks over ADSL. It will evolve (along with things like Clould Computing) to fully utilise FTTN, at some point maybe 20-30yrs from the intial trans-sector product release, it will surpass what FTTN can deliver.
By that time the FTTN network would have delivered the same objective and metrics as a FTTP network, and would have more than been sufficient at delivering uniformly the hypothesised gains from trans-sector e-productivity. We cab start building a fibre network then.
What Paul Budde does not say is that FTTN is the best solution for what he is trying to sell, but he tends to ignore this fact, and keeps pushing for a fibre network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country
Your deluded, FTTN will not accomplish much especially for small medium business as the upload speeds are too slow.
Do it right, do it once, do it with Fibre!
“Paul knows that transector industries will start on copper based technologies, very likely to be FTTN , but will work on full copper networks over ADSL. It will evolve (along with things like Clould Computing) to fully utilise FTTN, at some point maybe 20-30yrs from the intial trans-sector product release, it will surpass what FTTN can deliver.”
…..20-30 yrs…..20-30 YEARS???!!! DUDE, I normally don’t resort to name calling, it doesn’t help the pro-NBN cause whatsoever, but are you mental??
ANY telecommunications study will show you, including NBNCo.’s own one, we are heading for 1Gbps bandwidth demand by 2020, maybe 2025. Are you SERIOUSLY telling us that we as a country will not demand more than 25Mbps in 25 YEARS????? Because that’s what a FTTN network would give the country, majority (in the city) access to close to 25Mbps. Those on Telstra’s/Optus’ HFC or fibre, more, but that’s a small minority. Those in regional/rural areas, under 15, probably under 10Mbps.
Where are you getting these ideas that the bandwidth will not be used? Australia moved 155 000 TERAbytes of data in June 2010 (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review/convergence_review_background_paper.html) any way you look at it we’re crying out for bandwidth and FTTN WILL NOT supply it.
Are you actually willing to debate, or are you just here trying to spread your point of view regardless of fact?
The majority of todays business WAN & Data networks on speeds between 2-10Mbps. Technology that emerged in the 80s & 90s, ie. E1/T1, ISDN, SDH is still in vast abundant and the majority. These technologies are up to 30yrs old.
DSL in the original flavor has been around since the early 90s, that makes nearly 20 years. HFC was mid to late 90s, till todays DOCSIS3 which has at least another 10 years of life left in it.
Now the above list of technology would currently represent say 70% of connections out there.
Even if we did upgrade to FTTN, given the NORMAL rate of growth and changes, all things taken into consideration in a REAL WORLD environment (not just quoting the typical data rates double every 4 years nonsense or CPU and RAM grows at exponential rates etc.) – this is how technology in telecommunications “evolve”, so a complete upgrade to FTTN would expect to hang around for 20-30yrs before it’s no longer capable of doing what it should.
This 20-30yr lifespan would be the same for what it would be for the fibre that NBNCo would put in the ground, at 20yrs it would begin to require much more maintenance, and to dispute the myth of 60yr old copper, well, its not true, like fibre ongoing upgrades are always needed, and by 30yrs most of it would have been replaced as part of normal maintenance. Which means to say, by the time FTTP gets to full speed, the first build of fibre would have been replaced or need to be.
“DSL in the original flavor has been around since the early 90s, that makes nearly 20 years. HFC was mid to late 90s, till todays DOCSIS3 which has at least another 10 years of life left in it.”
Do you come from the States? It was available as T1 lines in the States in the early 90’s- Though that wasn’t technically DSL. ADSL wasn’t even PATENTED till 1988 and it was MASSIVELY expensive until the late 1990’s. The first commercially available ADSL in Australia was 2001. Oh, I see, you mean ISDN- yes, technically it is, but like that’s what we mean when we say DSL…. The TECHNOLOGY has been around 20 years, yes, but it hasn’t been available here that long for any decent amount of money. DOCSIS3 brings cable (HFC) up to par with current fibre technology, which doesn’t include to come upgrades such as Quantum Dot technology, which may see bandwidth boosted by 10x or more. Fibre is not new, it was being “secret military” researched next to RANSA sailing club in Rushcutters Bay, Sydney where my dad had his yacht in the late 1960’s. It’s been laid as inter-continental backbone since the late 1980’s. It’s nearly as old as HFC and we STILL haven’t found it’s limits. DOCSIS3 is widely tipped to be the last major upgrade to HFC, unless new avenues are found.
I don’t understand this fixation on keeping the incumbent technology when there is newer, more efficient, larger scaled technology available? Well, I do actually. As I posted earlier, it’s cheaper and higher profit margins enable telco’s to eek out the moolah.
“Even if we did upgrade to FTTN, given the NORMAL rate of growth and changes, all things taken into consideration in a REAL WORLD environment (not just quoting the typical data rates double every 4 years nonsense or CPU and RAM grows at exponential rates etc.) – this is how technology in telecommunications “evolve”, so a complete upgrade to FTTN would expect to hang around for 20-30yrs before it’s no longer capable of doing what it should.”
Typical data rates double every 4 years NONSENSE? Umm, have you looked at Alcatel-Lucent’s graph of data growth since the 1980’s? (http://www2.ee.unsw.edu.au/news/seminar_archive/2009/broadband_network/John_Turner_UNSW_Aug_2009.pdf – slide 17)
It shows the line of data growth, with very little deviation, will pass RIGHT through 1Gbps by 2025 latest. It’s not nonsense, it’s good data and prediction capability from dozens of years in the industry. FTTN won’t “hang around for 20-30 years” It is incompatible with FTTH- all the street side nodes have to be pulled down, because once GPON is used to the premises, they’re useless as the copper is gone. And FTTH will be needed WELL before 20 years time. THAT’s a waste of money. Oh, and you’re allusion to RAM and CPU power? I’m not stupid, I’m well aware consumer technology bears little resemblance in growth terms to commercial technology I’m going by the data the INDUSTRY is giving, and the data points to 1Gbps needed by 2025 latest. Once again, fibre is not new, it’s low scale implementation just hadn’t been sorted till the mid 2000’s; now it has. Why not use it??
“This 20-30yr lifespan would be the same for what it would be for the fibre that NBNCo would put in the ground, at 20yrs it would begin to require much more maintenance, and to dispute the myth of 60yr old copper, well, its not true, like fibre ongoing upgrades are always needed, and by 30yrs most of it would have been replaced as part of normal maintenance.”
DUDE- we have 30 year old copper coming in to our current house. It was built in the late 1960’s, then converted into a business office in the 80’s, when Telecom Australia put the box INSIDE (which is illegal now) to allow for multiple lines to be connected to their PBX system, which was put in in the early 90’s. That’s this house. We lived in a house that was typical 80’s red brick a few years back (early 2000’s) (about 1984 we think) for a while- it had the original Telecom Australia box on the outside, the copper inside had little non-perished insulation left- It was stamped 1985…that’s at LEAST 20 years then and we know for a fact, because we met the people who live there, it hasn’t been replaced since- so that’s 25 years. Ok, so, as long as it is replaced in the next 2 or 3 years, that fits well with your theory- however…
The first house I lived in here was a 1890’s Colonial style double brick house. One of the first built here in one of the oldest neighbourhoods. My father asked Telecom Aust in the mid 90’s to put an extension into the old office for his fax and modem, as he still occasionally did plotting work on his old plotter and 486. They were gonna charge $400, so he said stuff that, I’ll do it myself. Krone tool and several minutes later and he had an extension. (NOT advocating people do that). When he saw the state of the box, he was flabbergasted- it had PMG markings underneath, but Telecom Aust on it’s front and small markings on the cabling which we later looked up and found to be cabling produced in the late 1970’s. Now that was reasonable for then. We were in that house till 2001. Never saw Telstra. Dad knew the guy very well who bought it, he’d sold Dad his yacht. He eventually had a new line connected from the corner box at his expense, because when he tried putting ADSL on it in the mid 2000’s, it wouldn’t take at all. That makes it 35 years old. And that’s just ME. Look around and you’ll find stories considerably worse than mine.
Copper IS 60 years old in the ground in places. It shouldn’t be, you’re right, but it’s not been replaced. Telstra themselves acknowledged nearly 15% of the network is degraded enough that it will have to be replaced. But they haven’t done it. Fibre? It’s been in the oceans for going on 35 years and both Corning and Alcatel-Lucent reckon according to their integrity tests, it’s still 90-95% as good quality as when it was put in. Granted, underground it would have the vulnerabilities of backhoes, animals and numerous other things- but it is impervious to water and electrical damage. Only physical damage can harm it. And if it does get damaged? It’s about 1/2 the current cost of equivalent copper to maintain. And it’s cheaper than coax AND copper to make. Yes, the setup costs are more- it requires transmitters and receivers and optical couplers, unlike copper. But once it’s IN the ground? So where’s all this idea that it’ll be more expensive, more vulnerable and be in the ground a shorter time?
I actually first saw fibre when I was a teenager. It was used in an old ICL mainframe from the late 60s early 70s a friend and I salvaged for the tafe college for parts, motors fans, transformers that sort of thing. It was used to send sector pulses on disk drives. Very primitive, light bulb, fibre and a spin glass disk with transparent and opaque sections.
That’s pretty epic Noddy. As I’ve said here, my dad used to have a yacht at RANSA, Rushcutters Bay in Sydney about 1968. Next door was a warehouse (now it’s a shipyard) that used to have security tighter than the colloquial. But, he used to chat to one of the MP’s on duty (I think they were RAAF, cause dad used to be a pilot in RAAF before QANTAS) and got to know him a bit. Turns out they were researching possible military uses for fibre. About 2 years later the warehouse closed and now, as they say, the rest is history….
Hmmm, actually, never really thought of it before. But I have fibre running at my place now. For as long as there have been DVD players there have been fibre audio connections. One beauty of fibre in that use is how easy an input switcher is. I have a friend who ran out of fibre and coax inputs for audio on his amp. What with games consoles, set top boxes, DVD players, Apple TV. Easy solution, a fibre splitter connects a few to the one input, it picks up the signal of whatever he has turned on.
Yeah, fibre is great for simple switching because it is passive and as you say, turn off the rest and it becomes just a straight through light pipe.
Of course, in a network setup, you’ve gotta have powered switches to make sure you can switch the traffic as it comes in, but even so, it still has some great advantages.
That’s ironic…
My mate (sarcasm) over at ABC also says the exact same thing, WE only need 2-10mbps…
But shortly later in another exchange claims that 100mbps isn’t that fast after all… he knows because he has 100mbps Telstra cable…
“…..20-30 yrs…..20-30 YEARS???!!!”
I LOLd at that too. Dude in Telco? More like Dude in a fantasy land.
“ANY telecommunications study will show you, including NBNCo.’s own one, we are heading for 1Gbps bandwidth demand by 2020, maybe 2025.”
There is no question or “maybe” about it. See Google fibre who are not only not bothering with redundant FTTN but are not even bothering with 100/40mbps either, they are jumping straight to 1gbit SYMMETRICAL: http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com.au/
“Are you actually willing to debate, or are you just here trying to spread your point of view regardless of fact?”
The second one. Confirmed. You should have read his comments the last time he visited.
It appears to me that the greatest benefits of the current NBN approach are those that appear to be least mentioned. As Renai correctly says, this is not just about ‘faster Internet access’. It is about providing ubiquitous communications access to at least 93% of the population via a completely upgraded network that should be good for at least 60 years – if not greater.
I believe that any considered approach must accept that the current copper based network (and I include the HFC coax network in this) is past its use-by date. The Coalition proposal would lead to a complete mish-mash of technologies and hence network abilities. Copper tails in a partially fibre network, or copper HFC coax cable, will never allow the sort of upload speeds that will be required if cloud based network access is to become universal. In addition, there will be an ongoing , and increasingly expensive, maintenance cost associated with attempting to maintain a decaying copper system.
For those people who are lucky enough to have FTTH, they will be able to enjoy ALL of the advantages of future communications technology. For many others, it will be an increasing exercise in frustration and anger that they, too, cannot share in those advances.
In addition, the extra time and lost costs associated with redesigning and retrofitting network access will just be another nail in the coffin. That’s before the public realise just what a FTTN network entails in terms of large, powered and potentially noisy cabinets at regular intervals along every suburban street (and before anyone claims they won’t be ‘at regular intervals’, if they aren’t, they will be even more useless!)
Turnbull might claim he wants to be ‘technology agnostic’ I would claim that such an approach overlooks the enormous benefits of a once in a lifetime upgrade to our communications infrastructure. I cannot agree that the two approaches have a common end. One will build for the future – foreseeable and beyond. The other will build for today – and become increasingly irrelevant in the future. Similar? I think not.
“For those people who are lucky enough to have FTTH, they will be able to enjoy ALL of the advantages of future communications technology.”
The thing is with a network such as this it is far more useful with the majority connected, if the NBN is cancelled and say only 10% is covered with fibre and I am in that “lucky” 10% I’d be pretty pissed off not being able to take full advantage of it due to that other 90% not able to download and upload with decent speeds. My connection becomes more useful with more users connecting at the same speed.
As for Paul Budde I’d like to be optimistic like him but the problem is we still don’t know what the coalition clowns will do, they’ve already had to modify their patchwork plan just as I predicted but there is just no way of telling how many will end up with fibre with their short sighted visionless plan, needless to say they are very enamoured with their “anything but fibre, I’m pretending to be ‘technology agnostic’ policy” that it’s safe to say it’ll be less than 40% and definitely less than the much more useful 93%. So with nothing concrete from them and no broadband plan that covers the majority with fibre if you are a voter why would you want to take the risk?
The big problem is I don’t think the Coalition want to actually do anything. It shows in the airy fairy non commitment to policy details. Say enough that people think you are going to implement the NBN. Get elected, throw a bit of money about to get some Telcos to upgrade here and there and job done. After all, they haven’t given enough details to have made promises. What they are discribing could be the current state of our communications infrastructure. There is some HFC, some ADSL and some FTTN already. Job done, people deceived, we are in parliment, time to start padding the pockets of our corporate buddies so we get a good retirement job.
That’s exactly right Noddy. They’ll only do as much as they believe they need to, not as much as we actually need, so long as a few get higher speeds than the ADSL2+ maximum that’s all that matters, they just need enough numbers to say “See, see I told you so!!! FTTN is so awesome!!! yay!” Future speed needs and the end cost to consumers & taxpayers are irrelevant to them.
“the analyst noted in April that there was currently “more or less” bipartisan support for the structural separation of Telstra”
Don’t know how he got that idea. Using Telstra’s copper for last-mile in a FttN plan is not seperation, it leaves us with the same problem we already have.
How would anyone know what Abbott will do..
As he says, “if its not written down, then sometimes i just make shit up”
The Liberals are a slippery (no pun intended) lot. Always chopping and changing.
Labor’s broadband policy has been far more systematic and well thought out. The transition from $5bln FTTN tender to $43 bln FTTP (with head-on competition with Telstra as envisaged in McKinsey Study) to forking out billions to Telstra and Optus to shutdown all fixed-line competition and passing anti-competition legislation has proceeded through all the successive stages in a logical fashion as initially planned in 2005.
Unlike the incompetent Libs, Labor politicians never make things up as they go along.
Let’s be clear what we are talking about when refer to the “NBN”. A national broadband network can mean many things. Lately Turnbull has been referring to the “coalition broadband policy” as a NBN also. We should be saying a FTTH NBN or a FTTN NBN, not simply a NBN. Paul is correct, there will be a NBN, what it looks like is a completely different issue.
You forgot to mention the agreement on FTTH in greenfields site.
afaik the satellite and wireless builds are due to be complete in 2015. In that case they’re likely to be too far along for the Coalition to do anything about them. The same goes for the Tassie roll out.
That leaves the only differences as FTTN instead of FTTP in brownfields sites and whether competing infrastructure is allowed or not. imo HFC falls into the second category as the Coalition will have to build FTTN in the HFC footprint to service businesses and MDUs that can’t currently get HFC services.
If the Coalition favours structural separation then they can’t let Telstra build the FTTN network. That leaves structural separation to create a Network Co or the NBNCo. The Network Co would own the copper and ducts in the CAN and could build FTTN without interference. The NBNCo would have to lease access to the copper sub-loop from the node to the customer (as mentioned recently by David Thodey). If the NBNCo buys the copper and ducts in the CAN it effectively becomes the Network Co. What’s the price though?
I think we know what the Coalition wants to do, though that needs to be confirmed. The question is how they will do it.
Turnbull needs to come clean with the public, about the total cost of his policy, if he is considering it a step to FTTH. He needs to tell us what the total cost to get to FTTH is, so we can match apples to apples. Its one thing for him to criticise the investment Labour is making, but its another altogether to properly cost his policy. Its widely accepted that the investment in FTTN would largely have to be scrapped when the FTTH upgrade is done. Turnbull should acknowledge this, and let the public know and give an indicative cost for the FTTH upgrade. If the total package cost is in the vicinity of the current NBN investment, which it would likely be, then it makes perfect sense to continue with the build that is happening today. We would end up with FTTH faster and reap the benefits faster that way.
Turnbulls FTTN wont even start beign built during his first term, (there will too many things for him to put into place and negotiate). That would effectively mean another 4 years (from today) down the track, many people still wont have high speed broadband, whereas under the current NBN, over two thirds done, and would be completed about the same time Turnbulls FTTN option is done. The big difference of course being that under Turnbulls “plan” many areas would then have to start their fight again to get upgraded to FTTH,. and wait many more years.
It really makes no sense for Turnbull to stop the NBN. Ubiquitous FTTH will be acheived faster if he lets it roll on.
Tony Windsor was very wise when he said “You do it once, you do it right and you do it with fibre,”.
My main question is will they put the NBN on-budget, or will they conveniently forget all their complaints that the government isn’t counting the NBN as expenditure?
If they implement their FttN plan they will have to put it on budget, because they have no plans to get a return on the investment.
…and
then blame the current government’s “extravagance” (their words) for them having to run huge deficits throughout their reign.
Which ever way it goes they can manipulate it to look as they they either saved us and/or the others are to blame.
That’s right — unlike FTTP networks, FTTN networks have zero revenue.
Mr B
I do agree.
The point is being missed bigtime.
We have a ubiquotous copper network that has served is brilliantly for our needs in the past. Go to any active 811 socket, plug in your standard phone or fax and communications. (excluding the Optus phone )
Our economy and society is changing, more and more accomodation is relatively short term rental , that being the case the cost of having the telephone line activated/installed for either phone or internet becomes a factor as does the contract term, so more wireless useage. Note even student accomodation ads quote internet or broadband available.
The NBN as being implemented is a ubiquotous standardised network that is designed for business grade (upload ability, reliability and stability )down to minimal private use with a standard interface. Short term or prepay plans will become available and will be popular as just plug in your router , just a quick call and it will be up and running more than likely within hours.
Conversely the Coalition version will have a mix of DSL, cable, Fibre (by different providers – many vertically integrated , some like Telstra wholesaling only their product to resellers). So now we need DSL and Cable Modems and whatever the private fibre providers require, the standardisation is gone with all its cost savings and efficiency. The short term market is destroyed. The FTTN and HFC with their limitations and poor upload are best suited to domestic downloads, and browsing. On private networks such as Telstra, try getting competitors to Foxtel or their own offering, especially through their resellers.
I personally believe the Coalition offering with that mish mash designed more to provide big dollars to private sector providers than a solid planned for the future communications network built FOR Business (NBN) , rather much of the coalitions network using existing infrastructure is built for domestic and entertainment so better called NPN (National Play/Porn network ) – not much use for any other serious purpose. Guess they know their supporters well. Prepared to have the Taxpayer pay much more in subsidies for ever, an inferior service with limited competition and choice, just to get their porn a bit quicker
“We have a ubiquotous copper network”
This is an extremely poor statement to make. The current network doesnt even come close to covering the whole country, so calling it “ubiquotous” is a very poor call .
Otherwise for the most part, I agree with what you’ve said. The LNP have no concrete plan, they havent outlined anything – and have mostly avoided the issue, despite it being its biggest weakness.
Whether you like the idea or not, you have to be thick as two short planks to not realise that the NBN is a brilliant idea.
<<<The NBN as being implemented is a ubiquotous standardised network that is designed for business grade
Are you trying to say the NBN is over-engineered for the domestic broadband purposes of the residential premises (comprising 90% of total connected premises) the NBN will be connected to? Heresy!
<<<The FTTN and HFC with their limitations and poor upload are best suited to domestic downloads, and browsing.
So, FTTN is sufficient for domestic purposes? Heresy!
<<<So now we need DSL and Cable Modems and whatever the private fibre providers require, the standardisation is gone with all its cost savings and efficiency. The short term market is destroyed.
l know —- imagine the massive cost savings and efficiency from "standardisation" if we all drove Mercedes SL, what with all the disparate parts maintenance and inventory issues that comes with having to service different makes and models of cars. Absolutely ludicrous!
<<<I personally believe the Coalition offering with that mish mash designed more to …. than a solid planned for the future communications network built FOR Business (NBN) , rather much of the coalitions network using existing infrastructure is built for domestic and entertainment so better called NPN (National Play/Porn network ) – not much use for any other serious purpose.
l agree — I hate how the Libs are attempting to subvert the true purpose of the NBN (which is largely a fibre-to-the-home project) and general broadband policy from being about subsidising small (or home) business access to GPON fibre to being purely about average residential needs and purposes. How deceitful of them.
Nice to mis-interpret his words like that TB.
Heres’ a simple truth. 10-15 years ago ADSL and ADSL2 at their best were (mostly) business use. They paid a premium for the best access, which as somestic users we didnt NEED at the time, but as time moved forwards we did.
Apollo didnt say it was over-engineered, he said it was built for business needs. And time has shown that those business needs become domestic needs within a 5-7 year period. Or does your sarcasm deny that evidence? Apollo didnt say HFC was sufficient for needs, he said thats all its good for. Different thing.
It’s pretty simple. What are business needs today become domestic needs in the near future. FTTN cant deliver more that what our current needs are, so how is it going to deliver needs when our use is 10 times what it is today?
Some people whinged when ADSL was rolled out, stating that dial up was all that was needed. This is no different, people actually believe that current technology is all we need, when time after time its been proven that it isnt.
Apollo, copper is ubiquitous. The number of premises in our vast country without copper is in the range of a few thousand out of ten million. If you mean ADSL, then you are correct, since over 30% of copper connected premises cannot get ADSL, and the median speed of all ADSL nationally is under 3 Mbps.
This is why the NBN is again proven to be doable only as a government project. The last 15% of premises, about 3 million Australians, will get little or nothing from anything the coalition has proposed to date. A ubiquitous wholesale provider can cross subsidize the last 7% by spreading that costly sector across a massive 93% of less costly urban services.
Yes, I was directly referring to ADSL – should have been more specific.
My area in brisbane here has more than 30,000 premises not covered by ADSL or copper at all.
Specifically, the Telstra shop here does a roaring trade – purely because they exploit the fact that copper never has or will be laid.
I agree in principle with what Paul is saying. The Coalition’s policy is quite obviously changing. But I have to echo what most people have said here- we need to KNOW what they are going to do. ARE they going to persist with the FTTN for the “leftovers” of the stalled NBN? If that’s the case, then as Hubert quite rightly says, the efficiency of the network becomes very sub-standard (not to mention the poor bastards like myself who get left in the cold because we’re not on the first rollout schedule) and ubiquity of the network is destroyed. This creates the fragmented market as Abel has stated and confuses customers and greatly increases prices for our nomadic rental market.
Will they get to FTTH some other way? I can’t see how they could do it quicker; cheaper, yes, but then they would have to extend the business period of NBNCo. thereby likely cancelling any possible return on the NBN as a whole and mooting the whole point of the way Labor setup the NBN.
My main problem is however, the Coalition continue to appear to see this as almost a non-issue- they continually site incorrect, often made up facts in the hope of putting the average Australian off the idea of the NBN. I still believe their plan is to go to the election with a very vague BB policy, STILL harping on about the “$50 Billion waste of ripping up all our perfectly serviceable copper” and hoping they’ll get through the polls thanks to the negative campaign and then they can do what they like.
Even if they DO win and have the plan to stop FTTH and go FTTN for what’s left, they can’t gain control of the senate before July 2015, by which time the satellites will be up ($2 Billion dollars) the vast majority of the wireless will be online and nearly 50% of FTTH to premises will be completed (assuming NBN can deliver). It seems simply utterly pigheaded stubborn to cancel the network at essentially past the halfway point. Apart from the enormous cost that would be now thrown on to the books and become a taxpayer burden, how could you POSSIBLY produce a more efficient network at that point?
I don’t like our politics, I never have. I’m a self-confessed swing voter (or usually agnostic, except for what is the best policy) and I won’t be voting the Coalition unless they give us solid, in writing guarantees they will complete the NBN as it stands. Because even WITH written guarantees, I STILL wouldn’t trust them OR Labor, or anyone else in our political circle as far as I could throw them. The difference here is, Labor have the incentive to keep the NBN, the Coalition don’t, in their eyes.
Whatever happened to a government and opposition who governed/opposed “for the good of the country”?….
<<<I agree in principle with what Paul is saying. The Coalition’s policy is quite obviously changing.
The massive move closer towards adopting Labor's NBN policy are truly profound. lf we examine the truly astonishing change in rhetoric from Malcolm:
. . . .he has gone from spruiking “Telstra separation”, “deploying FTTN and HFC for urban and fixed wireless and satellite solutions for regional”,” encouraging facilities-based competition” and “using taxpayer subsidies to ensure equitable access outcomes” in his first major policy speech at the National Press Club over a year ago. . . .. . to talking about “Telstra separation”, “deploying FTTN and HFC for urban and fixed wireless and satellite solutions for regional”,” encouraging facilities-based competition” and “using taxpayer subsidies to ensure equitable access outcomes” in his latest address to Broadband World Forum.
What a massive policy about-face! NBN supporters were right all along — Malcolm has finally learnt his lessons and corrected his policy positions to reflect a more educated view of broadband policy.
<<<ARE they going to persist with the FTTN for the “leftovers” of the stalled NBN?
By "leftovers", you mean the likely 9 million+ premises that will still be waiting for Conroy's promised broadband revolution after two terms of Labor Government (when the Libs take over)?
<<<If that’s the case, then as Hubert quite rightly says, the efficiency of the network becomes very sub-standard and ubiquity of the network is destroyed.
Maybe that's why Abbott will rip up the fibre in the tiny minority of premises that NBNco manages to connect by 2013, so that the network becomes "ubiquitous" once more and "efficiency" preserved.
I’m not entirely sure whether you’e for or against the NBN true believer. You seem to jump between acceptance of it and bashing the Coalition for trying to pull the wool over Australia’s eyes about it, to pushing that “Conroy’s” NBN is a waste and will take 40 years to get anywhere. Mayybe some consistency?
“By “leftovers”, you mean the likely 9 million+ premises that will still be waiting for Conroy’s promised broadband revolution after two terms of Labor Government (when the Libs take over)?”
First term- FTTN idea followed by tenders. Telstra mucks the thing up by being the only big enough telco to achieve it and purposely trying to force the government into a regulation arrangement for the FTTN which will keep their monopoly. 2.5 years wasted. Not governments fault. Last part of term 1 (cut short mind you) K. Rudd propels idea of NBN. starts the ball rolling, commissions Implementation study after Coalition rampages all over “Labor wasted spending.” K. Rudd knifed, even after implementation study shows NBN is not only a good idea, but extends its’ reach and shows it is viable to make a return, because of Miner jerks.
Second Term- NBNCo. plans, chooses sites, and begins implementation. Produces Corporate Plan showing it is achievable in 10 years. Begins immediately with testing. Full rollout to begin in commercial operations, schedules JUNE 2012!!!
I don’t see how it could’ve gone much faster, other than if Telstra hadn’t mucked us all around. But then again, we could’ve ended up with a FTTN network we would’ve outgrown by 2015, which you may have liked, or not, cause I’m still not sure which way you lean.
“Maybe that’s why Abbott will rip up the fibre in the tiny minority of premises that NBNco manages to connect by 2013, so that the network becomes “ubiquitous” once more and “efficiency” preserved.”
2013? The Election is likely to be in November 2013, that’s very nearly 2014. And then they can’t actually gain control of the Senate, if they can at all, until mid 2014 (if my maths are right, I always get my senate/election maths wrong). By mid 2014, NBN will have passed 25% of its’ premises. A minority for sure, but tiny?? Hardly
The problem is that Paul Budde needs to come clean on this… This is how I think it should be done.
FTTN can be rapidly deployed and can actually get the predicted 4-5yr build time and about 4-5Bn for the cities, this is what Telstra initially proposed and they have done FTTN builds for many years in the ISAM rollouts.
For Trans-sector productivity gains from virtualisation, it is without doubt that the inital release would be based on copper broadband networks. If we give a 5year timeline for such applications to be developed and be made available, it would be well timed with FTTN build.
The problem with FTTP is that the Gov’t projections are so far off the mark its not funny, which is showing already in a mere 5,000 users on the network after 1 year’s of work. Budget wise it also greatly underestimating the cost.
NBNCo’s solution isvery wide of the mark of what Paul Budde is trying to advocate, and myself I am a skeptic as to what new e-productivity can deliver. For what it will deliver in gains, FTTN would easily capture this and hit the mark without overbuilding or delays.
The likely scenario is that even if NBN continues ahead it would end up failing due to a dodgy business case written by paid consultants and put going through a proper cost benefit analysis, but I am quite certain that FTTN would succeed as it is much simpler to build.
‘For Trans-sector productivity gains from virtualisation, it is without doubt that the inital release would be based on copper broadband networks. If we give a 5year timeline for such applications to be developed and be made available, it would be well timed with FTTN build.”
Ahhh. NOW I see where you’re coming from. You are LITERALLY in the industry. ie, you want to allow the industry to capitalise as much as possible on existing infrastructure and eek out as much profit as it can, BEFORE the government steps in and spends all the money they won’t. And they won’t. Why would the telco’s spend it? The government has stepped in before, because we’re a vast country and they’ll do it again. All you have to do is wait.
In the meantime, we, the consumer, get stuck with crappy speeds, shocking reliability and bad customer service. Business don’t; they pay through the nose instead and get passable quality for your “5 year timeline”, milking it for all it’s worth.
DUDE, this NBN is not JUST about business. Yes, the NBN will open up business opportunities even YOU can’t think of yet, but it’s also to provide cheap, effective, reliable broadband to ALL Australian’s to communicate, entertain and live better. Business WANTS the NBN. It will make it SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper for business, which is, of course, where a large proportion of profit comes from in the telco industry.
No wonder you keep pushing the FTTN- it manages to squeeze that little more life out of the copper for a few extra years of high profit margins before the government steps in and ruins it all by putting everyone on a level playing field.
“The problem with FTTP is that the Gov’t projections are so far off the mark its not funny, which is showing already in a mere 5,000 users on the network after 1 year’s of work. Budget wise it also greatly underestimating the cost.”
If you’d read multiple comments, across multiple articles on Delimiter, ZDNET, Gizmodo and any other number of tech sites, you will have seen AND been told that NBN is not yet in COMMERCIAL ROLLOUT. It is still gathering data and technique wrap up from the trial and first and second release sites. Come June, they’ll began proper rollout. 70% of the projection of the 150 000 odd to be connected by now came from Greenfields- and thanks to messing around with Telstra and red tape preventing developments from their applications moving forward, this hasn’t happened. It is partially NBN’s problem- they didn’t fine tune the development and application side properly and subsequently this delay. In June, as I said, they begin full force rollout to Brownfields. This will see them quickly gather the premises numbers they’ve indicated and hopefully even make up for lost time. But this doesn’t fit your business centric system, so it’s irrelevant.
Dial-up could be rapidly deployed too! And what about pigeons, smoke signals or cans and string (maybe even fishing line)!
Seriously, the analogy is like jumping out of a plane and having a FTTP parachute with top notch safety, premium rip cord and reserve chute vs. a FTTN old rusty umbrella with holes, which belongs to someone else who wants to fuck you over price wise, just to open it!
Good luck.
Oh, I know it’s a broken record, but I forgot to mention- all your talk about business still growing into the bandwidth CURRENTLY available. I MIGHT, just MIGHT be able to accept that for FTTN downloads….but that’s not the problem. Business is CLAMOURING for uploads and ain’t no amount of copper, FTTN, HFC or anything else that will provide cheap and reliable substantial upload speeds. For goodness sake, Telstra’s 5/5 ADSL is $344 a month!!
If they will even sell it to you. Last quote I got was ~$900/month for 2/2 in a premises that has dark fiber that someone running to the Telstra exchange that someone obviously lost the paperwork so as far as Telstra is concerned it doesn’t even exist.
It is cheaper for us to employ a junior to hand deliver client files on a USB stick than to buy the bandwidth we need.
He’s against it, everything he’s written is tounge in cheek.
Im so sick and tired of the Coalition wanting to “incentivise” private companies to do things that they ordinarily dont want to do do to cost of capital, risks etc.
“incentivise” is just a nice way of saying “throw money at” it’s taxpayers money and there is no return to the gov – the private entity then gets to sit there making money from infrastructure we paid for!!
This is just pure stupidity!
A classic example is the AdamMax network in Adelaide, the SA & Fed Gov’s threw nearly 20million at Adam to build the WiMax network and who owns it? a private company that now has taxpayer funded infrastructure on which to bolster profits! Where the governments return on investment?
As a builder of “3G-related equipment” :D – We (Vodafone and Optus) are treated differently to the Incumbent. They’re granted 3G licencing rights before us, they’re given government incentives to cover mining sites (as well as incentives to place towers in zero-coverage locations) and they’re given preferencial treatment on expanding coverage in localised areas.
Its unfair competition at its finest. Everyone wants a cheaper deal, but every government thats sworn in wants to move the goalposts.
Wireless and Fixed-Line access wont ever improve if we dont have equal terms. Bring on the NBN.
That’s right — any “costly alternative” to Quigley’s brilliant scheme to rollout free fibre installation at zero cost to taxpayer and zero price/affordability impact on consumers is bound to look shit in comparison.
Kudos to Conroy and Quigley for this brilliant and credible scheme.
Rural and regional Australia are the biggest beneficiaries in Labor’s NBN.
I believe the coalition will roll out the NBN where it is easiest and cost effective to do so, and where it will be most profitable (cities). Beyond that they’ll find an excuse to stall it, or drop it completely in favour of less effective measures such as 4G and satellite.
I would love FTTH or even FTTN, but at least under NBN I get access to a reasonable satellite service 6Mbs/1Mbs and 20GB per month – no mobile wireless or fixed wireless here as in remote rural area. I have witnessed the improvement to medical care. Also, without NBN, I would miss my access to articles and discussions like this one and my daily dose of reddit.com.
Whatever happens, it will be on the record that Tony Abbott showed pride in his ignorance, and with the connivance of his colleagues, stuffed around, delayed the project and generally caused a lot of unnecessary angst and debate.
What is it about us that we are so nervous about taking on big projects? Who will forget the Olympics? Years of whinging and self doubt onlt to create the best Olympic ever. Is that part of our price of doing big things well? And probably above rather than below our expectations.
<<<What is it about us that we are so nervous about taking on big projects?
It's certainly peculiar given Labor's excellent, unblemished track record in delivering big infrastructure projects on time and on budget.
<<<Who will forget the Olympics? Years of whinging and self doubt onlt to create the best Olympic ever.
It was, wasn't it? Just like the Beijing Olympics, the Barcelona Olympics, the Los Angeles Olympics, the Olympics, . . .
<<<Is that part of our price of doing big things well? And probably above rather than below our expectations.
Yea, . . . and who would call Sydney Olympic Park a white elephant? l believe the State Government made a healthy 7.00000001% return on the investment as projected.
“It was, wasn’t it? Just like the Beijing Olympics, the Barcelona Olympics, the Los Angeles Olympics, the Olympics, . . .”
true, this is your opinion. The Sydney Olympics was considered, by other countries and the Olympic Committee, one of the best up to that time. Was Beijing or Athens better, perhaps, but there certainly wasn’t the “best in the history” furore surrounding them. As I recall, Beijing they were unsure of whether athletes would suffocate or keel over from the appalling pollution, so the Chinese government banned ALL cars from the city for 3 weeks….and the Athens Olympics was obviously very good….the country promptly fell into debt and now looks to be succeeding from its’ financial propping union. (that’s probably a bit unfair- They were already in that position, the point was it didn’t do much for the economy)
Olympic park IS underutilised- it’s a MASSIVE complex that was built to house many more people than in Sydney’s normal day-to-day life it was going to have. It’s still used- Football, Easter Show, Festivals. It was paid for by the boost to the economy, which the state Labor government promptly gave to the unions or spent on themselves in celebration, among other things just a useless, which is why NSW is in a hole. They could’ve capitalised on the Olympic image, but they chose to sit on their arses and do nothing.
The fact is, Sydney 2000 showcased Australia to the world; we got a MASSIVE boost in tourism, particularly from China and the US and it showed we were capable of playing with the best on the global scale (reflected in the medal tally too; best we had done in 20 years)
Note that last sentence. WHY should we NOT play on a global scale when it comes to telecommunications? And to do that, we NEED the FTTH because of our vast size.
At least the trains ran on time. Remember, some predicted the games would be a disaster and we were going to be covered in international embarrasment.
The jury is still out on the further development of the development of the adjoining wasteland.
I still think the Sydney Olympics were the best ever. Beijing had polution issues, Athens had hosting issues. Remember they werent sure they’d get the venues finished even a week before the commencement.
Homebush might not be what the spruikers were saying it would be, but I dont think its the failure many others claim it to be either. And its still an asset that will be there for decades to come.
Could it be used more? Certainly. But you can always work towards that.
I feel the single biggest difference in the NBN approaches of the 2 parties is in their accounting methods.
Why?
On budget means you are heavily cost constrained. Ever dollar has to be raised and paid for from taxes whether initially borrowed or not. This means other budget areas have to shrink. Other services have to be reduced. This means you aim for low hanging fruit, easy wins. It means making any system ubiquitious isn’t really an option. You can’t mandate a solution, you have to encourage private business to do it through subsidies and vouchers. If people miss out it can’t be helped.
Off budget means you can aim for the best solution which will make a reasonable return. Tax payer dollars aren’t used so other budget areas don’t need to suffer. Within those parameters you can mandate a solution and as far as financially viable make it ubiquitious. It’s what the NBN as it exists right now actually is.
In pratice this means the difference between a teacher knowing every child in their class has a minimum standard of access and hoping they do. It means a doctor knows their client has access to the bandwidth required to do remote televiewing, and hoping. It means a business knows it has the ability to backup their data to the cloud at 40Mbps, and hoping. It means a home theatre enthusiast knows they can stream a 50Mbps 1080p 3D video stream, and hoping.
The LNP are offering a lot of hope. Under their plan we can all hope we get the speed we need to go about the various aspects of our lives. We can hope their plan is cost effective. We can hope their plan is the best long term solution and won’t leave us short in 10, 20, or 30 years time.
Personally I don’t want to rely on the hope offered by politicians. You can’t trust it and it’s almost a certainty that millions of us will end up getting left behind for decades if not permanently.
I don’t want to hope, I want to know.
+1 Billion, no make that 36 Billion! ;-)
+1 FlipFlop. I don’t fully trust ANY of our parties. But the NBN is in progress. The Coalition offers vague promises.
It’s an oldie but a goodie- Actions speak louder than words.
Hope is for dreamers – facts are for realists.
NBN is real/Coalitions plan is hope(less).
IMO
One of the things that really annoys me in all this is the monumental short-sightedness of people against the NBN on the principle that the current technology serves us adequately, why do we need anymore?
With that attitude, let’s see what man would’ve come up with:
No computers. No cars. No internet. No Democratic Government. No colour tv.
All these things had “adequate” replacements at the time of their invention. Adding machines, horse and cart, telephone/pneumatic tube/fax machines (take your pick), Monarchy, B&W TV.
None of these NEEDED changing, but it was sensible to do so, and also an extremely expensive transition. Where would we be without them?
Some of these are relatively frivolous, but my point stands. Also, forget space travel whatsoever- we don’t need that at all and it was TOTALLY frivolous, so why bother?
Indeed seven_tech, as I have said all along, it’s (technological) progress…
Especially when the irrational claims of “what we have is good enough, FTTN is better and we are being forced onto the NBN”… are uttered by the visionless.
Well the NBN wont be entirely scrapped by Abbot not atleast for not for a few years. If your suburb is in line to receive the NBN soon you be still get it, Due to existing contracts. If the NBN cost benefit studies turns up with negative results, along with the constant failure to meet deadlines and targets along budget overruns we are seeing right now. Abbot will take no thought to putting down labors puppy.
sure it is unlikely to be scrapped entirely under the mad monk but it certainly wont reach its intended potential either – im lucky im in the 3 year plan but I’m still voting Labour as this is too important to let the LNP (Look No Policies) mob derail.
Hah! How could it be remotely possible for the NBN to fail a cost benefit when it is “guaranteed to make a positive return” when only looking at direct commercial return?
You’re not trying to suggest the projections in the Corporate Plan aren’t realistic?
Yes, they are conservative
That’s right — direct economic return alone would have seen the NBN ace a cost benefit test with flying colours. So, the supposed impossibility of quantifying indirect economic benefits is completely irrelevant, which explains why Conroy was so desperate to submit the NBN to a cost benefit analysis.
Labor’s position is so non-self-contradictory and so internally-consistent.
“Labor’s position is so non-self-contradictory and so internally-consistent.”
———————————————————————————————–
Unlike Coalition’s extremely consistent and intellectually honest positions, like “There is no need for broadband speeds higher than what ADSL2+ offers… and we will spend billions directly from your taxes incentivising Telstra to upgrade to FTTN with much higher speeds…”
Or the old nugget “New Zealand is showing the way forward with their cost-effective FTTN implementation… New Zealand’s FTTN is the best example Australia should follow.. blah blah blah. What? New Zealand’s conservative government has determined that FTTN is a waste of money and is moving towards replacing it with FTTH? Oops. Will never mention New Zealand again. Australia should follow the example of Malaysia, Nigeria, or maybe Zimbabwe.”
A couple of points
First Our Copper network, the Overland Telegraph was built for Business and the public benefitted. The original telephone network was built for business, CBD’s and business areas with private as an extension. The first and main business uses were tickertape, teletype and telex, even to the 70’s and 80’s Telex was still a primary business tool partly for legal reasons (late models had floppy disk storage for messages). We have progressed to the point where business also depends on communications with clients and customers in addition to the private useage.
Now the next progression, pointless and a waste of money if half baked
Private sector do it better, how are the earlier wired estates, planned and built at the cheapest price (max profit) when competing with ADSL1. What services and plans are available, what is the contention like, what are the upgrade paths or capacity.?? – Is this the way to go , as cheap as possible for today’s and the immediate future’s requirements, yet still not cheap for the user.
2) Possibly the real reason for all the FUD, Fear of the unknown and possible loss of control. You can argue against technical or financial factors, but irrational fear and insecurity cannot be reasoned with. I commented a little on this item
http://technologyspectator.com.au/emerging-tech/applications/what-if-bill-gates-was-australian
Should have read early fibred estates instead of wired estates
Whatever you might think about the rest of their policy platforms, and whichever party you are going to vote for, it is an exercise in blind hope to think that the Coalition will do the right thing with the NBN. Their track record on the topic is abysmal.
A vote for the Coalition at the next election is fair enough, but must be done with the full knowledge that whatever pros there will be to having them in power, one of the cons will be their guaranteed mishandling of the NBN.
+1 Paul. simple and straight to the point. I’ve no problem with someone voting Coalition (other than the fact that it’s a vote down for the NBN) but you go in eyes wide, knowing they will almost certainly scrap the NBN.
For some more perspective on what we as a Nation are being subjected to, the NBN issue being but part. As Murdoch said, the internet especially Broadband is disruptive technology which is why the paranoia against it by certain sectors. An example why. Remember an article in a paper has limited circulation and is tomorrows fish and chips wrapper. The internet has changed that, as now the link can be shared
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/10594
Watch it, the attitudes especially from the Australians editor and the explanations and POV of the ex CIA senior operative as well as the other panelists. think about it , look at what is being done to us, the basic principles are covered. The only real question is why ?
The internet, and all that comes with it, is a tool of change, and thats what the powerbrokers like Murdoch dont like. It means new ways of doing things rather than sticking with whats worked for a hundred years or more.
In 20, 30, 50 years from now, something might come along and disrupt the status quo the internet is providing by that time. In whatever format its in.
Most people dont like change. It scares them. They have to learn new ways of doing old things, and if they arent presented right, will simply fail to gain traction and not survive. The best change is simply to do it the old way in a modern way.
The powerbrokers like Murdoch know this, and play on those fears so people are reluctant to get behind something that changes the game. It doesnt matter that powerbrokers like Murdoch will take advantage of that change when they can (eg, by putting web information behind paywalls), they dont want their tried and true methods to go away.
So, News Corp has also been campaigning against Verizon, AT&T, BT, Virgin Media, etc ‘s rollouts of super fast networks in US and the UK?
Also, please link me one article from The Australian which exemplifies scare-mongering about the broader social disruptions brought about by the NBN (other than “ripping up footpaths” and “unsightliness of wireless towers”).
Please remind yourself, this is a newspaper with a “technology” section, and not your local lawn bowls newsletter.
These myths:
http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/
have all been trotted out in various form by the UnOz and Daily Terror!
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/03/27/oops/
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/12/24/daily-telegraph-repeatedly-wrong-in-nbn-reports/
May not fit your exacting criteria, but these are quite common…
“NBN here to stay under Coalition” is what I want to hear from the lips of the Coalition.
But it would be hard to trust anything they say, knowing of the lies and crap that have come from those leading the LNP.
There is no doubt that NBN is here to stay under a Coalition government. It will just be modified so that it is “cheaper and faster” than Labor’s “white elephant”… instead of 93% FTTH it will be a “most appropriate mix of technologies”, so very soon you will have a choice of HFC cable, fibre, ADSL, ADSL2+, VDSL2, wireless and satellite (of course, the exact “choice” of the tech and actual broadband speeds available to any one household/business will depend mostly on luck).
But rest assured that a Coalition government will spend our money wisely, by handing it out to Telstra and other telcos on perpetual basis in order to incentivise them to provide us this beautifully eclectic choice of technologies with “up to” XXX Mbps speeds. The only downside of it all is that Labor will get back in after 6 or 9 years and will waste more money on upgrading everything to FTTH…
<<<<a Coalition government will spend our money wisely, by handing it out to Telstra and other telcos on perpetual basis
1. Guess where the POls are located? (Hint: leased Telstra exchange)
2. Guess who built NBNco's core transit network connecting the POls? (Hint: Telstra)
3. Guess which company NBNco is leasing dark fibre from? (Hint: Telstra)
4. Guess which company is being paid to migrate wholesale customer base over to NBNco? (Hint: Telstra)
5. Guess which company NBNco is paying billions to maintain last mile infrastructure over many decades to come? (Hint: Telstra)
6. Guess which company is being paid under sub-contract to fulfill newly-restructured USO obligations? (Hint: Telstra)
*ahem* *cough*. . . you were saying?
“1. Guess where the POls are located? (Hint: leased Telstra exchange)”
Which will be part of the wholesale division of Telstra when they’re separated (They’l be part of the Wholesale network, still housing copper services to Retail customers who use it and as such are subject to Wholesale Services access and JCI’s, point 8 of schedule 3 in the SSU of Telstra). They will deal with NBNCo. as a wholesaler, so are constrained by the wholesale guidelines of providing access. Telstra have also signed an agreement not to compete, as a wholesaler, with NBNCo. for minimum 10 years. And after that, they’d have to build their own Fibre network, cause they ain’t really gonna be able to compete with an ailing copper network are they?
2. Guess who built NBNco’s core transit network connecting the POls? (Hint: Telstra)
That’s great…and irrelevant. They have leased it for 35 years….so, yeah, they get a small amount of money ($4Bn, which it probably less than it cost them to build and compared to what it’s worth, is nothing) to be forced not to use it for 35 years….by which time it will be close to replacement….so, your point?
3. Guess which company NBNco is leasing dark fibre from? (Hint: Telstra)
See above- Have you read the Telstra Financial Heads of agreement? It’s the same thing….
4. Guess which company is being paid to migrate wholesale customer base over to NBNco? (Hint: Telstra)
Again, they’re being paid a small amount, compared to what they could make off those customers ($5Bn over 10 years…) And again, do you REALLY think those customers would come back to copper afterwards?…
5. Guess which company NBNco is paying billions to maintain last mile infrastructure over many decades to come? (Hint: Telstra)
They will maintain the copper, to provide retailer of last resort telephone services to those within the fibre area with telephone across the NBN. How many people are going to NOT choose their phone service? And they must provide services to those outside the fibre area, which is the most expensive part of the system to operate and maintain. Yes, they will be paid $230 Million a year until 2032. 20 years at $230Mn a year; that’s $4.6Bn…or about what it’s gonna cost to “incentivise” Telstra to rollout an FTTN network which they could then make BILLIONS off….instead, after 2032, once again, Telstra will have a useless copper network. Besides, the fibre won’t just stop and that’s it after NBNCo. has completed the initial build. It will slowly roll it out to the rest of the country. People will migrate to it, to the point that few, if any, remain on teh copper…and then once AGAIN Telstra has a completely useless copper network with which they can’t compete. And seeing as Telstra have already admitted it costs nearly $1Bn a year to maintain that network (obviously less without people on it) and that 15% of it is failing…not such a brilliant deal now you look at it is it? Seeing as it HAS to keep working for them to get paid…
6. Guess which company is being paid under sub-contract to fulfill newly-restructured USO obligations? (Hint: Telstra)
Hmm let’s see now:
– $40 Million a year for payphones….which don’t get used, but they have to keep them running, so they’re not likely to make any money off that….
– $20 Million a year for up to the first 5 years for the Emergency lines (000 and 112). That’s not an awful lot for a very busy network with strict timeframes and high quality control levels. Oh, the services will go out for tender to other companies in 5 years…
All of this has to be paid to Telstra for 2 reasons:
1) They built the network, they know how it works and people cannot be without telephone services. There IS no other company that can currently do it….until the NBN goes out….
2) The Coalition separated them and created an anti-competitive telecom atmosphere that lead to them infesting every part of telecom infrastructure as a private company….
So yes, let’s give it back to the Coalition and get them to pay more than $5Bn to a company that will continue to run the network into the ground for the sake of profits and provide little benefit to everyday Australians….
Next question please.
Comments are closed.