In this post by Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey, the Liberal MP describes as “inaccurate and misleading” an article published by Delimiter yesterday which highlighted claims Hockey had made that 4G mobile broadband had the potential to be “far superior” than the NBN, claiming his comments were taken out of context.
opinion Your article 4G “far superior” to the NBN, claims Joe Hockey is both inaccurate and misleading. It takes my comments out of context and does not take into account the facts.
Issue 1: Your article asserts that my claim regarding wireless technology being ‘far superior’ to the NBN is wrong.
Your article states: “I simply cannot believe that our democracy allows senior politicians such as Joe Hockey to make factually inaccurate claims such as the idea that 4G mobile broadband has the potential to exceed the capacity of fibre …” The transcript shows that this is a deliberate distortion of my use of the word ‘capacity’. I made no claim whatsoever about the ‘capacity’ of either fibre or 4G wireless in terms of bandwidth. Rather I stated – and absolutely stand by my view that – wireless technology such as 4G has the capacity to be far superior to a fixed broadband service such as Labor’s NBN. For simplicity, the relevant extract of my conversation with Leon Compton is below:
“We want broadband for the nation, but we want to make sure it is sustainable broadband for the nation and there is a great deal of irony in the fact that when the Government did a deal with Telstra for the National Broadband network I understand part of that deal identified that Telstra was not allowed to sell its new 4G technology as a competitor to the NBN because 4G has the capacity to be far superior to the NBN. So what does the Government do? It says well you are not allowed to market it as a competitor, I don’t know about you, but I use an iPad – the iPad I carry around in the car. I don’t have a cable dragging be hind the car. I use wireless technology and I think that is the way functionality is going.” (Source: Joe Hockey, Interview with Leon Compton, ABC Tasmania, 8 June 2012)
For many households, wireless broadband has the capacity to be superior to fibre to the premises (FTTP) in the broader sense of value for money, convenience, nearness of availability/deployment and many of the numerous other attributes that a consumer might consider when weighing these alternatives.
If this was not the case, why would NBN Co have sought Telstra’s agreement to an anti-competitive ban on advertising of 4G when its customers migrate from copper to NBN? It is an undeniable fact that the initial contract signed in June 2011 between Telstra and NBN Co restricted Telstra’s marketing of its wireless services to such customers for fear 4G availability would compromise NBN Co’s target of achieving 70 per cent market penetration. NBN Co only agreed to revise this when Rod Simms, the ACCC Chairman, emphatically stated “We couldn’t live with it”.
Superiority does not simply denote speed. Millions of Australian households will be waiting for years (some for up to a decade) for connectivity to the NBN, whereas Telstra’s 4G technology is available right here and right now in major cities. The 4G network will be rolled out to the rest of the nation and upgraded to higher speeds well before the NBN is finished. Other operators will also be in a position to roll out 4G wireless, offering both fixed and mobile services. VividWireless for example – now a subsidiary of Optus – has a 4G wireless network in Perth and owns spectrum suit able for such a service in Australia’s major cities.
Wireless technology additionally offers mobility, portability and convenience for the end user. Many Australian consumers (such as tenants or others not willing to sign long contracts and pay installation costs) may for these reasons choose wireless broadband ahead of fixed line technology. While take up rates for fixed broadband have been relatively flat for the past year or two, the booming take up rates of wireless technology suggest that Australians see utility in portability and mobility. Furthermore, the capabilities of wireless are increasing rapidly, and will increase further before the NBN reaches all Australians.
What the Coalition cares about – and any rational person should care about – is the benefits the technology will deliver to end users. As the customer take-up data shows, speed is far from the only attribute valued by end users. In the Coalition’s view, what matters is the overall combination of benefits for end users – and this is why in my view wireless has the capacity to be superior.
Issue 2: Your article asserts that it will not cost $1,000 to install the NBN to a household.
Your article states: “I simply cannot believe that our democracy allows senior politicians such as Joe Hockey to make factually inaccurate claims such as the idea that 4G mobile broadband has the potential to exceed the capacity of fibre, or that connecting to the NBN will cost Australians up to $1,000.”
This above statement is misleading. Hard data from FTTP installations such as Verizon’s rollout to 17 million households in the US suggest that in-the-home costs (that is costs above and beyond the ONT, such as connecting and testing existing CPE and set-top boxes) account for up to 20% of the costs of the rollout (see, for instance, Appendix B of the Analysys Mason Final Report for the Broadband Stakeholder Group: The Costs of Deploying Fibre-based Next-generation Broadband Infrastructure, 8 Sep 2008). This is verified by industry reports of Telstra’s experience in South Brisbane, which suggest it is taking two technicians half a day to finalise the cutover from copper to fibre.
If these costs are going to be covered by NBN Co, then supporters should point to exactly where they are covered in its $28 billion capex estimate for the FTTP part of the rollout. NBN Co has never clarified whether or not this is the case. If these costs are not in the December 2010 version of the NBN Co business plan, as appears likely, then they will have to be paid for by the Retail Service Providers – and will therefore ultimately be passed on to customers.
In my comments I was highlighting the reality that for consumers to make use of the claimed capacity of the network, in many cases they will need to pay for internal wiring inside the home. For example, if the ONT is at the front of the house but the office or lounge room is at the back of the house, then to take advantage of the speeds that fibre offers it will often be necessary to install new internal wiring in the home (depending on how old the home is and what standard of internal wiring it currently has).
Issue 3: Your article falsely asserts that Tasmanian towns will not be ‘to the back of the list’ for NBN rollout.
Last month, at Budget estimates NBN Co officials confirmed that around 700 NEC boxes in Tasmanian premises would have to be replaced with new Alcatel equipment. Over 300 boxes in Midway Point, 200 in Smithton and 150 in Sco ttsdale will have to be replaced in order to standardise the NBN technology platform with the FTTP rollout elsewhere. Until this change takes place, Telstra has said that it cannot offer a commercial service to customers in the three trial towns (Disclosure: In the interview I referred to the town of Sorell; I had been misinformed).
Issue 4: Your article falsely implies that the Coalition backs a ‘wireless only’ model of broadband for Australia.
Your article states: “Hockey spoke extensively about the potential of wireless technologies to serve the nation’s future broadband needs.” Neither I nor my colleagues have ever supported a ‘wireless only’ model of fast broadband for Australia. The only place this model exists is in the fevered imaginations and distortions of Coalition statements about broadband we see among some supporters of Labor’s NBN.
If you had listened carefully to the interview you would have heard me state: “We have said we are going to have a mix of technologies rather than rolling out cable outside everyone’s home. We are going to have a mix of technologies, including wireless and satellite and cable that is going to be much ch eaper but it going to give people the functionality that they want.” (Source: Joe Hockey, Interview with Leon Compton, ABC Tasmania, 8 June 2012)
The Coalition has long recognised that no single broadband technology suits all consumers and all areas of the nation. We also recognise that for many consumers broadband and wireless will be complementary (whereas for others they may well be direct substitutes, as noted above). This is why the Coalition advocates a technology-agnostic approach to upgrading broadband. Our broadband policy will rely on a mix of technologies to provide broadband to Australian households and businesses as soon as possible, at affordable prices, and at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers.
The sense of entitlement that we see among some of the most fervent supporters of Labor’s NBN is well-captured by the first commenter on your story on Delimiter. His/her response to the possibility that the Coalition might seek to spend less on the NBN? “My gaming days are numbered. The apocolypse approaches. Might as well end it now.”
I have absolutely no issue with the use of fast broadband for gaming, video-on-demand or the delivery of hundreds of channels of television (Cisco in June 2011 forecast that video in its various forms will account for 91 per cent of all consumer use of bandwidth in 2015). But it should be recognised that much use of a FTTP NBN will not contribute to economic productivity, and that running fibre into every one of 12.2 million homes and businesses is not the only way to achieve what we assume was Labor’s implicit – but never publicly stated – policy objective: to provide all Australians with fast broadband.
The Coalition policy on broadband at the next election will have that as its explicit objective, but will ensure it is achieved sooner and at a less exorbitant cost to taxpayers.
The following is an extract of Hockey’s conversation with Leon Compton on ABC Radio Tasmania on 8 June (only the portions relevant to the NBN):
PRESENTER: One of the issues raised out of the review into why you did so badly in Tasmania at the last federal election suggested that you didn’t have a suite of policies that were directed at Tasmanians. On the mainland you were talking about pulling out the National Broadband Network or changing tack on it. In Tasmania it was already being installed. Have you worked out your policies on the NBN?
JOE HOCKEY: Yes we have and Malcolm Turnbull has spoken at length about it.
PRESENTER: In Tasmania where it’s going to be very seriously installed by the time of the next election
JOE HOCKEY: Yeah but people aren’t taking it up Leon. People aren’t taking it up. In fact in Sorell I understand where it has been laid out the technology is obsolete at the moment and I understand this came out in senate estimates recently because it was installed before the deal was done between the NBN and Telstra. Which means the NBN in Sorell is certainly not going to be its going to be at the back of the list not at the front of the list in relation to the NBN.
PRESENTER: So what are you going to do about it?
JOE HOCKEY: Which means that the NBN in Sorell is certainly not going to be – it’s going to be at the back of the list, not at the front of the list, in relation to the NBN …
PRESENTER: But the infrastructure has been installed.
JOE HOCKEY: But people have to connect, people have to connect. And this is the thing. What we have said we are going to have a mix of technologies rather than rolling out cable outside everyone’s home. We are going to have a mix of technologies, including wireless and satellite and cable that is going to be much cheaper but it going to give people the functionality that they want. At the moment to connect from your home to the NBN and wire your home and go through the process can cost a $1,000, can cost a lot more and people haven’t got that discretionary sum available.
So what we say is we want to have a mix of technologies and we have advocated that. We want broadband for the nation, but we want to make sure it is sustainable broadband for the nation and there is a great deal of irony in the fact that when the Government did a deal with Telstra for the National Broadband Network I understand part of that deal identified that Telstra was not allowed to sell its new 4G technology as a competitor to the NBN because 4g has the capacity to be far superior to the NBN. So what does the Government do? It says well you are not allowed to market it as a competitor, I don’t know about you, but I use an iPad – the iPad I carry around in the car. I don’t have a cable dragging behind the car. I use wireless technology and I think that is the way functionality is going.
PRESENTER: Why do you think you didn’t win any Lower House seats at the last federal election?
JOE HOCKEY: Well, in Tasmania?
PRESENTER: In Tasmania.
JOE HOCKEY: We won a few everywhere else. Look, I don’t know. All I know is we have to spend a bit more time here and we have been doing that. I think the Government misled people during the course of the last campaign. I think there’s no doubt about that. You saw the Prime Minister say there would be no carbon tax in any government she’d lead, and there is one now.
So I think people were misled about the benefits of the NBN. And if you look at the connection rates in Tasmania, that would be confirmed. So, overall I think we’ve got to give people a message of hope. We want to show people that there is a path to a more prosperous Australia where everyone shares in the benefits and everyone, most importantly, has an opportunity. If they don’t want to participate,
Delimiter will respond to Hockey’s comments in a separate article on Friday morning. Image credit: Office of Joe Hockey.
Someone needs to explain the limited spectrum mobiles use and what happens when too many devices connect to a tower. ie. Melbourne CBD.
His understanding of such a thing would be detrimental to his argument.
Haha. So true!
Is it just me or does Hockey’s comeback clarify SFA? If anything it seems to reinforce his initial ignorant views more firmly.
Since the “context” to which he is referring Delimiter had taken him out of is so wrong in the first place, he’s got nowhere to run.
How is the context wrong?
Even the late John Linton admitted that a huge chunk of his ADSL customer base could be viably migrated to wireless solutions. The majority of broadband subscribers consume very little data. Conversely, the vast majority of traffic is accounted for by a small minority of users.
Duhh, Must be Liberal. Living and evaluating in the past. ADSL is starting to be inadequate, especially for upload. You may be surprised how many work from or want to work from home. And I guess he shuffled off this mortal coil before the internet and network enabled TV became a fact of life
I think you might be surprised by how small the group of people who work from home is compared to the regular workforce. It’s about 10%.
That’s a 9:1 ratio. That’s close to an order of magnitude difference.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/6275.0
you left out part of what he said. whats the % of those who want to work from home? the actual figure of those already working that way is 10%, whats the next tranche? id say that a large number of those with families would definitely WANT to work from home so as to improve quality of family life. as a group, of those who are and who want to, i suspect the total would be a fair bit larger than 10%.
oh and from your own link (click on ‘catching up at work’ link to follow) and you are immediately greeted with this (in 2008 numbers no less)
“Almost a quarter (24% or 2.4 million) of people employed in November 2008 worked some hours at home in either their main or second job, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).”
where were you getting the 10% figure from?
Agree, I already partly work from home, but there are times it would be great but due to the nature of the work, just difficult. ADSL doesn’t cut it, I need upload and download speeds.
Also more people able to work from home, which means less competition for things like child care spots, less demand means better competition and lower prices, plus the government would be paying less in subsidy.
I’m not suggesting you do both at once (parenting/working), but the flexibilty of dropping kids at school, working , picking kids up, and maybe some more work later that night wopuld suit a lot of people, especially as the second income in a family..
[Citation needed]
“Delimiter will respond to Hockey’s comments in a separate article on Friday morning. Image credit: Office of Joe Hockey.”
Friday is going to be a good day, I can tell.
Joe Hockey’s response (I wonder who wrote it for him?) does not seem to clear up anything at all.
If that’s a ‘clarification’, then the people responsible need to get a better idea of what they are talking about if they want to be taken seriously.
So it does sound as though Friday here will be interesting!
Hockeyphysics prevails.
If Hockeyphysics was a nightclub, then Shannon’s Law would get denied access for violating the dress code.
+1 would LOL again
+1
Can’t we go back to the hilarious old days when NBN advocates used to claim that photons travelled faster than wireless? I was a great gag, I don’t know why you guys gave up on it. Oh yeah, and the one about how rain does not attenuate Ka-band microwaves, that was worth a chuckle.
I have some new physics one liners you might be interested in:
* Every antenna is omni-directional.
* Waves have amplitude but there’s no such thing as phase.
* Holograms simply don’t exist.
Quick! Divert from the topic at hand!
So remind me who brought up the topic of “Hockeyphysics”?
Oh wait, the answer is right there up above, you just have to read it. Go right ahead you devil.
The fact that you can find random commenters on the internet who don’t understand physics is hardly surprising. But what does that have to do with federal politicians who need to resort to lying in order to sell their policy?
But don’t worry, you’ve successfully diverted the topic already and Hockey’s basic misunderstanding of the government’s policy is no longer the topic of disucssion. Well done.
Never seen those. Got a link?
You want me to buy you a physics textbook?
I already contribute to public education in this state, if you missed out then I’m sorry, but you have a second chance because I also chip in for public libraries and if you go there you can find people paid to help show you where the books are. Explain to them which topic you are interested in. They will even borrow from other libraries but you might have to wait a day or two.
No, I have more than enough physics, electronics and radio reference thanks.I guess I should have been more specific so as not to give you a chance to misinterpret my post as excuse to become insulting. I wanted links to the comments you are talking about.
Start with this one… then use you imagination…
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=NBN+%22nothing+travels+faster+than+light%22
Because we all love a good belly laugh, I’ll take the liberty to quote random results.
Ben Baxter @ Phill… Wow you are definitly a idiot ahaha… Im actually a liberal supporter you wanker but idiots like you making retarded statements such as that make us look like hicks… The initial cable lay is an investment that can not be outdated.. It is glass and light… NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT.. I think I learn that in Year 8 or did you finish in primary? Read or something sometime aye?
That one is a year old, I wonder how he feels today?
I’m sorry, Liberal Party, but nothing travels faster than light/laser. You can argue all you like, however Albert Einstein, whilst dead, will prove you wrong.
Egats, that one is only a few months old, more people should read Delimiter. This one is even funnier from a comment on the ABC:
BLACKMAGIC :
28 APR 2012 4:55:15PM
Nordic, When the laws of physics can be changed to make wireless work at the speed of light then you might have an case. But then there’s the contention issue that wireless can’t overcome. Contention means the more people on the channel, the slower the channel becomes for each user connected to it. Then there’s the restricted limit of wireless. I could go on, but there’s no need to. Contention and signal attenuation are safe places to rest my case.
This one is from the NBN itself:
What are the differences between satellite and fibre?
The signals travel at the speed of light just like they do over fibre. The main difference is the satellite signals have to travel a huge distance – to and from satellites positioned approximately 36,000 kilometres above the Earth.
Ha, ha, how funny is that? The NBN are installing fiber around Australia and they haven’t heard about refractive index. Good thing they aren’t doing much more than plugging in third party boxes and dragging cables. At least they understand that wireless does travel at the speed of light — I wonder why?
Bill Door says: 07:47am | 21/03/12
@ dovif
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. By definition nothing can transit data, light, faster than fiber optics.
This is a fact of physics.
Hopefully by now you embarrassed by the condition of our education system, but then again, physics is not compulsory, but you know I never did French at school, and I don’t go around pretending I can speak French either. Shall I keep searching? The joke is wearing off for me, and it’s starting to get me down.
OK, I thought you were talking about posts on Delimiter.
Yes, well I guess there are dumb comments made on both side. I am aware light only travels at only about 2/3 the speed of light in fibre in a vacuum and that radio waves travel at almost the speed of light in air. About 98% the speed of light in most metals, pretty needed to know that as one of my hobbies was designing and building aerials.
Don’t worry, people have had a go at it on Delimiter, they know who they are.
About the antenna design though, seriously there’s a lot of people who don’t believe you can have a microwave dish, and point it at another microwave dish and easily run 100Mbit over the link (so long as you have line of sight) even when other people are using the same chunk of air with their microwave dish pointing another direction at the same frequency. The air isn’t bothered by carrying two loads of data at once, it all comes down to making an antenna that will focus.
Then you have to explain to them what a phased array is… and they will still tell you, “but the laws of physics say”.
Some of them are just starting to get to grips with the idea that you can adjust the power of a signal.
Look I believe in Democracy, but I also believe in limitations to government power. We have to draw the line and decide that their are some aspects of life that government should not take over for us. I understand that some people in some areas get below average Internet access, but consider this example.
A political party discovers that some people have old crappy cars. They decide to spend taxpayer’s money buying everyone a car, even the people who were perfectly happy with their cars. The opposition says, “Hey that’s a dumb idea, and it will be expensive!”
The government says, “It won’t be expensive because we will get the money back by selling petrol.”
The opposition says, “No one will buy your petrol, they will buy from the existing petrol stations.”
The government says, “Ahh but we thought of that already… we are paying the existing petrol stations to close down so everyone will have to buy petrol from us.”
The opposition says, “Oh crap, petrol prices are going up!”
The government says, “How dare you accuse us of price fixing, it will be a very competitive market because you have the choice of paying for petrol with a wide variety of credit cards.”
The opposition says, “The price of petrol HAS to go up, or how can you pay for all those free cars (not to mention the money you are paying the petrol stations to close down).”
The government says, “You can trust us, it will all work, and we have a plan and everything. We pinky promise that they price of petrol won’t go up, and if it does go up you can blame the credit card companies.”
Delimiter says, “The opposition are a bunch of liars because when the government makes a pinky promise, that means it is true, true I say.”
The opposition says, “This has no chance of working, it’s all going to fall in a heap. By the way, why did you hire that General Motors guy to run this for you?”
The government says, “Well, the General Motors guy is an expert on cars, otherwise how would we know that GM sells the best cars? The laws of mechanical engineering say there will never be a better car than a GM.”
The opposition says, “What about trains?”
The government says, “You idiot! You know nothing! GM don’t even make trains.”
The opposition says, “What about bicycles?”
The government says, “You probably want everyone to ride a bicycle all the time, huh? You just hate poor people. Besides bicycles don’t use any petrol so no one is allowed to call a bicycle a transportation device, from now on bicycles are strictly for recreation only, and anyway they aren’t fast enough.”
The opposition says, “What about bicycles going downhill with the wind behind?”
The government says, “Still not fast enough. Look at this dreadful situation where a man left his bicycle in the rain and it rusted. Have you no compassion? Don’t you care about the rusty bicycle man?”
Head explodes.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. Data to the home is not something new, it’s a service that is rapidly becoming close to electricity, gas and water. It’s a utility.
The thing I like about the NBN plan over the Coalition plan is that the NBN shows exactly what they are doing. From the Coalition? Simply not enough information. Until I see a plan I just assume a half arsed minimal rollout. I’ts not like Abbott really gives a crap if anyone gets anything. It is pretty obvious that most of the Liberal party think the status quo is acceptable for the forseeable future. If they had a plan with detail I’d weigh it up, but they don’t. Call me cynical, but all I see is them giving lip service to doing something simply to get into government. And since they haven’t actually given any concrete details they have effective promised nothing.
I hope you aren’t serious.
The first and largest flaw in your analogy is that fixed line telecoms, like electricity, gas and water, is a natural monopoly. Car manufacturing and petrol supply…is not. If a few people want a new car, they can just go out and buy one. There is no logical reason to force everyone to get a new car (which seems to be where you get confused with the NBN).
I want FTTH *now*. I cannot get it. It would cost considerably more than a new car to get it installed. However, if everyone in my suburb wanted it, the labour costs would be split a hundred ways and the cost would be much more reasonable. The NBN applies this principle on a national scale.
Don’t look at cars and petrol. Look at the roads.
You can’t build a road (plus all connecting roads!) for each individual that requests it. You build a road past every house, even if some people are happy to just ride their bike through dirt or walk.
What makes it all so much sadder is that the NBN is a last mile network anyhow. It wouldn’t make any difference if it was 1/2 the speed of light, 1/10 the speed of light or even 1/100 the speed of light… it’s only going a few kilometers and then it gets onto the backbone networks which are ALREADY FIBER, and have been for a decade. I can remember seeing Telstra guys dragging fiber through the streets and installing “mini exchanges” in private office buildings probably close to 20 years ago.
Anyone who wants to have a dig at Joe Hockey’s understanding of physics, really should start by taking a look at the NBN advocates out there.
Actually the way I see the difference between the policies, the whole cruxs of the matter isn’t the technology, because eventually it will be FTTH. It’s how much life FTTN will have and that depends on how fast it will roll out and how the increase in data usage goes in future. I am not sure the straight interpolation of some sources is correct as are sometimes slowdowns in the many computering curves. For example I think memory and disk capacity have reach a slight plateau and for many user so too with CPU power. Until more memory and CPU intensive tasks become more common the need for constant upgrades has slowed somewhat. I do feel that maybe there will be a flattening of data consumption too. Once the goals of HD video for viewing and teleconference are there the next capaicty leap would be new applications. So a lot depends on the speed obtained with FTTN whether this plateau can be reached.
I am not sure what they are planning with FTTN. If they think they can get the 80Gb that were obtained in English trials they have some work to do and time to wait. The vectoring VDSL2 required for elimination of crosstalk that raises 20-30Gb VDSL2 to the 80Gb VDSL2 requires all customers to be connected to the same VDSLAM (ie. no infrastructure competition) and all customers to have vectoring VDSL2 modems (not available yet except as multi thousand dollar business grade equipment).
For a family household wanting multiple HD streams 30Gb isn’t sufficient, closer to 100Gb would safely allow this. Small business is also another consideration. There are a certain number of people and businesses who could benefit greatly from 1Gb FTTH, especially FTTH’s higher upstream capacity. Photographers wanting to send multiple hires raw images, video, etc. So it would be nice if FTTN allowed customers to pay for replacement of copper with fibre to allow for this. This would also require excess capacity from the nodes to the exchange. I would really hate to see FTTN rolled out, especially when I have seen figures like greater than 12Mb minimum mentioned. 12Mb won’t cut it. Unless the FTTN is latest technology, closer to 80Gb average, I really don’t see it lasting past 2016. If they can make it that most people can get 80Gb, that there is a fibre option for business and they get it rolled out quick it may have some value. If not it’s a stepping stone that isn’t needed and will hold back FTTH to a time that FTTN will be as painful as being stuck on dialup.
It shouldn’t even be a government decision. All they are supposed to do is keep a level playing field and allow competition. The worst thing government did for comms in Australia was create the behemoth Telstra and set it loose, but just as we started to see a blossoming industry of greenfields fiber installers who could compete with Telstra and start to create alternative infrastructure, suddenly government steps in and decides to take it all over again and drive the little guys out of business.
There has actually been MORE COPPER put into the ground (yes brand new copper) thanks to the NBN than what would have been the case without it… and they have promised to rip it out and replace it with fiber, but it would have been fiber already by now if the NBN hadn’t gone around killing off the competitors.
Yes, if it was left to private enterprise, some areas would get better Internet than others, and strangely enough some areas have more theatres than others, better restaurants, better views, whiter beaches, bigger mountains, shopping centres, more trees, more grass, and even differently priced houses. That’s how it is, not all suburbs are the same as every other suburb, but not all people are exactly the same either.
Once again, I we will have to agree to disagree. As I mentioned above I see data more and more as a utility, not a luxury. I don’t know all the companies but Opticom is hardly a small startup, they are part of the Hills group. Also, based on their press releases, they are pretty happy about the NBN.
Whether it is government or private putting in the network the same thing happens. People are employed to do it. The difference is where the money goes and how much profit is taken. I’d rather the government. If they make no money at least they aren’t aiming for 25% ROI and paying CEOs millions a year and entirely focused on pushing share prices up so the CEOs options are worth more. If the government makes lots of money, great, it can be used to fund other things and take some of the burden off being tax payers.
When it comes to government spending, if they said to me “We are going to spend a few thousand per person on something and we are asking you to choose what to spend it on” “A. A state of the art communication system for everyone in Australia that will meet out needs for the next 50 years at least. Or B. Some submarine for the navy” I would ge with the communication every time. And that is government spending. It’s ok for them to spend money on some subs that will probably only ever be used to train a small number of submariners that if push comes to shove would make near zero difference if god forbid Australia found itself at war with virtually anyone but it’s not worth spending on connecting every Australian with a high quality communications system?
I’m sorry Tel, but you’re arguments are not convincing so far.
Yes, the NBN reduces competition and yes, that competition will take longer to re-emerge than if left to its’ own courses. But the fact of the matter is it has been getting close to 20 years since Telstra was privatised and they STILL own 85% of the fixed line infrastructure. Small (as yet) fibre companies competing in the Greenfields are a boon, but as Noddy has said, many of them are glad of the NBN. They get paid by NBNCo. to do the same work they’ve been doing, except now that work will likely increase, seeing as their main competition in Telstra gets largely removed. No, they can’t offer retail services over their own network now, but likely they will be more focussed already on the applications fibre can bring to new homes so can target these applications and provide better services than many of the current ISP’s just getting on fibre.
Also, Greenfields only make up some 140 000 premises a year. At close to 13 Million premises total, that’s only just over 1% of premises a year being serviced by fibre in the current system and that is without competition from Telstra reducing these numbers. This is hardly large competition OR affecting a large portion of Australians.
The current debacle which you’ve discussed, about more copper going in because of the NBN, is one sided; it is not NBNCo.’s fault this happened, it was a loophole event that meant Telstra HAD to provide these Greenfields with copper under the USO while the terms were still being settled for fibre operators to build for NBNCo. As you say, they will get fibre, just as everyone else. The unfortunate thing in this money is wasted, seeing as Telstra will get paid to offload these Greenfields to the NBN under their contract, rather than never getting them in the first place as would be the case now. This was as much Telstra’s fault in delay signing their Heads of Financial Agreement.
FTTN has significant issues in Australia. As Noddy has stated, the setup required for VDSL2 is difficult, and expensive, in this country particularly. Not ONLY does the requirement of VDSLAM’s mean no ULL AT ALL, meaning no competition AGAIN, the speeds above 50Mbps can only be achieved with 2 bonded pairs. There are MANY areas in Australia, particularly regional and rural, that barely have decent access to 1 bonded pair. Quite often they will have been shifted to a new spare bonded pair because of quality issues. VDSL2 also only has significant speed gains over ADSL2 within 700m of the exchange and VDSL1 within only 1.2Km of the exchange. Seeing as 60% of Australians live more than 2km from their exchange, that’s an AWFUL lot of cabinets for any improvement on ADSL speeds under FTTN architecture. There are 5000 exchanges now, which means ~3000 of them, minimum, will need extra cabinets closer to premises to see improvement in speeds. At 13 Million premises, that means there are (using VERY rough maths, obviously it would vary quite alot) 2600 people per exchange.
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/14/3524848.htm
Cisco believe a contention ratio of 8 premises per node is required to see future speeds of over 100Mbps, possibly up to 300Mbps using FTTN architecture and VDSL technologies. (not to mention high quality copper lines….which is a contentious issue here at Delimiter….) Obviously, there are already many sub-exchanges that split these areas up, but even with 10 sub-exchanges per ESA (I don’t have numbers on these, this is a guess, please feel free to correct if you have numbers otherwise), that’s still a contention ratio of 26:1. So to get it even CLOSE to 8:1, you would need at LEAST one node extra per sub-exchange, which means 20 nodes per ESA, or at 3000 ESA’s about 60 000 cabinets.
Quite obviously 60 000 is on the ridiculously high side, hence the rough maths, but even 1/5 of that, which I think would be closer to the real-world needs, would see 12 000 nodes needed. This would be utterly unreasonable- there’s only 5000 exchanges for goodness sake, so many of these areas would miss out on node-splitting. I think 6000-8000 would be closer to what would be rolled out, which means that only some 50-60% of the 60% who need this upgrade would get it under FTTN. The rest would be stuck on ADSL, hopefully with Top-hat upgrades if they don’t already have them, or fixed wireless. That would mean approx. 25% of Australian premises would still be on copper, or have fixed wireless/satellite. This is almost 4 times higher than on the NBN at 7%, which I would STILL like to see lower.
You may believe fast broadband is a luxury item, as you clearly do. But I would challenge you to do a poll in just your own street and see what answer you get. Good luck getting a negative answer from a family, particularly one with kids older than 5 and PARTICULARLY one with teenagers.
The Coalition clearly believe reasonable price, fast, reliable broadband is largely a plaything. This is GROSSLY arrogant and wrong. It is ALREADY a necessity to do business outside of the local community (ie if you don’t run a coffee shop or fish and chip store), it is a MASSIVE necessity for students and professionals in academia and it is fast becoming a necessity to individuals to stay in contact day to day, to shop conveniently and swiftly (even within Australia) and to simply enjoy life.
Mobile wireless has increased the Internet’s pervasiveness (I’d also like to know whether you believe a mobile phone is a luxury these days, seeing as they were practically non-existent only 20 years ago….much like the internet) but the latest figures from the ABS show 93% of all data in Australia is carried on fixed networks. And this is unlikely to go down much- the article above has Cisco predicting as many companies as possible trying to offload as much data as possible off of mobile wireless networks due to their inherent restrictions in bandwidth thanks to, your old friend, physics! Unless you suggest we all walk around with microwave dishes pointed at our nearest micro-tower to ensure low contention? No, I didn’t think you were silly.
There are problems with the NBN- the lack of competition, the pricing strategy on CVC wholesale, the complications arising from apartment complexes and others. But there are many, MANY more problems with the Coalition plan, which, as Noddy has already said, we don’t have enough information on anyway.
Could the Coalition plan do it cheaper? Quite possibly. Could it do it better? To some minority, possibly, yes. Could it provide ubiquitous, reliable and decently priced access to “super-fast” broadband for the next 30-50 years to the VAST majority of Australians? Not on your life. Nor mine either.
Small greenfields fiber companies are glad of the NBN… really?
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/jcnbn/bill/subs/sub1.pdf
Australian Government Competitive Neutrality Policy for Government Owned Businesses, like NBN
Co, dictates that no competitive advantages should be given to NBN Co over private sector
competitors by virtue of their public sector ownership. Yet the Government has established NBN Co
as the only FTTP provider with $Billions able to capitalise the cost of building FTTP networks based
on some expectation of a small return on investment if and when NBN Co is ever sold.
Government funding even to the extent of the USO contribution for each new connections (about
$1000/connection) has not been available to GFOA carriers. Legislation already prevents cherry- picking and this Bill will dictate fibre or fibre readiness in all new
Greenfields.
It is the perception of GFOA and generally by commercial carriers and operators that the
Government does not intend for NBN Co to have any competitors in new developments, especially
in Greenfields.
There’s nothing in that document to suggest they are happy about what is being done to them, quite the contrary. By the way, if people want to accuse Hockey of dishonesty w.r.t. the $1000 per install figure, then maybe explain why the USO contribution is very much the same figure. I would expect that people happy to accuse other of being sloppy would take a bit of time to read the background material.
The thing is, government right now is still giving both Telstra and NBN massive subsidies to beat out smaller operators. The fact that even in the face of this, the smaller greenfield operators are surviving at all should immediately demolish the rubbish arguments about “natural monopoly” blah blah.
Opticomm’s submission claimed:
Consideration of allocating funds, be it from the USO fund or via soft loans, to the private sector (provided they ensure they meet wholesale only, open access requirements and also deliver the same outcome as the NBN) so to level the “playing field” and provide Developers with a wider, richer choice of options. The funding should be in the order of $1,500 per dwelling unit.
… and also …
We therefore hope it is not the intent, nor the outcome of this legislation, that we seethe Ministers
much heralded structural reform of the telecommunications industry, result in even less competition
within Greenfields.
This we fear would be the Greenfields outcome should we see Government policy resulting in NBN
Co, simply replacing Telstra as the incumbent monopoly and perhaps being even further out of reach
of competition due to new legislation protection.
Stephen Davies from Opticomm posted to WP in 2011 saying, “Opticomm is going from strength to strength.” and I have no better knowledge than he does. Opticomm offer RF sub-carriers for cable TV, as well as regular data networks so maybe that gives them a small technical edge over the NBN technology. Certainly Opticomm have a lot more experience, and they got some work out of NBN’s Tasmania trial so presumably they are a bit happy about that.
In reply to seven_tech:
“Also, Greenfields only make up some 140 000 premises a year.”
That would be about 20 times bigger than the total active NBN customer base on fiber to date.
Wow…..all my points and you picked private fibre operators to argue on?
As I said, private fibre operators in Greenfields make up around 1% of the market a year…..
Fine, you’ve quite happily convinced me fibre operators aren’t particularly happy with the NBN…..now, can we get back to the OTHER 99% of Australia?
“That would be about 20 times bigger than the total active NBN customer base on fiber to date.”
Brilliant. I’ve never seen this argument before…..
How about we wait 1 year, then see if this argument still holds?…..
Here’s another quote regarding greenfields and NBN:
Greenfields operators affected by NBN Co’s entrance into the market have been forced to lower their pricing for fibre reticulation in new developments in order to compete.
But some have resolved to “grin and bear” the Productivity Commission’s decision.
“I think the Government’s position on this is wrong, very wrong,” Opticomm general manager of regulatory and carrier relations, Phil Smith, said.
“I think the Productivity [Commission] has got it wrong and I think the NBN greenfields model still needs a lot of work.”
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/288123,greenfields-lobby-group-escalates-nbn-complaint.aspx
That doesn’t sound pretty happy about the NBN to me, I would say, got it wrong puts forward the position quite clearly.
How about we wait 1 year, then see if this argument still holds?…..
No problem, how about I draw a line in the sand for you? I think they never even hit 100,000 fiber customers in the next 12 months before the election. I mean actual paying customers, not passed by his house, or gave away some free trials. What’s your prediction?
“No problem, how about I draw a line in the sand for you? I think they never even hit 100,000 fiber customers in the next 12 months before the election. I mean actual paying customers, not passed by his house, or gave away some free trials. What’s your prediction?”
Considering if you look at the Corporate Plan (current, not the yet to be released) we are almost EXACTLY one year behind in their predictions, I would assume that their predictions would be correct in that we’ll see some 130 000 odd people on the NBN by June/July next year. However for my own predictions on numbers, I will wait for the new Corporate Plan before making any, seeing as the old Plan did not yet FULLY incorporate:
– The Telstra Deal
– The Optus Deal
– The USO requirements
– Incorrect Address data (was not foreseen at all, seeing as they assumed, like every other company, that is was correct)
My own predictions DO however extend to saying, those of you who continue to insist that NBNCo. is a waste of money will:
1- Say it right up until the day you’re connected to the NBN….and then go silent
2- Will see JUST how much of a “waste of money” it is if the Coalition form a government and go to town on the whole thing. THAT will be a waste of money.
My PREDICTION is that in 10 years time, if the NBN is allowed to continue unabated, the vast, VAST majority of premises will be connected to it and we will all be wondering why so much time was spent arguing over whether it would work or not.
Tel. I note your substantial comment on the greenfield operators. Also their statement
“The funding should be in the order of $1,500 per dwelling unit.”
So hands into the taxpayer wallet with no return to the taxpayer, situation normal for the private sector comms companies
Hats-off to Mr Hockey for engaging in the debate and responding publicly.
I really, truly hope this type of dialogue continues and that more MPs get involved.
This open dialogue is extremely beneficial to everyone on both sides of the NBN debate.
Sadly, Hockey’s comments on here are likely not repeated regularly through mainstream media, the same way that his prior newsgrab-worthy comments were. The damage has been done, and the misinformation has already occured.
Noone ever pays attention to retractions, only the headlines.
LMAO
The reality filter is strong on this one.
What misinformation? What retraction?
He did say no one takes notice of them. I see you’re proving his point. Retractions, such as The Australian has published a number times, are usually not given a early page or a big eye catching headline like the original article, but hidden away up the back pages.
Yeah I didn’t see a retraction only a correction about Sorell.
But no misinformation? LoL surely you jest! $1000 from someone talking about a mix of technology! It’s absurd. It’s like 802.11n and selectively laying ethernet to key devices just skipped Joe’s mind. Joe can’t talk about a mix of technology and then selectively ignore that in the home.
Yes I lived in a suburb where alot of people used wireless and guess what it was so bad that I could not load a website if having an internet connection you CAN NEVER use is acceptable to someone then fine but wireless can not have a huge capacity due to the limitations of wireless technology.
Not having internet reduces GDP and productivity because without a usable connection it is not possible to shop online visit website which creates revenues for websites it also does not allow you to do any work after hours from home which increase productivity.
There are so many technical and basic logic flaws in his response that I don’t know where to begin. So I will just start at the beginning.
– By claiming he was misrepresented when talking about capacity meaning bandwidth, he admits that 4G has capacity issues. Yet ignores the fact that these capacity issues would be detrimental to 4G’s ability to provide “baseload” broadband access.
“For many households, wireless broadband has the capacity to be superior to fibre to the premises (FTTP) in the broader sense of value for money, convenience, nearness of availability/deployment and many of the numerous other attributes that a consumer might consider when weighing these alternatives.”
– There are zero examples of 4G being cheaper than fibre, if you measure it as a ratio of data provided. Oh that’s right, we are ignoring “capacity”. Convenience? True. Nearness of availibility/deployment? What does that even mean? Numerous other factors? So numerous he can’t name them. Sloppy Joe, very sloppy.
– He takes the provision that 4G not be advertised as a NBN equivalent as an admission that 4G is just as good or better. This is a logical leap at best, a wilful misconstruing of the facts at worst. You simply need to do better than that when talking about measurable technology.
“Superiority does not simply denote speed”
– Again, admits that the NBN will be faster than 4G. So we are ignoring capacity AND speed now. For the sake of “convenience”, with the example of the most popular tablet in the world, which isn’t 4G compatible.
“Wireless technology additionally offers mobility, portability and convenience for the end user.”
– Here he makes it sound like there are 3 advantages, where its just 3 words meaning the same thing. He then falsely claims that mobile providers don’t sign people up for long contracts. For me personally, my mobile contract is much longer than my fixed line broadband contract.
– Regarding the second section, he makes the same misleading claim we have seen many times before where if you get the NBN, you are simply FORCED to install network sockets all around your home. You certainly couldn’t just run a network cable neatly around the edge of a room, or run a wireless point (not so convenient now for some reason) . It’s the exact same situation we have now with our phone service, or what we already face in a household which has many network conected devices. I got a phone/data plug, central splitter and a dedicated phone only plug installed in my house for around $250. $1000? Pfft. Who is being misleading?
I can’t talk with any authority regarding the Tasmanian issue, it doesn’t sound like as much of an issue as he is claiming though. Yet regarding the 4th section, why is he even comparing 4G to fibre if it is only one part of their broadband solution?
“mobility, portability and convenience for the end user” But isn’t the NBN delivering fixed wireless? And if so why would changing RSPs be any more or less onerous for renters than would be the case for fibre? Surely given the clear wholesale/ retail split with the NBN, changing RSPs will cease being the nightmare it is now.
Joe’s using THAT calculator again:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64041833@N04/6999108137/in/photostream
LOL!
we need the FTTH model that the NBN brings to support the burgeoning mobile spectrum so that bottle necks don’t appear at towers…if everyone in the CBD decided to make a call at the same time, the spectrum just could not handle the amount of data being shunted from tower to tower…the cable in the ground solves that issue by ‘trunking’ between towers in proximity to the user; what don’t these people get about this fact?
You might have figured out that it is a lot cheaper to install fiber just to towers, rather than everyone’s front door. Especially so when about two thirds of the existing towers already have fiber backhaul.
The other towers tend to use line-of-site point to point microwave, which has 1 GHz of available physical already allocated (from 10GHz to 11GHz I believe), and no it’s not shared because point-to-point is a tight bean between a pair of dishes. Take a look at the towers on any major highway at or near busy intersections… you see the microwave dish on the back or side.
Are you actually suggesting wireless is an acceptable medium for delivering nex-gen broadband to every home in Australia? Even current-gen broadband to every home?
I corrected Simon T Wolf who does not appear to understand how our current wireless network operates.
Issue 1
“For many households, wireless broadband has the capacity to be superior to fibre to the premises (FTTP) in the broader sense of value for money, convenience, nearness of availability/deployment and many of the numerous other attributes that a consumer might consider when weighing these alternatives.”
FttP is Cheaper than wireless has the convenience of being able to use it when you want as opposed to congested wireless networks which only work between 2am and 5 am and sometimes during the day.
So you have pointed out the positives of FttP but where are the positives for Wireless The positive for wireless is portablility which is why it is good for mobile devices the positive for fttp is speed affordability download quota.
You also state wireless providers which provide fixed wireless in vivid wireless if there was a choice of vivid wireless and NBN it would be a no contest NBN is faster cheaper with bigger quotas and both are not portable you would have to be extermly silly to say that you would pay more for an inferior service.
Issue 2
The cost to hook up a housein the way you are implying is the same for all technologies the only reason people would be more likly to spend on faster cabling is simply because it is a faster network ADSL is not fast enough to justify setting up a home network and the same is true of 4G simply becase of how slow they are in comparison to NBN if 4G was as fast as the NBN then the same costs would apply to wiring a house and is thus an entierly moot point
Issue 3
It is so bad that people in Tasmania can ONLY get 100Mbps/40Mbps until the equipment is upgraded BUT then again they will likly be among the first to get 2nd gen GPON which will likly be UPWARDS of 10,000Mbps
Issue 4
A mixture of technologies is never a good thing as you can not derive enonomies of scale for purchases which means that future upgrades will be MUCH more EXPENSIVE and if you could see beyond the next election at what is best for the future of this country you would understand this unfortunalty your Party lacks vision beyond the 3 year election cycle
Mobility can also be taken out in some cases due to city councils and some private business developing free fixed wireless networks. A prime example is the Wollongong Crown Street Mall. Wollongong City council has been planning to set up a wireless network with free access all throughout the CBD. The Crown Street Mall already has a free wifi solution in place.
@AJ While I absolutely agree with you, I doubt we will need to use anecdotal evidence for the case of fixed line and wireless.
Using ABS stats (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8153.0Chapter7Dec%202011) , for the period from Dec 2010 to Dec 2011 wireless consumption of data grew from 16,990 TB to 23,142 TB while during that same period, fixed line data grew from 174,665 TB in Dec 2010 to 322,280 TB in Dec 2011.
Using these statistics we can see that 93% of Australia’s data is being moved via the fixed line network, not the wireless network which was never meant to substitute for a fixed line, but rather to compliment it.
The fibre infrastructure the NBNco is delivering will ensure that for the 21st century Australian will have access to communication infrastructure that will be vital for GDP growth and productivity in this century.
Furthermore, according to the best estimates by network hardware providers like Cisco, the average increase for data in households will be exponential with coming technologies including 3D-HD, Super Hi-Vision (8K resolution) and those are what we know about.
It is clear that we have really no idea as to where this century will take us. However, we can plan for where we want to be, and Joe to be fair, stop talking shit at the same time. Moreover Malcolm Turnbull who actually knows what he is talking about, needs to be less partisan in the portfolio he has, regardless of how soon the Coalition thinks it will be back in power.
Issue 1:
The ONLY attribute wireless has over fixed services is mobility. In every other way it is not even within orders of magnitude of the performance of a fibre network, including speed (burst and sustained), latency, susceptibility to congestion, uptime etc.
BTW, if you want a really really great wireless network, your first step should be to install a fast reliable fixed network to soak up all the mundane traffic, thereby freeing the airwaves from background noise.
Issue 2:
I look forward to your statement that wireless will also cost $1000 per house beyond the dongle, since the costs you mention are largely divorced from the data delivery mechanism. Actually wireless might be cheaper because there is no need for a TV box if you don’t have the capacity (sorry to reuse your word) to receive the data in the first place.
Issue 3:
Please.
Issue 4:
The NBN is a mix of technologies. Glad you agree.
And how dare you criticise how Australians choose to use the internet! The sheer gall to suggest that if it doesn’t add to productivity its not worthwhile! Guess the Liberal agenda also includes blocking access to things like facebook since there is no way on earth anyone could say that place adds to productivity.
Issue 5:
There is no issue 5. Thats all you have? wow.
Apologies tyrone, wasnt meant to be a reply to you ;)
:) all good
I realised that my post to AJ was in fact for a post further up the page
As more corporates have a Facebook presence, some (competitive pressures: more later) are likely to become more responsive to customers. That sounds like better productivity to me. And is the nation “being productive” when it sets aside time to watch Joe on Q and A?
For example, if the ONT is at the front of the house but the office or lounge room is at the back of the house, then to take advantage of the speeds that fibre offers it will often be necessary to install new internal wiring in the home…
Shit I have to wire up my house now?! Damn guess I have to get rid of my Billioin 7300N which has a WIFI access point. Bugger it’s also at the front of my house and my wife uses her laptop at the back of the house. Oh wait it’s a politician who’s shit speaking about stuff he has nfi about…
Wasn’t Hockey just claiming that “Wireless will be the future”?
I think his issue is if you get a 100/40 NBN plan then you won’t be able to get the full speed 100Mbps via wifi. Shock horror. I guess all the people using Ultimate cable have wired their house too?
802.11n
802.11n still can’t do the full 100Mbps in the real world, even if it advertises at 300Mbps connection. Maybe close when right next to the AP, but not when ~20m away through walls etc.
Quite amusing to see Hockey still selectively banging on about entitlement as well, even after his overseas speech on the subject was picked up here and he was forced to make exceptions for means-tested healthcare rebates, child care rebates, paid parental leave, or any of the other Liberal-supported entitlements that they intend to shovel at the general public to buy their votes.
Not that Labor are much different in this regard.
“Other operators will also be in a position to roll out 4G wireless, offering both fixed and mobile services. VividWireless for example ”
I have used Vividwireless in Perth and Joe I have to say that it is no way comparable to even my slowish ADSL connection. Erratic speed, frequent dropouts and appalling latency (i.e. time taken for a response from internet sites) .
How anybody could say that this type of wireless internet is what our average home user would be happy with I just do not know.
Also remember the average household usually has a lot more than just one user so even if you think “slower” interenet is better for most , try dividing that between say 4 members of a household and what to you get ? yes that’s right VERY slow.
How anybody could say that this type of wireless internet is what our average home user would be happy with I just do not know.
Where did he say that?
Joe didn’t, but you did, which I quote below, already, in this article to directly imply that wireless is what the majority of subscribers will be happy with.
“Even the late John Linton admitted that a huge chunk of his ADSL customer base could be viably migrated to wireless solutions. The majority of broadband subscribers consume very little data. Conversely, the vast majority of traffic is accounted for by a small minority of users.”
If you’re going to prop up a dead man in your arguments, you shouldn’t try to contradict yourself.
Feel free to come visit Artmidale, first mainland site to go live.
Please Joe, ask how much money they had to spend to get connected, how much money they spend each month. Turn up to the Nationals Party meeting and ask them how many of them are connected.
The Armidale experience seems to be completely ignored by the Liberals AND the Nationals.
I have plenty of voters here in Armidale who have real world experience with the NBN, not the theoretical whingers.
Feel like talking to the Vice Chancellor of USQ – who also has no idea. Would love to put the UNE VC, Jim Barber and her in the same room.
Please Joe, ask how much money they had to spend to get connected, how much money they spend each month.
Yes, and please ask NBNco how much the Armidale roll-out costs; how much revenue they are currently generating from the Armidale network; and finally, how much money they are currently losing.
Year end 30 Jun 2012 financial accounts should be ready by October or so.
Including revenues, expenses and assets.
It could be released earlier but a proper audit takes some time.
Not that Joe would know about that after the CPC violation for the coalition election estimates.
Why not look at Australia as a whole? The attitiude of only putting access where it’s profitable seems very selfish. Should we not provide water, electricity or gas to the unprofitable areas too? What about food, seems a waste of people to run it out there.
I hope he is capable of grasping the concept, which judging by his response may well be problematical, that one of the very important aspects of the NBN is the ability to effectively load shed volume data off wireless to maintain the quality to be of value. This is one of the issues facing the US with their competitive infrastructure model the mobile carriers fixed infrastructure coverage is only partial crippling that ability., that issue will be simply, efficiently and elegantly addressed by our NBN by its design, ubiquity and being wholesale.
$1,000 install, 4000 customers installed and many are being installed as commercial customers right now. Simple – ask don’t just assume, you know what that makes of you. It will in many cases just be a replacement of their existing service with no cost, most homes these days use networked devices using either wired or WiFi, a WiFi router is relatively cheap and enables your mobile device to switch to the fixed far cheaper service SAVING much on Mobile Data costs and in most cases a better service
“.Many Australian consumers (such as tenants or others not willing to sign long contracts and pay installation costs) may for these reasons choose wireless broadband ahead of fixed line technology.”
That is the beauty of the STANDARDISED NBN model, one simple interface to plug a router in, no installation, or Modems whether ADSL,VDSL,Cable etc required. With the NBN’s capability to connect the service within hours, there will be (I did read some time ago of there being a specialist short term uncontracted option with a provider) short term flexible options. Whether avaliable now or not, it will be due to market demand (the good old competitive tensions hey). The hodge podge technology mix that is the coalitions Mickey Mouse option of course doesn’t have that capacity due to the equipment costs and need for modems.
That is just for starters without how is it to be paid for, and what lare the ong term subsidies of the private sector built into the coalitions model, what will it cost over 10 years in subsidies and gifts. That will be on the budget bottom line, so what services are you going to cut for it. The NBN Model will actually have paid for itslef or close to by than. Who is the better economic managers?
… one simple interface to plug a router in, no installation, or Modems whether ADSL,VDSL,Cable etc required.
How long have modems had ethernet? You are still using RS232 I guess?
So what’s this amazing NBN standard that will shake the world? Oh yeah, more ethernet, same as what everyone already has. Please pause your reading to give me time to run in small circles of excitement.
Anyhow, fiber still requires a modem, they just call it a different name… thrills galore right there. Call your modem a new name if you like, call it George.
Well Mr Hockey thinks there is some difference between ADSL modem ethernet and NBN ethernet because apparently you have to spend thousands to rewire your house so you can use the NBN.
Actually he’s probably right, it will cost around $1000 to rewire someone premises for NBN, he’s just very vague about it (but kinda clarifies it in the article above).
The cost is the cost involved of changing the delivery to the premises from ULL to fiber, and installing the relevent NBN equipment to connect the customer. That cost is included in the cost of the NBN, ie. it’s part of the NBN rollout costs.
The assumption that each and every premises connecting to the NBN will be required to spend $1000+ rewiring is false, they don’t have to spend anything directly.
That said, if you do decide to go onto the 100/40 plan, then it’s probably a good idea to make sure your premises can handle at the very least 100Mb so you can fully utilise the service, but doing that is not a requirement of connecting to the NBN.
One the 100Mb. Most people would have at least 100Mb ethernet if they had it at all. If not they are even being limited in their file copying. People who are into video probably alread have gigabit and unless your ethernet cable is of extremely poor quality the same cable for 100Mb would be fine for 1Gb. Wireless, maybe those on 11g will go for 11n, it might not be necessary, depends on what they use the wireless for.
Sorry if I don’t give Mr Hockey any credit at all for being sort of right like you have. He was clearly stating that the house would need to be rewired above what the NBN was providing. I cannot believe they are still trying to scare people with the line, and he was very foolish to attempt it on a tech news site. All he did was reduse his credibility even further.
“So what’s this amazing NBN standard that will shake the world? Oh yeah, more ethernet, same as what everyone already has. Please pause your reading to give me time to run in small circles of excitement.
Anyhow, fiber still requires a modem, they just call it a different name… thrills galore right there. Call your modem a new name if you like, call it George.”
Actually on FTTN, a VDSL modem is required- currently only high priced, mainly business applications exist in Australia. Obviously this would come down if a FTTN network was to go in, but it would still likely be several hundred dollars per household….much like the NTU going on peoples walls under the NBN….
The router in most people’s homes plug into BOTH these “modems” and are BOTH as valid…..so there’s actually not really that much to criticise either way really….
The point about Hockey’s comment here is, as you seem to have chosen to ignore, that he states it may cost $1000 to “rewire your home for the NBN”, which, seeing as others have already explained and you certainly appear a turned on cookie, I don’t need to explain is JUST. PLAIN. FALSE.
Well, that sort of proves the point that a little knowledge is dangerous. Especially when that little knowledge is biased. Arguments like having to wire a home for FTTH so it would cost users thousands. Total garbage. If they are using ADSL now any current wiring would be fine. If they are using wireless it would be fine. If eventually they wen’t gigabit they may need to upgrade their wireless but at least FTTH allows gigabit.
Joe, the wireless coverage in North Sydney might be OK for you but I live in Malcom Turnbull’s electorate across the harbour from you and it’s terrible. I’m hardly in a remote area and yet 3G isn’t fast enough for my ipad.
I’d like to donate $50 to the cause of getting Minister Hockey a 4G card plus a wireless router so that he can run his whole office off of 4G, seeing as it is obviously as good as if not better then the proposed NBN, and let me see how long that lasts. Anyone else care to donate to such a worthy cause?
If Joe had the courage of his convictions, he would go wireless as you suggest and report back. As if…
Why donate, since it is more cost effective according to him!
I’ll give him $100. Cause he’ll need a Telstra hotspot that can default to 3G, seeing as 4G is only selectively available at the moment.
Mmmm, a government minister trying to do all correspondence over 3G…..that’d be an interesting sight….
Hockey is right, to a point, that being that a wireless service is being used by the NBN to support high speed services and could be used to deliver services.
The problem is that he uses the example of carrying his iPad around and using it’s 3G connection.
The NBN connection are fixed provisioned, so yeah they might be mobile to a point but once you get beyond the range of the tower you’re provisioned on you have no service.
This problem with deliverying a 3G based move about NBN is it will encounter the same issues as telco networks today have, that being that people move about, and at certains times of the day you’ll need a lot more bandwidth in certain areas to handle the load and at other times in the same area traffic will be near nothing.
Basically a 4G/whatever wifi based NBN would need to be massively overprovisioned to deliver a guaranteed minimum level of service.
Where did Joe Hockey say or imply that the NBN should entirely be based off “wireless”?
All he’s arguing is not everyone’s requirements are the same; and for many light users, 3G/4G is a great value proposition. It’s simply stupid and wasteful to push fibre indiscriminately to every premise.
Where did Joe Hockey say or imply that the NBN should entirely be based off “wireless”?
He didn’t, and neither did I.
All he’s arguing is not everyone’s requirements are the same; and for many light users, 3G/4G is a great value proposition. It’s simply stupid and wasteful to push fibre indiscriminately to every premise.
Well actually if you’re rolling it out down every street it’s wasteful to NOT deliver it to every premises. This is the exactly same reason why we’re not seeing anyone duplicating the Telstra copper network, the customer of delivering single last mile services for individual customers is cost prohibitive, but if you install to multiple services simultaniously the cost is minimised.
How is that a Value Proposition yes I dont use much data so I will pay MORE money and get a slower connection with less data to use
You and I have vastly different concepts of value actually I have an idea I have this half can of coke you can pay full price for it now that is value
You can spend $10k on a bottle of Bollingers or the same amount on multiple crates of bottled Coca-cola.
Tell me, which is more valuable — a drop of the champagne or a drop of the soft-drink?
At the margin, which creates more consumer value — producing more bottles of Bollingers or churning out more Coke?
Nice out of context comparison…
If your going to play that game which one of those will not only last longer but will actually BE WORTH MORE on resale over time?
Somehow i doubt stale coke would be worth as much as a well aged 10k champagne/wine
In volume, it will always be the coke, because you have something in quantity that sells so much easier than the champagne its stupid.
In value, it will always be the coke, because champagne is generally price prohibitive for the average joe
In cost. It will always be cheaper and more cost effective to have a drink with coke, than spend extra on a single bottle of champagne.
You can spend $10k on a bottle of Bollingers or the same amount on multiple crates of bottled Coca-cola.
Tell me, which is more valuable — a drop of the champagne or a drop of the soft-drink?
Quite clearly, $10k in Bolligners and $10k in Coke is worth, exactly the same.
#economicsfail
Bahahaha
Trolled self. God you’re bad RotFE.
“for many light users, 3G/4G is a great value proposition.” — lets just look at that. Using TPG as an example, how is it great value? Most expensive plan is $35 for 9 gig/month on mobile broadband, vs $40 for 150 gig on fixed line for their 3nd most expensive plan.
This is the sort of thing that never gets discussed, people on both sides just state the same old thing over and over. WHERE is the value in 4G and friends?
This is one of the things pro-NBN keeps asking, and never gets an answer on. It is continually pointed out that 93% of net traffic is through fixed line, so by extension most people are using the internet at home. It amazes me that some people keep arguing against that.
And if 93% of traffic is at home, a fixed line connection is the only practical option. Again using TPG – $30 a month for 50 gig fixed vs vs $5 for 500 meg (MEG!!!), $10 for 1 gig, $16 for 2 gig, or $25 for 5 gig. None of those are hardly big quotas, and the cost per gig can hardly be called great value.
Yet we keep getting ‘wireless is great value’ tossed at us, as some sort of mantra. How is it better value? The people using the net so little are hardly going to be mobile, so are better served getting a low end fixed line and using a wireless connection around the house.
For $40 a month they can get the phone and 20 gig… If a standard phoneline costs them $20 a month, then its only $20 for 20 gig using fixed with 802.11n wireless, a much better value than $16 for 2 gig plus $20 for the phoneline. 10% more cost for 1000% more bandwidth. THATS value.
I just cant understand how the Liberals can continue to claim wireless is a better first choice option. Help me out here, and give reasons why it should be an easy decision.
Except that any technology will have to have a geographical rather than user base. What I mean by this is you cannot only connect those who need light internet access to wireless due to the fact that in a single geographical areas there will be varying requirements of user. Your assumptions are ludicrous either considering that if it where true we would be seeing a mass exodus off from fixed line with this great increase in mobile connected devices. Your statement also espouses the stupidity that is the Coalition, they lack vision past 10 – 15 years with FttN. You lack vision past 5 years as does Hockey if they truly believe that Wireless can work for a majority of people.
Libs also lack recent memory. It wasn’t long ago when our home phone cost an average of $90 a month, (in somewhat dated money). And that was for rental and phone calls only. Now for that amount, I get so much more. Would I (or people like me) complain if the improvements delivered by NBN (plus RSP) came in around that figure?
How many people are whinging about the the cost per household for the switch to digital TV. Who settles for a set top box? Many/most(?) are taking the opportunity to buy much bigger TVs and aren’t making a fuss about it. The nature strips at each council cleanup tell the story.
I’m sure the Liberals are well aware of how bringing competition to the telco industry helped drive down prices and boost up available bandwidth and infrastructure investment.
Really? I thought every price drop that enabled that was forced on Telstra by the ACCC
Oh woe, where would we be without government to tell us everything.
The only thing the ACCC controls the price of is fixed line ULL rental (approx $20 per month), and yet there are a whole range of Internet options that compete at all levels: 3G, 4G, satellite, ADSL, BDSL, metro-ethernet, fiber (from several providers), fixed wireless (e.g. big air), and probably others.
Amazing how the ACCC provided all that, just by setting ULL prices. If you believe that you probably believe the US social security system is in good hands.
No, I don’t believe all price drops came from the ACCC, it was a mixture of competition, regulation, benefits of scale, improvements in technology, subsidisation of data usage between low and high volumes users (notice how ISPs mainly have a very small plan then jump straight to 200GB? Average usage 30GB). The areas where there is the hotest competition is still in contention, the area with the lowest competition, the last mile on fixed line copper, still would have the lowest competition with either FTTH or FTTN, HFC.
Joe, stop digging, you are are just making the hole bigger!
*facepalm*
What hole?
where have i seen this posting style before? (looking at all 3 RotFE posts)
for me its the hole he dug not fully understanding the issue at hand, and repeating himself in not understanding the technological underpinnings of his own argument. if you cant see it maybe you should read the page i linked for Joe lower down the page too….
What style of posting is that?
You mean not writing lines upon lines of garbage misrepresenting what other people are saying for the sole purpose of cheerleading a Labor project and trolling the Libs??
No political agendas please.
RotFE, I challenge you (or anyone else) to present a purely factual argument supporting the Coalition’s alternative policy on broadband and proving that it is superior to NBN Co’s plan.
No opinion. No wishy-washy-ness.
Just pure, unadulterated, technical, empirical, evidence-based facts.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Haha.
You know why your statement is funny? Its because they cant make a logical arguement against the NBN. Ever.
Ha.
“for many light users, 3G/4G is a great value proposition.” — lets just look at that. Using TPG as an example, how is it great value? Most expensive plan is $35 for 9 gig/month on mobile broadband, vs $40 for 150 gig on fixed line for their 3nd most expensive plan.
This is the sort of thing that never gets discussed, people on both sides just state the same old thing over and over. WHERE is the value in 4G and friends?
For $40 a month they can get the phone and 20 gig on fixed line. Cheapest combo they have. If a standard phoneline costs them $20 a month, then its only $20 for 20 gig using fixed with 802.11n wireless, a much better value than $16 for 2 gig plus $20 for the phoneline. 10% more cost for 1000% more bandwidth. THATS value.
I just cant understand how the Liberals can continue to claim wireless is a better first choice option. Help me out here. Please, give reasons why it should be an easy decision.
No but you are cheer-leading the Libs and trolling Labor. You have made possibly one valid point this entire time.
Dear Mr Hockey.
“In fact in Sorell I understand where it has been laid out the technology is obsolete at the moment and I understand this came out in senate estimates recently because it was installed before the deal was done between the NBN and Telstra.”
The technology as you have pointed out, was installed in one of the then planned Test sites, using equipment that was been tested.
This was part of the testing phase of the rollout, before a final decision was made on appropriate technology suitable for Australian conditions, and chosen to meet future needs of the NBN.
And to point out, as most would understand – though it seems to escape you – technology that is sold in the general market as production ready, is always obsolete.
“So what does the Government do? It says well you are not allowed to market it as a competitor, I don’t know about you, but I use an iPad – the iPad I carry around in the car. I don’t have a cable dragging behind the car. I use wireless technology and I think that is the way functionality is going.”
Your remark about your iPad is both wonderful, and thoroughly ignorant about the common household.
I do not drag around my computer in my car, as the power cables certainly do not reach that far. Nor does my computer have a sim card slot or an antenna to allow it to receive any cellular signal.
There are (as some are bound to point out) devices that allow connecting my computer to 3G/4G to utilise the internet.
However, these devices do not have the capacity to provide content for my desktop computer, my PS3, my wife’s laptop, our Tivo, and the plethora of other Smart devices in our home.
It is also not sensible to pay the exorbitant fees for Telstra internet on 4G, compared to fixed line ADSL.
The common punter – which I do assume there are many in Tasmania – will understand, that when it is cheaper to get ADSL, and be supplied with higher quotas than Telstra wireless, they will opt for ADSL. The NBN in comparison, offers similar pricing and quotas to ADSL, making it a much more sensible choice for home internet.
“We have said we are going to have a mix of technologies rather than rolling out cable outside everyone’s home. We are going to have a mix of technologies, including wireless and satellite and cable that is going to be much cheaper but it going to give people the functionality that they want.”
A “mix of technologies”, is by far the most ambiguous of statements I have heard from the party I previously supported.
A “mix of technologies” could well mean anything, from 1% satellite and 99% wireless, to microwave base stations at every curb side.
Please do not front the media with such obtuse and obscure statements. It promotes uncertainty and confusion, which it not what I expect of any member of our Government.
“But it should be recognised that much use of a FTTP NBN will not contribute to economic productivity, and that running fibre into every one of 12.2 million homes and businesses is not the only way to achieve what we assume was Labor’s implicit – but never publicly stated – policy objective: to provide all Australians with fast broadband.”
Thank you for once again forgetting, that Fibre to the Premises is only getting rolled out to 93% of homes and businesses.
WRT the last, Joe the ONLY reason Telstra isnt fielding a product in tassie is that the boxes dont support 1Gbit speeds – a tier that is not even yet available for sale! Telstra would be more than capable of selling the 100mbit product right now – all they have to do is say yes. using Telstras selfimposed wait for the new boxes isnt really a satisfying argument that they cant get into the market – those current boxes happily do 100mbit for the other ISPs. and given those ISPs are indeed fielding 100mbit services to tasmanians – right now – the idea tasmania is ‘back of the list’ is a joke.
NBNco have slated 2015 as the finish date for the whole of that state, with the box swap completed. that will be the FIRST state completing its rollout – to me that is first cab off the rank. i’ll concede they probably wont be the first state with 1GBps services fielded, though. they certainly wont be ‘back of the list’ – that moniker is for the last services built some time beyond 2018.
BTW Arent you essentially saying that 1GBps is the benchmark service, now? that the NBN is only ‘done’ if its ready to flick the switch on that speed? i look forward to the Coalition policy using the same benchmark then, seeing as its so important to you.
second last dammit – item 3
just read this too:
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/14/3524848.htm
i highly recommend Joe reads it at least twice over as it is rather dense with data… (if he wants to be Treasurer this is the sort of stuff he will have to wade through anyway). its highly relevant to the discussion at hand and clearly lays out many of the issues we punters have covered here at delimiter time and time again, including this piece. i also highly suggest Joe tees up Dr. Pepper (yes thats his name!) for an interview and get it from the horses mouth regarding network possibilities… its clear Joe needs a little study invested on the matter rather than winging it the way he has been.
Cisco! LMAO.
Another network hardware equipment vendor with a vested interest in taxpayer funded global rollout of white elephants.
How’s all that underutilised fibre capacity doing in South Korea and Japan?
Waiting for the day when it will be fully utilised. Is there some mental defect that renders some people incapable of seeing past the present day or their own personal requirements? Or is it just an inate selfishness.
Waiting for the day when it will be fully utilised.
Yea?. . and tell me, is it possible to suspend servicing the debt at the same time while patiently waiting for Godot?
No it’s not. Just as it’s not possible to roll out the exact capacity needed at the exact time it’s needed.
I’ll give you the answer, if you answer my question.
If the LNP at the 2007 election had more than 100 billion banked, the economy was in the best state ever (at that time) and we had almost perfect employment.
If things were so good, why did they sell Telstra and its infrastructure?
O whoops – Is talking about selling Telstra like talking about Fight Club >?
Wow you accuse everyone else of being a cheerleader however you are the biggest hypocrit here. White elephants? Wireless fanboyism? Hey you would not happen to be a card carrying member of the Liberal Party would you?
Cisco is considered the ‘father of the modern internet’ or responsible for progression of the internet into globalisation via its ethernet and routing technologies. Everyone regards Cisco as being THE knowledge base on everything internet related.
Cisco is infact more qualified to speak on this matter than almost any other global company. Saying they have ‘vested interests’ is a stretch. Cisco these days is more of an Engineering Academy than anything. Their level of understanding is unequalled by most companies.
Next you’ll be trying to tell us Cisco’s unqualified to speak on Australian Communications.
exactly which hardware is Cisco supplying NBNco? undoubtedly some cisco gear will be there but i suspect you might find as far as NBNco goes Alcatel-Lucent has the majority of contracts for gear.
you say vested interest, i say its an outfit that has been supplying gear to keep the net going and therefore has a much clearer idea of what is in use and what is needed next. are you suggesting we should be asking apple farmers what we need? they have no vested interest – but they also would have far less ability to discuss what is needed next on a technical basis – and ANY new network (libs/labor) will be a complex technical beast.
this is not the sort of thing to go and ask people who know nothing about it – Telstra might have a vested interest, but they are clear that fixed line is here to stay and next gen wireless tech is COMPLEMENTARY to that. Optus might have a vested interest but theyve been clear that renting capacity off current satelites is neither economic or practical, and the Ka band satelites to be put up by NBNco are the right way to do the job. this is no different.
So where is your unbiased evidence? Oh wait you do not have any, just you uneducated word!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
Perfect phrase! Sums up Hockey’s horseshit superbly.
I was reading the wiki and particularly liked this bit:
[i]”For example, an advertisement may use a weasel phrase such as “up to 50% off on all products”; this is misleading because the audience is invited to imagine many items reduced by the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally mean only that no discount will exceed 50%, and in theory, the vendor is free not to reduce any prices and still remain faithful to the exact wording of the advertisement, as “up to 50” most literally means “any number from 0 to 50 inclusive”.[/i]
Gee, what does the old “up to” marketing term remind me of I wonder?
Feel secure and have a good nights sleep. Our future Treasurer has spoken, we will obviously be in good capable hands.
AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH
If nothing else, Hockey’s stand removes any doubt about the Libs coming around to accepting the benefits and reality of the NBN. They won’t. If the NBN is ever fully built I am sure that these Libs will, to their dying day, claim they could have built it faster, better and cheaper.
What about the towers?
Towers, towers everywhere………………
Mr Hockey’s “undeniable fact” is eminently deniable, and is certainly not a fact.The clause in the Telstra agrement that he refers to does not restrict Telstra advertising its wireless services. It is very simple. It was designed to prevent Telstra from advertising wireless services AS A SUBSTITUTE for fibre. i.e it was a means of preventing Telstra from making misleading statements without having to go through the ACCC to remedy (which can take a lot of time and taxpayer dollars). They would have been perfectly free to market their wireless products as competitors to the NBN, not as substitutes. The same thing is achieved through the Trade Practices Act, but would just cost more to enforce.
His statements about the NEC boxes would only have some validity if Telstra were the only service provider in Tasmania, which of course it is not.
Joe’s statement about flat take-up of fixed versus wirelss services deliberately leaves out the fact that downloads on fixed have gone up 90% while on wireless they have gone up a tiny amount. This extra information is a vital argument for better fixed-line infrastructure and every major wireless provider will say the same thing.
The $1000 issue is a glaring example of how he was indeed misleading. The government has stated that most people will not have to pay for a connection. It is the same as now. If you want extra cabling beyond the network boundary to hook up your TV etc they you have to pay for it (just as you do now). If Joe is suggesting NBN Co should pay for in-home wiring as well, then he may have to delve deeper intop his $70 billion hole to fund it. Of course the corporate plan doesn’t contain any costings for in-home wiring, because NBN Co is not doing it.
All in all, this attempted reposte is admirable, but the justifications do not stand up to scrutiny. Joe Hockey has been caught trying to mislead people who are not well able to understand the intricacies of this debate.
^ This.
<<<it was a means of preventing Telstra from making misleading statements
What a pile of horseshit.
“Telstra Structural Separation Undertaking — Attachment B – Questions Regarding DAs”
10: Have the parties considered whether provisions in the CCA regarding misleading and deceptive conduct would sufficiently prohibit Telstra from marketing wireless services as substitutable for fibre services?
The parties’ agreement concerning the restriction on Telstra promoting wireless services as substitutable for fibre services was not struck in light of the CCA provisions regarding misleading and deceptive conduct. That agreement was considered to be appropriate by the parties in the context of structuring the transaction as a disconnection arrangement.
12: Could NBN Co provide the ACCC with any additional supporting material regarding the rationale for the inclusion of the wireless restraints?
Given that Telstra has at least 50% of the fixed line market and therefore a good chance of influencing the migration choice of most of those customers, it would not have been commercially acceptable for NBN Co to agree with Telstra to a payment for disconnection model without commercial incentives to discourage the substitution of fibre services with wireless services.
NBNco was trying to bribe Telstra into distorting the market, which is why the ACCC rejected the “wireless clause”.
“That agreement was considered to be appropriate by the parties” because if Telstra did say that wireless was substitable for fibre, it would be misleading. It just would have cost more to pursue.
“it would not have been commercially acceptable for NBN Co to agree with Telstra to a payment for disconnection model without commercial incentives to discourage the substitution of fibre services with wireless services” . This is a bit complex for you Mr federal Elections, but the key word here is “substitution”. It would be misleading for Telstra to promote wireless as a substitute, but it may still make commercial sense for them to do so. The clause would have provided added incentive for Telstra to not be misleading in their advertising.
Yea, right… which is why the ACCC rejected the clause outright as anti-competitive and market distortionary!
That makes so much sense.
Oh, how so Tea Party, a la Australiana are you! Where is your off switch? I’d settle for the volume decrease if there isn’t an off setting.
Your moniker is also insulting to our Nation’s Democracy. We have no problems with people’s Totalitarianism desires, as amusing as they can be, but respect our nation’s Democracy please!
Oh my! What a tanty to chuck in public. Hockey, you know the saying about glass houses. Don’t whine when you think others take you out of context when you and yours do it daily so sound bytes can be fed out to further your agenda, then claim there is more to it than what was reported when it is not to your liking. We know, as you, how the Media distorts the issues due to over simplifying everything for the dumbed down Society they have created. Don’t play everyone as fools. We are not.
The whole issue is technical. I know my Mother runs a mile from anything that didn’t exist in the 1950’s and will pay through the nose for anything that fits to what she is comfortable with, much to my annoyance, which I just live with. This is the people that your playing the misinformation game too and I resent the panic you dole out to my Mum each day making here feel set upon by something that really is not going to play out much change in her very Luddite lifestyle, for your political gain. You and yours are playing a nasty game of fear and uncertainty to scare people to vote for you. Guess what, Hitler did the same thing as did the USA and other Nations for each of their own selfish advantage. It is very unbecoming. We don’t think better of you for it.
As always for political games, we the public pay the price of your game. For once we’d rather invest it into resolving the political stuff up that politics created in our Telecommunications.
Bluntly put, put up or shut up. Australia wants an egalitarian solution for the majority of our Citizens to have equality in improvement to telecommunications and not an market solution for some Citizens get to gain modest Telcommunications improvement so Shareholders get rich, which is what we have been getting. Put up a valid argument to prove this is not the case. There are many Engineers out here to dissect your submission. They’d love to give credit where credit is due. They’d like to point out who lies also.
We as a Nation have accepted that we are tired of your 6th hand rust bucket used car type solutions doled out to us as wonderful, whilst all we get is something that keeps breaking down. BTW, your Media friends are really good at advertising crap as gold I must say!
Guess what! We decided on the Mercedes type solution because we can afford it, because we’ve ended up paying a high price for the crap your friends keep selling us through you and because it will be cheaper in the long run to own, as it has far greater upgrading facility as less cost. Value for money if you ask me.
I have stopped looking at promises and now look at the history. How many more are doing the same.
Politics equals LIES, and both yours and Labor are dishing it out by the bucket full. I hope you both enjoy minority Governments from here on, as I am finding far more representation happening for us due to minor Parties and Independents than either of you has given us for decades. At least currently, because of them, I do get to hear and see what Parliament is doing instead of it just happening with no debate behind closed doors. Minority Governments are really, really a window to fresh air flow into OUR Parliament. It is not your Parliament, but OURS. Your there only because we let you. Don’t disappoint us so.
Less tanties and more solid facts please Hockey. BTW, I don’t care about your market friends. Their vote is only as valid as any of ours. Don’t forget it.
Go NBN! Now, there is a slogan for the next Election for the voters of Australia who deserve the excellent communications they have worked hard for and paid for, of which Telstra failed to give.
+100
When did politics degenerate so far that few members represent the people of Australia and what is best for them? When has lying to voters to scare and fool them in to voting for your become their primary job? Modern politicians disgust me.
We need a PM (left or right wing) with some good solid socialist values. Whatever your flavour, we need someone whos willing to build infrastructure so we all get something out of it, none of this have and have not bullshit.
Master_T, I really don’t care who is PM any more as it will most probably be someone that really only cares about the Market anyway and not the Australian Constituents. What I, and hopefully many others are discovering, it is the distribution of power within Houses of Parliament that matters in bringing about transparency in how they govern us and not one single promise or action they do. So with a fractured Parliament, we, the people, force them out into the open via the smaller Parties and Independents, by forcing them to show us their game. It is called Transparency!
Sure Rupert and the wheeler and dealers of the Market hate it and why they are hell bent on destroying Minority Government. No back door dealing without it coming out in questions on the Floor and they, no doubt, find it very containing. Sure the major Parties hate it. It ceases the wheeling and dealing they can do without it being questioned by someone from the floor of the Parliament. Currently, we have the most democratic Parliament we’ve had for an extremely long time, and all we hear is “The Sky Is Falling” from vested interests! Crap! We are probably getting best of a bloody good deal and it couldn’t be worse than anything dished out by Labor or Liberal in ages, all because of the little people on the Floor of Parliament are making them show the whole deal to everyone.
Look at the NBN! It’s really the first great infrastructure program to be given to us in a long time. Due to the current exposure to scrutiny by the Public via Independents and minor Parties, there is no pork barrelling we’ve suffered and which has ruined so many things in the past. For once, Australia is looking after itself and not some greedy Marketeer and their Marketing Department. It is actually nice to not have to pay their inflated price for the item and keep them fat. In a rare moment, we are going to get something worthwhile and all we are getting is a deafening roar from “Tea Party a’ la Australiana” dished out to us in a really annoyingly constant bleating, by their dim witted Sheeple. Gullibility is always there. Embarrassing as it is.
So who is PM? Who cares, as long as the power they hold is totally constrained in anything that we the Constituent cannot see. Bring on Proportional Representation in the Lower House and never to suffer majority rule again. It has not served us well to date. It’s only benefitted the Politicians and the Marketeers. It is time to look after ourselves, stop being lazy and allowing these jerks to fleece us of our hard earned cash. Vote wisely everyone, as you will get what you deserve and it will be OUR fault if the result is not good.
You sir, are now my Hero of the Day.
No hero mate, just a guy that is using history to plan a future to avoid the same old outcome of a lot of history repeating itself. If I can wake up a few people to the manipulation and how it works, I have done my good deed. I won’t advise people how to vote as democracy desires each Constituent to make their own choice. By that, we will have what democracy is supposed to be. But the current oligarchic plutocracy sux and we have to break free of this addiction to the “Spectacular!” entertainment shock, horror, titillation of the Circus that is herding us to someone Else’s desired outcome via propaganda. The alternative may be boring, but it will be less cost and hardship on us all, if we break free and escape the Circus of the Damned.
Dear Mr Hockey,
Try using your mobile broadband the day the year 12 results come out. Last year my business had no useable internet access for the enitre day….most likely due to every 18 year old in the area checking their results and then facebooking/tweeting like crazy for the rest of the day. The business internet also goes slow from about 4pm each week day. Neither capacity or speed there…and soon enough people won’t be content to just tweet and sms – they’ll be sending video messages/doing face-to-face chats!
So why didn’t I change immediately to a faster fixed line? Contracts!
The business mobile phone, the fixed fax,eftpos and phone lines, the whitepages listing, the yellow pages listings, the mobile broadband were all on a contract. True enough the whitepages and yellow pages numbers don’t have to change…but what about the risk that they might be down for a few days? Far better to put in place new arrangement and then make a switch….when the contracts run out.
I reckon that is a pretty good reason why the take-up of the NBN hasn’t been so hot…but in time that will change. And I think that is why NBN Co wanted to hamstring Telstra’s 4G marketing; because people would be locked into 2-3 year contracts.
And here is a prediction, write it down – In about 3 years (after you lot win power and nix the NBN) we will see congestion issues on all the 4G networks. The network providers are going to put in enough infrastructure to supply the market now, because their shareholders won’t support them spending money to future proof the networks, because just maybe another new tech will come along. So they will cease pouring in money and equipment, just as everyone jumps on the 4G bandwagon with huge data demands…and the whole thing will grind to a halt. The available frequencies will be saturated and there will be no alternative except outdated and failing copper networks.
Ask yourself, how much does it take each year to maintain the Hume Highway? By your arguements it is under utilised because not everyone who has access to it, uses it. If you were to take a snap-shot of it there are times when sections of it don’t even have a vehicle on it…so why should all Aussie taxpayers contribute to it? Because it is a vitally important piece of infrastructure. People of a contrary nature might argue that private enterpirse could provide alternatives, for far less cost to the taxpayer…a network of smaller roads, airplanes, helicopters, trains, cargo ships and horse-drawn carriages all of which would be driven by the market economy and paid for by those who use it…who also just happen to be taxpayers.
Let’s face facts – the Coalition are going to win the next election in a landslide, and the NBN is not a key issue in that. The NBN is probably one of the few positives the ALP have…so why not take that away from them?
Time to admit that the Coalition are simply nay-saying for the sake of it. Time to admit that FttP is the best model in terms of long term viability, no prevarication about what is more “convenient” or “portable” when you already acknowledge that all the alternatives have shortcomings looking to the future. Playing semantics with your message and constantly nay-saying doesn’t win you admiration…
Now why is it that everyone believes the facts that the Coalition will win the next Election Baggyone72? Has someone read the tea leaves in Madam Zenda’s cup laced with overproof Brandy? Or it simply the “I know everything I need to know because Rupert tells me so” Brigade? Or is it because many Businesses in the media who are deeply entrenched within the Market are telling us so in order to influence the people to vote for those who will best look after their interest in the upcoming crash of that Market? I’d say the latter; a good dash of the second and it is as certain as good ol’ Madam Zenda prediction. God bless her cotton socks. No, nothing certain about it except it is certain we are being told how some would like it.
There is nothing like good ol’ hard sell to push the sale. That is why all Australian’s are having this hard sell shoved down their throats. Enter the headlines, Coalition to win by a landslide! [insert anything here but the Coalition] will destroy the Family Farm! The NBN will promote tooth decay! Grow a backbone everyone. Stop being herded like a mob of Sheeple that is really funny and also scary to behold! You don’t have to be told how to vote. Be brave and vote for you and not someone else who is telling you that this is the vote you will cast. Are we so programmed that we will do whatever those with money tell us to do? May as well open your wallets and Bank Accounts and let them take what they desire. Trust me; you won’t have much for yourself afterward.
No, it is not certain unless your desire is to be all good Sheeple. If Australia wants now, what we fought against in World War II, then go for it and you have my pity. But honestly, no one would want it, I don’t want to give it, and Australia will hopefully ignore the hard sell and vote for their interests. The outcome for the next election is anything but the certainty that a lot of money will be spent by rich people to get their desired Party in. Watch the money and exposure look at the gloss, smoke and mirror show and do tear into the veil and what is pushing that message and then understand your choice. We will get the Parliament of our choice. It will be our choice. We know the system. Use it.
Note to poor old Joe Hockey, If a world filled with village idiots had a competition to see who was the biggest village idiot, the winner would be you. How can we possibly vote Liberal in the next election knowing that the Liberal party is so factioned that each minister doesn’t know what there own portfolio is. Or has Joe Hockey replaced Malcolm Turnbul as communications minister?
I love this whole NBN debate, obviously it isn’t good that both sides are slinging FUD at each other and confusing the general public about the actual FACTS, and neither is it any good that the Libs are so obviously lying purely to score a few extra votes with no concern about the wellbeing of the actual COUNTRY (you know, their JOB!!), but it does make for a good daily laugh at pollies such as Joe trying to BS the public and making such an obvious fool of himself :)
“But it should be recognised that much use of a FTTP NBN will not contribute to economic productivity”
Well obviously wrong there, it has already been publicly advertised that new businesses are already forming in NBN ready areas, a lot of which are running from home due to the greatly increased bandwidth, cost-savings and, here’s a word the Libs seem to have forgotten about in all their many statements, RELIABILITY of a fixed line fibre network over the previous corroded, interference-prone copper or sparse wireless connections available previously.
“and that running fibre into every one of 12.2 million homes and businesses is not the only way to achieve what we assume was Labor’s implicit – but never publicly stated – policy objective: to provide all Australians with fast broadband.”
Actually? It is, rather than reusing technologies that have already been proven to be slow, costly to install, costly to run, costly to maintain, have no possible future upgrade path and not to mention UNRELIABLE, they are using a medium that is far more reliable, resilient, cheaper to install, run and maintain, has none of the weaknesses of copper and can be upgraded easily well into the future. Fibre currently holds a speed record of 100 Terabits/sec, wireless is at 300Mbps within about 20 meters of the base station and about 3Mbps at around 50 meters, not to mention that every user connected to that station takes an equal share of that bandwidth. So 3 users at 50 meters get 1Mbps each…That’s slower than current ADSL1 technology…
Also, “Labor’s implicit – but never publicly stated – policy objective: to provide all Australians with fast broadband.”
Actually the full, publicly stated, quote (freely available on both the Labor and the NBN Co. websites is “which will provide faster, more RELIABLE broadband access to all Australian premises.” Funny what a quick Google search can find hey? Also saves people from suffering foot-in-mouth disease…
“The Coalition has long recognised that no single broadband technology suits all consumers and all areas of the nation. We also recognise that for many consumers broadband and wireless will be complementary (whereas for others they may well be direct substitutes, as noted above).”
True, 2 types of broadband technology are needed to suit our needs, fixed fibre for high-speed, high-quota CHEAP and RELIABLE access as well as a subsidised wireless technology (this tech will need to be subsidised due to the extreme costs of transporting data of the 4G network, when 2GB over 4G costs you the same as 300GB over 100/40 fibre you know there’s a problem, but I guess as the TAXPAYER is paying for your iPad’s 3G connection that doesn’t really bother you much hey?) to provide limited quota access while away from your house/work.
“Our broadband policy will rely on a mix of technologies to provide broadband to Australian households and businesses as soon as possible, at affordable prices, and at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers.”
“Our broadband policy”? You’ve been talking about this for years now and we are still waiting to see this mythical “broadband policy” of yours… What has been mentioned about it leads us to believe that you will be using obsolete technology that has already been proven to be unreliable, highly dependent on distance from the exchange/node, will suffer all the problems of the current ADSL network due to, in most cases, you reusing the existing, badly corroded, copper cables that are in dire need of replacement but due to the much higher cost of copper compared to fibre will cost the taxpayer a fortune compared to a technology that is written into law that will pay for itself and will cost the taxpayer nothing.
From what little has been released to the public, your FTTN proposal will result in most of Australia getting 12Mbps to the home, so for my home connection that will be double the speed I currently get, but how do you propose to solve the sources of RFI interference in the local area that interferes with the copper cables and causes my broadband to constantly drop out? According to Telstra, it will cost approx. $5000 in order to just track down the source, and then there’s the cost and legal ramifications of actually fixing the problem with someone else’s privately owned technology that is faulty. So $5000+ each time over the tens of thousands of subscribers with this problem in Australia, who has to pay for that? The taxpayer?
Also my workplace currently gets 24Mbps ADSL2+, how do you propose to compensate all those premises that had higher than 12Mbps and now get speed limited? Also how do you propose to enforce regulations and quality controls for business connections on corroded copper lines that badly need replacing? How much will all that cost the taxpayer? All of this is starting to sound a lot more expensive and involved than straight FTTH…
Greatly looking forward to Friday Delimiter.
If Joe was fair dinkum, why isn’t he back here defending his indignant “clarification” and helping to “put his comments (back) in context.”
I suspect he went over his monthly wireless quote :P
Seriously though Mr Hockey, as a citizen, voter and taxpayer of Australia can I ask you one question?
Why?
The NBN is *good* policy – yet your party has wasted vast amounts of time and money – from both from your supporters and government [‘aka taxpayers’] perpetuating vast quantities of ‘factually incorrect’ information about it.
How can you possibly as an Australian, as a Human, and as a representative of the people, be willing party to this? Even terms of political self-interest – your denial FORCES many willing voters to side with parties they may otherwise disagree with, and has already cost you one election.
Do the one thing that’ll define your career – answer honestly.
Thud. Thud. Thud.
Note that Tony Abbott recently got railroaded about the NBN at a Tasmanian town meeting, so he has now sent Joe Hockey to start this whole debate from the beginning again.
This stuff is so far beyond old that it’s not funny.
Just when you thought the old home-wiring argument was dead and buried, it’s back.
Just when you thought the wireless vs fibre argument was dead and buried, it’s back.
Just when you thought the ‘4G is better than what NBN Co is doing even though NBN is also rolling out 4G argument’ was dead and buried, it’s back.
Can someone please put Hockey, Turnbull, Fletcher and Abbott in a room with the guy from Cisco who looked at Nick Ross like he had three heads when Ross asked how a 4G network would keep up with forecast usage trends? (http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/14/3524848.htm)
The Coalition continues to carpet-bomb the electorate with technologically inaccurate BS and they are hoping to recapture political ground by painting Tasmania’s NBN trial solution as shoddy and outdated.
If Hockey has decided he’s an NBN expert and wants his comments to carry a shred of gravitas he should cut off the phone and broadband connection we all know he has at his home, then live and work exclusively off of his iPad and Australia’s fledgling 4G wireless networks for a month – then report back to us about how he goes.
Turnbull refused to take the challenge and I bet you Hockey wouldn’t either. And then, hopefully, Hockey will realise that the reason he’s being given Turnbull’s old cue cards to read policy platforms from is because they have already been resoundingly discredited – Turnbull threw them into the trashcan that Hockey was rummaging through in the quest for fresh talking points.
4G is clearly superior cause Joe has an iPad.
Joe using an iPad as an example clearly shows the LNP policy towards technology and broadband. Its no coincidence that all the electronic clocks in Menzies House all flash 12:00 repeatedly….
Does my WiFi only Ipad cancel out his?
At least he didn’t rave about the amazing 4G speeds he was getting on his ipad, he could have really put his foot in it there.
http://www.telecoms.com/45542/lte-can%E2%80%99t-save-australia-from-required-fixed-broadband-upgrades/
Dear Mr Hockey
Both yourself and your village idiot liberal party leader do not have a clue.
I fear for the future of Australia given the two of have such monumental ignorance.
To be so ignorant to state that you believe wireless technology is far superior, is without a doubt the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard.
Any self respecting engineer that has half a clue regarding communications will tell you that fibre is the ultimate in technology. Wireless wil ALWAYS be inferior to fibre based on physics. But dont let good quality facts get in the way of your village idiot leader ordering your to sprout such wireless garbage.
Australia wants the NBN.
How can the liberal party seriously follow a leader who after all these years still has not woken up to the fact that the reason the liberal party is not in power right now is because people WANT the NBN, and you sir tow the party line to a person who does not understand this.
Shame on you and shame on your vision for Australia.
If wireless is so good why has your village idiot leader never ever accepted the wireless challenge that has been thrown to him on numerous occassions ? Whty? Because he knows it cant be done.
I eagerly await you reply Renai :D
Mr. Hockey should know better than to pedal this rubbish and THEN reply to a respected tech site broadly in favour of the NBN- perhaps Turnbull put him up to it as a joke?….backfired a bit…
Shame we can’t organise a sensationalist leak of his reply in the mainstream news like so many Lara Bingle nude balcony photos….far too geeky and not enough nipples.
I’m pretty sure that Hockey wasn’t aware that “capacity” has special meaning in the communications. If he wasn’t aware, then he made a mistake and he wasn’t trying to mislead anyone.
KingForce
Hockey is the Treasurer in Waiting and will have a major influence over policy. We know Abbots view. Only needed in Business precincts and Industrial Parks. Must keep the incomes high for those Property investors. No Small or startups in residential they must clog up the roads driving to their mates properties, pay exorbitant rents and rip off communications costs. And buggar the rural areas, make them move to the cities and push up real estate prices.
Malcolm will NOT be the communications minister, we will have Fletcher.
The NBN is about providing a National utility at minimum cost to the taxpayer. The Coalition is about providing an inadequate el cheepo version at maximum up front and onging cost to the taxpayer with massive subsidies to increase dividends for their mates. Then once it is bleedingly obvious it is inadequate the poor old Taxpayer will be slugged again for the upgrade.
The consumer costs will not be any lower due to cost of duplicated infrastructure and reduced returns , plus higher taxes or severely cut health education etc to prop up dividends to their mates
whateverz joe! I’m pretty sure you don’t know exactly what “mixed technologies” mean. it may sound cheap to you at first, but its going to be cheap and nasty in the long term and i can see it failing earlier and costing more to maintain and replace. You wouldn’t go buy a HSV and have a 3 cylinder hyundai charade engine in it. Looks good on the outside, but goes nowhere will always need repairs. Labor has my vote for this. This NBN cause will bring this nation ahead of others and businesses will thrive at its potential. You can live in the past if you want, I want this for our future. 12mbps is fast enough? PFFT! I laugh at you and your party.
PS. I’m also an online gamer and I want to stop these other countries kicking my ass because they have a better connection. Peace out!
The anti-NBN folks here need to pay attention to HP, IBM and Cisco all of whom have come out in support of the NBN:
Exhibit A/ HP has just spent 119 Million on a new Data Center to provide business both big and small with cloud services: http://db.tt/VWSAYpIi
“The new Datacenter represents a great investment in the information economy infrastructure in Australia, which is currently rolling out a $40bn National Broadband Network as part of its 2020 digital economy plan to enable rapid change and infrastructure development”
Exhibit B/ IBM’s report on the future value of the digital economy to Australia http://www.zdnet.com.au/aussie-broadband-to-make-a-trillion-in-2050-339339712.htm
“We were, quite frankly, a little frustrated by [the NBN debate] and by the lack of vision,” said Andrew Stevens, IBM’s managing director in Australia and New Zealand. “Being amongst those people who were over the horizon, in terms of confidence in the economic impact of this, we thought we should actually do some quantitative and qualitative research to prove our confidence — or, to disprove it.”
The report, produced for IBM by international strategic forecasting firm IBISWorld, positions high-speed broadband as “the new utility”, comparing it to the utilities that underpinned previous transformations in society — such as the water- and steam-driven mechanical power utilities of early industrialisation, and the electricity grids and telephony systems of later industrialisation.
Exhibit B/ Cisco’s Data usage Study http://www.bicsi.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=227:cisco-report-forecasts-explosion-in-australian-internet-traffic&catid=1:enews&Itemid=18
“The fifth annual Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast (2010-2015), released recently, predicts that IP traffic will reach 22 gigabytes per capita in Australia in 2015, up from 4 gigabytes in 2010.
The report also forecasts that over the same period, the number of internet users nationally will increase by 43% (from 14 million in 2010 to 20 million by 2015), and that video downloads and streaming will account for 81% of all consumer internet traffic.”
So to all you “we dont need no FTTH NBN” FUD’sters, I say the evidence from the worlds leading IT companies dramatically and unequivocally proves you wrong!!! Not only do their studies point out the need for the NBN but they (eg HP) are putting their money where their mouth is and investing Australia’s digital future. The LNP by not getting behing the NBN in its current form put all of that investment in australia’s future at risk!
The LNP and the NBN naysayers should be ashamed at the total lack of vision and foresight currently being displayed!!!!
Shame, Shame Shame!!!
All heil ‘Tel’ for getting in there and making the internets worthy again!! ** GOLF CLAP!**
Comments are closed.