Help us fact-check Turnbull’s NBN comments

162

Hi everyone,

yesterday Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull published this article on his website in response to an appearance made by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy on Channel Ten’s Meet the Press program over the weekend.

In the interest of maintaining a level of objective truth in the ongoing National Broadband Network debate, later this week Delimiter will be publishing a fact-check analysis of these comments by Turnbull. We will also be sending this fact-check analysis to Turnbull’s office to invite him to respond.

With this in mind, I invite the Delimiter community to help fact-check Turnbull’s article. Please read his article carefully, and post in the comments below this article your view on which of his statements are accurate and which not. This will help us greatly in responding to this article. Please keep in mind our comments policy when doing so, and bear in mind that off-topic comments will be deleted, with no exceptions. Unfortunately no comments will be accepted from representatives of politicians or political parties at this time.

Note that we are seeking your views strictly on whether Turnbull’s comments are accurate: Not whether you agree with them or not.

Thank you for your help with this important exercise; your assistance is greatly appreciated. We expect to conduct similar exercises in future with respect to major technology-related policy statements by Labor and the Greens.

Kind regards,

Renai LeMay
Editor + Publisher, Delimiter


Why the Coalition’s NBN plan is superior — and why it will be better for the bush too

by Malcolm Turnbull

Reading through Stephen Conroy’s transcript from Meet the Press yesterday, I was struck by how he continues not to engage in any of the real issues surrounding the NBN. So I thought I should repeat a few key points.

1. The Coalition is not going to destroy or (as Conroy alleged) sabotage the NBN. On the contrary we will complete the national broadband network and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.

2. Why can we do it sooner? The NBN is proposing to connect 93% of Australian premises to fibre optic cables. This is a very labor intensive and expensive exercise. Which is why, as at the end of May, there were only 3,700 premises in Australia connected to the new fibre network.

It is proceeding at a snail’s pace. While there is every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed and could do the job a lot more efficiently, nonetheless the fact remains that fibre to the home is a slow process. For example the experience even in the USA is that it takes one technician day per premise to achieve a cut over from the existing copper service to fibre. And that is after the fibre has been lead into the premises. Telstra has had a similar experience in its South Brisbane fibre roll out.

The argument in favour of FTTH of course is that it is the ultimate technology and so it is worth waiting for. But even if it offers the maximum potential bandwidth, if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.

Think of it this way – if you are in an outer suburb of Sydney or Brisbane and your broadband speeds are somewhere between nothing and not very much, and you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more for FTTH and 100 mbps plus, what are you going to have? Its obvious. Ten years is a very long time to wait for a broadband upgrade. And of course the tragedy of the NBN as designed by Labor is that there are thousands of households which could have had their broadband upgraded by now with fibre to the node had the Government not resolved to go down the slowest and most expensive upgrade route.

3. Why can we do it cheaper? Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. That is the experience in North America and Europe. And in Australia with very high labor costs the differential would likely be even more.

4. Why will it be more affordable? Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return. But additionally, we will seek to ensure that wherever possible there are no barriers to compete with the NBN and competition, even if it is only in limited areas will bring pricing pressure on the NBN Co.

5. What about the bush? Conroy said that we would not cross subsidise the bush. We are committed (and with the vast majority of rural and regional members why would we not be?) to ensuring that people in regional and remote Australia can access broadband at equivalent prices to folk in the cities. But rather than establish a monopoly and seek to overcharge the cities to subsidise the bush, we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy so that everybody knows the actual cost of ensuring equality of access.

6. But in the context of the bush, let us consider two other aspects where the NBN Co’s plan actively works against the interests of rural Australians. First, as we know, the fibre to the home network is designed only to go to larger communities, of 1000 premises or more. Now that seems to be under revision at present, but there are certainly hundreds of small towns where there will be no fibre to the home and broadband services will be delivered only by fixed wireless.

In many of those communities fibre to the node can provide very high broadband speeds and at modest cost. Where there is an existing exchange it becomes “the node” and is connected to the fibre backbone and then those premises reasonably close to the node (1000 metres or less) would be able to get very high speed broadband over a fixed line without the need for the fixed wireless. Additional nodes can be deployed where appropriate and cost effective. It won’t work for everyone in rural Australia but it would mean that a lot of people who under the NBN plan won’t get fixed line fast broadband will get it.

7. The second aspect where the bush has had a raw deal from the NBN Co relates to the fixed wireless service. The logic of fixed wireless is that there are a percentage of premises (about 4% on current plans) which are not suitable (by reason of distance) for fibre to the premises but are closely settled enough to be able to have a fixed wireless service as opposed to satellite which is ideal for the more remote areas. Consistent with its desire to own and control every element in the service, the NBN Co acquired the wireless spectrum to deliver broadband in these areas and is in the process of building its own network of towers – this part of the plan is running behind schedule too I might add.

A better approach would have been to go to the three wireless telcos (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone) and invite them to tender to provide fixed wireless broadband in the relevant areas and to nominate how much subsidy they would need to do it and describe how their investment in new towers would enhance their existing mobile wireless service. There are at least three reasons for this being a better approach. First, it would mean the Government would not be directly involved in running the service. Second, it would mean it would be delivered a much lower cost to the taxpayer and Thirdly, and most importantly, it would mean that as a collateral benefit the investment in fixed wireless would result in an improvement in mobile wireless services.

And the most common complaint about telecom services in the bush is poor or patchy mobile coverage. Now it is likely too late to take a more rational approach to the fixed wireless piece – time will tell. But it is certainly possible with fibre to the node to deliver wireline broadband services to many more people in the bush than would receive it under Labor’s plans.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

162 COMMENTS

  1. The question that needs to be asked about FTTN being “cheaper” is’ over what time period?’. Many parts on the CAN are ina very poor state. Does Mr Turnbull accept that eventually, at some later date there will be a need to replace the Copper Access Network? If he accepts that this will need to happen in the long-term, then the cost of FTTH is simply deferred and the costs of the Nodes (and all RSP equipment in them) is wasted. There is also the issue of compenstaion to Telstra, on just terms, for compulsory acquisition of its network. When the Government ran the initial tender for a $4.7 billion dollar the cost of acquiring Telstra’s network was put at approximately $20 billion dollars. That is one of the reasons that tender process did not produce a result.

    • This is the whole crux of the argument for me. He needs to show FTTH has a useful lifespan before FTTH is needed. Without that he is just installing out of date technology that will need to be replaced or leave Australia an internet backwater.
      What is his argument to refute all major telcos and big internet based companies such as Google, etc, showing that 50Mb just won’t cut it after a couple of years?

      • “This is the whole crux of the argument for me. He needs to show FTTH has a useful lifespan before FTTH is needed.”

        I think you meant that first FTTH to read FTTN correct?
        In my model, those people with unsuitable copper connections can be provided with new copper, or FTTH. That really is up to the governing body of the NBN when government changes. In the case of copper, I would say the FTTN(FTTC) architecture has an extremely viable life span. More than two new satellites which have a life span of a mere fifteen years. So if one is going to question the longeivity of a technical solution, one should look at what is being offered at the moment.

        “Without that he is just installing out of date technology that will need to be replaced or leave Australia an internet backwater.:

        Who says that FTTN is out of date technology? Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy are all adopting a model now that consists of a FTTN (FTTC _Fibre to the Cabinet) topology that is providing a mixture of ADSL2+ and VDSL2 over the copper that is already in-situ. The various vendors, in the GB BT and Vodaphone are offering FTTP as an extension to the FTTC network in place. FTTP is available ON DEMAND and at commercial cost. This is allowing BT to sell FTTP at up to 300 Mbps to those that want or need very high speed connectivity. Although, VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet, so these speeds are really nothing to sneeze at (faster speeds closer to the Cabinet of course).
        It is interesting to note that all of these countries first planned a full FTTP network roll-out. But on the analysis of the costs versus the benefits to the consumer, the more modest approach has been taken. So Mr. Turnbull’s plan puts Australia on par with the global internet community.

        “What is his argument to refute all major telcos and big internet based companies such as Google, etc, showing that 50Mb just won’t cut it after a couple of years?”

        Good point. This is why I am against the current NBN model. If indeed the “Brave New World” of the internet is going to shortly require that people have a greater than 25 Mbps connection, then the current NBN model excludes all of the people on a satellite service, it excludes all of those on a fixed wireless service, it excludes the poor, the unemployed, pensioners, fruit pickers!, students, single parents, all of the people who cannot affor a premium internet service. Instead of supplying 12 Mbps over fixed wireless and Satellite, the better engineering model would be to design a homogeneous network on FTTN so the ‘body shape’ of the trunk to node architecture remains consistant regardless of geographic location. The last mile can be the best fit for circumstance be it VDSL, 4G LTE Advanced, Wi-Fi or FTTP. From an engineering POV and from a financial POV Mr Turnbull’s comments are quite correct in this instance.

        HTH.
        Mark Addinall.

        • Yes, sorry, got them around the wrong way.

          ” In the case of copper, I would say the FTTN(FTTC) architecture has an extremely viable life span”
          Do you disagree with the forcasts? Based on them it has a life of a couple of years.

          “More than two new satellites which have a life span of a mere fifteen years”
          I very much doubtr FTTN has a 15 year lifespan.

          “Who says that FTTN is out of date technology? Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy ..”
          All of which started rolling this stuff out years ago, have started on FTTH and concede their eventual goal is FTTH.

          “Although, VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet, so these speeds are really nothing to sneeze at”
          They will be in a few years time when they are rolling it out and the countries that had FTTN start heavily into their FTTH upgrade cycle.

          ” But on the analysis of the costs versus the benefits to the consumer, the more modest approach has been taken. So Mr. Turnbull’s plan puts Australia on par with the global internet community.”
          What analysis? Yes, it’s initial roll out is cheaper. Is it cheaper long term? Given that the Libs plan to get private enterprise to do it, is it cheaper with no return and being put into a position where once again Telstra sets the price?

          “it excludes all of those on a fixed wireless service”
          The plan is to upgrade these as new trechnologies come along.

          “excludes the poor, the unemployed, pensioners, fruit pickers!, students, single parents, all of the people who cannot affor a premium internet service”
          The plans are cheaper than current ADSL2+ plans.

          “Instead of supplying 12 Mbps over fixed wireless and Satellite, the better engineering model would be to design a homogeneous network on FTTN”
          FTTN is even less viable for remote areas. A node per cattle station?

          “The last mile can be the best fit for circumstance be it VDSL, 4G LTE Advanced, Wi-Fi or FTTP. From an engineering POV and from a financial POV Mr Turnbull’s comments are quite correct in this instance.”
          I don’t believe for an instant that Mr Turnbull is motivated by engineering. It’s about spending as little as possible because Abbott see the Internet as an unecessary evil and getting the public to believe they will do something. Wasn’t their last NBN coverage only 40% fixed line, the rest wireless and satilite?

          • “Yes, sorry, got them around the wrong way.”

            No worries. Easy to do. TLAs!

            ” In the case of copper, I would say the FTTN(FTTC) architecture has an extremely viable life span”
            “Do you disagree with the forcasts? Based on them it has a life of a couple of years.”

            Which forecasts? I have worked for Paradox Digital, Telstra and OPTUS (twice) and am yet to hear that being bandied around. Since BT have just FINISHED a FTTC roll-out and are now offering FTTH from the very same cabinet ON DEMAND then I would consider the proposed life expectancy based on the investment to be at least a decade, and I would bet more.

            “More than two new satellites which have a life span of a mere fifteen years”
            “I very much doubtr FTTN has a 15 year lifespan.”

            Why?I had my first email account in 1988. My first ozemail account in 1994! and the architecture of this important tool has not changed a lot over the last few decades. Network speeds and protocols have changed to an extent, however, we seemed to end up with one of the oldest and simplest of architectures, being SMTP over TCP/IP.

            “Who says that FTTN is out of date technology? Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy ..”
            “All of which started rolling this stuff out years ago, have started on FTTH and concede their eventual goal is FTTH.”

            They are offering FTTH as an extension to the existing FTTC network. Not as an alternative. It is becoming available on-demand at a cost. BT are not giving away an FTTH service to everyone in the Dart for free.

            “Although, VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet, so these speeds are really nothing to sneeze at”
            “They will be in a few years time when they are rolling it out and the countries that had FTTN start heavily into their FTTH upgrade cycle.”

            This is just not true.

            ” But on the analysis of the costs versus the benefits to the consumer, the more modest approach has been taken. So Mr. Turnbull’s plan puts Australia on par with the global internet community.”
            “What analysis?”

            The analysis that led BT, France, Germany, Italy and most of the USA to not implement carpet wide FTTH but to roll out an FTTN (FTTC) network and offer FTTH as an extension.

            “Yes, it’s initial roll out is cheaper. Is it cheaper long term?”

            Yes it has to be, by definition.

            “Given that the Libs plan to get private enterprise to do it, is it cheaper with no return and being put into a position where once again Telstra sets the price?”

            I worked for Telstra. And have been involved in telecommunications/varios engineering for thirty years and I have seen most things. Telstra was made to react to market competition, and quite rightly so. They sat on xDSL technology for a long time with the idea of extending the life of it’s ISDN product(s). In the last five-ten years this has changed most dramatically for the better. They can still be a PIA, but as a company that is expected to turn a profit, I am rather glad they try hard.

            The current model of the NBNCo, business, engineering aside for a moment, is to create Telecom_Mk2, which I think is insane. We are swapping an evolving dinosaur for one that is going backwards in biological time.

            “it excludes all of those on a fixed wireless service”
            “The plan is to upgrade these as new trechnologies come along.”

            When? For how much?

            “excludes the poor, the unemployed, pensioners, fruit pickers!, students, single parents, all of the people who cannot affor a premium internet service”
            “The plans are cheaper than current ADSL2+ plans.”

            I beg your pardon. You mean that a 12 Mbps NBN plan is cheaper than current ADSL2+ offerings?
            They are close at the moment. However this does not address my point. The supporters of the current NBN model propose that the “Brave New World” of the internet will require super fast speeds to do anything worth while. Whilst I disagree with this nonsense I point out that the people who can’t afford a $50 pm service now, are very unlikely to be able to afford a $100 pm service regardless of how pretty it might be.

            You are asking people who can’t afford a train ticket if they would like to buy a Ferrari for more ore less the same price as a Porsche.

            “Instead of supplying 12 Mbps over fixed wireless and Satellite, the better engineering model would be to design a homogeneous network on FTTN”
            “FTTN is even less viable for remote areas. A node per cattle station?”

            Don’t be silly. Although a NODE can sercvice a wireless transmission tower.

            “The last mile can be the best fit for circumstance be it VDSL, 4G LTE Advanced, Wi-Fi or FTTP. From an engineering POV and from a financial POV Mr Turnbull’s comments are quite correct in this instance.”
            “I don’t believe for an instant that Mr Turnbull is motivated by engineering. It’s about spending as little as possible because Abbott see the Internet as an unecessary evil and getting the public to believe they will do something. Wasn’t their last NBN coverage only 40% fixed line, the rest wireless and satilite?”

            Unsure. I have never changed my topology for an NBN, and it seems that THEY now agree with ME (which is always a good thing). Your comment about Mr. Turnbull’s motivation and Mr. Abbott’s intent are pure personal speculation, and the BLOG owner promised this would not be allowed. Tsk…

            Mark Addinall.

          • “Although, VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet, so these speeds are really nothing to sneeze at”

            Their upload capacity is to be sneezed at.

          • “Although, VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet, so these speeds are really nothing to sneeze at”

            “Their upload capacity is to be sneezed at.”

            Why?

            40/10 seems to be the standard offering on FTTC networks in Europe. That is pretty bloody reasonable. That is unless you want to pirate a lot of movies and Torrent them.

            My FTTH is 30/1.5.

            I believe the entry level NBN plan is 12/1 is it not? Then 25/5, then 50/20 then 100/40.

            From replies I have had in the past I can only assume we are building this entire network for six graphic artists four of whom live in Penrith.

            ehealth.addinall.net

            That entire site including graphics is 3.1 MB (24.8 Mb) at 10 Mbps uplink is…. lemmee work it out. Oh look, it’s finished. For a person who seems to enjoy brevity, you must write some pretty bloody long papers.

            Mark Addinall.

          • Actually I have a 100Mb/s HFC connection. I am not a graphic artist but all my work is done via computer.

            Simply, if I had the NBN speeds, in this case the upload rate, I would not need to make the daily journey into the office.

          • “The current model of the NBNCo, business, engineering aside for a moment, is to create Telecom_Mk2, which I think is insane. We are swapping an evolving dinosaur for one that is going backwards in biological time.”

            nope, its Telecom_Wholesale_Mk1. First of its kind. Wont be competing for customers with its own wholesale customers.

          • “When? For how much?”

            LOL, I would have thought the question of “when” and “how much” to upgrade from FttN to FttH would have been of more concern…

          • “VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet”

            VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km.

            NB These are THEORETICAL maximums for a single isolated service not subjected to any interference from neighbouring pairs and real world results will be poorer.
            Not also that due to the massive crosstalk generated by VDSL, no other kind of service can be propagated over teh same cable.

        • “Good point. This is why I am against the current NBN model. If indeed the “Brave New World” of the internet is going to shortly require that people have a greater than 25 Mbps connection, then the current NBN model excludes all of the people on a satellite service, it excludes all of those on a fixed wireless service, it excludes the poor, the unemployed, pensioners, fruit pickers!, students, single parents, all of the people who cannot affor a premium internet service.”

          False. The “current NBN model” does not exclude any of those people from getting faster than 25mbps. It is a 93% FttH build but there is a possibility of extending the network beyond that later and some communities are already interested in the network extension program. With FttN there is NO such possibility, assuming a 93% FttN build (being very generous here) that will just be a bigger hurdle for those in the 7% getting the FttH goal. They will still be on wireless & satellite under a FttN patchwork.

          Also in this day and age fibre is not considered a “premium internet service” it is the new standard and if you think it’s not: Greenfields.

          • ” If indeed the “Brave New World” of the internet is going to shortly require that people have a greater than 25 Mbps connection, then the current NBN model excludes all of the people on a satellite service, it excludes all of those on a fixed wireless service”

            Actually the NBN plan calls for future enhancements to both the satellite and wireless infrastructure in order to provide higher data rates.
            Even in it’s current form, the wireless rollout is capable of 100mb/s but that will be throttled in order to provide the best bang for buck for the rollout.

        • “VDSL2 can provide 25-100 Mbps at up to 1.6 km from a Cabinet, so these speeds are really nothing to sneeze at”

          ie. 100 if the cabinet is on your doorstep, 25 if it’s a mile away and no better than ADSL2 or ADSL1 if you are any farther out.

          Ah-choo!

  2. With regard to his statements about poor wireless coverage/reception in the bush, such statements need to be clarified with regards to which mobile network is being complained about. In terms of effort put into remote locations the order of coverage rank is Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone/VHA.

    If he is saying that he hears many complains about VHA rural service, then VHA and the customer unwilling to pay for better service is the issue. You shouldnt be buying a mobile phone for use out in a remote area without doing your homework on if the mobile phone company your considering has coverage out there.

    Turnbull is making a spurious claim here.

  3. I applaud your initiative Renai, and I will look at this carefully when I can, but the trouble is the vagaries of his statements. “While there is every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed and could do the job a lot more efficiently” Not a statement of fact, and indeed very difficult to prove either way.

  4. FTTN is cheaper. That’s not a lie. It’s quite true.

    I have never had a problem with that argument, or policy. The problem is, it’s one side of a two sided coin.

    The expense appears when you translate from FTTN to FTTH or FTTP. This is the point where Mr Turnbull will not comment. Will not provide policy.

    In fact, he completely ignores the scenario. There are deployments (overseas) he has used as examples of FTTN being the answer. Those same places are now struggling to come-to-terms with how to translate to FTTH.

    The world is moving towards fibre. We can either spend now, or spend later. Either way, we spend — It’s not an avoidable, optional decision.

    Turnbull would have us believe minimal Government expenditure will solve the problem. It doesn’t; his policies simply delay the inevitable. So someone else has to clean up the mess.

    Conroy did. Agree with the model or not, he’s had the gumption and balls to do what successive L/NP terms have not.

    It’s not a case of either, or. It’s never been a choice between models. It’s simply a case of when do you pay the pied piper. Now, when the costs can be rolled into an investment model, or later. L/NP likes “later”, because it will always cease to be their problem.

    • I used to argue this point on Whirlpool back in 2008 and I was amazed how long it took smart people to catch on.
      To my mind, the main reason FTTN is cheaper is because of the reduced Labour costs. So effectively what results is a small capex cost, but the same or greater maintainance cost. Oppositions need big headlines like “OMFG we’ll build it $$$ Billion cheaper!”, but as potential guardians of the future of our nation they are also obligated to consider the total cost over the long term.
      As others have mentioned, that is a point we need to push the opposition to answer – The Labor party claim the NBN is a long-term nation building exercise, and have backed up their claim with reasoned arguments and figures (which rightly so need to be publicly debated). The liberal party need to show us that their plan is equal or better over the same time frame, and so far they have avoided the issue with more jouvinile headline grabbing, by using one or two isolated points and implying therefore that everything else is also invalid.
      They have now forgone the option of arguing that nothing should be done, although they could argue that “something” should be done, and the private sector (read “someone else”) should do it, but they still need to answer the long-term cost of that solution also.

      This brings me on to what I think is the crux of the issue – This is not an engineering and economics debate about which technology brings the most bang for buck, but a philosophical issue.
      Liberal and Labour are very polarised in their views about government intervention in “free markets”, “social outcomes”, and the roll of government services in general. Labor have done a reasonable job in answering where the NBN fits into these contexts (market failure of past decade, telecoms needs restructure etc..) but the Liberal viewpoint has never been espoused. What we need to hear is why the Liberals think their solution is better from the Liberal philosophical view – Why should the NBN have as little government ownership as possible, why do they think this is mainly a private sector issue, what level of service do they think is really justified as a long term benefit to the nation, what cost would they be willing to pay for that service is money was no issue, would they just subdise the private sector to do it and what additional benefit would that bring over continuing with NBNco?

      I suspect the Liberal party have never actually thought much about these things, as they always seem to be just reacting to what Labour is doing, even when they were last in government. And the previous election was potentially lost in the issue of broadband as well. If the Liberal party as a whole could get their collective butts into gear and get themselves an actual policy that reflects their philosophy and ideals as a party then I suspect our fact checking exercises would be far less extensive. Their undoing is trying to invent something on the run that doesn’t exist, and in doing so they are having to “spin” the truth a little to far, and selectively quote sources to “invent” their message.

      Sorry about the rant, this here is one frustrated generally Liberal voter.

    • “FTTN is cheaper. That’s not a lie. It’s quite true”

      Actually, it is quite false.

      The original Labor plan was FTTN but it was rejected because there was no significant capital cost difference, but the ongoing maintenance cost would increase each year.

      The current copper network costs about 3.5 billion each year to maintain according to the Telstra annual report (it generates about 4.5 billion in revenue).

      A FTTN network will, of necessity, take on that $3.5 billion in maintenance since it will be using the same infrastructure. Over 10 years of operation, a FTTN network will cost $35 billion (in todays money) to maintain on top of the provisioning costs assuming no further deteriation of the infrastructure.

      Compare this to the $0 a brand new network will cost to maintain over the same time period.
      Put another way, a FTTN network will cost as much over 10 years as building a brand new fibre network.

      • @Goresh:

        “The original Labor plan was FTTN but it was rejected because there was no significant capital cost difference, but the ongoing maintenance cost would increase each year.”

        No, it was rejected because they would have to pay Telstra $15-20 Billion for buying the copper, plus the $5 Billion to build it. It has nothing to do with maintenance and ALL to do with capital cost as a result of buying the copper.

        “The current copper network costs about 3.5 billion each year to maintain according to the Telstra annual report”

        Reference please? According to Telstra’s own reports, it costs around $1Billion a year- this is given independent from the financial statements because they do not break the maintenance costs down that way in that statement. And they do, indeed, make around $4.5 Billion off it.

        “A FTTN network will, of necessity, take on that $3.5 billion in maintenance since it will be using the same infrastructure. Over 10 years of operation, a FTTN network will cost $35 billion (in todays money) to maintain on top of the provisioning costs assuming no further deteriation of the infrastructure.”

        Again, this isn’t right. It’s not likely to cost much over $10-15 Billion over 10 years to maintain the full copper network and LESS if FTTN takes a chunk of copper out, which it will thanks to the nodes moving further down the copper. Also…

        “Compare this to the $0 a brand new network will cost to maintain over the same time period.”

        No…..no no no no no. NO network costs $0 to maintain. Yes, it will be substantially less. But NOWHERE near $0.

        “Put another way, a FTTN network will cost as much over 10 years as building a brand new fibre network.”

        That’s assumption. It is not based in fact. That is no better than what Turnbull is doing.

        • “Reference please? According to Telstra’s own reports, it costs around $1Billion a year- this is given independent from the financial statements because they do not break the maintenance costs down that way in that statement.”

          Ok, I was quoting from memory a report from several years ago.

          Based on 2011 report
          Revenue PSTN Products: $5370 million
          PSTN EBITDA Margin 59%
          Implies Operating Expenses 41% or $2202 million
          EBITDA does not include all variables so actual operating cost is likely to be higher.

          ” And they do, indeed, make around $4.5 Billion off it.”

          Revenue is NOT profit, it is the incoming cash flow.
          $5370 million * 59% = $3168 million – effective tax rate 28.7% = $2259 million

          • @Goresh

            Implies Operating Expenses 41% or $2202 million

            I don’t believe it works like that. Profit margin is usually per service. It takes into account operating expenses- how much it “costs” overall to provide the service.

            We’re talking about “maintenance” not operating costs. Operating costs include power, all associated wholesale support costs, staff training costs etc etc. That’s not a fair argument to use against Telstra for maintenance- those things don’t fall under maintenance. They are literally what they are listed as – “Operating” expenses, INCLUDING maintenance.

            Why would Telstra say it costs them $1 Billion (and they were reluctant enough to say that) to maintain and NOT make it official if you could just work it out from financial statements?

      • @Goresh
        YES, the original Labour parties NBN model WAS FTTN, i was also Rejected becouse they would have to pay telstra in the order of $15 Billion for the Priviledge of using their copper network, (Under Australian Law) and with that $15 Billion dollars the australian government had just paid telstra. Telstra would build their own FTTH network right past the NBNco’s coper tail. THATS WHY LABOUR REJECTED THE FTTN PLAN, thats why so much regulation into the structural sepperation of telstra has taken place.
        thats why Labour have paid telstra and optus to decomission their HFC networks.

        and i cant believe everyone has forgotten that.

        • “YES, the original Labour parties NBN model WAS FTTN, i was also Rejected becouse they would have to pay telstra in the order of $15 Billion for the Priviledge of using their copper network, (Under Australian Law) and with that $15 Billion dollars the australian government had just paid telstra.”

          Actually it would be more than $15 billion, probably closerto $20 billion as they also have to cover lost profit on the asset.

          Clearly that isn’t the whole picture because NBNco is paying out $11 billion just for access to ducts and shifting customers (effectively the future profit part of the acquisition cost).

          The original plan had the expectation that Telstra would retain the copper network AND it’s maintenance costs and the government would pay only part of the cost of the FTTN part of the rollout with Telstra covering the rest out of profits on the new services. The hole in this was that, without exclusive access to the FTTN, there was no guarantee of any profit at all for Telstra so they wouldn’t play ball without that condition.
          Of course we don’t know the exact details but it appears the other submissions started with the compulsary acquisition of Telstra’s copper by the government which would then be provided free to the tenderer.

          In the end, by the time you factored in acquisition and maintenance, it simply wasn’t viable or cost effective versus a complete new rollout.

  5. 2.

    “It is proceeding at a snail’s pace.”

    More people connected to fibre sooner is important. Understood, no argument there.

    “you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more for FTTH and 100 mbps plus, what are you going to have? Its obvious.”

    It certainly is obvious (to those able to see beyond the next election cycle) since once choice would limit you to 50mbps for a long time (at least 10 years???) while the other is effectively future proof and the sky would be the limit. FttN fails. FttH wins. (Also noted you only mentioned download speeds here not upload speeds… in fact no mention of upload speeds at all in your blog post, you’ll have to do better than this Turnbull)

    “Ten years is a very long time to wait for a broadband upgrade.”

    But we are constantly told by the coaltion that the faster speeds fibre will enable are not needed so really by your logic why does it matter? Ten years is nothing compared to how long that network will service us for. The alternative a FttN patchwork taking maybe 5 years to build and then another 10 to fix up the mess and upgrade to FttH is not very efficient and those waiting for faster speeds (speeds that actually matter) will be waiting longer with such a plan.

  6. Hi Renai,

    I have not responded to all points, however here are my notes:

    Response to 1:
    By definition, “Sabotage” involves deliberately destroying damaging or obstructing something. Simply by proposing an alternative plan, the Coalition is seeking to obstruct the National Broadband Network from being completed in its current form and therefore are, by definition, sabotaging the NBN.

    Response to 2:
    Mr Turnbull is unable to speak for the current requirements of all households in Australia when he says “a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now” thus his comment is inaccurate and therefore he cannot justify that it is more sensible to deploy a different technology.

    This renders the remainder of Section 2 invalid.

    Response to 3:
    Fibre-to-the-Node cannot be compared with Fibre-to-the-Home as the technologies are fundamentally different.

    FTTN transmits data using electrical signals whilst the other uses light signals.

    An FTTN rollout also does not involve rolling out new lead-in connections to premises and instead uses existing copper infrastructure, whereas the NBN involves connecting a new fibre lead-in to 93% of houses, the cost of doing so is naturally more expensive as more work is required.

    As such, the cost difference between FTTN and FTTH cannot be compared as the rollout method also differs fundamentally.

    The only accurate cost comparison would be FTTN including a transition/overbuild/upgrade to FTTH vs. constructing FTTH from the start.

    Response to 4:
    This is largely covered in response to 3, the costs cannot be compared and so it is inaccurate to say that one is cheaper than the other, without all other factors being equal on both types of infrastructure (current and potential speed, resistance to environmental conditions, etc.)

    Response to 7:
    Mr Turnbull’s statement that the existing wireless carriers would be able to deliver wireless broadband at “a much lower cost to the taxpayer” is inaccurate from two points of view.

    Firstly, if we take the reference to “cost the taxpayer” as being used in place of “costing less tax money”, it is inaccurate because the National Broadband Network is 100% funded through Equity Funding and is not funded in any way by tax.

    Secondly, if we take the reference to “cost the taxpayer” as being used literally where taxpayers, that is, “working Australians”, the comments are also inaccurate as it is false to claim that Mr Turnbull’s proposed method of using the current wireless carriers is cheaper than the NBN method without being able to compare the two methods side by side.

    However, on that note, let’s look at the current evidence.
    Both 3G and 4G plans from the current wireless carriers are more expensive per megabyte of data transferred than the wireless services offered by carriers through the NBN.

    Also, for the cost of the service, neither of the 3G or 4G plans from the current wireless carriers can guarantee a lack of congestion, whereas wireless services on the NBN are fundamentally designed and provisioned to avoid congestion, as such, the customer will get a better value for the cost of their service through an NBN fixed wireless service.

    As a result of these First and Second points, all of Mr Turnbull’s claims relating to the cost of wireless in Section 7 are inaccurate.

    Regards,
    Geoff U.

  7. In point 6 Mr Turnbull claims NBN FTTH will only target communities of 1000 premises or more. But NBN Co claim 93% of Aussie premises connected.
    I’ve traveled extensively rurally, and there are many, many homes not in communities of 1000 or more.
    I have no facts I’m afraid, but 93% FTTH does not seem to match 1000 premises or above.

    • @muso1

      That is because this is only part of the story- They are connecting towns with 1000 premises guaranteed and they are connecting towns with 500 premises or more if they are within the transit network that gets the fibre to these 1000 premises towns or they are nearby.

      THIS is how we get from 90.3%-92.6% (93% by end of rollout)

      Again, another half truth from Turnbull to suit his argument.

  8. Not so much a correction, but so many of his comments seem to be based on ambiguously comparative figures.

    “a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now “. Figures please? Facts?

    “In many of those communities fibre to the node can provide very high broadband speeds and at modest cost.” What speed does he consider “very high”?

    “While there is every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed and could do the job a lot more efficiently.” Evidence? No?

  9. Most of Turnbull’s commentary seems to be a complete pluck from a bodily orifice, with little to nothing to support any of it. Every one of his points is facile and disingenuous.

    1). Redefining the NBN to be something COMPLETELY different to the current deal, but still calling it the NBN, does not give the Coalition the right to say they are not destroying it. Their proposals so far are not capable of anything like the overall capability of the NBN as planned. I call this one a lie as it is so far from reality as to make it untruthful.

    2). Turnbull conflates an “upgrade” from nothing to something with the NBN, and is thoroughly misleading on the rates that would be possible from the “FTTN” upgrades. He is correct though that the NBN appears to be proceeding at a snails pace.

    3). Again, disingenuous. Yes fibre to the node may be cheaper to deploy now, however it comes with pretty close to zero ability to upgrade and a non-trivial non-recoverable price tag. Additionally, it is not an upgrade at all for those houses lucky enough to be relatively close to an existing exchange (their current Node in an FTTN network). FTTN is a rolling plan for the govt to give money to telcos for decades to come.

    4). Just.. what? The NBN will be cheaper if it is? Incidentally, there have been no barriers to competition over the last many years, its gotten us where we are today. Right?

    5). Equivalent price, no detail on equivalent service. Misleading in the extreme. Also, which city dwelling taxpayers want to have the “subsidy” they are paying for the bush pointed out to them? A separate subsidy plan is a ghastly idea. One may also like to think of the costs of administering such a scheme, the rorting that may be involved (since clearly the Coalition believes no govt scheme is without massive costs and stuff ups). I think Turnbull’s proposal here is seriously less efficient, costlier and more prone to abuse than the NBN plan of working out how much it takes to provide all the connections and charging everyone a similar rate.

    6). First part: fixed wireless is suggested to be sub-par. What was the Coalition’s plan again? Second part: does anyone else see the flaw in building an exchange / node every 1000m across the country? Most rural communities are, wait for it, not densely populated. They are quite spread out geographically, unlike urban areas. It is a falsehood to say that these communities could be serviced at “modest” cost; if it were not then surely the telstra’s of the world would have done so thanks to, you know, competition etc over the last 20 or so years. Right?

    7). Fixed wireless and 3g / 4g are not the same thing. Fixed wireless is your Wimax type stuff. Also… wtf pay telstra and optus (and vodafone, and any other 2 bit startup) to build towers? Do we pay ALL telcos to provide the infrastructure (thereby ending up with massively duplicated service and a gazillion towers to service each small town)? How can Turnbull possibly say this is cheaper or more appropriate than the NBN wireless without a single figure on how much a telco might actually charge for this sort of service?

    Summary:

    Turnbull doesn’t directly lie in any of this, but then again his random statements about what might or could be the case are not based in reality in any sense either. Those Australians living in “the bush” should be shaking their heads in disgust at his comments on the sort of service they might get. Those in the cities should be wondering why would the coalition give taxpayer money to telcos to get… more of the same.

    The problem isn’t that hes lying, its that hes just making stuff up. You can’t criticise his costings for telcos to provide services rather than the NBN for example because.. he has none! Its just assertion. The only sensible rebuttal you can make to this stuff is to say “No its not”. Because it has precisely the same basis in fact as the original claims he makes.

  10. My main complaint is the assertion that FTTN can be done cheaper than FTTH, as the examples he quotes all involve upgrades to the existing copper network. However, the government currently does not own the existing copper network. NBNCo has signed a deal with Telstra for the rental of it’s ducts and pipes, but has no rights whatsoever to use Telstra’s copper. And Telstra is only required to decomission its copper where FTTH is installed instead.

    Turnbull has not made any allowance for the cost of compulsory acquisition of Telstra’s copper (estimated at $20billion a few years ago), or alternately, has not been open with the public that it will be Telstra who owns and operates the FTTN infrastructure, not NBNCo. If the latter is in fact their plan, then that further calls into question his assertion that they intend to ‘complete’ the NBN. Because obviously an NBN owned and operated by Telstra is a very different proposal to the current plan.

    Along similar lines – his statement that the fixed wireless portion of the network should be ‘put out to tender’ fundamentally changes the NBN business model of an independent wholesale only infrastructure provider.

    Providing grants to private companies to upgrade their own infrastructure is *not* the NBN. And if that is their plan, then their entire position is a lie.

    • I’m sorry, and maybe it’s just me, but I’m finding these constant “demands” for “references” / “evidence” to the fact that FTTN is cheaper than FTTP to verge on the idiotic.

      Let’s step back for a moment …

      Option #1 (FTTP) – pay an army of blokes to dig trenches down EVERY SINGLE street (10+ years?) across suburban Australia, laying fibre as they go and making good the damage caused. Order/scale of the exercise: ~10^7 (~10m houses). Cost: patently pretty damn HUGE.

      Option #2 (FTTN) – pepper a few thousand (or perhaps tens of thousand?) cabinets around suburban Australia, hook into the existing copper network and go from there. Order/scale: 10^3 – 10^4 (1,000 – 10,000 cabinets / concentrators). Cost? … Well, it’s got to be lower, doesn’t it.

      Or can you do 10^7 cheaper than I can do 10^4? Where is YOUR evidence, sir?

      Please, everyone, just LOOK at the above numbers – we are talking THREE ORDERS of magnitude difference in scale/complexity between these two options … Can this point (FTTP is costlier) honestly still be of debate? (But.., but .., …)

      This is people’s will (“I want it”), or political disposition (“I don’t like Liberal”) masquerading as scientific argument. Where has that happened before? Anyone? Hmm.

      • @Dave

        I’m afraid you’re about to have a run on your comment, considering, to start with:

        “Option #1 (FTTP) – pay an army of blokes to dig trenches down EVERY SINGLE street (10+ years?) across suburban Australia, laying fibre as they go and making good the damage caused.”

        They’re not digging any trenches actually. They’re using Telstra ones. Remember that really expensive Telstra deal?

        “Order/scale of the exercise: ~10^7 (~10m houses)”

        12 Million premises actually, including 2 million businesses. Arguably the most important part.

        “Option #2 (FTTN) – pepper a few thousand (or perhaps tens of thousand?) cabinets around suburban Australia, hook into the existing copper network and go from there.”

        75 000 if you want the same coverage as the FTTH. If you don’t, obviously it will be less- oh look, you’re advocating what the Coalition are; give it to the metro people and screw the Regionals….you’ll excuse me if I don’t jump for joy at your “cost-saving” idea…. Nobody has ever disputed that, rollout for rollout FTTN will be cheaper. Except you know that “existing copper network” to be “hooked” into? Telstra owns that. Do you REALLY think they’re just gonna give it away?

        “Please, everyone, just LOOK at the above numbers – we are talking THREE ORDERS of magnitude difference in scale/complexity between these two options … Can this point (FTTP is costlier) honestly still be of debate? (But.., but .., …)”

        Indeed we are. So is the case Mr Turnbull makes- 1/4-1/3 the cost for rollout. So let’s take $10 Billion as a likely amount (between 1/4 and 1/3 the total NBN cost) for FTTN. Then we have to add contract cancellations- $2-3 Billion. Then we have to add the cost of buying the copper. It’s been put as low as $8 Billion and as high as $15 Billion now. So lets take $11 Billion as a good guesstimate. So far that’s $26 Billion. The total cost to the government for the NBN is $27 Billion…..

        “This is people’s will (“I want it”), or political disposition (“I don’t like Liberal”) masquerading as scientific argument. Where has that happened before? Anyone? Hmm.”

        Dave, your basis for “scientific argument” is “These numbers are smaller, therefore it costs less.” Tell me, does that work in technology generally? In fact, does that work in any commercial sense even? If you scale down the amount of things ordered for a store, do they get cheaper? And what happens if you find you need more than you ordered? You have to order more, at the same higher price (as you could’ve gotten lower price with economy of scale to begin with) and extra delivery to boot.

        The same applies here- FTTP is, no question, more expensive to rollout when compared with FTTN. But:

        1- The physical cost of the rollout is NOT, by FAR, the only cost associated with the network as a whole.

        2- If we find in 10 years (which, according to all conservative estimates is likely) that we need more speed than FTTN can bring, we’ll need FTTP….and we’ll have just spent and not yet finished paying off almost as much paid for an FTTN as we would then have to spend on an FTTP. Because, as you proved, the magnitude of scale doesn’t change significantly after doing an FTTN to go to an FTTP. (a few tens of thousands compared to 12 million, remember?)

        People have a right to want to know the truth. And the truth in this case is not Black & White as Mr Turnbull would have us look at it, like “An FTTN rollout in Australia will be 1/3 the cost of the NBN.” Nobody I have seen here has disputed that the actual cost of rolling out the FTTN, once everything is in place, wouldn’t be cheaper than FTTP. That’s just plain common sense.

        But, your “scientific argument” falls down, because FTTN is not isolated. It must be built using EXISTING infrastructure (PART of what makes it so cheap to rollout, is USING the existing copper) which a company owns and who, by constitutional right, requires compensatory payments for assets used/bought. Current contracts don’t just expire and that’s an end to it. We will be left with an approximately 1/4 complete NBN (assuming they don’t just rip up the contracts on getting in) that MUST be incorporated into the FTTN. This takes time and money to plan successfully, as the NBN has taken almost 3 years to get to full rollout state.

        As a final note, all this saved money from FTTN, if there is some after buying the copper? It comes from the budget, because an FTTN network doesn’t have a business case unless it’s built by NBNCo/GBE and do you REALLY think the Coalition, who believe NBNCo. is being mis-mananged and a waste, is going to condone them building the FTTN? So, we are charged $26 Billion ON-Budget, compared to around $4 Billion On-Budget for the NBN. Where does that figure come from you ask? That’s the amount of interest paid on the $27 Billion over it’s loan term before it is paid back by the users of the NBN.

        So, $26 Billion for an FTTN On-Budget, or $4 Billion On-Budget for the NBN….you were asking how we could say the FTTP rollout was less?….

        Please, don’t weigh in on arguments with petty, condescending quips if you are unaware of the basis behind those you are arguing against.

        • Actually 7_T, I for one wouldnt mind questioning the cheaper claim. See below, but cheaper for who, and cheaper over what timeframe?

          To roll out the nodes and get basic access to the premise would be cheaper than the fibre alternative, sure, but what about the final cost to public monies, and what about when everything has to be ripped up and replaced? One plan recoups the public cost, the other doesnt. and for me at least, thats important.

          These are people wanting to be the GOVERNMENT, and be spending public monies. They need to be accountable against that cost, and their plan recoups none of the expense. Its called budgeting.

          So cheaper for who? If people want to fact check MT, look at that aspect, and question whether its cheaper for the Australian public.

      • Dave no one is arguing that FttN is less expensive to roll out, as is, compared to FttP. Like dirt roads are cheaper than freeways. Why aren’t you here telling us the virtues of dirt?

        So the variables have to be looked at, as to whether the added initial cost of FttP is beneficial.

        Considering FttP will be required at some stage whether FttN is rolled out or not, wouldn’t it make more sense to do the “freeway” now rather be happy with a “dirt road (which partly belongs to a private company) because it’s cheaper.

        Interesting your parting shot too, because I am yet to meet anyone who can demonstrate a better all round plan than the NBN regardless of politics.

        A plan which encompasses technological soundness, longevity, common sense funding from assets and bonds (not income taxes), which obtains a fair ROI to allow fair pricing for all Aussies, a network which will repay itself and be an asset for Australia, a system to level the playing field – taking the reins away from Telstra, etc, etc

        The current alternative from the Coalition does “none” of the above. That is NOT a politically biased claim that is fact.

        As such, the only people I have encountered who are opposed to the NBN are staunch Coalition supporters, bleating FttN is faster (faster being a very sneaky word to use) and cheaper.

        Ironically the Coalition used the same tactics but the words “sooner and cheaper”, when in government in 2007, in relation to their OPEL plan, compared to the then oppositions FttN (yes- the same technology the Coalition now herald… sigh) which they back then referred to as fraud-band…

        _____________________________

        7:30 report 18/6/2007 – “The Government will deliver a national broadband network, sooner and cheaper than the Labor plan…”

        And

        MICHAEL VALE (Deputy PM) : They’re only going to achieve 75 per cent coverage and, Mr Speaker, their “fraudband” proposal is only going to be completed in 2013. We’re going to have ours done in 2009.

        *rolls eyes*

      • “I’m sorry, and maybe it’s just me”

        Not it is not just you . It is everyone who come on this site and starts by either starting with false premises (dig trenches down every single street) or argue by avoiding important aspects (upgrade, budget costs..) and when challenged never come back to correct or clarify their points.

        “Option #2 (FTTN) – pepper a few thousand (or perhaps tens of thousand?) cabinets around suburban Australia”,

        Why are you suddenly so minimalist here? Do you know how close to houses the nodes will be? If it were the unlikely 1m suggested by one of your soul mates to justify the Malcolm Turnbull’s 50Mbps claim, then you are more likely to need well over 100 000 nodes. A lot of peppering, don’t you think?

        ” Can this point (FTTP is costlier) honestly still be of debate? (But.., but .., …)”
        Either you do not fully understand the whole issue or, worse, you do but are being disingenuous.

        “This is people’s will (“I want it”), or political disposition (“I don’t like Liberal”) masquerading as scientific argument.”

        How does the last bit ( I don’t like liberal) fits in with the very large numbers of coalition voters who favour FTTH?

        I would love to hear your comments to the replies to your post. I hope you won’t disappoint.

      • The FTTN is “cheaper” than FTTP is a straw man’s argument, that rests on the assumption that the NBN FTTP network will not make a commercial return.

        Fortescue metals is cheaper than BHP but both are profitable companies, as both an FTTN and FTTP network would be, but an FTTP network takes in more revenue than an FTTN one by virtue of the fact that FTTN is limited in the speed it can offer.

        Therefore the only benefit of an FTTN is the speed at which it might be setup – a few years difference at best, and the cost to the household consumer of the network which is a complete unknown with no guarantee that it will be materially cheaper.

  11. I feel it mildly ironic that one of the biggest complains about the recent Govt Budget from the Opposition was the “They are just deffering spending, COOKED BOOKS!!!” hysterics.

    Yet we have the exact same thing with a FTTN build.

    All a FTTN does is defer FTTH spending.

  12. The problem with fact-checking Mr Turnbull’s statement is that there are precious few facts in there! Suggestions and assumptions, yes; analogies and appeals to warm fuzzy generalities, certainly.

    Of the latter, the following is a choice example.

    Quote: “Conroy said that we would not cross subsidise the bush. We are committed (and with the vast majority of rural and regional members why would we not be?)…”

    Why not indeed? What reasonable person could possibly assume that we would ever do [i]anything[/i] to shaft the bush? Soothing… comforting… and hollow.

    Instead of a fact-based critique of costs and timing, there is a broad sweep of “reasonable” assumptions and appeals to international examples. Whether these other countries’ situation is actually relevant is not explored. That would require a level of engagement with technical detail that Mr Turnbull nowhere attempts.

    Quote: “While there is every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed and could do the job a lot more efficiently…”

    “Every reason”? What reason? Again, the appeals to reasonableness – what is self-evidently reasonable surely requires no messy facts to back it up!

  13. A couple of points.

    Claim: It will take 1 day to provision a household with fibre.

    Quote: “It is proceeding at a snail’s pace….experience even in the USA is that it takes one technician day per premise….Telstra has had a similar experience in its South Brisbane fibre roll out.”

    Verdict: Shaky, Telstra have found instances where this is the case. It does not appear to be the average rollout time per premise. (rollout takes 2.5-7 hours per connection – average not provided).

    Evidence:
    “Once a house was ready for connection, a technician would take between 2.5 and 7 hours to make the connection from the street to the network termination unit.”
    Source:
    http://www.itnews.com.au/News/268977,exclusive-inside-telstras-south-brisbane-fibre-rollout.aspx

    Claim: It will be a year or 2 for an FTTN rollout.

    Quote: “if you are in an outer suburb of Sydney or Brisbane and your broadband speeds are somewhere between nothing and not very much, and you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two…”

    Shaky. Given it took 12 months to reach an agreement with Telstra regarding the nbn, and a further 6 months for the ACCC to approve the deal, it is very unlikely that the FTTN could rollout within 2 years. More information from Malcolm is required regarding his rollout if he wishes to call this a fact.

    Evidence:
    The real world experience of NBN Co in negotiating and subsequently ratifying with the ACCC the Telstra deal.

    Claim: It will be cheaper to run an FTTN network due to infrastructure competition. (and lower network cost)

    Quote: “NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and… …additionally, we will seek to ensure that wherever possible there are no barriers to compete with the NBN and competition, even if it is only in limited areas will bring pricing pressure on the NBN Co.”

    There is little evidence of positive consumer outcomes from competing infrastructure, our current Telecommunication environment is evidence of this. A further example is the Cable TV networks. Here we had a rollout of competing infrastructure, yet rollouts have ceased.
    The only evidence that comes close to this, is the ADSL2+ DSLAM rollouts. Though; a DSLAM is a significantly smaller investment than competing infrastructure, and the rollout of ADSL2+, if anything, is comparable to the NBN model, where the Telephone exchange equates to a PoI, and the fibre network to the copper access network.

    Only after exchange access was required, and only in areas where each PoI (exchange) serviced enough people was competing ADSL infrastructure installed. Turnbull needs to provide significantly more proof for this point to stand.

    • I had more, but I realised I started to argue semantics.

      Turnbull said nothing. There are no facts to check. There are no solid claims. They are all “probably”, “maybe”, “could be”, “expected”, “by all accounts”, “in all likelihood” etc.

      He is using political double talk, and as such will be able to weasel out of every statement (because when confronted with facts, he will say: “but I never said *definently* faster, or “will” be completed in 2 years”. He said: “If you were asked if you wanted FTTP in 10 years or FTTN in 2 years”. He didn’t promise to build a network in 2 years. It was a hypothetical!.

      I only posted what I had above because I didn’t want to waste all that effort from my lunch break.

    • “But rather than establish a monopoly and seek to overcharge the cities to subsidise the bush, we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy so that everybody knows the actual cost of ensuring equality of access.”

      AKA. Raise everyones taxes to subsidise the bush “transparently”, instead of raise prices in the city to subsidise the bush

      Someone needs to call him out on this. This sounds like an “Internet Tax” placed upon all of Australia, instead of the people that opt in to the Tax by purchasing broadband capabilities.

  14. “I WOULDNT PROPOSE TO ROLL OUT HFC, NEVER HAVE SAID SO.”

    So, if the Coalition won’t be rolling out any new HFC, and the current HFC network is already at maximum capacity (if not over capacity), then doesn’t this make HFC a dead technology for any part of a future national broadband network? Unless the Coalition are planning to make the HFC network worse than it already is?

    NB. I’m referring here to the Optus HFC network. Never used Telstra HFC, so that might be in better condition to handle extra users, but I wouldn’t think so.

    • If I remember right he suggested upgrading AND extending the HFC network, correct me if I am wrong, however much comment has been made pointing out the major beneficiary would be the owners of Foxtel and Sky Channel, maybe became a hot potato

  15. Yes, i read the lot :)

    This is exactly what I thought the Coalition was thinking, thus why they never mention upgrades to FTTH.

    “I DONT THINK RESIDENTIAL USERS WILL EVER NEED 1 GBPS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS”

    Very short sighted.

      • Way too much. No user will ever need more than 320k, and even then that’s only for the uber-geeks.

          • Wanted one at the time, never did buy it, the Amiga redefined the PC with it’s co processors. Commodore shot themselves in the foot during all those greed is good retrenchments when they retrenched the Amiga,s designer/father who walked down the street into Microsoft. Bye Commodore.
            The Amiga is still a goer in Germany

  16. Point 4. FTTN is the Model T Ford of internet connections. It might be relatively cheaper but it comes only in one speed. We can safely say that although FTTH will cost more it will make more revenue in the long run since 93% of customers will actually have a choice of speed AND volume. Since we can assume that both FTTN and FTTH will in the long run make a commercial return, the question is how much cheaper to the consumer is FTTN going to be.

    My gut feeling on this is that if the average FTTN monthly connection price is lower with a lower deviation of plans then we’re not going to see much saving at the bottom end with no high income households cross subsidising them on high bandwidth, volume plans.

    Of course then then we get back to the tech argument…

  17. “1. The Coalition is not going to destroy or (as Conroy alleged) sabotage the NBN. On the contrary we will complete the national broadband network and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.”

    *The* NBN objectives (as defined in the NBNCo’s Business Plan) specifically define the scope as FTTP to 93% premises and fixed-wireless/satellite to the rest.

    It’s a lie to claim “we will complete the national broadband network” if you have no intention to keep its key objectives – it’s obvious Turnbull hopes, with some justification, majority of people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between different technologies involved – yet again the lies politicians tell depend on keeping the “masses” ignorant…

  18. Did you put out a similar request for the public to help you fact-check the government’s claims about the NBN? Or is this treatment reserved for the Opposition?

    • This is the first time Renai has done it.

      He has personally fact checked many articles out of Conroys office and from NBN Co. and reported them on delimiter. (when they say lies he doesn’t hold back on pointing them out).

      Thing is, the NBN is an expensive project, after expense has been mentioned, there actually isn’t that much to get wrong. The coalitions proposed skeleton of a policy is just that, it has no detail, and so many facts can be juggled and spun to the point that they are lies or at the very least disingenuous.

      Once the coalition settle on a policy there wont be many “facts” they can get wrong, unless they are trying to spin their network as better than the NBN.

      That isn’t to say the NBN is a perfect network, just that other than headline price and 10 year rollout schedule, it really is unbeatable (unless you lie / stretch the truth).

      OK, that’s not entirely true, you can beat it *in addition* to faster rollout or cheaper installation.
      If you removed the 1:32 GPON, and made it 1:1 you’d beat it for future speeds … but increase prices (and rollout time?) significantly.
      If you reduced the PoI count to 14 (or even 1!) you could drastically decrease the cost of entry into the ISP market. But again this costs money; and overbuilds existing backhaul networks.

      etc. See where I am going with this?

    • Fact checking the current NBN has been going on here and other media for years. Since Turnbull is not actually spelling out his plan there isn’t much to fact check. But since what he is saying about the NBN is false and has been looked at many times by people here and elsewhere they are being called on it. Conroy isn’t imune to critiscism, Filter? Nor are the ACCC decisions, 121 POI. So why should Turnbull?

    • There’s already plenty of the other side @ The Australian, Tele and via a number of highly paid radio jocks who all see the NBN as a threat to their empires.

      Perhaps you might fell more warm and cosy there?

      It’s about time the lies (and I mean lies – they can’t always be passed off as innocently incorrect claims) are highlighted for what they are.

      Thanks Renai :-)

  19. Here’s my point-by-point response. I haven’t read all of the comments yet, so apologies if some of this has been covered already.

    “… On the contrary we will complete the national broadband network …”

    The “national broadband network” has a pretty specific meaning in the eyes of most people. I believe what this actually means is “we will do our own thing, call it ‘the national broadband network’ and say we completed it.” This seems rather dishonest to me.

    “… and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.”

    I have not seen any evidence presented so far to indicate that this will be the case.

    “Why can we do it sooner? The NBN is proposing to connect 93% of Australian premises to fibre optic cables.”

    That doesn’t actually answer the “why”. Given that the next election will be towards the end of next year, and that a CBA will take at least 6-12 months, renegotationing of contracts, finishing up the existing work, redesigning the network, renegotiating with Telstra, do we know whether Quigley will stay with a Coalition NBN or would we need to spend more time finding someone to head up the new operation? I can’t imagine work actually starting on a Coalition “NBN” until at least the election after the next one: how we even know the Coalition will still be in power after that one, or whether they’d then be able to finish their network before the NBN would have had we just left it to continue?

    “every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed”

    Evidence?

    “if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it”

    Why? I agree that it might make sense to force Telstra/Optus to extend their HFC network into MDUs until the NBN can get to them, or to concentrate on exchanges which have bad coverage already, why roll out an inferior solution just to save a few years?

    if you are in an outer suburb of Sydney or Brisbane and your broadband speeds are somewhere between nothing and not very much

    You don’t need to be in the “outer suburbs” for that to be the case. I know people living in Pyrmont who are on RIMs and can’t get ADSL2+. It doesn’t get much closer to the CBD than that.

    “you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more for FTTH and 100 mbps plus, what are you going to have? Its obvious.”

    First of all, it’s FTTH and 1Gbps plus. Secondly, how are you going to deliver FTTN in a year or two? That seems laughably optimistic.

    “Why can we do it cheaper? Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. That is the experience in North America and Europe. And in Australia with very high labor costs the differential would likely be even more”

    Sure, assuming you never have to update that FTTN, ever. And where is your evidence that labour costs in Australia are any higher than they are in North America or Europe?

    “Why will it be more affordable? Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return.”

    Except, as far as I’m aware, the Coalition’s plan will be for private industry to build the FTTN network, not a government entity. So the sunk captial may be less (though again, no evidence is presented for this claim), but it would be required to generate higher private industry returns, not government returns. Would private industry built FTTN with a 7% return over 50 years?

    we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy so that everybody knows the actual cost of ensuring equality of access

    So rather than building an asset that the government ends up owning, you’ll throw money at private companies to do it with no expected return at all?

    First, as we know, the fibre to the home network is designed only to go to larger communities, of 1000 premises or more … Where there is an existing exchange it becomes “the node” and is connected to the fibre backbone and then those premises reasonably close to the node (1000 metres or less) would be able to get very high speed broadband over a fixed line without the need for the fixed wireless

    First of all, towns with their own exchange will likely already be > 1,000 residents and able to get fibre. If there are many towns where that is not the case, please let us know.

    Secondly, I don’t think you understand how FTTN works if you think VDSL in a rural town’s exchange will provide better broadband than ADSL2+ would be able to provide. VDSL gives much higher speeds when you’re close enough to the “node”, but more than a few hundred meters and it’s almost exactly the same speed as ADSL2+. So how does is this any better than what they’re able to get today?

    Additional nodes can be deployed where appropriate and cost effective.

    That’s just a cop out. “They’ll get faster broadband where it’s cost effective”, but no idea on what “cost effective” actually means. How do we even know any rural towns will get better broadband under your plan? Just because you say so?

    In my opinion, this is the biggest problem with the whole of the coalition’s plan. There’s simply not enough detail in it to actually be able to say anything concrete, other than hand-wavey “we’ll be cheaper, we’ll get it to you sooner.”

    • Phew, that ended up being one of my longest comments ever… I think I got a little carried away :)

      • Thats short compared to many on this page, and many more that will appear on this page.

        Renai should have offered a prize for the smallest word count :)

  20. “Considering it seems you are telling us all FTTH is not needed and FTTN will suffice”

    Actually Alex if you have a look at his website there are a few references to ADSL2+ seems that will suffice too… makes you wonder why they bother selling network adaptors with 100mbps and 1gbps speeds. If they limited them to ADSL2+ speeds that would be ideal and save us some money lol.

    Oh and there are a few other gems there too, obligatory Abbott-esque factual errors from Abbott:

    “Is it worth $50 BILLION to make that about 8 seconds faster? I’ll leave it to you to consider.”

    And this one, not really much to do with the NBN but gives some insight into the “half arse it” culture:

    “Image Manipulation – Not happy with the result? Instead of re-testing, have the computer fix the image. Save time and money and minimise exposure.”

    That’s right Mark here has it all figured out, those medical professionals are idiots. Not happy with the result that could determine the difference between life and death? Just run it through some image processing software rather than conclusively confirm the results with further testing. Brilliant!

  21. hey everyone,

    firstly, thanks to those who have provided point by point analysis of Turnbull’s comments, particularly where you have inserted references to help with the fact-checking. This is what I was after, and it helps me immensely.

    Just a quick note: I note that quite a few people appear to be taking the opportunity in this thread to put their views forward of what *should* happen or what they believe to be the right path forward for Australia’s telecommunications policy.

    Perhaps some of those people misunderstood the basis of this article? I didn’t ask for debate about the NBN: I asked for assistance with fact-checking. It is disappointing to me how even an article of this nature seems to drag the debate down into the same old factional NBN issues. I believe I shall be moderating Delimiter much more closely in future to avoid this.

    I have also deleted a few comments which were far too long and hijacked the discussion. Mark Addinall, you are particularly guilty of this. Please take care in future.

    Cheers,

    Renai

  22. I have already made several points over at his blog, however, I will make some brief, factual only comments herre, seeing as Renai is looking for facts, not conjecture:

    1. The Coalition is not going to destroy or (as Conroy alleged) sabotage the NBN.

    – Much of this is conjecture. However, if we want to get technical they will not complete THE NBN, they will complete A NBN. This is an important distinction they refuse to make and try and mislead with.

    2. Why can we do it sooner? The NBN is proposing to connect 93% of Australian premises to fibre optic cables. This is a very labor intensive and expensive exercise. Which is why, as at the end of May, there were only 3,700 premises in Australia connected to the new fibre network.

    And yet there are more than 20 000 connected now. A simple phonecall to NBNCo. would’ve told Mr Turnbull this. Yet he chose the smaller number in May because it suits his argument. Yes, it IS a small number- because NBNCo. have only just started commercial rollout after 3 years of regulation and contract negotiations.

    “For example the experience even in the USA is that it takes one technician day per premise to achieve a cut over from the existing copper service to fibre. And that is after the fibre has been lead into the premises. Telstra has had a similar experience in its South Brisbane fibre roll out.”

    Again, he uses “other data” rather than ringing NBNCo. I believe it has been reported it in fact takes a “half-technician day”. That is, 2 technicians 2 hours to cutover. I do not have a reference for that, I remember reading it is a blog post, however I would be happy to ring NBNCo. and find out. Unlike Mr Turnbull.

    “But even if it offers the maximum potential bandwidth, if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.”

    FTTN cannot deliver bandwidth I require now, because my copper line is not good enough. And there is no indication from the Coalition or even independents analyses I would even get the FTTN rollout here. There are many millions of people in the same boat. This is disingenuous if not factually incorrect.

    “….and you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more for FTTH….”

    There is no indication that FTTN will deliver 50Mbps to “these areas” or that it will “only” take “a year or two.” There are no facts to back this up. It is also disingenuous to say it would take “up to a decade or more” to receive FTTH services in these areas. They MAY be on the end of the rollout. But if they have little access to broadband now, likely they will not. Again, disingenuity.

    “And of course the tragedy of the NBN as designed by Labor is that there are thousands of households which could have had their broadband upgraded by now with fibre to the node had the Government not resolved to go down the slowest and most expensive upgrade route.”

    Bold added- Yes, this is entirely factual….but neglects to say that while “thousands” would indeed, MILLIONS wouldn’t.

    “Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. That is the experience in North America and Europe. And in Australia with very high labor costs the differential would likely be even more.”

    It does indeed- However in the US and Europe, the FTTN rollouts are done by only one company per area. This results in lower cost, because of no infrastructure competition, but still low retail prices because they must be competitive with the rest of the country. The “cost” of the Coalition FTTN rollout, as described by Mr Turnbull also does not take into account contracts with Telstra and the buying/leasing of the copper. There is no evidence to support his “cheaper” claim here, until we have an idea of what the Telstra copper and its’ associated pitfalls will cost.

    “4. Why will it be more affordable? Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return.”

    This is untrue, because the business case for NBNCo. disappears meaning all the borrowed money for THE NBN is put on-budget for THIER NBN. It becomes a giant subsidy and other areas of budget suffer as a result. It will not be more affordable also because the FTTN will need upgrading in less than 15 years.

    “We are committed (and with the vast majority of rural and regional members why would we not be?) to ensuring that people in regional and remote Australia can access broadband at equivalent prices to folk in the cities. ”

    Note Mr Turnbull herre goes from previously talking about “High-speed/very high-speed broadband” to simply plain broadband. So, we can take from this that regional Australians will have access to speeds classed as “broadband”, which, in Australia, is 1.5Mbps, for the same price as city dwellers get “high-speed/very high-speed broadband”. So, in fact, it will be WORSE for “bush” people.

    “First, as we know, the fibre to the home network is designed only to go to larger communities, of 1000 premises or more.”

    This is factually incorrect. Any town with 1000 premises is guaranteed FTTH. Many towns down to 500 premises will get it as well if they are on the transit network or close by. This is what takes the FTTH coverage from 90.3% -> 92.6% (or 93% at 2021 including Greenfields growth). Mr Turnbull knows this. He is misleading people intentionally.

    “Where there is an existing exchange it becomes “the node” and is connected to the fibre backbone and then those premises reasonably close to the node (1000 metres or less) would be able to get very high speed broadband over a fixed line without the need for the fixed wireless. Additional nodes can be deployed where appropriate and cost effective. It won’t work for everyone in rural Australia but it would mean that a lot of people who under the NBN plan won’t get fixed line fast broadband will get it.”

    There is no indication this won’t happen even with the NBN being rolled out. The government can still subsidise these relatively cheap (on-budget) FTTN upgrades to “the last 7%” or even work with NBNCo to rollout FTTN with on-demand FTTP for these people also, because it would not be viable otherwise for many years. The NBN does NOT preclude this happening. Mr Turnbull would simply like us to believe it does.

    “A better approach would have been to go to the three wireless telcos (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone) and invite them to tender to provide fixed wireless broadband in the relevant areas and to nominate how much subsidy they would need to do it and describe how their investment in new towers would enhance their existing mobile wireless service…..Second, it would mean it would be delivered a much lower cost to the taxpayer….”

    This is not untrue- but it is patently ridiculous. NBNCo’s fixed wireless works because it has highly managed contention. Subsidising the big 3 to rollout to these areas extra towers would not, in any way, at any time, guarantee the speeds NBNCo. is striving for and in fact would likely see them dipping down quickly below what these people would be capable of even on ordinary copper. Mobile networks are great for mobility- but they are useless for dedicated broadband. The big 3 would not manage their contention to guarantee 12Mbps- it would be far too expensive….unless Mr Turnbull suggests we subsidise them TWICE- once to build the towers and again to manage them so that everyone always receives 12Mbps as a rule?

    “But it is certainly possible with fibre to the node to deliver wireline broadband services to many more people in the bush than would receive it under Labor’s plans.”

    As a final point to make, it is again disingenuous. We have no idea which, how many or even if any “bush people” would get FTTN under the Coalition.

    Mr Turnbull is beginning to believe his own rhetoric. That is a dangerous path to tread as a politician- it is a quick way to lose votes.

    • Ah, as a reference….or rather as a note really, seeing as this is already on your site Renai:D

      “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.”

      Joe Hockey- Replay to Delimiter 14/06/12

      http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/14/4g-comments-taken-out-of-context-says-hockey/

      So Mr Hockey believes it takes Telstra a half technician day (1 technician 4 hours/2 Technicians 2 hours) to do their cutover….but Mr Turnbull believes it takes them a full day (1 technician day is what he states (8 hours), which would be the same as 2 technicians for 4 hours)….

      Somebody is lying….

      • Scratch that Renai- you can remove that if you like…..I just read that properly :P

        I would like to know how long it takes NBNCo. I will do some searching and maybe even some calling.

  23. FYI I have also now banned Mark Addinall and Noddy from Delimiter until 31 December 2012 for using Delimiter to personally insult each other. The ban will expire on 31 December, 2012.

    I will be taking a much sterner approach to this behaviour on Delimiter from now on. Please make sure your comments are polite, on-topic and do not contain personal insults — or else I will start to pay closer attention to them than you would perhaps like.

  24. According to Mr Turnbull
    “The argument in favour of FTTH of course is that it is the ultimate technology and so it is worth waiting for. But even if it offers the maximum potential bandwidth, if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.”

    I don’t know for certain that FTTH is the ultimate technology but it has the potential to serve Australia”s requirements for the internet and other data communication platforms for the next 30 years or more. Now the claim is that using FTTN as a basis, we can put in a “suitable for now” system that will meet current demands but this doesn’t address how long “suitable for now” will last.

    If we put in a “suitable for now” system to meet current demands then it is obvious that when the demand increases in the future, as it inevitably will, then this system has to be upgraded. The upgrade is likely to be, and most of the experts say, is certain to be, a FTTH system.

    The question then becomes how long and how much is it going to cost to upgrade the “suitable for now”system to the FTTH system that is going to be required. If the FTTN system has to be totally replaced and extra fibre deployed then have we really saved any time or have we just deferred the upgrade and condemned Australia to a future substandard system while the upgrade is done.

    What about the money that has been spent on the FTTN system. Is that recoverable or is it in reality a write off. Will the taxpayer be effectively paying more for the “satisfactory for now” technology and its upgrade than they would for the immediate introduction of FTTH technology which becomes an asset of the NBN. Co that has the potential to be sold off at some future time.

    Mr Turnbull has not conclusively shown that his “suitable for now” system is not merely an attempt to defer action on the future requirements of Australia for internet and data transmissions.

    • One thing I should have added.

      Why shouldn’t Australia’s politicians be seeking to provide the country and its people with the “ultimate technology”? I thought that this was what they were elected to do.

      Any politician who doesn’t want to do this surely is not doing his/her job and should be sacked.

  25. [I have already posted the following on Malcolm Turnbull’s blog, but will repost here verbatim:]

    More FUD, Malcolm.
    1. Not sabotage? The NBN will deliver FTTP to 93% of Australians, and LTE and satellite will deliver uncontended 12 Mbps bandwidth to the last 7%. You DO plan to sabotage both these deliverables in favour of copper. Fail.
    2. Sooner? By 2015 NBN satellite and LTE wireless are done, and by 2018 NBN fibre will be complete to all under-served areas and also the entire HFC footprint, leaving only those whose existing services are so fast they were last in line for FTTP. Your FTTN rollout will not begin until 2014 or 2015, and will not be complete by 2018. Fail.
    3. Cheaper? Really, and to cheaper to whom? FTTN is simply ADSL with extended reach, so you are talking about spending billions to expand ADSL coverage, still constrained to upload speeds useless for offsite backups and large file exchange, compared to the off-budget FTTP that repays its own construction cost. Billions taken from government spending on important areas, and households denied the savings already seen on NBN fibre replacing phone, ADSL and pay tv bills. Fail.
    4. More affordable? There is no sunk public capital in the self-funding NBN project, so your argument fails because it claims you are sinking less. Fail.
    5. No cross subsidy? But you then describe your version of a cross subsidy. Except that the bush will still see awful services. The economic benefits to cities, government service provision, and families of efficient regional broadband have been articulated elsewhere. Charging a flat rate that raises the 85% of city services by a mere few percent to deliver to 100% delivers those benefits to city and country, and to the nation. Fail.
    6. NBN bad for the bush? No. The NBN delivers far better services to the bush than your vague promises. We wil first see small towns getting better ADSL as $100,000 DSLAM installations are released from large towns and redeployed at negligible cost to upgrade small town exchanges. Some towns will find themselves upgraded to fibre through third-party funds to upgrade them during the ten-year rollout. Others will join the FTTP party shortly afterward. None will be better off under coalition plans. Fail.
    7. No need to own everything? NBNCo does not own the mobile phone networks, nor the copper in non-fibred areas. But infrastructure competition on the fibre and LTE wireless is ludicrous and costly, as we saw in the 1990s when Telstra shadowed Optus’s HFC rollout, which has incidentally never been extended since. It makes no more sense than encouraging two competiting electricity supplies per street, or two sets of sewers. Fail.
    Your delaying tactics since 2010 have cost us over a billion dollars in additional parliamentary resources and hotel and travel expenses. They delayed the final Telstra agreement until March 2012. They imposed provider-of-last resort duties on NBNCo for large greenfields sites. How do you live with yourself? The coalition lost regional Australia to Labor and independents in 2010 on broadband policy, when it should have romped home. A large cross bench vote will occur again in 2013 unless the coalition adopts the FTTP NBN solution, and this could deliver another hung result. You are not acting in the interests of the country nor your party. Fail.

  26. Cheaper for customers on the FTTN because of less capital sunk into developing the network !!

    Does MT know how much Telstra are going to charge for the use of the local loop, on top of the lower capital recouperating costs?

  27. Just in case you’re wondering, the last two comments are referencing a reply that I got after I sent Malcolm Turnbull an email about this and that I posted here.

    I’m guessing it was removed due to its length, maybe, or because it included comments from Malcolm Turnbull. Can’t think of any other reason.

  28. ” if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.”

    What technology would that be?

    Certainly NOT FTTN which would still require a fibre to be dug into each and evey street in order to connect the node, plus, the delay you can expect when teh electricity supplier are called upon to connect 100,000 nodes to the electricity supply.

      • @Michael Wyres

        I don’t know why people keep hoping/thinking/wishing this (NBN Mk1- 98% FTTN) will happen under the Coalition. It won’t. I know you don’t believe it will either.

        There’s a very good reason it can’t happen- It involves the buying or leasing of the entirety of Telstra’s CAN. Something even the Coalition would not do.

        The Coalition have made it clear, they expect to use HFC, FTTN, copper and wireless. Even if you only take HFC and wireless (to say 10%) that’s 35% total, which means maximum 65% FTTN. But I think this is highly unlikely. It’s most likely going to be less than 50%, the rest will be already laid FTTH or copper.

        It’s that simple. There will not be 75 000 nodes. There will be, maybe, 25 000. And even that is ridiculous in terms of cost (including copper buyback/leasing), timing and upgradability.

        • I tend to agree with seven on this issue, the coalition will only do as much as they have to so they can say “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” My guess would be about 40% FttN.

          • Hubert we know the coalition is going to do, bugger all regarding comms, its the damage there going to do that worries me.

      • Michael, do you have a rough idea how much each node (cabinet) costs, including installation, just a rough estimate will do ?
        Thanks

  29. 1. Misleading. Turnbull will complete “an” NBN not “the” NBN.

    2. Probably true if the NBNCo builds the FTTN network and Telstra plays nicely.

    3. True if FTTN is the end game. Arguable if FTTP is the eventual end game. Would need something to compare to the NBNCo’s corporate plan but for FTTN now and FTTP in (say) 15-20 years.

    4. True if the NBNCo builds it under the same terms as they are building the current NBN. The only alternative to the NBNCo is Telstra and we saw some of their pricing in their response to the NBN mkI RFP. So, false if Telstra builds it. Turnbull’s Network Co is a non-stater imo.

    5. True.

    6. True. The government should pick up on this and relocate redundant metro DSLAMs wherever it’s feasible to do so. I’m sure NBNCo could incorporate an FTTN access service into their product set.

    7. Arguable. Would need to consider the impact on the mobile market. Needs evidence.

  30. “the fact remains that fibre to the home is a slow process”

    FTTN is a slower, more labour intensive alternative with the added disadvantage that the customers will be left with no service at all between the time the cable is cut into appropriate segments, connected back into the nodes and finally re-allocated to customers. The copper network was designed to connect back to central exchanges and even where it is possible, will need significant re-arranging to work with decentralised nodes.

    The requirement to minimise this outage will mean that the overhead in analysing, planning and doing preperation work will easily outweigh any saving on provisioning a complete parrallel, greenfield network with its ability to troubleshoot and optimise at lesuire since no existing service is impacted at all until AFTER the fibre service is provisioned.

  31. “Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. ”

    Because they are using THEIR OWN, fully amortised, infrastructure.

    If they had to BUY the infrastructure as is the case in Australia, FTTH is a no brainer.

  32. “Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return.”

    But that assumes that the alternative IS lower cost. Buying the infrastructure, under teh terms that teh constitution requires, ensures that this is not possible.

    “But additionally, we will seek to ensure that wherever possible there are no barriers to compete with the NBN and competition, even if it is only in limited areas will bring pricing pressure on the NBN Co.”

    Competing infrastructure can only mean HIGHER prices for the user.
    The simple fact is that all teh nodes, backhaul etc must be put in, even if tehre are just a handful of customers. All this infrastructure has to be paid for, by the customer.
    If an incumbant is allowed to leverage off existing, fully amortised infrastructure, then they can afford to undercut all but the most premium services the NBN will be capable of. This means that the billions of provisioning cost will need to be paid for by a handful of users making the cost sky high.

  33. “We are committed (and with the vast majority of rural and regional members why would we not be?) to ensuring that people in regional and remote Australia can access broadband at equivalent prices to folk in the cities”

    By forcing the city folk to accept a sub-standard service that is cheaper to provide in teh bush.

    “But rather than establish a monopoly and seek to overcharge the cities to subsidise the bush, we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy so that everybody knows the actual cost of ensuring equality of access.”

    In plain english, rather than charge city telecommunications users a little more so that they can contact people in the bush at reasonable rates, we will charge EVERYONE significantly more through new tax or reduced services, so that people in teh bush have access to the same sub-standard service as xity folk.

  34. “but there are certainly hundreds of small towns where there will be no fibre to the home and broadband services will be delivered only by fixed wireless.”

    So at best, they will get the same level of service under either plan.

    At worst, they will get a much poorer level of service via satellite or whatever alternative gets dreamed up.

  35. “Where there is an existing exchange it becomes “the node” and is connected to the fibre backbone and then those premises reasonably close to the node (1000 metres or less) would be able to get very high speed broadband over a fixed line without the need for the fixed wireless.”

    IE If they already have ADSL then they will continue to get ADSL. If there are no pairs available, tehy will get nothing.

    FTTN IS nothing other than ADSL with a virtual “exchange” in teh form of a node. If the only “node” that will be provided is teh existing exchange, Turnbull is basically promising that he will do nothing what-so-ever for these people under his plan.

  36. “A better approach would have been to go to the three wireless telcos (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone) and invite them to tender to provide fixed wireless broadband in the relevant areas and to nominate how much subsidy they would need to do it”

    If it were viable commercially, it would already have been done.

    In fact, it WAS done. The Besley Report, implemented by Senator Alston when he was communications Minister, provided mobile services to evey popultion centre with over 500 potential customers. They had to sell Telstra to pay for it and it was just basic voice mobiles. Data would be much more expensive to provide. Since this would also require an ongoing subsidy, rising with data use and inflation, until teh end of time. Funded of course, by the taxpayer.

  37. I’ll try to get the ones that are blatantly false, though there’s plenty of subtle misinformation. For example this:

    “1. The Coalition is not going to destroy or (as Conroy alleged) sabotage the NBN. On the contrary we will complete the national broadband network and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.”

    is clearly wrong on several levels, but trying to prove explain that is hard [as it’s very easy for him to obfuscate].

    Okay, Let’s Go:

    ” This is a very labor intensive and expensive exercise. Which is why, as at the end of May, there were only 3,700 premises in Australia connected to the new fibre network.”

    Nope. It’s slow because:

    1) The tender process for FTTN Failed.
    2) They had to go back to the drawing boards and re-imagine the NBN.
    3) They had to do the studies, pass legislation and create NBNco.
    4) Hiring people, planning, more legislation.
    5) Test builds, signing contracts, more design work, ACCC & legislative hurdles, Telstra deal etc.

    The ‘labor intensive’ part only really comes into effect when you’re in full roll-out – it isn’t going to suddenly make the above significantly faster.

    “While there is every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed and could do the job a lot more efficiently”

    Just a plain lie – notice the lack of reasons.

    “The argument in favour of FTTH of course is that it is the ultimate technology and so it is worth waiting for. ”

    Source that this is *a* argument, let alone *the* argument?

    “But even if it offers the maximum potential bandwidth, if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.”

    Confuses broadband needs *now* with *future* needs. It makes sense to deploy future infrastructure for future needs – not current needs.

    “you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more for FTTH and 100 mbps plus, ”

    False option.

    “Why can we do it cheaper? Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. ”

    Initial Capex costs is a very poor and misleading way of costing.

    ” Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return.”

    Continuation of the previous fallacy.

    ” we will seek to ensure that wherever possible there are no barriers to compete with the NBN and competition, even if it is only in limited areas will bring pricing pressure on the NBN Co.”

    Fallacy that competition by its very nature is good. Though arguing this one might be a lost cause.

    “we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy so that everybody knows the actual cost of ensuring equality of access.”

    The lie here is that he doesn’t account for these numbers elsewhere.

    ” In many of those communities fibre to the node can provide very high broadband speeds and at modest cost.”

    Even if this was the case, it wouldn’t hurt the case for NBNco – just a minor adjustment on a small portion of its roll-out – possibly subsidized from the government.

    There are a lot of assumptions, arguments etc. I disagree with, but I’ll leave it there to try and keep it simple.

  38. “1. The Coalition is not going to destroy or (as Conroy alleged) sabotage the NBN. On the contrary we will complete the national broadband network and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.”

    This is quite disingenuous. When you say you will not stop or sabotage the NBN you are really saying you will provide a differing level of broadband to the country that is better than the current ADSL paradigm. In essence you are creating a completely new rollout and superimposing the name of the National Broadband Network to create an impression that you are offering a comparable level of service. Furthermore your claims are far from tested. You claim your process will be cheaper but does your process assume no growth in speeds needs or the increased cost of maintenance of copper over fibre? Have you included to cost of an eventual upgrade beyond FTTN (presumably to FTTH)?

    “2. Why can we do it sooner? The NBN is proposing to connect 93% of Australian premises to fibre optic cables. This is a very labor intensive and expensive exercise. Which is why, as at the end of May, there were only 3,700 premises in Australia connected to the new fibre network.”

    While it is true that when comparing against the same start date FTTH takes much longer have you taken into account the level of support you have in the senate after a potential win and the need the recreate designs and contracts that will delay the actual rollout to potentially a similar finish date to FTTH.

    “It is proceeding at a snail’s pace. While there is every reason to believe that the NBN Co is poorly managed and could do the job a lot more efficiently, nonetheless the fact remains that fibre to the home is a slow process.”

    What evidence do you have that the NBN is being mismanaged, if you believe that Mike Quigley is incapable of rolling out a broadband network please inform us who you would prefer to ‘competently’ roll out such a massive network.

    “if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.”

    What is the worth in creating a substandard network that will only achieve adequate speeds for the current moment, why should we create a network that only thinks of the present rather than embarking on a long lasting and visionary project.

    “Think of it this way – if you are in an outer suburb of Sydney or Brisbane and your broadband speeds are somewhere between nothing and not very much, and you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more”

    Where do you get these figures from? It is likely that the time you suppose would easily be gobbled up by planning and contractual agreements alone let alone the CBA you have proposed. Furthermore you have never been consistent in what speed you would promise. In your previous policy you said a combination of 12/25Mbps over 1 – 4 years.

    “3. Why can we do it cheaper? Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. That is the experience in North America and Europe. And in Australia with very high labor costs the differential would likely be even more.”

    Does this analysis include the potential needs to in crease the networks capcity to a FTTH network. Can you honestly claim that FTTN will create no waste in eventually going to FTTH causing costs to increase.

    “4. Why will it be more affordable? Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return. But additionally, we will seek to ensure that wherever possible there are no barriers to compete with the NBN and competition, even if it is only in limited areas will bring pricing pressure on the NBN Co.”

    If a company is allowed to cherry pick and take all or most customers in a highly profitable areas how do you suppose NBN Co. recover its costs due to the need to create a national network. Furthermore apart from the HFC network there has been very little investment in competitive rollouts because of the duplication of infrastructure that duplicates fixed costs increase the level of capital that the user base must repay. Why do you think a repeat of the ‘cable wars’ is a good thing for Australia.

    “we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy so that everybody knows the actual cost of ensuring equality of access.”

    So rather than actually producing a return from these areas you will create ever sustaining sunk costs to private enterprise that will never be recouped and continue to be a burden on the budget potentially impacting the ability to provide other services.

  39. Renai

    1 How does MT show his NBN is cheaper?

    2 * Over a 10 year period what is the cost of operations and maintenance of a FTTN compared to a FTTH – there is so much bad copper out there I believe you would need to replace at least 10%. I believe a GPON network would require a lot less electricity to run as well.

    3 – What is the minimum speed of the Liberal NBN?

    4 – What process will MT use for the installation of the wireless towers required to provide 2 to 3 times as much coverage asa what the Labor NBN will use. Considering the fiasco of Browns Plains you would have to believe either there will be far greater use of satellite OR MT will hve to spend a long time innegotiations with residents AND be willing to locate towers in less optimal sites and would therefore require more towers with extra install and running costs.

    5 How many nodes will be required to provide the Liberal NBN?

    6 Is MT saying the Liberal NBN will be completed within 2 years Australia wide?

    7 How will limited network competition force NBN to lower its prices? Why is it deemed sensible to have multiple physical network access to a persons’ home, yet we only have 1 electricity connection, 1 water pipe

    8 NBN has a limit on its profit margin. If profit is higher, then prices must be lowered. Does the Liberal NBN have the same form of profit limiting?

  40. Two points first.
    1) I have chosen to only reply to points that had not been already covered or if so, from a different perspective.
    2) As already mentioned by many, it is difficult to check actual facts given that they are very few given and that the few that are are often out of context.

    “This is a very labor intensive and expensive exercise. Which is why, as at the end of May, there were only 3,700 premises in Australia connected to the new fibre network.”

    The number of connection is not a reflection of the exercise but rather of external factors ,some beyond NBN co’s control, others addressed in order to progress effectively (correct addresses) and economically (re-tendering). The figures also ignore that by the end of march 2012 work had started that will pass 249 000 homes and that by the end of 2015 (without interference from the coalition, if elected) work will have started to cover 3.2 million homes.

    “if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now”

    Even if this was a fact now, how long will it remain so?

    “Ten years is a very long time to wait for a broadband upgrade.”

    True, but how many people will have to for 10 years? Presumably, around 10%. It is unlikely, however, that these would be the neediest, in broadband terms.

    “But rather than establish a monopoly and seek to overcharge the cities to subsidise the bush, we will ensure that support for the bush comes from a clearly defined subsidy”

    Until we know whether NBN Co or private industry delivers the coalition version of NBN, how could it be said that the cities are being overcharged? Given the lower ROI than expected in the private sector for the NBN, how do we know that the price charged in the cities will not be higher than those currently charged? If they are, then we will not only have higher prices overall (both cities and country) and taxpayers will also be worse off. An advantage of cross subsidy is that only users pay more. With targeted subsidy, non users also contribute.

    “First, it would mean the Government would not be directly involved in running the service. Second, it would mean it would be delivered a much lower cost to the taxpayer”

    How could it be? There is no cost to the taxpayer now. But under the coalition policy, you will subsidise any amount over the price charged to the cities. So, not directly involved in running the service but directly involved in subsidising the service.

  41. I think a proper cost benefit analysis will be a waste of money but should be done to shut-up the coalition.

    FTTH is currently the only option to go to have Quality, Fast & Reliable connectivity.

    The really problem with any Internet Upgrade will be our Domestic/National Back-haul Capacity as that could potentially be a real bottleneck.

    FTTN in my opinion and analysis is a waste of money in this country to the large landmass required and 2 it is being replaced/upgraded in pretty every country that rolled it out with some saying they wish they just went straight to FTTH as it is costing them alot of money to upgrade now.

    Yes the NBN Company could potentially run the cable faster to every household however due to all the regulative requirements it is making there job much harder e.g. It must look good or people will complain. etc.
    My self i would go in and say this st is being done if necessary your front foot path which is public land anyhow will be ripped up and a cable will be laid down the whole st or something with fibre splits coming off of it. If they have to deploy 1 cable per household via the exchange or local mdf then yes it will take longer however i think a lot of it is still regulative requirements and access to premise restrictions which need to be removed for it to speed up heaps.

    They are also needing to multiple stages. Design, approval, build, testing, approval, offer services.
    this needs to be simplified.

    The other statement about the number of connected premises is wrong his research team needs to work on that.
    Once Telstra starts migrating customers on to the network the amount of customers using it will skyrocket.

    Anyone bagging the NBN i say wait till around Christmas or Early Next Year and see how much work has been done.

    The idea though of NBN not deploying NBN to places with at least 1000 premises is a bit of a concern though as 1000 people over there fixed wireless service is not going to fly especially if they can already get adsl2 speeds (20Mb/s).
    So maybe a FTTN or maybe even a mesh wireless system with a large backhaul system may work better for these areas of course providing the backhaul is capable.

    • @Tim

      “The really problem with any Internet Upgrade will be our Domestic/National Back-haul Capacity as that could potentially be a real bottleneck.”

      There is no problem here. We are currently at about 1/8th our total capacity and 16 times the capacity is being added by 2015. http://nbninfo.blogspot.com.au/p/basics-of-nbn.html

      “The idea though of NBN not deploying NBN to places with at least 1000 premises is a bit of a concern though as 1000 people over there fixed wireless service is not going to fly especially if they can already get adsl2 speeds (20Mb/s).”

      This is incorrect. There will be many towns down to 500 premises that will be connected. This was part of the original NBNCo. plan and Turnbull is purposely misleading on this, as he knows all this. The requirement for 93% meant that to get that %, they had to plan the network around the 1000 premises towns and then, wherever the backhaul/transit network passed at or nearby a town with 500 or more premises, would ALSO be connected to FTTH. This took total connections from 90.3%-92.6% (or 93% by end of rollout including Greenfield growth). This point is VERY misleading.

  42. So if people want to properly rebutt Malcolm Turnball, then they need to provide references to disprove his statements. Otherwise, the apparent rebuttal is nothing more than subjective opinion and conjecture, and is no better than what both pro-NBN and anti-NBN politicians do.

    • “So if people want to properly rebutt Malcolm Turnball, then they need to provide references to disprove his statements. Otherwise, the apparent rebuttal is nothing more than subjective opinion and conjecture, and is no better than what both pro-NBN and anti-NBN politicians do.”

      Read the Article:

      “With this in mind, I invite the Delimiter community to help fact-check Turnbull’s article. Please read his article carefully, and post in the comments below this article your view on which of his statements are accurate and which not. This will help us greatly in responding to this article. ”

      No mention of needing sources.

      But then you’re just as bad as turn-ball I hear you exclaim!

      Nope, just economical. I, and many others can easily spot dozens of errors, and provide the sources to back it up. However, we could all just let Renai do it, and save us a cumulative dozens of hours in the process. What would have been even more economical would be if Renai had a basic article already done – as that would also have reduced the need to redundantly repeat points again and again.

      With luck Renai will release a draft, so any major errors/omissions [arguments or sources] can be double checked before delivery.

      • I agree Renai didn’t actually ask for references, however the title of the article is “Help us fact-check Turnbull’s NBN comments”. Fact checking involves using and providing facts and more broadly evidence, not just making assertions.

        As for what Renai did ask for,

        “Please read his article carefully, and post in the comments below this article your view on which of his statements are accurate and which not. This will help us greatly in responding to this article. ”

        Clearly, as this website has a pro-NBN agenda (as pro as The Australian is anti), and a pro-NBN audience, most people are going to respond with their pro-NBN *view* – that all of Malcolm Turnball’s statements are inaccurate, regardless of whether they actually have data to backup their position or not.

        • Clearly, as this website has a pro-NBN agenda (as pro as The Australian is anti), and a pro-NBN audience, most people are going to respond with their pro-NBN *view* – that all of Malcolm Turnball’s statements are inaccurate, regardless of whether they actually have data to backup their position or not.

          Firstly, I don’t think Delimiter has a “pro-NBN” agenda. It has a factual agenda and an accuracy agenda, but not a pro- or anti- anything agenda. I can understand how someone who themselves has an anti-NBN agenda would see this site as “pro-NBN” but that’s only because facts and reality conflict with an anti-NBN slant.

          Secondly, if we’re fact-checking Malcolm’s statements then of course we’re going to be contradicting him. If everything he said was completely accurate and factual, then there’d be nothing to fact-check!

          And finally, given that Malcolm himself has given no data to back up any of his claims, it seems unfair that we should be expected to provide the data to back up our own. In fact, if you look at my own response above, the main point of what I say is that the vast majority of Malcolm’s statements are all just hand-wavey conjecture. How can you possibly “fact-check” a statement like “you have the choice of getting fibre to the node and 50 mbps in a year or two OR wait up to a decade or more for FTTH and 100 mbps plus, what are you going to have?”?

          • “Firstly, I don’t think Delimiter has a “pro-NBN” agenda. It has a factual agenda and an accuracy agenda, but not a pro- or anti- anything agenda”

            Clearly it does, and this article is a perfect example of it!

            Has The Australian ever asked it’s readers to fact check Conroy’s statements, and offered to collate them and send them to him on behalf of it’s readers?

          • @Mark S

            Has Renai stated here that Turbull’s facts should all be checked against a PRO-NBN agenda?

            No, he has asked for “facts to be checked”. And has specifically stated he is not after whether or not people agree with the ideas or not- hence removing the PRO/ANTI as relevant. The majority of people here are pro-NBN or at least have the sensibility to realise the Coalition right now has no viable, costed, detailed policy to compare with the NBN, which, even if not perfect, is workable and feasible. So they are likely to respond as such. Doesn’t mean they are right, nor that they aren’t. Facts are facts, not opinions.

            The Australian is mainstream media- No mainstream media EVER asks public opinion on facts. EVER. That is how they are keeping readers- by PROVIDING facts….or lack thereof when it comes to the NBN in many cases, but not all.

            Renai has a unique reader base and a unique opportunity in his way of reporting to engage, day-to-day, with his audience. He has embraced this by getting ideas and thoughts direct from his audience about responses to media releases. A mainstream outlet would NEVER do this, as it undermines their reporting power to their readers.

            Renai has to ability and ethics to write a factual, balanced reply to Mr Turnbull’s blog post and media release. He can choose to ignore ALL the statements given here IF that was balanced. But he is sensible and knows MANY of these statements are true, factual and relevant. Many also aren’t.

            Perhaps you would like to comment appropriately on Mr Turnbull’s “facts” and about whether or not they do indeed represent the truth?

          • Given that the replies on Malcolm Turnbull’s site are mostly in favour of the NBN, do you think that his site has a pro NBN agenda.

            You might have to get used to the idea that people’s responses to articles are not a reflection of the publishing site’s agenda but rather a good indicator of how many people find issues with the alternative policy.

            On MT’s site, a few coalition voters are pleading with him to release a more coherent policy so they can again vote for his. Perhaps you time would be better utilised if you were to join their chorus and encourage Malcom Turnbull to come up with a fully explained and costed policy which takes into account future needs.

          • “Clearly it does, and this article is a perfect example of it!

            “Has The Australian ever asked it’s readers to fact check Conroy’s statements, and offered to collate them and send them to him on behalf of it’s readers?”

            How is this article an example of anything but Delimiter’s bias towards factual reporting? Delimiter has corrected Conroy any time he’s made factually inaccurate statements (for example here or here). Have you ever seen The Australian point out when Malcolm is being untruthful?

        • “So if people want to properly rebutt Malcolm Turnball, then they need to provide references to disprove his statements.”

          Despite Renais request it’s not really our job to do…

          “I agree Renai didn’t actually ask for references, however the title of the article is “Help us fact-check Turnbull’s NBN comments”. Fact checking involves using and providing facts and more broadly evidence, not just making assertions.”

          Indeed, so that would actually be Turnbulls job not ours. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claims in this case it is Turnbull making assertions about the NBN, FttN broadband etc. The only thing we have to do is say “Please provide evidence to back up your claims” This is why I have found this request from Renai rather odd.

          • The burden of proof is also upon those who’re disputing Malcolm Turnball’s statements, otherwise it is no more than “he said, she said.”

          • @Mark S

            Once again, perhaps you would like to comment, with evidence, on Mr Turnbull’s post and whether it represents the truth or not, rather than berating those who you disagree with?

          • I agree 7T

            Renai has simply asked us all to fact check (try saying that 10 times quickly with a gut full and not swearing or calling your Mrs a fat chick ;) Malcolm’s NBN comments.

            This is clearly a two way street.

            He even asks ” please read his article carefully, and post in the comments below this article your view on which of his statements are accurate and which not. This will help us greatly in responding to this article.”

            How’s that biased/pro-NBN?

            If one’s fact checking answer is, everything MT says is factual, well, so be it.

            But if so, why can’t the critics simply fulfil the request by telling us why? If compelling enough, Renai can, as suggested, then respond to MT by saying, nice work MT, I have been convinced to agree with you! But no?

            It’s not good enough to ignore the request and simply scream pro-NBN bias :/

            So far, many have already clearly provided sound reasoning to suggest MT either totally incorrect or sneakily misleading (and I agree, so no need to repeat verbatim). But the avenue is still there for others “legitimately, unbiasedly with undeniable evidence based opposition to the NBN” (I am yet to meet one)… to provide such sound reasoning.

          • “be·rate – Scold or criticize (someone) angrily”

            I did not berate anybody. All I did was point out that “fact checking” means doing far more than expressing an opposing opinion.

            Just in case it isn’t clear what a fact is:

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

            “A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.”

          • @Mark S

            Thankyou for that condescending reminder. If I recall correctly it was YOU who stated such things as:

            “According to an AFR article I read recently, only 38% of people on the NBN are taking up speeds faster than ADSL now”

            Which was of course factually INCORRECT- 85% of people are taking up speeds higher than ADSL now. You had an opinion and you expressed it WITHOUT facts. Exactly as you are accusing others of doing.

          • Imo, this is more of the same strange NBN critics tactics (logic) they all seem to use S7.

            Come here and make baseless claims, either to argue or in hope that as many fence sitters will be convinced as possible. Hmmm… why???

            But when someone who knows rightly questions and they don’t have (as they inevitable haven’t) factually based evidence to support any of their claims, they simply call up the old trusty ‘personal attack (or a new derivative thereof)’ and try to make the questioner out to be the bad guy.

            And the icing, after having delivered “extremely dubious comments”, make a glib remark about facts. Even wait a fortnight to do so, in hope that this will go unnoticed by the questioner and if so, a perceived win then chalked up;/

            I have seen it time and time again here by many (or one or two, who equate to many).

            Seriously, rather than trying to hide one’s incorrect comments, wouldn’t it be easier and make more sense just to learn and accept the evidence and move on, more enlightened?

            Apparently not.. Hmmm… why???

            I know if MT could indeed explain how his plan is better than the NBN and it was actual (i.e. SIMPLY Aussies would be better off) not ideological… I would listen and welcome.

            But then I have voted for more than one party ;-)

          • “The burden of proof is also upon those who’re disputing Malcolm Turnball’s statements”

            No. If they dispute Turnbulls statements Turnbull STILL has to provide evidence to back up his claims. Hence the phrase “Please provide evidence to back up your claim”. If they add any assertions of their own they would have to provide evidence for those individual claims but they are in no way shape or form obligated to proving Turnbulls statements false since it is HIS JOB FIRST AND FOREMOST to prove those statements true. Burden of Proof; it is his.

          • So, are you suggesting that Malcolm Turnbull is not presenting facts but just unsubstantiated statements of the “He said” kind?

  43. Many people currently get their Broadband via Telstra RIMs / CMUX cabinets scattered around housing estates. These are feed by optic from the exchange and then connect via copper to peoples homes.

    This is FTTN (cabinet) and already exists in many areas, Malcolm seems to be promising more of this old technology. We need to move on from FTTN with it high maintenance costs including copper cable distribution and the management / maintenance of tens of thousands of road side cabinets.

    There is a need to to agree on a definition for each acronym to make discussion more focused.

    FTTN – (Fibre to the Node) A roadside cabinet, connected via fibre to the local exchange, providing broadband in a local area via copper. e.g. Current Telstra CMUX cabinets.

    FTTH – (Fibre to the Home) A direct fibre connection from each home to the local exchange e.g. NBN

    Peter

  44. 3. Why can we do it cheaper? Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises. That is the experience in North America and Europe. And in Australia with very high labor costs the differential would likely be even more.

    -Assuming the copper network reaches everyone and is in sufficient quality and quantity to support FTTN. From my perspective, Labor NBN would probably see scrapping of my street. 2km, 15 premises, 10pair copper servicing with two pair burnt out already by a ram8 pair gain unit., then we’d be offered wireless, since the existing copper is buried direct, no conduits, 300metres of trees requiring boring underground.

    A FTTN policy would deliver me precisely nothing, theres insufficient copper. I’ve already spent $1k relaying internet wirelessly from a working copper line, 1km link.. I’d consider another outlay for a fibre extension. But no way would I spend a cent to replace bad copper with more copper, having run the hoop with telstra for years before finding my own solution.

    Main point: I suspect the true state of the copper netowork has never been revealed. FTTN would fail miserably in many areas due to the degradation the network has suffered by being milked for everything they can get from whats left of it. Whats the costing of repairing the copper network to its original state. Whats the cost of extending it to those that have never had it? Why not run fibre instead of copper?

    There’s mention in this thread of 3.5billion maintenance for CAN, versus 4.5billion revenue, I wonder how that would work if it was properly maintained. Line rental hikes over past ten years versus cost of mobile phones have successfully driven many to use mobile phones only, balancing the ever depleting amount of working copper.

  45. 1. The Coalition is not going to destroy or sabotage the NBN. On the contrary we will complete the national broadband network and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.
    A: Please provide some concrete evidence of how your plan will provide more affordable broadband for end users. If we leave it to private companies we would still be on 3gb caps for $70 a month!
    2. Why can we do it sooner?
    A: FTTN may appear to be “easier” but what about those people who are on rims/pair gains or have degraded copper!
    3. Why can we do it cheaper? Fibre to the node, around the world, costs between 1/4 and 1/3 of fibre to the premises.
    A: Where is your cost benefit analysis for this? It might appear to be ¼ to 1/3 of the price, however this isn’t taking into account the cost of procuring the copper from Telstra, the cost of maintaining the copper and then the cost of upgrading to ftth!
    4. Why will it be more affordable?
    A: In the long run it won’t be cheaper! Upgrading from fttn to ftth will double the cost (not to mention the added cost of buying the copper from Telstra!)
    5. What about the bush?
    A: I agree, what about the bush? What about the bush the last time the coalition were in government, what about people in the cities who can’t get adsl currently?
    6. But in the context of the bush, let us consider two other aspects where the NBN Co’s plan actively works against the interests of rural Australians. First, as we know, the fibre to the home network is designed only to go to larger communities, of 1000 premises or more.
    A: This is plainly false – if a community is within fibre boundaries, even with less than 1000 they will still get fibre to the node!
    7. A better approach would have been to go to the three wireless telcos (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone)
    A: Wrong, wrong, wrong! Providing subisidies for private/public partnerships never works! This is money that the government (and taxpayers!) will never receive back!

    I have 100mbps cable which I am extremely happy with (and make use of!) however the upload is only 1mbps – this isn’t enough in this day and age.

    FTTN will not provide an adequate upload speed and will waste 10’s of billions of dollars (when factoring in the cost of buying the copper from Telstra!) that could have been better spent on a ftth network which will also provide a return on investment – fttn won’t do this!

  46. 2 Points that have been made a couple of times:
    1) They are not proposing creating a NBN. They are proposing upgrading sections of the existing telecom system. Effectively (though debatable) they are proposing placing expanded RIM’s everywhere. this is not a NAtional broadband network. this is a PHONE network with fibre to points of interconnect. This is what we CURRENTLY have. Incidentlly they are already doing this with ADSL blackspot programs\Tophat programs etc. ADSL\VDSL etc are all distance related. my old property was 3.4KM (in suburban melbourne) from the exchange. are they going to build a new cabinet closer and then back wire it with copper to the premesis? Cause the copper cables in the ground wont like being moved (the lack of movement is likely the only thing that is keeping them functioning), so rewiring them into a new cabinet will likely nesseciate cable replacment. (also Copper is kinda $$ at the moment), has that been factored in?

    2) Whilst the coallition is very good at complainnig about the cost of the project, they seem to forget the ongoing cost of maintaining the copper. As said above it quite a stupidly large amount of money, and represents ~85% of the total proposed cost of the NBN over ten years.

    Given the ongoing debate about on budget\off budget accounting, how does the coallition propose to account for this cost, given it would FIRMLY sit as an “on budget” cost, above the cost they describe of building the actual additonal cabinets?Hell using their numbers over 10 years, its what 11billion for their rollout? (ive seen 4.7 -> 17), plus the ongoing 35 billion for copper maintinence (3.5B\year at last report)……so infact from a $$ value their proposal is ~4 billion dollars more expensive…..

    Dont get me wrong, I think there are elements of the NBN that are wrong, but trying to reuse old copper that is falling apart in many areas is idealistic at best….

    Additioanlly, can we please stop the FUD around “wireless”. it is not a viable alternitive. it is an ADJUNCT. Just look at the cost per byte and average usage of AU users. Also look at the value offered on a monthly basis. That is before we get into the technichal problems of MOBILE INTERNET (frigging “wireless” fud), and buildings\users\shared capacity\cell size etc.
    Controversial statement time: if they wanted to restore non patchy mobile service to the bush you could always reactivate the old CDMA\analogue systems…..whilst not functional for data would restore phone services nicely……just saying….

  47. A couple of additional points

    With regards to point 1. One way for Malcolm Turnbull to unambiguously prove that Labor and Conroy are wrong is to state that the coalition will complete the NBN in its present form. After all the name National Broadband Network can apply to any network that covers most of Australia, the nature of that network, however, is the important point.

    With regards to subsidies. Looking back at the effects of previous subsidies, they were meant to stimulate the take up of broadband services in country areas, not to foster the network in these areas.

  48. There is one last thing I’d like to show Renai, and teh readers here:

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

    It’s quite good to remember what a lie is… because there are a lot of different kinds of lies – and it can help you spot ’em when you see ’em.

    Particular interest: Bluffing, Contextual Lie, Economy with the Truth, Exaggeration, Fabrication, Lying by omission, Minimization, Misleading and Dissembling and View from Nowhere.

    • I have just looked at the replird on Malcolm Turnbull’s blog. Renai has shown concern about the disproportion of Pro NBN contributors on this blog and that how it makes it appears to be bias towards the NBN. Well, the same proportion of pro NBN reponses is very similar to those on this site. Does that make Malcom Turnbull’s site bias to the NBN?

    • I’ve posted my “fact checking” from here into his comments too – doubt he’ll listen tho, it’s not in the job description Tony gave him!

  49. 1: changing the NBN, as proposed by MT, is sabotage and it no longer becomes a genuine National Network

    2: FTTN is unlikely to be completed sooner as it will take the Lib Gov at least 1 year to renegotiate a deal with Telstra (took labor gov 1.5 years and some pretty severe threats around 4G spectrum). so say the libs get in Nov 2013, they wont have a Telstra deal to use the copper till June 2015. say the 60% FTTN roll-out takes 5 years (vs 10 for FTTH) and it’s going to finish in 2020 which is pretty much bang on when the 93% FTTH roll-out is due to be finished!

    3: of course the FTTN component will be cheaper when you look at it in isolation (17billion according to Citigroup for 60% FTTN) – it’s a much smaller roll-out with less manual labour. However when you add in all the other factors such as a modified Telstra Deal (add at least 8 billion to current Telstra deal as Telstra value their network at 25Billion) and you have a worse solution with no Fixed Wireless and no new Satellites for $36Billion dollars – essentially same price at the FTTH + FWTH + SatBB NBN!!!

    And that doesn’t even begin to account for the upgrade costs later on to FTTH or the economic damage to our countries businesses caused by the Libs being so pig headed and short sighted!!

    4: a patch work quilt of redundant and expensive to maintain copper based systems will not be more affordable because they cost more to maintain – MT is dreaming on this one. Not to mention that the Labors NBN subsides itself for rural customers, MT’s version will need massive ongoing subsidies for the bush from tax payers money!

    5: I’ll repeat Labors NBN subsides itself for rural customers, MT’s version will need massive ongoing subsidies for the bush from tax payers money! Labors NBN will always be cheaper for Rural customers because the massive customer base makes rural cross subsidies viable.

    6: FTTN is best in high density cities, trying to apply FTTN to small towns is economically irresponsible as you’ll have small numbers of customer per node and need lots of nodes to keep the cable lengths under 1km. Many of these really small towns will get far better services from Fixed Wireless 4G towers than ADSL can provide due to the ancient rotting copper PSTN network that is in even worse condition than what city users have!

    7: great idea, lets add in extra costs and complexity to the fixed wireless network by having 2 or 3 wireless operators, different equipment vendors (Telstra use Ericsson, Optus use Huawei), different provisioning systems, different technical support arms, different frequency spectrum’s, extra middle-man margins and different ideas as to what a working service is and so on!

    The logic of this idea is simply astounding, imagine being a rural customer and calling up your preferred ISP for a BB service. basically you have your ISP reselling and NBN service which is really a resold Telstra/Optus Service and when something goes wrong you’ll get a real mess with 3 different companies involved and the customer being taken for a ride!! What a stupid idea!!!

    Summary: While MT “may” have 1 or 2 facts floating around in his response, the general ideas behind his arguments are entirely lacking in logic and foresight – I for one am really disappointed that the Coalition wont man up and do what is best for this country and support the NBN as is with NO significant changes.

    If the Libs do get in and do do what they say they will, Australia will have lost a major opportunity as a nation to drive the next generation of economic activity and increase our national competitiveness!!!!

    • Forgot to add this to point 7:

      You also lose the economies of scale you get by doing a single monolithic Fixed Wireless rollout.

  50. Applying Malcolm Turnbull’s logic, the ComCar fleet for ferrying pollies around in their exclusive magnificence should be based on second hand cars. In any colour.

  51. Might have already been said, but I notice that when he talks about how slow it is to roll out FTTH he refers to the number of premises connected with a RSP, not premises that are physically connected with a fiber drop point on their house, this deliberately makes it sound like NBNco have only rolled FTTH past 3,700 houses which is not the case at all.

  52. 1. Not going to destroy it? They’re going to take a wrecking ball to the vision of the NBN and Australia’s technological future by replacing a single platform for all with a mish-mash of technologies not fit for use in tomorrows world. Building tomorrow, for today, completed tomorrow.

    2. That’s one hell of an assumption Malcolm. You need to provide hard figures which you haven’t (because you can’t). Better yet, there’s still an election to be held and I don’t think you’re a shoe-in.

    3. It is apples and oranges to compare the build cost of a FTTH/FTTP solution to a FTTN solution. Cost of adding fibre nodes is one thing, but what about the need to replace copper where it has degraded to the point of being unusable for such a purpose as VDSL? Should I need to consider the cost of upgrading the FTTN (eventually) to a FTTH/FTTP solution to keep the comparison fair?

    4. Your policy includes the costs of building your NBN vision on budget meaning taxpayers will have to shoulder the burden now. Add in the cost of having to overbuild eventually (sooner than we all think) and this doubles (if not triples) the burden on the taxpayer.

    5. This is just a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul irrespective of how you look at it. The taxpayer will either have to pay the subsidy or those on superior connections will pay more to subsidise the bush. Under his vision it could possibly be both.

    6. Just how many people live near their exchange out in rural areas? Bush properties are typically much larger and your nearest neighbour can be 4km down the ‘road’. Are they going to put a node within 1km of every property in rural areas to service them adequately? The opposition love using the term ‘waste’. I believe their rural policy (can’t really call it policy – it’s not on paper) is just that – waste.

    7. Inviting Telstra, Optus etc to tender for provision of a fixed wireless network to service rural areas is a pointless exercise. If it was in their best interests they would have already done it. 1- It is not profitable for them to do it (hence why they haven’t done it because their best interest is profit) and 2- they don’t have good maintenance practices in general (Telstra CAN anyone?) because again, good maintenance practices costs money which impacts on profit margin.

    I could have commented on the ‘running behind schedule’ issue Mr Turnbull has in those comments but I’ll address it separately. Yes, NBN Co is running behind schedule because of regulatory hurdles they’ve had to overcome as well as a change in plan (from FTTN to FTTH/FTTP) plus I’m sure there are many other reasons for delay.

    The reality is that if the Liberals were in power it would have been no different. It’s easy to point the finger but if the shoe were on the other foot (which you fail to consider), what would your position be? What do you say to that Mr Turnbull? Nothing? I expected as much.

  53. 4. Why will it be more affordable? Obviously if NBN Co’s network is completed at lower cost then there will be less sunk capital to service and hence it does not have to charge as much to get a return.

    This justification is false.

    It implies that the coalition plan will result in lower retails prices because of the lower captial cost compared to the NBN. Affordability is affected by a large number of variables including capital cost, network maintenance costs, overheads, profit margin, cross-subsidies, payments to telcos for purchasing assets, cost of borrowing, asset lifespan, and a large number of other factors.

    If restricts ones self to a simple comparison of the capital costs when determining affordability, then an NBN network costing $35.7b and lasting 50 years is a capital outlay of 714m/y. To match this, a FTTN network costing $16.9b would require a lifespan of at least 12 years.

    In summary: MT & the coalition have not provided sufficient detail for us to determine whether their FTTN solution would be more or less affordable. Claiming that it will be more affordable purely based on a lower capital cost is a disengenous and false statement.

    • Additionally, if “affordability” is defined as net government, then the statement is factually incorrect. The existing NBN Co has a 7% projected ROI, whereas the coalition plan requires perpetual cross-subsidies.

      MT referenced cross-subsides here (http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/blogs/the-true-cost-of-the-nbn/) by linking to here (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55700.html). Neither article mentioned a funding source for such subsidies therefore one can only conclude that the subsidy it is an ongoing government liability.

    • >$35.7b and lasting 50 years is a capital outlay of 714m/y. To match this, a FTTN network costing $16.9b would require a lifespan of at least 12 years.

      Math edit: would require lifespan of 23.6 years, not 12years. Given broadband trends outlined in the Cisco report, it is seems extremely unlikely than the proposed coalition FTTN network would be sufficient for access in 2027.

  54. My name is Carl Jackson, I am something you dont often see on these blog sites – an FTTH professional that doesnt have a vested interest in the NBN one way or another. While I was at Alcatel-Lucent, I priced FTTH for the entire city of Canberra with the best pros in the business behind me – ALU are leader in FTTH technology and have been the elite in fixed line networks in Australian for nearly 100 years.

    While I was at ALU in 2006 I went and saw the head of fixed line networks to talk about the then FTTN project we were doing for Telstra. I asked him why not do an all FTTH network instead. He laughed me out of his office. No professional in fixed line networks I ever met seriously thought the cost/benefit of an FTTH NBN could be taken seriously, as you could deliver more bandwidth for far less dollars with FTTN than about 95% of users could use in the life of the system.

    As Renai has invited facts, let me illustrate with the Canberra example. To build VDSL2 FTTN in canberra came out at about $800 per home connected. At that price you could put a node with 100m of 99%+ of premises in the city and guarantee 50Mbits/sec. To build FTTH in Canberra came out at over $1400 per home connected for houses with aerial wires, but far more for suburbs with underground wiring. I cant imagine a way you could price FTTN to be anything but much, much cheaper than FTTH, and that is the experience right around the world – I read through detailed case studies from Verizon, France Telecom HK Telecom, Malaysia and many others. This is not a serious topic of conversion in the industry. FTTN is cheaper than FTTH full stop. The arguments to the contrary above are not, in my opinion, grounded on any industry benchmarks

    So lets go thru Turnbulls full 7 points from an unbiased, industry perspective. I’ll ignore No.1 as I anything more than the rest of you on that point

    2. Is FTTN faster? Yep, way faster. People who argue otherwise probably havent had the experience of building both

    3. Is FTTN cheaper Yep, way cheaper. My figures were never 1/3 of FTTH but that doesnt mean it cant be done. Malcolm is pretty close to the mark here

    4. Alcatel-Lucent does all its fixed line business cases around a concept called “Fibre to the $”, which means you build fibre as far into the last mile as the returns available at the time justify. All Telco network builds are strictly gatekept – if you cant make the capital back in a normal investment cycle then it cant proceed. So yes, Malcolm is right, the industry worldwide tighly links network build costs to the cost that must be charged to the subscriber. He is also proveably correct on the value of infrastructure competition. In New York you can get 100Mb service with 250 Pay TV channels and unlimited voice for $30 a month – why? because there are 5 cable companies building in that city – sometime all 5 offer a service to the same apartment block. That produces much more value to the consumer for far less dollars than we can ever expect from the NBN. There are dozens of other cities with the same experience. Urban Sydney and Melbourne will pay much more for much less under the NBN than infrastructure competition would delivered to them without the NBN – they are big losers in this project

    5. Another assertion – ill skip this one

    6. The maths are with Malcolm here. the reduced cost of FTTN could make higher fixed broadband speeds viable to lots of smaller towns than dont make Quigleys cut for FTTH

    7. Seems reasonable too

    Just a last comment – Delimiter has been getting itself worked into a bit a of a lather in recent times trying to prove that Malcolm Turnbull is lying. There really isnt much to get excited about in this list from an industry perspective. You might want to consider, Renai, whether you are applying as much rigor to your analysis of pro-NBN claims as you are of Turnbulls

    • I’m not trying to prove that Turnbull is lying, mate ;) In fact, if you read my articles, I’ve repeatedly praised various aspects of the Coalition’s NBN policy :) What I have done recently, is point out glaringly obvious factually incorrect statements by quite a few of Turnbull’s colleagues.

    • Hi Carl,

      I’m not an industry veteran, but let’s see if I can help you understand some of the arguments better. If I’m wrong, feel free to say so :P

      “2. Is FTTN faster? Yep, way faster. People who argue otherwise probably havent had the experience of building both”

      I assume you mean sooner in delivery?

      You should remember that Malclom is not choosing to build FTTN or FTTH – he’s trying to stop/alter a FTTH rollout and ‘replace’ [possibly] large aspects of it with FTTN – for a start he has to get elected. Then he has to do a CBA. Then he only has to deal with Telstra, Existing contracts, NBNco, Legislation, ACCC, Possibly Hostile Senate, Figuring out what to do with newly built Wireless, Satellite and FTTH, infrastructure, Potential backlash from people/ISP’s/Business who prefer the NBN etc.

      Then of course we come onto point number 2:

      “3. Is FTTN cheaper Yep, way cheaper. My figures were never 1/3 of FTTH but that doesnt mean it cant be done. Malcolm is pretty close to the mark here”

      You see, the problem we have with that argument is that it’s very easy to price fiber cheaper than FTTN… by looking at TCO not [what appears to be] Capex.

      To spend $800 of ’50Mbps’.. that’ll last until 2014* seems to be a bit short sighted when you could be building FTTH that should be lasting into 2030, 2040, 2050 and beyond.

      Then of course you have to factor in the actual costs. NBN is an investment that is expected to return a profit. All of Malcolm’s schemes appear to be subsidies. On that basis alone he’s far more ‘expensive’.

      “He is also proveably correct on the value of infrastructure competition. In New York you can get 100Mb service with 250 Pay TV channels and unlimited voice for $30 a month – why? because there are 5 cable companies building in that city – sometime all 5 offer a service to the same apartment block.”

      How does that prove infrastructure competition?

      Some apartments, in one city, in one state in one country a case does not make.

      ” Urban Sydney and Melbourne will pay much more for much less under the NBN than infrastructure competition would delivered to them without the NBN – they are big losers in this project”

      Do they?

      What infrastructure would they have otherwise gone on, and how much cheaper would it have been? Remembering you need at least two sets of physical infrastructure [otherwise it’s not competition] and profit margins of 20%+ to please the private sector. Furthermore, what is the cost of being one of only a few people with good internet, rather than being able to access 100% of the population in a transparent way?

      “The maths are with Malcolm here. the reduced cost of FTTN could make higher fixed broadband speeds viable to lots of smaller towns than dont make Quigleys cut for FTTH”

      If this is actually the case, then that’s a great *addition* to the NBN – one that he should be shouting from roof tops.

      “Just a last comment – Delimiter has been getting itself worked into a bit a of a lather in recent times trying to prove that Malcolm Turnbull is lying”

      Delimiter has been doing the opposite. Some readers/commentors will happily claim he’s been lying for years, but that’s a different issue entirely.

      Thanks.

      *I base my numbers off 2010 being a base speed of 12Mbps, 50% yearly growth. This is rough, your numbers may deviate.

    • @Carl

      I’m far from an industry veteran and while it’s great having someone who works in the industry discussing these issues, I’d like to ask a couple of questions regarding your replies:

      “2. Is FTTN faster? Yep, way faster. ”

      No question in normal circumstances. However, what if FTTH has a 3 year headstart, as is the case here?…..

      “3. Is FTTN cheaper Yep, way cheaper.”

      Again, no question in normal circumstances. But what if the infrastructure isn’t your own and you have to buy/lease it, as is the case here?…..

      “4. Alcatel-Lucent does all its fixed line business cases around a concept called “Fibre to the $”…All Telco network builds are strictly gatekept – if you cant make the capital back in a normal investment cycle then it cant proceed.”

      Interesting then that Alcatel-Lucent is ADVOCATING the NBN, but moving on-> That makes excellent sense. If Capex, on a Capex cycle cannot be made back, then why invest? It’s not good business. But what if it ISN’T built on a normal business Capex cycle, as is the case here?……

      “In New York you can get 100Mb service with 250 Pay TV channels and unlimited voice for $30 a month – why? because there are 5 cable companies building in that city – sometime all 5 offer a service to the same apartment block.”

      Indeed- the Americans do love their cable :D However, while America has more than 50% penetration of HFC, we have not even 10%. And while America has often multiple physical cables coming into their apartment buildings, we have 1….total. And that won’t change under an FTTN system. So while infrastructure competition would indeed deliver the US household these cheap prices, what happens when there is ALREADY no infrastructure competition, as is the case here?

      “Urban Sydney and Melbourne will pay much more for much less under the NBN than infrastructure competition would delivered to them without the NBN – they are big losers in this project”

      Again, using your New York example, this would indeed be the case if urban Sydney and Melbourne had multiple cable companies having the same service delivering capability and delivered it to all. But what if there were only 2 cables, both delivering the same service, for a much higher price than normal copper AND only some 40% of people in those cities can get have access to it, as long as they aren’t in an apartment….or own a business….or aren’t in a contended street, as is the case here?

      “6. The maths are with Malcolm here. the reduced cost of FTTN could make higher fixed broadband speeds viable to lots of smaller towns than dont make Quigleys cut for FTTH”

      Indeed, this would be very sensible. In fact, I’d advocate FTTN right now for towns that weren’t on the NBN FTTH rollout, instead of wireless. But again, what if the cost to build the system was only part of the total cost, which includes having to hire/buy the infrastructure the FTTN uses, as is the case here? Not to mention what if the state of that infrastructure in smaller regional and semi-rural towns was insufficient without replacement in many cases to handle anything close to the speeds needing to be delivered to be viable to spend the money?

      “7. Seems reasonable too”

      Would it be reasonable if the subsidies provided to these companies, instead of costing the $2.8 Billion for wireless NBNCo. is spending, was $400 million to provide the towers/capacity and then $200 million a year to subsidise it so it is profitable commercially? After all, $200 Million for 500 000 people is $400/person- not alot to provide 100Gb a month on a wireless service seeing as current costs would have that at $600 a month on Telstra. And what if, because of growth and tourism, the service started at 15 or 18Mbps (Telstra happily reaches that on their LTE) but degraded to 10Mbps at night during peak and 5Mbps during the annual festival and then it degraded to 10Mbps 3 years down the track and 5Mbps at night during peak, as is the case here?

      I truly would like your answers Carl. I’m not being patronising at all and if it seems so, I apologise. But I’m asking these questions, because, factually, these scenarios I have set out are exactly what we have here. I can back them up, with evidence, as can you back your scenarios up.

      See, this is where people see Pro-NBN bias- Mr Turnbull posts these scenarios where he can, indeed, show that his FTTN system will be quite alot cheaper, faster and better for people now. The problem comes when people such as myself point out that these scenarios, which are quite factual, relevant and true, don’t apply in this country. We’re immediately labelled as Pro-NBN because we’re ignoring market/commercial wisdom. But here’s the point- our country is not like other countries; we are unique and have unique telecommunications challenges. And our NBN isn’t like FTTH/FTTN rollouts in other countries; other countries rollout’s are public/private (NZ) partnerships or fully private(US, Europe, Asia). Ours is neither- it is a government funded GBE rollout.

      I appreciate your incite as an industry professional Carl, but is it perhaps also true that as an industry professional you see things from a generally commercial point of view and, as the NBN is NOT a commercial concern, that at least some of your scenarios/concerns do not therefore apply? And those that do apply are much less relevant because Australia’s telecommunications sector has little, if any in most areas, infrastructure competition as it stands?

      I am not Pro-NBN because all I want is cheap access to 100Mbps regardless. I’m Pro-NBN because it makes the most sense in this country and will continue to make the most sense going into the future many, many years.

      Also, Delimiter is NOT Pro-NBN. Renai has been as big a detractor of the NBN in recent times as he has of the Coalition policy, to the point of being quite terse with some of us who get overzealous on our mission to promote all things NBN. Renai HAS however pointed out glaring mistruths in Coalition spokesperson statements on the NBN, including Joe Hockey, Warren Truss and Tony Abbott, as WELL as Mr Turnbull. In the past he has been critical of Stephen Conroy, however, Mr Conroy does not seem to have the penchant for…. stretching the truth on the NBN that many Coalition spokespeople seem to have. Is that Renai’s fault?

    • @ Fibre Builder,

      Thanks for supplying a ‘cost’ analysis.

      I now await the ‘benefits’ analysis.

      Cheers

    • Very interesting post. I have couple of questions for you though.

      “you could put a node with 100m of 99%+ of premises in the city and guarantee 50Mbits/sec”

      Does it mean in any city or does in mean in the city but not in the country? Also, you mention nodes within 100m of most premises. Would this be the case for most of Australia or just selected areas. Could you also tell us what the speed would be if the node was within 500m or 1Km, since these are the figures that have been suggested by Malcom Turnbull?
      Also, with having nodes within 100m sounds like an awful lot of nodes. Have you factored in the electricity costs?

      . “My figures were never 1/3 of FTTH but that doesnt mean it cant be done. Malcolm is pretty close to the mark here”

      Malcolm Turnbull says between 1/4 and 1/3. Going by your Camberra this means between $350 and $466. That is a long way from $800. If it can be done, could you explain how it would be possible to do it at less than half the price of your Camberra price for FTTH?

      Also, I note that there is no mention in your post of upload speed nor is there any mention of upgrading. Is that because you don’t think these are important factors?

      I also have a comment on you post. You tell us in strong terms that FTTN is way cheaper and can be built way faster. It may come as a surprise to you but we already knew that it is the case in isolation. What we also know is that they are many additional costs which are not obvious to some if the goal is a short fix rather than a long term future. It is, therefore, disappointing that you do not address these issues. It would have made a more balanced post. I hope you can reply to my questions to redress this unbalance. If you don’t, it will difficult not to conclude that your omissions were deliberate.

    • Quote: “At that price you could put a node with 100m of 99%+ of premises in the city and guarantee 50Mbits/sec. To build FTTH in Canberra came out at over $1400 per home connected for houses with aerial wires, but far more for suburbs with underground wiring.”

      This is the crux of it, to my mind, as you are limiting your costings to the inner city. If you want to give EVERYONE 50Mbits/sec, including suburbia, your costs will skyrocket. Putting multiple FTTN cabinets on every street is starting to get pretty damned close to building the FTTH, and have a significantly higher maintenance cost as you have now moved from passive connections and large centralised exchanges to exposed, powered and plentiful street side boxes.

      Lets say the cost of a FTTH install was $2000 per house, but that would be operable basically as is for about 20 years. It strikes me that FTTN at $800 is going to have to go through probably 2 to 3 complete rollouts to cover the capability upgrades over that 20 years, and will have a significantly higher ongoing cost of operation (I have no figures on how many street side boxes get taken out by weather, rodents, cars, wear and tear etc every year, but at 1 every 100 or so metres I can only assume it is not going to be near 0).

      So, while I am sure you are correct that a built up area can be serviced more immediately with FTTN, which is what Mr Turnbull is saying to some degree, it is in no way convincing that this is a good ongoing plan for 93%+ of the population.

    • I have.

      It makes me realise that short of fully fleshed out policy, a very good start would be for Malcolm Turnbull to tell us how far from the house he anticipates the nodes would be. This would eliminate an area of speculation which has many implications in terms of feasibility, duration of rollout, and cost.

    • @Adam

      I posted a very similar discussion on VDSL on my own blog nbninfo.blogspot.com about 2 months ago, but obviously this is much more mainstream and he’s more succinct than me.

      This is the misleading part of Malcolm’s statements- he talks of ‘upgrades’ allowing 300mbps to some homes….but that is simply not possible in Australia under ANY viable FTTN because most homes only have a single bonded pair and vectoring for competition to exist, requires 2 or more. So we would be stuck on 40-50mbps MAX until upgraded at some unknown point in the future, to FTTH. And the money has been spent on FTTN in the meantime.

      • Maybe you can help me then – even if MT could get 50Mbps to most homes with VDSL2, how does he propose getting the actual extra copper lines in the ground? Won’t this require something like the same amount of labour as replacing it with fibre?

        I realize I’m preaching to the converted here, but I keep coming back to that nagging feeling that Turnbull knows all of this, and is being purposefully obtuse. Which is disappointing in a man who otherwise has the potential to be a good statesman and administrator.

        • @Adam

          I’m afraid you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head. Turnbull appears to be stating scenarios, which are themselves possible (VDSL2 giving 100Mbps on FTTN) but are NOT relevant to the Australian market. Note whenever he talks about FTTN, he always refers to foreign markets….because there isn’t FTTN here already, from say Telstra, for a very good reason.

          Whether it’s being deliberately obtuse, deliberately misleading or just plain “I never said it was possible here, just that it was possible” politics, remains to be seen.

          I have my opinion about what he is doing, but that doesn’t make it true. However, Turnbull and the Coalition are, even with the election over a year away, rapidly running out of time to produce a viable and credible alternative to the NBN regardless.

        • Check out the pricing on VDSL currently, available under Business plans from most isp’s, 8/6 at approx 300-400/Month plus something generally over $1,000 to install, higher speeds cost more.

          So FTTN ADSL2+ may be similar price, but what will we pay for VDSL?

          To be honest IMO the whole Coalition response and the responses of the majority of the anti brigade is so dog in the manger , smacks of FTTP is too good for the peasants. FTTN with an expensive customer pays upgrade path to FTTP for the worthy who can afford it.
          Completely missing all the valuable benefits for the nation for the next few decades and more

  55. The points appear to have been well covered excepting my issue.
    The Headline
    “Why the Coalition’s NBN plan is superior — and why it will be better for the bush too”

    The headline grabs the attention, biases the mindset of the reader. Just the way we work
    in this case arguably “The Big Lie”, classic Goebellian propoganda technique.

    Yet Malcolm whinges about “propoganda” in opinion pieces disputing his assertions?

    Poor Form old chap

  56. http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/07/26/3554003.htm

    His reason is this: much of the “worst” of the copper network isn’t in the one-or-two cable runs that connect individual premises. It’s in the very large bundles of 100-plus copper pairs exiting Telstra exchanges – and these would be replaced by fibre.

    An FTTN could eliminate the estimated billion-dollar annual bill spent on maintaining the copper

    Haha! Well done Richard Chirgwin!

    That’s 2 NBN myths perpetuated on delimiter exploded in one article!

    1/ The false idea that all the worst copper will be retained in a FTTN build

    2/ FTTN will be burdened by “high copper maintenance expenses”.

    • In an article of 1000’s and 1000’s of words you find about 60 words, spin them to try to suit and then say ha ha… Delimiter myths exploded :/

      1. If the copper is unusable it will need to be replaced and that will be at an additional cost to the cost of usage and/or purchase of the copper network from Telstra (and do you think Telstra will do a deal which includes them paying?). Whereas if the copper is usable it will obviously be used as is and won’t cost more on top of any deal with Telstra. BTW do you think they’d replace the worn out copper with copper or fibre?

      2. The copper that remains will still need to be maintained and it currently costs $b’s if you can believe Telstra. Plus add what we just ascertained in #1.

      So thanks for demonstrating for us all, that FTTN will therefore cost even more than some say – due to the obvious maintenance costs and the added replacement costs, you just highlighted.

      • On top of which, at what point are the last mile pairs assessed to determine their suitability. In my case the Telstra tech advised that my last fault was in the major cable and there were no more pairs available in that cable, he also advised lucky for me as there are no decent pairs left in my local cable anyway.
        Back to what do they do if their are insufficient useable pairs for vdsl if needed, or if all useable pairs are in use and one or more develop faults within the first year or so, with no spares available.??.

        P.S Pieter.
        I assume you did read the comments, one telling one from a Telstra Linesman/Tech re suspect and faulty joints, the real world coal face techo bits rather than the armchair analysts

    • Pieter

      A bit a cherry picking, don’t you think?

      About this bit you forgot

      “An FTTN could eliminate the estimated billion-dollar annual bill spent on maintaining the copper – but only if it really did eliminate those copper bundles. Doing so would create a new set of problems relating to stranded infrastructure, regulation and competition”

    • Sorry Piter, Not “a” linie, but one ex and one current Telstra Lines Faults Techs. Suggesting possibly 100’s of thousands of gel affected potentially faulty cable joints in the local cabling loop. The main trunk cables are pressurised and as a result there are far less faults as no water ingress, contrary to what the official fault reports indicate which is what the experts analyse

      If it wasn’t such an important matter for the Nations future it will be a circus watching the schmozzle unfold when they try to implement their FTTN policy.

      Official reports do not necessarily reflect reality, bums need to be covered

  57. Something to check, and a point I think most of us have kind of missed in the debate, is MT’s claim that FttN is cheaper. Fact check that and see what you come up with.

    First, ask “cheaper for who?” The Liberal plan appears to cost $10’s of billions to the Australian public, coming out of budget monies, while the Labor plan costs zero dollars to the Australian public.

    So cheaper for who?

    If MT means cheaper to the public, then no, it isnt. If he means cheaper to the Govt, then no, it isnt. If he means cheaper to build the network, then, and only then, is he right. What is the detail behind the little asterix he’s hiding… Make him spit it out, and get it out into the public light.

    Then ask, “cheaper over what time period?” We all know FttN has a limited life span, so at what point will the cost need to be written off? By MT’s own admission, 50% of the cost will need to be written off at some point if/when you upgrade to FttH.

    The cynic in me wonders if the Lib’s will somehow use that point to try and shoot Labor down at the time…

    But cheaper over what time period? 5 years? 10 years? 20? What about after that? Its a NATIONAL infrastructure program. Projects of that nature are meant to be efficient and cost effective for decades (plural), not decade (singular).

    That then starts looking at the “faster” part of the claim. Faster… how?

    NBNCo stops building in Nov 13, straight after the election. CBA study starts, takes 6 months, then another 6 months to decipher. Then a further 12 months to renegotiate contracts, longer with Telstra, and suddenly you’re looking at 2 1/2 years with nothing happening, and eyeing off another election.

    So faster, how?

    There are 50,000 to 70,000 nodes needed, and Telstra, the most experienced operator in this field, suggests no more than about 7,000 a year can be rolled out. So there’s a 7 to 10 year window AFTER commencement – which, if it starts 2 1/2 years after the election, means 2023-6. By which point FttH would be finished.

    Again, faster how?

  58. I strongly believe Labor has learnt their lesson.
    They will not upgrade or improve whatever comms they inherit when they finally are back in Government, nor will they devote any effort in improving anything in Australia.
    Not worth the hassle.
    Allow the roles to be reversed, let the Coalition provide the necessary infrastructure and foundations for the economy.
    Keep the Public and media happy

  59. What gets me is the fact that Turnbull says

    “But even if it offers the maximum potential bandwidth, if a different technology can deliver all the bandwidth households require now and can do so in a fraction of time it makes much more sense to deploy it.”

    Mr Turnbull, the NBN is not simply a plan for “all the bandwidth households require NOW”. It is a plan that has been means tested and worked through to the point of exhaustion to provide “all the bandwidth households require now” AND FOR TOMORROW. The addition of three simple words makes it worth $49bn.

    From what I have seen of the NBN at friend’s houses, its “tomorrow feature” will provide the capacity to lead the global market in just about all digital aspects of life. Global leaders in Internet technologies including Google and IBM have already stated that they will be building data farms in Australia, providing a boost to the workforce and the digital economy. Not only this, but Australia will be the largest country to take up such a large deployment of FTTH in the world. This alone will make us leaders in telecommunications infrastructure.

    I am amazed at how well thought out the NBN is in its CURRENT FORM. How many times has the Coalition changed its policy? Three, or maybe 4 times?

    Mr Turnbull, how is it even remotely acceptable that you can just mire the hard work and planning that has gone into the current NBN plan, and then call it an expensive waste of time when you can’t even get your own policy right?

    Mr Turnbull, how is it right that we should accept a policy that replaces technologies unlike any the Australian population has ever seen with outdated and comparably slow and unreliable ones?

    Mr Turnbull, how is it that you are allowed to get away with falsifying information regarding the NBN and praising your own “policy” as the only right thing to do? As far as I can tell, your policy involves “Nothing, nobody, nil.”

    Mr Turnbull, how is it right that we, as the Australian people you are meant to serve are left in the dark as to what you are truly planning to do with the country’s increasingly dire telecoms situation?

    Thanks for giving us the facts, and only the facts, Renai. Delimiter has proved a godsend in the war against crap NBN “policies”.

    Regards,

    James

  60. Worth reading Paul Budde’s article

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/nbn-national-broadband-network-malcolm-turnbull-to-pd20120814-X632K?opendocument&src=rss

    part of
    “So let’s have a look at AT&T and how it’s fibre experience relates to the NBN.

    AT&T’s Fibre-to-the-Node network, branded as U-Verse, has been partially rolled out in 22 states. As the service is using the existing copper wiring it cannot offer more than 24Mb/s. Prices are at least twice as high as current FttH offers in Australia, while AT&T has also not been shy in making additional revenue from imposing caps and charging overage fees. Furthermore, the upstream speed is so slow that the company cannot deliver on its advertised promise that the ‘cloud’ is its next step, since this requires much higher upstream speeds.

    Moreover, in most states AT&T’s various companies (the original Bell companies which merged into AT&T) had all committed to rewire entire states with fibre optics. They were paid billions of dollars per state to do it, yet failed to deliver on those commitments.

    Meanwhile, even though the AT&T’s fibre optic networks were not built, the company was able to use the extra charges on phone bills to build out U-Verse, after which they privatised the publically funded networks they had upgraded.”

  61. Turnbull’s statement of 50Mb/s in two years is a load of rubbish and how confusing.
    What a random statement.
    The Coalition NBN Policy states they will be providing “access to 25Mb/s”.
    Wow that’s re-badging the ADSL2+ which gives access to 24Mb/s.
    Which will probably be much lower taking into consideration the poor copper in the ground.

    I have lost faith in anything that comes out of Turbull’s mouth, when aske the hard questions which he cannot answer it is always……

    “Can I just put out a few facts here…….”
    “Can I just make a point here……..”
    “The point however is this…..”
    “Just consider this…”

Comments are closed.