Five ways the NBN is better than Google Fiber

1. What did the Kansas fibre cost the US taxpayer?

   • Bout the same as ours.

     Zip.

   • How much is it costing Australian taxpayers?

     • The NBN will ultimately cost nothing. There is a cost, and that cost is recovered over time through monthly charges.

       Exactly how long that takes is difficult to pin down, but it will reached, with ultimate balance sheet cost of zero.

       • Exactly. Its a shame this point is rarely made in the media, or perhaps its Labor’s fault that they can’t get this point across to the public effectively.

         A lot of people unfortunately hear the $40billion figure and automatically think that’s money from the budget that won’t be spent on hospitals and roads etc. I wish people could grasp that it’s an investment, that will more than pay for itself.

         • Uh sorry but that doesnt quite work. If the government spends 40billion (or whatever) which is obtained through tax revenues to start with, and then charges you $X a month, guess what – you just paid twice.
           Tax101

         • ” If the government spends 40billion (or whatever) which is obtained through tax revenues to start with”

           Which it isn’t – first fail.

           And the $x per month you are concerned about paying? People are already paying that now. The wholesale component goes to a private corporation at the moment. In 26 years (or whenever it is) when the NBN is paid off, it will be going back to the government to spend on roads, hospitals, etc.

         • Here is the accounting transaction for the governmen over the next 10 years:
           Dr $26Billion Equity in NBN Co.
           Cr $20 Billion Building Australian Future Bonds Issued to the Public (mainly foreign central banks).
           Cr $6 Billion Building Australian Fund (holding money from the sale of Telstra and past labor budget surpluses.)

           You can find details of these transactions at http://www.budget.gov.au budget paper 1 statement 5.
           I don’t see any taxes there apart from past budget surpluses and the interest on the bonds is at as low a rate as in history.

           And eventually when the NBN is complete and sold to the public:

           Dr $20 Billion Building Australian Future Bonds
           Dr balance of $ Billions Cash with RBA
           Cr more than $20 Billion Sale of assets Account.

           Dr $20 Billion Sale of assets Account.
           Cr $20 Billion Equity in NBN Co.

           I still don’t see any taxes there and the only “cost” to the tax payers is the negligable increase in government bond rates which have fallen since the NBN was announced.

           I hope this fact based answer will clarify which of us is failed tax 101. (Acutally I passed tax 331 with a HD.)

         • @Lachlan

           Well put! I always hated balancing transactions for Journal entries in MYOB…..

         • That was a past alain argument too…

           Anyway, let’s use that logic with the Coalitions alternative (as it’s one or the other).

           We pay tax, taxation subsidies are gifted to private enterprise to build/own the network, we pay for usage and we have no asset ownership.

           So we pay four times with the Coalition…

           *sigh*

       • “The NBN will ultimately cost nothing. ”

         My point exactly =)

       • I’ve had plenty of discussions with friends about the NBN, and once I’ve explained this angle with most of them. they very quickly change from “We should be building hospitals and roads instead of the NBN” to “its a very good idea”.

         Most of them dont understand that its not tax dollars funding the project, so as said here, cant get past the $40b cost. They assume that because the Govt is paying for it, it MUST come out of taxpayer dollars, so surely that money could be used for a better purpose!

         The logic is sound, at least from their perspective, but its based on a false assumption. Once you fix that assumption, the light goes on, and they see the benefits.

       • How do you figure it’s nothing they have used 40billions dollars of tax funds.

         Then taxes and power costs have gone up besides adding a couple extra taxes because the Labor government doesn’t have enough funds to pay for everything.

         If the NBN is trash canned because they get thrown out the door well what ever labor have spent so far on the NBN is lost money and guess what the taxes will go up to cover for that lost amount of money.

         So I don’t get how you say it’s free it’s not even at my door so it’s not making any money off me yet it has put be 40 billion in the red before anything is paid towards it.

         You also forget about maintenance costs Telstra need to make 5 billion a year every year just to keep the POTS and other services up and running.

         It doesn’t run for free.

         • @Zag

           I’ve rarely seen such a comment with so many inaccuracies.

           Firstly- You comment:

           How do you figure it’s nothing they have used 40billions dollars of tax funds.

           Is entirely incorrect. Firstly, it is $26 Billion. Not $40 Billion. Secondly, this is BORROWED money. This has been explained a dozen times here. This money is borrowed, by issuing Government bonds at an interest rate of around 4%. The 4% interest is all that is paid until the loan is paid back by the NBN users- around 70% of all Australian premises, seeing as it will be the only fixed line provider. It is around $4 Billion over the life of the NBN loan.

           Thirdly, the NBN will be completed, assuming no Coalition meddling, by 2022. The loan is until 2038. That means the total depreciation period is 26 years- about the same as your average mortgage. Would you suggest that because you’re not yet earning money on the house you JUST settled a contract on, but won’t be renting out for investment for 6-9 months while renovations happen, is therefore a waste of $400 000 dollars, even though you’ll be getting rent off it for 26 years??

           Finally- It does NOT cost Telstra $5 Billion to maintain the copper- it is around $1 Billion. And, contrary to what you may and probably will choose to believe, it will cost substantially LESS than that to maintain a state-of-the-art FTTH network. About 1/5th to 1/8th is the estimate. AND it uses 1/5th the electricity. While still making a PROFIT of around $1.8 Billion a year and growing, by 2025. That’s profit, not revenue- revenue will be around $4.5 Billion a year in 2025.

           Now, do we have any other fallacies we’d like to peddle tonight?

         • “Finally- It does NOT cost Telstra $5 Billion to maintain the copper- it is around $1 Billion.”

           Where do you get this $1 billion from?

           Annual Report 2011
           PSTN Product Revenue: $5370 million
           EBITDA Margin PSTN: 59%
           Implies PSTN operating cost 41% or $2202 million

           EBITDA does not include all variables so actual cost is likely to be higher than this.

         • @Goresh

           As I’ve already said over on the other article, it is about maintenance not operating costs. The 2 would likely cost a similar amount to “operate” bar the power used, which would be a substantial saving. But operating costs includes support costs, staff training, vehicle operating costs etc etc.

           You cannot compare “operation” with “maintenance”. I do maintenance for a living. It’s a HELL of alot cheaper than “operating” what we maintain…..

         • Hi, as someone who specialising in Tax and Taxation law i’d like to point out that the government only has money because of tax payer funds. If they take out a loan, thats a loan on behalf of the tax payer effectively. So yes it is actually Xbillion of tax payer funds. Borrowing against the countries credit rating for one designation means that same amount cant be borrowed for another (i.e. you’d have to borrow more instead or wait).

           So stop jumping on people for calling it ‘tax payers funds’ because surprisingly the government’s money IS the people’s money. Tax/Law101.

           The government paying Xbn for a project and then charging consumers again to recoup the cost is double dipping. If this doesnt wash with your logic i recomend you go do some basic accounting.

         • You better study up before if you want to become or remain a CPA. The loan is not repaid through taxes but from income from the NBN. Taxpayers pay once not twice. I think whoever buys the bonds would be very happy to be paid back twice, but they won’t be.

         • If it’s not coming from general taxation revenue it’s not coming directly from the tax payer/our income taxes (unlike the proposed subsidies of the Coalition’s – do you dislike those too?).

           Colour it all you like, but that’s the crux.

           Complain that it’s tax payer risk by all means, but imo there is little risk… because the critics have been telling us for ages “all Aussies are being forced onto the NBN”…and if that’ so, going by sheer numbers alone, it must succeed, mustn’t it?

         • @Tom Jones,

           I notice someone above has quite succinctly shown that the $26 Billion the government is borrowing by issuing bonds has nothing to do with taxation, other than the ~$4 Billion paid in interest. But that is also balanced against the governments own purchases of bonds and when they mature too, so it won’t be the full $4 Billion in interest paid.

           However, I’d like to point out also- I’m sure you are a fine taxation agent. I know many who are. However, I would suggest you don’t really understand government funding. You say:

           Borrowing against the countries credit rating for one designation means that same amount cant be borrowed for another (i.e. you’d have to borrow more instead or wait).

           And this is where your argument falls down, for 3 reasons:

           1- We have a net debt of less than $200 Billion. At ~20%% of GDP, that leaves us with ALOT of scope for more borrowing (or borrowing power as you might say) especially with a strong Aussie Dollar and many overseas markets investing in Australian bonds as security due to our strong economy.

           2- Even if we DIDN’T have much scope for borrowing money, there are only a select few things a responsible government borrows money for. Infrastructure is one main one. Stimulus would be another. So, indeed, if the NBN were to “max out” our borrowing power, it would be a sensible debt, seeing as the NBN will be repaid by users and in fact, result in a net profit for the government which can either pay down more debt or go into new infrastructure or increasing the budget for those years. However, NOT borrowing money for the NBN will NOT result in:

           – Hospitals being funded less or less being built
           – Schools being funded less or less being built
           – Ordinary roads being funded less or less being built

           Etc ad infinitum any budget item. These are budget items and borrowing (or not) does not affect their spending. Budget items ARE funded by taxation, NOT borrowings. Roads are an exception, as nationally important road infrastructure is often borrowed money. However, roads do not make a monetary return (they may make a social and economic indirect one however) and would therefore be inherently a more risky investment as it will not be paid back by an investment.

           3- The NBN even if it did NOT pay back its’ debt entirely through use (which seems very unlikely short of a catastrophic exile from fixed line services never predicted) it WOULD pay itself back indirectly through increases in productivity and decreases in congestion, burden on the health system and increases in economic activity. There are several studies that show for every 10% penetration of broadband, GDP increases by 1.4%. And for every doubling in broadband speed up to 100Mbps, there is an increase in GDP by 0.4%

           I would urge you to read more on the NBN. It is not some colossal waste of money that will turn around and bite us as soon as its’ built. It is long-term VITAL infrastructure that Australia needs desperately, along with another $200 Billion in infrastructure debt left after the Howard years. Howard put us in a decent position, Labor have strengthened that and NOW we should be using that position to look after our people for the coming decades.

         • Hi Tom,

           As someone that has worked in tax law and administration for well over 20 years, I say with a lot of confidence that your point on this is both correct, and highly misleading. As the taxpayer’s representitive, yes, technically it is taxpayer dollars once its in their hands. But its not tax dollars, and thats the key point of the process.

           If you argue about the terminology, its semantics at best. The whole point is that no TAX DOLLARS are used over the duration of the NBN, and any variations on that by commentators arent really relevant. Dont stir up a hornets nest over something thats 100% irrelevant.

           If you cant understand that basic accounting difference, I’d be suggesting you get into a different line of work, because the ATO will be all over your accounting methods in a very short time.

           Figure the normal budget as pocket money, and the loan for the NBN to be some extra on the side. But instead of repaying the extra money from your pocket money, you repay it from money you make from others willing to pay to use whatever you bought. The purchase (NBN) didnt come from your regular pocket money (federal budget), and the repayments (wholesale ARP cost to ISP’s) doesnt form part of your pocket money (again, federal budget).

           I can only assume someone of your training can understand that, so am disappointed that you think such a tenous link to our credit rating is enough to claim its a budget cost.

         • > If the NBN is trash canned because they get thrown out the door well what ever labor have spent so far on the NBN is lost money and guess what the taxes will go up to cover for that lost amount of money.

           You’re effectively saying two things:

           “the project will cost us if it is cancelled”

           Is this meant to be a criticism of the project? Pretty much every project in existence works like this, so you’re implying that nobody should ever try to do anything because someone might cancel it.

           “the Coalition will cancel it, hence causing the cost”

           Is this meant to be a criticism of Labor? It sounds a lot more like a criticism of the Coalition…

         • Lets put a little perspective into your comments, specifically around the $40b cost, and whether its free or not.

           Firstly, as pointed out by seven_tech, its an investment, not a cost, and is being funded from borrowings – purported to be $26b. In that regard, there IS a cost with the interest that accrues, but its certainly not the $40b you claim.

           Secondly, the borrowings being made to fund the project need to be paid back, so at some point in the future, the $26b plus interest will be paid off and hence completely neutralised. At that point, the overall cost becomes ‘free’ – no taxpayer dollars will be hurt in the building of the NBN.

           At least under the Labor vision.

           If it IS trash canned if/when the Lib’s get in, then that will be the fault of the Liberals, NOT Labor. It will be THEIR decisions that end up costing the taxpayers, NOT Labor. It will be hypocrisy of the highest order if the Liberals claim any residual debt as being Labor’s fault, when it will be THEIR decisions causing the debt to be realised, and transferred to public debt.

           Take that a step further, and any Liberal Govt suddenly has a $26b black hole to deal with, and will not be in surplus at any point of their reign. How does THAT look to the general public?

           All of this is basic accounting. Learn it some time, you might avoid making such silly statements in the future. While the investment and development are on plan, they arent accounted for as a general cost. When things change, thats when their status changes, and only one of the two key parties are going to create that change.

           I’ll give you a clue – its not going to be Labor.

   • How many US wide NBN’s could have been built, if it wasn’t for the $T’s of US taxpayer dollars which were used to save greedy US companies from extinction, due to their own excesses pre-GFC…?

     • I’ll takea guess at this one.

       Umm… zero?

       Main reason I say that is that whenever a government of any level (usually the equiv of local) stepped in and tried to built a community owned NBN-type network, the ISP’s would take them to court and get them to shut it down.

       Too much precedential case law now for a Government of any level to fund such a project in the US, so would be well and truly tucked away at the bottom of the too hard basket.

   • How much tax revenue would such a foreign, vertically-integrated hopeful return to the Australian tax payer?

     How much would the asset eventually be worth to the Australian tax payers?

     What if it was a company from China wanting to do this?

     What if they didn’t service the needs of the business market or outer communities because it was not in their financial interests? What if the taxpayer had to step in to cover “the rest” at massive cost?

     If the NBN is cancelled, how many hospitals and roads do you think you will automatically get in return?

     And what would you prefer – a regulated infrastructure monopoly (where you have world-class fibre access and complete freedom of applications/providers), or a vertically-integrated infrastructure/provider monopoly (don’t like our TV package? tough..).

2. Jim, the NBN if left in its current form , will also eventually be no cost to the Taxpayer.. The Customers provide the revenue stream that pays for the NBN.. And instead of the finished product being owned by a Private Co. It will be owned by the Govt .. A $50billion asset. for the Taxpayer.. Win Win.

3. All good points. When I mentioned it on the ‘Turnbull needs evidence thread’ it was merely to show that the technology was real, and that it was delivering more than what FttN could deliver. Always knew there was fine print attached to it.

   4 of the 5 points (the pay tv options misses out) are ones that convince me personally that a Govt controlled monopoly is the best way forward here. No bickering between communities and ISP’s like in the US, true competition for business as you always have numerous ISP options, privacy issues fall onto the policy makers, not the business interpreters, and so on and so on.

   Small correction: There are two Kansas Cities, straddling Kansas and Missouri state lines. I believe only 1 of them (the Missouri part) is getting a much bigger rollout than the other. At least initially.

4. Great article.
   Both the privacy issue and Google’s avowed goal of locking users into their own fiefdom are major MAJOR issues for me.
   The comment about Kansas City is also a key one for me. Relying on the local community enthusiasm for major infrastructure investment is a nonsense. I doubt any Sydneysiders were enthusiastic about the Harbour Bridge or the Opera House when they were being built, but as an outsider (UK), along with Uluru these are the brand images that sell Australia to visitors and immigrants. If they were a waste of money I doubt so many would include images of the bridge and Opera House in their promo and information material.

   • Haha imagine that as a future international tourism campaign – “Come to Australia, where you can enjoy the sights while maintaining unparalleled high-speed data connectivity from wherever you are.”

     • Uluru — now with 1 Gps broadband! :p

       muso1 has a point though. Universal access is something that can be sold to the rest of the world. Not necessarily to the public, though knowing there will be widespread and fast wifi they can access has often been a plus for tourism, but for international companies, the widespread availability of quality fiber is definitely a positive.

       • Universal access is a big thing for business. If the infrastructure is everywhere it is no long dictating where you can locate your business. I tell you right now the CBD isn’t full because of the cheap rents it is because the expensive rent are often cheaper than getting communication infrastructure where you need it. I know of a couple of business where I am who have a office in the CBD with roof access just so they can access comms infrastructure and then connect that to their warehouse site via point to point wireless. One of the local IT services companies fixed wireless (similar to the NBN setup) to hook their clients back to their datacenter because existing comms infrastructure is either not their or cost prohibitive.

     • May not be as silly as it appears. Especially up North

     • Yes, I realise comparing the NBN with The Opera House was a bit vague. I really meant the public tends not to understand the real value of infrastructure investment years in advance. I think The Opera House was extremely controversial during construction, but it’s one of the top 3 things Australia uses to sell itself abroad – hardly a white elephant.
       In broader terms, mining is going to come to an end, Australia needs modern infrastructure (NBN, plus high speed rail) to compete into the future.

       • Not really, the NBN aint over until the fat lady sings ;)

   • The Opera House is a great example. Hopelessly late and overbudget by massive margin it nonetheless has reaped massive economic benefits to Sydney.

     What’s even more pertinent is that it was begun by a Labor government and then crippled by a Coalition government who was highly critical of it and whose minister to his dying day is unrepentant for sacking the architect and installing his cronies to finish a substandard version. Only recently did the Opera House bring back the architect and rework some of the building to the original conception.

     No certainty that an Abbott govt will be as vindictive as an Askin one but governments of both persuasions are notorious for crippling projects begun by their opponents. The continued Coalition FTTN discussion seems to suggest history will repeat – the difference being FTTH will be a historical revolution whereas FTTN will be a footnote in the history of telecommunications of this country.

     • “The continued Coalition FTTN discussion seems to suggest history will repeat – the difference being FTTH will be a historical revolution whereas FTTN will be a footnote in the history of telecommunications of this country.”

       Well said!

     • @Brett

       While I appreciate the point being made and am very much in agreeance that the Opera House has brought countless years of tourism and Arts spending to the city….it is alot more crippled than most people realise, thanks to the Coalition government who “meddled” in it.

       I work there. The state government just cut funding…AGAIN. The total budget is around $100 Million/year. Of that, the government USED to provide 18 Million. As we liked to say, ALMOST enough to keep the lights on. Literally. It’s now providing less than $15 Million. Compared to the tens of MILLIONS European governments give to each of their major arts houses. Because the Opera House is under State Government, it cannot hope to compete at all in the Arts world for truly world class shows. We do the best job we can. But with even twice the funding we have now, we’d do 5 times better.

       The old place is lovely….but it’s falling apart. It’s barely 40 years old and there are several sections that needed replacing before it was completed….because the Coalition government threw some screws together and said “that’ll do.” The Opera Theatre is the only dedicated Opera and Ballet theatre in Australia and it literally never has a proper down day because there’s nowhere else for the Opera and Ballet Company’s to go. But everything in it is broken or breaking. It’s not unsafe, but it’s so sad to see the waste of such a brilliant building because of lack of foresight.

       Now convert that to what the Coalition are likely to do to the NBN. I know Renai believes they’ll just convert it to FTTN and at least we’ll get something, as do many others….But at a cost roughly 15 times more than the Opera House to build…..do you REALLY think they’ll do ANY sort of decent job with it?

       Right now, I’d prefer to be in that Kansas city. Sure, it’s expensive for the fibre, it’s ridiculous the way you have to “campaign” to get it and Google could very well decide at some point they’re not gonna keep rolling it out….but at least you’ve got a chance of being involved in some REAL foresight there.

       Here- I’d honestly surprised if there’s anything left of the NBN worth mentioning by 2018. I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t think I am :(

       • So the secret’s out!

         Seven isn’t really a tech! He’s an art nut masquerading as a technician! j/k =P

         If were going off the track record of meddling I guess this would also be a good time to point out the original version of “Medibank” AKA Medicare Mk.1 A federal medical cover scheme to cover the average australian’s medical expenses. Effectively split into two as a “public” for everyone and “private” version… and then progressively watered down the “public” version until they deemed it “redundant” to the “private” version which “most” people went to anyway.

         • @RocK_M

           I work in technical and deal with electronics and networking mainly :P

           And yes, I’ve done acting and singing too.

           I’m multi-talented. Beat that ;P

         • I’ve never understood what appears to me to be an artificial divide between “scientific” and “creative” abilities. A significant proportion of coders are also linguists and musicians.

     • The opera house is a cultural icon run at a massive loss. As an opera house and theatre it is a gross waste of money and this has been cited in both Labor and Coalition Reports. Sure it looks great but that doesnt make the building generate an income. If it wasnt heritage protected they’d probably put skyrise in its place.

       • @Tom Jones

         The opera house is a cultural icon run at a massive loss.

         You are misinformed. The Opera House Trust ran a 3.5 Million profit in 2010 and a small loss in 2011. I should know. I was at the briefings. Please don’t argue about that which you do not know.

         As an opera house and theatre it is a gross waste of money and this has been cited in both Labor and Coalition Reports.

         That is because it was CRIPPLED BY both Labor and Liberal governments. Arts houses almost ALWAYS run at a loss. Their function is entertainment and culture. Culture is usually a net monetary loss industry. The fact that they have made it not so is a testament to the work done. You may disagree. That does not constitute a failure. And I think it is an EXTREMELY self-centered view of a national icon with over 7 MILLION visitors a year coming to Sydney JUST to see the House.

         Sure it looks great but that doesnt make the building generate an income.

         If you’ll excuse my French, bullshit. The Tourism sector of the Opera House made the greatest profit of all sectors for the last 5 years running. Again, please do not argue about which you do not know.

         If it wasnt heritage protected they’d probably put skyrise in its place.

         You sir are an extremely selfish person. Please, don’t come and see our National Icon. It deserves better.

         My apologies Renai if that scrapes close to the line, but I am tired of selfish views which bear no resemblance to real-life.

         • My apologies. For clarity, the Opera House Operations itself made a profit of $3.2 Million in 2010/2011. Depreciation of assets was massive in that year and was $15.2 Million for the Trust itself, which resulted in a net loss on paper.

           However, the point stands- the Opera House Operations made a profit. And a significant one, with the entire budget being only $100 Million.

         • Attempting to fix italics :)

5. A short walk off a long pier? Thanks for the laugh :)

   • Oops. Will fix :)

6. “it’s winding back infrastructure competition in Australia’s telecommunications sector through shutting down every competing network.”

   You say that like it’s a bad thing.

   Where’s the competition in running multiple water pipes or gas pipes to my house? Why can’t I get 5 different companies to each connect me up with 5 different electricity wires to their own separate electricity grid networks?

   • I wish more people brought this up. The examples you use are perfectly valid but of course to everyone else it is obvious that multiple physical connections are a waste. It is only a problem when the owner of the single physical connection is also a retailer (such as with Telstra at the moment) but this is not the case with the NBNCo.

7. “In short, Google Fiber is a traditional monopoly. You either politely put up with whatever Google gives you, or you go back to the nasty old world of slower, more expensive, crankier alternative providers, which in the US basically means traditional cable companies like AT&T (joy). If Google goes bad and you want to dump it, odds are you’ll be stuck in the middle between a rock and a hard place.”

   In short, NBNco is a traditional state monopoly. You either politely put up with whatever NBNco gives you, or you go back to …. nothing (all alternative competing infrastructure platforms legislated out of existence). If NBNco goes bad and you want to dump it, odds are you’ll be stuck with wireless options only as opposed to alternative fixed line operators like in other major markets.

   • You do realise once it is paid for competition will be re opened.
     Besides I and many others have rubbish connections, where are our options and competition.?
     There has been close to TWENTY YEARS for your much vaunted competition to deliver and in a well built up metropolitan area

   • Well I’m hoping the Leighton cable from Singapore to Perth will be at least some sort of competition… But there isn’t enough info about it yet to go to far with that comment.

   • Jimmy, read and understand this article:

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

     ’nuff said.

   • “If NBNco goes bad and you want to dump it, odds are you’ll be stuck with wireless options only as opposed to alternative fixed line operators like in other major markets.”

     You mean those wireless options that the LNP claim are soon to be way faster than fibre anyway? Those wireless options that apparently are gonna make technological leaps and bounds while fibre technology somehow magically remains static?

   • “If NBNco goes bad and you want to dump it, odds are you’ll be stuck with wireless options only as opposed to alternative fixed line operators like in other major markets.”

     What you are saying here sounds quite paradoxical. Under what circumstances would “NBNco go bad”?

     Let’s assume the reason “NBNco could go bad” is there is some kind of fantastical super-fast cheap wireless breakthrough that makes it totally and unquestionably redundant. In this case case why would you be “stuck” with wireless options?

     Now let’s assume the coaltion clowns get in and make a predicable mess of it and turn it into a FttN patchwork all while supposedly encouraging more infrastructure competition. In this scenario since there will supposedly be “alternative fixed line operators” and you dont want a monopoly there is no problem here either.

     Which way will you flop?

8. “If NBNco goes bad and you want to dump it, odds are you’ll be stuck with wireless options only as opposed to alternative fixed line operators like in other major markets.”

   He’s completely right you know.

   When my copper fails, I turn to my friendly local infrastructure competitor and use that instead. Of course, the closest thing I have to a Telstra competitor is my water pipes, and for some reason now my computer won’t turn on.

   • It sounds like you haven’t set up the hydro connection with the hamster wheel. If you’re water-cooling your overclocked CPU, you may need a splitter. ;)

     (Note: hamsters require regular replacement, but in cooperation, they convert organic input to new hamsters.)

9. “In short, NBNco is a traditional state monopoly”

   Better the state than the current Telstra monopoly. Yes there are ISP DSLAMs in place but in the end Telstra controls the last mile and they have shown over and over their sole aim is maximising profit and using every advantage they have to destroy competition.

10. Just replace ‘Google’ with ‘Telstra’ and we have a good list of reasons why we need a wholesale-only, independent NBNCo.

11. Good article Renai, I’ll have my Aussie NBN thanks . :-)

    (MT you and TA can keep your grubby mits off it!).

12. It’s terrific to hear about all the great advantages (?) of Google Fibre, sorry, Fiber.

    Because that’s equivalent to what we might eventually have had, minus the symmetrical gigabit standard of course, if it had been left to our monopolistic old incumbent to underachieve and overcharge as usual.

    • Well, those in afluent suburbs may have had.

13. What are technical details of their implementation – can anyone throw some acronyms at me to explain how they offer up to 1 gigabit per second both ways?

    • It’s 10GPON so each splitter gets 10/2.5Gbps split between 32 ports – basically the 1/1Gbps is using contention rations that are within reasonable industry norms.

    • The NBN could also offer 1 gig each way, with reasonable contention right now. The only reason it doesn’t is a “currently” conservative pricing structure.

      Changing the (cheap) hardware at each end of the NBN fibers could deliver 10,100, 1000 gig both ways in the future.

14. There are plenty of working precedents for monopoly funded infrastructure that has become a competitive market place.
    You can shop around for your home phone contract. You can shop around for your electricity supplier.
    Even now you can shop around for the best ISP to suit your needs in rolled out NBN zones.

15. While I agree entirely with the points made in this article, I don’t think we should overlook how fantastic Google Fiber will be for promoting the benefits of fibre to the home, for Australians. I really hope Conroy uses Google Fiber as an advertising tool of sorts. It’ll work well with his “we cant afford to be left behind” mantra.

    Combined with projects like Mozilla Ignite I think we’re going to see some amazing applications grow over the next 12 months, that really show off the power of a 1gbps connection . In turn this will be useful for us geeks trying to promote the benefits of FTTH/1gbps to regular Joe Blows.

    Once people get wind of what Google Fiber customers are able to enjoy with a 1gbps connection, maybe they’ll understand why its important that we prepare for a 1gbs future and not limit ourselves to roughly 1/10th of that, as the Coalition would have us do.

    I’ll take Australia’s government owned wholesale monopoly over a Google Fibre monopoly any day (although where’s my free Nexus 7 Labor? ;-) ) but that doesn’t mean we can’t get excited about it, and use the concepts and next generation applications of Google Fiber to our advantage :)

16. It’s a pity the mobile phone spectrum was auctioned off rather than an NBN like shared infrastructure built that could be wholesaled. Then all the carriers would have Telstras coverage advantages, 4G would have only one set of standards to meet and we’d have better competition in pricing and customer service. The sale of public assets was the only way the LNP balanced the budget.

    • “The sale of public assets was the only way the LNP balanced the budget.”

      And you can only sell the family silver once……

      • They also, in the late 90’s (iirc), rubber stamped the sale of a chunk of our gold reserves @ around US$300 per ounce…

        Yes, that same gold is now worth around US$1600per ounce… d’oh!

        Thanks “fiscal” superiors… and look, you have the same gold type plan for our NBN, wow.

        • from memory we actually had quite a bit of gold holdings at the time which the Reserve had – probably a tad too much actually. the Fed had full intention of replenishing the selloff with future intakes – then til now, essentially. it would be interesting to see what the Reserves gold holdings are now – the whole ‘loss’ story only holds if the reserve holdings stayed static right?

          but they dont. id be surprised if the reserves holdings now arent by weight more than was held before the selloff, and the value on a ramp depending on when it was bought – from very cheap after the sell to quite a bit more recently. one would hope they were smart and did more buying at cheap than when it passed 1.2K an ounce or so though….

          that said i have to agree the Howard govt did a bit of the flogging of family silver, and that unrecoverability fact is a sore point with me (same with Anna Bligh selloffs). the NBN however, being an investment actually puts bucks back which is a nice change. certainly easier for me to support than the alternative…

17. Quite a few US cities have rolled out their own fibre networks, as the major telcos weren’t doing a decent job. The response from the telcos? Lobby state parliaments for laws to prevent competition. A lot of those city networks are now being shut down by legislation from state governments.

    America, the beautiful.

18. I could not read past the first heading: The NBN is not fantasy. I am still laughing. This place is always good for a laugh. NBN is the new Koolaid for Delimiter readers.

    • There are thousands of people connected to the NBN right now.

    • You’ve gotta love such well thought out compelling arguments, speaking of a good laugh :/

      • To be fair Alex he did say “koolaid” again … I do wonder if he realises that we are the ones laughing at him…

        • Without wanting to bring forth the wrath of the editor, I’ll just say Hubert that I think our friend’s first sentence explained it all and perhaps he should have just stopped there.

    • “NBN is the new Koolaid for Delimiter readers.”

      yeah, that actually makes no sense. Did you even think this through before hitting the “post” button. See this is why they should teach basic logic skills in school.

19. Wow, why are you even bothering?

    1. Google never said they were going to bring it to Australia. In fact they have said there is no need because of the NBN so why even raise this point?

    2. Sure, we have resellers but you are basically locked in to one provider. The wholesale price is set in stone and physical maintenance is all one company. Sure, you are right there is a slight difference but to what end? I doubt in the end there will be any significant variation other than customer service centers.

    3. hahaha Yep, googles privacy sucks but then we have a government who is hell bent on tracking all of our online activities anyway. One act of legislation will be all that takes. Honestly I’m not sure which is worse these days with those idiots we have in power (all sides of politics!)

    4. True enough we may get those through Foxtel etc down the road. Will they be unmetered etc as they currently are on Telstra infrastructure…… who knows. Fetch TV on the other hand have been promising to bring “real” content for at least a year and consistently failed to do so for a number of reasons, some legislative of course. Jury is out on that one as well, some people may very well find themselves resorting to torrents anyway for one reason or another.

    5. Yep, no begging. Instead its “you’ll get it when we decide your area is important enough”. The current rollout boggles the mind, I see areas that are already served by Cable, ADSL and 4g (now optus & Telstra) getting fibre before areas that have none (See South Perth for example). I am not saying any of these techs are suitable long term alternatives but they serve for now. I’d rather beg and maybe have some non-political objectives served first like people who need it. I don’t thankfully I’m lucky enough to have 100mb cable however many of my family are not so fortunate and they are not scheduled on the NBN either.

20. Biggest reason why Google Fibre beats the NBN… 1gbps UPLOAD!! not just down.

    • @Oliver

      And praytell, are you a Medium Enterprise that could hope to saturate even HALF of that?

21. @seven tech
    A home user is never going to saturate the Google Fibre upload speeds often, if ever. This is a blog of geeks though, we’ll find a way… eventually. The reason why Google is pushing such high upload speeds is to encourage cloud usage which it sells as Google Drive. 1gbit/s upload would be very useful for cloud backups. Imagine uploading/backing up your data at 128MB/s (If the cloud provider can keep up), that’s faster then most HDD’s. At that point you could access your data in the cloud almost as fast as if it was stored locally on your HDD.

    • @Oliver

      True and there’s nothing wrong with looking at potential. However:

      Imagine uploading/backing up your data at 128MB/s (If the cloud provider can keep up), that’s faster then most HDD’s. At that point you could access your data in the cloud almost as fast as if it was stored locally on your HDD.

      Precisely….it IS faster than 90% of the HDD’s on the market…..which means it’s not potentially useful until a large proportion of the populace uses SSD’s over 1Gbps actual throughput. That’ll be 5-10 years at least.

      That’s not to say it isn’t useful, as I’ve said. If you’re a SME, you cold very much use the upload capacity for server RAID arrays etc and offsite real-time backups. However, I’d settle for 100/40 on the NBN at ALL (no Coalition meddling) rather than try for 1gbps symmetrical thanks :D

22. This story is so silly.

    You have an AD based service that’s 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up that’s the exact same speed as Bigponds cable service here right now.

    That costs $25USD on a 12month contract or if you pay the $300 up front to get it installed and it’s free net after that, there;s no data caps either so your not limited to a quota as you would here.

    Then if you want a faster speed then you pay some cash.

    For the $70USD, $66.50AUD You get 1Gbps speed up and down and no data caps.

    Then $120USD, $114AUD you get the 1Gbps up/down and no data caps and the TV channels and you’ll get more later on Google are looking at doing their own channels as well.

    The NBN won’t have a free net service as that doesn’t pay the tax money spent on the NBN back.

    The costs on this service are cheaper and offer plans you can’t get here right now let alone probably never seeing as there; no such thing as unlimited data plans in Australia.

    Google did Kansas city as it’s only 459,787 in pop so it’s a small tril run before rolling out further, you also have all your other fiber services as well.

    10 years ago AT&T used to sell T1 connections for $50 a month.

    • @Zag

      This story is so silly.

      Thankyou for your enlightening opinion. Why are you commenting on it then?

      I have only one thing to say for the rest of your entire comment- Economy of Scale.

      Try rolling out Google Fiber in an equivalent city (size based on average city size in the US) in Australia- You’d be rolling out fibre to a “city” such as Wagga Wagga. (the scale is right- work it out).

      Google Fiber is a great ideal and a fantastic experiment- it is not, won’t be and cannot be available to mainstream US OR Australia in it’s commercial form. It is not feasible.

      • My husband also pointed out that in Google’s campaign for net neutrality, this rollout makes them an actual ISP…which they weren’t before. They score political points.

23. The NBN is the Sydney Harbour Bridge..

    The NBN is the Sydney Opera House…

    The NBN is the… what’s the next absurd analogy to pretty up Labor’s ugly state monopoly?

    l wonder. .

    • Yeah, state monopolies sure are ugly. It totally sucks how the public isn’t paying off three electricity networks connecting to each home. It’s just wrong to take advantage of the economic efficiencies resulting from a lack of duplication.

      • I miss my state run electricity bills, they were so much less than today’s bills…

        Why is it so hard to understand that natural monopolies, like we get in Australia, can be a good thing for the consumer?

        When you’re talking services, the price is as low as its going to get, simply because the supplier isnt in it for a profit. When its private, they are in it to deliver the biggest return for their shareholders, so squeeze as much out of the consumer as possible. For necessary services that means a captive market that doesnt have much choice.

        Its failed with phones, electricity, and water, yet the FUDsters out there still refuse to recognise the issue.

        • It’s not hard for them to understand GG but it is impossible for them to let go of their twisted ideologies (probably handed down from generation to generation)! Don’t think, just vote, as we have always done :/

          Seriously…

          Yes… let private enterprise invest and do it! But when they won’t, as they have proven they won’t in comms (yeah, they’ll scrape the cream in urban areas, but the bush isn’t profitable)… then the government needs to step in. FFS… it’s common sense not reds under the bed!

          And why should these companies be allowed to have the cream only, whilst the taxpayers are burdened with the unprofitable cost? Enter the NBN.

          But no, every idiotic illogical claim under the sun is levelled at the NBN by these ideologues, particularly in relation to so called NBN $ wastage, even though there is a planned ROI to repay the network!

          So surely if these critics are fair dinkum about wastage they would oppose such wasteul and unnecessary subsidies, wouldn’t they?

          NO, they are happy, due to ideology, to hand over $b’s in taxpayer dollars to these companies who have refused to invest, to own our nations network and dictate to the government of the time (gee how quickly they forget Telstra dictating, no ADSL2+ to John Howard?) :/

          Gee, I wish I could invest my money in a sure thing and then also have someone pay me to ensure my profits elsewhere.

24. Yet another delay for the NBN: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nbn-rollout-targets-set-to-be-slashed/story-e6frgaif-1226439854249

    It will reach only 25% of the houses under the existing (and already revised) plan in the time allotted. But the cost is going up.

    What spin wil Delimiter put on this? Accept the endless excuses?

    • Dear Lord lone gunman, do you honestly have nothing better to do than troll a site where you know nobody is going to listen to baseless arguments?

      This article is another example of the Australian reporting something that was known 6 months ago in the most negative way possible. It was well known that because of the delay with the Telstra negotiations and the the address data being 1/3 wrong, that the rollout schedule would be pushed back by between 9 and 12 months.

      This will hopefully be gained back by NBNCo. with the added efficiency of the Telstra deal and of the added efficiencies the trials will produce. If they’re not gained back- that’s a 1 year delay on a 10 year project- so 10%. I know many project managers that would be happy with that for a project of this scope.

      Seriously, how about you form your own opinion for once instead of blindly be lead about by the nose by the media?

      • “Im using adhomenims to attack the person before me and claiming they aren’t contributing yet at the same time i am committing my own swathe of logical fallacies. I’m also responding to every critical post regarding this article”

        You sir, are a hypocrit. Thats my contribution.

        • Logical fallacies?

          Without wanting to lay the same hypocrite (with an e) tag upon you, perhaps if you were to show us these fallacies that would be a start.

          But I won’t hold my breath Tom , because “it’s not unusual”… “why “why” “why” ;-)

    • Yet another delay for the NBN: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nbn-rollout-targets-set-to-be-slashed/story-e6frgaif-1226439854249
      And this is why I don’t/won’t/never intend to buy a subscription service EVER to this rag of a “newspaper”
      The Australian would be better off (more accurately) calling itself “The Goebbels Tabloid” with it’s slogan saying:

      “Education is dangerous – Every educated person is a future enemy”—– Hermann Goering

      After all it’s had the desired effect on The lone gunmen

      • Ever heard of the idea “scroll up”?

        Just because a Murdoch rag is a little late in noticing what’s happening is no excuse for you not to be adequately informed by other media outlets.

        And have you ever considered why Murdoch rags consistently hate on the NBN? It’s not about you the user, it’s about Rupe and his business interests. And power. News Corporation will lie and cheat and steal (and delete a dead girl’s text messages in the hope they can get more gossip), and you read their rubbish?

        • Gah – must stop posting after reading only the first sentence. Sorry Avid, my post (with the exception of my first sentence) is really meant for someone who’s shooting their mouth off without having a clue (i.e. some “lone gunmen” (sic)).

    • Did you just honestly post a link from “The Australian” that you want us to take seriously? New to debating the NBN are you?

      If you’re going to post an argument for us to read, you’re probably better off not backing it up with an article from a newspaper which is known to be nothing more than a thinly veiled Coalition propaganda machine, that constantly lies to and misleads its audience.

      Ever heard of MediaWatch? You should check it out some time if you want to know the truth behind that pathetic joke of a newspaper.

      • It’s quite obvious what they are trying to achieve with tthe headline “NBN rollout targets set to be slashed” (OMG!) See you’re not going to get the NBN anyway so vote 1 Liberal! yay! Considering newspapers are declining they’ll only fool a few simpletons with this.

        • They’ll fool less by putting the story behind a paywall…

25. NBN is the greatest moral challenge this country has faced in a century. Sound familiar? The difference between GF and NBN is that GF has probably had a decent business plan stitched together to justify competing capital interests, unlike the NBN which never even had a cost/benefit analysis done on it. Why should the government do such a thing? The truth was likely to embarrass them. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

    As for the article above: IMHO they were very lame and unbalanced points. 1 is essentially the same point as 5,

    2 is a facade on the explanation of Google’s ‘monopoly’ – the ISPs noted on the NBN will be RESELLERS. NBN is just one big monopoly just like Telecom was set up and look what a minefield that was to unwind and the casualties it took with it.

    3: No privacy issue? Sure Google can steal your privacy, but they will do it for profit motive and you can sue the pants off them if you catch them. A government that can spy on it’s people is a far bigger worry: You can’t fight city hall. Look at Julian Assange, love him or hate him, he is where he is because of a government bent on monopolising it’s data: NBN is government controlled remember. Maybe we could all pile into the Equadorean embassy and get political assylum when we try to fight for our privacy?

    As for point 4 – missing pay TV options: You think that an enterprise like Google is not going to be beating away the HBO’s and motion picture producers clambering to get onto their network once they hit critical mass?

    Whoever you are that wrote this grossly biased article: Surely you are not for real and this is all just satirical?

    • Wow… just… Wow.

      You really have no clue, do you? Do you know what a cost benefit analysis is? I’m assuming no, because if you did you would understand why its a pointless exercise with something like the NBN. Something global experts have stated, not me.

      No point giving links, you’ll ignore them anyway, but if you bother to search you’ll find them. It’s a moot point anyway, its an infrastructure that even the Liberals agree is needed, its just a question of when – Lib’s want it in 20-30 years, Labor wants it now. At some point in the future, the copper lines we rely on need to be 100% replaced with something better. And there is nothing better than fibre.

      Another reason its a moot point is that the project, under Labor at least, pays for itself. If the real cost to the Government is zero, then ANY benefit at all makes it worth while. Why is that hard to understand?

      As for your opinion on the article, I’m glad you think its a humble opinion, because I’m sure plenty of people on these forums would have other words to describe it…

      Your ‘opinion’ on point 2: There is a real difference between Google’s rollout and the NBN. Google will have the wholesale and retail monopoly that comes with building it themselves. In KC, that creates a Telstra-like situation that will be hard to undo. Want broadband in KC? Its Google or nobody. Who’s going to roll out fibre there now when there are 320 million other people to split up first?

      Telstra’s minefield was because the wholesale and retail portions werent separated. There were 2 chances to do that, both failed to do it, and the only way to fix it now is the NBN.

      What do you prefer? That the Telstra monopoly continues? Thats the alternative.

      Point 3: whats stopping Google from requiring you to have a Google account before you can use their 1 Gps service? Plenty of ISP’s in the past have required you to log in before you use them, and from that point you’re tied to a TOS and EULA that can very easily state that they are capturing data on you to ‘customise your service’, or some other excuse.

      At least here, if it happens, it will be legislated and clear to all. As it stands, there are no laws in place that breach our privacy.

      Point 4: Quite probably, and so what? Again, as advertised, there are significant channels not on their list. Until they are, its a 3rd party option and an extra cost.

      Same as it will be here.

      Love your grossly biased opinion, at least its a humble one… You’re right on one thing though, you dont seem to be letting facts get in the way of your story.

26. Here is another reason why the NBN is better than Google Fiber. The network Google is building doesn’t use points of interconnect.

    http://gigaom.com/2012/07/31/google-fiber-in-the-real-world-heres-whats-good-and-what-needs-work/

27. Rofl, I love it, an article mostly about Google and the fanboi’s can’t help themselves. There’s even comment critiquing the Australian (kinda off topic much…)

    But hey, it’s great when people actually turn a critical eye on massive projects and don’t just believe the hype, hey Renai?

    Oh yeah, IRT to 3: (privacy minefield), rubbish, the NBN’s POI’s represent a great place for the government to install deep packet filtering and data retention appliances since virtually everything will run through them. Why trust ISP’s when you can go straight to the GBE…

    And for the yokels who believe the NBN “won’t cost the taxpayers”, remind me again how the NBN will be 100% free to use forever and ever? There’s a cost, whether it’s via your ISP who pays the NBN for access or through taxation. Classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Not that I have an issue with the principle, things have to get paid for somehow, but you hypocrites have to let go of these delusions you’re clinging to. Billions of dollars of infrastructure don’t appear for free, someone pays eventually. And if it’s not economic to let the free market work out whether the product will be profitable, the government just refuses to give you an option other than ‘disconnected’.

    • “And for the yokels who believe the NBN “won’t cost the taxpayers”, remind me again how the NBN will be 100% free to use forever and ever? There’s a cost, whether it’s via your ISP who pays the NBN for access or through taxation.”

      WTF…??????

      Of course there is a fee for NBN usage… err that’s ‘common sense’, because that’s the way “everything, everywhere” works… Gee I wonder if there will be a fee for the Coalitions FttN?

      As for taxpayers even MT has admitted the build is NOT coming from taxpayers (it’s taxpayer risk).

      Lateline 29/9/2010..

      MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it’s actually the taxpayers’ risk because their loans will be secured on the assets and undertaking of the NBN co.; the taxpayer, the Federal Government, will be the equity owner, it will have $26 billion ranking behind the debt, so that if the company gets into trouble, it will be the Federal Government, the taxpayers, that will lose money.

      Why do people say stupid things in relation and in separation, to the NBN only???

      • Why do all the Pro-NBN people always seem to try to insult the coalition in the same post as when they tried to brainwash everyone on the NBN? Because they are labors supporters. Boom.

        So…..

        The NBN is built from a ‘loan’. This loan is repayed through costs that the taxpaying citizens pay for access, these costs are higher than current costs for internet access. This money is then paid to the NBN, a government owned entity, to pay back the loan and pay for the operating costs of the NBN, costs which will continue to rise over the next 30 years in part thanks to another one of Labors magical plans, the carbon tax. This is on top of the taxes I already pay the government.

        Currently I pay a privately owned company which uses its money for various reasons, one of them is the continued investment into infrastructure, which is evolving at a steady rate and in the next 10 years all ISP’s would have had fibre anyway?

        Laborvengers….Assemble!

        • @Guest

          “The NBN is built from a ‘loan’. This loan is repayed through costs that the taxpaying citizens pay for access, these costs are higher than current costs for internet access.”

          They are “taxpaying”, as every “taxpaying adult” is. But not ALL taxpaying citizens WILL pay for the NBN. If you don’t want fixed line broadband, you will not pay for the NBN. Perhaps you can get around that horrible circumstance by sticking with wireless?….The costs are NOT higher for 80% of people. I pay $99.90 for my line rental and broadband. For the same broadband I would pay $74.95….next please?

          “This money is then paid to the NBN, a government owned entity, to pay back the loan and pay for the operating costs of the NBN, costs which will continue to rise over the next 30 years in part thanks to another one of Labors magical plans, the carbon tax. This is on top of the taxes I already pay the government.”

          No, the money is paid to the RSP’s and the RSP’s pay NBNCo SOME of that money in wholesale usage costs. ALL costs rise over 30 years- it’s called CPI. Look it up. It’s what the NBN pricing is currently governed by. That and the fact that as a GBE they can ONLY earn 7% ROI and any more profit will be used to upgrade the NBN. The Carbon Tax has less impact on the NBN than the Coalition plan. Why? The Coalition plan will supposedly use FTTN- which uses about 5 times more electricity than the NBN….next please?

          “Currently I pay a privately owned company which uses its money for various reasons, one of them is the continued investment into infrastructure, which is evolving at a steady rate and in the next 10 years all ISP’s would have had fibre anyway?”

          Really? You think Optus would run its’ own fibre like it did its’ own HFC which it lost millions of dollars on? How about iinet? Internode? No- Telstra. So yes, you’ll get fibre….in MAYBE 20 years if you’re regional. AND at about 3 times the cost of copper today.

          Notice I didn’t mention “Labor” anywhere in that. I don’t give 2 dogs balls who builds the NBN as long as it is built. I like the NBN- not Labor.

        • Funny how there’s 3 or 4 “different” NBN critics here all saying the same rubbish.

        • Please…

          We have two alternatives: the NBN (which we all know about, is planned, underway etc) and the Coalitions alternative.

          It’s one or the other.

          By showing people such as you wrong in relation to NBN funding, by posting MT’s comments admitting tax payers are not paying for the NBN, linking to factual documents demonstrating the NBN will be beneficial and asking to see more about the Coalition’s alternative, does not make one a Labor Fanboy.

          But alway bagging the NBN (without foundation) refusing to acknowledge funding sources and getting all upset when someone dares ask the Coalition for a little more info please, certainly makes one a Coalition fanboy imo!

          • hear hear

      • I didn’t say there wasn’t a fee for service currently, nor did I say there would not be a fee for access to an network created by the coalition.

        Unlike posters like Micheal Wryes who come up with gem’s like:

        “The NBN will ultimately cost nothing. There is a cost, and that cost is recovered over time through monthly charges.”

        This statement directly contradicts itself. Monthly charges cost something. The NBN will cost something, one way or another. The government ensures that it (at least on the surface, to keep the budget clean) doesn’t come out of it’s kitty by forcing everyone on to the network.

        What is the difference between a tax on all users and forcing all users on to the NBN and charging them? Academic/semantic, someone pays.

        @Seven Tech

        You can dismiss POI’s as points of interception as a conspiracy theory as much as you like, but if I were going along with the governments fascist data retention policy, my recommendation would be to use them as they are convenient, very nearly universal in scope and easy to ensure compliance.

        But hey, bury your head in the sand if you want to mate. Data retention is a policy the Libs might actually say ‘yes’ on. I have no doubt you’ll be one of the turkeys screaming blue murder when it comes in.

        Oh, and IRT to your rant about basic math, you might benefit from some remedial reading lessons…

        “Not that I have an issue with the principle, things have to get paid for somehow, but you hypocrites have to let go of these delusions you’re clinging to. Billions of dollars of infrastructure don’t appear for free, someone pays eventually.”

        I don’t have an issue with payment for infrastructure, I do have an issue with fanboi propaganda that claims that the cost won’t land on all Australians, either by tax or by charge.

        • So please tell us…

          Which is more wasteful $27B of debt to build and for Aussies to own, repaid by NBN usage

          or

          $17B of non-refundable subsidies paid to private companies to build and own the network leaving Aussies no ownership?

        • @Asmodai

          What is the difference between a tax on all users and forcing all users on to the NBN and charging them? Academic/semantic, someone pays.

          Because that “tax” is NOT on all users, it’s on all Taxpayers. AND that money is given to private enterprise to build the most PROFITABLE areas, NOT all of Australia.

          You can dismiss POI’s as points of interception as a conspiracy theory as much as you like, but if I were going along with the governments fascist data retention policy, my recommendation would be to use them as they are convenient, very nearly universal in scope and easy to ensure compliance.

          You can’t just “use them” NBNCo. have to ALLOW them to be used and apart from the laws not currently anywhere in the vicinity of allowing this, NBNCo. would not just go “yeah, sure, here’s the keys. Lock up when you’re done.” They must be an integral part of it and I KNOW Quigley and most of the rest of the board wouldn’t stand for it. That idea is nothing more than fearmongering because you don’t like the NBN. There is the same scope now for interception of packets as under the NBN- in fact, more. Telstra’s network only has 14 POI’s…..

          I don’t have an issue with payment for infrastructure, I do have an issue with fanboi propaganda that claims that the cost won’t land on all Australians, either by tax or by charge.

          Ok. I’ll make this very simple- IF the NBN is completed and as you’re averse to, all users of fixed lines are “forced” onto it IT WILL MAKE IT’S ROI. Which means, all that $27 Billion? IT GETS PAID BACK with NO extra cost to the budget OR taxpayers beyond the interest of $4 Billion from the loan. Compare this to the Coalition’s policy, which will cost EVERY taxpayer, DIRECT $17 Billion minimum.

          Once again, $4 Billion vs $17 Billion- you do the math. There is no magic. No fanboism. No amazing trick of numbers. This is an INVESTMENT. Investments MAKE MONEY. And unless you are suggesting all Australians will up and dump their fixed lines almost unanimously in the next 10 years, then it is a certainty it will be paid back. I don’t understand what you see as “propaganda.” I really don’t.

          It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m going to buy a electricity company. It will cost me $27 Billion. But I expect to make that back over 26 years and then a few Billion on top. Sure, electricity use might slow, but it won’t stop. It’s essential. So I WILL make my money back and seeing as I don’t really care about immediate profit (cause I’m the government), it doesn’t have to be over 5 years that I make the money back, so I can charge my users a decent amount and be reasonable on cost”

        • “But hey, bury your head in the sand if you want to mate. Data retention is a policy the Libs might actually say ‘yes’ on.”

          That’s right. So you’ll be getting data retention regardless. Is this any reason not to build the NBN? No. In fact the NBN will make circumventing it much easier so instead of whinging about the NBN you should be saying “bring it on”.

    • “And for the yokels who believe the NBN “won’t cost the taxpayers””

      Let’s see. You live in a regional area. Complain when the government does nothing yet you vote against your interests when the government starts a project that improves infrastructure in these areas. Complaining about the money spent on the NBN while simultaneously crying about the wasteful OPEL project which wouldn’t have given these areas much more that what they are getting now and then you call the ones basing their comments on reality “yokels”???

      “Classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

      False.

      “someone pays eventually.”

      That’s right. Users pay. They pay money to their ISP which goes to NBNco which then goes on to pay the money you are whinging about used to build the network in the first place. Problem solved. Stop your whinging.

    • @Asmodai

      the NBN’s POI’s represent a great place for the government to install deep packet filtering and data retention appliances since virtually everything will run through them. Why trust ISP’s when you can go straight to the GBE…

      Conspiracy theory much?? Do you TRULY believe the government would simply waltz in with no protest from anyone and put these “fantastical” pieces of equipment in?? They would HAVE to have cooperation from NBNCo. And while they fund NBNCo., they do NOT control it. Quigley would turn to the Coalition’s original “wireless for everyone!” plan before allowing that. Get some perspective. If the current data retention reforms ALREADY have huge public backlash, what do you think THAT would result in??

      And for the yokels who believe the NBN “won’t cost the taxpayers”, remind me again how the NBN will be 100% free to use forever and ever? There’s a cost, whether it’s via your ISP who pays the NBN for access or through taxation. Classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Not that I have an issue with the principle, things have to get paid for somehow, but you hypocrites have to let go of these delusions you’re clinging to. Billions of dollars of infrastructure don’t appear for free, someone pays eventually.

      You are one of these people who cannot add up basic numbers I see. We all pay for internet. Whether that be on the NBN or otherwise and we’ll pay a damn sight LESS on the NBN in 90% of cases than now. And even WITH that, the loan WILL be paid back as a matter of course, all the while SAVING us money. How is that possible? Because your vaunted private enterprise accepts nothing less than 30-40% profit, while a GBE needs no more than to break even with a little on the top for upgrades. Hell, Telstra makes 59 PERCENT profit on current landlines.

      Please, if you’re going to argue, understand the premise of the counter-argument before irrationally diving in and spurting illogical arguments.

28. Sorry for the “constant pestering”, if you’re including me in that group.

    Thanks for the article and the research involved, greatly appreciated. I’ll take our NBN anyday (unless it gets butchered into some kind of FttN/FttC abomination).

    As a side note, I’m sure there are some people out there that would love 5Mbps internet for free* in exchange for letting Google track everything. That’s faster than a lot of people can currently get on ADSL if they’re far from the exchange.

    * Installation not included, modem must be purchased separately I’m guessing, just like the Google offer in USA.

29. This is coming from our money. The end.

    Government money, is our money, national GPD is our money.

    This seems like a site of labor fanboys.

    I used to be an NBN fanboy. Then I realised that the whole thing is all flash, we won’t see the substance for at least 10 years, and we won’t be rid of the debt for at least 20 years.

    • @Guest

      Your anonymous posting says alot.

      That you don’t appear to understand government bond funding.

      And that you don’t seem to fully grasp the NBN either.

      I’d suggest you perhaps remove the “everyone who likes the NBN is a Labor stooge” blinkers and read up a little on how the Coalition will give us all “broadband”….it might change your mind….

      • What is the point of adding a name to a post which is anonymous no matter what I put in there? Do I need to sit here and brand myself with some name, whether it be fictitious or not, just so that you can feel justified that you are arguing with another human being from behind a keyboard?

        I never said I was a coalition supporter, and I didn’t call labor supporters stooges, I called them fanboys, check your facts sir. I have simply noted that 95% of the time I see someone defending the NBN tooth and nail, they end up being labor supporters who sit there flaming the coalition. It makes them look like a mindless lemming and kind of eliminates any credibility they have on the subject.

        You stated earlier that while the government funds NBN Co. it does not control it. This is a contradicting statement, modern day businesses are generally controlled by the people who fund them, don’t try to sugar coat it.

        So far your argument is just as credible as the politicians who created the NBN. Stop blowing hot air and state your facts.

        • @Guest,

          Well done. You’ve just succeeded in a technicality. Because I didn’t use the word Fanboi, I used Stooge, you can get away with your justification.

          The Government do not control the operation of NBNCo. The government wouldn’t know HOW to control NBNCo. They fund it and expect regular updates as to its’ progress (Senate Committee on Rollout- look it up. It’s quite illuminating compared to the biased press the NBN gets. And it contains Labor, Coalition AND Independent Senators. So the government DOESN’T direct it without oversight) but they do NOT operate it or make any technical decisions beyond the objectives and receive advice back from NBNCo. as to what is feasible. THAT is the definition of a GBE.

          What facts would those be?

    • @ Guest

      http://delimiter.com.au/2012/07/31/five-ways-the-nbn-is-better-than-google-fiber/#comment-484583

    • “This seems like a site of labor fanboys.”

      And whiny liberal fanboys? No seriously just because one is in favor of the NBN it does not imply support for the labor party. Learn the difference please.

      “Then I realised that the whole thing is all flash, we won’t see the substance for at least 10 years”

      So really by your logic we should have started building this FttH network in 2002. Yes I agree. But what would you say about it in 2002? Go on tell us.

      “and we won’t be rid of the debt for at least 20 years.”

      False.

30. Strangely, a lot of the money for the NBN will be coming from overseas.
    Our wonderful AAA rating, has a huge surge of overseas investors buying Australian Bonds.
    I’ve also heard speculation about overseas monetary stimulation payments ending up in safe havens, like our AAA rated economy.

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/offshore-buyers-rush-to-snap-up-australian-bonds-20120313-1uygy.html

    • Nice find midspace.

      $21B in December alone…

      And we need just $2.7B pa for 10 years to build national infrastructure to last decades!

      In this context alone, anyone who suggests the NBN is unaffordable is a fool, imo!

31. Sorry to go OT, but just wanted to check if everyone is seeing the second half of all text on this page appear in Italics?

    Its appearing the same weird way in Chrome and IE9 for me.

    • yep. I am.

    • Certainly am Simon

    • Got a problem with Italics?

      LOL

      It all started with seven_tech’s reply to Tom Jones on the Opera House.
      The HTML doen’t close off right.

      … has been cited in both Labor and Coalition Reports.

      • Well there’s the issue. This forum allows malformed HTML directly into the posts, and doesn’t fix them.

        I’ll just fix it myself then?

32. Ha! lol

    Sorry about that folks. My fault. I’ll be more careful next time….

    • And now it seems to be back, as of midspace’s post…

33. Really, you’re picking on the fact that Google hasn’t signed license agreements with ESPN, Disney, AMC and HBO yet? That is to say, they will, they’re working on it, it just hasn’t happened yet? And your muster for that argument is what, that Foxtel will likely, at some time in the distant future when the NBN is actually rolled out, deliver it’s service through the NBN? And in saying that, you forgot to mention the likely additional cost associated with having foxtel through your NBN connection.

    I also disagree that Google will want to get out of being a ISP, there is far to much potential data to mine from the endeavour which translates into profits in other departments for them to ever want to give it up.

    Also, we’ll never know if Google (or any other privately owned company) would have ever wanted to roll out fiber optic tech in Australia because the NBN has killed any chance of that before there was any real consumer interest, let alone consumer demand, to drive a private company to want to roll out such a network here.

34. fixed!

35. I absolutely love how you just called Stephen Conroy a visionary, oh how things have changed in the past 9 months.

36. Delim is the worst one sided rubbish site ever.

    I can’t say much more about this article because it is utter mistruth and spin.

    I would take a thousand google fibers over an Nbn.

    But you are all so pig headed you would never accept anything but what Kevin 07 suggested after vomiting a plan on the back of a cigarette pack.

    • “Delim is the worst one sided rubbish site ever.”

      Obviously you’ve never read the Tele or Australian then ;)

    • Very fine argument you have there. You win.

37. Is this articule genuinely serious?

    1. Yes and Google Fiber was fantasy for Austin some 2 weeks ago. This point is ridiculous and, based on the probable election result, your version of the NBN is also PURE FANTASTY.

    Neither of these statements mean a thing. It is possible that private industry would have invested in fibre deliver in Australia if the NBN hadn’t bought a legislated monopoly on it.

    2. The NBN will lock you into one compnay. It’s call NBN Co. You will have no choice, at least in the forseable future, with going to an alternate fibre optic provider. At least in the Google Fiber model, if someone chooses to deliver an alternate serivce, you will have a choice. This is not available on the NBN.

    3. Really? What a ridiculous thought. Because google has the legeslative authoirty to do anything similar to what the Police, DSD, ASIO and the other intelligence agencies within Australia do.

    4. What does this point even mean? Please inform me about how EVERY pay TV provider in the world has signed up to provide service on the NBN.

    5. WHAT??? Seriously??!!??! The only difference is that because google is providing the service you beg differently to the NBN – it’s called lobbying and pork barrelling when you do it this way.

    Google Fiber is not a monopoly. No one else is prevented from entering and competing with them. In fact Google is not the only fibre provider in the USA. Unfortunately the NBN will be the only one in Australia, for at least the foreseeable future.

38. Only Real difference is that the fiber hood is 10 times faster than the NBN(on paper)

Comments are closed.