analysis The Coalition’s rival National Broadband Network policy has copped a lot of flak over the past several weeks. Business Spectator commentator Alan Kohler described it as “madness” and analyst Paul Budde described the UK model it’s based on as “unconvincing”. But there’s still a lot of reasons to like the policy — and here’s five.
Broadly, the Coalition’s rival NBN policy focuses on a number of key planks. These are: Rolling out fibre to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ instead of all the way to the ‘premises’ under the Government’s NBN project; maintaining the existing HFC cable networks of Telstra and Optus; using satellite and perhaps wireless to service rural areas and separating Telstra’s retail and wholesale operations to enhance telecommunications competition.
Much of this would be done within the existing framework of the National Broadband Network Company, but Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has controversially claimed that the Coalition’s policy could be implemented “sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users”. Many commentators have strongly debated these points, and many also feel Turnbull hasn’t yet provided enough justification for why a FTTN-style rollout would be better in the long-term for Australia than the current FTTH-style deployment. However, with all this in mind and in the spirit of positivity, here’s five reasons to like the policy in general.
1. It’s 10,000 times better than the Coalition’s last policy
Unveiled during the last Federal Election by then-bumbling Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith, the Coalition’s previous telecommunications policy was a trainwreck of a policy and contributed, according to Liberal Party research, to its loss of that election. The policy focused on a competitive backhaul network, regional and metropolitan wireless networks and an ADSL enrichment program, but was vastly inferior to Labor’s much more comprehensive NBN vision.
If the Coalition had won the last election, Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure would have inched forward at a snail’s pace for the next few years and there would have been no long-term solution to separating Telstra’s operations or upgrading its copper network.
In comparison, the Coalition’s current policy at least attempts to address most of the benefits slated to accrue from the NBN, providing an alternative replacement strategy for much of the copper last mile network to premises and a viable upgrade path for the future — as well as basics like satellite to rural areas and separating Telstra. Trust me, the current policy is a thousand times better than the last one.
2. It’s steered by a Shadow Minister who deeply understands the portfolio
Before Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull was appointed Shadow Communications Minister in late 2010, the Coalition had a handful of MPs in the post who never really understood what they were talking about. Bruce Billson, Tony Smith and Nick Minchin, who held the portfolio’s reins for the Coalition from 2007 through late 2010, didn’t appear to follow events in the telecommunications industry from a day to day viewpoint and didn’t issue regular statements on the NBN debate, leaving Labor with almost complete free reign in the area.
In comparison, since he took on the portfolio, Turnbull has made a strenuous and genuine effort to educate himself about it, subscribing to industry journals, constantly consulting sector experts and conducting international study trips to broadband-rich countries like South Korea, as well as comparable Western countries like the UK.
But more than this, Turnbull just ‘gets’ technology. From his investments in companies like OzEmail to being one of the first parliamentarians to fall in love with the iPad, and even his comprehensive website, Turnbull is one of the most ‘tech-friendly’ politicians in the Federal Government and we love him for it. This factor is also translating into significantly better and more nuanced Coalition policy in the area of telecommunications.
3. We’ll still get faster speeds
Estimates vary extremely wildly as to what sorts of end user speeds a national FTTN network will provide Australians with or even to what degree it is feasible. In addition, there are a stack of other measures which are important when measuring the quality of telecommunications infrastructure. Upload speeds, latency, the ability to provide competitive access, reliability and future upgradability are all important factors.
But when you really get down to it, the most important factor for any future broadband network for Australia is still speed. Most Australians are still stuck on sub-par ADSL speeds — usually below 16Mbps and often below 12Mbps or even lower. Under the Coalition’s policy, most Australians are likely to see radically improved broadband speeds before 2020, and that’s the single most important thing which is in demand from politicians right now when it comes to broadband. People want faster broadband, to more of the country. Sure, we’ll get significantly faster speeds under Labor’s FTTH NBN, as well as all the other factors such as better latency and upload speeds, but I think a lot of Australians would settle for any upgrade at all right now, in the context of a chronic lack of investment in this area by telcos over the past half-decade since ADSL2+ was implemented.
4. NBN Co will remain in place
There has been a gargantuan amount of work put in over the past three years into the setup of the National Broadband Network Company. Since it was formed in April 2009, NBN Co has evolved from a small startup to a large company with more than a thousand staff located right around Australia. It has offices in every major capital city, an operations centre in Melbourne, a call centre located in Queensland, comprehensive back-office IT systems for billing and operations, and most important, a huge internal competency when it comes to deploying network infrastructure of any kind.
All of the planning for the NBN has now been done, and while it would be a colossal pain for NBN Co to switch its deployment model drastically as the Coalition is proposing, we have confidence that the engineers and executives at NBN Co can handle this sort of disruption with aplomb. Up until 2009 or so, almost all debate over Australia’s future telecommunications needs assumed that a major private corporation like Telstra or Optus would be working with the Government to deploy next-generation broadband infrastructure.
The fact that NBN Co is now in play as an independent, publicly owned organisation which focuses on network infrastructure in Australia is a huge plus, and it’s an even bigger plus that the Coalition has pledged to retain the organisation to serve its future policy needs. NBN Co has come a long way since Turnbull was ordered to “demolish” the NBN project. This is not an organisation which is going to be demolished any time soon.
5. The Coalition is always good for a joke
With the increased focus on national telecommunications policy by the Coalition over the past several years has also come a simultaneous series of hilarious public jokes by senior conservative figures commenting on matters of broadband. Whether it’s Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey claiming that 4G mobile broadband has the potential to be “far superior” to the NBN’s fibre, Liberal MP Don Randall claiming that Telstra’s wireless can exceed fibre, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott admitting that he’s “no Bill Gates” or even conservative shockjocks like Alan Jones talking about NBN “lasers”, there’s always some amusing statement coming from the conservative side of politics about the NBN which has us in stitches.
If the Coalition wasn’t focusing so much on telecommunications policy these days, Australia’s technology sector wouldn’t have half so many chances to get outraged at the latest stupid thing one of its members of parliament has said, and life wouldn’t be half as entertaining as it is now. This kind of satire almost writes itself. Face it, many of you are sitting bored at your desk on a Monday morning right now, and if a senior Coalition figure said something stupid about the NBN, it would be instantly entertaining and give you the chance to rant on Internet forums like Delimiter.
If the Coalition didn’t care about national telecommunications policy, it wouldn’t always be putting its foot in its mouth so much on the subject, and life would be a lot less entertaining. Plus, there’s nothing that technologists like better than to correct someone who has made a technically incorrect statement.
To sum up (and in all seriousness), there really is a lot to like about the Coalition’s rival NBN policy. It’s 10,000 times better than the last policy, it’s steered by the first Coalition Communications Spokesperson in half a decade who really “gets” technology, it will still provide Australians with dramatically faster broadband speeds through the avenue of the strongly competent engineers at NBN Co, and along the way we all get to have a big fat belly laugh every time a Coalition politician says something stupid. What more could you want?
Just because it is better than the last policy doesn’t automatically make it likeable, only likeable in comparison.
Number 2 is the bare minimum you would expect from a competent alternative government – not so much a
thing to like as an entry requirement to even be in the game
An attributed 10,000 times nothing is still nothing…
And the Coalition’s policy may be steered by somebody who ‘deeply understands’ the portfolio, but that does not explain or excuse his apparent inclination to say anything that comes into his very political head.
It seems there might have been a bit of barrel-scraping going on with this story :(
” the Coalition’s policy may be steered by somebody who ‘deeply understands’ the portfolio, but that does not explain or excuse his apparent inclination to say anything that comes into his very political head.”
The worst thing being that Malcolm Turnbull (and the rest of the coalition) think that the NBN and FTTH is just about faster broadband… and yet it’s so much more than that.
This is the reason why they focus on people playing online games, and downloading porn, and stealing copyright material, while playing down the “real” benefits to Australians in the areas of business and trade, medical, and general communications. (amongst a lot of other things)
This is our nation’s future they’re holding in their hands, but they just don’t “get it”.
EB
+100
I have to agree with all the points. The coalition policy is better then any other that it has tried before, and in the absence of the current FTTH rollout it would even be seen as visionary (after all, it was when the Labour gov had almost the same thing in 2007…)
Yes the Coalition have now adopted the government’s rightly rejected (as analysed by an expert panel – “unviable”) plan.
And here we are congratulating them :/
4. NBN Co will remain in place
I wonder how many of it’s top executive would stay under the Coalition, though? Mike Quigley’s probably not very fond of them at the moment and after donating his first year’s salary it’s pretty clear he’s passionate about FTTH. I wonder what he’d do if he was told to scrap that and begin again on FTTN?
I have absolutely no doubt Quigley would resign if the Coalition took power. I believe most of the rest would remain.
I am sure that Turnbull would “require” his resignation, given the contempt he shows for Quigley’s experience, it would be an unworkable relationship.
Sorry Renai
I disagree.
As you have stated the team has achieved a gargantuan task, are committed and what a task, build the nations communications network for the future. It is far more than just a job or even just a career.
I would suggest the team will wait and see, if it is to be debased to the toy network the coalition suggests, they would have lost the goal, the purpose.
I would suggest there would be many attractive offers made and no reason to stay. The performance has been demonstrated.
Who will replace them and what will be their motivation and purpose?
A polished turd is still a turd.
I don’t see much polish.
Very true +1
+1
+1
+1
Still a big steaming turd, regardless of how much glitter you roll it in …
“What more could you want?”
Ummmmm. How about a policy that looks a bit further ahead than the next election?
I agree that the Liberal policy seems to have been up-graded from 2010. But is what Turnbull advocates really Liberal policy? Other senior parliamentary colleagues don’t seem to understand the policy and tend to contradict him on occasions. This is one occasion where the Liberals need to publish their policy in advance if they want to have credibility.
My biggest concern is that the Liberal Party policy on the NBN lacks any future vision and doesn’t explain how we are going to move from their FTTN model to a FTTH model which even our friends across the ditch acknowledge is going to be a requirement sooner rather than later.
“But is what Turnbull advocates really Liberal policy?”
That’s a point worth considering, the rest of the Coalition have never given any indication they agree with MT, indeed Abbott himself still seems to have the opinion that money should be spent on roads rather than wasted on communications.
Besides, what has MT really said that could be considered policy? Just “we’ll do it better, faster and cheaper”? None of his comments about FttN or BT or anything else substantial are policy or promises imo, they seem to be presented simply as examples of alternatives.
I agree with the general sentiment here.
On it’s own, the policy is fine as a short-term vision.
Alongside the NBN, it is lacklustre, incomplete, and wasteful.
Have to agree. If this had been the LNP policy at the last election, they would have won, and we wouldnt be having this conversation. But it wasnt, the world has moved on, and they need to modernise their approach so its not stuck in the mid-noughties.
“Have to agree. If this had been the LNP policy at the last election, they would have won, and we wouldnt be having this conversation.”
+1
Yeah, but Tony Abbot would be PM. An extremely frightening thought.
Exactly! In a way I of course want the LNP’s broadband policy to improve given there’s a good chance we’ll have a new Government come next election, but at the same time I’d almost prefer the Coalition’s policy remained laughably bad, as I want as many disincentives for people to vote Liberal as possible.
Then again I doubt very much this election will be fought over broadband differences for anyone but nerds, or people in desperate need for improved broadband. Ther are so many other majorly divisive policies and issues to consider.
6 months ago I would have been willing to say that next years election would be run on 3 grounds. Carbon tax, boat people, and comms. Now, 2 of those are a non-event.
Carbon tax – I have said for the longest time that it wouldnt be the issue people feared it would. $23 a tonne impost, spread around 1000 items is 2.3c per item. Hardly a massive jump at the register, and something that would quickly get absorbed into the daily spend.
Big jumps would be increased through greed (witness electricity), and in the end people would point at the greedy companies rather than the Govt. Universally, the fear factor is approaching zero now its in place.
Boat people – was always going to be a resolution, was just a matter of WHERE. Nobody will remember the details in 12 months, just that Labor got the job done.
Comm’s – FttN v FttH, risk v reward, future needs v now, however you want to pitch it, was, and still is, a battle of two political parties and their party idealologies. Given how far the Liberal plan has come in the past 2 years though, I cant help but wonder if they ARE delibrately sabotaging their own plans so they dont have to dismantle.
Turnbull is smart, and he knows technology, and since he’s been in Abbott’s ear their plan has moved a long way from the zero plan of 2010. But I’m wondering if they actually would prefer another term in opposition personally. FttH is done for them, and the global economy has an extra few years to improve, and on the back of that they can come in and reap the rewards.
If wouldnt be the worst thing in the world for them if they lost next year.
I agree with most of your post, but this bit had me asking whether you were for real:
“But I’m wondering if they actually would prefer another term in opposition personally
It’s pretty obvious that Abbott will do or say anything to win the next election. He doesn’t just want to be PM. He knows it in is his divine blood that he is the chosen one. Or at least I bet you that’s what he and his close mate Cardinal Pell think.
@Simon Reidy
While this is off topic, I agree. Abbott seems to have the bit in his mouth and salivating over being PM.
Those who are born to lead, get to lead, by leading. Abbott does not lead. He attacks and savages.
I like the article, and your 5th point is one I’ve been thinking for a while now, but all the things to like are overshadowed by the major thing not to like; it’s inferior in every way to the current rollout*, but we’ll probably get it anyway.
*common sense dictates, and there is no evidence to the contrary
I’d like them to make a better policy, not just a different one. Bring in more companys to use the fibre, including more pay per view providers, or american/uk ect broadcasting stations over internet. Bring google to the table, anything to stir up the market and take more use of the service. Make the rollout faster (good luck). They shouldn’t be focusing on what we use the internet for now but what we can you use it for later. E-doctors, help centers where you see who your talking to (how good would that be if see the compasion on someones face while calling beyond blue ect). Send a video to a mobile or home phone from 000 on how to help someone who is bleeding, short of breath, having a heart attack, ect. Make us an option for over seas cloud storage or data centers, ect.
I’m just throwing that out there. I’m sure there are other people with more ideas
1. It might be better than their last policy but that doesn’t make it acceptable. This is just indicative of the lazy bludger half-arse it approach of the coaltion. Nothing more. If labor had stuck with the FttN plan the coalition would never have improved their policy at all. Just enough is good enough for them. They’ve never taken the internet seriously.
2. Debatable.
3. Ok. Then what? This is just more proof the coalition are not capable of thinking beyond 2020. It’s a short term solution.
4. That’s right, there will still be NBNco but it’s the network I am more concerned about. Will it be the proper NBN build or the coalitions politically motivated gimped patchwork version of it?
5. That’s why they are known as the coalition clowns :-)
Your heading makes me vomit.
Its not a joke and that heading will be manipulated.
Don’t screw around with pull you in headlines stick with sensible headlines.
have to go and vomit again.
I had the same visceral reaction. Someone needs their meds.
I tend to agree. It’s not as if it is 1st April. The Libs are good at spinning this issue and Tony has made an art form of half reading reports and espousing both “versions” of something to different audiences.
He needs no help fro those who should know better.
Why would we want to spend billions of dollars on an interim solution?
If we don’t need/can’t afford FTTP, we certainly don’t need/can’t afford FTTN.
No policy (or a policy of “No” – hah) would be better than this “non” policy. First up, there is no policy, all we have are speaking points (“cheaper” “faster” “more markety” “less white elephantlike”). Speaking points are not policy.
If we can’t afford it. Save up for it. Don’t waste it on a half measure. The only *better* use of our money, would be to build an FTTP network in the city and skip the bush entirely. I don’t support that policy either, but at-least I would admit it has more merit than the current coalition speaking points.
Stupid = spending 17billion on fttn and getting nothing back (expense), versus making a profit of 7.1% profit after spending 27 billion and getting 29 billion back.
The coalitions policy is virtually identical to labors 2007 election policy to deliver fttn. Wasn’t an expert panel assembled to deliver it to the private sector, and none found suitable?
The Optus bid was the most complete bid that outlined a full FTTN solution, with 75,224 nodes and 100,000km of fibre.
It was Axia Netmedia – (a Canadian company) – that threw FTTP on the table with their bid, and provided the catalyst for the government to review the whole process – (which led to the initial tender being cancelled) – and subsequently, the FTTP model being adopted.
The review found that the cost to build the FTTN network, and the compensation cost to Telstra for losing their copper network was as near as makes little difference to doing the FTTP network that Axia Netmedia was proposing.
Then when Telstra said they’d take the compensation – (around the $20b mark) – and build a competing FTTN network alongside the government network, they became sold on the FTTP option.
The opposition would have us go back to that – and that’s irresponsible.
Not to mention moronic and ultimately self-serving. Why benefit a nation when you can benefit a political party?
Well, ultimately that’s an idealogical view of it.
The basic economic view is that the original FTTN model – (given Telstra’s stated position that they would build their own network alongside) – would end up at about the same financial cost as doing FTTP without Telstra.
Would Telstra do that now? Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, probably not.
But spending $17b now on FTTN – (and giving up the returns, and potential economic benefits of going the whole hog with FTTP) – and spending more in “20 years” – (as Malcolm said last week, indicating his idea of how long FTTN will be “adequate” for) – about $30b of government funding, plus the rest sourced from debt, seems like a bloody good deal.
No matter how the Opposition try to spin it, it doesn’t add up – except for angling for a three-year political cycle.
From a 2008 press release:
“Axia looks forward to being part of creating a lasting and visionary solution for Australia.”
Says it all really :-)
Other Axia – (who have built FTTP networks in other countries, including France ironically) – quotes from 2008:
“To invest in fibre and to not contemplate fibre to the premise, especially if it involves public money, why would you even bother doing it?”
“We haven’t seen a market yet where what the end user is already paying wouldn’t fund a whole new fibre to the premise next-generation network.”
“A network built on DSL technology is not a smart network. It is a dumb network because it is not duplex and it is not future proof.”
“The people around the world that are stepping up their game and building real next-generation networks want duplex speeds and a network that can self-heal and is easily scalable. And this is what fibre to the premise offers.”
“The practical solution is to roll fibre out as far as you can go. Fibre is not as expensive as every one thinks and it’s the one future-proof technology that is scalable. Once on the edge it’s then just a matter of using any number of competing local access technologies.”
“It’s 10,000 times better than the Coalition’s last policy”
That’s only a “like” if you live in a Coalition-only universe.
As do many Coalition members and their campaign managers.
“It’s steered by a Shadow Minister who deeply understands the portfolio”
You make the mistake of assuming that MT is the only one with his hands on the steering wheel.
“We’ll still get faster speeds”
In the short term. In the long term we will have slower speeds for longer.
“NBN Co will remain in place”
No, the work done by NBNco will remain in place – the concept and goals of the NBN will be productized. Much in the same way that McDonald’s productizes cows.
“The Coalition is always good for a joke”
This one I can’t argue with. They are a great joke. They are the Court Jester.
Just don’t let them into power, please.
1) Is it? To be honest this ‘new policy’ is still as airy fairy as the last one. If/when it gets released that might change.
2) Irrelevant – measure results by the policy released not by the supposed knowledge of the minister.
3) Will we? If one factors in inflation one might expect substantially slower speeds under the Coalitions ‘plan’.
4) Will it? Sources plz? I’ve sen nothing to suggest that NBNco, at least in substantive way will still exist under Coalition. It’s still an open question.
5) Not sure I’d classify that as a like though. I’d prefer to be getting my laughs from some professional comedians.
I think the point about Turnbull having an understanding of the industry is an interesting one.
On the surface it may seem as though this makes his policy even less forgivable – as he should know better. On the other hand, is this the best he can do, in a hostile political environment, with a party who would prefer to simply ‘destroy the NBN’?
You claim that NBNCo would ‘remain in place’. Can you please point me to a definitive source of that statement? I’m sorry – I just do not believe it for a minute. All the indications are, from Abbot and others in the Coalition, that NBNCo will be dismantled. My biggest concern about the Coalition proposals is that they will be handed on a plate to Telstra – and the results will be an utter disaster for the future of subscribers in this country. Turnbull has NEVER confirmed that subscriber costs will be lower under the Coalition – only that ‘we will do it cheaper’. Giving it to Telstra to build will certainly fulfill that promise – for him!
“It’s 10,000 times better than the Coalition’s last policy”
Yes that True. 10000 times better than 0 is still 0. simple maths.
But on a more serious note. This week Tony Abbot came out and said that the Carbon tax didnt have as big an impact as he said it would. Its now time for him to come out and tell Australia how the NBN is not bad as he claimed it would be. not a white elephant.
Also we must remember that Malcolm and the rest of the coalition say that we should leave projects like this to the private sector to build. Well the question I have is then, why haven’t they built it so far? not because it doesn’t deliver a return. But the reason is because investors always look for a 20%+ return. 7% is not good enough for them.If we leave it to them, it will never happen. Also a private company will never weigh the benefit it has to the Community or country unless it benefits them in some way. That’s the main reason why the Government has to build it. The government looks how it benefits the country and the financial return it generates
Yes that True. 10000 times better than 0 is still 0. simple maths.
LOL… +1
Ok, now how about an article where you do a 5 point comparison between the coalition policy and the labor one. For example:
* End user cost
* Government cost (inc total debt, IRR & ‘on-budget’ costs such as interest & perpetual rural subsidies)
* End user speed (what do we get out of it)
* Roll-out speed (inc estimates of telstra renegotiation time)
* Asset lifespan
Sure there’s things to like about it compared to doing nothing, but why aren’t you comparing to no policy/previous liberal policies and not the NBN in it’s current form?
Yeah, let’s go and spend money on building a FTTN network and leave ourselves open to be shafted by another company who decides to roll out their own FTTH network leaving the investment stranted and obsolete.
Coming from the guys that privatised Telstra, any policy to do with telecommunications is a joke. The single biggest hurdle to telecommunications in Australia is Telstra.
The main problem with FttN is the crap copper wire in rural areas. It would have to be upgraded to handle the higher speeds.
Why not just deliver FttP?
It’s not just rural areas. Our whole street goes out when it rains heavily. Malcolm also proposes VDSL, which needs BOTH wires in the copper pair to be viable, and it’s not uncommon for only one to be viable.
It’s also happens that sometimes NEITHER is viable to carry a DSL signal. A lot more copper than Malcolm appreciates will need to be replaced with any kind of VDSL/FTTN solution.
My unit and my exs have the same problem every times it rains. Would FTTN solve the RIM, pair gain and black spot problems?
It would solve the RIM problem, as the RIM would be replaced by a node.
Pair gain, no. DSL signals aren’t possible in pair gain environments, due to the splitting of the line to the two different destinations.
As for blackspots, if an area is not currently covered by a DSL-enabled exchange, it gets down to whether or not they choose to include that exchange in the FTTN rollout area. Chances are, if the exchange is not DSL enabled now, it has been deemed not economically viable for DSL, and I would suspect you’d get the same answer for FTTN.
Thanks Michael
My home phone/adsl went down the last time we had heavy rain and I chatted to a few neighbours in surrounding streets and they all have had problems in the past year with their phone lines, especially when it rains. This is in Frenchs Forest NSW, not the country. Even after it was repaired my ADSL speed has dropped to 5Mbps! I would expect reliability issues would remain with FTTN. It must be costing a fortune sending repair guys to fix dodgy connections throughout the network and I can only see this getting worse as the network ages. We need FTTP. Let’s do it right, otherwise money will be wasted patching the copper wires going to homes from the cabinet.
I agree with Renai.
The Coalition’s policy is many times better than their previous effort. They failed to see that broadband in Australia was a bigger issue than they thought, and that a simple “There’s greater things to worry about than faster internet” approach was not going to cut it.
If they had brought this up when they were in power, I would have even voted for it, considering it’s streets ahead of what was occurring in telecommunications (that abysmal decade long impasse) before Labor took power.
However, before Kevin07, the Coalition had no yardstick to measure against with regards to their telecommunications policy. They do now, and they still come up short technically, and are making dubious claims as to whether they’ll be able to do it better financially, and trying to convice us of foregone conclusions (further negotiation with Telstra) before discussion has actually taken place.
They’re on firmer ground now, and for that, Malcolm Turnbull can take a bow (despite Hockey and Abbott’s neanderthal posturing), however I don’t see how MT is going to be able to tapdance away from the deeper questions about their policy (i.e. what does he mean by “complete the NBN”? How will his FTTN/mixed bag of tech work out cheaper if we’re moving to FTTH in the future anyway, what about the end user costs of plans when commercial entities demand commercial returns against parity pricing with today’s ADSL2?) especially when Labor already have answers to those questions already in the public domain.
He’s done an admirable job as Shadow Minister, but he’s yet to turn lemon into lemonade.
The above article is childish. It shows the typically adolescent/undergraduate/immature refusal to acknowledge that there are any good arguments to support your opponents position on whatever the issue is. And the fact is there is almost always good arguments in both directions, its just a matter of which you consider more important.
The obvious good thing about the Opposition policy would cost less to implement the resultant products will be cheaper. As a result more people will sign up to it voluntarily making it more “national”, more ubiquious, meaning more of the poor will benefit from it rather than it just benefitting the rich who can afford ultra-high speeds and prices. And as a corollary of more people signing up to it it will take more load off the mobile network and make it less congested and more able to cope despite the limited bandwith available.
The obvious good thing about the Opposition policy would cost less to implement the resultant products will be cheaper.
Wrong. NBN will cost about $30b in government money, with the rest sourced from debt. The current NBN model sees the cost returned in revenues, which will eventually pay it off.
Malcolm’s plan has been independently costed at approximately $17b. He himself admitted last week on Lateline that:
“Now, you may say in 20 years time things will be different. Well, if they’re different in 20 years time, we’ll make some further investments in 20 years time.”
Which is Malcolm saying that FTTN is fine for the next 20 years, at which point we’ll have to do this all over again for a FTTP upgrade.
$17b + $30b = $47b.
$47b is NOT less than $30b. The Coalition plan is NOT cheaper – if you believe that it is, then you’ve successfully had the wool pulled over your eyes by some semantic language from Turnbull.
ALL of it is sourced from debt. Australia as a nation is has been running a much bigger deficit than total NBN spending for some years now.
ALL of that debt is 100% backed by the Aussie taxpayer.
They are planning to put two different headings on the bonds, one of the headings says this is an ordinary government bond, the other says this is an NBN bond. Those are decorative, and for entertainment purposes only.
@Tel
ALL of it is sourced from debt. Australia as a nation is has been running a much bigger deficit than total NBN spending for some years now.
Of course we have. Like almost every Western country. As I said lower down, our TOTAL debt is still <25%. Anything <50% is considered healthy, depending on growth (which we have) in the economy and inflation under control (which it is). Are you suggesting we are in bad shape?
ALL of that debt is 100% backed by the Aussie taxpayer.
You say that like it’s abnormal….that is the way the Democratic Capitalist society works. I would like to know how else you think it’s supposed to be backed…?
They are planning to put two different headings on the bonds, one of the headings says this is an ordinary government bond, the other says this is an NBN bond. Those are decorative, and for entertainment purposes only.
Actually, they’ll be putting one under “Infrastructure Bonds” and one under “General Government Bonds”. There will be no specific NBN bonds afaik….?
Much of it is sourced from government debt, and the rest from the debt market. That is what I meant, and you know that. We’ve had this discussion enough times already.
Which is Malcolm saying that FTTN is fine for the next 20 years, at which point we’ll have to do this all over again for a FTTP upgrade.
And if you do the math, we end up better off because of 20 years worth of interest payments on the debt.
Also, if you want to look at the example of New Zealand, they rolled out FTTN surprisingly quickly, even given that they sourced local designs for the equipment. Having finished rolling out FTTN, then are now in a position where then can roll out FTTH and other things.
“Having finished rolling out FTTN, then are now in a position where then can roll out FTTH and other things.”
The comedy stylings of Tel everyone. Please give him a big round of applause.
@Tel
And if you do the math, we end up better off because of 20 years worth of interest payments on the debt.
20 years of interest payments on $37.4 Billion, borrowed equally over the next 7 years (forgive the roughness) is around $11 Billion (using 4.5% interest bond rate and payment of interest only required every 3 years (average maturity of government bonds) AND factoring in that after 10 years, the repayments will EXCEED the interest payments- NBNCo produce equity loan payments from profit). Total cost to the taxpayer- $11 Billion- the $37 Billion is paid off by users of the NBN regardless, as they would’ve paid that money anyway to Telstra et al.
In FTTN, it would cost, let’s say (we don’t have exact figures) $10 Billion to build, $10 Billion to buy Telstra’s copper and a further $5 Billion to keep satellites, extend ADSL2+ to regions not getting FTTN, keep some fixed wireless and general contract renegotiation. That’s $25 Billion. Let’s say, by some miracle, NBNCo. can still make ~5% ROI, meaning that can go on bonds. Total interest on $25 Billion over 25 years- $8 Billion (lower ROI means longer to get payments above interest payments only, hence more interest). Total cost to taxpayer so far- $8 Billion as the rest is paid off by users (and this assumes they’re charged the same as for FTTH, but get FTTN speeds….so worse off for users)
THEN we need to upgrade to FTTH. 2 Possibilities- Government: About 1/2 the work has been done. So, we can assume then that, due to labour being some $25 Billion of this NBN build, it would cost about $12.5 Billion, plus fibre and equipment, so say $20 Billion to upgrade to FTTH from FTTN. Again, assume this comes at a return and it can be borrowed. $20 Billion over 20 years interest- $5 Billion. Total cost to Taxpayer of complete FTTN->FTTH build= $8 Billion + $5 Billion= $13 Billion. Compared with $11 Billion on FTTH.
OR we can let “The Market” do it. In which case the cost “to the taxpayer” is marginal for FTTN->FTTH (perhaps a few hundred million in subsidies) and largely, users pay anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars to connect the FTTH. Overall cost to users over 20 years, anywhere between several hundred and several thousand dollars more. Total taxpayer cost $8 Billion, compared to NBN of $11 Billion AND users pay ALOT more in the mean time.
So, sorry, you were saying?
Also, if you want to look at the example of New Zealand, they rolled out FTTN surprisingly quickly, even given that they sourced local designs for the equipment. Having finished rolling out FTTN, then are now in a position where then can roll out FTTH and other things.
Also, if you want to look at the example of NZ they STOPPED rolling out their FTTN at about 80% after 4 years, because it was getting such poor speeds (<10Mbps and their copper is newer than ours on average) and they're now doing at 70% FTTH rollout…after only 4 years on FTTN….
http://www.chorus.co.nz/Fibre_to_the_Node
340 Exchanges….that's…hmm, about 5% of our total. And 3600 cabinets…that's about 8% of the total we'd need to do 80% because of our more dispersed population. And it only cost them some (I haven't got an exact figure, anyone care to find one for me?) around $4 Billion….bargain for us when you scale that up at….$80 Billion for just 10Mbps average! Of course, I'm not suggesting it would cost that here, I've already been through it. But it's not actually that good is it? Oh and did I forget to mention their plans?
http://www.telecom.co.nz/packages/packages/overview/
$105 for 120GB and free local and 17c/min national calls… The equivalent plan here: iinet (assuming Off-Net being generous, even though most city people wouldn’t be) Home-3 + Phone 2 with 200GB ADSL2+ = $81.90. On the NBN: Again, iinet: 25/5, 200GB + VOIP for $9.95 = $74.90. For $84.90 you can have 50/20….
Lovely things those facts….
Minus the 20 years of lost economic benefit.
Simple maths, right?
Australia will end up paying much, much more for FTTN. It will also be a much, much inferior product. There is a chance that it could be rolled out faster (I personally assume it could), but that would depend on how the planning and contract negotiations go.
The trade off where we save a lot of money and have a much better product is worth a year or two of saved time in the rollout.
“The above article is childish. It shows the typically adolescent/undergraduate/immature refusal to acknowledge that there are any good arguments to support your opponents position on whatever the issue is. And the fact is there is almost always good arguments in both directions”
OK. Give us a top five list of what is good about the NBN plan.
“The obvious good thing about the Opposition policy would cost less to implement the resultant products will be cheaper.”
False. End products regardless of network build will be about the same, the difference will be value for money. FttH is better value for money and you’ll be getting ripped off with a FttN patchwork.
“As a result more people will sign up to it voluntarily making it more “national”, more ubiquitous, meaning more of the poor will benefit from it rather than it just benefitting the rich who can afford ultra-high speeds and prices.”
False. They “poors” you describe are not going to pay anymore than they do now meaning they’ll be paying the same amount now just for slower speeds than what they could chose under the NBN. You could also explain how these poors will benefit if they are at the arse end of a node since the speed you get is dictated by the length and condition of the copper and is not decided by individuals based on wants/needs/budgets. But do you really care about the poors? Since you have it all figured out come up with an idea/example that will benefit the poors more under the current NBN plan.
“The obvious good thing about the Opposition policy would cost less to implement the resultant products will be cheaper.”
The NBN is currently not costing anything at all to implement, how do you get less than nothing?
“As a result more people will sign up to it voluntarily making it more “national”, more ubiquious, meaning more of the poor will benefit from it rather than it just benefitting the rich who can afford ultra-high speeds and prices.”
Sorry, what? You can currently get a 12/1 NBN connection with 50gb of data for $35 per month*. That’s only $12 more per month than the cost of Telstra’s line rental alone. That $12 gets you an internet connection faster than what the majority of Australians currently have, and I dare you to and internet service for less than $12. How exactly does that only benefit the rich?
*I don’t even know if that’s the very cheapest available, I did about 2 minutes of searching to find it: http://www.exetel.com.au/residential-fibre-pricing-mainland.php
Doesn’t the likelihood of it setting this country back 10 years override all of that by a factor of, oh I don’t know, roughly a zillion?
There is one major problem with this article they don’t have a policy.
+1, and who says Abbott won’t pull the rug out from Turnballs feet, Abbott rules the Coalition not Turnball. Nothing, I repeat nothing can be taken for granted of what Turnball says or Abbott.
1. It’s 10,000 times better than the Coalition’s last policy
True. But it is also Labor’s old policy. And there were a number of reasons it couldn’t be achieved easily. Some of those reasons (although not all) still exist (including the copper buyback from Telstra)
2. It’s steered by a Shadow Minister who deeply understands the portfolio
True. He is eminently more clued up than the previous comms ministers….however, will he be comms minister under an Abbott Government??….
3. We’ll still get faster speeds
By and large, yes. We’re certainly not going to waste away only getting 50Mbps (or less). But then, what happens when we do need more and who has to pay for it?…
4. NBN Co will remain in place
Yes. Thankfully, I don’t see how they can easily remove them. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try.
5. The Coalition is always good for a joke
While I agree wholeheartedly, this is somewhat telling. That this is a major positive of their plan shows really how bad this debate has become.
Turnbull’s latest post on his blog about a Greenfield in QLD is bordering on outright lies. Those sort of comments by Coalitions spokespeople on the NBN aren’t funny at all. They’re disturbing.
I just wish the Coalition would move on, release their policy and start actually caring about what the Australian people want. Not what their leader wants.
Is this Delimiter or bought news via Coalition ?
There is nothing to like about Coalition’s NBN Policy.
There is not enough Detail.
There is not enough information.
There is not enough of the above over who gets what and how.
There is not enough Details as to how Network Provision, Ability to get faster speeds, Competition is played out.
If you look at Telstra’s Technology Briefing during their last bid via NBNMK1, you note that you only get faster speeds if you don’t have competition – Page 16 of the document.
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls652-NBNtechnologybriefing.pdf
Renai, I know your trying to be impartial, but there is nothing to like about Coalition’s NBN Policy.
It’s Cheap, It’s Dirty, And like most things about Coalition Policies, they don’t go far enough to solve a LARGE problem.
Is this Delimiter or bought news via Coalition ?
In presenting a balanced view, one must present both sides.
I don’t see anything in that article about being balanced view from both sides?
Quiet frankly, it’s getting to the point where Malcom said he has fully costed policy ready to roll, but yet to reveal it.
So why is this article pandering to the Coalition?
“So why is this article pandering to the Coalition?”
It’s not. Did you miss number 5?
I don’t see anything in that article about being balanced view from both sides?
If you read this article in the context of all other NBN articles on Delimiter, you’ll see what I mean.
“why is this article pandering to the Coalition?”
I agree, Delimiter has really gone downhill recently — I don’t even bother reading it most days anymore.
Yeah, I don’t read or comment on Delimiter any more due to the massive bias. Also I hear the guy that runs it doesn’t know an iPhone from a Blackberry ;-)
You know what the worst thing is — he doesn’t even care if a mobile phone doesn’t have a microSD card slot. What a joke! His reviews are ridiculous!
I know!
And he reckons the Nexus 7 is great, but won’t sell well (sorry, had to throw that in seeing as they’ve sold out now :P- To be fair, you did say they wouldn’t challenge the iPad, which is quite true)
I dunno why we even bother commenting on such a biased Left-wing site anymore…. :D
Renai wins at internet.
Renai is just trying not to be a “pro-NBN zealot journalist”
His analysis of their policy (which still doesnt appear to exist in any official capacity) is valid and factual, but it isnt convinving me to like the coalition alternative.
+1 . I almost thought this article might be bait to get the esteemed member for Wentworth back on Delimiter, so he’ll answer the set of clever and succinct questions put to him by Renai (as his office promised to do so weeks ago).
Sorry Simon, the Comedy festival is over
Nice bit of satire there Gordon….
Oh wait! You really believe that?
Less cost? You think? because MT says so? He means the whole thing not FTTP.
Besides, when the Noalition sells it to Telstra with no competition the prices will go up not down.
They have form….
So we have I’m no Bill gates Abbott, Joe the 4G supremo, and various other LNP luminaries weighing in on the NBN, yet there’s no policy. They freely admit they don’t understand the technology, yet feel they have the ability to make a contribution to the debate. I’m no political scientist but I’m sick of politicians that do this!
The dribs n drabs of thought bubbles from MT is not a policy. Other than fairly vague statements I really don’t know what the LNP is offering.
I’m hopeful that there will be a lot more pressure on the LNP to start providing some reasonable level of detail to allow the general public what the alternative Government is offering. part of me feels the ALP should hold a snap election and show just how under clothed the emperor really is.
Considering what I have read so far, in regards to Turnbull, and the replies by Delimiter and other sites, I don’t think you will receive a good reply.
So far – the lack of pressure by Media sites, have allowed the Coalition – the potential new Government incoming (much like Can Do Man Newman) leaving many answers – unanswered.
One word CRAP.
What did Hackett buy this week is what I want to know.
A nicely sized personal plane :)
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/23/hackett-buys-personal-nine-seater-plane/
And a buttload of Swiss chocolate.
Very dry, Renai. I’m not sure Malcolm Turnbull will realise that this piece is lambasting his plan.
It’s not lambasting the plan. Point five was a bit ironic, sure ;)
Not sure if serious…
Interesting that 3 out of the 5 things listed arent actually about the policy.
Speaks volumes about how hard it is to find something good to say about it ;)
The great virtue of universal FTTH is ubiquity. The need for no-brainer reliable home communications is greater where the distance from services and family is greatest, not necessarily in cities.
These facts are ignored by the claim in coalition policy that bandwidth is only needed in some locations and not others, and with a stated preference to leave regional users to the market to serve, as they have largely failed to do since 1997.
For instance, a business that is constrained by inadequate (especially upstream) bandwidth can be located anywhere, and many operate from their home, so it is illogical not to deliver FTTH to all reachable urban areas. Wherever your business is now, or relocates to, there will be bandwidth options available to meet your needs.
ADSL and mobile phone services upgrades are now happening without government help. New DSLAMs can now be profitably deployed by telcos with certainty of ROI, since the waiting game for parliament and the ACCC ended in February 2012, finally permitting NBNCo to publish a three-year construction plan.
Unless the coalition proposes a solution better than the NBN, especially for regional Australia, it will simply fail to garner the necessary votes to capture regional seats, and this will deliver another 2010-style stalemate.
A bunch of nerds who sits in front a computer complaining about the opposition policy.No bias here
Not looking to get into Personal Attacks here (like you are John),
But considering that the Opposition has yet released their policy as proclaimed by Turnbull as having a fully costed one,
http://afr.com/p/technology/turnbull_cut_price_broadband_plan_cyno2UoMeEYk6G1E5KrCDM
Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has given the clearest indication yet of his broadband policy, saying he has a fully costed policy document ready to go which would save taxpayers billions of dollars by following the lead of BT’s fibre to the node rollout in the UK.
1. Arguing against the NBN by using New Zealand Policy until NZ changed to FTTP.
2. Moved to UK’s BT rollout and back and forth between BT UK and France broadband FTTP rollout – where he has personal investment in).
I suggest you retract your statement.
So you standing and sending your comment via smoke signals john?
Yeah, the discussion (and eventual policy formation) should be limited to people who don’t understand the technology.
Nothing can go wrong with this plan.
It seems your too stupid to realise that computer users now make up the majority of society today. So the only strange person is you John. Not that I would call you a Nerd because its too good for the likes of you.
“A bunch of nerds who sits in front a computer”
That sounds like my whole life — sounds great!! :) Do the nerds also play video games? If so, count me in.
+1
I do the internets and computerer games! Yay! I’m a nerd! I belong! :D
Actually John, we’re a bunch of nerds sitting behind computers complaining about a LACK of opposition policy. We just want the best comms system for the future of Australia, regardless of who is in government.
Hear hear.
Whilst what you say is fair comment on what Turnbull is saying, I find it hard to believe him when he is being contradicted by his colleagues and by documents on the Liberal party web site. I will not believe the Coalition broadband policy until it is formally announced. Until then, as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a load of Turnbull thought bubbles.
And in breaking news today, Tony Abbott – having recently polled lower than Julia Gillard as preferred Prime Minister for the first time since the 2010 election – was challenged by Malcolm Turnbull for the party leadership. Realising that the outcome was inevitable, Mr. Abbott chose not to contest Mr. Turnbull who was elected to the position unopposed.
In his first speech as the Leader of the Coalition, Mr. Turnbull remarked that “it was time the Coalition started listening to the people, and not just the people who pay for our election campaigns”. In a bitter slap in the face to Mr. Abbott, Mr. Turnbull instigated an abrupt turn around in party policy on broadband, recalling it as the single biggest reason they Coalition lost the 2010 election. “I don’t intend to lose an election because of one issue, so today, the Coalition makes a solemn promise to support NBN Co in it’s current mission, however; we will seek to extract a greater benefit from existing services such as HFC and recently installed copper infrastructure.” Mr. Turnbull continued”I will – as Prime Minister should I be elected – instruct NBN Co. to focus their infrastructure upgrades based on the condition of the copper and available alternative services in our communities such that homes and businesses served by existing fibre, HFC and ADSL2+ are last to receive NBN Co fibre. Those with no HFC, no ADSL2 and those suffering from dilapidated copper infrastructure would be prioritised under a Coalition Government”
Then I woke up.
Very likely we would have had more fiber in the ground and going to more homes because the independent private greenfields operators would not have been locked out of the game. We would also have had a smaller foreign debt. That’s what my crystal ball says anyhow. Telstra would have laid down a bit less copper, but I doubt they care much about that.
@Tel
Very likely we would have had more fiber in the ground and going to more homes because the independent private greenfields operators would not have been locked out of the game.
Ummm, they’re not locked out?? They just have to provide fibre in an open-access and layer 2 system. They can still be contracted by developers to do it.
We would also have had a smaller foreign debt.
That’s speculation. How would the Coalition have come up with the money to pay down softening tax revenue? If you mean strictly the NBN, it will be paid back, so there isn’t really an issue there. Besides, at <25% of GDP, you could hardly call it irresponsible, or even vaguely "high". It's simply what it is and after the GFC, it is, in fact, extremely good, owing to both K Rudd's government and Howard's before it.
Telstra would have laid down a bit less copper, but I doubt they care much about that.
Maybe, maybe not. The government may very well have gone for FTTN, in which case MORE copper would’ve been laid.
It is indeed speculation, but there’s a common accounting principle that if you borrow less money you have less debt. I’m aware that John Maynard Keynes convinced a lot of people otherwise… I think the slow but bulldozer-like deleveraging of debt around the world is eventually going to prove accounting is right and Keynesians wrong.
I’ll draw my line in the sand right here with that prediction. What do you expect is going to happen?
How would the Coalition have come up with the money to pay down softening tax revenue?
For starters, just allowing existing companies (e.g. greenfield fiber installers) to go about their business without changing the rules midstream is highly likely to bring in more tax revenue (you know if it ain’t broke don’t fix it). No guarantee, just likely. We could go into diverting otherwise productive money into propping up inefficient enterprise but you probably get my point.
Please do a search on Peter G. Klein (the economist) for many excellent explanations on the principles at work here. He gives some talks which are relatively easy, and some written work which is much tougher to get through. I recommend starting with the easy stuff.
@Tel
It is indeed speculation, but there’s a common accounting principle that if you borrow less money you have less debt.
Again, with the speculation. I am not arguing basic economics, I do understand them believe it or not. I’m saying, what proof do you have a Coalition government would definitely not have borrowed as much not including the NBN? (seeing as they actually haven’t borrowed any money for the NBN yet….) Seeing as we’d STILL be down $50 Billion odd from the stimulus packages that, along with the mining boom, saved us from the GFC?
I’ll draw my line in the sand right here with that prediction. What do you expect is going to happen?
My prediction is we will now begin the slow climb back out of the relatively sensible amount of debt we have now, over the next 7-8 years, perhaps slightly longer, fluctuating between small surpluses and deficits every few years as the world recovers from the roughest economic position since the Great Depression, which only a World War solved.
For starters, just allowing existing companies (e.g. greenfield fiber installers) to go about their business without changing the rules midstream is highly likely to bring in more tax revenue (you know if it ain’t broke don’t fix it).
Really. You believe simply allowing Greenfields developments fibre to be given free reign it would produce the several BILLION in tax revenue shortfall over 4 years that they’re predicting….just from Greenfields? Wow, I didn’t know Greenfields were going to explode at 400% growth over the next few years….
Please do a search on Peter G. Klein (the economist) for many excellent explanations on the principles at work here. He gives some talks which are relatively easy, and some written work which is much tougher to get through. I recommend starting with the easy stuff.
Please don’t patronise me. I’ve currently proven everything you have said at least partially incorrect.
My apologies, that whole thing wasn’t meant to be bold….I forgot my ending HTML again…
There we go.
You might have to fix that Renai….
done.
Cheers. Apologies for the clumsy fingers.
@TEL
>”I think the slow but bulldozer-like deleveraging of debt around the world is eventually going to prove accounting is right and Keynesians wrong.”
Everyone that I know that has wealth, has utilised debt to get there.
The only prerequisite is – the ability to ‘serivce’ said debt.
Debt is fine if you have an ability to repay. It isn’t rocket science.
Tel
Just for interest, where is Malcolm today? – Opening a new Opticom FTTH estate.
The greenfield operstors are just that. They do the cheap and easy to install greenfields estates. They have had the opportunity for over a decade to run FTTH to brownfield or blackspot areas, haven’t seen them installing in my area.
The Greenfield estates are open to all, NBN is just an option in them, up to the developers
Fiber to the node is a DUD Technology!
The neighbourhood Nodes would be at risk of vandalism or Criminal & terrorist attacks.Or even Spies from other countries could Exploit street nodes!
FTTN Must Be abandoned in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY !
Also because the last mile is still using crappy old Twisted copper phone cabeling so you will get still slowdowns and connection dropouts! Like with ADSL!!!
AND WAY LESS BANDWITH CAPABILITY AND NO FUTURE PROOFNESS!
FTTH OR FTTP mite be more expensive & slower to deploy But it safer and Future proof where as the other option isn’t and in tghe long run people and Politicians will wish they had LAYED the Fiber all the way!
Don’t Listen to the Liberals they are cold deceiving scumbags who favour the rich and the bosses and AWA’s which strip all working and unfair dismissal rights! D78khead John Howard just admitted he would like to see an end to all unfair dissmisal cases and the destruction of Unions! AND THEY WANT TO CUT OFF PEOPLES WELFARE AND PENSIONS JUST TO SAVE A BUCK!!! WHILE GIVING THEMSELFS UNJUSTIFIED PAY RISES, WAKE UP PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA- LIKE ME!!!
DON’T VOTE LIBERAL OR AUSTRALIA IS DOOMED!!!
@Anthony Futureleader
Hmm, thanks for the….enthusiasm? But we need to get the facts straight:
1- FTTN nodes are no more prone to break ins than FTTH FDH’s, other than statistically, because there will be several thousand more FTTN cabinets…..actually, I’m trying to work that out…384 FDH’s per FAN, 600 FAN’s….no, that can’t be right 230 000 FDH’s???…that’s enough for 46 MILLION premises…I’ve done something wrong there, unless that’s the redundancy….anyway, the point still stands, they’re no more and less likely to be broken into.
2- Neither FTTN NOR FTTH nodes are insecure digitally- they (or at least the FTTH will be and FTTN should be) are Layer 2 architecture, meaning the bitstream is unreadable until it reaches its’ destination (the RSP servers) in essence.
3- Perhaps lay of the Liberal bashing a bit….
FTTN cabinets have something worth stealing inside: Batteries, DSLAMS, etc.
FTTP FDN have nothing other than a bunch of passive optics, that being prisms and cable, ergo nothing of value.
Which one is more likely to get broken in to?
@Dan
The amount of noise you’d have to make to get into a FTTN cabinet….the get a lead acid battery….or a DSLAM that you can’t sell….
No other country afaik has had massive issues with break ins to FTTN cabinets. And Telstra’s own RIM’s, which have much the same aren’t broken into as a regular occurrence.
I’m not saying they won’t be. Just that they’re not gonna be catnip to criminals compared with an FTTH cabinet. They’re not filled with precious gems…
When was the last time you looked at the price of deep-cycle non-liquid lead acid batteries? These things are usually around $1000 each. Never underestimate the pains some lowlife will go to get a $1 for nothing
And to make the point, even HFC suffers from requring “active” components
http://myarlingtontx.com/2012/08/17/time-warner-cable-battery-thefts-interrupted-by-police/
@Dan
True. Said lowlife would need at least one lowlife friend and a stolen Ute to carry the batteries in these things though. Or said lowlife may be in on Medicare for a bad back :D
Where I live they’d sue for damages, claiming that the batteries didnt have the right safety warnings…
The main problem I would say is finding a buyer. They might be worth $1000, but who’s going to buy a $1000 battery from some guy in a pub?
$1000 markup on something you got for nothing is a high price tag – probably sell for $100 and an couple of ciggies.
No one has mentioned the cost of inflation. How much more will a FTTP extension cost in 20 years?
Inflation is always an issue. But that’s Net Present Value. It’d cost more in today’s money, but the same (other than wage changes/super changes) in the future. That’s the case in anything, not specific to infrastructure.
Yes that’s true, though the debt burden at that time would be a lot lower by doing it now.
What is there to like? They (LNP) wouldn’t even have a policy if it wasn’t for the Labor party. The LNP is just cherry picking what they like out of Labor’s policy, just as they continue to say their asylum seeker policy is better than Labors.
It’s just politics as usual.
See, What did I say.
A journalist role is to create ‘controversy’ in the aims of attracting attention, and therefore, selling stuff.
Renai is a true journalist… ;-P
I’ll take that as an insult :) you French pig dog!
lol
This article reminds me of long term relationships. Ask your partner 5 things they like about you and… it takes them ages to come up with some trivial things.
What I can’t get my head around is how the Coalition’s musings about the NBN can be described as a policy.
I always thought a policy was a detailed, preferably fully costed, document, not some broad, undefined, often contradictory series of announcements
Malcolm says he has such policy detail, but refuses to releas it. He’s been asked many times about technical details and costings, and flatly ignores the issue.
If he wants people to compare policies, he has to release it, so we can compare apples with apples.
As it stands, he wants us to compares apples with thin air.
PLEASE stop referring to the Liberal’s plan as NBN. It’s not the NBN at all, it’s a totally different plan and they don’t even have their own name.
Call it the Coalition’s FTTN plan or something.
You want to win a war against FUD? Stop mixing acronyms that will confuse people in the first place.
The fundamental issue i have with the Coalitions patch-work FTTN is that it will create a situation of “haves” and “have-nots”. Turnbull has already stated that he would allow the completion of existing contracts that pre-existed under a FTTH NBN. So, you’ll have one suburb with FTTH with speeds up of 100mbit down, with the next suburb restricted to FTTH to a maximum of 24mbit down. Not to mention that with fibre, the poential is for far greater speeds than that. Copper is limited.
Also, what would this situation create in the housing market in FTTH rural/metro areas?
Hi Renai,
Nice article. One issue though, under point 2 the report says “Turnbull is one of the most ‘tech-friendly’ politicians in the Federal Government”. He’s not in the Federal Government, he’s in the Federal Parliament. Government and Parliament are two very different institutions. You might want to edit that.
Cheers,
Michael
s/reign/rein/
Comments are closed.