news The Coalition has rejected claims that asbestos concerns in Telstra’s physical network infrastructure have caused it to dump plans to offer fibre to the premises services on demand under its predominantly fibre to the node-based National Broadband Network policy.
Over the past several weeks, a number of facilities housing Telstra network infrastructure have been discovered to contain dangerous asbestos. The discoveries were made as Telstra has been remediating its pits and pipe infrastructure to allow the National Broadband Network Company access to the facilities in order to install the NBN’s fibre infrastructure.
Telstra has announced a wide raft of new measures designed to address the issue and has broadly taken responsibility for the remediation of asbestos infrastructure, but a political debate has sprung up between the Government and the Opposition over the issue, with both blaming each others’ various actions taken while in power to address — or, more precisely, not address — the asbestos situation in Telstra’s network.
One unusual aspect of the debate was that on Wednesday, independent MP Rob Oakeshott, who has been broadly supportive of the Government’s NBN project, claimed on Twitter that the Coalition had “ruled out any option of voluntary fibre to the home”, with Oakeshott claiming that Abbott had said that Telstra’s pits and pipes “will not be touched” over the last 500 metres to premises.
Oakeshott was referring to the Coalition’s interest in launching so-called “fibre on demand”, or “fibre extension” offerings through its version of the NBN policy. The current Labor Government’s version of the NBN project is slated to see fibre laid all the way to most residential and business premises, but the Coalition’s vision would predominantly see fibre laid only to neighbourhood ‘nodes’, with Telstra’s existing copper network to be used for the remainder of the way to premises. Oakeshott’s comments were reported by several media outlets.
Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has also left open the possibility that individual users could pay a fee to have fibre extended all the way to their premises. In June 2012, British telco BT, which is also deploying a FTTN network, revealed plans to modify its 80Mbps national fibre to the node rollout so that customers will be able to choose to have fibre fully extended to their premises, delivering a large speed upgrade to 330Mbps in the process. Under the FTTP extension trial announced last year, British retail ISPs will be able to order the extension process where there is interest and then assist network infrastructure owner Openreach with the cost of deployment.
Because of the difference in network infrastructure styles, several senior Coalition parliamentarians have pointed out that the Coalition’s alternative NBN policy would see less asbestos disturbed than the Government’s, due to the fact that it would reuse more portions of the existing copper network infrastructure. Asbestos is typically not dangerous when it has been installed; it is typically only dangerous when disturbed and the asbestos fibres make their way into the air and into human lungs.
“Because we will be bringing fibre in most residential areas, only as far as the street cabinet, and not taking it, you know, down every street and through every pit and having to replace all these pits, many of which are made out of fibro. Because we’re not going to be doing that, therefore there will necessarily be much less disturbance and much less of an asbestos issue. The issue has not gone away, it’s always there, but it is a much more limited issue than it is under the Government’s plan. That is true,” said Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull in relation to the asbestos issue on the ABC’s Lateline program last night.
However, Turnbull’s office also denied yesterday that the Coalition had abandoned its interest in providing fibre on demand/fibre extension services due to the asbestos issue.
According to Hansard records of parliamentary speeches and transcripts of Tony Abbott’s speeches and press conferences over the past few days, there is no publicly available evidence that the Opposition Leader went as far as Oakeshott suggested on Twitter.
Like Turnbull, Abbott merely pointed out that the Coalition’s less ambitious NBN construction program would disturb less asbestos. “… it’s obvious that rolling out fibre to 60,000 distribution points is a vastly less disruptive process than digging up every street in the country. That’s the problem that the Government’s got. Ninety-three per cent of our households are going to have the street outside the premises dug up,” Abbott said on Tuesday this week, according to a transcript of the Opposition Leader’s press conference at the time.
Likewise, Turnbull’s spokesperson pointed to the Coalition’s NBN policy document (PDF), which clearly states:
“The Coalition acknowledges that some users may want higher speeds than can be provided over FTTN before any evidence of such needs in the broader market. Likewise, FTTP in some circumstances may be seen by other tiers of government, infrastructure operators or private investors as economically attractive or commercially attractive. Finally, market needs will clearly evolve over time and eventually may require further upgrade of the network where fibre has not been extended to user premises.”
“Reflecting these three possibilities, the Coalition policy provides for: individuals to obtain fibre on a user- pays basis where feasible; external public or private investors to propose and co-fund fTTP rollouts if they are willing to put forward 50 per cent of the needed funding; and an explicit future upgrade path to be incorporated into all non-FTTP NBN Co fixed line construction.”
“NBN Co will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises as soon as possible where fibre does not extend to the premise and this is technically feasible and commercially viable.”
Oakeshott’s claim about Abbott’s statement on fibre on demand was immediately rebutted by several anti-Labor Twitter users. “I watched the same presser as you & he never said anything of the sort and you know it!! A desperate fabrication by you!!” one told Oakeshott in the wake of the independent MP’s tweet. “I watched the same thing and wondered if he had held two presser’s at the same time. Never said anything like it,” said another.
opinion/analysis
Not much to see here, folks. The Coalition has not cancelled its promise to make fibre on demand available. The pledge remains in its policy document and Abbott did not, according to what I can see, say what Rob Oakeshott said he did. Sure, the Coalition has appeared a bit ridiculous in the way it has been lording it over Labor in terms of the asbestos debate, given that both policies will see a significant amount of asbestos infrastructure exposed, but at this point there is just little evidence that the Coalition has cancelled its fibre on demand pledge wholesale, or that Abbott or anybody else said what Oakeshott has claimed.
“Ninety-three per cent of our households are going to have the street outside the premises dug up,” Abbott said
Don’t suppose we could get that fact checked? IIRC that’s a gross misrepresentation of the situation.
I agree, it is a misrepresentation.
While you’re at it, some sort of mention of the 6% gap between FTTx coverage between the two plans wouldn’t go astray. The current target is 93%, whereas the coalition plan is to target 90% *of those already with fixed-line connections* which, according to ABS statistics, make the coalition FTTx target a little over 87%.
I had a listen to Turnbull on lateline. A shame he didn’t answer the question on FoD when asked, not sure if he deliberately avoided it or if it was honestly confused about what she was asking, she was a little jumbled. He did say that full upgrade to FTTP was for a future government.
There were no direct answers, but from the following responses we can say with assuredly that:
a) There will be no “fibre on demand” in asbestos areas
b) That co-funded fibre will not be allowed in asbestos areas
c) That any remediation required on copper services will not happen in asbestos areas
TURNBULL: Well, I’m not sure what statement you’re referring to but I can tell you what the fact is. Because we will be bringing fibre in most residential areas, only as far as the street cabinet, and not taking it, you know, down every street and through every pit and having to replace all these pits, many of which are made out of fibro. Because we’re not going to be doing that, therefore there will necessarily be much less disturbance and much less of an asbestos issue. The issue has not gone away, it’s always there, but it is a much more limited issue than it is under the Government’s plan. That is true.
TURNBULL: Now with NBN their pits in the street, the ones that we would not touch, they are currently having to be taken out of the ground, so broken up, destroyed, lifted out and replaced with larger plastic ones and that is what is creating the asbestos disturbance issue. Now that is not a part of our scheme.
It’s clear from both statements that the Coalition’s policy is now made redundant with some major parts of the policy in doubt: 25Mbps speeds, FoD, co-funded fibre, & Turnbull’s “fibre extension” (FTTCurb).
The fact remains that both Turnbull & Abbott have made outlandish claims in an effort to stymie any development of communications infrastructure. Essentially this asbestos beat up by the Coalition is an easy out for them: too much asbestos, we have to abandon plans for any form of NBN.
If they really are going to ban work on asbestos pits you won’t even get FTTN as you need to cut into the asbestos pipes to get it to work. I do think you rushed to press before getting all the facts Renai, especially in light of consistent claims from both Abbott & Turnbull that they won’t touch the last 500m of the network.
Sorry, forgot to say, response from Turnbull are from his interview on Lateline:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3774681.htm
“There were no direct answers, but from the following responses we can say with assuredly that:
a) There will be no “fibre on demand” in asbestos areas
b) That co-funded fibre will not be allowed in asbestos areas
c) That any remediation required on copper services will not happen in asbestos areas”
Hi Kieran,
can you provide some evidence for your claims? Because I’ve been told the opposite directly by Turnbull’s office. I remind you that Delimiter is an evidence-based forum.
Kind regards,
Renai
The quotes I gave clearly show that none of this can happen. You can’t say “Now with NBN their pits in the street, the ones that we would not touch” & ” Because we’re not going to be doing that” (in relation to hauling fibre down the street) yet still deliver FoD. co-funded fibre, & copper remediation.
I’m not sure how much clearer it needs to be: you can’t do copper remediation, FoD, or co-funded fibre in areas that have asbestos pits, if you don’t disturb said asbestos pits.
There’s no grey area here, & the bluster from the Coalition is purely designed to smear NBN Co, yet it will have lasting ramifications for any network upgrade.
Sure, none of this is an Abbott signed statement, however, as we’ve seen lately, even those statements can’t be believed. While the reality is probably going to be that they have to do everything they are claiming they won’t, they have stated that they won’t touch the o-side of the network & that’s all we can go on.
I’m sorry mate, but you’re wrong. I point out to you again:
On Wednesday this week Turnbull’s office told me directly and explicitly that the fibre on demand program is policy and is going ahead.
You may have analysis that you say shows that it won’t, but this direct statement by Turnbull’s office confirms this. Are you saying that Turnbull’s staff are simply lying about the fibre on demand program going ahead? Surely they would know?
Yes, I am. What he’s saying publicly is at odds with what his office has said to you. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t not touch the last 500m of the CAN yet still deliver FoD, co-funded fibre, fibre extensions or even copper remediation.
Essentially they are playing it both ways: publicly saying there will be minimal to no asbestos risk with FTTN due to not touching the last 500m, privately telling tech journos that this isn’t the case.
If anything, it casts doubt that there is any intention to enact the policy by keeping “get out of gaol free” cards handy.
hi mate,
I’m sorry, but I’ve examined the statements, and I can’t find any inconsistency. I cannot see any example where either Turnbull or Abbott has guaranteed that no copper from the node to the house will ever be touched — what they have said is that the Coalition’s NBN build will require less asbestos to be disturbed because they’re laying less fibre. It’s pretty obvious that that’s true, and it doesn’t conflict with their policy statement of laying fibre all the way to the premises where there is a need or a user pays system.
Neither can I accept that Turnbull’s spokesperson on this matter is lying, as you suggest. I have a long and productive relationship there, and I’ve never seen an example where his office has directly lied. In this case a very clear statement was made: Fibre on demand is still a part of the policy.
With this in mind, I’m banning you from commenting on Delimiter for 24 hours for breaching the following stipulations in our comments policy:
“Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness.”
“Comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate”
http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/
I’m sorry mate, and I do sympathise with you, but as I’ve said, this is an evidence-based site, and you appear to be refusing to accept the evidence I’ve presented. It doesn’t get much clearer than a direct statement from a politician’s office confirming a policy. Your comments on this issue are harming the debate on Delimiter.
Kind regards,
Renai
Great way to encourage debate Renai. I can see both sides. Turnbull arguing on late line that they don’t need to touch the late 500m, then telling you that FoD is still on, which involves touchinf the last 500m, probably multiple times.
“they don’t need to touch the late 500m”
I don’t think that was quite the argument he made, mate — the Opposition has consistently made the argument that it would need to touch the last 500m less. This has been interpretated by many people as “not at all”, but I can’t find an instance where Turnbull or Abbott said something like “not at all”.
And yes, I do think focusing on the evidence improves the quality of the debate on Delimiter. It’s worked very well for me over the years ;)
as Kieran points out, straight from Turnbull’s mouth on lateline, he stated they’re not going to touch the street pits. There’s no ambiguity there – ‘ not going to touch’. How can they deliver FoD? It’s wildly inconsistent.
I can’t comment on your relationship with Turnbull and his office, in your own article here http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/12/turnbull-openly-lying-about-nbn-says-conroy/ accused Turnbull of ‘lying’ and supporting misinformation. So if you think he’s lied before then it’s UNREASONABLE to blindly accept what he says and IRRATIONAL to expect he won’t lie again.
Maybe you should take a break from comments as per your own policy…….
I get the feeling that it’s just a matter of in the interview (I have listened to it several times now) Turnbull wanting to say they will disturb way less asbestos, political point scoring. He also wants FoD for those that want it, so it’s still in. Nothing new for what he says to be self contradictory. I am sure in his mind virtually no one wants FoD so it shouldn’t be an issue, very little disturbance of that last 500m. I see where Kieren is coming from though, there is the “where viable” clause in there, they could lock out asbestos areas.
“Weasel words”, perhaps?!!? Oh, how I do hope so…. ~87\/’///,<
Renai, can you check out what MT said on Lateline too:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3774681.htm
He gets a little muddled or jumbled in the middle and not sure if what he’s saying now rules out Fibre on Demand. He says it’s an option, but then says it will be an option for a future government…but is this all FTTP or both all and FoD?
Would also like to know if what he’s saying about the fact they won’t disturb pits when placed the 60,000 pits is true too.
Look, I got this from the horse’s mouth: Turnbull’s office.
Read my lips: The Coalition has not abandoned its fibre on demand pledge. It’s there in black and white in the policy and Turnbull’s office has confirmed it remains Coalition policy.
END OF STORY.
Settle petal, no need to shout. It was a query, pure and simple considering what he had said on Lateline last night.
Thanks for the clarification though, was all I was looking for.
Sorry, it’s just that the answers to your question are pretty clearly laid out both in the article and in the Coalition’s policy document.
i continue to believe that very few people have actually read the Coalition’s policy. It’s quite a short and very plain English document.
It could be because there have been cases where what’s been said in the media by both are contrary to what is in the policy document…as you yourself have pointed out on a few occasions.
Keep it up though, follow you religiously, you’re doing a fecking ace job.
I think it’s partially a trust thing too, people just don’t trust Tony.
Malcolm’s managed to drag the whole party along a path that at least half of them are just itching to find an excuse to go back on, and while I think Malcolm firmly believes in what he’s trying to do, it’s not ultimately up to him (same as the RSPT wasn’t ultimately up to Kevin and Julia morphed it into the MRRT).
But at the end of the day, the whole asbestos thing with the NBN is more of a political storm in a teacup. Telstra have said they’ll fix it, and I trust them a lot more than Tony “just because he’s dying doesn’t mean he’s pure of heart” Abbott…
@Renai, I think people have read the Coalition’s “policy” document, but perhaps not thoroughly.
There’s a lot of confusion about what Turnbull says on TV and radio and even in the print media whereby he and the Coalition MPs use the word “guarantee” when talking about the minimum 25Mbps speed that the coalition are aiming for.
The document uses the word “should” rather than “guarantee”. So my question (that remains unanswered from Turnbull or anyone in the Coalition) is that is this an actual guarantee or is it an aspirational statement?
If I can’t get 25Mbps on my copper, then what? There’s no mention anywhere in this policy about what happens. Turnbull has talked about remediation of copper, whether that’s replacement with fibre or new copper (idiotic IMO), or these so-called mini nodes, I don’t know.
The devil’s in the detail and there’s so little detail here…..
All tip you might say…
Just so we can be clear: There is NO policy document!
What we have is a series of motherhood statements about aims and aspirations with very little or no supporting evidence.
An inordinate number of words are devoted the Labor’s policy, NBNCo’s failings.
The whole thing is a loosely fabricated media release with lots of acronyms and “cool” sounding words to confuse MSM into thinking they know what they are talking about.
> Look, I got this from the horse’s mouth: Turnbull’s office.
Well it should be the sub-editor that should be shot in that case. It’s the usual way. You Jurno’s always blame subbies.
If Abbott hasn’t said he will can FTTP extensions, then it’s a fluke. Of the zillions of stump speeches he’s given, there must not have been a single one where he thought he could squeeze a few more votes out of them by saying just that. The man will say anything. The truth, or what he actually plans to do isn’t relevant. Why just last week he promised on national television to reverse Queensland power price rises by killing the carbon tax. They are going up by 20%. The carbon tax contributes at most 10%.
If the basis of the story is Turnbull said it, well that’s different. But that damned subbie put Abbot in the headline.
According to Treasury figures, the carbon trading scheme increased power bills by 1.6%, but if your the MSM or Liberal party, why let the truth stand in the way of a good story…
“Reflecting these three possibilities, the Coalition policy provides for: individuals to obtain fibre on a user- pays basis WHERE FEASIBLE;…”
“NBN Co will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises AS SOON AS POSSIBLE where fibre does not extend to the premise AND THIS IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND COMMERCIALLY VIABLE.”
The above quotes were taken from your article, Renai. Please note the caveats I have highlighted in uppercase. Given these caveats, fibre on demand is far from guaranteed under the Coalition’s policy.
“AS SOON AS POSSIBLE” will likely mean “NEVER” because it is not technically feasible or “COMMERCIALLY VIABLE” (this being the most important factor) to replace asbestos infrastructure on Nodes where there only one or two households are willing to pay up to $5000 each out of their own pockets for fibre on demand.
So much for the Coalition’s FTTW (fibre-to-the-wealthy) plan.
END OF STORY.
Sure, but it’s something Turnbull has said they are planning to do. You’re right that right now, there’s no definite timeframe, cost structure etc. But that’s to be expected — the Coalition is focusing on FTTN first. But that doesn’t mean they’re never going to do it either. This isn’t a black and white/one and zero binary situation. It’s something that they’ve said they want to do if it turns out to be feasible, as it is already being done in the UK. What is so hard to understand about that?
I think the issue is even if I have $10 000 and say I want FttP we don’t really know if we will be able to get it due to the If Commercially Viable or Technically Viable Clauses attached to the official document.
We know all we can trust is what is written down and not what is said because what they are saying is You can pay to upgrade and 25Mbps Guarantee while the policy says it is an aspiration
There’s nothing hard to understand about the Coalition’s policy. I’m fully aware that the Coalition is modelling their FTTN policy on British Telecom’s roll out; and their desire to make customers pay up front for the privilege of having fibre connected to their home, regardless of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Australians have already received it under Labor’s roll out, without having to pay a single cent up front.
What’s really hard to understand, Renai, is how you’ve turned into such a proponent of the Coalition’s FTTN policy, especially when you know the technology is essentially redundant and will have to be replaced by FTTP, and that there are no guarantees that the Coalition will be willing (or able) to deliver on FoD (fibre on demand).
FTTP is feasible for Labor, so it should be entirely feasible for the Coalition, if they weren’t so focused on the cost of the solution (which would ultimately be paid by the user wholesale subscriptions; and under the Coalition’s plan, those who can afford to pay for a fibre connection, if technically feasible or financially viable).
Good fact-checking. Mr. Oakeshott has some explaining to do. This debate deserves better than a blatant misrepresentation of coalition policy.
What Tony Abbott has said is entirely correct – 70,000 paths to nodes will in fact need to touch fewer nodes than Labor’s NBN would.
But between what Christopher Pyne has said, promoting wireless and satellite as an alternative, the coalition’s asbestos laden past and the politicisation of this whole affair, the one thing that has come out of this as good news is kjak: “Telstra’s now preparing a plan for prioritised removal of pits which are part of the NBN rollout, once they’re tested and if they have asbestos in them”
Telstra have now decisively taken the burden upon themselves and they deserve congratulations. And, if nothing else, it has certainly overshadowed the wireless deployment delays.
However, none of that is saying that the fibre over the top plan makes any great amount of sense in the first place. A sortius put it: So essentially, unless it can make money AND the board of NBN Co AND the relevant Minister agrees to it, you won’t be getting FTTH.
Also, this is a bit annoying:
> Because we will be bringing fibre in most residential areas, only as far as the street cabinet, and not taking it, you know, down every street and through every pit and having to replace all these pits, many of which are made out of fibro. Because we’re not going to be doing that, therefore there will necessarily be much less disturbance and much less of an asbestos issue.
So, while Telstra is willing to do something about asbestos now, he’s ready to kick that ball several decades down into the future. Not good policy.
Also, it should also be mentioned that with the top hat upgrades Telstra deployed a lot of fibre, so the number of nodes that would need a new fibre connection is correspondingly less too.
‘Also, it should also be mentioned that with the top hat upgrades Telstra deployed a lot of fibre, so the number of nodes that would need a new fibre connection is correspondingly less too.”
Fibre which was already there.
The Top Hat program was to provide ADSL2+ to RIM’s which are already a fibre deployment to an exchange, saving costs in running long loops of copper to outlying estates.
from Whirlpool http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/rim_remote_integrated_multiplexer
Very far from always.
How about an explanation Quink?
In top hat areas Asbestos should not be an issue as they are relatively new
Told you yesterday they wouldn’t. :)
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/04/optus-mulls-user-pays-ftth-nbn-plans/#comment-611943
Lucky i didn’t go and spend the money i am for my connection.
and of course that should read am saving for my connection
Need edit button.
If anything, I thank Mr. Oakeshott for forcing Abbott and Co. to come out and state categorically that they are supporting it.
It leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind.
I can now move forward with my life and wait however many years for a Node to appear on my street before submitting a request to the Future Government’s Future NBNxxx company for a Fibre Extension.
So you’re thankful that someone created a false assertion (let’s not split hairs and just say ‘lied’) rather than, ya know, just asking a question..?
\= |
You’re obviously trusting Abbott and Turnbull to deliver on their promise, regardless if it’s extracted by lie or question, so I’m not sure why you’d thank Mr. Oakshott for going about getting it via a dishonest method…
Seems to work. Turnbull seems to ignore a lot of questions but reacts very quickly to answer falsehoods.
Which makes me think… why hasn’t he answered the 330,000 nodes in Germany to get 25Mb assertion? Maybe it isn’t false.
It wasn’t a “false” assertation until it was proven as such.
As for trust. No, I don’t trust them.
But I am hopeful and optimistic that there is an outcome in my best interests, and not 3 years wasted where we are here again (in 3 years time) still talking about fibre or copper nodes.
“I can now move forward with my life and wait however many years for a Node to appear on my street before submitting a request to the Future Government’s Future NBNxxx company for a Fibre Extension.”
The big problem there is how many fibre on demand connections will the node support for a particular area? How much bandwidth will be available over your fibre on demand connection? I would expect no less than a gigabit, as Labor’s network is capable of supporting.
Any chance of getting a comment from Oakeshott, Renai?
I’ve also looked for evidence of Abbott saying what he is alleged to have said. I didn’t find any either. Having said that, I find it hard to believe Oakeshott made the whole thing up. It would be nice to know why he said what he said.
While the Coalition has not abandoned its fibre on demand pledge, they have not explained how they propose to install FTTH without touching pits and pipes, potentially containing asbestos, within 500m of premises whose owners have chosen fibre on demand.
This is one of the final nails in the coffin for Labors NBN. If your want it move to Tasmania. Australia in years to come will be the laughing broadband joke of the world, meanwhile Abbott and Turnbull will retire on million dollar pensions like Howard as most Aussies are left stuck on a backwards internet connection that could’ve been resolved once and for all many years before.
No baby boomer ever needed upload speed to compete with an educated asian population: they should all feel very ashamed in their nursing homes if they voted to buy back the copper and hamstring their kids kids kids!
So if I’m in the pathway of the fibre optic cable between the exchange and a node, or a node and a mini-node, the LNP & Telstra can guarantee any pit replacements will not affect me?
If so, then why can’t this guarantee extend to ALL further pits and extend fibre to the home?
If not, then why isn’t the whole CAN shut down right NOW! Not just for NBN but for ALL faults where engineers need to access a pit. Why is it OK to affect selected people with their deadly product?
Saying it’s OK to do FTTN, but not FTTH just doesn’t make sense.
Cost for remediation? Telstra’s problem …
Renai,
You need to stop supporting the Coalition Party,
I’ve read the Policy, it mentions FTTN more than FTTH/Fibre-on-Demand.
It also fails to mention speeds on the Fibre-On-Demand.
It’s 18 Pages of FUD.
Malcolm Turnbull is out-right lying, on top of this the Coalition Party and the media have made the Asbestos situation a political circus.
The Coalition Broadband Policy you thought highly off thinks that Fibre is very expansive.
Fibre also only installed on greenfield premises (to satisfy Greenfield developers I suppose) where commercially possible.
And Fibre is only extended where commercially available (Check page 6 – it says where demand is there).
Also, it lied about the costs of per premises, senate estimates and public record Mike Quigley said about $2500 per premises, where as the policy document said $2800 for 12 million and then to activate it’s $4,000.
You may also look at the wording of the Policy document, aim, goal, should and so forth are in the policy document, it’s not gurenteed, it’s a maybe”.
So I think you need to check your facts Renai, they been slipping lately.
What is contained in their policy is hardly a promise to make FoD available. Their policy document states:
“NBN Co will provide for fibre on demand at individual premises as soon as possible where fibre does not extend to the premise and this is technically feasible and commercial viable.”
Technically feasible and commercially viable I think are the key terms there. I’m not particularly reassured by the wording and I’d hardly consider it a pledge to provide it.
“as soon as possible”
Which may be once the rollout has completed and join the que, if technically possible and economic.
Part of the reason the LNP LBN is in consideration is the FoD, the illusion that FTTP can be made available from any node and as such the public believes it is equivalent to the FTTP NBN for those who need it and can pay for it.
The reality of whether it can or will happen or whether only in “selected areas” is another matter
Renai, I’m not sure you got the point Oakeshott was making. If individual premises are connected FTTP-style, that would mean a higher likelihood of asbestos being disturbed than if the entire street is connected to FTTP in a coordinated rollout. With the Coalition’s upgrade scenario, houses get connected willy-nilly. That means clearly a greater asbestos remediation problem overall.
Nothing in this article suggests an answer to this, nor does anything the Coalition say even acknowledges that it is a question to be answered. Their whole line of this is simply asbestos = bad government. Another silly sound-bite illogicality.
So when I pay to lay fibre to rented house
Do I own it and next user has to pay me rent
On it
I very much doubt rented properities will be able to get FTTHoD without landlord consent.
I’m gonna add my take on this scenario.
Rob Oakshot was being facetious.
Tony Abbott was likely grandstanding about Asbestos and (accurately) stating that his network wouldn’t touch as many pits, and likely implying that his network wouldn’t even need to.
Obviously; Rob took Tony’s implications (that Asbestos would be less disturbed) to their logical conclusion; which is that that means no one [at the very least in Asbestos areas] would get a Fibre on Demand connection. Because for the LNP network to run a fibre on demand; obviously the Asbestos pits would be touched.
I seriously doubt Tony Abbott would ever say that FoD (a corner stone of their plan) would not happen.
But, by the same token, I would be surprised if Tony Abbott wasn’t making a stink about Asbestos and implying that his network would not disturb any asbestos, and by that implication make it a safer broadband network.
Think about the way we all argue on this website. These politicians are exactly the same.
1) They take a statement and take it to its logical extreme.
2) They take a statement and misrepresent it.
3) They say things tounge-in-cheek and sarcastically to troll others and attempt to cause them to say something stupid.
4) They cherry pick individual words and points and perform 1) through 3) on them as much as possible.
This is just internet trolling from both sides. LNP is trolling the government about asbestos, Oakshot is trolling Tony Abbott about asbestos. Now we just need the ALP to troll Oakshot, perhaps inform him that his electorate will be getting wireless because of asbestos concerns …
Another thought is this (sorry if its already been said and i missed it)
You live on a street with asbestos pits, the neighbors order FOD, techs ome out and open pit and do their stuff. 2 weeks later someone else orders FOD and pits opened again etc etc.
That to me sounds like more chance of disturbing the asbestos and causing contamination.
Do it once and do it right – remove the asbestos and lay FTTH. lesser risk of contamination is its handled right
Correct me if i’m wrong
but i think any area with asbestos will fall into the technical limitations preventing FoD to be deployed category (to be safe of course)
mate, that’s what I was thinking was the elephant in the room but as no one had mentioned it I thought I would just be a follower and not risk looking dumb….(!??!)
This is why it has been pointed out that the overall costs of the Labor NBN will be cheaper that the LNP FoD, as the labour to go back time and again to the same locations and put a single strand of fibre in, is plain stupid.
If anything, the cost to the very first person to order FoD in a particular street will be much higher as a result.
Surely remediation of 100% of the copper as needed for FTTN will cause more disturbance, because pretty much every pit in the country will need to be opened, than simpl pulling anew fibre cable through the pits where it is necessary to do so?
Or did I miss something?
@Renai, how about you fact check these calcs based on MT’s promise of 25mbps to all by the end of 2016:
There is actually 824 days (563 business days) between 1/10/2014 and 1/1/2017.
So really all they need to do is 6M / 824 = 7281 connections (10657 if the workers get weekends off) per day to achieve the goal.
Pure fantasy IMHO!
Worth considering FoD as a practical reality. We had the Optus consideration, now for the Telstra option.
As the party doing the remediation an obvious advantage as their infrastructure, to be expected that as with their requirement for a landline with their NBN plans, Foxtel will be a part of the FoD package for the term of the contract – 3 , 5 however many years on the Multicasting service. Expect extremely competitive pricing from Telstra/Foxtel to lock Pay TV competitiors out of the Market.
Comments are closed.