This post is by Michael Wyres, a fifteen-year veteran of the IT industry who has covered roles in the public and private sectors across network engineering, support and development. He currently works as a VoIP solutions developer for a private company in Melbourne. This article was first published on his blog and is re-published here with his permission.
analysis Generally speaking, apart from the recent asbestos incidents, things have been relatively quiet on the National Broadband Network (NBN) front of late. There have been some regulatory issues going on, but largely there hasn’t been much noise.
With the election approaching, broadband will go in one of two directions in Australia, depending on the result. The network will continue with the Conroy vision, or head down the Turnbull path.
Should the current government be returned, the existing NBN plan to rollout Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) to 93% of the population – (at speeds offered at up to 1Gbps) – will continue, with the remaining 7% of the population to receive at least 25Mbps through either LTE/4G wireless – (4%) – or Ku-band satellite (3%). Should a change in government to the current opposition occur, we will likely see the implementation of a significantly scaled-back hybrid network, based predominantly around a Fibre-to-the-Node (FTTN) rollout.
As detailed in their detailed policy document as released on April 9th, we would see 22% of the population receiving FTTP – (presumably with the existing speed tiers) – 71% receiving FTTN – (and speeds of “at least” 25Mbps, and “up to” 100Mbps) – and the remaining 7% of the population to receiving the same solution as now, with “at least” 25Mbps through either LTE/4G wireless – (4%) – or Ku-band satellite (3%). The 22% FTTP portion of their solution comes from the portion of the current NBN rollout they would not be able to stop, should they come to power. It is certainly not because they want to rollout FTTP.
There is no doubt that either plan would deliver a significant improvement to Australia’s current broadband capabilities. On a world scale, our broadband speeds are utterly woeful: “The Akamai Technologies State of the Internet report, released overnight, puts Australia in 40th place for average net connection speeds, down from 39th spot in the second quarter of 2012, and beaten by five countries in the region.”
Importantly, I don’t believe there is anything intrinsically wrong with either an FTTP or an FTTN plan. Both are entirely reasonable and elegant responses to the problems we currently face with our broadband infrastructure.
However, to see the real difference between them, we need to take a look at what each of the plans will cost us and what they will deliver for that price. The opposition claims to be able to deliver its plan for approximately $29.4 billion of public money, whilst the existing government plan calls for approximately $34 billion. It is these figures that shows the real difference.
The fastest speed offered on the opposition FTTN network – (ignoring the 22% FTTP they can’t get rid of) – is “up to 100Mbps”, and it will cost $29.4 billion to get there. If you’re “lucky” enough to be in the FTTN footprint, your friend a few streets away may find themselves lucky enough to be in the FTTP footprint, and they will enjoy speeds you couldn’t get even if you wanted them – broadening the so-called “digital divide“. People will be restricted on what speeds are available to them, based on something as simple as the street they choose to live in. The “haves” and the “have nots”.
In my experience in the telecommunications industry, the kind of broadband access available to a particular premise does affect the property value and/or the potential rental income at that property. A “financial divide” if you like.
Further, given the state of the current copper network – (which was described by Telstra in 2003 as having only about 15 years of life left in it; ie: 2018) – there is no guarantee that these speed promises can been achieved with the VDSL technology they plan to use for the “last-mile“.
As with any xDSL technology, the further away from the exchange/node/DSLAM you are, the slower speeds you achieve. When the NBN was first proposed in 2009, Optus submitted a response that required 75,224 nodes to achieve 12Mbps for 75% of the population, albeit with ADSL2+.
Any plan to bring a minimum of 25Mbps to 71% of the population with VDSL/VDSL2 will require at least that same number of nodes, and possibly more – and they still would not be able to guarantee you a particular speed.
Turnbull often cites the UK FTTN broadband model as “the right way” to do it. As shown in the above graph – (from Ofcom, the UK’s “independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries”) – if we follow that model, everyone has to be within about 500 metres of a node, and that equates to a lot of nodes.
Turnbull has said that wherever 25Mbps cannot be achieved, he’ll just add more nodes. Ask people stuck on Telstra “Top Hats” how that works out for them. The results will wildly vary too – you might get 40Mbps, but your next door neighbour might only get 25Mbps, yet they would be charged the same. The FTTN cabinets that contain the actual nodes are massive – want one of these on your nature strip? 75,000 lucky voters will get the chance if the FTTN plan comes to pass.
Once we need more than 100Mbps – (and the applications needing higher speeds are already upon us) – the only thing we can do is spend more money doing another upgrade, after we’ve already spent $29.4 billion. Even Malcolm Turnbull himself agrees that we’ll have to spend more money one day:
“… 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.”
Will there be a newer copper-based technology that will allow faster speeds? Maybe, maybe not. Is there an existing technology today that will definitely deliver higher speeds when that time comes?
Yes, and it’s called FTTP, and the existing plan is already rolling out this technology to 93% of the population for only about $4 billion more, with the significantly higher speeds we will need by the time it would be complete, with greater reliability, and with guaranteeable speeds. The fibre technology going into the ground is already capable of 40Gbps, and leaps and bounds more upgradable than relying on the existimg, dying copper network.
Will a later upgrade from a Coalition FTTN plan to a comparable FTTP plan cost us less than $4 billion, in five or ten years from now? No. Not on your life.
An FTTN solution also requires power to be provided to each and every node – (remember, around 75,000 of them) – in the distribution network. FTTP requires zero power in the distribution network, so will also be much cheaper to operate.
So, do we spend $29.4 billion on an FTTN solution that will be obsolete and locks us into an expensive upgrade cycle five years from now, or do we spend a little more now, to give us something that will last for 50 years or more? You can answer that for yourself, and the philosophical differences between the two positions are at the core of the entire NBN debate.
For his part, Turnbull has often been disingenuous about his plans for the NBN:
“He told Radio 2UE earlier this month a Liberal-National government would “complete” the job, rather than rip up any cables.”
His media appearances regularly contain similar language – politically it sounds much better to say they’ll “complete” the network, rather than stop it – yet he will stop the current plan, and implement his own. It’s not the same, and he knows it. It is a blatant lie to do nothing more than maintain a flimsy political position. He may choose to still call it the NBN, but it is not the NBN we are building now. It is not even a shadow of what we are building now.
He and his Coalition colleagues also constantly misrepresent the cost of the FTTP plan, with a magical figure of “$90 billion or more” plucked from the air – a figure attacked in the house yesterday by parliamentary NBN committee chairman Rob Oakeshott:
“It absolutely does my head in when I hear members of parliament, who should know better, in conversations with their communities trying to spread the fib that this is a $90 billion spend or even a spend at all. This has a rate of return on investment to the taxpayer. It is an investment, not a spend. It is not a luxury item; it is an essential service for the future of this country. If we do not do it, we are going to have congestion on our internet in this country like we have never seen before. And it is going to be an enormous problem in business and in all forms of communication: health, education, personal, entertainment, whatever. Congestion is going to be our issue from 2016 and beyond.”
Faced with this attack on his FTTP cost claims, Turnbull misrepresented the cost in another way (PDF):
“The problem, however, is that because in order to reliably give everybody 100 megabits per second and more you would need to take, with current technology, fibre into every premise, the cost of taking everyone to 100 or better is enormous.”
Of course, we know his inferior solution is only to cost about $4 billion less. If his FTTN plan is so financially prudent, why does it cost 89% of the cost of what he believes is the “massive” cost of the current FTTP plan? It’s bullshit – don’t believe it. The $90 billion figure is concocted to make it sound like his plan is $60 billion cheaper. Disingenuous to the end. Do we want this NBN or do we want that NBN? Voters seem to know:
The existing FTTP solution allows for multiple services to be provisioned to a single premises, which is a godsend for businesses building corporate networks, and something FTTN cannot ever deliver.
For the most part, Turnbull continually ignores the importance of upload speed, which FTTP provides in spades full.
We will still be far behind the rest of the world in the broadband rankings, because by then much of the rest of the world will have completed what we have already started, but which a man with a narrow politically-based vision chose to stop. In Japan for example, Sony is already offering 2Gbps services to users for very little cost. Why doesn’t the Coalition want Australia to lead the world?
It may just all come down to what happens on election day – Australia deserves a whole lot better than what an incoming Coalition government will serve up to us. And that may not just be a point about broadband.
Image credit: Office of Tony Abbott (top), ABC News (bottom)
Really nice article, thank you for sharing!
Great article Michael!
Pleasure :)
I’m sure there’ll be another article defending Turnbull’s approach tomorrow.
Well written article Michael but at this point I think we all need to hold on and see what happens after the election – there is very little chance Labor will win and now we see if the few technocrats in the Coalition can or are willing to do anything, and indeed if the copper issue starts to rear it’s ugly head even further.
The bag-of-hurt waiting for Turnbull is not inconsiderable.
Initial noises suggest he may review post election and- if that’s the case, good. It means he may not be intractable on FTTN, and may consider simply continuing using FTTH in the majority of cases, just tweaked to make it palatable for LNP voters.
Realistically if there is ~$4 billion in costs to acquire or access the CAN, it would make the LNP lead policy cost comparative, that’s before you even consider the inevitable upgrade.
Latest feel-pinion from Thodey is that Telstra’s network is in great shape, you betcha it’s gonna run for many decades to come. It’s the sort of talk someone might make if they want to sell it as a going concern.
Well thought out article, Michael.
“Initial noises suggest he may review post election and- if that’s the case, good.”
The most likely outcome of any review will be to can the idea of an NBN of any kind altogether.
Of course, it will be Labor’s fault that they had to can it and all and when the budget returns to big surpluses again, they will re-consider it, along with Gonski, Disability Insurance, superannuation assistance for low income earners etc etc etc.
Bingo! Do nothing much at all is what the Libs will do. Abbott talked of 10-20K nodes! Pig ignorance!
No, one of Turnbull’s three reports or, more likely, Costello’s “Audit” will say “Debt must be reduced, NBN will have to be ‘postponed.’”
Thought this for a long time. You know I am right. :)
Why do today, that which you can put off, to tomorrow. And make it someone elses problem. That’s always been a reliable option. No?
Nice write up Michael.
There is a typo down the bottom though, “cannot never deliver”.
Yes…should be “cannot ever” – I’ve alerted Renai, but it’s my fault, he copied and pasted from my original, and I made the typo :)
Nice piece of fiction.
Nice trolling!
Are you out of your right mind?!
He’s a right wing ideologue and can’t see the truth even if you print it on a baseball bat and proceed to hit him in the face with it!
That because you’re printing it on the wrong medium. Use Newspaper put the words “The Australian” in big bold letters on the told and any old rubbish becomes the truth.
+1000 for many
No, he or she is in his or her “right” mind. Hence the feel-pinion.
In all seriousness, a good test of your knowledge and understanding of the NBN issues would be to see how many errors of fact and logic you can spot in the article.
Indeed..
And so far you have made two comments and supplied none.
+1
/snicker
In all seriousness, a good test of your knowledge and understanding of the NBN issues would be to see how many errors of fact and logic everyone can spot in your two comments, filled to the brim with truth, truth and truth.
big talk, champ. follow it up with some facts of your own…
Indeed, this will do for starters.
‘The FTTN cabinets that contain the actual nodes are massive – want one of these on your nature strip? 75,000 lucky voters will get the chance if the FTTN plan comes to pass.’
aah, the old emotive FTTN ‘massive cabinet’ routine gets a airing again I see, that has been discussed at length before as you well know:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/12/fttn-cabinets-hideous-say-designers/
Yes, I would much prefer one of these FTTH cabinets on my nature strip.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59110820@N08/5744356013/in/set-72157625832264391
‘An FTTN solution also requires power to be provided to each and every node – (remember, around 75,000 of them) – in the distribution network. FTTP requires zero power in the distribution network, so will also be much cheaper to operate.’
Of course you ignore the power for the Fibre Access Node, here are pictures of a typical NBN Co FAN.
http://www.itnews.com.au/Gallery/255169,photos-inside-an-nbn-fibre-access-node.aspx/1
Amazing all of that requires zero power.
Of course you are very very careful with your wording because you don’t want to compare the power of the NBN Co ONT required for EVERY single residence on FTTH multiplied out with the power requirements of a FTTN cabinet that services 300-400 residences.
All of this has been discussed many times before and FTTH didn’t come out too well did it? – but you know that hence the careful wording.
‘So, do we spend $29.4 billion on an FTTN solution that will be obsolete and locks us into an expensive upgrade cycle five years from now,’
So who is making the decision that FTTN will be obsolete 5 years from now – you?
‘Do we want this NBN or do we want that NBN? Voters seem to know:’
Wow, where did that selective copy and paste screen shot come from, it’s best to ignore later surveys taken AFTER the Coalition policy release where the gap between to the two alternative NBN’s is rapidly diminishing.
Here is a reminder, and Renai’s header:
“analysis: The release of the Coalition’s new National Broadband Network policy had a dramatic effect upon support for Labor’s existing policy, analysis of polling data shows, with a large chunk of Coalition voters abandoning their previous long-term support for Labor’s existing NBN policy in favour of the new Coalition alternative.”
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/04/30/new-nbn-policy-galvanised-coalition-voters/
That was back in April the Coalition policy release was days new, the gap will be even less by now.
‘It may just all come down to what happens on election day – Australia deserves a whole lot better than what an incoming Coalition government will serve up to us. And that may not just be a point about broadband.’
Indeed it will, and the electors will get it right on which NBN policy is best for Australia as well.
Just for the sake of balance, can you think of any negative aspect with the coalition’s policy?
Just for starters:
“So who is making the decision that FTTN will be obsolete 5 years from now – you?’
Nobody is making that a decision but Telstra’s management did suggest that the network would be obsolete around about 5 years from now.
Also, I hate to remind you but even MT recognises that FTTP is the better technology. Therefore, it is all about cost and I suppose a 5 year upgrade would put a dent in that, hence, your disingenuous question.
> Amazing all of that requires zero power.
It was never claimed in the article that FTTP uses zero power, only that the equivalent cabinets use zero power (which is correct, they’re just splitters). You’ve also managed to completely disregard the power usage of VDSL modems in your analysis. FTTP uses less power overall. Look it up.
> So who is making the decision that FTTN will be obsolete 5 years from now – you?
Copper technologies have been running right on the physical limit ever since ADSL2+ was released. Compare this to fibre which can do 10Gbps while only using a fraction of the available bandwidth. By that measurement, FTTN is already obsolete, it’s just a cheap (or not-so-cheap) trick to shorten the lines to squeeze more life out of them. If you want to upgrade it again, you need to install yet more cabinets…
The “5 years” part probably comes from bandwidth trends which usually show demand for speeds much higher than 100Mbps by 2020. FTTP can easily provide this, FTTN can not. That’s the other reason that it’s obsolete.
FTTP uses less power overall. Look it up.
it’s no use Gene, people have pointed many, many similar issues and errors out to him, time and again, even with a plethora of links so he can educate himself with the original articles/reports/studies, but it’s like he has some short term memory dementia issue (If you do allain, I’m sorry to hear it, you seem like a nice bloke apart from that). As soon as a new article comes out, he forgets everything previously learnt :o(
@Gene W
‘It was never claimed in the article that FTTP uses zero power,’
Correction, this was what was stated:
“in the distribution network. FTTP requires zero power in the distribution network,”
‘ only that the equivalent cabinets use zero power (which is correct, they’re just splitters).’
It didn’t say ‘cabinets use zero power’ , you did.
” You’ve also managed to completely disregard the power usage of VDSL modems in your analysis. FTTP uses less power overall.’
The massive current draw of VDSL modems outweighs NBN ONT’s plus connected wireless routers does it?
‘look it up’
Fine, point me to the link?
The FTTN one is still bigger. Which was his point.
Don’t know what power consumption figures you’ve read, but every report I’ve read shows that a GPON setup including end user equipment works out to consume less than a hybrid fibre twisted pair setup, again including end user equipment.
Evidence? Gladly, where’s yours?
I’ve give you that one, 5 years from now it looks like the speeds FTTN offer may still be sufficent. But how about in 10? 20? What about then?
Do you really think that 25Mbps (or 50Mbps for most residences if they actually implement that upgrade) is really enough for that timescale?
I’m sure you have evidence for this statement yes? Or are you just exploiting trends and hoping that they hold with reality?
That depends on who’s elected actually. :)
OMG… the lengths “some” will go to to try to convince everyone that obsolete, distant second best, smaller footprint and $30B (not including the Telstra x factor) is our best option, is quite pitiful IMO…
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/21/copper-good-for-100-years-says-thodey/#comment-614000
“Of course you ignore the power for the Fibre Access Node, here are pictures of a typical NBN Co FAN.
http://www.itnews.com.au/Gallery/255169,photos-inside-an-nbn-fibre-access-node.aspx/1
Amazing all of that requires zero power.”
Actually, aren’t NBN using T$ exchanges where possible for this? If so, then a very similar set up will be required for FTTN making this a sunk cost either way – THEN you add the power etc requirements for the FTTN cabinets.
Actually, there is a fair bit of difference between the power usage of the two systems: https://twitter.com/lol_trotsky/status/321518124191076352/photo/1
err optical fibre vs copper doesn’t equate to FTTN vs FTTH.
err optical fibre vs copper doesn’t equate to FTTN vs FTTH.
yeah, right, nothing at all…
optical Fibre To The Node and copper the rest of the way, verses optical Fibre To The Home
Your starting to sound like Baghdad Bob
I like the way you just ignore my post with an even clearer stated source for power consumption figures and instead decide to try and argue against his source on a technicallity, rather than conceeding the point under the overwhealing evidence.
You’re not wrong, my most conservative calculations are that with 60,000 nodes each costing over $2,200 per year to run (10w per user, average if 200 user nodes) the LBN will be paying over $136million dollars per year just to power the nodes!
If I take less conservative numbers (more nodes and 15watt pet user) those numbers jump to well over $256Million per year in Node power costs alone!
“Yes, I would much prefer one of these FTTH cabinets on my nature strip.”
Is that an NBNco FTTP cabinet? I thought they looked like this:
http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/corning-new-manufacturing-facility-for-nbn-cabinets.html
“Of course you ignore the power for the Fibre Access Node, here are pictures of a typical NBN Co FAN.”
Of course, you ignore the fact that FTTN is fibre back-haul and will require a fibre distribution as well. However telephone exchanges would consume significantly more power than a FAN.
UNLIKE FTTN which will require electrical connections to every one of 60,000+ (probably many more) nodes though, FTTP requires no electricity between the 700 FANs and the customer’s premises.
“Of course you are very very careful with your wording because you don’t want to compare the power of the NBN Co ONT required for EVERY single residence on FTTH multiplied out with the power requirements of a FTTN cabinet that services 300-400 residences.”
And you do not want to even talk about how the basic telephone service is provided. In Turnbull’s apparently preferred BT model. it is done by maintaining the entire copper network, all the way back to the exchange.
“So who is making the decision that FTTN will be obsolete 5 years from now – you?”
Actually pretty much every expert in the field in the world. FTTN makes sense (barely) if you already have a reasonably new copper network that you own outright and want to squeeze a few more years of profit out of it. Nobody and I mean NOBODY has set out to acquire an old copper network from somebody else for the purpose of installing a FTTN network.
“Indeed it will, and the electors will get it right on which NBN policy is best for Australia as well.”
Australian’s will get both the government and the NBN they deserve.
History will be the judge of the result.
A point of order, I understand NBNCo is looking at a more compact version of Node, rather than a cabinet, a in pit module. Even M.T referred to it. Apparantly Corning is working on it
I agree, the LNP plan to deliver a minimum 25Mbps by the end of 2016 via a FTTN rollout is pure fiction. It’ll take at least a couple of years just to turn the NBNCo juggernaut around, let alone negotiate access to Telstra’s copper (which Malcolm assumes he’ll be getting for free) and get supply contracts in place for the Node & end-user equipment. Oh, and then you actually have to build this network…
Oh, and then you actually have to build this network…
And design it.
And test it.
And deal with all the same asbestos.
– but here’s the kicker Michael; if you deploy FTTN, since the copper is “just awesome, it’ll rock on for a century, old bean!” you don’t need to remediate the asbestos. Just leave that crap where it is, along with the shopping bags.
Because why replace perfectly good copper? Unless it isn’t.. but clearly that can’t be the case. Right?
Easy solved:
http://michaelwyres.com/2013/06/the-telstra-copper-ship-of-theseus/
Prediction:
Coalition win election.
‘Report’ into the NBN begins.
‘Report’ takes a long time.
End result of ‘Report” = NBN on hold indefinately.
NBN then scrapped (under the cover of something like ‘review/revise/no money/stay tuned’.
Coalition ‘NBN’ never gets off the ground.
Announcement that a bunch of ‘stuff’ is going to be upgraded instead because it’s cheaper.
Next Election: We wonder what happened in the last few years as we’re all still stuck on ADSL1/2/+ (excluding those lucky few).
See you in three years.
Actually, it’s more likely that:
.. Coalition is elected, Turnbull and Telstra either negotiate and settle on a lease/ buy cost for the network — and FTTH is still built in the majority of cases to meet speeds as per policy, Labor is blamed anyway; or
.. Coalition is elected, Turnbull and Telstra can’t make a deal, FTTH is continued because it’s the only option left; Labor is blamed anyway.
I don’t think “not building” is really a viable option for any Coalition-led government at this point; the general demand for high-speed ubiquitous internet access isn’t going to go away, regardless of the medium used.
Malcolm will do his CBA, but he’ll craft it so that FTTN comes out trumps.
But at the end of the day, the only real winner from this is Rupert Murdoch.
I think this is what’ll happen:
Coalition get elected.
They hand the network and the job over to Telstra to do it because they have experience and the best suited and .
Very little will happen very slowly.
The end.
that last and is “and (insert baseless smear against NBN Co)” but I used triangle brackets and it got filtered out :(
They hand the network and the job over to Telstra to do it because they have experience and the best suited
+½
Commonsense.
And then… Telstra, a private corporation, will once again have a monopoly on internet services in Australia, and screw all of us for our money.
Telecom Australia lost its monopoly after it was privatised as Telstra along with wholesale reform of telecom sector including awarding of new carrier licences to competitors and regulation of network access pricing by ACCC. Helps to know a bit of real history as opposed to the junk you read in whirlpool threads.
Lost its monopoly! You clearly live in a different universe to the rest of us!
Oh, btw, a lot of the current NBN work has been (transit ring) and is being (pit remediation) done by Telstra anyway! Take off your blinkers.
Teltra own the pits… who else would remediate Telstra’s pits?
Speaking of monopolies and blinkers.
There is a big difference between building something and administrating it.
It is only common sense if you are a Liberal apologist and have absolutely no memory of why we are in this situation in the first place.
Or Telstra fanboy?
“I don’t think “not building” is really a viable option for any Coalition-led government at this point; the general demand for high-speed ubiquitous internet access isn’t going to go away, regardless of the medium used.”
The coalition has two kinds of election promise:
1/ Non-core promises – i.e. anything and everything they need to say in order to get elected
2/ Unspoken core promises. – The things they do in accordance with the core beliefs of the Liberal Party.
With regards to the NBN, which of those core beliefs apply? The one that says that government should never build infrastructure of any kind, for any reason, ever.
They WILL need to do SOMETHING of course.
Their second core belief comes in here. The market is all knowing and always works for the benefit of mankind.
Along with the it’s corollary, government intervention of any kind in the market should never be allowed.
Most likely they will remove all regulation from the Telecommunications industry and allow the market to sort it out.
+½
My personal feelpinion is within two years of taking office, Tony Abbott will be faced with a mining bust, property crash and domestic banking crisis… so, NBN welfare for tech geeks will be the very last thing on his agenda.
Wheres the welfare? Welfare implies they would lose money. [cost the government something].
Neither plan will lose money if they charge roughly the same wholesale cost. People gotta facebook, and those people are gonna pay for the infrastructure.
Hell, the liberal plan will take hold over the infrastructure “faster” and they theoretically should pay themselves off sooner. Assuming they actually build anything.
“Neither plan will lose money if they charge roughly the same wholesale cost.”
You overlook the fact that the opposition plan calls for them to roll out FTTN and then encourage the private sector to overbuild it in all the profitable areas leaving the taxpayer to then cover the cost of the roll-out of infrastructure that is never used and the operating cost of both the unused part and the unprofitable loss making areas they are left with.
The Labor plan in comparison sets one access cost everywhere and prohibits competing networks.
Agreed, but I doubt anyone would have the guts to do it. Telstra maybe… but I suspect the returns on additional wireless infrastructure would be higher than a piecemeal fibre upgrade (ie those areas not fibre, but fttn).
Especially when competing against “good enough” FTTN.
While I disagree with the cost of FTTN due to its long term benefits [ie none], I am still not willing to let people claim either plan will ultimately cost money. (unless you write off the entire cost of FTTN since you start the upgrade to FTTP before it has paid itself off).
Telstra can build a fibre network right now if they thought it would be worth it [ie at their target IRR and risk]. Evidence shows [ie 12+ years of no large network] they don’t, and thus they wont. (Like the cable network they wouldn’t have to wholesale it if they built one).
I am just trying to treat both policies equally, and in the same reality. And that is one where if you replace all the wireline internet in the country; you will make back your money. Almost regardless of the technology, it only really matters how much you spend. 40 billion dollars is affordable, you will make back your money. Both plans fit under that umbrella and thus both are financially sound.
I just don’t think the technology is worth a damn at the price for an FTTN network, but that isn’t what I am responding to here. (the welfare comment is my target).
And you have the audacity to call yourself deep tinker.
He’s not even elected and the excuses are already starting… really?
Psst, just blame the last lot… easy.
My personal feelpinion is within two years of taking office, Tony Abbott will be faced with a mining bust, property crash and domestic banking crisis… so, NBN welfare for tech geeks will be the very last thing on his agenda.
Yeah, god forbid he try and do anything for other areas of the economy, we need to make sure it’s just banks, mining and property for the next 100 years!
And copper ;)
Excellent, balanced and well thought out article Michael. Logical and coherent, wish there was reporting like this in the main stream media.
And Renai, kudos for publishing this.
The Noalition will have many more seats than Labor after the election, it’s as simple as that. The only thing we can hope for is that they are unable to alter the trajectory of NBN Co. in any way, due to blockages in supply from a hung parliament if people actually vote for something other than the Noalition.
Remember, it’s as simple as ABC on election day; Anything But Coalition.
Thankfully I am in a “green splodge”, but even then I am skeptical about our fibre getting run as the estimated date of construction is November 2015.
WRT the article, the Noalitoin is also being disingenuine about the delivery date. There is no way there will be any meaningful FTTN construction started before it’s scheduled completion date. There are so many political and commercial interests and contracts to sort out, it will be years before they can even begin to get past the design phase.
FTTN has already been designed, Telstra intended doing it in 2008, current NBN Co FTTH contracts will be finished and the HFC (if Telstra agrees) will left intact for BB.
What overwhelming deal stopper design problems that are unique to Australia in the face of overseas countries rolling out both infrastructures currently in 2013 are you foreseeing here?
“FTTN has already been designed, Telstra intended doing it in 2008.”
So, are you suggesting that because Telstra had an intention to do it, they did all the planning and design before submitting their proposal.
Furthermore, did their design involve VDSL/VDSL2?
Lastly, the copper network is in a much worse state of repair than it was 5 years ago, given Telstra lack of proper maintenance.
Incidentally, the tone of your posts reminds me of a friend of mine saying about some people: Never uncertain but seldom right.
“FTTN has already been designed, Telstra intended doing it in 2008″…
*** No they did not.*** If they intended on doing it, it would have been done… but it’s not.
Once again the actuals for those who keep trying to rewrite history…
Telstra firstly pulled out of negotiations with the ACCC in 2006 (iirc) and then supplied a non-compliant bid to the RFP and din’t meet the criteria (even with a legal team as big or bigger than any of their contemporaries)!
Where does intent do do something fit in with this? People who intend on doing something do it, they don’t withdraw once and then don’t meet the criteria later…
But then as usual what “actually historically” occurred is of no interest to you and especially your unending quest, is it?
Of course the Telstra non compliant bid had nothing whatever to with FTTN did it, but you always leave out that bit.
Err, did you or did you not just claim Telstra intended to do FttN in 2008? Well the only FttN plan Telstra had in 2008 was via the RFP’s…
So nice rebuttal of your own argument… :)
umm what?
Err which other 2008 plan did Telstra have?
Just the one… it was for FttN and it was non-compliant.
Another spoon? Open wide.
Rofl… “designed” he says. I wonder if you actually believe your blatant falsehoods.
Actually Telstra took out full page ads in national newspapers declaring they were ready to roll out FTTN within weeks if they got sufficient cooperation from Government to guarantee their investments will not be socialised away. One can only presume the location of the premises, pillars and ducts have not moved since then… ;)
Yes that was the initial plan (iirc) and they (Phil Burgess) in fact said they could have shovels in the ground within days (again iirc).
Then at the 11th hour just when the ACCC thought the deal was a goer, as Telstra indicated it was 98% completed, “Telstra withdrew”…
Interesting tidbit…
“….from the commencement of the ACCC’s discussions with Telstra, the ACCC accepted ‘that Telstra should be entitled to recover its actual costs arising from the FTTN upgrade’ and that ‘Telstra faces a significant risk that should be reflected in the cost of capital used to calculate access prices’ “.
http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-perplexed-by-telstra-decision-on-fibre-to-the-node-investment
“Actually Telstra took out full page ads in national newspapers declaring they were ready to roll out FTTN within weeks if they got sufficient cooperation from Government to guarantee their investments will not be socialised away. One can only presume the location of the premises, pillars and ducts have not moved since then… ;)”
That was for a network a fraction of the size of what is being proposed now, supplying a fraction of the data rate being promised now and came at the cost of them being allowed to set the wholesale price at any figure they chose without restriction of any kind.
That was for a network a fraction of the size of what is being proposed now, supplying a fraction of the data rate being promised now
Exactly!!!, that’s why the Liberal NBN plan is an ambitious dream (but not a delusional fantasy like Labor’s “vision”). Not that it is not technically achievable…. but at what cost? The Libs were forced into a bidding game by Labor’s outlandish proposal.
The more I read your post the more I think you are delusional in calling yourself Deep thinker.
So, tell us how would you deal with an outdated, past its use by date network?
How would you address the fact that Australia is falling further behind in broadband and communication terms?
“Deep Thinker” was deliberately concocted as an ironic moniker. Please see:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/14/offended-by-fraudband-maybe-you-shouldnt-have-said-it-first/#comment-609611
Readers are advised to peruse my posts with a healthy dose of humour :) It’s only faster broadband we’re debating, not disability care or hospital waiting lists and other social issues that really matter :)
Why not Tosh P300?
Is the irony the fact that you are really a shallow thinker.
Nevertheless, why don’t you answer the questions. Furthermore, the importance of a decent broadband seem to escape you. The importance of various aspects of life is not limited to health or disability.
Also, under, the guise of irony you come up with criticism but offer little solution.
You realise by stating you are using the name “Deep Thinker” ironicly, this means that you are not taking this debate at all seriously?
Do you understand why people here would find this at all irratating, and percieve you as deliberately trolling for it? Because if you don’t, maybe you should consider it before posting again.
I think he has his own reason for opposing FTTH
If you read my posts you would realise immediately I take the debate very seriously. I don’t take myself seriously. That’s the difference.
If you took this debate seriously you would explain why you think this article is “a work of fiction”.
I don’t take myself seriously.
If you don’t, why should we?
We don’t any of you “conservative” types seriously because you are always trying to hold us back – history is in our side!
Here’s Albo showing just how stupid the “lets keep the copper” argument is in a historical context:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/dDQY1upYFfI
One can only presume the location of the premises, pillars and ducts have not moved since then
No they wouldn’t have, but the current LBN FTTN plan uses much higher speeds and the nodes need to be closer to the end points than Telstras 12Mbps and nodes at 1000+m from the end points.
Do you actually understand how any of this works?
For the love of all that is eccentric in English the word “premise”, meaning a proposition supporting a conclusion, is not the singular form of the word “premises” as it pertains to real estate. The word “premises” means a tract of land with its buildings and has no other form.
“The opposition claims to be able to deliver its plan for approximately $29.4 billion of public money, whilst the existing government plan calls for approximately $34 billion.”
The assumptions made by Labor have turned out to be wrong time and time again. In 2009, Kevin Rudd was saying the NBN was going to be partly privately funded. That changed so that the government assumed 100% of the risk. The Implementation report of 2010 expected government funding to be $26 billion. That increased to $27.5 billion by the first Corporate plan and then to $30.4 billion by the second Corporate plan (I’m sorry Michael but I’m not sure where your $34 billion figure comes from).
However, the government still assumes all of the risk for the project and the proper figures to compare is Labor’s $44 billion against the Coalition’s $29.4 billion. The ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/explainer-labor-and-coalitions-broadband-plans/4616818) uses the $44 billion figure so I’m not sure why NBN supporters don’t.
In 2009, Kevin Rudd was saying the NBN was going to be partly privately funded. That changed so that the government assumed 100% of the risk.
Umm, no actually. The current FTTP NBN will still be partly funded from the debt market. Always has been the case.
Michael, please, you should know better than this.
In 2009:
“This company jointly owned by the Government and the private sector will invest up to $43 billion over 8 years to build the national broadband network.”
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/022
The original plan was that the NBN was to be owned by the government and the private sector. Just because NBN Co borrows money that does not mean the private sector takes on any of the risk.
Where did I say “private sector”? I said “debt market”.
I said “funding by the private sector” not “financing by the private sector”.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather listen to how Mike Quigley describes the financial structure, than what Conroy put in a four-year-old press release.
“Debt market” can mean either – it makes no reference to where the funds come from, only that NBN Co will take on debt – which has never been in doubt.
What Kevin Rudd said in 2009 is still relevant to the debate and the government needs to be held to account for that. The total government funding keeps on rising and the Labor’s total cost is still a lot larger the Coalition’s – by a long margin. For the sake of transparency in public debate, the total cost figure should be used.
I’m just comparing apples with apples…you can’t compare the Coalition’s number against the Government’s number, because there is no debt element in the Coalition’s cost.
And of course, there is no cost, because the financials are structured for a IRR of 7%.
Investment, not cost.
I think we’ve got this covered.
But what you conveniently left out is that NBN debt is planned for 2015, with peak funding required as per the 2012-2015 Corporate Plan at $44.1b it’s interesting the NBN Co know they will pay it back when the terms and conditions of that debt obtained from external markets have not been negotiated yet.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/24/coalition-hasnt-addressed-basic-nbn-policy-issues/#comment-614070
Here are the actual comparisons:
CAPEX: Coalition $20.4b Labor $37.4b
Required funding: Coalition $29.5 Labor $44.1b
‘because there is no debt element in the Coalition’s cost.’
There is, it is $29.5b.
And on top of what Michael said…
The Coalition’s plan is for a smaller FttN footprint than the FttP footprint isn’t it?
FttN is an inferior product to FttP isn’t it?
Unless purchased, Telstra own the copper needed for FttN don’t they?
Or if the copper network is purchased the cost of FttN will increase, won’t it?
BTW how much of the funding in each network is from government funding?
But oddly, you keep copying/pasting the same spiel, without all of the details :/
Ooops…press submit early…
The $44b figure is the total cost, not the amount coming from the government, which is about $34b.
If Turnbull’s position seems absurd, it’s just because we are looking at it the wrong way.
The LNP couldn’t care less about better broadband. Their last stint in government showed that.
What they do care about is NBNCO. They see it as anathema. It must be destroyed.
To that end they intend to force NBNCo to install an inferior network, so that Telstra can come along behind it and install FTTH in cherry picked areas of high profitability.
This will ensure that NBNCo can never be profitable and will need to be sold off cheaply in a firesale to a corporation with lot’s of cash (thanks Malcolm) and an internest in maintaining a wholesale broadband monopoly. Namely Telstra.
Turnbull’s long game is to return the broadband market to the status quo, with Telstra continuing to rule the roost and pocketing the profits.
+100!
And yet we see thousands of hours obviously spent by people who clearly believe the lies, and cannot see through the obfuscation, discussing and dissecting what the LNP will do post election.
Graham, you have ABSOLUTELY hit the nail on the head. The LNP have no intent at all to do anything other than what is already contracted (and they might well wriggle out of that if they can). Why, oh why can’t otherwise intelligent people see this?
“The LNP couldn’t care less about better broadband. Their last stint in government showed that.”
you mean when they tried to get the opel thing going and labour scrapped it?
“you mean when they tried to get the opel thing going and labour scrapped it?”
you mean the OPEL thing that halfway through it’s roll-out time-frame (it was supposed to take two years) had already had it’s funding increased 60%, reduced it’s coverage area to 70% and, when it was finally cancelled still had not connected a single customer, or built a single site or even acquired a piece of land on which they could start building a site.
OPEL was, like Turnbull’s FTTN, never intended to be built but was just an election gimmick.
When Labor won and the consortium was actually asked to build it, they were at a loss as to what to do.
This is evidenced by the fact that other than a couple of face saving comments in the press, none of the consortium made any attempt to claim the compensation they would certainly have been entitled to had they been even remotely compliant with the terms of the contract.
“The LNP couldn’t care less about better broadband. Their last stint in government showed that.”
Nailed it.
“The LNP couldn’t care less about better broadband. Their last stint in government showed that.”
Errr…I think this should read “The LNP couldn’t care less about better broadband. Their last stint in government, and the stint before that, and the stint before that, and the stint before that showed that.”
Yep. They really do have form when it comes to modernising communications.
NOT!
I suspect (and hope) that as soon as the Noalition attempt to try to renegotiate with Telstra they will soon find that the cost to aquire the copper network is so prohibitive that they will quickly return to something that closely resembles the the current plan, probably involve Telstra more in the rollout, still claim they can do it faster and cheaper etc etc.
Or you know they may revert to their old plan, and just do nothing.
The key players who stand to benefit are aware of what Malcolm has been saying. They won’t be asking for more cash because that would make him look like a tool. Instead we will be drip fed ‘necessary’ concessions because the Labor project was in worse shape than we thought as Telstra quietly secures itself a very favourable position. Malcolm will be given his out and we get screwed. The Liberals haven’t changed since they first became a party.
The word you are looking for is “tax concessions” =P
I think Telstra will settle charging every Australian $30/month for a phone line you don’t need just like they do now.
As far as I see it, FTTN will mean it will be delivered to more faster. I am not against FTTP but this should have been staged, first roll out to all via FTTN and wireless/satellite, then once that is COMPLETE, start the extension process of switching from FTTN to FTTP.
Surely it would be better for everyone to have access to at least 25mbps Australia wide instead of only a few having faster speeds in the shorter term.
Stop looking a this as a me me me solution, it is an Australia wide solution.
Stop looking a this as a me me me solution, it is an Australia wide solution.
So, spending almost $30b of public money on a solution that’s supposed to be completed in 2019 and will need to be upgraded almost straight away, rather than $34b of public money on a solution that’s supposed to be completed in 2021 and won’t need upgrading is a good “Australia wide solution”?
FTTN to FTTP will cost more than just doing FTTP properly in the first place.
That’s the point.
+eleventy billion!
This is really the whole point, it’s cheaper to donut properly using FTTP the 1st time!
Bah fat fingers!
Meant to read “do it” 1st etc
I’ll take the donut thanks … :)
Mine, all mine!!! :D
Donut to the Premises, all the way.
You will get doughnuts to the node and nothing more
‘supposed to be completed in 2019 and will need to be upgraded almost straight away,’
What analysis shows that it will needed to be upgraded ‘almost straight away’?
I’ve give you that one, 5 years from now it looks like the speeds FTTN offer may still be sufficent. But how about in 10? 20? What about then?
Do you really think that 25Mbps (or 50Mbps for most residences if they actually implement that upgrade) is really enough for that timescale?
From here.
You can start here: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/8153.0~December+2012~Chapter~Volume+of+data+downloaded?OpenDocument
But there are plenty of other source/graphs/studies that lay out the data usage increases at a pretty constant rate.
@Micheal Wyres
‘FTTN to FTTP will cost more than just doing FTTP properly in the first place.’
It will? – what analysis states this is fact?
1) VDSL Cards cost money and then the cost of upgrading is added on top of the original cost.
2) Any remediation/replacement work carried out on the copper is wasted in fibre upgrade
3) Power supply equipment not needed in nodes for FttP
4) Inefficient rollout of fibre lines to nodes means much more fibre is needed due to differences between FttN and FttH architecture.
Yes got the ‘ Glib introduction to FTTH upgrading’, I was after actual $$$ comparisons.
It is not possible to give exact values as there are too many unknowns with the FttN plan the best anyone could do at this time is between $1 billion and $50 Billion more than current FttH NBN
In any case your question posed was will it cost more not how much more
The fact that you shift the goalposts when someone actually answers your question is deceptive
And this is coming from those faithful who will tell us the Coalition’s plan is $29.5B, ignore the Telstra factor and not suggest as they did with the NBN that all GBE’s blow the budget, so…
:/
@AJ
‘best anyone could do at this time is between $1 billion and $50 Billion more than current FttH NBN’
Oh I see, where did those best estimate figures come from?
Wow you really are stupid aren’t you I already answered that.
In any case you have not been able to counter that it will cost more.
“As far as I see it, FTTN will mean it will be delivered to more faster.”
But that isn’t really the case. You could only save a couple of years by doing FttN instead of FttP from the outset. Labor were going to do FttN, it was their policy, but they backflipped on it because the expert panel said it wouldn’t be worth it.
I really don’t understand how people can forget about that. Political parties never like to go back on their policies, especially when it’s one they were working on for 2 years as Labor were with FttN. If FttN was a sensible option, we would have it right now!
“then… start the extension process of switching from FTTN to FTTP.”
So spend tens of billions on FttN instead of FttP so people can get slightly faster broadband, and then spend tens of billions again to upgrade it to FttP? And pay more maintenance on the resulting system because you need to leave the FttN nodes in place to support the FttP network?
“Surely it would be better for everyone to have access to at least 25mbps Australia wide instead of only a few having faster speeds in the shorter term.”
Look at the time-frames. In fact, the last customers to be connected to FTTN will be only 2 years earlier than the last customers were planned to be connected to FTTP.
And that is for a network that covers only about 70% of the area.
The reality is that, the roll-out is no faster. 70% of the connections in 70% of the time is zero sum.
The same result time wise would be the same if you just declared the NBN complete at the 70% mark, as the coalition are doing.
I’m looking forward to 3 years time and seeing the squirming and obfuscation that MT will be doing.
I have little hope that all of Australia will be close to getting a minimum of 25Mbs access speed.
If much FTTP rollout has occurred by this time next year I’ll be impressed. I’ll also be very interested to see how much dud copper is in the ground.
I still don’t understand how you can have an FTTN policy that doesn’t even state minimum cable length for X speed and the approx number of nodes required. I see figures of 50K, but am sure that is woefully low.
“I’m looking forward to 3 years time and seeing the squirming and obfuscation that MT will be doing.”
Indeed. I will too. The clock will be ticking. More entertainment to come from the Turnbull apologists as well. You can count on it. Some of them already keen to distance themselves from his frauband plan even before the election in September. They know it’s a lemon.
Who are ‘they’ and where have they distanced themselves?
One thing is still not clear when comparing costs is whether the cost of FTTN includes or excludes what has already been spent. I believe this is around $4.5 b. Furthermore, let’s not forget the cost of the “free” copper network.
Not many journalists seem to have picked up on this. The $30 billion for Coalition Fraudband is dependant on renegotiating with Telstra, at the moment Telstra have agreed to supply their pits and ducts in a fibre ready state for use of NBNCo for $11 billion. Throw in the copper network as well and its hard to see how the Coalition numbers add up.
@Damien
The $11b is not just for the pits and ducts is it?, it is also for shutting down the copper network and the HFC BB and migrate ALL customers onto the NBN.
The negotiation of the copper for use in a partial FTTN scenario may well be accommodated within the $11b Telstra is under legal contract with the current NBN Co approved by Telstra shareholders back in October 2011.
1. It is not a total shut down of the copper as per FTTH requirements.
2. It is not a total shutdown of Telstra HFC BB.
3. Not all of the ducts will be required for FTTH fibre pull through anymore.
Use of the copper component in FTTN does not necessarily mean the Coalition NBN Co has to purchase it outright from Telstra, it could be accommodated under a lease or a partial Telstra/NBN Co ownership arrangement, where both share FTTN wholesale revenue.
@ Fibroid.
“The $11b is not just for the pits and ducts is it? it is also for shutting down the copper network and the HFC BB and migrate ALL customers onto the NBN.”
Correct, as explained previously it’s known as technological progression, like dirt roads to asphalt… this is a good thing for the nation. Again I ask (for no response) haven’t you ever replaced an old item with a newy at your place?
And again from your fellow conservatives abroad – http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/11/copper-wire-technology-whose-time-has-passed/
“The negotiation of the copper for use in a partial FTTN scenario may well be accommodated within the $11b Telstra is under legal contract with the current NBN Co approved by Telstra shareholders back in October 2011.”
Yes may well… but maybe not… the words blank cheque come to mind… Funny how every part of the corporate plan was bagged and scrutinised, but not knowing if the copper needed for FttN will be $0 – (let’s pluck a figure ala MT and) say $94B is all fine… really?
Seriously, in the name of transparency wouldn’t you like clarity and don’t you think we all deserve clarity on just how much and/or the terms of any copper deal…
Leap of faith by the faithful…NICE.
“1. It is not a total shut down of the copper as per FTTH requirements.”
Yes ridiculous, copper is obsolete using it it short sighted. BTW it’s FttP.
“2. It is not a total shutdown of Telstra HFC BB.”
Ditto … iHFC was primarily meant as a pay TV network and a network you told us previously was a failure anyway, so good riddance eh?
“3. Not all of the ducts will be required for FTTH fibre pull through anymore.”
Until FoD, then what – telegraph poles and those horrible overhanging cables you all whinged about previously?
“Use of the copper component in FTTN does not necessarily mean the Coalition NBN Co has to purchase it outright from Telstra, it could be accommodated under a lease or a partial Telstra/NBN Co ownership arrangement, where both share FTTN wholesale revenue.”
So after telling us it may well be contained in the $11B (just back in paragraph two) you now contradict yourself and say purchase or leasing will be required after all…
*rolls eyes*
point one is irrelevant because Telstra will not be able use the copper as NBNCo will be using it
Copper access and pricing is not a major issue if they really want to build FTTN under the auspices of NBNco.
The real clincher assuming the Coalition take office is: do they want to keep alive a nascent, messy government monopoly created by Labor and take on the massive political and fiscal risk of such a big project… or will they decide to cut their losses immediately, wipe the whole slate clean and liquidate NBNco.
I agree with you — the three separate studies to be commissioned once they get in power will give them three “outs”. If Labor’s NBN is complete delusional fantasy… Liberal’s NBN is an ambitious dream, but still a dream with tenuous roots in reality… (sorry Malcolm).
“”the three separate studies to be commissioned once they get in power will give them three “outs”. If Labor’s NBN is complete delusional fantasy… Liberal’s NBN is an ambitious dream, but still a dream with tenuous roots in reality… (sorry Malcolm).””
Save him the trouble, Deep Thought, just tell him the answear… 42 (am I right? )
42 billion to build his FttNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
42 years before Aust gets decent Coms
You know “cheaper, Faster” broadband
The problem with the lease/ buy from Telstra, under the Coalition Policy, is that it’s not accounted for.
Assumption abounds on this.
The costs imposed by Telstra to access the CAN in direct fashion, by re-terminating copper pairs is not covered in the existing agreement. The agreement is for a set type of access to specific types of infrastructure, along with payments for moving customers onto the NBN.
Malcolm has previously stated this will be a short conversation. Given Labor and NBNco spent well over a year in negotiations, I believe Turnbull is either naive, plain unobservant or attempting to subvert what he knows will be a huge time sink.
Telstra is highly unlikely to just “throw in” access under the current agreement. Whether it’s leased or bought outright (the former seems complicated given the physical cut and determination required) likely depends on the costs imposed by the current infrastructure owner.
FTTN builds elsewhere have been induced by the infrastructure owner. As of today, NBNco does not own any Telstra assets. It has leased access.
It will only take another ~$4 billion or so in costs from leasing or buying access, to allow for re-terminating copper for FTTN, in order for the two policies to become price comparative.
Whether an upgrade of this happens in 5, or 20 years, is also irrelevant. It’s no less a guaranteed cost as is upgrading FTTH. The only difference is that FTTH has massive advantages from an upgrade perspective in that the physical cable, which is much of the sunk cost, does not need to be touched.
On what planet, does paying virtually identical (or indeed more) for a copper based network over a FTTH make sense, when you don’t even own the assets to begin with? Belluer?
At some point, the costs become so aligned you might as well spend the same money once, and do it right. Semantic, and what have obviously become highly religious arguments over why FTTN has to be used, over FTTH are hilarious, but pointless when the costs are no different.
The $11b is not just for the pits and ducts is it?, it is also for shutting down the copper network and the HFC BB and migrate ALL customers onto the NBN.
It’s not to shut down the copper, it’s to mover the users over to the NBN, Telstra is free to do what it likes with the copper (well, the 93% they wont continue using anyway).
No, Telstra is not free to do what it likes with the copper, under the NBN agreement Section 4.2.2.2 Fixed Line Network Preference, Telstra has agreed to that will use the NBN Fibre Network exclusively as the fixed line connection in the NBN footprint for 20 years from the NBN agreement date.
And then do what they like with the copper…
No, Telstra is not free to do what it likes with the copper, under the NBN agreement Section 4.2.2.2 Fixed Line Network Preference, Telstra has agreed to that will use the NBN Fibre Network exclusively as the fixed line connection in the NBN footprint for 20 years from the NBN agreement date.
You didn’t answer the point I made at all, in fact you just reinforced it by mentioning they’d move their customers to FTTP.
Thanks for playing…
The rebute was about your assertion that ‘Telstra is free to what it likes with the copper’ by quoting the relevant section from the NBN agreement.
When faced with hard evidence to the contrary you decide the best ploy is to state something else totally different.
That is exactly what you did above Fibroid
you asked
@Micheal Wyres
‘FTTN to FTTP will cost more than just doing FTTP properly in the first place.’
It will? – what analysis states this is fact?
I answered you Q
AJ
Posted 24/06/2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink | Reply
1) VDSL Cards cost money and then the cost of upgrading is added on top of the original cost.
2) Any remediation/replacement work carried out on the copper is wasted in fibre upgrade
3) Power supply equipment not needed in nodes for FttP
4) Inefficient rollout of fibre lines to nodes means much more fibre is needed due to differences between FttN and FttH architecture.
You Changed the question!
Fibroid
Posted 24/06/2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink | Reply
Yes got the ‘ Glib introduction to FTTH upgrading’, I was after actual $$$ comparisons
Hypocrite Much
This statement :
‘FTTN to FTTP will cost more than just doing FTTP properly in the first place.’
See the words COST MORE , cost more states when upgrading FTTN to FTTP it costs more than if you rolled out FTTH in the first place, that’s a expressed in dollars figure.
You answered with a simplistic technical spiel on what you think the technical process is to achieve that upgrade, then you respond and say ‘see I answered the question’.
I still don’t know what the COST MORE figure in Australian dollars is, and neither do you apparently.
The Kevin Rudd legacy will live forever…. GO AUSSIE: OI OI OI! (Imagine being a Liberal voter in the nursing home knowing you voted to keep the copper, lol……..NOT!!)
Yea.. pretty much what I expected… Kevin Rudd fans are mostly clowns. :)
Now that was really deep thinking.
I ❤ irony :)
Well of course the Coalition hasn’t addressed its policy issues. The pack of narcoleptic halfwits that call themselves the mainstream media have done nothing but give the Liberal Party a free pass – it’s hardly surprising that the Mad Monk has managed to garner support without actually discussing policy in detail. I recall there being a handful of voices complaining about the god-awful media coverage of the 2010 federal election, and I’d say it’s only gotten worse.
I suggest this article is highly biased towards the Labor plan for the following reasons:
1. It mentions peak speeds not average speeds which is what Akamai measures. Labor’s NBNCo plan predicts 50% on 12Mbps and less than 5% on 1Gbps in 2028, so under the Coalition plan 50% of users will have connections of 50Mbps (more than 4 times faster).
2. It ignores that Coalition plan is to have minimum speed of 50Mbps in 2019
3. It ignores the fact that fibre can be ordered under the Coalition at a reasonable price when compared with 1Gbps fibre
4. It assumes that somehow NBNCo will some how be able to meet the current budget when NBNCo have repeatedly revised up expenditure, revised down revenue budget and cut premises to be connected.
The 2013-2016 Plan should have been released by now, but it hasn’t been and preparing it would be a waste of effort with the election coming up. NBNCo have admitted the optimistic targets in 2012-2015 plan are not going to be reached.
Sure there are a group of people in the middle who find FTTN too slow but cannot afford FTTP who will may suffer, but it is difficult to see how the majority of this group could afford the faster Labor NBN plans.
“It mentions peak speeds not average speeds”
This heavily favours the Coalition, not Labor plan. Most broadband connections these days have multiple users which brings down the average speed Akamai measures. Higher peak speeds mean that the multiple users on the one connection experience.
“It ignores that Coalition plan is to have minimum speed of 50Mbps in 2019”
It also ignore the fact that the Labor plan will have a new range of speeds up to 1Gbs by Christmas 2013.
“It ignores the fact that fibre can be ordered under the Coalition at a reasonable price when compared with 1Gbps fibre”
This is not a fact. First, it must be technically and financially feasible before it can be purchased according to the policy and secondly, I and most other people do not consider thousands of dollars outlay for a fiber I don’t own reasonable.
“It assumes that somehow NBNCo will some how be able to meet the current budget when NBNCo have repeatedly revised up expenditure, revised down revenue budget and cut premises to be connected.”
Actually, NBNco is running under budget at the moment with money unspent, hence the reduction in funding that Turnbull was recently complaining about.
“but it is difficult to see how the majority of this group could afford the faster Labor NBN plans.”
Much easier to afford if you don’t have to outlay thousands of dollars just to get connected
*Sigh* back to refuting Mathew.
The two million 12mb connections in the NBN plan relate to voice connections included in the nbn fiber connection, not broadband ones. This number matches the difference between the 6 million fixed internet subscribers per the ABS, and the 8 million telephone subscribers in the telstra annual report.
The NBN didn’t want to assume in it’s business case any additional users than use current services.
The actual coalition policy only requires 90% coverage for the 50mbit “minimum”, which could leave over 1.2 million households with less than that 50mbit. And you seem to assume that there won’t be throttling of speeds on the VDSL FTTN network, against past experience with ADSL throttling by Telstra.
The fiber on demand requirement is only if it’s “technically feasible and commercially viable” which could mean that a single customer wouldn’t be feasible, and therefore not get fiber for any price, reasonable or otherwise. Asbestos could easily be used as a pretense to make fiber not “technically feasible”
And regarding NBN co blowing it’s budget,
http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/media-releases/2013/report-to-parliamentary-joint-committee.pdf
Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2, hell, lets just say pg 3-11.
“I also draw your attention to something that may not have been obvious: in the $37.4 billion there is $3.6 billion of contingency. That contingency we have carried forward from our very first corporate plan and that is 10 per cent of our capex. That 10 per cent contingency has remained since the beginning of the project—we have not had a need to call on that 10 per cent contingency.”
QUIGLEY, Mr Mike, Chief Executive Officer, NBN Co., Hansard 19/4/13
“Just against the FY13 budget, in terms of indirect costs, we are currently running about 10 per cent under budget.”
QUIGLEY, Mr Mike, Chief Executive Officer, NBN Co., Hansard 19/4/13
From my understanding the 2013 NBN co business plan is with it’s board right now, but they probably want to make sure the June 2013 rollout figures are right to get some hard comparative numbers.
But I’m sure conspiracy is easier to allege than proper process.
> The two million 12mb connections in the NBN plan relate to voice connections included in the nbn fiber connection, not broadband ones.
Who would actually order a voice only service on fibre with the NBN? A mobile phone would be cheaper and more reliable. The simple existence of plans under 100Mbps should give you an indication that Labor’s NBN contains more spin than reality. Quigley has acknowledged the only reason 1Gbps plans were announced just before the last election was to match Google Fibre’s offering. Everyone should acknowledge that even with a 1Gbps headline speed, that Labor’s NBN is not even close to what is available on Google Fibre.
> The actual coalition policy only requires 90% coverage for the 50mbit “minimum”, which could leave over 1.2 million households with less than that 50mbit.
This needs to be balanced with many small regional towns that under Labor have only the prospect of wireless when VDSL (or even ADSL2+) would provide better performance.
> QUIGLEY, Mr Mike, Chief Executive Officer, NBN Co., Hansard 19/4/13
“Just against the FY13 budget, in terms of indirect costs, we are currently running about 10 per cent under budget.”
It is easy to be under budget if progress is less than 20% of original plan. I’d suggest checking the operating expenditure budget (almost doubled in 2012-2015 Corporate Plan) as a better indication of fiscal prudence.
Who would actually order a voice only service on fibre with the NBN?
The same people who order a voice only service now? They are a not-insignificant amount of them.
A mobile phone would be cheaper and more reliable.
Only if they already own a physical phone and can go on a BYO plan from the likes of TPG and if they in a high signal area. I think you have too much faith in Australia’s mobile networks, which says to me you haven’t lived or known anyone who has lived outside a city for any significant period of time.
The simple existence of plans under 100Mbps should give you an indication that Labor’s NBN contains more spin than reality.
Why, because you think that everyone should be given the maximum speed possible or they’re not getting an improved broadband experience or value for money? How about you stop translating your expectations onto the rest of humanity for once?
Quigley has acknowledged the only reason 1Gbps plans were announced just before the last election was to match Google Fibre’s offering. Everyone should acknowledge that even with a 1Gbps headline speed, that Labor’s NBN is not even close to what is available on Google Fibre.
If you want Google Fibre, move to Kansas. Google Fibre is an experiment, a “hey look at what we can do”. It is not a model for a sustainable commications across all geographic regions, especially not Australia.
We are building a national network, not a “how fast can we make it” engineering experiment publicity stunt to show the world how awesome we are. Do you understand the difference? Because it’s becoming clear to me that your only real motivation here is getting 1Gbps, and stuff reality in the face, I mean if a multi-billion dollar corperation can do it, why can’t the Australian Government?
Stop being so bloody selfish and start looking at this objectivetly. And if you can’t do that, maybe you should just stop commenting on the project and leave it to people who actually know about little about things like, insignicant to you maybe, “economic constraints” and “backhaul capacity” and “undersea cable capacity”. According to you these are just “pointless trivalities” and that “once everyone is on 1Gbps it’ll all magically sort itself out.”
This needs to be balanced with many small regional towns that under Labor have only the prospect of wireless when VDSL (or even ADSL2+) would provide better performance.
Not only do you have a serious case of delision when it comes to the practicalities of 1Gbps plans, you also haven’t read the Coalition plan you believe to be better, for as far as I can tell, it simiply isn’t Labour. Because if you would have you would know that the zones that are getting 4G fixed wireless and sat under the NBN will remain unchanged under the Coalition plan. So these regional towns you refer to will only have the prospect of wireless as well.
It is easy to be under budget if progress is less than 20% of original plan. I’d suggest checking the operating expenditure budget (almost doubled in 2012-2015 Corporate Plan) as a better indication of fiscal prudence.
Once again, you seem to have unreasonable expectations of reality. They modified the corperate plan, this isn’t bad, it happens, in every organisation. You really think the “plan” the Coalition have come up with is set in stone as well? No, it isn’t, they will probably have set backs, and not meet their orignal commitments either. But you’ll probably be okay with that, because hey, “at least it isn’t Labor”, right?
> Only if they already own a physical phone and can go on a BYO plan from the likes of TPG and if they in a high signal area. I think you have too much faith in Australia’s mobile networks, which says to me you haven’t lived or known anyone who has lived outside a city for any significant period of time.
I was discussing this in the context of the fibre network footprint, where mobile coverage should be available in very close to 100%. If you are outside the fibre footprint then copper will still be maintained.
The cost of a mobile plan with unlimited calls is well under $40/month now (including Telstra network). If you have a mobile it would be crazy to pay for a land line just for calls. Some people will currently keep their land line because of inertia, but the switch to the NBN will increase the likelihood they cancel the line.
> backhaul constraints
Backhaul constraints are primarily driven by data throughput, not peak speeds. Have you calculated how much time someone with a 1Gbps and 100GB plan would actual spend transfering data? In countries where quotas don’t exist your argument might have merit, but not in Australia.
> So these regional towns you refer to will only have the prospect of wireless as well.
I guess you haven’t any experience of rural towns then? Many towns under 1000 premises have ADSL services. Under Labor these are removed. Under the Coalition ADSL remains and could be easily upgraded to VDSL.
> They modified the corperate plan, this isn’t bad, it happens, in every organisation.
Small changes I could accept, but the changes to the NBNCo Corporate Plan are huge. Based on the maps released by NBNCo for stage 2 prior to the 2010 Federal Election, I should already have fibre. If I checkout the NBNCo Rollout Map, the current estimate is 2018. If we trended out the changes, then the Coalition estimate of $90 billion would look optimistic.
> But you’ll probably be okay with that, because hey, “at least it isn’t Labor”, right?
When I compare the end result of the two plans. It is very clear that the Coalition plan:
* has a minimum speed that is more than 4 times faster
* fibre is still available
* is prioritising areas of need first (unlike Labor who are overbuilding HFC areas first)
* provides better services to rural Australia
“I was discussing this in the context of the fibre network footprint, where mobile coverage should be available in very close to 100%. If you are outside the fibre footprint then copper will still be maintained.
The cost of a mobile plan with unlimited calls is well under $40/month now (including Telstra network). If you have a mobile it would be crazy to pay for a land line just for calls. Some people will currently keep their land line because of inertia, but the switch to the NBN will increase the likelihood they cancel the line.”
Well, you get to keep the same number if you get a fixed line, which for businesses is important for repeat custom. The aged would probably like to keep their fixed lines. Alarms, lifts, and other simple data connections would also need fixed lines, at least initially, for their respective communications.
That’s why you should appreciate there are millions of customers which will need the UNI-V rather than the UNI-D of the 12 mbit connection. Thanks for appreciating that fact.
“> So these regional towns you refer to will only have the prospect of wireless as well.
I guess you haven’t any experience of rural towns then? Many towns under 1000 premises have ADSL services. Under Labor these are removed. Under the Coalition ADSL remains and could be easily upgraded to VDSL.”
Acutally, I didn’t know that there is any restriction of offering VDSL by Telstra under the existing NBN agreement outside the NBN fiber footprint.
All Telstra’s structural separation agreement requires is regarding DSL is:
DSL product equivalence commitments which
require that where Telstra develops new network
capability (delivered as a layer 2 connection
service) which is used to support enhanced DSL
product functionality, or where Telstra offers a mass
market naked DSL product, Telstra must also make
an equivalent wholesale version of the network
capability upgrade or naked DSL product available
to wholesale customers; pg 34
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls795-nom-em-voting.pdf
Thus there is nothing except Telsra’s inertia keeping them from offering VDSL right now to country towns.
I just guess Telstra doesn’t want to innovate without being paid for it.
“Small changes I could accept, but the changes to the NBNCo Corporate Plan are huge. Based on the maps released by NBNCo for stage 2 prior to the 2010 Federal Election, I should already have fibre. If I checkout the NBNCo Rollout Map, the current estimate is 2018. If we trended out the changes, then the Coalition estimate of $90 billion would look optimistic.”
Not really. Initially the capex requirement was $42 Billion, and it’s down to what $37 billion three years later.
I’d be happy for that decreasing trend to continue. But I’m in the same situation with delays in rollout. That’s area where we agree at least.
“When I compare the end result of the two plans. It is very clear that the Coalition plan:
* has a minimum speed that is more than 4 times faster”
Assuming no throttling of speeds to meet NBN equivalent pricing as per Coalition policy (pg 8), and ignoring the upto 1.2 million houses which could be left with little improvement under the 90% clause.
” * fibre is still available”
If it’s commercially viable, which there is no guarantee as opposed to the labor plan.
” * is prioritising areas of need first (unlike Labor who are overbuilding HFC areas first)”
I didn’t know that Geraldton, Mandurah, and Tasmania had HFC….. And what about those people, like Renai, who can’t get HFC now but you’d deny any improvement to?
” * provides better services to rural Australia”
Only if Telstra wants them to, which could have happened already. I think this is a case of a revealed preference regarding future country upgrades.
> Well, you get to keep the same number if you get a fixed line, which for businesses is important for repeat custom. The aged would probably like to keep their fixed lines. Alarms, lifts, and other simple data connections would also need fixed lines, at least initially, for their respective communications.
The number of businesses without an internet connection would be vanishlingly small and from that subset you need to exclude those without mobiles. As for alarms, etc. have you by chance heard of ATAs?
> Thus there is nothing except Telsra’s inertia keeping them from offering VDSL right now to country towns.
The issue with rural towns is backhaul. OPEL would have solved that problem and the regional broadband backhaul project has mostly solved it. If you tracked the rollout of ISPs like Internode you would have noticed that DSLAMs were enabled shortly after competitive backhaul arrived.
> Not really. Initially the capex requirement was $42 Billion, and it’s down to what $37 billion three years later.
That only required an $11 billion dollar payment to Telstra for use of duct work. The difficulties with contractors suggests that the cost of the roll out will increase. The roll out in SA & WA is a mess at the moment.
> And what about those people, like Renai, who can’t get HFC now but you’d deny any improvement to?
In a national government run project, the priority should be to areas of greatest need. Most people would agree that suburbs established after 1970 have the slowest broadband, because Telstra ran cables further from the exchange and installed RIMs.
>> ” * provides better services to rural Australia”
> Only if Telstra wants them to, which could have happened already. I think this is a case of a revealed preference regarding future country upgrades.
A lack of competitive backhaul is the biggest issue.
We probably also agree on our dislike of Telstra. It is worth pointing out the only reason Labor considered FTTN is that Telstra refused to put in a reasonable bid for FTTN and Labor realised the FTTP was the only alternative. A more sensible option would have been to follow NZ and split Telstra. It is becoming increasingly clear that the $11 billion that Labor are paying Telstra will be used to undermine competition.
The number of businesses without an internet connection would be vanishlingly small and from that subset you need to exclude those without mobiles. As for alarms, etc. have you by chance heard of ATAs?
So in effect you’re saying they got an assumption wrong? What does the plan clearly say about when this happens they will adjust prices accordingly.
Say it with me…. the business plan is not set in stone.
The issue with rural towns is backhaul. OPEL would have solved that problem and the regional broadband backhaul project has mostly solved it. If you tracked the rollout of ISPs like Internode you would have noticed that DSLAMs were enabled shortly after competitive backhaul arrived.
This is true, but you do realise that rural towns tend to cost more capita to offer VDSL to? This is why the Coalition plan… doesn’t, at least in its current iteration.
That only required an $11 billion dollar payment to Telstra for use of duct work. The difficulties with contractors suggests that the cost of the roll out will increase. The roll out in SA & WA is a mess at the moment.
One contractor who they stopped working with. Hmm, me thinks you are looking for problems that aren’t there.
In a national government run project, the priority should be to areas of greatest need. Most people would agree that suburbs established after 1970 have the slowest broadband, because Telstra ran cables further from the exchange and installed RIMs.
You didn’t answer his question. What about people like Renai, who have inadequate infrastructure within an HFC footprint but can’t get HFC? Saying who you’d fix first doesn’t address the question of “the people are not provisioned in the current plan, what about them?”
Hmm, me thinks you are looking for problems that aren’t there.
No, he’s looking at problems that effect him, he’s in an area that wont get either NBN apart from wireless/satellite.
A lack of competitive backhaul is the biggest issue.
not really. Conroy floated a plan to “fix” back haul and basically everyone canned him for it, stating that there is plenty of dark fibre.
But I guess backing the FTTN eases any real problems there anyway, considering it’ll only use between 25%-50% of what FTTP would need (until the 1Gbps FTTP plans come in anyway, then it’s an even bigger “saving”).
I’ll add the following to already said:
Backhaul constraints are primarily driven by data throughput, not peak speeds. Have you calculated how much time someone with a 1Gbps and 100GB plan would actual spend transfering data? In countries where quotas don’t exist your argument might have merit, but not in Australia.
Newsflash: countries that don’t have quota still require RSPs to pay for backhaul. The reason they don’t have quota is not because backhaul is “cheap”, it’s because they have decided that the majority of users will use a negligible amount and they can afford to make assumptions about average usage.
The only reason this sort of model doesn’t work in Australia is because all of the leechers automatically go for Unlimited Plans, meaning that the average usage of people on “Unlimited Plans” is higher than those on quotas. This is why TPG can offer Unlimited quite well, because they have the resources to do it. In a country when Unlimited is the “norm”, any provider could offer Unlimited because they won’t be biased towards heavy users by offering Unlimited Plans.
What does this all mean? Once you reach a threshold the backhaul cost is now driven by peak speed, not throughput, because, as Simon Hackett has pointed out you need to have a minimum of about twice the speed you’re planning to offer. Now if most people are using very little, as you so rightly pointed out by saying someone on a 1Gbps plan will only “max” their connection for a relatively short period of time.
So ISPs will have to buy a 2Gbps pipe in backhaul and never have it loaded to capacity for any significant period of time because they don’t have enough users, this will, as I have been trying to tell you, inflate demand for backhaul causing a price rise as backhaul providers scamble to get more capacity, meanwhile consumers are forced to pay through the teeth for Broadband speeds a very small percentage of them actually fully utilise.
A more sensible model is to offer progressively faster speeds over time, as you get more and more users, thus allowing the backhaul purchased to be a more accurate reflection of actual usage. Which is exactly what NBNCo will encourage with their current model. Very few people will have 1Gbps, but that’s because (and unless there is a new technology coming out soon to change it) very few people actually need 1Gbps.
In effect you’ve been complaining this whole time that 121 PoIs makes 1Gbps not viable, and what I think you have failed to realise is that given the population of Australia, and the current demand we have for Broadband, even if they had stuck to the 14 PoIs, 1Gbps still would not be viable.
The only way we could do it is to give everyone 1Gbps by default, but that has it’s own problems, namely, how do you cross-subside fairly? How do you let competition exist on top of a uniform platform?
I would rather take the reduction in speed in exchange for a solid competition framework.
>Who would actually order a voice only service on fibre with the NBN?
My Grandma, My Brother in Laws Parents, my Wife’s mother. That’s without thinking about it.
>A mobile phone would be cheaper and more reliable.
The aforementioned people prefer landlines. I have mobiles and a Landline, my Sisters have landlines and mobiles, my parents have landlines and mobiles etc etc etc….
It is of course possible that my family is not an indicative example.
>The simple existence of plans under 100Mbps should give you an indication that Labor’s NBN contains more spin than reality.
What? That doesn’t make sense, so because there are more options on the FTTP it is spin? What? Can you please explain that. As far as I understand it, anyone can get the 1gbps on FTTP if they want it. Whereas on the FTTN they will only guarantee 50mbps.
Please explain clearly what you mean.
>Quigley has acknowledged the only reason 1Gbps plans were announced just before the last election was to match Google Fibre’s offering. Everyone should acknowledge that even with a 1Gbps headline speed, that Labor’s NBN is not even close to what is available on Google Fibre.
I had never heard that, and ultimately who cares, it is not important. If we are going into he said she said type stuff, there is plenty of rubbish on both sides.
>This needs to be balanced with many small regional towns that under Labor have only the prospect of wireless when VDSL (or even ADSL2+) would provide better performance.
Um how is that different under the FTTN????
Mmmm Fresh meat.
@mwyres, @renailemay Careful or the natives may turn on you.
I’m only sad that Renai didn’t write something to this effect. We all know the significant difference between the two policies. Even Liberals know that.
Which network do you want to use in the next 20 years? Speak up and make it known because if you don’t we will lose Labour’s NBN vision and we will be mired in half baked solutions for the next 20.
It’s dreadful its come to this. The coalition disgust me with there fraudband, appropriately named. Even current figures show the huge growth rate expected over the next few years. They are just mad.
The most amazing part is Malcolm hasn’t even costed in the price of remediating the copper in the ground. It is going to cost billions.
Turnbull doesn’t need to do it you have done it for him, ‘billions’ you say, what deep and meaningful research is that based on?
This incessant need to obfuscate the cost of the copper network as an irrelevance defies logic, when your prefered solution leverages it.
In order for the NBNco to access the copper, there will be a cost. There will continue to be a cost, as there is today to maintain it. These are not insignificant numbers. It’s not an insignificant point.
Note — if you’re going to argue how much it might be, then you have already conceded there would be a cost in the first place. Just sayin’.
Fibroid
Asking a lot of questions but providing little answers.
That’s because I didn’t say it will cost billions to remediate the copper to a FTTN standard.
So how much will it cost, as it won’t be $b’s and you claims to have all the answers?
He doesn’t have any answers, he just has talking points…
This is how it works, pro Labor NBN anti Coalition fans love pulling massively exaggerated figures out of the air, when asked where the figures come from it is surprise surprise met with silence.
The best retort is ‘well where are your figures then’, but you see I don’t have access to any proper analysis of such figures and I’m not prepared to just pluck them out of the air for the sake of making anti Labor pro Coalition counter points.
In this example the dollars required to bring the copper up to FTTN standard can only be provided by the company that owns it, Telstra, until then quoting emotive figures like ‘billions’ is total conjecture.
Having said all of that I don’t expect it to stop, as we are about two months out from the election with only one week of the current Parliament sitting you can almost feel the manic frenzy to try and land some desperate last minute blows on the Coalition policy from the pro Labor NBN supporters
You do realise a lot of the FTTH supporters on here normally vote Liberal and even more don’t really care about politics. It is a tech forum
“bring the copper up to FTTN standard can only be provided by the company that owns it, Telstra, until then quoting emotive figures like ‘billions’ is total conjecture.”
I think it’s a pretty good guess. If maintenance is about $1B a year currently, any works to improve the condition of the copper as it is today could easily be “billions”. Not one cent is in the plan for this work.
.”land some desperate last minute blows on the Coalition policy from the pro Labor NBN supporters”
I among many am a Liberal supporter, bar this election. As much to do with Abbott as the NBN. The blows come because technically their plan is vastly inferior and much more costly over a 10 year plus period. Not politics, not party support, but looking at the policy regardless of whose it is. Can you not see that people do base decissions on policies and not blind political ideology? Well maybe you can’t. I have not seen you conceed anything in the current NBN is in any way good.
+1000
Plus I have other concerns that I consider are far more serious for our future.
The Pied Piper has been playing and the Lemmings blindly believe and follow
@Lionel
‘You do realise a lot of the FTTH supporters on here normally vote Liberal and even more don’t really care about politics. It is a tech forum’
I have no idea how you know this, and why it is significant anyway, no doubt we have FTTH supporters who vote Labor, we have Coalition NBN supporters who vote Coalition and every variation in between.
‘I think it’s a pretty good guess.’
So guesses forms the basis of your opinion these days, well that’s easy, if guessing underpins the Coalition vs Labor NBN debate these days I will guess it’s a pretty bad guess it will cost billions to remediate the copper, but then I’m only guessing.
‘ If maintenance is about $1B a year currently, any works to improve the condition of the copper as it is today could easily be “billions”. Not one cent is in the plan for this work.’
That’s because Telstra/Coalition NBN Co negotiations have not started yet, the Coalition still have to win Government, that’s why ‘not one cent is in the plan for this work’ currently guesstimated at billions, apparently guesses as long as you put ‘good’ in front of it is enough to see off FTTN well before the election.
‘Well maybe you can’t. I have not seen you conceed anything in the current NBN is in any way good.’
I see the Labor rollout of FTTH to 93% of residences as a overly expensive time consuming extravagance, I particularly don’t like the compulsory shutdown of existing working fixed line infrastructure to try and ensure this NBN rollout has some validity in takeup.
“I have no idea how you know this, and why it is significant anyway”
Because people posting on this forum have said so many times. It is significant because you keep claiming FTTH supporters are Labor supporters. It is very dismissive to do so. Do you do it because you support FTTN because you are a “rabid Liberal supporter”?
“So guesses forms the basis of your opinion these days, well that’s easy”
No, guesses are based on a bit of common sense that I think anyone could apply.
We are not looking for exact figures. But based on current maintenance costs a reasonable guess could be made. It’s better than dismissing any cost because there is no exact figure and pretending the cost doesn’t exist.
“That’s because Telstra/Coalition NBN Co negotiations have not started yet, the Coalition still have to win Government, that’s why ‘not one cent is in the plan for this work’ currently guesstimated at billions, apparently guesses as long as you put ‘good’ in front of it is enough to see off FTTN well before the election”
There are a lot of things in the plans that are estimates (best guesses). Why not the money to be paid to remmediate copper? Leaving it out is surely going to mean a budget overrun. I am sure Telstra won’t do work on it for nothing.
“I see the Labor rollout of FTTH to 93% of residences as a overly expensive time consuming extravagance, I particularly don’t like the compulsory shutdown of existing working fixed line infrastructure to try and ensure this NBN rollout has some validity in takeup.”
And is something that will need to be done pretty much as the FTTN rollout is completed anyway. Your argument only works if all internet growth magically stops. You are sticking your head in the sand. At least this response show some thought and intelligence. The preceed stuff was just stupid schoolyard crap.
Well put Lionel. I vote based on policy and have voted pretty well for every party at one time or another, and this time, with the policies they have, the Libs just aren’t value for money.
Yes but unfortunately, as there aren’t figures (which, as a side issue we really need to know about anyway)… primarily refusing to accept any figure and therefore basically factoring $0 is just as bad, if not worse than exaggerating.
You do accept that ther will be a cost?
“You really think the “plan” the Coalition have come up with is set in stone as well? No, it isn’t, they will probably have set backs, and not meet their orignal commitments either.”
In fact the Coalition’s broadband has already changed umpteen times and it hasn’t even started yet, so..
Sorry musn’t have replied (to NK).
‘In fact the Coalition’s broadband has already changed umpteen times and it hasn’t even started yet, ‘
I am only aware of ONE Coalition Policy release in April, how many changes have you seen since then?
Policy != Plan. The latter was a series of thought-bubbles and feel-pinions.
It’s only as the election was announced that Turnbull and Abbott actually drummed up some kind of alternative policy.
So, technically there’s been one policy. But On the back of half-a-dozen or so early comments and suggestions.
But, you know, keep on obfuscating the point. I’m sure you can bury all comments as irrelevant, right?
Drummed up an alternative policy to what exactly? – the phrase ‘alternative policy’ indicates they had one policy and the April document is a ‘alternative’ to what ever they had before, which in reality was ocassional media mumblings about using the existing infrastructure copper and HFC.
So what Coalition policy did we end up with? – using the copper and existing HFC.
http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Broadband%20and%20Telecommunications%20Policy.pdf
Yes I read that, how does that conflict with what I said?
Hungry again? Want another spoon-feed? Ok then, open wide.
Now, reread the 2010 policy and you will see it is different to the current one.
Then reread your first question.
You can swallow now.
It’s not about money with the Fiberal Party its about keeping the likes of Murdoch happy. If the fiberal party get in which looks likely Tel$tra will be the big winner. MT thinks he can get the copper for free off Tel$tra. I believe he will. The Tax Payer will pay for Tel$tra upgrade of there crap copper. Tel$tra will own the last mile of copper and we will be paying for line rental forever. A huge win for Tel$tra. I get why MT and TA support FTTN as it keeps their friends happy, a good Job after politics. Murdoch Media rubbishes the NBN as he knows he will lose billions of dollars. What I don’t get is the brain dead morons that get nothing out of the fiberal party’s plan except the fact that because they agree with Murdoch they must be some big business hotshot and this goes with their EGO.
Great discussion
I get my NBN any day now suckers.
Abbott and Costurnbull are knockers not doers.
Every thing you do attracts a knocker
I would like to see more knocking of the knockers.
What Abbot will do after D Day will be important. I do not believe for a moment Abbot and Turnbull believe their own arguments and it will be very unlikely the NBN FTTP will stop but I think for their hubris they will make a cosmetic change, Abbotts NBN as different from Conroys NBN.
Comments are closed.