FTTN or FTTH? We’re “agnostic”, says Telstra

1. Telstra stands to ‘win’ in both scenarios, it’s just that they win in different ways. Under FTTH they finally get rid of the copper network and the headaches associated with it. Under FTTN, they’ll be in a position to dictate terms to the government and squeeze as much money as they can out of a dead asset (the aforementioned copper). According to the Coalition’s policy, they expect FTTN deployment to be in full swing within 12 months of getting elected. The only way I can see this (somewhat unrealistic) time frame being met is to expedite negotiations by basically giving Telstra whatever the hell they ask for.

   • We’re “agnostic”, says Telstra
     (complete bull dust).
     The NBN kills Telstra monopoly on fixed telecommunications, but under the coalitions broadband policy Telstra is a big winner.
     This is why Telstra’s share price has gone up 50% in the past year with the coalition bound to win the election. (Investors with half a brain realize this fact).
     Under the coalition government, Telstra will use its war chest of taxpayers money to build a fibre to the home network around the coalitions FTTN taking away all of the profitable customers.
     This will leave the coalition’s $29+ Billion FTTN asset worth nothing and in fact a liability.

     I know a Telstra technician who has worked at Telstra for 25 years at many different locations and all they have done for the past decade is just patch up the copper network.
     I asked him about the state of Telstra’s copper networked and he said “It’s Stuffed, It’s a mess”.

     • @Carl Hansen

       ‘The NBN kills Telstra monopoly on fixed telecommunications, but under the coalitions broadband policy Telstra is a big winner.’

       The NBN concept either Labor or Coalition creates a new monopoly it’s called the NBN Co, Telstra is also a big winner under the current Labor policy, unless you call $11b to shut down the copper so everyone is forced onto the new monopoly kid on the block the NBN Co FTTP petty cash.

       Also it is yet to be determined if Telstra will get anymore than the Labor agreed to $11b under a Coalition Government.

       ‘This is why Telstra’s share price has gone up 50% in the past year with the coalition bound to win the election. (Investors with half a brain realize this fact).’

       If you read financial analysts reasons for the Telstra share price rise it has very little to do with what you said and everything to do with the boom in mobiles and wireless data and the very high ARPU’s associated with wireless data, fixed line ARPU’s is not where the revenue is in fact it is falling relative to wireless especially in SIO’s.

       ‘Under the coalition government, Telstra will use its war chest of taxpayers money to build a fibre to the home network around the coalitions FTTN taking away all of the profitable customers.’

       What? how does that work where any competing infrastructure under Coalition policy must be offered wholesale to all access seekers at NBN Co wholesale pricing approved by the ACCC?

       ‘This will leave the coalition’s $29+ Billion FTTN asset worth nothing and in fact a liability.’

       Well it won’t because it cannot under Coalition policy work like you said anyway, and secondly the $29b is not JUST for FTTN.

       ‘I know a Telstra technician who has worked at Telstra for 25 years at many different locations ……..’

       ahh the old anecdotal ‘I know a Telstra tech’ story, if the Telstra copper cannot support a minimum of 25Mbps it will be re-mediated , if it is beyond copper remediation then the Coalition NBN Co will rollout FTTP.

       If the Telstra copper as a whole is beyond supporting Fibre to the Node it makes you wonder why they proposed it as a upgrade to their infrastructure in 2009, also you wouldn’t get statements made four weeks out from the election such as” FTTN or FTTH? We’re “agnostic”, says Telstra”.

       Telstra know what the Coalition policy states in terms of minimum speeds and the 2016 and 2019 timelines, any formal agreement with Telstra would be for those speeds to be met, if they cannot do it with a FTTN rollout you would have thought you would have heard all about it by now.

       • @Fibroid

         unless you call $11b to shut down the copper so everyone is forced onto the new monopoly kid on the block the NBN Co FTTP petty cash.

         $5 billion. Not $11 Billion. $5 billion is for copper shutdown. $4 billion for infrastructure hire (which will stay the same under the Coalition) and $2 billion direct from government for 000, TSUMA etc (same under Coalition government). You are the one who constantly prefers technical points. It is $5 billion, not $11 billion for customer migration.

         Also it is yet to be determined if Telstra will get anymore than the Labor agreed to $11b under a Coalition Government.

         Evidence? The contract sees out all copper and is for 35 years for the infrastructure. Unless you have evidence otherwise, that is gross conjecture….something you regularly complain about.

         If you read financial analysts reasons for the Telstra share price rise it has very little to do with what you said

         Indeed. And it has only partially what to do with what you said about wireless- if YOU had read Telstra’s financials you’d know Telstra’s ARPU on wireless has been declining in growth over the last 3 years significantly. It is ACTUALLY because of the GUARANTEED $11 billion from this government’s NBN, not a theoretical Coalition government’s.

         What? how does that work where any competing infrastructure under Coalition policy must be offered wholesale to all access seekers at NBN Co wholesale pricing approved by the ACCC?

         Deary me, you’re getting a bit wrong today Fibroid. Under THIS government that is the case. Under ABBOTT’S government, it won’t be. Turnbull has said they will remove that requirement as far as I’m aware. That is a VERY onerous requirement and Turnbull has said that retards competitiveness.

         If the Telstra copper as a whole is beyond supporting Fibre to the Node it makes you wonder why they proposed it as a upgrade to their infrastructure in 2009

         2006. Not 2009. And that was for 12Mbps, not 25Mbps.

         • @seven_tech

           ‘$5 billion. Not $11 Billion. $5 billion is for copper shutdown.’

           ok point taken, I have not seen that breakup, it should be phrased ‘around half of which is too shut down the copper and HFC for broadband’.

           ‘Evidence? The contract sees out all copper and is for 35 years for the infrastructure. Unless you have evidence otherwise, that is gross conjecture….something you regularly complain about.

           Evidence that it has ‘yet to be determined’ is conjecture?

           ‘Indeed. And it has only partially what to do with what you said about wireless- if YOU had read Telstra’s financials you’d know Telstra’s ARPU on wireless has been declining in growth over the last 3 years significantly.’

           I don’t think so.

           “The company added 1.2 million new mobile customers in the last year against background of a slowing mobile market with one of the highest mobile penetration rates in the world. Telstra has more than 15 million retail mobile customers on its network.”

           “Telstra’s fixed line business, especially its high margin copper network, continues its decline as more customers opt for mobile and voice over internet services. It lost more than 300,000 fixed line customers last year.”

           http://www.theage.com.au/business/earnings-season/mobile-growth-boosts-telstra-profit-20130808-2rhj4.html

           ‘Deary me, you’re getting a bit wrong today Fibroid. Under THIS government that is the case. Under ABBOTT’S government, it won’t be. Turnbull has said they will remove that requirement as far as I’m aware. That is a VERY onerous requirement and Turnbull has said that retards competitiveness.

           Deary me no, you need to read Coalition policy on Page 10 Infrastructure Competition:

           ” The owners/operators of new high speed BB access networks will, however, be required to make them available to access seekers on non-discriminatory terms at wholesale prices for reference products equivalent to NBN Co’s wholesale price caps (or similar price commitments agreed by NBN Co and the ACCC).

           ‘2006. Not 2009. And that was for 12Mbps, not 25Mbps.’

           It was also for the Labor RFP in 2009, so once again if Telstra know what Coalition policy is for minimum speeds and Telstra know that FTTN is part of their proposed rollout and the copper as a whole is not capable of supporting a min of 25Mbps under FTTN of which Telstra will have to agree to, why haven’t they said so yet?

           Why make a statement like ” Telstra has declared itself “agnostic” as to whether Labor or the Coalition has the best method of deploying faster broadband under the National Broadband Network project, stating that it is “very happy” to work with either major side of politics” – four weeks out from a election the result of which maybe having to provide infrastructure to roll out FTTN as per the speeds in Coalition policy?

         • @Fibroid

           Evidence that it has ‘yet to be determined’ is conjecture?

           Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

           Yet to be determined does not fall under the category of evidence. It is, itself, conjecture.

           I don’t think so.

           Fibroid, you indicated Telstra specifically had a high share price due to the “high ARPU’s from wireless data”. ARPU on Telstra’s mobile networks grew some 30% from 2007 up till 2011 and that growth has declined. Telstra ARPU on PostPaid went from $63.95 in 2011 to $61.51 in 2012. On Prepaid it went from $16.89 in 2011 to $16.87 in 2012. This indicates you are incorrect. ARPUs have DECLINED in real terms over the last 2 years but Telstra’s share price has DRAMATICALLY increased in the same time period. Therefore, it is factors OTHER than mobile ARPUs that have driven the share price….such as the guaranteed $11 billion from the NBN.

           Deary me no, you need to read Coalition policy on Page 10 Infrastructure Competition:

           You know where it says: for reference products equivalent to NBN Co’s wholesale price caps?

           Yeah….the reference product is 12Mbps & associated bundles. That’s in their policy. So, what that means is, ANY infrastructure built has to provide 12Mbps at the capped price and bundles at similar prices…but ONLY FOR 12Mbps. ANYTHING else is fair game. So, sorry, but that is an irrelevant “exclusion” when talking about future competitiveness in ongoing upward speeds and quotas.

           It was also for the Labor RFP in 2009,

           2007-2008: http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/110014/Summary_observations_for_website.pdf

           The RFP USED Telstra’s 2006 bid for FTTN. That was my point.

           and the copper as a whole is not capable of supporting a min of 25Mbps under FTTN of which Telstra will have to agree to, why haven’t they said so yet?

           Why make a statement like ” Telstra has declared itself “agnostic”

           You don’t know Telstra very well do you….Telstra will say what it is in Telstra’s best interest to say. They don’t care how much it costs the government. Telstra have said they will work with either government, which is politically sensible. They have NEVER stated 71% of their copper is capable of 25Mbps guaranteed. Ever.

       • “if it is beyond copper remediation then the Coalition NBN Co will rollout FTTP.”

         For 29.5b?

         • What do you know about the state of the copper AUSTRALIA WIDE that indicates the Coalition will blow more than $29.5b because of remediation of copper for FTTN, and because the areas where remediation is not cost effective is so massive as a percentage of the whole targeted for FTTN, FTTP is the only solution?

         • I did not make any statement, I asked a question which you have not replied to. For good measure I will ask it a bit more precisely and differently.

           If the state of the copper is not fully established, in terms of the extent to which it needs remediation, will the Coalition be able to do so under a 29.5b cap if the condition is such that it will increase the percentage of people on FTTP, given MT’s constant assertion that FTTP cost so much more to deploy?

         • I don’t know, I’m not heading up a Coalition NBN Co in 2014 sitting at the table discussing the FTTN rollout with Telstra and determining how much copper requires remediation and how much of that percentage that requires remediation requires FTTP, and if that costing is significant enough that a increase to the $29.5b figure is required.

           I assume most Labor NBN supporters are comfortable with the adjustment in costing figures upward from the 2010 NBN Co Business Plan to the 2012 NBN Co Business plan and the downward adjustment of rollout figures, and again the substantial adjustment downward of rollout figures as recently as April this year, so I assume there is some latitude allowed here if the Coalition require it.

         • @Fibroid

           Sure. I believe the total CAPEX was adjusted by 3.9%. So if their CAPEX moves by more than 4%, or approx. $820 million dollars on $20.5 billion, then they have ‘failed’ as badly as Labor…

         • Well it wasn’t just CAPEX alone was it, it was OPEX and required total funding and the rollout figures were adjusted downward twice.

         • Well it wasn’t just CAPEX alone was it, it was OPEX and required total funding and the rollout figures were adjusted downward twice.

           I’m curious, if Malcolm’s study/report/audit shows his plan will cost the same as the NBN, what do you think they should do?

         • “I don’t know, I’m not heading up a Coalition NBN Co in 2014 sitting at the table discussing the FTTN rollout with Telstra”

           You forever complain about you are being treated and how people debate, and this is really the best you can do? It is more than evident that there is a big question mark on what the final cost of remediation could be, and of its potential impact on the bottom line.

           You don’t need to be heading the Coalition to answer the question. In fact, you often speak on behalf of the Coalition, sometimes anticipate what it might do, and often explain what it intentions really are. What is remarkable, however, is that whenever you cannot find a satisfactory answer to a question which raise doubt about the policy, you suddenly lose you ability to answer, speculate or anticipate.

           Finally, do you concede that there are issues with the condition of the copper and that the many instances of anecdotal evidence point to the fact that there is, a least, a need to evaluate its extent and the cost of its remediation?

         • Politeness please, or I start banning.

       • “ahh the old anecdotal ‘I know a Telstra tech’ story”

         The problem with your comment is that whilst it is true that one anecdotal example is a poor form of evidence, akin to a sample of one in quantitative research. However, several sources of anecdotal examples are just as valid, and in fact sometimes a more useful form of research in qualitative research than statistical averages.

         There have been indeed many reports from Telstra, former Testra, and non Telstra’s employees which shows that the information is reliable as it is coming from people in a position to know and understand the extent of the problems, in different parts of Australia. Add to this the many customers who have reported problems with their connection and most researchers would be confident that the problem is real and fairly widespread. The true extent of this, will only be revealed after either a complete inspection of the last mile or progressively when attempt to deploy FTTN in the field will demonstrate how often it is not possible, viable or economically advantageous.

         • The problem is that the anecdotal stuff needs to be turned into something significant in terms of statistics and costing that shows a FTTN rollout is just not feasible.

           Nothing I have seen so far coupled with recent comments by Telstra to the media about the prospect of a FTTN rollout indicates the quality of their lines is a FTTN deal breaker.

         • “The problem is that the anecdotal stuff needs to be turned into something significant in terms of statistics and costing that shows a FTTN rollout is just not feasible.”

           It does not need to be turned into anything. It shows that there is a problem which needs to be investigated, because it has the potential to increase the bottom line. If FTTP is so much more costly than FTTN (as claimed by MT), then the more FTTP used instead of FTTN, then the more expensive the network could become.

           MT, it must be said, has not really costed its policy. All he has done is propose a 29.5b cap. So either you spend more to remedy, if needed, or you reduce the scope of the network.

           “Nothing I have seen so far coupled with recent comments by Telstra to the media about the prospect of a FTTN rollout indicates the quality of their lines is a FTTN deal breaker.”

           As far as you seeing something, it reminds me of the saying “There’s none so blind as those who will not see”. As for Telstra, why would they say anything about the condition of the copper? They have a potential buyer who has to have it, at all cost, to achieve his aim.

           So, you post shows that you have a very limited understanding two things:

           Research and commercial negotiation.

         • ‘ It shows that there is a problem which needs to be investigated, because it has the potential to increase the bottom line.’

           Anecdotally there MAY be a problem, which is not the same as there IS a problem.

           ‘ If FTTP is so much more costly than FTTN (as claimed by MT), then the more FTTP used instead of FTTN, then the more expensive the network could become.’

           When it is not just a ‘(as claimed by MT)’, it is a known fact from Telco’s rolling out both infrastructures, obviously it is in the interest of pro Labor NBN supporters to insinuate this aspect of a Coalition FTTP rollout is much higher than the Coalition have planned for, but of course we don’t know that and if it is of any significance to the Coalition NBN budget anyway.

           ‘MT, it must be said, has not really costed its policy. All he has done is propose a 29.5b cap. So either you spend more to remedy, if needed, or you reduce the scope of the network.’

           So you may have to spend more to remedy it like Labor has done, why do you and others hold the Coalition to a fixed set of boundaries that the Labor NBN rollout have crossed already many times?

           ‘As for Telstra, why would they say anything about the condition of the copper? They have a potential buyer who has to have it, at all cost, to achieve his aim.’

           This potential buyer has minimum speeds and the timelines for those speeds to be met set out as part of their policy which has been known by all since the policy release in April.

           I know about them so do you and so does the media reporting on the NBN, so you are saying Telstra has no idea what is in the Coalition policy out in the public domain and any agreement with the Coalition NBN Co for the use of the copper for FTTN will not stipulate those speeds as a primary contractual condition for the use of the Telstra copper?

         • “So you may have to spend more to remedy it like Labor has done, why do you and others hold the Coalition to a fixed set of boundaries that the Labor NBN rollout have crossed already many times?”

           No one in the pro NBN camp that I have seen has said it isn’t disappointing BUT it isn’t the end of the world that the NBN costs increased.

           Conversely, no one in the pro NBN camp that I have seen has said it will be the end of the world if MT’s costs increase, either.

           Government monies (Labor or Coalition) are government monies neither should be squandered…

           So please stop trying to turn everything around, because you simply don’t want to admit MT’s plan will either have to be scaled back in some way to fit under the $29.5B or extra dollars spent IF things don’t go as planned and for example, extra remediation is required.

           We all know it’s an area those who oppose the NBN on political grounds try to avoid like the plague, because with “government spends already being very similar for both plans” any blow out in FttN costs would make FttN more expensive in terms of government monies and really demonstrate the stupidity of doing FttN, especially when FttP is already underway.

           But hey that’s the partial political circus in action…

         • Anecdotally there MAY be a problem, which is not the same as there IS a problem.

           A not insignificant amount of users are having issues. Therefore there is a problem. There is no may here. What andeotal evidence does not tell us is the the extent of the problem, and if this problem requires corrective action to recitify.

           If you’re a car manufacture and you get muiplute reports of brake failure from a random and well distributed sample, you don’t turn around and say “there is no evidence of a problem here”. No, you say “this issue requires further investigation”, and you issue a volunatry recall.

           Telstra faults are well reported and well distributed, there is a problem. If this problem is serious enough to impact MTs proposed rollout is what is yet to be determined, not the exisitence of the problem in the first place.

           I am getting sick and tired of you wiggling you way out of copper issues by trying to say that because we don’t have hard, undesputiable evidence, that the copper network is “rotten” or whatever adjective is chosen to represent the bad state of the copper network. It doesn’t work like that.

           It’s fine for you to say “We don’t know the extent of network”, which most of the time you do actually say, but it is another thing entirely to try and tell us that we need to give you undenial evidence before you’ll take our concerns seriously.

           When it is not just a ‘(as claimed by MT)’, it is a known fact from Telco’s rolling out both infrastructures, obviously it is in the interest of pro Labor NBN supporters to insinuate this aspect of a Coalition FTTP rollout is much higher than the Coalition have planned for, but of course we don’t know that and if it is of any significance to the Coalition NBN budget anyway.

           First off, the idea that just because other providers are doing hybrid rollouts indicates that it wil cheaper in Australia for NBNCo (who isn’t an incumbent) is a fallacy, it is called “bandwagoning”. Just because everyone else are doing it does not automatically mean that we should too. There are other factors, which you ignore like the fact that NBNCo does not own the CAN and will have to acquire it.

           The monetary impact of this purchase or lease is yet to be determined, yes. That is a fair cristism. However, I must stress that Turnbull has picked winners in the technology utilised, a sin he in the past told Labor off for doing, this means that he has effectively (but not absolutely) commited to FTTN, even if the factors like acquiring the CAN do not work in his favour.

           So you may have to spend more to remedy it like Labor has done, why do you and others hold the Coalition to a fixed set of boundaries that the Labor NBN rollout have crossed already many times?

           It is not a double standard. Turnbull has promised that “the taxpayer backed protion will cost $29.5 billion”. He has drawn a line in the sand and said he is going to tell NBNCo “YOU SHALL NOT PASS” if they try an exceed it.

           Labor on the other hand have said “We are going to build FTTP to 93% of the country and we think the government backed portion will be $30.4 billion”. This is very different, they have said a policy goal, and an approximate budget. Going over the budget may annoy the hell out of fiscally concerned indivduals such as yourself, but they will not be breaking any promises if they do.

           This potential buyer has minimum speeds and the timelines for those speeds to be met set out as part of their policy which has been known by all since the policy release in April.

           I know about them so do you and so does the media reporting on the NBN, so you are saying Telstra has no idea what is in the Coalition policy out in the public domain and any agreement with the Coalition NBN Co for the use of the copper for FTTN will not stipulate those speeds as a primary contractual condition for the use of the Telstra copper?

           No they won’t, and further Telstra don’t have to do anything of the sort. It is actually not in their best interests to do that either. If Turnbull’s plan cannot be achieved using the CAN, the responsbity for that problem will fall squarely on NBNCo to rectify, not Telstra.

         • ” Anecdotally there MAY be a problem, which is not the same as there IS a problem.”

           Trying to change what I said won’t work. Problems ARE being reported, the only thing that needs to be assessed is the extent of the problem.

           ” it is in the interest of pro Labor NBN supporters”

           How about you start using the term ‘supporters of the current model”?

           “So you may have to spend more to remedy it like Labor has done, why do you and others hold the Coalition to a fixed set of boundaries that the Labor NBN rollout have crossed already many times?”

           NBNco, not Labor, does not have to replace the unsuitable copper, under the Coalition plan, it does. Also Labor did not have a cap of 29.5b. They costed their policy.

           This potential buyer has minimum speeds and the timelines for those speeds to be met set out as part of their policy which has been known by all since the policy release in April.

           What does this have to do with Telstra having the upper hand in the negotiation. Vendor wants bad, seller can play hardball. Negotiation 101.

           “any agreement with the Coalition NBN Co for the use of the copper for FTTN will not stipulate those speeds as a primary contractual condition for the use of the Telstra copper?”

           This has nothing to do with the speed. It has to do with unsuitable copper, full stop. There is no doubt some copper will be suitable. The question is how much, not how fast. This is buyer beware. The only way, the amount of unsuitable copper can be assessed accurately is by having a full inspection of the network and, as I have stated before, it can be done before buying or as the network progresses.
           Should it be done before, it surely would have an impact on delaying the roll out. Should it be done progressively, it will be discover tour into the unknown.

           Fibroid, frankly I know you see yourself as the defender of the Coalition against all these nasty Labor supporters, and you are prepared to go to any length to do so but could you please make an effort to come with better rebuttals or points. It is OK not to have all the answers. It is also OK to admit that the Coalition policy has some issues. If you could accept this, you may have a better chance to have people listen to you on occasions you make a valid point.

         • NightKhaos @ Observer

           Just answer this question, why would Telstra sit down with the Coalition NBN Co and negotiate the use of their copper for FTTN knowing what the Coalition policy is for minimum speeds at the key milestones of 2016 and 2019 and the contract would specify that, if in fact the copper as a whole was not up to supporting those minimum speeds without massive remediation at Telstra’s cost?

         • Wow ‘you” demand answers of others, really?

           As the others probably are shaking their heads in total disbelief, let me…

           If Telstra do a deal for their copper (that MT needs) it will be largely on Telstra’s terms and if I were Telstra guess what one of my terms would be in relation to remediation costs?

         • I agree with you that the condition of the copper is actually an “unknown” presently. So far the condition of it, from either side of the fence, is hot air and anecdotal basically.

           Until Malcolm does his reports, audits and studies, no one knows for sure except Telstra, and as a vested interest, colour me distrustful on what they say about it.

         • Wait, you want us to assume, in good faith, that Telstra’s a nice, upstanding citizen and will tell a person who is willing to offer them a lot of money to buy something off them that what they intend to do is probably not going to work and they should seriously reconsider it?

           While I like to assume the best of people, I never, and neither should you, assume the best of a corporations. While they won’t overtly do anything to sabotage Turnbull’s plan, they will not actively go out of their way to do what isn’t their responsibility.

           And doing a full audit of the state of the copper network, Fibroid, is NBNCo’s (under a Coalition government) responsibility. If the copper cable fails the audit, do you really think Telstra are going to say “Oh I’m sorry, I’ll replace that for you.”

           No, there is going to be a risk calculation. Turnbull, or some other faceless politician, is going to make an educated guess, but ultimately one plucked out of thin air, about how many lines they think will not actually be adequate.

           They’re smart people, but they could get it wrong, and as I said in my previous post Turnbull has a vested interest in delivering FTTN now even if the CBA doesn’t work out in FTTN’s favour.

         • You avoided the point about the minimum speeds as specified in Coalition policy, if Telstra sign a contract with the NBN Co stating the copper as a whole can support those minimum speeds under a FTTN infrastructure then find out later they underestimated the cost of remediation required to support those speeds than that’s Telstra’s problem.

         • Just answer this question, why would Telstra sit down with the Coalition NBN Co and negotiate the use of their copper for FTTN knowing what the Coalition policy is for minimum speeds at the key milestones of 2016 and 2019 and the contract would specify that, if in fact the copper as a whole was not up to supporting those minimum speeds without massive remediation at Telstra’s cost?

           And Malcolm’s guaranteed minimums are perfectly achievable, just not with the node distances he first stated (which started off at 800m). Which means his costs will actually need to be adjusted up.

           If he wants to use vectoring, he’ll need nodes at 400m, if he wants G.fast, that comes down to 100-150m. That’ll be a lot more nodes than he originally allowed for…

           I have no problem with that, but he needs to be honest about it, and go back and check his numbers.

         • No I didn’t. What happened you made an assumption that minimum speed terms will be in the contract to buy/lease the CAN from.

           I made no such assumption. I in fact assumed the null case: that ultimately the responsibility of the state of the copper rests with NBNCo. If NBNCo resolve this responsibility by insisting on a minimum performance term, or by doing a risk assessment as I suggested, is ultimately up to them.

           Stop trying to push the buck away from Turnbull just because it presents a risk. It is not only irrational, it is hypocritical considering how many times you have criticised the current NBN plan for the risks they are taking.

         • @Fibroid

           It wouldn’t be Telstras responsibility to test the line to 25Mbps. That would be NBNCo’s. Turnbull has clearly stated he would give that mandate to NBNCo. I think you would find no contract involving Telstra would ever list a specific speed. Simply that they provided consultation, labour and support for NBNCo. to build a network to their specifications. If NBNCo. make an assumption about copper in an area based on information Telstra has and it turns out to be wrong, NBNCo. bear the responsibility to fix it. Telstra are just paid to do the job.

           There is no onus on Telstra to guarantee 25Mbps. Only to build NBNCo’s network to NBNCo’s specifications. If they’re wrong with their specifications because of bad data, that’s NBNCo’s problem, not Telstra.

         • “why would Telstra sit down with the Coalition NBN Co and negotiate the use of their copper for FTTN knowing what the Coalition policy is for minimum speeds at the key milestones of 2016 and 2019 and the contract would specify that, if in fact the copper as a whole was not up to supporting those minimum speeds without massive remediation at Telstra’s cost?

           I already have but unless I agree with your incorrect assumption you will keep going your merry way. Let’s try again. The copper cannot be guaranteed to achieve anything. Some parts of the network could achieve these speeds, some won’t. This is why MT and you have suggested that if the copper wasn’t in a good enough condition, it would have to be remediated. That is replaced with fibre. For the contract to specify a given minimum speed, it would require an inspection of the WHOLE network. If it is discovered during the roll out, who pays for the remediation would have to be agreed upon by both parties. Do you honestly believe that Telstra are going to be generous when MT’s only other option is to continue with Labor’s plan?

2. “might be an unpopular opinion to put out there… that the telco does believe it will be possible to implement fibre to the node on its network”

   I don’t see why that would be unpopular, given enough money I’m sure they could do anything at all with it. The question is if they can do it with as little money as Turnbull is guessing.

   • I meant “given enough money I’m sure they could do anything at all with their network.”

     • or as opposed to Sol and the amigos getting more than enough money and doing three fifths of f..k all with the network…

       • @Duke

         Other than fast tracking the NextG rollout where Telstra is making the bulk of its revenue and getting heaps of customers transferring from wireless competitors frustrated with their performance and coverage, thereby increasing profit and the share price as defining the meaning of ‘doing three fifths of f..k all with the network…’…

         • Other than fast tracking the NextG rollout where Telstra is making the bulk of its revenue and getting heaps of customers transferring from wireless competitors frustrated with their performance and coverage

           This is the conundrum of Australian Telecommunications really, no one but Telstra is big enough to cover Australia, and no other company can get big enough in Australia because of Telstra taking all their customers.

           Ironically, it’s only the Australian government that created Telstra that can create a competitive environment against Telstra.

         • ;Ironically, it’s only the Australian government that created Telstra that can create a competitive environment against Telstra.’

           The irony is that the creation of the NBN may only serve to make Telstra even bigger, increase their profits, and lessen competition as ever more separate independent ISP’s are absorbed by larger ISP’s like iiNet.

         • You don’t think structurally separating Telstra, coupled with them no longer having a monopoly over the last mile, as well as increased RSP’s Australia wide (especially in areas where there is now only Telstra)… will offset the migration/pits and ducts payment?

         • The irony is that the creation of the NBN may only serve to make Telstra even bigger, increase their profits, and lessen competition as ever more separate independent ISP’s are absorbed by larger ISP’s like iiNet.

           That will depend on what deal Malcolm does to get Telstra on board…

3. “This might be an unpopular opinion to put out there, but in my view, it seems relatively clear from statements by Telstra executives over the past six months or so that the telco does believe it will be possible to implement fibre to the node on its network, and that it also believes it will be able to renegotiate its $13 billion contract with Telstra to incorporate that changed rollout model.”

   Well Duhh… how is that an unpopular opinion? It seems fairly obvious and straightforward.

   The question has never been ‘can we implement FTTN’ rather more along the lines of ‘is FTTN a good value investment’ or more specifically questions like ‘how much with Telstra charge to access their copper’.

4. “This might be an unpopular opinion to put out there, but in my view, it seems relatively clear from statements by Telstra executives over the past six months or so that the telco does believe it will be possible to implement fibre to the node on its network (snip for brevity)”

   Of course it is POSSIBLE. The technology is there and in use in other parts of the world. I don’t think anyone here would say it would not be impossible to put in. Given enough money, anything is possible.

   The question from the start is what is the best value network to put into place?

   Since the launch of the current NBN Policy and it’s implementation, the opposition has been running with it’s FTTN ‘policy’ (I’m being kind to them here) with the view of it being cheaper.

   The issue is that the costing holes in it are about (to borrow a phrase) Eleventy Billion dollars. The issue is that there is no clear guidelines on what happens when a section of copper is deemed to be unusable. In effect, there is a few nice thoughts on paper for the Coaliton but the solid detail is completely missing.

   In effect, they are asking us to ‘trust them’, and I never trust anyone who asks me to.

   • That’s not the point. Can people please stop turning every single vaguely NBN related discussion into a fanboy thread?

     The story is about Telstra’s attitude to the NBN, and their “agnosticism” is not very surprising. Sure, FTTH is “better” but there’s no reason for Telstra to care (that’s the point). For them as a business the outcome is almost the same either way – they get rid of the copper (or get paid to upkeep it, maybe) and resell services from NBNCo. Whether it’s fibre to the home or fibre to the node makes no difference to Telstra.

     • If you find the topic so irrelevant, you could always just… not participate.

       I do consider it relevant, and I see no problem with discussing it.

       Are there other kinds of comment to be made? If so, make them. I’m not sure why you wish to prevent others from following a different thread.

       For what it’s worth – I agree with you that Telstra doesn’t care (or let’s just say, doesn’t care MUCH) which broadband policy under whatever government goes ahead, they’ll continue to seek the best value for their shareholders.

       We aren’t Telstra though, so while it’s nice to know that Telstra will cooperate under a Coalition government, and that they’ll continue to seek the best value for their shareholders (these two ideas kind of pulling in different directions), we as Australians should continue to discuss the two policies, and what is the best policy, especially when there is an election coming up in less than four weeks.

5. Very diplomatic of Telstra, given that it was their stubborness that led us down the FTTH pathway in the first place.

   • Would you care to elaborate on the detail and the history of how this happened Damien?

6. telstra will be happy to work with either party because from either party they stand to make billions.

   from labor they already have a $13 Billion contract which sees them lease the pits and pipes and migrate their customers from the now overbuilt “valueless” copper.

   from the coalition that copper is no longer overbuilt and is certainly no longer valueless.
   they’ll be in a position to strong arm the government into a new deal that suits telstra shareholders first and foremost.

   • Or the Coalition can just offer to buy out the whole copper network for the same amount. What difference does it make to Telstra?

     • The difference is it isn’t valueless. It is Valueless to operate as a phone and internet network; but in terms of copper and wiring it is most certainly not valueless.

       Telstra could use the old copper network as backhaul for a new type of wireless network. Perhaps they deploy many small wireless nodes all running some high frequency low range wireless.

       Perhaps Telstra would just rip it up and sell it off.

       Either way; it has a value much greater than zero.

     • under the labor NBN the copper is valueless to NBN Co and therefore unsaleable by telstra.

       under the coalition NBN the copper is a critical component to their network and is no longer valueless or unsaleable by telstra.

       • The copper has a value (as scrap metal if nothing else) how much of it will be capable of being retrieved to generate a return on the effort for Telstra remains to be seen but it is most certainly not unsaleable.

         Its use as a Telecommunications asset is however under the Labour NBN probably next to zero.

         • ‘Its use as a Telecommunications asset is however under the Labour NBN probably next to zero’

           It’s use as a Telecommunications asset under Labor is to have it shut down so residences cannot use it, and if they want a fixed line BB connection they have to use NBN Co FTTP, even if all they want is a bog standard phone hung off the UNI-V port that works exactly like the PSTN voice service does, well not quite as the residence has to provide the battery backup facility previously provided by the exchange.

           This non use of a ‘Telecommunications asset’ is costing the Labor Government $11b.

         • So that means the copper from the exchange is closed down and I have no choice, with FttN too then?

           Or is this another illogical NBN only rule made up by people such as you?

         • “made up by people such as you?”

           Hi Alex,

           politeness AT ALL TIMES in this debate please, or I will ban you. Comments policy here:

           http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

           Cheers,

           Renai

         • I wasn’t meaning to be intentionally rude Renai… :)

           Just trying to point out that IMO, there are some people who post here who, after reading their many comments, ‘oddly’ seem to always have a set of separate rules which only apply to the current NBN and not to FttN…

           To me, if people are going to make certain claims relating to the current NBN/FttP they have to consider that their own logic would, should or at least could, also apply to any possible future alternative FttN network?

           Surely rules/claims/comments (not so much opinions) need to apply to both plans equally and anyone who differentiates, is being, IMO, completely unreasonable… especially at an evidence based forum such as Delimiter.

           That was simply the point I was making, which I obviously didn’t communicate too well…

     • Well, it’s the law of supply and demand, isn’t it? Under Labor, there is no demand for the copper. Under the Coalition, there is demand for the copper. Which situation would drive the price up?

       I don’t think there’s really any question that the price will be driven up. That’s basically a given. There are two questions: by how much? and does the Coalition policy take that amount into account in its costings?

       • Indeed for people who claim to be business savvy, they are being nothing but business naive (or perhaps just having their electoral fingers crossed) at best…

       • @Harimau

         ‘ Under Labor, there is no demand for the copper.’

         Well if you completely ignore the $11b Labor are paying Telstra to shut down the copper as being ‘no demand’ – then yeah.

         • they weren’t paying telstra to shut down the copper.

           they were paying telstra to migrate their customers onto the NBN.
           what telstra does with their copper after that is up to them, but it has no value to NBN Co.

         • Hi Clinton,

           I’d just like to correct you here, and to warn others who are debating this issue. The Government and NBN Co are paying Telstra to migrate their copper customers across to fibre, and then there is also a stipulation that Telstra not use the copper to provide telecommunications services any more. Sure, there is some inherent value in the physical nature of the copper, in that it can be sold, but that is largely immaterial to this debate. NBN Co is effectively buying the ‘value’ of Telstra’s copper network through the contract, because it is buying the customers and setting conditions for the future use of that network (that is, no use, apart from selling the physical copper cables for scrap).

           I hope this clears this up. Please be careful about how you respond. I will tolerate no irrationality or falsehoods on Delimiter. Our comments policy is here:

           http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

           Renai

         • @Renai

           I don’t really want to put my neck out here, because I largely agree with you. But I would like to say that while it is true under the current NBN they are essentially paying for the copper, because as you’ve said it has no intrinsic value as it cannot carry a service after that, under the Coalition it will have intrinsic value as without it, FTTN cannot function.

           It’s a small but important distinction and will likely have an impact on the negotiations with Telstra and any possible future Coalition government.

         • hey mate,

           actually I don’t want to hear any more debate on this issue, it’s going around in circles and the points have been explored substantially. Intrinsic value means nothing. The value is in the use case. Further comments arguing this same point will be deleted. If you don’t like this, I encourage you to debate the issue on other sites.

           Move on.

           Renai

         • @Renai

           I think I worded that poorly and it was misunderstood. Shall leave it.

           Cheers

         • Hi Renai

           What about the ongoing cost of maintaining the copper? It’s not a trivial amount, and while it wouldn’t be the full amount required now, I’m pretty confident that Telstra will want to something in place to be reimbursed for any outlay it incurs in this area.

           Or to put it another way, if we take the $11b as covering the “sale of the copper” as being a “given”, what about the on going costs of that born again copper network? If the whole CAN is $770m-$1b (depending on which figure you take), isn’t that a cost that shouldn’t be ignored (though it wouldn’t think it would be the full figure, as only a third of the network would be used?).

         • Yes, it is stupid to keep pounding the same garbage issues (and I do agree with you that the value is in the service it provides), but don’t forget there is somescrap value in the actual, physical copper.

           this article http://www.smartwiredhouse.com.au/trade/news-article/367 puts the value to somewhere between 1/2 and $1bn, but pulling it out and scrapping it would cost a considerable chunk of that amount, save for the exchanges where there is a mass concentration.

           Still, even if they pulled as much as a 1/3 of it, it’s still a good chink of cash; that chunk however is the amount pulled in a FTTN scenario too, so the scrap value is moot when comparing FTTN/FTTP.

7. Telstra has nothing to lose by holding out for FTTN. They negotiated a good deal for themselves under present arrangements. I don’t believe they will ask for additional money for the copper network but they will be absolutely determined to win an even better deal in whatever takes shape post election.

   A few years ago someone should have offered Telstra perhaps $2 or $3B more for the deal and put in penalties for not keeping up with NBNs rollout schedule.

   • I don’t believe they will ask for additional money for the copper network

     Why? The copper is, after all, the “nut’s and bolts” of the CAN. The ducts only existed for the copper…

     • Yes, but the government is already effectively paying the value of the copper, as it is paying Telstra to shift copper customers onto the NBN and then banning it from using the copper. If you pay for something’s use, you effectively pay for it.

       • True, but conjecture (either way) IMO Renai…

         Yes it may be, but yet it may not be enough?

         Considering that even aspects written in the Corporate Plan are not accepted by some perpetual naysayers, surely the unwritten should be questioned even more so?

         What also needs to be factored is Telstra’s Management, in relation to legal obligations towards their shareholders… and let’s face it, if MT ‘needs’ Telstra’s copper it may not be in Telstra shareholders interests not to maximise the return on their copper.

         However agreed, especially if Telstra can offload the maintenance costs (approx. $1B p.a. iirc) on top of the current arrangements ($11B), that may well be deemed more advantageous that an upfront buy/lease, but still having to fund and perform copper maintainance.

         Regardless, nothing changes, IMO FttN is vastly inferior and a backward step, no matter how much the naysayers desperately try to fluff FttN up…

         • There are some pretty strong indications that Telstra will try to get a little more on top from Turnbull, but not too much — certainly not enough for it to be a deal-breaker. The cards aren’t all on Telstra’s side. After all, there really is no other party that Telstra can sell its copper network to at this point. It’s the Government (NBN Co) or nothing.

         • There are some pretty strong indications that Telstra will try to get a little more on top from Turnbull,

           True. Telstra have already said they’ll need to re-negotiate the deal. They’ll need to sort out the who and how much stuff at the very least.

         • Well we can take it as a given that the current Telstra/NBN Co agreement will have to be renegotiated because it contains clauses and agreements that are pertinent to the Labor rollout, significantly in the areas of designated area (all copper) exchange shut downs and shut down of HFC for broadband.

           It depends how the new agreement works with reference to continued use of the HFC for BB and and the shortened copper link for FTTN, but it is possible all of that could easily be contained within the $11b.

           Also if the $11b remains the same Telstra shareholder and Board of Directors approval of any changes might be easier and quicker.

         • “Well we can take it as a given that the current Telstra/NBN Co agreement will have to be renegotiated…”

           “It depends how the new agreement works…”

           Interesting use of words to suit your perpetual crusade Fibroid… The deal may not have to be renogotiated, but then you talk of a new agreement :/

           Look you may well (finally actually) be right and it may not cost any more. But to continually suggest the absolute worst will always occur regarding every NBN aspect, whilst simultaneoulsy talking/fluffing up and suggesting the NBN’s alternative will be absloutely perfect in every way, is either naive or totally dishonest IMO.

         • My apologies Fibroid… I misread your comment as can’t, when you clearly said can (3rd word)…

           :)

         • Also if the $11b remains the same Telstra shareholder and Board of Directors approval of any changes might be easier and quicker.

           But how could it remain the same? Under Labor there are no costs to Telstra for owning, operating and maintaining the copper, because Labor don’t use the copper at all, Telstra is free to do what it likes with it (as long as it’s not providing BB).

           With the Liberal plan, the copper (or vast parts of it) are still required to be maintained and operational.

           And the government can’t just hijack the HFC for free, the constitution has protections built in to avoid that specific issue.

           Do you honestly think Telstra would take on a deal with Malcolm that would be a liability to the company bottom line? From their past record, Telstra will be aiming to come out ahead, not behind, on any deal done, which will be more money Malcolm needs to put towards it (over and above the stated total public funding of $29.5b).

           I’m perfectly open to hearing how you think Malcolm can handle this so he comes out ahead cost wise though…

         • ‘ Under Labor there are no costs to Telstra for owning, operating and maintaining the copper, because Labor don’t use the copper at all,’

           You are referring to two aspects of infrastructure, maintenance and cost of purchase and muddling them as if they are one and the same, there are costs of maintenance for FTTP as well, which is part of the OPEX component in NBN Co costings, the maintenance of FTTN is in the same category with the Coalition NBN Co.
           Telstra or their sub contractors may maintain the Coalition NBN Co FTTN, then again they may not.

           ‘ Telstra is free to do what it likes with it (as long as it’s not providing BB).’

           Telstra is contracted under the current NBN Co/Telstra agreement to use the NBN Co infrastructure exclusively for the fixed line service for all of their customers for a period of 20 years from the date of the agreement, doesn’t leave much in the category ‘to do what it likes with it’ does it?

           ‘With the Liberal plan, the copper (or vast parts of it) are still required to be maintained and operational.’

           No doubt, but that is not a problem, FTTN is being maintained and upgraded for faster speeds all over the world today.

           ‘And the government can’t just hijack the HFC for free, the constitution has protections built in to avoid that specific issue.’

           I think you are going way over the top referencing the Constitution here, this Government had no problem getting agreements to have Telstra HFC BB shut down,and the complete shutdown of Optus HFC , reversing the clause in the agreement with Telstra for the HFC BB shutdown should not be a problem.

           ‘I’m perfectly open to hearing how you think Malcolm can handle this so he comes out ahead cost wise though…’

           We will have to wait and see, they need to win the election first before they can start formal talks with Telstra on anything. :)

         • “No doubt, but that is not a problem, FTTN is being maintained and upgraded for faster speeds all over the world today.”

           But is this really the case in Australia? According to many reports (the emphasis is on “many”) the network, here, (again emphasis on “here” ) the network hasn’t been maintained satisfactorily.

           To compare networks all over the world, is not valid, unless you have knowledge of their respective condition and are able to compare to our network, rather than speculate.

           Incidentally, FTTN in the UK is still subject to an inspection by an engineer to assess suitability of the line. It is also worth remembering that the enormous success of FTTP in the UK (MT’s favourite) is clearly evidenced by the 11% take up rate.

         • @ Fibroid,

           “No doubt, but that is not a problem, FTTN is being maintained and upgraded for faster speeds all over the world today.”

           Once again this comment is completely contradictory to the one you made only a couple of weeks ago, when I linked to an article from 2003 where Telstra admitted their copper (the last mile piece of the FttN puzzle) would need replacing.

           You insisted on arguing with me that Telstra had said the copper didn’t need to be replaced in 2003 (per se) but rather it would need replacing in 15 years from 2003.

           Telstra actually said within 15 years (so anytime from 2003)… but regardless, using our own argument Telstra will need to replace their copper by 2018, one year prior to the estimated completion of the FttN network…

           :/

         • @Alex

           ‘You insisted on arguing with me that Telstra had said the copper didn’t need to be replaced in 2003 (per se) but rather it would need replacing in 15 years from 2003.’

           umm what? any upgrade proposals by Telstra post 2003 to their copper infrastructure has always been FTTN, as recently as 2009 it was still FTTN, what ‘conflict’ are you on about?

           ‘Telstra actually said within 15 years (so anytime from 2003)… but regardless, using our own argument Telstra will need to replace their copper by 2018, one year prior to the estimated completion of the FttN network…’

           I REPEAT Telstra’s upgrade to their all copper network has always proposed to being FTTN, if for example their RFP from 2009 was accepted and turned into a rollout most if not all of us would be on FTTN by now in exchange based ADSL areas.

         • So what you said before, in relation to agreeing Telstra needed to replace their copper by 2018 was wrong and you only said it to nitpick, argue and obtain a reaction?

           So argue for arguments sake… really?

         • ‘So what you said before, in relation to agreeing Telstra needed to replace their copper by 2018 ‘

           Link to where I said this ‘before’?

         • @Observer

           ‘To compare networks all over the world, is not valid, unless you have knowledge of their respective condition and are able to compare to our network, rather than speculate.’

           But you are speculating (hoping) that the Coalition have got it terribly wrong proposing FTTN because you want a Labor like FTTP outcome as the sole solution, I repeat nothing that Telstra has stated so far comes close to the inference that Coalition FTTN policy is firmly placed in the category of ‘mission impossible’, and a Labor like FTTP rollout therefore is the ONLY solution.

           ‘Incidentally, FTTN in the UK is still subject to an inspection by an engineer to assess suitability of the line.’

           Yes and what happens if it’s not suitable?

           ‘ It is also worth remembering that the enormous success of FTTP in the UK (MT’s favourite) is clearly evidenced by the 11% take up rate.’

           huh? I think you mean FTTN , if you do mean FTTP I’m not sure therefore what your inference is, taking it that you meant FTTN how does that take-up rate % compare to the take-up rate % of FTTP in the UK?

         • You are referring to two aspects of infrastructure, maintenance and cost of purchase and muddling them as if they are one and the same

           No I’m not, as per the Telstra/NBNCo agreement (which I’m sure you’ve read by now ;o)), Telstra doesn’t give up anything related to the copper (besides customers) until fibre replaces it. ( I think it’s up to 18 months after an area is “fibre”ed, Telstra is still required to service it).

           Telstra is contracted under the current NBN Co/Telstra agreement to use the NBN Co infrastructure exclusively for the fixed line service for all of their customers for a period of 20 years from the date of the agreement, doesn’t leave much in the category ‘to do what it likes with it’ does it?

           For the provision of broadband, yes…

           No doubt, but that is not a problem, FTTN is being maintained and upgraded for faster speeds all over the world today.

           By the incumbent that owned the network, yes.

           I think you are going way over the top referencing the Constitution here, this Government had no problem getting agreements to have Telstra HFC BB shut down,and the complete shutdown of Optus HFC , reversing the clause in the agreement with Telstra for the HFC BB shutdown should not be a problem.

           Those networks can, and are, still being used for cable TV though, the HFC network it’s self isn’t being shut down. Australian governments can’t just acquire peoples/companies property (as demanding that other companies can access the HFC network) without recompense.

           We will have to wait and see

           Indeed we will, but I think Malcolm still has many, many questions to answer yet…

         • I REPEAT Telstra’s upgrade to their all copper network has always proposed to being FTTN

           Only where it made sense to do so, everywhere else they’ve been using full fibre…

         • http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/14/its-on-husic-takes-the-nbn-fight-to-turnbull/#comment-616922

           http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/14/its-on-husic-takes-the-nbn-fight-to-turnbull/#comment-616944

           And… since you are demanding answers and links from others… how about you address this one for starters?

           http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/02/malcolm-in-a-muddle-husic-accuses-turnbull-of-fttp-porkies/#comment-619069

         • @Tinman-au

           ‘Only where it made sense to do so, everywhere else they’ve been using full fibre…’

           Yeah I know, just like Coalition policy.

         • @Alex

           Your first two links is a virtual repeat of what I said about Telstra upgrading their copper with FTTN in this current discussion, I have no idea what else your trying to infer.

           Now to your important question of which you feel I MUST ANSWER or be forever dammed :

           ‘So if the governmet spend for FttP is (iirc) $30.4B and the opposition’s government spend for the vastly inferior FttN is (iirc) $29.5B and you admit FttN could infact cost a Coalition government more, why the hell would you keep blowing the FttN trumpet 24/7…?’

           First of all the question is incorrect with the figures, it is $44.1b vs $29.5b, that ‘s what independent analysts use when comparing the two policies – total funding.

           ‘Blowing the FTTN trumpet’ is based on overseas evidence not conjecture that firstly FTTN is faster to rollout and secondly it is cheaper to rollout relative to FTTP.

           The Coalition FTTN could cost more but also the Labor FTTP rollout could cost more and has as evidenced from changes from the original 2010 Business plans to their costing.

           The costings that are in the 2012-2015 NBN Co Business plan could be changed upward again in the next Business plan which is nearing completion apparently ( that’s quick it’s not 2015 yet!), but I doubt we will see it before the election if it’s bad news.

           ‘Costing more’ as a concept is all relative, hard to do when the one rollout that is actually taking place has costings that are dynamic and also has moving targets (deliberate pun).

           :)

         • I’ll flog that dead horse one more time…

           1) You specifically picked that one paragraph from my entire article, previously linked, to argue the strawman.

           You were clearly suggesting that I was wrong in relation to Telstra replacing their copper ‘in 2003’ and you quite confidently offered as your evidence Telstra’s admission that their copper would need replacing ‘in/within 15’ years (not in 2003). You also mentioned “your other well-worn furphy” about Telstra previously planning to build FttN in 200x (the year seems to change all the time) to further prove me wrong.

           But you didn’t prove anything except for simply agreeing that Telstra would need to replace their copper by 2018…. thank you :)

           1.5) Just to clarify, we have all been talking about anecdotal evidence and actual evidence. Your claims that Telstra were going to build FttN in 200x is neither, it is wrong.

           In 2006 (iirc) Telstra withdrew from FttN negotiations with the ACCC. So they refused to build.
           In 2008 (iirc) Telstra submitted a non compliant RFP and were excluded. So if they were going to build, that wouldn’t have occured (especially with access to the countries best legal people)… in other words, they again, refused to build.

           This isn’t a future occurrence where you say, we won’t know until…as you love to… these are facts. Had Telstra planned to build FttN they would have, but didn’t. They certainly wouldn’t have intentionally missed the boat twice, had they been serious.

           2) No… because you are unable to answer my question doesn’t make the question wrong. The question remains the same…

           FYI – the question isn’t about total costs – ***I agree with you relating to total costs*** and actually congratulate you for surprisingly, not jumping on the $94B fudwagon…

           So forget the toatl costs where we agree… and please revisit the actual question I asked and this time answer the actual question I asked (I’m sure regardless of all that tap dancing, you do understand that each party has an amount of government monies they are willing to spend).

           Otherwise you remain dammed.

           BTW – thank you for admitting the “Coalitions FttN plan could cost more?” (here we go again…LOL).

         • But you are speculating (hoping) that the Coalition have got it terribly wrong proposing FTTN because you want a Labor like FTTP outcome as the sole solution

           How can I be speculating when I say that you can’t compare network? I am not hoping anything and you would have a clue what I want.

           Yes and what happens if it’s not suitable?
           Answering a question with a question, how unusual.

           ‘ It is also worth remembering that the enormous success of FTTP in the UK (MT’s favourite) is clearly evidenced by the 11% take up rate.’

           Yes I meant FTTN.

         • @Observer

           ‘Yes I meant FTTN.’

           Well seeing it is as I thought the answer to this part of the question which you ignored is?

           “taking it that you meant FTTN how does that take-up rate % compare to the take-up rate % of FTTP in the UK?’

         • In reply to your last two posts. Not interested in you nitpicking tit for tat. I have already told you what I think of your debating style. Anyway, feel free to delude yourself and feel that you have won any debate you enter in. Whatever your mission on this site, there is little doubt that it is not working.

8. I would like to take the time to add this comment as an apology to Renai.

   We really don’t intend for the debate to become so toxic, that writing “The FTTN is possible” requires an upfront apology.

   Regards,
   Peter A

   • Cheers, appreciated :)

9. The coalition is taking to the electorate its promise to acquire Telstra’s copper. Telstra can name its price.

   In 2007 its price was $20 billion to relinquish the copper for FTTN in Rudd’s NBN Mark I. Worse still, Telstra planned to spend the windfall selectively overbuilding the taxpayer-built FTTN with a new private FTTP network wherever it was most profitable, undermining the best revenue streams for FTTN.

   This is what corporations do, indeed it is what company law requires they do, maximise shareholder profit.

   We already have a great deal which slashed the cost from $43 billion to $37.8 billion, and incentivised Telstra and Optus to hand over copper/HFC customers to NBN quickly, so they start repaying the NBN construction. This is a win for taxpayers, telcos and customers, who get a better service sooner.

   Telstra cloud, data and media revenues stand to skyrocket when more premises have fast two-way broadband. The best profit outcome for Telstra is universal fibre, whether or not they own it.

   • Not only that, but they get to keep their HFC.

     Telstra are much, much, much better off with FTTN. To the tune of many billions. Only fools or shills would deny this.

10. “it seems relatively clear from statements by Telstra executives over the past six months or so that the telco does believe it will be possible to implement fibre to the node on its network”

    I don’t think you can necessarily draw that conclusion. A more evident conclusion is that Telstra is open to negotiating to ensure the best outcome for their shareholders.

    Whether it is possible to implement fibre to the node is not really the question, anyway. The question is whether it can be done as fast and as cheaply as the Coalition claims. The answer to this will only be revealed, should it wins government. I would not discount the possibility of the Coalition continuing with FTTP, should the answer to this question be no.

11. Sadly, I believe that the idea of the Coalition continuing with FttP is just not possible. The budget will not allow it.

    What’s the difference between the Labor and Coalition NBNs? Basically, Labor’s version is being built to a standard and the Coalition’s version will be built to a price.

    Labor told NBN Co to deliver a ‘superfast carriage service’ (where ‘superfast’ is defined as more than 25Mbps download speed) to all Australian premises. For 93% of these premises it will be delivered by FttP. MDUs present special problems, causing delays and possibly increased costs, but the result will be the same for all. In this real world, cost and time overruns may occur, and this is used to criticise the plan.

    The Coalition’s Plan is to build to a price. Page 8 of their April 2013 policy statement shows they will place a hard limit on the public capital cost – $29.5 billion. It says: “The statement of expectations (written by the LNP government to the board of NBN Co) will specify a limit on the public capital available to NBN Co. This limit will be $29.5 billion.”

    Clearly corners will have to be cut. The clever part is that the Coalition will make NBN Co responsible for deciding which cuts to make. What changes will the Coalition make so that NBN Co can meet this new limitation? Actually, quite a lot (read them in the Coalition’s Policy document here: http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/NBN.pdf).

    For example, they do not specify the download data rate to each house, but rather to ‘areas’ within Australia.

    Keep in mind that Turnbull is a very clever and successful barrister. Every word and phrase will have been carefully selected so that it means exactly what he wants.

    So, when he says: “We will issue a revised statement of expectations directing NBN Co to provide broadband services with a minimum download data rate of 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016 in all areas of Australia, and 50 megabits per second by the end of 2019 in 90 per cent of the fixed line footprint.” (P8) he does not mean individual premises, or each unit within an MDU. If he did, he would have said so.
    He will not direct NBNCo how to achieve this outcome because the policy states: “The new statement of expectations will grant NBN Co’s board and management flexibility and discretion in technology and network design decisions.” So he will leave it up to NBNCo to achieve it, and, of course, blame them if they fail.

    We can argue and speculate how the hobbled NBN Co would work within the $29.5 billion limitation, but Turnbull will simply deny it because it’s just our speculation.

    I expect that deals will be made with Telstra so they will grant access to their copper. P12 of their policy, re NBN Co and Telstra, states: “We may seek to negotiate variations to commitments to provide efficiencies, allow the NBN to be more quickly deployed or otherwise create benefit.” Will this mean commitments re structural separation may be varied? Quite probably – no limits are given.
    I expect that money will be so short that areas with HFC will get nothing more. It does not matter that units within MDUs may get less than ‘superfast’ broadband because the specification refers to an ‘area’, not an apartment.

    Remember, Labor’s NBN is built to a standard; Coalition’s NBN will be built to a price.

12. Just had Telstra send someone to come in and fix the phone line today. Phone had no dial tone and internet slowed to 10% of speed. Had no phone for a week and a half during this period.

    He plugged in his equipment found that there was so much interference that he couldn’t even locate the position of the fault. (I was looking at it too there were so many local maximum peaks you couldn’t see a clear peak). He was confused as it seemed to only be 10 m from the source too. I was thinking great I have copper which doesn’t even work for 10 m huh…. I wonder how FTTN is going to work.

    So he finally plugged in a listening device and we tuned in… to a radio station… uh what? So the result was somewhere out on one of the poles telstras copper wires were acting as an antenna for a radio station causing so much interference that not even within 10 m I can get a dial tone. He climbed up onto the pole and fixed it (Didn’t ask since work was not done inside my property). Back to 10Mbits/s internet (today is really windy so the speed test was around 8.5Mbits/s so given a margin or error it sounds right).

    So I’ll just wait for the Labor NBN to come along thanks.

    Just a little first world problem I would like to share. It seems even 10 m of copper isn’t invincible to interference from… radio stations zzz.

    • “So he finally plugged in a listening device and we tuned in… to a radio station… uh what?”

      That was hilarious. Sorry to laugh at your distress.

      Obviously, your situation was rather unusual, but it was a great story, thanks for sharing.

    • Just wondering… did you get the ex rugby union coach Jones or that clown that played for Dundas lower grade rugby union, what was his name, oh yeah, Hadley, on the wire? Would have seemed oddly appropriate …

      • No idea mate I don’t listen to the radio. As far as I was aware you had to tune into a station that was either frequency modulated or amplitude modulated so no idea why or how I got the radio. The station was currently reading out weather from the snowy mountains so it was some NSW radio station at least.

        • The basic aerial is a wire, twisted pair supposedly nulls out rf interference and radiation (transmission for ADSL or FTTN). All that is needed is a dry joint which unbalances the pair and rectifies the RF signal and its received and generated harmonics. (oxide or metallic salts layers)
          AM radio including emergency and CB have been known to be “guilty” over the years
          The pair twist for telephone cable relates to 600 Ohm @ approx 3Khz, I wonder how much EMR from pairs or cable running at VDSL2 or GFast frequencies using pairs designed for Voice and NOT precision twisted or constructed, especially with aerial sectors. NIMBY’s away.
          Interesting to compare the EMR in a dwelling from a Mobile or NBN tower a hundred mtrs away and the telephone cable down the wall carrying VDSL or GFast transmission signals

    • Triple M Rocks FTTN!

13. Malcolm Turnbull made the claim tonight on Lateline (in his debate against Albo – great performance by Albo btw) that a minimum 100Mbps could be achieved on Australian copper at distances of 400m from the node using vectoring.

    • http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-12/nbn-debate/4882232

    • MT can’t help being agressive when things don’t go his way. Did see much of his “legendary” charm last night.

14. The really sad thing about the whole “NBN vs LBN” debate is that I’d expect the coalition to have come up with something like the “NBN FTTP user pays back the borrowing” system, before selling NBNCo off…they are supposedly “friends of the market” after all.

15. Not surprising. Telstra are never going to come down one way or another. It’s not in their interest as a business (anymore) to be hostile to the government. They win either way.

    Just one note Renai….$13 billion?

    Afaik it’s $11 billion, $2 billion of which is direct from government via NBNCo. for 000, payphones and TSUMA. Typo or am I missing something?

    • Ah yes, fixed.

16. I note that Telstra is committed to maintaining copper across the bulk of the continent under either NBN model. (While it’s only 7% of the population; the non-fibred footprint is the bulk of the continental land mass: The latency challenge in the non-fibred areas means that copper must stay for latency sensitive applications – such as a basic telephone call.)

    So the difference with FTTN for Telstra is i) maintenance cost of the copper cables in the largely suburban former FTTP areas (i.e. direct mains, ‘o’ pairs and lead-ins); plus ii) the cost of foregone/ delayed cable salvage value; plus iii) the cost of the delay to the exchange closure program.

    At the end of the day Telstra is still a winner: It has effectively shifted the risk associated with its capital intensive fixed line network to the Australian taxpayer, at an implicit cost of capital of less than 7% and a commitment that any project cost overruns will be absorbed by the Australian taxpayer. It has re-focused its investment on Mobiles and seems very happy with the result. (It would appear it is the former Minister that is wearing the Red Underpants.)

17. I note that Telstra is committed to maintaining copper across the bulk of the continent under either NBN model. (While it’s only 7% of the population; the non-fibred footprint is the bulk of the continental land mass: The latency challenge in the non-fibred areas means that copper must stay for latency sensitive applications – such as a basic telephone call.)

    So the difference with FTTN for Telstra is i) maintenance cost of the copper cables in the largely suburban former FTTP areas (i.e. direct mains, ‘o’ pairs and lead-ins); plus ii) the cost of foregone/ delayed cable salvage value; plus iii) the cost of the delay to the exchange closure program.

    At the end of the day Telstra is still a winner: It has effectively shifted the risk associated with its capital intensive fixed line network to the Australian taxpayer, at an implicit cost of capital of less than 7% and a commitment that any project cost overruns will be absorbed by the Australian taxpayer. It has re-focused its investment on Mobiles and seems very happy with the result.

18. An interesting aside
    Big Brother is or will be watching you, but not necessarily who you think, and yes they will be using mobile devices and hotspots and fibre etc.

    http://m.canberratimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/london-rubbish-bins-that-track-peoples-movements-raise-ire-of-officials-20130813-2rsxc.html

19. Fibroid

    Costing more’ as a concept is all relative.

    Again, reinventing the world to suit your argument. Costing more is not a concept, it an comparative statement. Value for money is a concept.

    Using this concept rollout FTTN + upgrade and not as good value as FTTP.

    • So what two sets of figures are we comparing here to come to the undeniable conclusion FTTN + upgrade is not as good value as FTTP?

      • @Fibroid

        Turnbull’s own figures put FTTN + later FTTP at ~$3K per premises. He puts NBNCo’s at $4K…except we’ve already seen NBNCo’s are closer to $2400, perhaps $2700 with increase in contract pricing.

        So it is true, based already off REAL NBN numbers and supposedly Turnbull’s “most realistic” numbers, that FTTP is approx. 10% cheaper minimum than FTTN + FTTP. Not to mention the theoretical FoD adding hundreds of millions to actual cost overall.

Comments are closed.