news A highly respected Australian telecommunications consulting firm has reportedly claimed that most Australians would be able to get the full 100Mbps speeds possible under the Coalition’s alternative fibre to the node vision, due to the fact that most premises will be a suitable distance from local neighbourhood ‘nodes’.
Under Labor’s NBN policy, some 93 percent of Australian premises were to have received fibre directly to the premise, delivering maximum download speeds of up to 1Gbps and maximum upload speeds of 400Mbps. The remainder of the population was to have been served by a combination of satellite and wireless broadband, delivering speeds of up to 25Mbps.
Originally, the Coalition’s policy was to have seen fibre to the premises deployed to a significantly lesser proportion of the population — 22 percent — with 71 percent covered by fibre to the node technology, where fibre is extended to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ and the remainder of the distance to premises covered by Telstra’s existing copper network. The Coalition’s policy was also continue to use the HFC cable network operated by Telstra and will also target the remaining 7 percent of premises with satellite and wireless.
However, the possibility of a different style of rollout has been raised by Turnbull in the several weeks since the Liberal MP became Communications Minister. In late September, Turnbull appeared to have drastically modified the Coalition’s policy stance on the NBN just weeks after the Federal Election, declaring the Coalition was not wedded to its fibre to the node model and was “thoroughly open-minded” about the technology to be used in the network. NBN Co is currently conducting a strategic review into its operations and model that will inform Turnbull’s decisions regarding the project’s future.
The Coalition’s overall policy is based on the core pledge that a Coalition Government would deliver download speeds of between 25Mbps and 100Mbps by the end of 2016 — effectively the end of its first term in power — and 50Mbps to 100Mbps by the end of 2019, effectively the end of its second term. The 25Mbps to 100Mbps pledge applies to “all premises”, while the higher pledge by 2019 applies to “90 percent of fixed line users”.
If a FTTN network rollout is to go ahead, a key factor which will determine the speeds which customers will receive is the distance of their premise from local neighbourhood ‘nodes’ linking Telstra’s existing copper network with NBN Co’s fibre network extended out from telephone exchanges.
Some light was cast on the situation by Mike Galvin, the managing director of network investment at BT’s Openreach networks division. In an interview with the CommsDay Crosstalk podcast at the time, Galvin said that Openreach assumed that a copper loop length of around 400 metres would deliver the full speeds available to customers on the country’s FTTN network. Openreach offers speeds of up to 76Mbps on its network.
“All local networks are different. And I would be very surprised if there was any difference in Australia as well. Normally we would say around about 400 metres you will get 80 mbps but you don’t know until you actually measure the electrical characteristics of the network, exactly what you get,” said Galvin at the time. Openreach has deployed its FTTN network to some 16 million premises since the network rollout was commenced in 2009, with more than 1.7 million premises having signed up for active connections to the infrastructure.
In an article in the Financial Review this morning (we recommend you click here for the full article), consulting firm GQI Consulting stated that a study it had conducted had found that up to 82 percent of homes in cities were within 500m of a copper node — meaning it would be likely they would receive close to 100Mbps under a FTTN rollout.
The Coalition’s frequently asked questions policy document states: “The last serious plans for FTTN in Australia in 2007 and 2008 had maximum loop lengths of between 750m and 800m. That would mean that minimum speeds of 25mbps are more than feasible. Recent trials by Alcatel have shown that even at lengths of 750m they are getting speeds in excess of 50mbps so the technology is improving all the time.”
If GQI’s analysis is correct, it appears that the new Coalition Government would indeed, at a minimum, be able to achieve its first aim of getting 25Mbps broadband deployed to most Australians through a FTTN network deployment, with it being likely that most would actually receive higher speeds.
However, if Galvin’s analysis is also correct, then the combination of the two facts would be likely to mean that it would actually be the 400m copper loop length, rather than the 500m loop length cited by GQI, that would be a more critical stepping level for customers to get really high broadband speeds of up to 80Mbps.
Complicating the situation is that the width of the copper cable is seen as a significant limiting factor in terms of speed. In the UK, although Galvin noted in his Crosstalk interview that even copper dating back to the 1920’s could successfully carry high-speed broadband, it is believed that much of Australia’s copper cable is quite old and based upon a 0.4 or below width. In comparison, due to factors such as the replacement of telecommunications networks after World War II, it is believed the quality of the UK’s copper cable is often higher than that found in Australia.
opinion/analysis
Is the new information presented by GQI in this AFR article interesting? Certainly, it is. It suggests, as we’ve seen with quite a few similar studies in the past, that the Coalition’s preferred FTTN deployment model is viable in Australia and may even result in better outcomes than the Coalition has been predicting. That’s nice to know. It’s kind of like: If we’re going to get an inferior class of NBN, it’ll be at the upper end of inferior for most people — closer to 100Mbps than 25Mbps, but still nowhere near the 1Gbps speeds possible over fibre.
However, as with all such studies, there are just so many unknowns here. The precise number of nodes needed to get a result of 100Mbps to the majority of users, how precisely the width of Telstra’s copper in different areas will affect those speeds, and so on. I would say that the information presented by GQI presents a favourable light — a light conducted on information available in a spreadsheet but not information gleaned from actually going out in the field — on the Coalition’s preferred FTTN model, but as always this has to be mediated by the very real concerns about the FTTN model in Australia.
Then too, there is always the ‘why bother’ angle. Australia’s long-term telecommunications needs will clearly outgrow the FTTN-based model at some point, and then we’ll need to talk about upgrading to fibre all the way to the premise. Why not just dig in for the long haul and deploy fibre everywhere to start with?
Image credit: Clix, royalty free
Once again, they ignore “The Elephant in the Room”
Telstra’s fragile and thinner copper CAN. What speeds are achievable on the BT network will be non-viable in Oz due to the thinner copper, plus the fact that telstra has not really maintained the copper to the required spec for quite some time.
As you say, why bother? FTTN is just a massive waste of money, and will be a continuing money-pit of maintenance.
Do it right, do it once ….
Again these clowns reference European deployments whilst failing to state that the copper is not the same (often better quality, never worse quality) than Australian copper.
These idiotic ramblings of Turnbull about Vectoring somehow magically doubling the speed of VDSL is just too much. It’s been done to death that Vectoring doesn’t improve the speeds, but Turnbull wants to continue along the lines of Vectoring will sort out any and all problems….
My biggest issue Turnbull spouting off about vector in is it is incompatible with other LNP thought bubbles. In order for vectoring to work effectively you must have a monopoly on the whole copper bundle you sure as hell can’t have facilities based competing with other services providers utilizing the copper(or other copper sharing the pipe) as then the brains won’t be see all major sources of crosstalk and interference to do the math it needs to do do to make vectoring work.
There’s also been another abuse of statistics – they use “up to.” Their numbers are apparently best-case only!
Imagine also if you will, the layout of a suburb where:
– 82% of people are within 500m of a “node”
– 8% are located at the 500-1000m mark.
Even allowing for weird cable routing, it just doesn’t work.
“Networking vendors have often quoted 500 metres as the optimal distance between a home and fibre-connected node at which the maximum possible download speeds can be attained.” The hell they do – it’s 300m maximum for a best-practice FttN.
Finally, at the end of the article the truth: Actual trials show that speeds at 500m WITH vectoring are “between 57 Mbps and 92 Mbps” – not the 100Mbit implied at the start, and that’s probably with better copper than we’ve got in Australia.
1000m from your node? You’ll be lucky to break 30/2mbit, and it won’t seem like a fast connection in 2020. Hell, mobile broadband will offer faster average speeds then.
Is a copper loop measured as the distance from the node, or, like anything with a return path, doubled when talking about a distance??
I.e. is a copper loop of 400m only 200m from a node, or is it 400m away and really using 800m of copper?
I think the $B question that the study can’t consider is the state of copper and the affect of the small gauge in use. Shame we don’t have a way of testing the copper for sure to determine which copper will support the LNP FTTN model in the 400-500m loop range so we could know for sure.
Surely there is some testing that T$ could do to give us a general idea?
How much extra electricity are we going to waste, looking after the nodes. Fibre To The Home is still the best, and in the long run, most efficient way.
“All local networks are different. And I would be very surprised if there was any difference in Australia as well.”
Did that line confuse the hell out of anyone else?
Yeah, I thought it was an unfortunate form of expression. Probably made more sense live, with pause and intonation. Makes more sense as “All local networks are different. And I would be very surprised if it wasn’t like this in Australia as well.”
Viable Smiable, the change from FTTP to FTTN is one of the stupidest decisions ever made by an Australian Government.
The continuing debate on this is ludicrous as this was a debate that was rightfully concluded after the 2007 election when the panel of experts who had just completed the FTTN tender process said that the cost and quality of the Telstra copper was not worth it with the payment necessary to Telstra and the clear risk of overbuild by Telstra with FTTP.
You have even reported here at Delimiter on this clear overbuild risk as shown recently with TPG advising their intent to overbuild MDU’s with FTTP (or FTTB whichever way you lean), which again shows the stupidity of this government who have the audacity to promote themselves as fiscally capable.
It’s a conundrum of momentous concern of how these obviously wealthy politicians have been able to amass their personal wealth yet act so ignorantly with the finances bestowed upon them through the taxes of Australia.
Can we stop trying to market FTTN favourably, as under every measure today it is patently inferior to the FTTP that started to be installed by Quigley’s NBN Co.
Today and into the future Australia needs endemic reliable communications infrastructure that can grow with the economy, not hop step to the same position at some “time in the future” when well past the life expiry of the incumbent medium.
It’s hardly fait to call that an analysis :)
Assumptions 400 metres will be the max length, and we can ignor that the UK uses a larger diameter copped wire then is standard here…
If the network is designed for a minimum speed of 25 mb/sec… then why would the lines be shorter then the length necessary? As an engineer that sound wastefull…
Also, the geometry of a circle works against you. If the Diameter of a Circle is 800m, then 25% will be in the area with a distance of less then 400m and the other 75% will be at a distance of 400-800m. The conclusion would have to be that people would tend to get lower speeds rather than the higher.
except its not circular around the node. streets make that impossible. go look at transacts vdsl2. supernodes at a max line length of 1.2km. 63% of users in modelling scenarios will get over 50M.
coalition have said the nodes will be around 700-800m I believe, at the most.
Where I feel compelled to add that TransACT’s deployment is on relatively new Cat 5 quality copper, as far as I am aware.
Exactly: TransACT’s copper is decent cat5 and less than a decade old, but 37% of users won’t even get 50mbit. We’ll know in a few months just how accurate that modelling is, once a decent number of users have been migrated to VDSL2.
The upside of their supernode strategy is that nodes will be empty, ready for them to install G.Fast DSLAMs into in a few years time! (Sure, it doesn’t compare to getting 1000/400 from NBNCo next year, but gotta look for the upside..)
Yep – VDSL2 on transact @ 20 Mbps – not much like 60 let alone 100!
Reading the article, they seem to define a copper node as an existing Telstra cabinet or pillar, so supposed that FTTN nodes would be co located. What is missing is the number of cabinets and pillars as this is critical to the overall cost.
Also being within 500m does not mean the line length is that short,in many cases it will be far longer, or take into account the quality of the copper.
Really all these articles say is that in a perfect world with a pristine copper CAN then FTTN is a reasonable choice.
82% within 500m would imply that 82% of existing ADSL2+ users should be receiving >20Mbps… and yet, I don’t believe that is the case?
http://www.internode.on.net/residential/adsl_broadband/easy_broadband/performance/
Those are exchanges, for the most part, except for things like Top Hat deployments or where people are close enough to the exchange that their node would be the exchange. It’s not comparable, sorry.
wheres the data theyve deliberately not reported? the number of nodes… what is it?
simple question but the answer can blow the cost of fttn well above fttp if there are too many of them.
Looks like Cliff Gibson is back. He’s previously said that, and I quote:
> I do know that the two partner organisations that we work with would have put tens of millions of dollars worth of work in to put the bid together and our experience on this exercise, and the costing involved, would lead me to think that the cost of rolling out the optic fibre to 93% of the homes around Australia is going to cost between 60-80 billion.
And no breakdown of that cost was ever put out there. Also, all they’ve found is that:
> A preliminary study of Telstra’s copper network has found that up to 82 per cent of homes in cities are situated within 500 metres of a copper node, meaning they are close enough to receive theoretical speeds of up to 100 megabits per second under fibre-to-the-node technology.
Yes. How many copper nodes is that then? 20,000? 30,000? 50,000? 70,000? 110,000? Your guess is as good as mine.
> 100Mbps FTTN viable for most, finds study
Yes, if we don’t even know how many nodes they are talking about, uses an inaccurate database (although there are a lot of data points in it to consider it more than representative) and completely ignore the copper in the ground, then yes, 1 Gbps FTTN is viable for most too.
Did they actually measure the distance through the copper, or did they just use a rough approximation based on the Euclidean distance?
Is there actually a copy of the study out there?
Cliff Gibson is actually from whom the claim that the NBN was going to cost $60 or $80 billion first came from, which of course the coalition then inflated to $80 to $100 billion.
But FTTN is so much better. Look, Zyxel says we can do 200 Mbps even at 800 metres: http://www.zyxel.com/solutions/solution_detail_20120224_055920_tab3.inc
Note also the dashed line for PON at the bottom. Just look at how much worse it is. All we have to do is ignore everything except hypothetically putting a dot on a map and making a circle with a cup around it. It’s so easy.
But I’m sure the coalition is on the case when it comes to FTTN:
> “If the government wants to go ahead with fibre to the node you will need a full-time CEO working 16 to 18 hours a day because there will be massive changes and armies of lawyers involved,” he said. “Things could run off the rails very quickly if the hawks in the government want to change things around.”
Meanwhile, overseas, Virgin snubs BT’s network, thanks partially due to Turnbull’s investment in Telefonica, half a million Basque homes will get FTTH a year ahead of schedule, 1 Gbps is coming to Las Vegas, one of the worst hit places in the US following the recession and a former executive of Belgium’s (a VDSL frontrunner) biggest HFC provider is clamouring for government intervention to bring FTTH forward. But yes, just look at one aspect of what happened in the UK, pick up a cup and draw circles around it and see how many premises you have in the circle and call it a report.
If we learn Basque, will the Earl of Wentworth bring us fibre-to-the-home too? It’s a very unique language, so I’m willing to learn.
So how many nodes will we need if the length is 400m? o_O
A rough approximation for going from 500m to 400m is (500/400)^2=1.56. 56% more nodes needed to cover the same area.
That assumes things are circular or square, but you’re also likely to see less compact shapes and thus the percentage would be correspondingly lower. But it’s a rough upper bound that’s not going to be too far removed from the increase in requirements. Even the straight line distance goes up by 25%.
Dibs not having the nuclear power station near my suburb to run these nodes.
So 100mbps is considered “fast broadband” now? That’s good to know. I remember a time no so long ago when 25mbps was more than enough for everyone…
One of the most pointless and inflammatory comments I’ve read from you on Delimiter in a while, HC … I’d like to see you move beyond this kind of thing. You are capable of reasoned, analytical thinking. I’d like to see more of that in action.
Pointless and inflammatory? How so?
The article you linked to is titled “Telstra nodes close enough to homes for fast broadband” and then goes on to mention “100 megabit” speeds. It’s curious that this is now the bar setting for what is considered fast broadband. Seems it moves all over the place depending on what can be achieved on copper using various technologies. I think it’s quite funny.
I agree, it seems the speed of broadband we need appears to be inextricably linked to the speed that the LNP believe FTTN can deliver.
+1
Ah of course, the company doing the analysis doesn’t agree with your conclusion ergo it’s suspect…
I’m not saying it’s accurate or not, I haven’t had the time to fully look at the report. But the only reason most of the people in this comments section need to disagree with it is that it doesn’t line up with what they want to see. How is that any more informed than making up a report that only exists to implicitly support the LNP’s position..?
Remember, technological superiority of FTTP over FTTN is not in question here. Everything else, such as demand/cost etc is far more fuzzy.
+1
Try this instead. The usefulness, or not, of this report will be become evident when MT puts his policy into action.
There is uncertainty about the state of the copper network and how much of it can be successfully used for FTTN. At the moment, arguments can be made either way because there is no credible report on the overall state of the last mile. So, let see what it turns out to be, before accusing each other of spin or bias. No matter who’s argument it suits, the truth will eventually emerge and I, for one, can’t wait to see what it is.
> Ah of course, the company doing the analysis doesn’t agree with your conclusion ergo it’s suspect…
No. I consider it suspect because, as far as I can tell, I could have gone to Telstra’s Top Hat xls, looked up some random ten PDF maps, found the relevant places on Google Maps to get approximate distances, counted how many premises were inside x metres from where the node would likely be, divide that by the total number of premises in the area covered by the node, reached 82% as the highest number (remember how it said ‘up to’?) in that sample of ten. Then I could have gone to Alcatel Lucent’s website, found the first glossy brochure on vectoring and see it tell me that it can do 100 Mbps over 400 or 500 or whatnot metres.
Or another example: Here’s a new estate, all the places (actually just 20 premises) are within 400 metres of a Telstra Top Hat. The wiring is all Cat 5 and there’s 4 pairs to each household. By the same metric as this report here, just by finding this one estate, I can now have the claim ‘1 Gbps FTTN viable for most, find study’ out there too. But without seeing the actual report, I have no idea whether that’s the metric they used. But from the summaries here and in the AFR, it seems to be.
That said, I have no doubt that the coalition, with vectoring, can deliver good download and, more importantly, upload speeds. But whether that is 70 Mbps or 30 Mbps or 100 Mbps is a bit besides the point in the grand scheme of things. There’s not much I can do with 100 Mbps that I can’t do with 30 Mbps in the long run. If the study had found 50 Mbps viable for most, then that’s fine by me, and I don’t doubt the veracity or the fact that 50 Mbps is really just as useful as 100 Mbps.
* to most
And yes, when the NBN with FTTH comes along, if hypothetically that were ever to happen cough, cough, I’m going to probably pick 50/20 instead of 100/40. There’s little that I could do with that extra speed that’s worth paying an extra $10 a month for. So, in terms of asking whether FTTN could do 100 or 50, I don’t really care. I do care about the quality of the work in things like this study, however, because an informed discussion is far more vital than nitpicking over 50 or 100 Mbps, which is not what I’m doing.
Again, I have now doubt that the coalition can deliver 50 Mbps to most. But that’s, maybe, not all there is to this.
@ Asmodai,
Perhaps you can now understand why we all got so riled up previously, with all of the 24/7, always negative/sky is falling, every report is biased rubbish and the absolute accompanying FUD that was being ridiculously pumped out by a few here, who opposed the “actual NBN”…
Because I can categorically guarantee you, no one here has gone to such extremes in relation to MT’s FttN policy (most is warranted constructive criticism) as these NBN detractors did, and strangley continue to do, with the “actual NBN”…
So please…
BT actually class 76Mbps as “Superfast broadband” (http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/packages/?s_cid=con_FURL_packages)
Have to wonder what term they’ll use for 100Mbps-1Gbps, maybe “SuperMegaRainbowFast”© :o)
The definition of fast broadband is growing by 40% a year to keep pace with data growth of course ;)
“Up to 80% percent of homes in cities were within 500m of a copper node”.
Up to. Up to. Up to.
That could mean that
– In Telstra Exchange Area A, 80% of homes were within 500m of a copper node.
– In Telstra Exchange Area B, 50% of homes were within 500m of a copper node.
– In Telstra Exchange Area C, 65% of homes were within 500m of a copper node
– No city based Telstra exchange has more than 80% of homes within 500m of a copper node.
Am I the only one to pick up this?
Renai, are you game enough to take this issue up direct with GQI Consulting director Cliff Gibson Consulting?
I didn’t even notice that.
Essentially, what the study has found is, using an “out of date” database, that there is at least one copper pillar somewhere in Australia that has connected to it houses, 82% of which are closer than 500 metres from it.
And from that we conclude that, and I quote the headline: “100Mbps FTTN viable for most, finds study”.
OK. I really want to see that study now because surely there’s got to be more to it than this.
FTTN:
1. thickness of copper
2. length of copper
3. quality of copper in current state
4. LOTS of power for nodes meaning more power lines/infrastructure being needed where is the cost of this? $$$$
5. most decent vdsl/vdsl2 installs with high speed bond the lines. we have a single copper pair where as they are talking 2-4 pairs of copper to get good speeds.
6. limited future proofing
7. lower upload capacitiy e.g. putting phons on facebook, putting video on youtube.
FTTH
1. glass aka fragile but can be repaired
2. takes a good long length to impact big on speeds
3. quality not an issue at present
4. highly upgradeable!!!
5. will take a few extra years to complete.
6. give alot of premises ubiquitous choice and access
7. better upload compactity
8. it is what we are going to need in 8-12 years regardless of outcomes.
9. do it once do it right especially when it is taxpayers money being used!
10. more mobile base stations maybe even mini-cells due to capacity available under fibre.
Just FYI, whilst fibre optic is glass, it’s not that fragile. I’ve seen fibre have a car run over it without a problem.
The public con perpetrated by the LNP that VDSL on copper can provide the promised minimum of 25Mbps by 2016 and 100Mbps minimum by 2019 continues with GQI input.
Quoting theorical limits doesn’t cut it, end of story.
so being my local area is tin lines and not copper , I in theory should get optic fibre :P as i’m assuming my wires wont be able to deal with VDSL
Maybe Malcom can make a copper suit of armor and sword out of all the copper bs and go back in time where the LNP are clearly suited best. Policies?.. cut down and destroy and do nothing so come around next election they can pat themselves on the back and show all the glorious savings. that’s of course they don’t go splurging on used US military equipment. yep the sheep have spoken and all those who voted LNP get what they deserve. NOTHING !
I believe the major reason they are sticking with FTTN is because the Labour party came up with FTTH…
They have to be different because that is how poltics work…just my 2c.
Fortunately I will have FTTH by the time I move in to my new house.
Labor didn’t “come up with FTTH”, the Panel of Experts did, Labor just backed their plan. This is something that those that back the FTTN plan like to ignore.
You can see the NBN Report “Assessment of Proposals” here: http://www.smh.com.au/reports/NBNReport.pdf
You can see the makeup of the panel and it’s advisers at: http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/2009/april/national_broadband_network
They are the ones that came up with the FTTP plan, not Labor…
The point being, of course, that the LNP is about to make the mistake that Labor almost made (a politician deciding on what to do), but avoided by listening to the experts ;o)
What the pro Labor NBN supporters would prefer to ignore is the key reasons and the environment they made that decision at the time, it was right in the middle of the GFC and there was genuine concern private bidders could not obtain cost effective funding, another concern was the lack of a viable upgrade path from FTTN to FTTP, that technology has moved on, perhaps Openreach in the UK for one could tell them how that is done today.
> there was genuine concern private bidders could not obtain cost effective funding
Or, more to the point, it couldn’t be done without Telstra, who considered the whole tender a joke, as their submission is evidence of.
> another concern was the lack of a viable upgrade path from FTTN to FTTP, that technology has moved on, perhaps Openreach in the UK for one could tell them how that is done today.
Except that devices that could provide both GPON and VDSL in a node setting have been around before well before 2010. Furthermore, the Openreach rollout started in early 2009. The VDSL2 rollout here would only start at the end of 2014-ish. Vectoring is new, sure, but no other bits of technology have moved on. Five years behind, anyone?
In any case, if you think the coalition plan represents a viable middle step between FTTN and FTTP, then you’re very much wrong. Pretty much the only positive about FTTN in the long-term view is that there’s about two or three dozen thousand kilometres of fibre in the ground more. That’s it.
Meanwhile in Romania they are now upping to 1 Gbps for 18 Euros a month.
*ahem* Was a multi billion dollar deal not done with Telstra to do FTTP? You’ll have to refresh my memory, I’m pretty sure a deal was done…
FTTP was a knee jerk reaction due to the total failure of the ALP’s FTTN network (NBN MkI). Spin it however you like, they trumped themselves to draw attention away from the failure and waste of time/money that their original policy was. Telstra’s involvement was a given right from the word go, Conroy was just too pigheaded to admit it.
No spin required org’asmo. Conroy has actually said what the factors were that led to FTTH being the preferred option in his recent speech.
He said that the switch from the original fibre-to-the-node (FttN) plan to FttP was derived out of three factors: Telstra’s resistance to structural reform, the Global Financial Crisis, and the expert panel appointed by the government that said that FttN was not a cost-effective path to full FttP.
If Telstra were less pig headed, they would no doubt be enjoying control of an monopoly last mile FTTN network right now. Labor called their bluff. Conroy at least had the cajones to stand up to them. Turnbull has shown no similar fortitude. He appears very happy to be Telstra’s bitch. Telstra will be the big winner under Turnbull, and we will end up right back where we are now, with big digital divides, and watching on forlornly as the rest of the world zooms on by.
@Fibroid…
As usual, trying to rewrite history based on half the info and extreme bias. Here is exactly what was said by the PoE, in relation to NBN funding…
“There has been a once-in-75-year deterioration in capital markets that has severely restricted access to debt and equity funding. As a result all national proponents have either found it very difficult to raise the capital necessary to fund an NBN roll-out without recourse to substantial support from the Commonwealth ***or have withheld going to the market until they have certainty that their Proposal is acceptable to the Commonwealth***.”
So although difficult, they could raise the capital, they just chose not to before hand (fair enough) and of course wanted to use this to demand hand outs, *sigh*…
pro Labor NBN supporters
This sums up exactly where your wrong Fibroid, you’re so blinded by ideology that you can’t see the FTTP NBN is actually a good plan…
You also let ideology blind you to the fake that reusing a network started in 1880 wont throw up some problems in it’s self…
From the original article: ““This is a desktop study, the aim of it was to get some sort of feel for what the average distance between the pillars and cabinets, and where people live”
How did this non story get past the editorial gate keepers at AFR? Oh, I forgot, they don’t employ journalists any more. It is comforting to know I don’t waste my money buying it.
Studies should only be reported when they are credible. When they use correct methodology to draw useful and accurate conclusions.
Every jerk with a political axe to grind (or other agenda) is more than happy to produce ‘study’ after ‘study’ to back up their nonsense.
It really is up to media to sort the wheat from the chaff before they report on these ‘studies’. Sadly, in this case, we just have a bad bit of propaganda presented as a study.
Personally, I would love to see an actual independent academic body which was established to provide oversight of all studies and to be able to veto the use of the word when it is applied inaccurately.
It’s only a matter of time before the truth is revealed.
I am curious as to what will happen where I live. The area was due to be finished by September 2014. One part of the area cannot get ADSL, another has wet copper sealed in silicone. The local tech told me parts of the areas are beyond redemption.
I can’t wait to see what Malcom comes up with and how he reacts when he gets some of his own medicine.
Well we know what will happen if a area is beyond meeting minimum speed standards as per Coalition policy and the copper is beyond remediation, you will get FTTP.
This has been stated by the Coalition many times.
And of course, the coalition would never lie or back flip?
Of course no, the Coalition members are all angels, highly capable. Labor is where all evil, incapable, useless people go.
Indeed Observer,
Our friends complete and utter contempt for one side and yes man subservience to the other is either commendable loyalty or gullible pitifulness…
I certainly have my thoughts on which ;)
They also said they’d be more “open, transparent and honest”
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/immigration-minister-scott-morrison-says-the-government-is-not-suppressing-news-of-new-asylum-boat-arrivals/story-fnho52ip-1226724310282
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/abbott-government-already-lacking-transparency/20130926-2ufyd.html
http://www.afr.com/p/national/abbott_office_takes_control_of_ministers_kOrNDWvxfGRPUF4FEGzQPK
http://www.phonytonyabbott.com/blog/five-things-we-have-learned-since-tony-abbott-became-pm
Trust them? I didn’t trust Labor, why would I trust the LNP?
Yes I have heard all of that from both of you and others before, with the pre-election scare campaign about the Coalition ripping what had been built of the Labor out of the ground and the Labor rollout will be stopped dead as soon as they got into Government, neither of which has happened.
Obvious to all the Coalition have kept their promise to honour all Labor build contacts which will take us well into 2014-2015, but pro Labor NBN supporters ignore the positive and prefer to push negative conjecture on every occasion on what they think the Coalition won’t keep their promises on re the NBN.
“Obvious to all the Coalition have kept their promise to honour all Labor build contacts which will take us well into 2014-2015”
There are still some question marks about that. So far, all MT has confirmed is only 900 000. He has already suggested that the rest may not go ahead with FTTP.
Nope, he didn’t confirm 900,000. He confirmed 300,000.
The other 900,000 didn’t have “Active construction”, they were in the 1 year footprint, and would be reviewed in the 60 day review.
Only 300,000 with active construction in the 1 year rollout are confirmed. The rest are in limbo.
Thanks for the correction.
Any comment on this Fibroid? Or this is not worth answering… I mean cherry picking?
@ Fibroid…
“Yes I have heard all of that from both of you and others before, with the pre-election scare campaign about the Coalition ripping what had been built of the Labor out of the ground…”
I’m calling complete and utter bullshit on this… link please, to show tinman and observer both saying the above or a retraction please?
Although I suppose I’d have more chance in winning the lottery :/
Unlike you, I’m not a fanboi of any political party, and I’d appreciate it if you would stop trying to infer I am…
I support policies, not parties.
They haven’t costed this yet though. Have they?
Even if it is possible to get 100mbps that will not be enough, even in the very near future.
Especially considering the speeds fibre can provide and be upgraded to provide it, FTTN is still slow in comparison.
Plus, I personally do not want to see 10’s of thousands of big cabinets along streets all over Australia; it will just look terrible.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a headline speed of 100 Mbps is enough for the vast majority for a long while to come yet. It definitely won’t be outclassed in the very near future, sorry. If you want to, however, talk upload speeds then feel free.
Also, I don’t really care about the look of the cabinets either. There are plenty of issues more fundamental when it comes to the cabinets.
There are plenty of reasons to go with an FTTH NBN, but those two I’m not really sure I care about.
100Mbps is only 4x 25Mbps… which sounds big but is only about 3.5 years of growth.
Remember we’re averaging a ~58x increase per decade… so the difference between 6Mbps (rough average today) and 100Mbps isn’t that large.
I am heavily in favor of Fibre all the way. And wish to see a FTTP network as far across Australia as it can get, but, claiming that 100 megabits is only 3.5 years worth of growth is extremely misleading.
Please don’t run around claiming the sky is falling WRT to future demand for data. It doesn’t help the cause.
It is, however, accurate to say that a 4 fold increase in download amounts has been corresponding to around 3.5 years for quite a few years now.
However to put concrete numbers on that, like 25 Mbps or 100 Mbps isn’t quite right, because the time at which a specific download speed or amount becomes insufficient is different for near enough everybody. If you’re going to do that, you’ll have to put a very wide range of dates on there, saying something like 25 Mbps is enough for 75% of the population at this price point in this year and for 25% at this price point this many years later.
Anything else is simplifying things more than appropriate.
What about upload speeds?
What about the (un)reliability of the copper network?
Once again we would have unfair situation where someone living a few houses down gets a higher speed but pays the same price as you. (I currently get 4Mbps but pay the same as someone getting 20Mbps.) We will already have that considering the number of FTTH connections that will be complete before any switch to FTTN occurs.
What about future requirements? 100Mbps (download) might be enough for a while but it will end up costing more to upgrade to FTTH in the future.
FTTN is NOT a viable option. It is an ALTERNATIVE that the coalition (when in opposition) had to put forward before the election.
I’ve had 3 adsl2+ connections that have periodically sucked because of last mile copper issues.
3/4 life experiences tells me Turnbull and these report writers are idiots.
It’s the days off from work convincing telco’s that really shit me. I’m not going to call them sick days or half days anymore. I’m going to call them Turnbull days.
Once again, more focus on technological nitpicking that enrages people but is hard to refute because the basic premise is founded on shifting metrics and not hard facts, while much of the topic is steeped in subjective interpretation, opinion and conjecture.
Please remember, even if we’re talking about Coalition FTTN (which is difficult to do when there is no formal direction that’s been determined) we’re not talking about FTTN the technology, we’re talking about FTTN the policy as a subset of the overall National Broadband plan as redefined by the LNP Government. That includes all the funding, ROI, demand projections and competitive environment and regulation taken as a whole. You cannot reduce the subject of policy down to individual component aspects – you must continue to view emerging specifics in line with the policy/project/plan as a whole.
For example, from a technical perspective some technical innovation allowing 200mbps download via FTTN copper Technology over as much as 500m of cable sounds pretty good, but taken in context of infrastructure competition and FTTP overbuilt networks undermining the business case and financial viability of NBN Co such a proposition is still dead in the water – it will be a costly exercise that ultimately sets the country back economically and competitively against the rest of the world for decades to come.
The key difference between the ALP NBN approach versus the LNP’s proposals is this – the ALP defined the problem to solve as the best solution to meet the long term telecommunications challenges for all Australians, including affordability of the infrastructure, affordability of the service to end users and technical suitability of the solution for the long term needs of the country, while the LNP are suggesting a strategy to deliver a network that meets the current to medium term requirements of the majority of Australian individuals, with little thought for business case requirements (because they believe businesses should and can all pay for whatever telecommunications they need) with little thought for long term ramifications, with little thought for financial viability.
Take a look through the 2013/16 NBN Co business plan – it is clear that consideration was given at every turn, on every aspect, as to the impact on competition, the knock on effects through RSPs down to end users, impact on OPEX – NBN Co has/had a thorough understanding for big picture and long term considerations that have guided every decision. They may have been implementing a technical solution, but they did so with full appreciation for and understanding of the overall policy direction they were working within. It is abundantly clear from that document just how thorough their work was that underpinned their costings, their forward projections and project planning. Could the NBN run late and cost more than estimated? Sure, but only because of external factors beyond their control, and even then you’d be talking variations that would almost certainly fall within the contingency already set aside for just such scenarios.
So that’s the acid test – if you’re talking about the LNP alternative, you must keep it in context – it must be evaluated as a whole policy, and it must be evaluated against the major hallmarks of the policy/project already in existence that the seek to replace. Does it meet or exceed the same goals for ROI and long term fiscal sustainability? Will it be as affordable for end users and businesses at various tiers long term (because end user costs will be slashed over the next 20 years under FTTP)? Does it meet the same technical objectives? Does it provide the same opportunities for innovation or even cost savings for initiatives like smart grids?
I could go on, but you get the point – if the LNP alternative is inferior as an overall policy then it should be rejected – the technical nuances are a distraction (with debatable merit depending on too many unknown variables at this point anyway). Technical merits are fine, of course, but they are only a small part of the story, and that seems to be something that most people seem to forget when discussing and thinking about the topic.
FTTN shouldn’t be rejected because it is slower, it should be dismissed because it will cost almost as much, take nearly as long, is fiscally irresponsible because it will never achieve positive ROI, will allow infrastructure competition and FTTP overbuilding which will bankrupt NBN Co and undermine fair, sustainable, manageable, robust, ubiquitous and economically efficient telecommunications in Australia for decades to come. It will result in a worse outcome for consumers, from fewer opportunities, higher costs, less reliable services and more frustrating experiences dealing with telcos like Telstra who simply do not care about user problems beyond what they specifically have to supply under the law.
Until and unless the LNP can somehow develop the creativity to address these issues as a whole, their alternative is not a reasonable or acceptable alternative plan and must be rejected wholesale. Because you can’t pick and choose here – we don’t get the choice of FTTN for 70% but keep the rest of the ALP’s NBN plan; this is not telecom pick-&-mix. Don’t try to tell me I’m being unreasonable saying FTTN is not a viable alternative because it is technically possible, because there are examples of it working in other parts of the world – that’s a flawed argument. Because we’re not talking about FTTN the technology, we’re talking about FTTN the technical aspect of the LNP alternative plan. It is because the plan as a whole cannot work, because it is not a viable replacement for the FTTP NBN project and policy, that it is rejected.
Mr Turnbull keeps talking about FTTN projects one fifth the cost of FTTP that finish in a quarter of the time. If the LNP plan for FTTN was due to complete (as in, no more work to be done at all) by the end of 2015 at a cost of $8bn, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Clearly that’s not unreasonable and Australians would see the benefits of faster broadband much sooner at a fraction of the cost.
But that’s not what’s happening – Mr Turnbull’s anecdotes are empty rhetoric designed to placate and misdirect, nothing more. They are in no way materially applicable to the Australian situation and as such nothing is brought to the discussion by including them.
Let’s focus on what is actually relevant, what does actually move the debate forward – evaluation of the plans/policies as a whole. Don’t be distracted by technical misdirection – unless it comes packaged within a viable alternative policy that compares favourably to the project they’re seeking to replace, it is meaningless and irrelevant. Rejection of FTTN is not technical zealotry, it is the rational response to the proposition than an inferior service should be acceptable within the context of inferior economics, inferior competition arrangements and inferior long term outcomes for all Australians. The only reason Mr Turnbull keeps harping on about technical zealotry is because it conveniently distracts everyone from considering this project for more than the technical sideshow he wants everyone focused on. <This is not about technology. It’s about business, it’s about market position, it’s about competition and it’s about economics. The technical aspects are no more than a sideshow, much like the choice of rail gauge was for train infrastructure – the technical aspects were irrelevant, it was about business, market position, competition and economics then, too. But keeping people focused on and discussing various technical merits keeps them from looking too closely at the companies who benefit from those decisions, and those who get locked out of the market as a result.
Can we turn this into an article?
Trevor – one of the very best, rational and most cogent arguments I have read, here or anywhere for a very long time. I have struggled for many months to say what you have said here, and I doubt if I could have come anywhere near it. These ARE the sort of arguments we SHOULD be having. Not the same old 100Mb/s vs 25Mb/s or any of the other crap we read – over and over and over again. Turnbull is a slave of the LNP, and as a Party, they have a deep and fundamental dislike of government enterprises. and an equally fundamental belief in the “market” achieving the ubiquitous outcomes we, as consumers would desire. But – as we know only too well, that doesn’t generally happen. History is littered with examples of that! Is there any way you could get this as an article into a more mainstream area, rather than as just a comment, so that we might – just – start to get some more serious and rational debate about what is probably one of the most important issues for Australia in the next twenty years or so?
The problem with both your and TrevorX’s argument is that overseas infrastructure rollouts are’ littered with examples’ of mixed infrastructure rollouts where a mix of FTTP and FTTN from a mix of public and private funding has worked to give residents a faster solution to getting off ADSL or slower than what is happening in Australia, where the Labor FTTP model was aiming to get 93% off ADSL or slower by 2021.
It has yet to be explained how that despite carrying forward three missed target estimations by substantial amounts how you still meet that 2021 deadline of 93%.
Overseas rollout show us that FTTN is faster and cheaper to deploy, no argument, so therefore the NBN Co wholesale revenue flow from RSP’s are earlier than with FTTP.
The pro Labor FTTP supporters have yet to show why Australia is unique in the world where here for some reason yet to be argued factually beyond the realms of conjecture FTTN is a non starter.
I am open to reasoned argument as to why FTTN here as distinct from elsewhere in the world will not work, nothing I have read from you or anyone so far (beyond conjecture) nulls out overseas examples of successful cost effective and speedy FTTN rollouts.
I assume in the absence of anything beyond conjecture you therefore feel the need to fill the void with a personal attack.
You could start with the fact that, here, the company planning the roll out doesn’t own the copper (kind of a big point). You could then continue on with the fact that due to the distances that need to be covered in Australia Telstra “cheaped out” and use narrower gauge copper than they did in the UK and that vast areas of the UK had their copper replaced in the 50’s onwards thanks to WWII.
There are probably cases to be made that environmental conditions are vastly different here too (heat kills electronics, they love cold).
There are a ton of reasons FTTN isn’t a good idea here, most of the reasons against FTTP are just pure made up fantasy…
^ where’s the like button when you need it.
It’s hard to compare apples with apples because of these facts, Australia is a substantially hotter country than a place like the UK.
Telstra went on the cheap with as much as possible, etc…
All i can say is, it will be an interesting time, seeing the expression on LNP faces when they find out just how crap Telstra’s copper really is.
Nah, that won’t bother them at all.
They’ll just sign a contract with Telstra to supply an FTTN network, and where the copper isn’t up to scratch, the suckers – er, sorry, consumers – will be required to pay the full upgrade cost to fibre, either directly out-of-pocket, or via their taxes.
@tinman_au
So it seems you and others know more about the copper quality and the environment it is in than the company that owns it, which is amazing insider knowledge because I am not aware at any point since the April release of Coalition policy Telstra has said at any time the copper is not up to the minimum speed standards as specified in the policy release, in fact quite the opposite, and they have had plenty of time to pour cold water on FTTN.
Not only that according to the ‘we know more about the copper than Telstra’ experts it requires so much remediation to bring it up to the minimum speed standards as per Coalition policy that there is only one solution, FTTP to 93% of the residences by 2021, that’s exactly like the now defunct Labor plan, what a coincidence.
How do you know that FTTN is not feasible as a indisputable fact because of the copper quality beyond the anecdotal ‘I have a friend who has a cousin who is a tech who said……’ – type of crystal ball gazing?
“…I am not aware at any point since the April release of Coalition policy Telstra has said at any time the copper is not up to the minimum speed standards as specified in the policy release…”
Astounding discovery! Telstra *isn’t* publicly devaluing it’s infrastructure just at the same time a very big, powerful and rich potential buyer pops up.
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/09/18/3851118.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/09/19/3851924.htm
Why would Telstra say the copper is bad? They’ve got a mug willing to buy it for billions and billions.
Also, the “insider knowledge” here requires only knowing basic communications engineering and/or some physics.
you know what the funniest thing is… even the biggest FTTH NBN booster Simon Hackett has NEVER EVER questioned the capability of Telstra’s CAN to implement FTTN due to “deteriorating copper”. (He has used other scare tactics instead: ugly boxes, power savings, Telstra bogeyman.) Even John Lindsay (another FTTH NBN booster) in interview with Phil Dobbie has poured cold water on arguments about poor copper quality hampering FTTN build.
Well in that case why are we even commenting or discussing the issue… after all, Simon said.
you know what the funniest thing is… even the biggest FTTH NBN booster Simon Hackett has NEVER EVER questioned the capability of Telstra’s CAN to implement FTTN due to “deteriorating copper”. (He has used other scare tactics instead: ugly boxes, power savings, Telstra bogeyman.) Even John Lindsay (another FTTH NBN booster) in interview with Phil Dobbie has poured cold water on arguments about poor copper quality hampering FTTN build.
It’s not about it being “deteriorating copper” (though that will be a factor in some places no doubt), it’s about Telstra taking the cheap route and not using a gauge of wire that will support what Malcolm wants to do.
http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com/more-evidence-that-turnbull-cant-deliver-on-25mbps-minimum/
Also how do you get from here: http://simonhackett.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/commsday-syd-2013-hackett-problem-with-fttn.pdf a direct quote being “FTTN is sufficient only if [the] copper network doesn’t fall apart in the meantime”
To here: even the biggest FTTH NBN booster Simon Hackett has NEVER EVER questioned the capability of Telstra’s CAN to implement FTTN due to “deteriorating copper”.
I don’t know.
Very easily, if you’re trolling.
@quink – to put my fibroid hat on for a moment, he gets there quite easily. Hackett didnt use the term “deteriorating copper” at any point, so he technically never questioned FttN on those specific grounds. The copper network falling apart could happen for any number of reasons, there’s no evidence to limit it to one possibility and anyone that does is a FttH-fanboi that is crystal ball gazing.
And fibroid will have seen nothing to counter that argument, you know that.
Here’s the picture Hackett had right under that just to give a bit more context: http://i.imgur.com/PW7Kb3Z.jpg
@ haha yeah…
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/11/100mbps-fttn-viable-finds-study/#comment-626658
John Lindsay did did he? Really?
http://www.zdnet.com/telstra-must-fix-dilapidated-copper-for-libs-fttn-nbn-iinet-7000021893/
“Speaking to the recent CommsDay Melbourne Congress, iiNet CTO John Lindsay said that Telstra’s ongoing struggle to fix faults with its “dilapidated” copper network in a timely manner regularly posed challenges for ISPs seeking to build on that network – and that the VDSL2 technology at the core of Coalition’s strategy would require a mammoth commitment from Telstra to work effectively.”
Haha yeah indeed… and also d’oh!
How do you know that FTTN is not feasible as a indisputable fact because of the copper quality beyond the anecdotal ‘I have a friend who has a cousin who is a tech who said……’ – type of crystal ball gazing?
Blind faith only works in religion mate, there is enough evidence around, anecdotal and hard, that the view that “the coppers fine” is the “Badhdad Ali” position…
Copper Quality is simply one component of the whole.
Do you invest a similar amount of money into an old network, in which there are unknown variables, such as the quality. Which will be lower speed, have reduced ROI and may need to have a degree of remediation above what you have defined for cost.
Or
Do you invest a similar amount of money, into a new network, built on new technology with at least a 50 year theoretical life, higher speed, good ROI that will allow it to be maintained, and will not require any remediation to get working?
“Telstra has said at any time the copper is not up to the minimum speed standards”
Well fibroid, Upon receiving the applications from most of those in our street for a broadband connection Telstra’s Customer Service Dept. has rejected those applications, informing them that the copper in our area can’t even support ADSL1 & won’t be remediated as its only required to support voice quality services.
Good luck with FTTN delivering that 100Mbps
Hmm, don’t think anyone is saying it categorically wont work… gotta love the defensive rhetoric and inevitable strawman …
Regardless, FttN working but being a fucking stupid idea, is more the relevant point…
Regardless, FttN working but being a fucking stupid idea, is more the relevant point…
+1
“Regardless, FttN working but being a fucking stupid idea, is more the relevant point…”
Nailed it. +1000
The argument isn’t about whether it will “work”. It is about whether FTTN is the most appropriate technology to be using in the current environment considering all the aspects:
* Download speeds (future-proofing)
* Upload Speeds (especially considering increased use of cloud technology)
* Reliability of copper
* Equity in pricing (pay for the connection speed that you get, not “up to”)
* Cost of FTTP now compared to FTTN now and FTTP later
FTTN would have worked if the Coalition had started building it when they were last in power (under Howard), but the ship has sailed and in order to be competitive and save money in the long run, FTTP is the only option for a large-scale roll-out.
It will work. It will simply be short term, will result in greater long term expense to the government and potentially the tax payer(assuming it can’t make a reliable ROI to cover costs), and reduces the potential economic gain from a ubiquitous high speed network.
It is as has been stated, short sighted.
Economically, Socially and Technically.
You have yet to prove otherwise.
“The problem with both your and TrevorX’s argument is that overseas infrastructure rollouts are’ littered with examples’ of mixed infrastructure rollouts where a mix of FTTP and FTTN from a mix of public and private funding has worked to give residents a faster solution to getting off ADSL”
And the problem with your argument is that your fail to see that the mixed of infrastructure is largely driven by incumbents trying to extract the last drop out of their infrastructure, not by the need to replace a poorly maintained dying technology.
There is major difference between you and most people posting here, beside your obvious political bias. Your arguments are made to fit whatever the LNP ends up doing, whereas most people, here, want a long term solution to what has been an increasingly inadequate communication network.
I appreciate that your main goal is not to have a useful discussion but, by your own admission, to defend the LNP. A combination of ignoring inconvenient points and cherry picking arguments may give the incorrect impression that you are successful in your crusade. The truth, however, is that your tactics have failed to convince anyone.
> The pro Labor FTTP supporters have yet to show why Australia is unique in the world where here for some reason yet to be argued factually beyond the realms of conjecture FTTN is a non starter.
Are you asking me to list countries where the government built and was exclusively responsible a nation-building fixed-line telecommunications system, copper or fibre, that charged end users?
Additionally, the countries in italic have private FTTH/B coming up very soon or in active usage. Bold will represent FTTH/B built by a substantially or wholly public telco.
OK, here we go: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium…
You get the idea yet? Maybe what Australia has been doing is not unique worldwide? Sure, some of these countries, like Austria and Belgium, have been focusing more on FTTN than FTTH, but to say that Australia is unique in the world is wrong, as I’ve started listing countries in alphabetical order and it would be a long time before I encountered one in which the government did not roll out a fixed-line telecommunications network under its ownership. And the ones in bold are doing it with FTTH right now, to varying degrees of scale.
> nothing I have read from you or anyone so far (beyond conjecture) nulls out overseas examples of successful cost effective and speedy FTTN rollouts.
Maybe that’s because we do think that FTTN rollouts are cost effective and speedy. Sure, some of them might have delays and so on, but for an incumbent telco, like BT or Deutsche Telekom, FTTN presents a very cost effective (in terms of capital expenditure) and speedy solution. Not many are arguing the fundamental truth of that, only at most some aspects of this.
But who cares about facts when you have a narrative to sell, right?
But nowhere, nowhere, in the world did a government sell of its telco and then go back years later and ask it to please sell it the network back. Nowhere on this planet has this idiocy happened yet.
And it’s all because the privatisation of Telstra was screwed up beyond international compare.
@quink
‘But nowhere, nowhere, in the world did a government sell of its telco and then go back years later and ask it to please sell it the network back. Nowhere on this planet has this idiocy happened yet.’
Are you referring to the Labor backed plan of buying out Telstra (and Optus) with a view to shutting down their fixed line existing working BB fixed line infrastructure in your ‘idiocy’ definition or are you referring to something else that hasn’t even happened yet?
The amounts paid to Optus and Telstra only represent a fraction of the nominal value of their networks. Optus in particular was quite willing to shut down theirs by 2014, and the NBN pulled that date forward only slightly.
It also happens to be that Telstra is not selling the CAN to NBN Co, or at least it wasn’t until the coalition came along.
Are you referring to the Labor backed plan of buying out Telstra (and Optus) with a view to shutting down their fixed line existing working BB fixed line infrastructure in your ‘idiocy’ definition or are you referring to something else that hasn’t even happened yet?
Only the Amish would want to keep using superseded technology, and while I don’t think they are idiots, I do think they aren’t very practical…
Oh, and bold on that list, were I to extend it, should also be Orange, S.A., near enough 30% owned by the government of France with just two investments (I don’t know if they have more).
Another shareholder of Orange’s? Malcolm Turnbull.
Not only is Australia not at all unique in the world, Turnbull himself is in part responsible for it not being unique in one instance.
But yes, if you want to post some variation of this same thing in the next NBN article on Delimiter again, then that’s just the modus operandi we’ve come to predict by now.
“It has yet to be explained how …”
No it hasn’t. Just because you don’t believe the explanation (I like you are skeptical! – shocking isn’t it!) it doesn’t mean the explanation isn’t there.
Thanks Mike & NPSF3000, it’s encouraging to receive such positive feedback :-) Sadly I have little faith that any mainstream outlet would run articles written by me – they’ve been demonstrating their unabashed political bias for some time now, I see no reason they would suddenly change a tune that they clearly believe works for them.
@TrevorX: “FTTN shouldn’t be rejected because it is slower, it should be dismissed because it will cost almost as much, take nearly as long, is fiscally irresponsible because it will never achieve positive ROI, will allow infrastructure competition and FTTP overbuilding which will bankrupt NBN Co and undermine fair, sustainable, manageable, robust, ubiquitous and economically efficient telecommunications in Australia for decades to come. It will result in a worse outcome for consumers, from fewer opportunities, higher costs, less reliable services and more frustrating experiences dealing with telcos like Telstra who simply do not care about user problems beyond what they specifically have to supply under the law.”
*applause*
Nailed it.
Neither FTTN nor FTTP matters right now. What matters is who is going to build this NBN and how. Because the evidence shows NBN Co cannot build FTTP networks on any reasonable time frame.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/14/latest-figures-show-terminally-slow-nbn-rollout/
Well said for me the issue has never been about the technology used it is about the fixing the fundamental issues that got us here in the first place so we don’t have to do this all again in 5,10,15 years time.
The “independence” of this new study is highly questionable. The company that did this new study is GQI Consulting. The parent company of GQI Consulting is ISGM. ISGM has the contract for all the installation, construction and maintenance of Telstra’s copper network from the exchange to the customer’s premises.
That’s not a conflict of interest at all, why do people keep harassing hard working companies and political parties in Australia?!
/sarcasm off
Why all these comparisons to overseas networks? Perhaps Australia should take a step forward and lead for once, instead of following the works of similar western countries. I for one do not care about what England or Germany decided to do with their communications networks, we have the opportunity to do redo ours correctly, and that means using ftth as the absolute primary technology.
FTTN is an absolute joke and if Turnbull and Co don’t change there ways they’ll go down in history as the ones that bulldozed future communications in Australia for everyone. If you don’t think WWW has no part to play in the future for all you surely have your head stuffed down some deep sand pit somewhere. Lets hope you’re held fully accountable, as it looks like Labor have elected another leader who the people don’t want, learn much?
Haha no
Nobody is saying it can’t be implemented. Just that the cost of remediation or replacing faulty copper will make the cost difference negligible and given the technological inferiority of FTTN, not worth doing,
I suppose accepting that would make it harder to post here with a smart arse name and a half cocked argument.
hey everyone, this thread is getting puerile — keep your comments polite and informative, please — don’t let the conversation descend into vitriole. I’ve deleted quite a few comments here over the weekend.
FYI
tinman_au has been placed on the pre-moderate list for repeatedly posting impolite comments.
I’m not entirely ‘sold’ when the reports author says that about his report, and it doesn’t seem to add anything extra that was already known (or at least the AFR summary doesn’t add any thing new). FTTN is definitely “doable”, it just remains to be proved that it’s actually a better solution for the longer term.
It would have been interesting to see how many nodes he actually based this on, and how the distances/numbers might be affected by the various wire gauges used by Telstra in different regions. Hopefully the report/study done by NBN for Malcolm will be more informative.
And I my apologies if I upset any one with my earlier posts, I’m home sick and feeling more grumpy than usual :(
Seeing what has been going on with our infrastructure (road, transport, power, telecommunication……) over the last decade across the country, this NBN issue again shows today’s politicians care about their short term gain more than the long term benefit of the country (Americanized capitalism unfortunately). We used to build things that last 30, 50 to 100 years but what has been happening over the last decade or so is “build and fix as you go”. It’s us, Australian voters and taxpayers who are responsible for these failures, because we voted for that.
what about people on a RIM, people who already have internet are going to get better internet, and everyone else is getting what?
haha the classic “Telstra tech says every copper I see is bad”… my fifth cousin removed Ahmed the cardiologist reckons Aussies are a sick bunch coz every person that walks into his consulting suite has serious heart disease.
Yawn
Yes Haha, but then there’s your classic investment banker, one who may have “invented our internet” but is rather unlikely to have ever had any physical contact with that underground copper leaning back in his office chair & announcing ours can match BT’s results.
However my two brothers, both ex-Telstra techs seem to agree with Ahmed’s conclusions about a ‘sick lot’.
haha the classic “Telstra tech says every copper I see is bad”
That’s not what he said at all, did you actually read through it? He even provides links to Telstras own documentation on the subject…
“Latest stats by Statistics New Zealand are out:
June 2011 13,732 TB
June 2012 25,745 TB
June 2013 40,838 TB
Where you have to keep in mind that 65% of broadband connections there are 50 GB or less, it’s more expensive and international bandwidth is worse.
I’ve forgotten how to link: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/information_technology_and_communications/ISPSurvey_HOTP2013.aspx
Who give a rats about fibre? I have ADSL2 and I am happy with that. I also have a fixed line phone that works when the power goes out and I am happy with that. I don’t want billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary infrastructure when there are more important problems to solve. Medical services, energy security, improved transport systems, water security, food production. All of these things are important, the NBN is a play thing. We cannot live without food, water & energy, we sure as hell can live without the NBN.
If you want super high speed internet to your house, you pay for it!
Hey Gerry, 2010 called, they want their anti-NBN arguments back.
1) You experience with ADSL2+ and phone line is not indicative of a country of 22 million people’s preferences.
2) The money isn’t spent on the NBN, it’s invested, thus, because it makes a return and pays for itself, the money cannot be reallocated to other areas.
3) Your priorities for what the government should spend it’s money are not indicative of a country of 22 million people’s preferences.
4) People who want fast services via the NBN will pay for them. People who don’t, won’t. That is why the project is designed to make a RoI.
5) And finally, the Coalition plan invests just as much as NBNCo does in terms of government funding, some $30 billion (+/- $0.5 billion).
Interesting comments,
1) Have you spoken to those 22 million people? Of the 50 or so people (yes I know small sample) I have regular discussion with about 30 of them couldn’t give a hoot about the NBN. A few of them think it is the greatest thing ever conceived and it will change the world.
2) This return on investment concept, intriguing, has anyone actually ever worked out exactly how that will occur? I am yet to see a convincing explanation. Actually I am yet to see a document that explains how the interest payment will be covered.
3) Have you ever spoken to anyone that does not live in one of the major metropolises? You might be surprised what preferences people in the real world have. Even the NBN is useless when your electricity out.
4) Assuming 70% of working Australians want the superfast internet and the total cost is $35 billion each one of them has to come up with a little over $4,300. The money does not magically appear from nowhere.
5) I don’t give a rats which bunch of useless politicians are running it, in my opinion it is a case misdirected resources.
Gerry, yes, people have actually worked out how they will get a return on the investment. Amazing, isnt it?
And even more amazing is how incredibly simple the concept is. Try to keep up.
One, there are approximately 10,000,000 households that will have access to a full fiber rollout as per the Labor plan.
Two, approximately 70% of that number would connect to the full fiber rollout. The reason for that would be because there would be no other option, once the copper rollout was disconnected. If you’re struggling at this point, that means 7,000,000 residences connected.
Three, each of those 7,000,000 households would be charged a flat rate each month, starting at $24. Thats around $2,000,000,000 per annum. That $24/month builds up over time (at a maximum of half the inflation rate), increasing that $2b amount year after year.
Then there are other charges for the remaining population for the other NBN services (satellite, fixed wireless, not sure on phone only services) plus the charges imposed on the roughly 2,000,000 businesses that would also need to connect. I dont know the exact numbers off the top of my head, call it another $1b, it could be more, it could be a little less. Someone here would know them.
Overall its a surprisingly easy to predict turnover, and for similar reasons there are surprisingly easy to predict costs as well. The key reason for that is because THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER OPTION.
The numbers behind this have never been questioned, and all those profits go back to the people funding the non-govt portion of the NBN, then the government.
OK, so it no longer an optional solution, I thought this was an “opt in” roll out.
Of your $2,000,000,000, how much goes on;
maintenance of the system,
administration,
tech support,
energy charges,
all the other costs of running a huge network.
How much is left to pay the lets say $1,000,000,000 annual interest payment and how much is left to pay down the initial capital cost?
One other small point, that $2b is already being earned by the existing network without the $35b investment so you have to factor in the opportunity cost. It is a pretty standard piece of economics.
READ THE BUSINESS PLAN.
It’s publicly documented. You can use this to your advantage, or you can rabble incoherently while we collectively roll our eyes and move onto more pressing endeavours. Of course it’s not entirely accurate considering Turnbull wants to modify it for FTTN over FTTH, but you’ve demonstrated you have a brain with the questions you asked us, so I’m sure you’ll cope.
Then, once you’ve done that, you can start point out holes in it, not before.
Gerry, Gerry, Gerry. $2b was a simple figure, I hoped it would be enough to make the point. Guess not. Problem is, I expect that no matter whats put in front of you, you’ll argue. For simplicities sake, call that their profit each year. Profit, not turnover.
Let me try again though. You asked for how the FttH rollout could show a return on investment. I showed you. Is that a hard thing to understand? Expected 70% of the population connecting to a fiber plan, each of those being charged $24 at the start through the ISP. That $24 goes up each year, by a relatively small amount. Not enough to notice anyhow.
If thats still too much, think of it this way. There’s around $2b a year from residential customers. Everyone forgets the business customers as well, who are going to be subject to higher rates, to have better contention rates, more phone lines, etc etc. That’s going to generate a lot of money, and more than cover any network costs. And leave more to add on to the $2b already being collected from the average user via the ISP’s.
Under the Labor plan, its completely optional whether you join to the NBN or not. But how many options are you going to have when there’s no copper line into your house? You wont need to connect to the NBN at that point, you’re more than welcome to use 4G wireless, or whatever the standard of the day is. Listen to enough people, we’re apparently going to be doing that anyway. But a clearly advertised part of the plan is to get rid of the copper completely, which means you have a new phone line. A fiber based one.
You wouldnt have ADSL as an option. Or dialup. Or FttN. Or HFC. Or cable. In some areas you might have fixed wireless, but in 93% of the country it would be fiber or mobile broadband. Your choice. By comparison to ADSL plans you actually come out in front. 25 Mbps plans are comparable in price to ADSL plans, and you actually get that 25 Mbps, not some random “up to” speed. Or connect to 12 Mbps, it’ll cost you less than today. Thats on par with what most people get out of ADSL2 today.
How much are those other costs? Surprisingly little, and offset by what it wont cost to maintain all the old technologies. The ISP’s can charge you less, because THEIR upkeep is less. Or non existant.
You dont want it to work, thats fine. But you asked a question, I answered. 7 million households, plus 2 million businesses, makes for a very easy to calculate figure for turnover. And the upkeep on a new all fiber network is surprisingly cheap.
To give an idea, it costs Telstra roughly $1b to maintain the copper lines now. I believe the cost of maintaining the entire fiber network is under 1/3rd of that. Admin costs are minimal, there wouldnt need to be many actual staff. Again, someone here will have the numbers. All these numbers have been done to death, and its one thing nobody has ever questioned.
By the way, you dont know me or my history. I know what I’m talking about.
I’ll leave you with this slightly aggressive ending. You thought it was opt in, you were wrong. You thought there was no explanation to show a return on investment, you were wrong. What else are you wrong about?
How about a fiber plan giving you essentially the same connection you have today, which you seem to think is all you’ll ever need, for less? Dont you want to save money?
“I have ADSL2 and I am happy with that”
Good for you but I hate to tell you that you are only one of 22 million people and that your lack of understanding of the value of a decent communication network is coming through loud and clear.
I have worked in communications systems for over 25 years, I have a reasonable grasp on the situation.
With all due respect, you don’t. A reasonable grasp of the situation would involve an understanding of the facts of the situation, meaning you would have read at the very least the business plan. You have demonstrated you haven’t done that.
Well, I have lived in a house all my life but that doesn’t make me an architect.
It is one thing to work in an industry, it is another to understand the issues involved in terms of the effects of that industry in social and economical terms. If your comments are indicative of your understanding, many things worthy of consideration appear to have passed you by.
As for your friends’ based evidence, that’s a long way from giving the confidence that your views are reflective of the majority of people.
Lastly, your attempt at humour (re: loud and clear) may be the sort of things that make your friends double up with incontrollable laughter, clamouring for more but I hate to tell you that it was pretty unfunny.
“coming through loud and clear.” What without the NBN? (sorry couldn’t resist)
“I don’t want billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary infrastructure when there are more important problems to solve.”
Send this comment to Turnbull and ask him why he intends to waste billions on a very wasteful redundant substandard bandaid solution. Explain to him if he continues on his crusade and wastes money in such an way that you wont vote for his party in 2016 because you believe this is an irresponsible thing to do.
Got a feeling it would be falling on deaf ears, mind you appointing Ziggy would seem to be a deliberate attempt at sabotage.
Didn’t vote for him last time, won’t vote for him next time.
I’m glad your collective distaste for communications policy extends to Turnbull’s decisions as well as the currently being implemented but soon to modified plan that is FTTP. This to me implies that you’re capable of putting political issues aside and focusing the actual policy and facts before making judgement.
With that in mind, I find it curious that you don’t have all the facts are your disposal. It’s not like they’re hard to come by, what with this debate raging for around 4 years now, or 10 if you include the original NBN Mark I and the OPEL plan.
Funny how the avid supporters always end up saying something along the lines of oh we are far to smart to bother answering your silly questions, just read the business plan that explains everything. A business plan that I might point out is now acknowledged by one of its main architects as having some deficiencies.
I only ask the question to see if there is anything that would change my view that,
1) The resources could be used on more important issues.
2) It does not offer me anything I don’t already have ( and yes that is a very singular view I get that ).
Unfortunately it always seems that the supporters believe the NBN will improve our quality of life for free but can’t explain exactly how, while the detractors always turn it into some sort of political battle.
Me, I don’t support it because I believe it is in the most part unnecessary.
Unfortunately those that support it have loud voices the rest of us usually just don’t bother to ask the questions.
You say you ask questions to see if it would change your views but it seems that unless the answers align to your views, it makes no difference (eg: your needs being met).
As for resources being better spent, try money spent on politicians and their retirement, on reviews that rarely get implemented, on expensive defence equipment, on grant to businesses, on middle class welfare, and soon to come on parental leave…….
Just to put it back in perspective, our defence spending last year was $26b. That’s nearly one NBN a year, every year and forever.
I never said it was the only money the government was wasting. Unfortunately we all know that no matter how much we complain it isn’t going to change until there is significant change in the political landscape.
One last frivolous question, do NBN supporters know that there are people living in Australia that don’t own computers? I even know some that don’t own mobile phones.
Right, so because mobile phones and internet enable devices are completely universal we shouldn’t invest in them?
I don’t own a car. Why should the government invest in roads since I don’t use them?
*That should be aren’t
Not the point. I have a fixed line phone that is working, I have internet that suits my needs, I have friends that have regular electrical blackouts, I have others that don’t have a doctor in the town they live in. Seems to me that fixing my internet is not a priority.
If you’re going to move the goal posts like that I am not going to continue this argument.
Gerry, its not JUST internet though. Thats the carrot for the general population, but its more than that. Do you realise that the copper network we’re basing our telecommunications on are based on 150 year old technology?
The good old telegraph, first introduced in the 1860’s, was the original use of copper lines for communication. The 1860’s. Its a network based on technology so outdated you’re lucky to see it even in museums these days.
We need to move forwards. Our communication needs dont slow down, they only get bigger. Proven fact. 14 years ago we were predominantly 56k dialup users, and today the general consensus seems to be we need 25 Mbps. For the record, thats changed from 12 Mbps in the past 12 months apparently.
Our needs double at an alarming rate (every 2 years), and in a very short time period the copper lines simply wont be able to deal with our needs – that time is about 2019. Do you propose we wait until then to build a new network?
Paid parental leave! How is that not going to damage the economy?
It will provide social benefits. The government’s responsibility is not just to the economy.
No, but it is assumed knowledge. If you don’t read it, you don’t have the requiste knowledge to engage in this debate.
So that means you’re not going to read it? Look, we never said it was perfect, nor that it’s assumptions would hold true. Only that it is assumed knowledge in this forum. So read it, then start picking wholes in it.
In effect I told you to go read it because you were asking stupid questions. I call them that because the presenting the idea that the business didn’t go into depth to try and account for the expenses you listed indicates you clearly haven’t read it.
That is a trivially true statement. Resources allocated to funding the NBN could be used on more important issues. However as pointed out, you need to convince people that they are more important. Given that both majority parties have had to present a solid project for the NBN project, I call that grounds to suggest you are in the minority, and you need to disprove that investment in Broadband is required.
As you have rightly pointed out, this a singular view. The government does not exist to serve your whims, it exists to serve the people. Which brings us back to my retort to point one: you need to disprove that the investment in Broadband is required.
No, no, we don’t believe that. This is a classic strawman tactic. All we believe is that NBN is worth the expense and risk considering the social benefit and that it’s uses will justify it’s investment, allowing it to make a return. We don’t think it’ll be “free”.
And we don’t think that detractors always turn it into some sort of political battle.In fact I commended you on removing political trivialities like which party you support from your analysis. Removing political view points from this debate entirely is impossible, so we won’t true to do that.
And I respectfully disagree. I present the status quo in terms of policy development as evidence both here and across the world as evidence. I reinforce that with statistics of investing Internet usage, our placing in terms of Broadband speed, and submit various examples of emerging technology that relies on increasing bandwidth.
What have you presented? Your own personal opinion. Hardly enough to make a convincing proposal to me.
Your apathy towards the situation only reinforces the point that you are coming to this from ignorance rather than with a formed political opinion.
I spoke to a Telstra tech today that stated that the copper is absolutely stuffed and that if you have a working service it is only because the white ants are holding hands. He also said that Telstra could halve it’s workforce if it wasn’t for the damage that the gel sealant caused and that the only good copper that they have is new stuff on drums in storage sheds.
I spoke to a Telstra tech today that stated that the copper is absolutely stuffed and that if you have a working service it is only because the white ants are holding hands. He also said that Telstra could halve it’s workforce if it wasn’t for the damage that the gel sealant caused, and that the only good copper that they own is new stuff on drums in storage sheds.
Well, today has been an excellent tester for me. I’m at home with the wife and we are both teleworking today – 5.9mbps/1.3mbps – it used to be 7/1.3 but I guess my connection is syncing slower and slower.
I’m running a lync call and sharing my desktop with a guy in the office and the link is saturated. The wife tried a lync call and then VoIP and both her call and mine got totally unusable, email slowed, etc – she had to go to the PSTN to get onto a conference call. If we had kids streaming video, playing games or doing skype, god knows how bad it would have been.
For me, the whole FTTP/FTTN debate just got real world in that even 4mbps up will be no where near enough.
Its Been a test of patience for those in our area today due to total failure of our ‘should be adequate copper’ for a period of 8 hours. Both our lines from different providers dead so no phone or VOIP & useless mobile coverage.
Checked with others along our street… all dead!
Hey Malcolm, we don’t give a stuff about your faster/cheaper NBN, we’d be happy if you just fixed the copper to have a reliable connection for the next few years.
I fail to see how the FTTN plan is in any way viable, both from a practical or financial standpoint.
Bragging about spending 70% the original plan’s budget on 10% of the end product on a rapidly-decomposing copper network is just pathetic and has shades of actual mental illness. It will only be a matter of time until that network has to be replaced with fiber entirely, which is just lighting even more money on fire than just simply doing it correctly the first time. The government had a real opportunity to become a world leader in telecommunications infrastructure, and are instead childishly dragging their feet with it.
Maintenance costs on the copper network alone are going to erase that price argument eventually.
The Coalition argument that “25mbps is enough” is silly (think back to Bill Gates’ famous “640k should be enough for everybody” quote), considering that’s pretty much already what metro ADSL2 provides and it clearly is *not* enough for today’s marketplace or else we wouldn’t even be having the NBN discussion. And while we’re at it, it’s about high time people raise a real debate on the topic of data caps, because that’s a massive elephant in the room that is largely responsible for the “Australian internet sucks” stereotype to the rest of the world. What good will an NBN network be (FTTP or FTTN) be if ISPs are still imposing artificial limits and exorbitant prices on it?
When building a telco network, you should be considering what the users will need in 10+ years, not what they needed 5 years ago. On an FTTN rollout, it’s only a matter of time until the problems start again.
Comments are closed.