news Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described the previous Labor Federal Government’s attempt to extend fibre broadband to most Australian homes and businesses as “wacko”, despite the fact that Labor’s Fibre to the Premises model is seen as the long-term future of most fixed telecommunications networks globally.
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.
However, in a new interview with the Washington Post published this week, Abbott directly stated that Labor’s FTTP model was irrational.
“We’ve taken control of the national broadband network, and we will deliver faster broadband much more quickly and less expensively than would have been the case under Labor,” Abbott said, in response to a question about what he had actually accomplished as Prime Minister.
“It’s a government-owned telecommunications infrastructure monopoly, which was proceeding at a scandalous rate without producing any commensurate outcomes,” the Prime Minister added. “We are changing the objective from fibre to every premise in the country to fibre to distribution points, and then we will use the existing infrastructure to take the broadband to individual premises.”
Abbott added that the FTTN schema was “vastly” cheaper and more efficient, describing the previous paradigm as “he wonderful, wacko world of the former government.” “They were incompetent in terms of the national broadband network,” Abbott added.
The Liberal leader is correct that the previous Labor administration was broadly incompetent when it came to the implementation of its NBN policy. The rollout of the network has been delayed multiple times over its life and even this year, with NBN Co’s latest set of rollout figures to 7 October this year showing just 83,700-odd fibre premises added in the past three months. Of particular note is the company’s Tasmanian operations, which have actually gone backwards slightly over the past several months.
In addition, ex-Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, the founder of the NBN project, has acknowledged that the private contractor model which NBN Co attempted to use in its national fibre rollout has failed due to the inability of the company’s partners to deliver on their commitments.
However, Abbott’s comments run contrary to the predominant opinion of global telecommunications experts, with the overwhelming majority opinion being that in the long-term, especially after the next 10 years, broadband needs globally will see even telcos that have deployed FTTN-based networks gradually upgrading them all the way to FTTP, as under Labor’s vision.
Many in Australia’s own telecommunications industry believe that the Federal Government will inevitably upgrade the NBN after 2019 to FTTP, if the Coalition is successful at delivering its FTTN network by that date.
In addition, Abbott’s comments run contrary to the statement by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the Coalition Government was “thoroughly open” to any technology being used in the NBN — including FTTP. Abbott’s comments expose a rift between the two politicians as to what each expects the Coalition’s NBN policy to deliver. Turnbull has stated that the FTTN policy the Coalition took to the election was merely an “example” of how the NBN rollout could be better conducted, whereas Abbott appears to believe it is the final policy which NBN Co will definitely pursue.
Image credit: Office of Tony Abbott
Love the article, needs a quick proofread:
‘ The Coalition’s policy was also continue to use the HFC cable network operated by Telstra ‘
and
‘ paradigm as “he wonderful, wacko world of the former government.” ‘
feel free to delete this comment when fixed :)
That gif never gets old.
:)
Sorry Renai, will refrain in future ;)
wow , way to take some contructive feedback there.
Yeah might need to complain to the editor! ;-)
You should definitely complain to the editor. I’ve heard a rumour recently that after Renai hit the 10,000 article mark for articles written during his career, he started not to give a shit about minor spelling and grammar errors in his articles. Frankly, that’s just not good enough. He should be more of a grammar nazi and make sure every word is perfect. Otherwise, how can anyone expect to be able to read his dribblings? They’re bad enough as they are!!!
Yet the effort defending said minor errors, would have been more than making the changes quickly?
The point was we aren’t criticizing, just trying to be helpful as it’s sometimes hard to see them in your own work, as it’s in your head so you know what you meant to say.
I know you’re trying to be helpful, mate ;)
But as I said … 10,000 articles later, I am over worrying about this minor stuff.
IT’S OVER 9000!!!
Couldn’t give a crap about grammar.
The effort might not be large, but think about it from a human perspective.
There’s no fun fixing typos and grammar. The alternative has actual entertainment value (for more than just Renai).
It’s poor journalism to call the PM the “Mad Monk”. Just as bad as the grammar errors. Very unprofessional.
You’re right, clearly Renai is an unethical journalist and should be sacked.
yes Renai it’s Mister Mad Monk.
“to call the PM the “Mad Monk”
Hard to avoid once the public elects a Mad Monk as PM.
This does have several advantages though as God will provide our desired outcomes & no scruples required as confession on Sundays means all is forgiven.
I am sure Abbott wouldn’t object. He has used many not very nice names for others and follows the bible.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. ”
Galatians 6:7
Thou shall not bear False Witness (misinform, deceive, lie etc)
Thou shall not covet
Claiming Godliness when the above are a demonstrated established way of life
As someone who has said time and time again, they are all politicians, just different brands with different sponsors and anyone who holds one in contempt and the other in high esteem, is IMO a fool… I tend to agree KingForce…
I also think it was just as inappropriate referring to Kevin Rudd as KRudd and Julia Gillard – Juliar… although I’m guessing those who did so will claim it simply clever name manipulation *sigh*
Do I recall you referring to our other PM’s in such a manner, previously? If so guess what?
@Alex: But you missed the point! The “other” side started the name calling first! So it’s not their fault!
Yes…. Australian politics has devolved into the kindergarten mudslinging of “they started it first!” levels of sophistication.
Indeed and the same ploy is used by the NBN detractors/node nerds…
Actually, KRudd is his twiiter handle!
Mad monk is actually an insult to the Catholic religion rather than an insult to Tony Abbott! And seeing as the ALP is now lead by Catholics……………..
Juliar spoke for itself!
Right on cue, thank you.
I rest my case :/
Happy to oblige!
2 sides to everything! :)
It’s poor journalism to call the PM the “Mad Monk”. Just as bad as the grammar errors. Very unprofessional.
It’s a tabloid style to use funny nicknames, like Daily Telegraphs constant usage of “Juliar” when Gillard was PM, or the oh so very cleaver “Krudd” nick sometimes used in The Oz as well.
Would you prefer the Bishop of Balgowlah? :)
It is inappropriate to call Tony Abbott the Mad Monk. He is the Right Honourable Mad Monk, Member for Warringah
Actually historically, Tin Can Malc and The Mad Monk is just about up there with Pig Iron Bob!
Assuming you write your articles on a computer have you never heard of a spell checker??? One should take pride in their work and given your time in the job you should have learnt to be a bit more professional by now.
@TuffGuy, there are no spelling errors, as such, in the two sections of text quoted.
Most spellcheckers (in the composition environment used by journos) don’t provide a grammar-checking function. Whether or not they should is a moot point. It’s probably vital, or at least quite important, to correct spelling/grammar in article titles/headlines, but most journos need to publish furiously to make a living, and cannot justify spending time on minor errors.
I’d rather have a journo compose additional stories than spend time fixing minor mistakes like these two.
Abbott at odds with the rest of the world? Look, I don’t think that that’s particularly a surprise to anyone.
FTTN isn’t the end game. It’s never been the final goal. Turnbull has repeatedly admitted FTTN is a stepping stone, but refuses to be drawn on how we get to FTTH, from FTTN. Because the costs to re-purpose a FTTN to FTTH is well beyond simply replacing copper in the first place.
FTTN is built by incumbents to stave off competition, lock in markets and avoid the costly step of replacement for brownfields. It’s not built because it is somehow superior to fibre.
None of this is news to anyone. Abbott rubbishing Labor is one thing, but to rubbish the technology once again illustrates a very low degree of understanding & a considerable degree of arrogance and bravado being used to hide such.
Since when has Abbott ever shown anything but a low degree of understanding and an extreme level of arrogance? Ahh… budgie smugglers… gotcha….
@Brendan
‘Abbott at odds with the rest of the world? Look, I don’t think that that’s particularly a surprise to anyone.’
It would if the rest of the world has stopped rolling out both FTTN and FTTP and is just rolling out FTTP in 2013/2014, and the world also stopped researching and field testing speed upgrades to VDSL2 technology like G.fast.
‘Turnbull has repeatedly admitted FTTN is a stepping stone, but refuses to be drawn on how we get to FTTH, from FTTN.’
Perhaps using the technical strategy the rest of the world has in place going from FTTN to FTTP , also in reality that stepping stone gap is quite enormous in terms of timeline?
‘Because the costs to re-purpose a FTTN to FTTH is well beyond simply replacing copper in the first place.’
No it isn’t unless you can come up with some figures of fact where this transition has failed and it showed that the FTTN infrastructure owner should have rolled out FTTP in the first place.
‘FTTN is built by incumbents to stave off competition, lock in markets and avoid the costly step of replacement for brownfields. It’s not built because it is somehow superior to fibre.’
No one has yet adequately explained why FTTN will not work in Australia other than waving the conjecture based incumbent argument around while conveniently ignoring that access to the copper may well be contained within the current $11b NBN/Telstra agreement, and even if Telstra want more it still has a hell of a way to go to get to $46b.
BTW FTTN is built because it superior to ADSL/ADSL2+, the same reason FTTP is rolled out, except FTTN is a hell of a lot cheaper and faster to rollout.
FTTP is a costly extravagance, its history in Australia under the NBN Co showed that it required two adjustments upward to required debt in the short period between 2010 and 2013, and it wasn’t even close to being finished at the end of Labor reign and it required three massive rollout downgrades in that short period of 2010-2013.
Again, you frame my response as saying FTTN won’t work.
I haven’t said that. Ever. So please quit with the misdirection.
Sir, what I am saying is that if you look at *who* is deploying FTTN, it is in vast majority of cases, the incumbent telco. Because they already have copper in the ground. It’s a great way to extend the life of aging infrastructure and helps stave off competition.
Of course it takes time to deploy fibre. It always will. FTTN may be faster to deploy but you better like it, because the costs to transition to something else are proving to be anything but cheap.
So the FTTN build Turnbull is suggesting better be bloody brilliant, because we will be stuck with it for at least the next decade or two.
@ Brendan…
Unfortunately mate, your most suucinctly stated and factual logic, is no match for the old strawman, one eye always closed and fingers in ears combination, as we have all discovered time and time again…
The incumbent scenario has been ignored (as had the government spends on FttN/FttP being almost identical) via this very combination on many occasions previous and I’m sure many more to come :/
@Brendan
Again, you frame my response as saying FTTN won’t work.
‘I haven’t said that. Ever. So please quit with the misdirection.’
I never said you said ‘FTTN won’t work’, my comments are aimed directly at what you did say about FTTN, there is no misdirection to quit from.
‘Sir, what I am saying is that if you look at *who* is deploying FTTN, it is in vast majority of cases, the incumbent telco.’
Yes I know, but no one has explained how that is a problem in Australia other than making vague mumblings that Telstra will want much more than the $11b they are contracted to receive, that’s the sole basis of any perceived problem, total conjecture.
‘Because they already have copper in the ground. It’s a great way to extend the life of aging infrastructure and helps stave off competition.’
Well seeing as the FTTN infrastructure will belong to the NBN Co you don’t have to worry about the competition bit do you?
‘ FTTN may be faster to deploy but you better like it, because the costs to transition to something else are proving to be anything but cheap.’
I keep asking what those transition costs are that make it a no brainer to go FTTP in the first place, nothing factual is ever offered other than repeating conjecture over and over, as if repetition automatically turns into fact at some point.
‘So the FTTN build Turnbull is suggesting better be bloody brilliant, because we will be stuck with it for at least the next decade or two.’
Well there is nothing unique about the Turnbull FTTN suggestion, it’s the same technical infrastructure used the world over, and is working for residents the world over.
“other than making vague mumblings that Telstra will want much more than the $11b they are contracted to receive, that’s the sole basis of any perceived problem, total conjecture.”
Explain vague mumblings? There are more than mumblings, they are statements. Furthermore, if suggesting that Telstra will want more (incidentally, based on their recent statement that the copper has high value) is remotely ‘total conjecture”, what do you call MT’s suggestion that he’ll probably get it for free?
Still waiting for answers on the questions I have asked you. It is so unusual for you to ignore questions which don’y fit neatly into your contrived, one sided arguments.
‘Explain vague mumblings? There are more than mumblings, they are statements.’
The term statement alludes it has some basis in fact behind it, a major part of the pro FTTP argument relies on the fervent hope that Telstra will want more than that $11b, which is directly tied to a FTTP rollout in relation to progressive payments, read the agreement in full and you will see why, so the agreement will have to be revamped anyway, so how are they going to get their full $11b payment under the changed rollout circumstances if for example there is less FTTP?
‘Still waiting for answers on the questions I have asked you. It is so unusual for you to ignore questions which don’y fit neatly into your contrived, one sided arguments.’
What questions, I missed them?
@ Fibroid…
The $11B is not the issue per se` and I’d suggest no one here hopes it will cost more, except Telstra shareholders. Such ludicrous, unfounded accusations simply appear to reflect your own, biased thoughts relating to the previous real NBN, IMO…
The issue is (as you forever conveniently ignore) the cost of FttN being only $900m less than FttP… government spend. As such, if the copper were to cost the government even $1B more than the $11B, FttN then becomes a larger impost upon the government (let’s use the old chestnut shall we – it’ll cost the taxpayer more) than FttP, for an inferior product.
It’s not rocket science and it’s about time you were at least fair dinkum enough accept this ‘fact” here, and stop the desperate tap dancing.
Yes most curious, how you regularly seem to have something to add, but also always seems to forever miss those hot questions, eh?
“The term statement alludes it has some basis in fact behind it”
The term “statement” doesn’t allude anything. It’s a declaration. Whether is has some basis or not behind it is irrelevant. The statement ” Fibroid is annoying” is a statement of my opinion and as such is true for me
“A major part of the pro FTTP argument relies on the fervent hope that Telstra will want more than that $11b, which is directly tied to a FTTP rollout in relation to progressive payments, read the agreement in full and you will see why, so the agreement will have to be revamped anyway, so how are they going to get their full $11b payment under the changed rollout circumstances if for example there is less FTTP?”
Putting aside the rambling quality of your point, let’s deal with your assertions.
An argument, not being an agent doesn’t have hope, fervent or otherwise. If, however, this is meant to describe the pro FTTP position, I don’t think that it is a fervent hope for those who support FTTP. Their belief that there might be a cost associated with the lease/acquisition of the network is based on statements by Telstra. It is not, either, a major part of the Pro FTTP argument. There are many other issues which will prove to be challenging for the government.
“What questions, I missed them?’
How could you? You, the man with two screens and a forensic analysis of every statement made by those you see as a threat to the good name of your beloved Coalition.
Just to show you that I believe you, nevertheless, I will point you in the general direction. Unfortunately, I do not have two screens, nor the desire to spend the time going back through previous posts.
One question, however, was asking what part where you getting, in reply to one of my posts, where you said “I got that”
The other asked you that if the cost of FTTN + replacement of faulty copper exceeded the cost of FTTP would you still favour it?
I’d suggest your questions will either …
A. Be totally ignored…again.
B. You will be told that they have already been answered previously, even though they obviously haven’t and there will be an inference that you must have missed the answers (of course there won’t be links to prove they have) so, bad luck – case closed.
Odds?
Is this pessimism or realism?
The latter…
I don’t bother with extended answers to him any more, he just ignores most of it and focuses on some minutia that had nothing to do with the main point I was making. You better off keeping the answers/questions short and to the point.
I note A. has again come to the fore…
Yes. I have noticed. Answering only the convenient ones and ignoring those that don’t fit neatly into the copy and paste mantras.
I’m sure if you keep asking the same questions in about 4 weeks you’ll receive B… LOL
I know it happens to me with the same commentator, regularly.
If these opinionated FttP NBN naysayers really believed what they wrote and had conviction (other than the obvious – to their ideological masters) an answer wouldn’t be difficult and surely not too much to ask, would it?
“Yes I know, but no one has explained how that is a problem in Australia other than making vague mumblings that Telstra will want much more than the $11b they are contracted to receive, that’s the sole basis of any perceived problem, total conjecture.”
Look, I’ll make this very simple. NBNco is not Telstra. It does not own the copper assets that the incumbent does.
That’s a problem. There’s a solution. Buying or leasing the copper. The question I have is why the hell would a non-infrastructure owner decide the best course of action is to spend billions more to lease someone elses copper network??
That’s what Turnbull is assuming. That NBNco can magically acquire a network that Telstra still values. So either more money needs to change hands, or regulatory constraints need to be relaxed.
They will not simply give away market share. Not. Going. To. Happen. Telstra has very much transitioned to being a retail company, yes – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t in a strong position here.
You constantly claim FTTN is the best option. It is only the best option if you own the copper. End of story. No-one else is buying up copper networks to deploy FTTN. No. One. Period.
NBNco doesn’t have the copper. To get it, there will have to be renegotiation. And once they have it, should the Earl of Wentworth have his way, there will be no upgrade to FTTH any time soon.
And by soon I mean decades. Because once NBNco has the copper, it’ll need to make a return on the ludicrous sums of money it will take to maintain it.
This is why FTTH is the sane choice. It’s not the politically expedient one. And it’s not the fastest to deploy. But it doesn’t damn you to a cycle of maintenance of which you cannot escape. Just ask Telstra.
“The question I have is why the hell would a non-infrastructure owner decide the best course of action is to spend billions more to lease someone elses copper network???
……which its owners had got rid of earlier.
Sounds a bit like Packer buying back channel 9 from Bond.
> “You only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime, and I’ve had mine”
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
“FTTN is built because it superior to ADSL/ADSL2+”
Sure it’s superior in some cases… Comparing my home connection to my rental in NZ – 3.5mb/s to 18mb/s yeah that’s awesome, compared to my parents connection who are closer to the node – 16mb/s, not so superior.
“FTTN is a hell of a lot cheaper and faster to rollout” — care to debate that point fibroid, because thats one of the crux issues some of us have with FttN. Its misleading to argue that as if its significantly faster and cheaper, when you dont include all the facts.
Faster – to get to what point? Your argument is that FttN can be rolled out by 2016. Assuming they manage that (yet to be shown they can), thats not a fair comparison when you look at the capabilities of each rollout, and is highly selective when the complete plan hasnt played out by that point.
If you refer to the 2019 portion, thats only 2 years short of the FttH goals, and again, they have yet to show they can deliver in that time frame. All they have done is state the goal, without stating the method.
If you want faster and cheaper, its faster and cheaper to simply launch a 1 Gbps satellite and have everyone connect to that. That doesnt mean its the better option.
Cost – over what time period, and to who? How much of that $29.5b is to be spent to get the guaranteed 25 Mbps rollout in place by 2016? What part is for the 2016 – 2019 part of the build?
What is the cost to the government? Right now, the very direct number is that FttN costs the Government $29.5b, while FttH costs the Government $30.4b. What about the additional cost of upgrading FttN after 2019, up to the point 93% of the country can connect to FttH?
“FTTN is a hell of a lot cheaper and faster to rollout” — I challenge that even if FttN meets its plan, the “benefits” gained ($900m, and 2 years)are not worth it when you consider every other factor involved with maintenance of both the FttN equipment, and the other legacy technologies that survive as a result of the copper still being there.
Gav, I believe the wording of the FTTN schedule was ‘by the end of 2019’, vs ‘mid 2021’ for the original NBN according to Mr Quiggley. So it’s an 18 month difference.
There is no difference, we are not rolling out the Labor NBN and the Coalition NBN alongside each other to see which one finishes first.
There is no Labor NBN anymore , the best you can say is that it may have finished in 2021, although no one really explained how you do that when your final roll target actual for 2013 was a little over a half of what you said it would be the year before.
“There is no Labor NBN anymore”
Yes, I agree with you, yet again on this…
So why the hell do you keep on bagging it daily (old habits)… move on.
But I suppose with FttN being so antiquated and dumb (even the Coalition who now promote it opposed it and called it fraudband 6 years ago) there’s so little in the way of positives it’s much easier to rehash the FttP FUD than try to polish that FttN turd.
So what that means is that its OK for you to make unfounded claims, without any evidence to support your claim, and as soon as someone questions your claims you can shut up about it, claiming “well, Labor’s NBN is dead now, so lets just ignore it”.
I call bullshit. If the Liberals are genuine in their review being neutral, which I personally doubt it will be, then a FAIR comparison of each plan is needed. Which means looking at the things you claim without prejudice, and without a political axe to grind. So the claim of cheaper needs to be looked at from the angle of what it costs the Government TO GET TO THE SAME SERVICE STANDARD, and the claim of faster needs to be looked at in comparison to the expected benefits.
If after that it shows there are real and noticable benefits to a FttN build, good luck to them. I cant see how that can happen myself, but I’ve been wrong before.
I dont think theres a snowballs chance in hell of it being a fair comparison though, and the changes to the NBN Co map yesterday only reinforce that opinion. I expect the review to be worded in no other way than to justify a FttN build, and every relevant bit of information that goes against that to be ignored.
But that doesnt mean I will just ignore the information out there showing the cheaper and faster claim to be bullshit. Until the review is formally complete, and a recomendation is endorsed by the Coalition, then its still game on.
Also wanted to add that I have commented on the delays several times, and given practical examples on why the delays now mean very little at the end. Seems you havent bothered to consider the information put in front of you. Either that or you simply ignore it because it doesnt fit your stance.
Heres a question for you. If a Government project took twice as long as expected (8 years instead of 4), with a 50% increase in costs ($3b instead of $2b), is that a success or a failure? As usual, there are reasons for both the delay and cost increase, but as the same hasnt been considered with Labor’s NBN, I want to know what your instinct tells you.
The problem is GG even grand master Conroy of the NBN said it was too ambitious, although he waited until Labor lost Government before he said it, if they had won it would have been all hands back on the spin cycle machine as usual.
Rollout targets missed by massive amounts caused the increase in the debt funding they wanted, of course pro FTTP fans want it built regardless of delay and cost, and justify it all under the vague generic ‘you need to look at the bigger picture’, ‘the digital divide’ etc etc which as far as I am concerned is just feel good blah.
Oh, it will be built, it has to be built. It will just take longer now, with a lot of wasted outlay in the interum.
Turnbull has admitted this, if using rediculous time scales like 25-30 years before it’s needed. Who do you use to do your thinking for you, him or Abbott?
Fancy Australia daring to be ambitious…?
Let’s just return to doing easy stuff and especially, whatever the “real” countries tell us eh?
So FttN it is… *shrugs*
“No one has yet adequately explained why FTTN will not work in Australia”
Nonsense, plenty of people have made excellent arguments that you have been unable to invalidate, so your solution is to simply keep stating that no such argument has been made.
“… even if Telstra want more it still has a hell of a way to go to get to $46b.”
As I have previously demonstrated you are being deliberately deceitful referring to the $46bn FTTP peak funding figure and comparing it against the government debt component of the LNP’s FTTN plan. Telstra only have $900 million to add on for purchase of the copper part for the FTTN NBN (on top of the already negotiated $11bn) before it is more expensive to the government to build FTTN than FTTP.
“No one has yet adequately explained why FTTN will not work in Australia”
+1
The question is not whether it will work or not.
It is is more a case of how much of it will work or more to the point whether the cost of making it work (remediation where needed) ends up costing more than the current offering.
Within context. Whether it is technically feasible is irrelevant, since you cannot separate FTTN the technology from FTTN the project delivering the LNP’s NBN alternative. You cannot argue the technical merits of FTTN in isolation from the rest of the plan, what do you find so difficult about that concept? This is not infrastructure planning pick-&-mix, you are comparing the ALP’s old NBN plan with the LNP’s new NBN plan. You can’t take bits from one and combine it with the other, you only get the option of the plan as a whole.
So stop trying to argue that FTTN is feasible because it is technically possible. Sure, it is technically possible. But if it’s only $900 million less than FTTP, it is irresponsible. If it has a shorter payback period (because it’s useful life is less) then it is also economically unfeasible, because debt repayments will be significantly higher to completely service the debt in a shorter time period. If infrastructure competition is introduced the fundamental framework for the economic viability of the plan is dismantled, so it is financially untenable.
Yes, FTTN could be made to work as a technology more or less, I don’t know anyone that’s debating that. But it is unlikely to be able to deliver the promised performance while remaining within the budget that has already been outlined, let alone being ‘a third the cost’. FTTN the plan will not work because it is economically unsound.
“No one has yet adequately explained why FTTN will not work in Australia” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/telstra-copper-network-hits-100mbps-mark/story-e6frgaif-1226748468637 IT WORKS
….. everywhere in Australia?
First of all FTTN is not intended for everywhere in Australia, secondly the Coaltion rollout has only to meet the minimum speed milestones of 25Mbps by 2016 and 50 Mbps for 90% of the fixed line footprint by 2019 anyway.
By 2016?
The whole argument about FTTN in Australia is not as simple as whether it will work or not. Just as arguments about the existence of God show that no one can demonstrate that God does not exist,no argument successfully prove that he/she/it does exist.
The difference, however, between God and FTTN is that God cannot partially exist, whereas the FTTN can partially work or rather work in some places but not others. The proper question, therefore, is how much of the network is suited to this approach.
There can be no argument that part of the network is unsuitable for FTTN. What can be argued, however, is how much of is.
The two premises which underpin the Coalition decision to use FTTN are cost savings and speed of roll out (the third, making it more affordable is debatable). So, the extent to which the cost savings and speed can be meaningful rest mostly on the extend of the unsuitability of the network, bearing mind that it would mean a greater use of FTTP.
Another potential factor, in reducing the benefit of deploying FTTN, is the eventual cost of acquiring or leasing the network.
Given some of these uncertainties, it would be prudent to first wait and see how much the cost of acquiring the network lessens the attractiveness of rolling out FTTN.
Should the impact be minimal, it would still be desirable that the suitability of FTTN, as a cheaper and faster deployed option, be further assessed by auditing the whole network, to ascertain how much of it is not adequate to support FTTN.
To proceed blind and gradually discovering the extent of the problem could easily result in ultimately having a inferior technology (as acknowledged by MT) costing more and being deployed later.
This, one would have thought, is the way a technologically agnostic reviewer would sensibly proceed.
@ haha yeah…
No one (that I have read from) has said FttN won’t work… please stop introducing the desperate strawman…
What is being said is, FttN uses obsolete copper.
Obsolete copper which belongs to a private company.
It will cost the government (if Telstra don’t want more for their obsolete copper) only $900m less than the vastly superior FttP.
FttN was previously opposed and referred to by the very people now promoting it, as fraudband 6 years ago (i.e. back when it was still somewhat relevant). I bet you opposed it too, go on admit it!
So listen carefully once and for all… FttN can be done… however it is fucking stupid, especially when FttP is underway.
Don’t mention it.
What is being said is, FttN uses obsolete copper.
I wouldn’t say it’s “obsolete”, just poorly maintained in places and using lower than optimal gauge in metro/urban areas. As electrical wires go, copper is pretty hard to make obsolete :o)
It’s obsolete… It has been made obsolete/superseded by fibre.
No longer in use is but one meaning of obsolete – of course copper is still used (while ever incumbents can wring every last cent and stupid politicians such as MT are making decisions, of course it will be).
However the obsolete I refer to is (from the online dictionary) … “Outmoded in design, style, or construction”. ” out of date; unfashionable or outmoded”.
Sorry to be pedantic over semantics, but clearly (even demonstrated by MT and his fibre to greenfileds or where the copper is insufficient) fibre is to be used for “new” networks, not copper…
Because… copper is obsolete :)
Your concern about the copper quality is misplaced.
“Global telecommunications experts have thrown support behind claims that Telstra’s copper wiring can deliver faster broadband speeds for years to come, despite concerns over the age and quality of the telephone network.”
“Telephone networks have been built around the world for 100 years and they’re all made out of copper, they’re almost the same, so I don’t know why Australia would be any different,” said Mike Wright, Telstra’s executive director of networks. “Ultimately it’s going to be impacted on how you decide and what you decide to build, and that I don’t know. I can’t see why the challenges would be any different.”
Dr John Cioffi, a co-inventor of the noise-cancelling vectoring technology set to be used as part of the NBN, said there were few marked differences in global copper networks.”
http://whirlpool.net.au/news/go.cfm?article=81235
Really…?
http://www.zdnet.com/telstra-must-fix-dilapidated-copper-for-libs-fttn-nbn-iinet-7000021893/
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/concerns-over-state-of-wiring-for-the-nbn-20130915-2tswo.html
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/20/deep-investigation-telstras-copper-network/
http://www.zdnet.com/landline-complaints-surge-nbn-nearly-fault-free-tio-7000022321/
Want more?
“Dr John Cioffi, a co-inventor of the noise-cancelling vectoring technology set to be used as part of the NBN, said there were few marked differences in global copper networks.”
I am sure using silicon to seal the copper was such a raging success that the rest of the world must have been very tempted to follow Telstra’s lead. Fortunately for them, they did not.
‘said there were few marked differences in global copper networks.”’
What is it about this statement don’t you understand?
And what is it about the questions I asked you did not understand. Surely it must have been the reason, given that you are yet to answer these and all the other questions from other posters that didn’t suit your argument.
And let me ask you the same question: What don’t you understand about the effect of the silicone. I am sure there are many people here who could help you.
You know what I don’t mind you being all cocky because your beloved Coalition is in power but one thing is sure. Eventually, despite all your talking up of the network will make no difference because the truth will come out. We will find out the true state of the copper.
Interestingly, all you Coalition devotees are actually making it hard for Malcolm to get a good price for the copper. The more you talk it up, the more valuable it becomes to Telstra. Surely, a network in pristine condition is worth a lot more than one which has been neglected for many years. Keep up the good work.
I think he comprehended it quite well “there are few marked differences”. Our use of gel that was detrimentantal to the condition of the copper network was one of the “few marked differences”, Telstra all but abandoning preventative maintenance when privatised, another marked difference. That’s a few.
haha yeah so does two cans and a string, Or should i say a can and a post after the post it downgrades to cotton!
“No one has yet adequately explained why FTTN will not work in Australia” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/telstra-copper-network-hits-100mbps-mark/story-e6frgaif-1226748468637 IT WORKS
Indeed it does….over 400m. Malcolm’s originally said he was looking at 800-1000m though, so he’ll need twice as many nodes as he planned for, otherwise it doesn’t matter what “normal” FTTN can do.
It’s all about distance and copper thickness with FTTN and Vectoring.
I want to know what happens when it rains on an affected line. Best case lines are nice but I want to see the shit line figures. The worst WG copper/iron/whatever you can get. And with all the ruckus about wetting? current how it goes over time on a line that’s only used for data…. The test result here is just a single point in time, what represents what consumers will get over time in service? Does it stay steady or decline? was it only one line active and the rest silent? Or was data being passed on other pairs concurrently? Very nice to see short run hitting 100mbit but its a bit premature for celebrations just yet.
See the whole thing about fttn to me isnt merely that the tech itself wont work here – it can and does, in the right cases. But its the monolithic enterprise around it I query. how it performs over its lifetime – not just the cheaper faster bits etc. Does it remain useful under natural y-o-y data expansion rates? Physically over time? Economically over time? Does it make a rate of return at all? Is it helpful or a hindrance to the industry? In exactly the sense that a vertically integrated Telstra at privatisation turned out to be a hindrance to progress down the track..
People may not have adequately explained why fttn won’t work. But I don’t reckon the homework is complete on the fttn side either…. All I’d like is to see a bit more of that working out, since the elections outcome is that’s what we are now getting?
> We are changing the objective from fibre to every premise in the country
It wasn’t going to be every premise in the country, and he knows it.
He’s overseas saying that, as the impression of Australia with some very remote areas is well established, some outback station 300 kilometres from the nearest town of 700 will get fibre to the home and that this was a wacko idea. I guess it would be if it were true.
> Abbott added that the FTTN schema was “vastly” cheaper and more efficient
Remind me again why they’re doing this review if even the technically quite illiterate Prime Minister already knows the result?
Premises
As per the http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au, the usage of premises is explained as follows within the premise definition:
“Usage: The use of premises to mean a building and grounds derives from its use to refer to the people and items listed as the preliminary to a conveyancing deed. Therefore premises is plural in form and takes a plural verb when used in the context of a single building, as in The house was lit, but the premises were empty.”
Part of the definition mentions property, but states that it is the plural definition they are refering to. Premise DOES refer to a building and grounds, but there is no contextual ability to use it in the singular. Basically, the only time you use premise in the singular is in the definition itself, to explain why you cant use the singular.
No wonder people get confused.
It’s also funny in the historical context. How, may I ask, did it happen that copper was connected to the vast majority of Australian households in the first case? Was connecting copper to households ‘wacko’? Evidently it must have been. It’s amazing that we’re going backwards from the innovations of the past. Decades ago it was entirely technically possible for a government to provide ubiquitous fixed line communications, they managed to roll it out. Decades later, we have lost the ability to do that in Australia.
I’m really dreading to think of what else this decay will affect. Our ability to do anything has lessened and lessened. In fact, it was only two decades ago that two companies managed to roll out HFC to a fairly sizable number of premises in this country. Are we not able to do this any longer as a country? What happened between let’s say 1996 and 2013 that means we, as a nation, are unable to do this any longer? Are we in a capability bankruptcy? What happened in the past twenty years, since then?
How is it possible that it was possible to haul a massive amount of copper past and into premises in the 1930s, before computers or anything, but it’s not possible to do this any longer without it being called a white elephant and cancelled before hitting its stride despite an evident need and an evident cost-effectiveness in 2013?
People say that Abbott is stuck in the 1950s. Honestly, I think someone from the 1950s, the decade that had the greatest influences on the Sydney Opera House, Television, Telex, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, Jet airliners and Holden would be aghast at the prospect of even the might of the Australian government not being able to put cables cheaper than copper into most urban areas or having a landscape of competition that’s ensured that this would not happen. They would be ashamed that this is where we’re at 60 years later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_F3pw5F_Pc
I think of something like an 8k Oculus Rift, cheap enough to be ubiquitous, going to be on the market in very few years indeed and something that can be powered with barely more than a USB port, and that’s the kind of thing that surpasses your transporter in Star Trek by making it irrelevant. Ubiquitous fibre is a kind of a big deal to make something like that work. Our current network, or wireless, no matter how much compression or how great a modulation and frequency you strive for will never reach that potential. And that’s just one example.
You put that in contrast with Fibroid above saying “FTTP is a costly extravagance”, then I’ve got to wonder. And our current status quo isn’t? Why am I paying $100 a month to have the ability to upload one picture every two minutes, when someone in Kansas City pays $70 a month to do seven in a second with a profit margin for Google? So not even the cost side of the argument holds up.
Great, so when Google puts their fibre in your area like the limited areas of the USA they have done I guess you will be the first to sign up, the point is how long are you prepared to wait?
Got it…
It’s ok for you to say BT this and BT that and make any FttN comparison you wish.
But as soon as anyone else does similarly by comparisons with overseas FttP networks, they are greeted with sarcasm.
Classy :/
Nothing to do with sarcasm, if you can explain how you can sign up for a Google fibre plan in Australia before they actually roll it out I would love to hear it.
Comparing the Google fibre plans in select areas of the USA with the current and future BB deployment plans across all of Australia, stating ‘look what they can get why can’t we’ is ludicrous.
Meanwhile in New Zealand: http://gigatown.co.nz/
But, yes, we can’t seem to get it here in Australia, while Macedonia, affected by the Kosovo War and not even able to use it’s own name at the UN and at about a quarter of the GDP per capita is switching on to it. Sure, they’ve only passed 90,000 households as of last year, but with a population of 2 million, it’s not too bad a percentage and certainly much higher than where Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane are at: http://www.t-home.mk/mk/68/Internet/Optic_paketi/Max_Optic_.html
Or where they’re likely to be any time for a long while to come, considering the disappearances of the 1 and 3 year time frames from here: http://nbnco.com.au/when-do-i-get-it/rollout-map.html?icid=pub:hme:rollout:hro:img
Macedonia seems to be getting 1 Gbps upload speeds while most of are on 1 Mbps and even once FTTN comes along might have to do with 4 or 6, in Turnbull’s own words, and you’re here laughing it up with a substantial dose of Schadenfreude. Ha ha. Very funny.
How long am I prepared to wait?
I consider that question not as important as the question of whether I can at some point actually get upload speeds where I don’t have to think about upload speeds any longer before the entirety of the ex-communist countries. If I have to wait a decade, fine. If I have to wait three or four decades, the path that the coalition are setting us up on, then screw it.
> Comparing the Google fibre plans in select areas of the USA with the current and future BB deployment plans across all of Australia, stating ‘look what they can get why can’t we’ is ludicrous.
Why?
So all of you rather than selectively picking out FTTP deployments in the world like Google, tell me how they compare with a massive FTTP deployment to 93% of residences of Australia by 2021( that’s despite the rollout being massively behind only three years in) that is 100% Government owned with all the $$$ being provided by Government funding and massive Government debt to the tune of $45.6b, a figure which was being increased every year?
Hey Fibroid. Still pushing the same copy and paste old mantra. Meanwhile, still waiting for my answers. Too hard is it?
Here is another one: If $30b is massive, how big is $29.5b?
@ Fibroid….
Coming from one who selectively quotes BT/UK weekly, mocking others for doing as you do, again shows the NBN detractors/node nerds have two sets of rules for every occasion :/
So that’s a no then, you cannot explain how the comparisons are even remotely similar, my point therefore remains about comparing our current and intended BB rollout here with what Google is doing in very select areas in the USA as being ludicrous.
Not only do you not answer questions but then you have the audacity to get sarcastic when someone doesn’t answer yours.
@ Observer…
My Faux Pas, I should have mentioned C
:(
Alex
You’re forgiven. After all, there’s so much to consider.
Well, if you’re happy with almost every single place in Australia having worse Internet than a substantial fraction of France, Spain, Macedonia, Russia, whatever, then fair enough. Whatever floats your boat. I don’t think I love the thought that wherever I’d be in Australia, I’d still have worse Internet than half of Macedonia if not more by the time the coalition rollout is done.
You take a collection of experiences from overseas, and let’s face it few of them are near 90% or 100%, and you can get a picture already. I could tell you about South Korea, the UAE or Andorra or whatever other place that’s doing FTTH nation-wide but you wouldn’t care.
Because at some point providing more millions of data points, 94 million premises in China on FTTH going to 129 million within a single year alone, just become irrelevant when you just shut your mind.
Investment on fixed infrastructure in Europe is 216 billion euros from 2011 to 2020. The estimate of deploying FTTH is 202 billion euros. At some point that just becomes a no-brainer unless you like burning untold billions.
But who cares, it’s taxpayer and Internet user money. They don’t need to actually spend it, only give it.
There’s a better alternative, and there’s plenty of successful examples, and when they’re provided to you your only course of action is to say “but those aren’t comparable” and on it goes.
Remember how Turnbull was all Schadenfreude at the thought of an FTTH provider in South Korea losing customers? It turned out that they just switched to a different FTTH provider. Oh, how we laughed and laughed. Will they consider that example in this review or consider that at least just one data point among many others in favour of FTTH?
Will they mention something about FTTH being a more popular access topology than HFC in 2013? Of course not. Why should they if they’re betting on the HFC horse all the way through 2019 and then beyond?
Also, it wasn’t $45 billion in government funding, it was $30 billion. But sure, you keep talking about the success of FTTC in the UK, where they’re now already investigating FTTH, FTTH over the top and FTTdp to move beyond FTTC and conveniently forget that the National Audit Office has found them to be 2 years behind in rural areas.
You want another random place with success with FTTH? Lithuania. Do you care about actual data or acknowledge that I provided Lithuania as a successful example of FTTH being rolled out? No. So why should I participate in your pretension that no one can provide any examples… Why should I?
Which brings us back to what I said before and I forgot to add one other key difference here in Australia, which Government in the world is paying private infrastructure owners to shut down working BB infrastructure to make sure the Government owned and funded infrastructure has the customer base mass to try and help justify its existence?
@ Fibroid…
Err, businesses do these sorts of deals all the time…and even you had to admit (when in one of those corners you inevitably end up in and for once, couldn’t just run) that because the ACCC had ratified the deals they were bonafide…so…
Of course you frown upon this, but will gladly welcome the Coalition negotiating any deal to utiulise Telstra’s copper.
Yet more double standard, hypocrisy…
So that’s a no then, there are not any other examples.
Fibroid
Demanding an answer again? How about giving some.
@Observer
1. All of it.
2. I will have to wait and see what the outcome of the three reviews are.
Don’t be shy. Be specific which all of what. Pay me the courtesy of proper answer.
As for the second point. I don’t understand. One minute you’re telling us how wonderful the Coalition plan is. Now, you need a review to be able to answer. Why isn’t the plan so wonderful after all?
“Comparing the Google fibre plans in select areas of the USA with the future BB deployment plans across all of Australia, stating ‘look what they can get why can’t we’ is ludicrous.”
So using you own logic and applying it to your own weekly spiel…
Comparing FttN plans (and plans from the incumbent who owns the copper – gee I wonder why it makes sense for them to do FttN) in select areas of the UK with the current and future BB deployment plans across all of Australia, stating ‘look what they can get’ is ludicrous…
Pretty solid cross section of available plans around the world, including comparisons to both Google Fibre, and community based FttP rollouts in the US.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/cheapest-150mbps-broadband-in-big-us-cities-costs-100-more-than-overseas/
Comparing the Google fibre plans in select areas of the USA with the current and future BB deployment plans across all of Australia, stating ‘look what they can get why can’t we’ is ludicrous.
Seems about the same level of ludicrous as comparing any other OS BB development to Australia’s really…
And now we await the “open, transparent and completely fair reviews/CBA’s”, TA’s government will conduct in relation to NBNCo and FttP…
The Libs are going to be on the wrong side of history!
Reminds me of this compromise, which the Liberals were also responsible for: “Australia has a wonderful opera house: the outside is in Sydney, the inside is in the Melbourne Arts Centre, and the parking is in Canberra.”
You’d think it would be wise to not let the Liberals anywhere near nation-building infrastructure, but once again, here we are, with 500,000 premises having dropped off the map overnight at almost the same hour news reports were published of Turnbull calling for ‘greater transparency’.
But it’s OK, they have Henry Ergas adivising them. Who, two days ago, published this in The Australian, and I quote verbatim:
“Had they bothered to check, even a cursory examination would have taught them that October fires hardly portend the end of days. On the contrary, October saw fires causing serious loss of property and life in NSW in 1928, 1936, 1968, 1984, 2001, 2002 and 2006. Nor is there any evidence of increases in fire severity.” and “The carbon tax, according to the previous government’s own modelling, will impose losses with a present value as high as 83 per cent of current Australian GDP, or $1.25 trillion.”
Which is exactly Lord Monckton’s claim, taken at face value. That’s right, one of the most important people advising this new NBN Co has no apparent ability to weigh risks and financial outcomes and come to anywhere near a logical conclusion.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/a-rational-response-to-living-with-fire-in-the-bush/story-fn558imw-1226748527639
LOL WTF
The data he provides shows there were 4 fires in 56 years from 1928 to 1984 and 4 fires in 12 years since 2001
Nope. Insurance companies don’t collect data on every obscure bushfire incident in this country for fun. Those dates relate specifically to fire incidents causing serious loss of life and property resulting in threshold insurance claims. You can’t infer anything about the general rel’ship between climate change and bushfires from that highly specific dataset alone. Arts/Law grads obviously suck at stats.
> You can’t infer anything about the general rel’ship between climate change and bushfires from that highly specific dataset alone.
If you have any other explanation for them becoming more frequent, I’d love for you to investigate and provide the reason to us. Because I figure it’s a pretty important issue to at least a few. I’m pretty sure I already have found a reason that seems to be backed up by peer-reviewed literature too, but I’d like you to do the same. I’ll wait here. Let me know when you’re done.
We can share notes once you’re done and I look forward to the results.
Do you actually read stuff you link to? Or just kneejerk regurgitate Green Religion propaganda? Ergas merely quoted a study done by a Professor of Actuarial Science at a Uni Risk Research Centre that showed that there was no statistical evidence that atmospheric warming has led to an increased incidence of bushfires in Oz. Now, stop hyperventilating and think before you type.
So, you have no idea why severe bushfires seem to be increasing, don’t accept the most supported explanation and have no interest in finding out what else it might be even though it’s pretty important. Cool.
OK. Point me to a page in *any* chapter in *any* IPCC report which discusses empirical evidence that the incidence of bushfires in Australia has increased over time in direct contradiction to the statistical evidence presented in the study issued by the Macquarie Uni Centre for Actuarial Science Risk Research referred to by Dr Ergas in his article.
That seems rather difficult since the Macquarie Uni Centre for Actuarial Science Risk Research does not exist.
In case you are referring to Professor McAneney, I quote from the abstract of his second most cited paper:
“Our results are broadly in-line with earlier analyses despite our use of a significantly different methodology and we therefore conclude that the likelihood of a significant increase in fire risk over Australia resulting from climate change is very high.”
In case you are referring to more recent works, here’s a quote: “A contribution to these rising costs has not yet been attributed to anthropogenic climate change, although such a contribution cannot be ruled out. This finding is in accord with the IPCC report (2012).”
And: “Extreme events are, by definition, rare, and so detecting a signal of climate change in volatile time series of economic losses faces a challenging signal-to-noise problem.”
Note also how this doesn’t actually look at the frequency or severity of bushfires, but at the losses incurred by them.
So…..
As a sceptic, you’re remarkably unwilling to seek out answers to questions.
So, there is NO statistical evidence of an increase in bushfire incidence in Australia due to atmospheric warming, either from the IPCC or any other source. Glad we got that settled.
Your statement is incorrect. Costs and incidences aren’t the same over a 80 year time period. The person you yourself cited out of 7 and some billion on this planet said, years ago, “we therefore conclude that the likelihood of a significant increase in fire risk over Australia resulting from climate change is very high.” Glad we got that settled.
Repeat after me: there has not been an increase in statistical frequency of bushfires due to atmospheric warming. This is a historical fact quite aside of speculative forecasts of the evolution of future events. “Costs” and “incidence” are not the same!!! You got that right!!!! That’s the whole point of Ergas’ article!!!! Just like technical capability and economic value of FTTP are not the same!!!!!!!!!!! We’re getting there!
“Repeat after me: there has not been an increase in statistical frequency of bushfires due to atmospheric warming”
You do mean of course, that there has been nothing reporting the increase in statistal frequency of bushfires. The climate change commision has done a report showing the statistical increase of extreme fire danger days. In November they were due to release the report showing the link between increased fire risk days and increased fires, but I guess that won’t happen now or will be delayed.
There are statistics to show increased number and severity of fire risk days. There however cannot be a direct statistal correlation between warming and fires for lack of data points and the error margin because of this.
Bit more repetition and brain washing and he will be paroting liberal retoric like you hey?
” Now, stop hyperventilating”
You even use Joe Hockey’s favourite term. Spoken like a good old rusted on.
The more of read of this stuff, the more I think Liberalism is a religion. It’s like those who go to church to be told what to think and how to act because they are unable or afraid to have to think for themselves.
It seems once you are a rusted on Liberal voter, you must agree with everything the priest… I mean leader says.
“The Liberal leader is correct that the previous Labor administration was broadly incompetent when it came to the implementation of its NBN policy.”
False. The Labour administration defined the scope of the NBN and tasked NBN Co to implement it. During the preliminary phases of the rollout certain contractors were incapable of achieving contracted objectives, so NBN Co cancelled their contracts and those companies were subject to financial penalties, while NBN Co either negotiated new contracts with other suppliers or took on management of the rollout directly. The project was also subject to other delays as a result of legislation (deliberately held up by the LNP), negotiations with Telstra and the discovery of asbestos in Telstra’s pits and ducts (something which Telstra had extensive prior knowledge of but utterly failed to address until it became an issue that delayed some parts of the NBN by six months.
Were these delays a result of bureaucratic incompetence? None of the evidence suggests so – if Mr Abbot or you have evidence that it was, you should bring that forward.
The reality is a six month delay upto September this year could be made up easily during the major rollout phase. The delays affecting th transit network would have been made up within weeks given the rollout schedule of 2015, the major part of that component’s construction.
Project delays are usual, particularly at the beginning when you’re cutting your teeth in new areas, when you’re relying on relationships with new suppliers and delivery partners. The only materially relevant metrics are cost blowouts and significant delays to final delivery (or certain milestones, if those are specifically required in the project scope). There is no evidence that demonstrates that either costs had blown out significantly nor that the network would even be delivered late. If NBN Co had simply pig headedly continued with contractors incapable of meeting their commitments, then you could have said they were incompetent. If delays had been caused by difficulties with the Labour administration, then they could be said to have been incompetent.
Seriously, have you done any project management? If Labor can be legitimately labelled as ‘incompetent’ for partial delivery of the NBN given all we know and what has transpired, then 95% of project managers and their companies must also be, then the LNP must also be incompetent because since they’ve been in office more asylum seekers have arrived illegally and instead of immediately reversing the debt they have raised the debt ceiling by $200bn.
Incompetent is a serious word and it simply isn’t applicable here until you have some definitive evidence of incompetence. Mr Abbot shouldn’t have his flippant insults repeated without criticism, he should be held to the burden of proof to demonstrate this ‘glaring incompetence’.
I’ve been covering project management in the tech space for almost a decade. I’m sorry, but this project is massively off the rails and Labor is ultimately responsible. There is just no way around that fact. NBN Co had gotten to the point, before the election, where it was reducing its rollout targets on something like a six weekly basis, ongoing. As I’m sure you’re aware … that would be considered a joke in project management circles.
In some ways they’re actually a victim of their own transparency – multi-year (let alone decade) long projects wouldn’t usually report anything like as frequently as NBN Co has been doing. If it were a project reporting to shareholders annually and early delays were fully explained and included a detailed plan for addressing the delays and avoiding them in future, the project delays would be broadly tolerated without consternation until such time that delays and budget were slipping to unrecoverable points. Within the context of the whole build, the delays can easily be recovered.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blind to the fact that there have been delays and those delays will have an impact on debt repayment, increasing peak funding; none of that is good. But it must be taken in context – the causes have been explained and are not unreasonable, while appropriate steps have been put in place to address those issues. It hasn’t been caused by incompetence or mismanagement – as I said, those are very strong terms and the issues with the NBN don’t even come close to deserving them.
+1
In some ways they’re actually a victim of their own transparency
This was, of course, noted (and corrected) by the now current government (and not just for NBNCo).
Perhaps “I agree with the Liberal leader” rather than “the Liberal leader is correct”? Without insider information and the expertise to interpret that information, you cannot make a conclusion that the project has been mismanaged or that it was incompetent. Management is the process, not the outcomes.
Actually no, we do have some information. Those gold-plated coffee machines were clearly evidence of mismanagement. They should have been satisfied with instant coffee!
As TrevorX said, where Labor was incompetent was in its naïve transparency. That was, of course, a side-effect of taking the NBN to an election, and using the NBN for political point-scoring (big red buttons and whatnot), so they are not blameless. This is another instance that demonstrates how Labor’s failures were in its politics, not its governance. That’s clear to anyone.
I’m glad the LNP is technologically agnostic.
Oh, sorry, that’s only what they say.
At the last election we had the choice between incompetents and wacko’s and the wacko’s won. It’s only a matter of time before Abbott’s mental illness is self evident.
His mental illness has always been obvious to me.
Huawei is now locked out of the Turnbull’s fraudband scheme after telling us for over 12 months that it was a really bad policy by Labor.
Yet another backflip by Australian political backflip artists.
The only thing that’s really toxic in Australia is the toxic politicians.
If it’s a backflip because some group of genuine experts who told them they should, based on no financial, political or personal benefit of any sort for the experts, then it’s a backflip I will wholeheartedly support.
♔ KEEP CALM AND LET ABBOTT GET ON WITH THE JOB OF CLEANING UP CONROY’S MESS ♔
Hell yeah, janitor would be a great job for him
So the FTTP NBN is wacko but the paid parental leave scheme that pays $75,000 to millionaires and will exceed the cost of the FTTP NBN after 7 years but with no return for the government is completely sane?
Looks like the Senate is not to happy with that scheme, including some Liberal senators, it might need some drastic modification before it is passed.
And if they do so, will you chastise them for ever more for altering their pre-election promise?
Or do such rules contained within the Fibroid book of silly nitpicking, only apply to the “NBN and/or the previous government”?
Can someone confirm whether Tony Abbott is a prime minister or still in opposition? It was bad enough that Labor acted like highschool kids on the set of Mean Girls, but this current mob seem intent on making Australians look like snivelling toddlers on the international scene, going all tattle-tale about his domestic rival. You’d think the world would have had enough of partisan tantrums after the USA’s pathetic shutdown earlier this month.
Let’s hope that Tony grows up and acts like a statesman really soon. (but he’ll probably stamp his feet and say “but the other pollies aren’t acting like grown-ups either!! also, can I have my allowance to go bike-riding?”)
No he uses his allowance for triathlons :)
It’s ‘premises’!!!!
Is it true that Tony Abbott was having an affair with Peta Credlin while the election was on, I heard there was a media ban about reporting on it. If it is true ? I feel sorry for his wife and family. They say everyone in politics knew about it, it was a Greens candidate in the last election who told me about it, he/she said it was common knowledge.
I think I speak for all of us when I say that I could not care less.
No quink you cant speak for all of us, you even seam to be confused speaking at all, you start off saying all of us and end up with I.
I really doubt it, it’d be too “juicy” for any paper to resist if there was even a hint of truth to it, with Peta’s husband being the federal Liberal Party director and all the focus on Tony and his wife and girls.
It is true, however, that she got off totally scott free on a high level drink driving charge thanks to a letter to the judge sent by the Attorney General…
A niece of mine ran for a seat in NSW, she said it was common knowledge in her party about Abbott and his affair but the Coalition had the media in the bag and they refused to report on it, you wonder how they could keep something like that from the public but they did. She also said that Turnball didn’t ask the board of the NBN Co to quit, they resigned on mass.
In case people are still assuming (like Turnbull) that Telstra is a changed company and couldn’t possibly want more money – they’re taking NBNco to NSW Supreme Court to – wait for it – extract more money.
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/telstra_takes_legal_action_against_dvd4Pj6SzE4ehXsDLEvOQP
Yep, totally going to get that copper network for free guys, Turnbull’s got this, for sure. I mean it’s not like Telstra, after two years of negotiation and final acceptance isn’t liable to sue at the drop of the hat for more money.
Still think FTTN is entirely realistic in this context??
Meanwhile in South Africa: http://mybroadband.co.za/news/government/90187-broadband-for-sa-discussed-5mbps-100mbps-1gbps-targets.html
50% 100 Mbps by 2020, rising to 80% by 2030. The former means wide FTTH deployments, the second one leaves FTTN for a small minority at best.
Looks like the South African Department of Communications is also “wacko” in Abbott’s view. They have about a quarter of the GDP per capita we do.
“Wacko” indeed. I’m sorry, but I’m not finding this joke funny any longer.
Hey quink, Using a early draft proposal which is up for lengthy discussion at one workshop as an example of what South Africa will actually end up doing is a bit of a joke as well.
“Rather than aiming low, the DoC has proposed very high targets with the following caveat:
“The problem is that if they are set very high, they remain aspirations targets that cannot realistically be met and therefore cannot reasonably be sued for planning purposes,” the DoC said. “If they are very low, user experiences already exceeds them.”
Note that caveat quink.
So a DRAFT from SA which is being discussed now, is a joke, because you disagree with it.
But a policy yet to be reviewed let alone implemented here in Australia, from MT and his party who can apparently do no wrong and laughably, a policy for FttN which they and you opposed in 2007 and referred to as fraudband… is quite ok in your book, because you now agree with it…
Seriously…?
Is it a policy of an aspiration (our friend’s masters favourite term)? After all, no costing (cross our fingers) for the copper network, a rough estimate of how many nodes will be required, distance from the nodes still to be worked out, no cost for potential remediation but wait for it: They have a total cost.
I guess now they will have to work backward and work out how much $29.5b will buy. Either that or happy Joe will use some of that infrastructure money to make it happen. After all, Coalition debt is good debt. Not like Labor. Always bad debt.
Ha ha. It’s a joke. South Africa, with its $11,000 per capita GDP has a grander vision for communications infrastructure in their country than Australia with its $44,000 per capita.
They’re dreaming, aren’t they? Very funny. Ha ha. What a joke. Hilarious stuff.
I’m practically in tears.
Labor sprayed so much of the NBN taxpayer largesse on tiny Tasmania (earliest trial sites, demo events, hi-profile publicity stunts), yet ALP TAS got practically WIPED OUT in Sept. What does that tell you? Aside from special interest groups, people of Aust don’t give a stuff about FTTP. If your life meaning depends on FTTP, move to Macedonia or Sth Africa.
Haha no
“yet ALP TAS got practically WIPED OUT in Sept”
2013 ALP 49.35% Coalition 50.65%
2010 ALP 60.62% Coalition 39.38%
Now, which one you would call a wipe out?
“If your life meaning depends on FTTP, move to Macedonia or Sth Africa.”
Equally, if you life meaning depends on a Coalition government, it’s time to get a life.
@Observer
Of course as you well know but prefer to ignore you get to form Government based on the number of Lower House seats you win, not on percentages.
Tasmania has only five electorates, before the election the ALP had four and Wilkie the Independent had one.
After the 2013 election the Liberals gained three from the ALP, the ALP retained one and the Independent retained his seat, and have a look at the percentage swing to Liberals while you’re at it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/electorates/#TAS
That’s not a wipeout?
What is also interesting getting back to the more pertinent subject of the NBN and Tasmania is the takeup rate figures from the final NBN Business plan , Tasmania has the lowest takeup rate despite being the earliest rollout, Smithton for example is at 23.7% take up after three years of the NBN being available.
We know you live and breathe your ideological politics, but back on topic eh…!
So, thank you for confirming my point.
Even going by seats, 2010 was a bigger wipeout than 2013.
As for the take up rate in Tasmania, it is still more than double the take up rate of your beloved BTs FTTN in the UK.
‘Even going by seats, 2010 was a bigger wipeout than 2013.’
You are really scratching hard to try and make a point with that one seat difference.
‘As for the take up rate in Tasmania, it is still more than double the take up rate of your beloved BTs FTTN in the UK.’
… you forgot it was for FTTP as well, it must have been an oversight, and you are really drawing the longest of long bows to try and establish a link is between BT’s national FTTN rollout in the UK and Smithton in Tasmania NBN FTTP rollout.
“You are really scratching hard to try and make a point with that one seat difference.”
No, I am not. I can, however, think coherently. You should try, it’s fun. Read carefully. If winning 3 seats out of 4 (excluding wilkie’s seat) is a wipe out. Using the same criteria, winning 0 out of 4 is an even greater wipe out.
“you are really drawing the longest of long bows to try and establish a link is between BT’s national FTTN rollout in the UK and Smithton in Tasmania NBN FTTP rollout.”
Oh, sorry. Silly me. I used the example you gave as evidence of low take up in Tasmania. So, conclusion I am not really scratching or drawing the longest of bows. You made two poorly thought points (not that unusual for you) and you got found out. Quit while you’re behind.
I see. TPP 50.65 vs. 49.35 is now a ‘wipeout’.
I’m sorry, a WIPEOUT, in all capitals. You’re welcome. And it’s all the NBN’s fault! [citation needed]
> If your life meaning depends on FTTP, move to Macedonia or Sth Africa.
I’d like my taxpayer money to be spent wisely, and to have at least at some point in let’s say the next twenty years access to some genuinely fast upload speeds. And if one would have a much better chance of seeing that in the middle of Siberia, in Lithuania, in the UK, in Macedonia or in South Korea, then the reaction to that shouldn’t be “move to Russia, you freak”.
Any more than when, I don’t know, TV was introduced in the US and people said “I’d like to see some of that here” the reaction shouldn’t have been “move to the US then”. Except that ubiquitous fast Internet to a fastness where you don’t worry about how fast it is is a tad more important than TV.
If your most sophisticated reaction to things happening outside Australia is “if you love it so much overseas, why don’t you just leave”, then I feel nothing but pity for you.
@ haha yeah.
I’ll ask you since you seem to believe you (and only you) have “all” of the answers.
In relation to government funds…
Why is it ok for a government to spend just under $30B on FttN but it’s not ok for a government to spend just over $30B on FttP?
Go…
BTW since you love FttN, why don’t you move to the UK? Your twin loves to (as does MT strangely) use this as the ultimate FttN pin-up (until the problems are highlighted and of course the answer is, err, umm, but, they are doing FttP too…LOL). Ooh, double bonus for you, they too have a Tory government.
Please consider.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/29/fttp-nbn-wacko-claims-mad-monk-pm/#comment-628332
This should be here.
Q. How much was the previous government going to fund, in relation to their NBN…?
A.????
Psst… this is your cue to magically disappear as usual…!
What funding figures do Independent analysts use when comparing the two policies? – oh here it is, and you know all about it as it was discussed at length in this Delimiter article before.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/18/labor-and-coalition-broadband-policies-whats-the-difference/
The figures are in Table 1 – $44.1b and $29.5b, although it’s out of date, it is now $45.6b and $29.5b.
You ignored it then and are still doing so.
LOL, nice twist, turn, double pike with sommersault…
But noooooo, that is an outright lie, I have never ignored and always accepted there are two total figures (ffs that’s bleedin obvious)…
Totals which differ from the government funding aspects (the bits you pretend don’t exist…*sigh*).
Now stop squirming and answer my question…
Q. How much was the previous government going to fund, in relation to their NBN…?
Here is some more independent analysis on the correct way to compare funding of the two policies.
“Construction will take place between 2014 and 2019 under the Coalition’s plan, with capital expenditure at AU$20.4 billion, with the total amount of funding required to be AU$29.5 billion. This compares to AU$37.4 billion in capital expenditure for the current NBN project, with an AU$44.1 billion projected total funding requirement.”
http://www.zdnet.com/au/coalition-launches-alternative-nbn-policy-7000013715/
I agree, those are the total funding figures. But the comparison of 29.5 and 30.5 billion is the government contribution. This is being used by many people because the continual argument that FTTH is too expensive and the government saves money by rolling out FTTN. The government does not save 44.1-29.5 billion, it saves 30.5-29.5 billion.
@ Fibroid…
So you are unable to answer a simple question.
Thought not…
*rolls eyes*
I think, apart from the fact that I will probably never have real NBN now, the most worrying thing is the sheer arrogance of Abbott on the subject of transparency. Whatever happens with the NBN (should we even still call it that anymore? – perhaps the national patchwork network might be more appropriate, or the bits n pieces network) will no longer be visible to us mere mortals because he is going to hide all the goings on under a veil of secrecy. Maybe that is to keep us from seeing all the stuffups made by the “old boys” he has hired to run the show.
Fibroid.
I have been wondering why anyone would name themselves Fibroid. So, I did a search and got the answer.
“Fibroids are non-cancerous tumours that grow in or around the womb (uterus)”.
Interesting.
lmao just done a little bit of weeeee
I must keep changing my tag, it gives you something to do when you rapidly run out of rational argument on the NBN.
You and your mates often do anyway.
Because it’s not $30b it’s $43.5b, and if left to run based on the history of funding increases would have been higher than that as the Labor NBN snailed its way across the landscape as it faced revenue shortfalls because of the slow pace of the rollout.
Independent analysis compares the correct funding between the two policies as has been pointed out multiple times, only pro FTTP fans repetitively use the incorrect comparison to try and boost a floundering obsolete funding argument that is all dressed up with nowhere to go.
So how much will FTTN blow out, for purchase/ lease of the CAN, then?
Remember Telstra is currently suing NBNco because it believes it’s owed more for the existing agreement an extra $100 million, no less. The same company that, you know, currently OWNS the copper network.
In your own time, Fibroid.
Of course this agreement was made under the Labor Government, don’t forget that salient FACT.
It is about the timing of when the rent of the Telstra Infrastructure actually began, how that subject matter has any link to what will happen in regards to use of the copper for FTTN is firmly placed in the category of a conjecture based try but no goal.
Also the case has yet to be heard so we have no idea if Telstra will win and if it is actually that figure anyway.
“Of course this agreement was made under the Labor Government, don’t forget that salient FACT.”
I haven’t sir. That being my point. There was an agreement. Turnbull seeks to use copper. Agreement will need to be amended.
So, kindly answer the question.
“It is about the timing of when the rent of the Telstra Infrastructure actually began, how that subject matter has any link to what will happen in regards to use of the copper for FTTN is firmly placed in the category of a conjecture based try but no goal.”
Sorry – Telstra has decided it doesn’t like the deal. Why is it conjecture that they might not like the next deal. Or the one after it? History proves that much like Vader, Telstra loves to change deals. Pray they suddenly don’t in future??
Righto; who is leveraging conjecture, again, sorry?
“Also the case has yet to be heard so we have no idea if Telstra will win and if it is actually that figure anyway.”
We have every idea. Telstra has lawyers who eat, sleep and drink this stuff on a daily basis. And the mere fact that Telstra has once again decided to slow progress down by dragging it through court, doesn’t give you even a moments pause for what might happen during Copper negotiations?
But of course. Like Malcolm you believe Copper is man’s god given right and Telstra will simply lie down like a good little commercial soldier and hand it over, with nary a thought.
Right? Honestly.
BTW Fibroid – with you repeating verbatim from the previous opposition (now government) that one of the rare FttN positives was getting fast broadband to Aussies ***sooner***, how does that now fit with those who were going to get FttP now/soon, no longer doing so…?
Bzzzt… yet another FttN/Fibroid fail.
Just sayin’
And can be very painfull, even debilitating
Comments are closed.