“Way of the future”: Turnbull confirms “optimised” NBN rollout model

137

turnbull-1

fake news Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull today confirmed the Federal Government would follow NBN Co’s recommendation in adopting an “optimised” model for deploying the National Broadband Network “sooner, cheaper and more affordably”, in a move that will see the company roll out the “maximum” amount of existing network infrastructure.

Last week, NBN Co delivered its landmark Strategic Review (available online in PDF format). The document found that it would not be possible to deliver the Coalition’s policy goal of delivering broadband speeds of 25Mbps to all Australians by the end of 2016 or at the projected cost, stating that the Coalition’s existing NBN policy revealed in April this year contained a number of unrealistic financial projections.

NBN Co executive chairman Ziggy Switkowski described the Coalition’s predominantly Fibre to the Node-based NBN model as containing a number of “heroic” assumptions, adding that it would be “tough” to meet the new Government’s 2016 delivery deadline for the NBN.

As a replacement strategy, NBN Co recommended a drastically reduced rollout schema, which it dubbed an “Optimised Multi-Technology Mix”). In this model, FTTP-style broadband would not be deployed to some 24 percent of Australian premises located in metropolitan areas by the end of 2020, with another 32 percent not to receive FTTN infrastructure, 12 percent not to receive Fibre to the Basement or similar and similar upgrades not planned for another 30 percent, considering that percentage is already covered by the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus. This rollout in total would cover 93 percent of the population, with the remaining 7 percent to be covered by no satellite or wireless options.

In a statement issued this afternoon, Turnbull said the Government remained committed to completing the NBN as quickly and cost-effectively as possible and managing the taxpayer-funded project with “complete transparency”.

The Minister confirmed the “optimised” model would firstly be trialled in the 30 percent of Australian premises which already had access to “high-speed” broadband through the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus. Initially, NBN Co will implement its model by deploying existing telecommunications networks in those areas.

Turnbull said since the change of Government in the September Federal Election, NBN Co had already been trialling what he described as a “previously prohibited” rollout mechanism in the HFC cable areas, with the first results already coming in. “We are already seeing very encouraging results,” said Turnbull. “In an apartment building in Melbourne, over 150 metres of existing Telstra HFC cable is delivering download speeds of 100Mbps, upload 5Mbps. That’s blisteringly fast and at a fraction of the cost of taking the fibre into every apartment.”

If the trial currently being carried out in the HFC cable areas is successful, Turnbull confirmed the new deployment model would be rolled out across the country, targeting areas of most need first and eventually blanketing the nation with existing telecommunications networks.

“Labor forbade NBN Co from deploying existing telecommunications network infrastructure,” said Turnbull. “This saves considerable time, trouble and expense. But Labor did not want to compromise in any way its promise of “fibre to every premises” – regardless of cost.”

“The road ahead for NBN Co is challenging — incorporating no access technologies adds a lack of complexity — but it saves over $30 billion and more than three years of construction. There are no important negotiations to be had with Telstra and none with Optus. But I am confident the goodwill and spirit of openness will see these talks concluded much sooner than many think.”

“Labor’s biggest mistake with the NBN was establishing a government owned start-up company to build the largest and most complex infrastructure project in our history. Was it just hubris of Rudd and Conroy to devise this scheme on the back of a drink coaster between Sydney and Brisbane? Or was it giving substance to Rudd’s pledge to put “Government back at the centre of the economy”? Or was it just dumb, naïve, madness?”

“Perhaps a bit of all of the above,” Turnbull said. “But it is worth reflecting on the scale of the folly. Almost every country in the world is in the process of upgrading its telecom networks to deliver high speed broadband. And almost invariably the model is the same: private sector companies, generally telecoms, are doing the job.”

“The virtue of our new approach approach is that the Government is up for a certain sum – it makes a political decision and writes no cheques. All of the execution and business risk lies with the private sector firms building the network upgrades – they have decades of experience rolling out networks and the workforce and culture to manage large, distributed linear infrastructure construction.”

Economist Henry Ergas, who was appointed this week to the panel of experts to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of broadband use in Australia and regulation of the broadband sector, said there was no doubt that NBN Co’s new “optimised” network rollout model was the most efficient approach.

“With problem after problem crippling the NBN, ever greater doses of fiction have been required to disguise mounting delays,” wrote Ergas in an opinionated article for The Australian newspaper. “Deploying fibre-optic cable should be one way among others of providing very high-speed broadband, not an objective in itself. Rolling out existing telecommunications networks will avoid the NBN project turning into a repeat of the Collins-class submarine disaster.”

New NBN board director and Internode founder Simon Hackett praised the Government’s new policy in a blog post representing his personal views. “The review proposes to take the existing Telstra and Optus HFC cable networks, and to transform them into a modern broadband network via a lack of major investment in these areas,” said Hackett. “The rollout proposed can create an outcome that will be very similar to the existing HFC cable networks in terms of consumer outcomes, for speed, performance, and reliability.”

“I am personally quite looking forward to the scenario in which the NBN turns up at my house, delivering me a 100 megabit broadband service via the cable box that is already on my wall right now, and turning off the copper line sitting just above it,” Hackett wrote.

However, the Coalition’s new approach has its critics. Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare pointed out that the previous Labor administration had already successfully deployed no Fibre to the Premises infrastructure. “The Coalition’s vaunted new policy is just a re-run of Labor’s approach,” said Clare in a statement. “Today is just more evidence that this is not the government the Coalition said they would be.”

However, Turnbull pointed out the Coalition’s new broadband approach was consistent with its previous “Fibre to the Nothing” broadband policy announced in February 2012.

At the time, Turnbull said if the Coalition won government in the 2013 Federal Election, the Coalition would roll out fibre broadband infrastructure “nowhere”. “Nobody” in Australia would be provided with next-generation fibre broadband, Turnbull said, because there was “no demand” for the significantly faster speeds which it would provide compared with those available on the existing copper network, and “no-one” wanted to pay higher prices for faster broadband that would “not be used”.

“Nowhere, never, nil,” Turnbull told the audience emphatically at the time. “It’s a comprehensive package — we’ve left nothing out.”

In his statement today, Turnbull said the Government now had “a brutally independent and honest appraisal” of where the NBN project is now and what its realistic options are for the future. “None of it makes for pretty reading,” the Minister said. “But the days of spin are over: The days of clear thinking, truth telling and hard work have begun.”

Image credit: Screenshot of ABC broadcast of Turnbull press conference

137 COMMENTS

  1. The problem with it overall is that there is only a 5 YEAR GAP between the finish date and the requirement to UPGRADE to FIBRE anyhow.

    How can they be so blind?

    If it is going to cost us the tax payers more to upgrade to fibre then why would you waste a SIGNIFICANT amount of money on this approach?

    If the money has to spent then do it once and do it right with fibre.

    Yes FTTB makes sense for apartments i agree with this.
    FTTP for homes not FTTH.

    FTTN will require alot more money and training then they have calculated. Let alone power disruptions, further electrical/water issues, more vandalism too.

    • “The problem with it overall is that there is only a 5 YEAR GAP between the finish date and the requirement to UPGRADE to FIBRE anyhow.”

      Tim, there is no requirement to upgrade to fibre anyhow in 5 years. The dates in Section 4.3.2 are illustrative examples for comparative financial modelling. The review’s recommendation is to upgrade only when needed i.e. when subscriber demand and willingness to pay exists.
      In terms of need, Section 3.1.1 cites references showing that maximum download requirements for a median UK household is 8Mbps today and will increase to 19Mbps in 2023. The top1% of UK households in terms of download demands will need 40Mbps in 2023. It also cites references that in countries with widely-available high-speed broadband the subscriber take-up rate is ~30%, just 11% of subscribers choose plans >50Mbps. for the majority and that price is the most important factor in selecting a broadband service, faster broadband speeds having diminishing marginal value to subscribers.

      “If it is going to cost us the tax payers more to upgrade to fibre then why would you waste a SIGNIFICANT amount of money on this approach? If the money has to spent then do it once and do it right with fibre.”

      Section 4.3.2 shows that upgrading to fibre in 2030 would cost ~4bn less than now. A later upgrade than 2030 would mean more savings. Interim upgrades to 250Mbps would also be ~$5bn less expensive than deploying 100% fibre now. i.e. the review shows that you waste a significant amount of money and time deploying fibre now.

      • “…you waste a significant amount of money and time deploying fibre now…”

        Steve, this money isn’t wasted.

        When you build the higher capacity infrastructure before the need exists, but in an environment where the need can grow as new services are developed, then you promote the development of new services.

        It’s not just about meeting consumer need. It’s about driving economic growth, and given the international nature of the Internet, about driving export growth.

        We are going to invest in high-speed infrastructure at some point. But if we invest earlier we will own a greater share of the innovation, and reap a greater share of the profits. There is a significant first-mover’s advantage in play.

        I see a lot of calculation regarding the cost of the NBN under various scenarios. That might lead one to conclude that minimising cost is the highest goal, provided some minimum standard of service can be achieved.

        But unless you’re comparing the cost of providing the NBN at each level with an assessment of the likely economic benefit from the different performance outcomes at each level then an argument over price is moot.

        …unless you’re making the claim that a higher performance network will deliver no economic benefit to Australia.

        Rather than minimising cost, the argument needs to be about maximising outcomes.

        • Haderak, I agree with you on everything you’ve said about building higher capacity infrastructure to drive economic growth. Absolutely.

          My contention is that this is already being done in the MTM scenario. Economic growth is driven by businesses, not in one’s home. And business premises will have fibre. Fibre will be deployed to 26% of premises including business districts, industrial and commercial parks and precincts, government, schools, universities, hospitals, medical centres, commercial buildings, shopping precints and high revenue potential areas. This will cover most businesses and institutions. And a scheme can be created for small businesses in residential areas to apply for a grant/subsidy to get co-pay fibre. So this is not about businesses.

          This is about the ~10m households where the evidence shows maximum download requirements are 8Mbps now and 19Mbps in 2023, with the top 1% needing 40Mbps in 2023, even with 4 adults, 3 HD TVs and a 4K TV. The primary household application is video. What is the economic growth from enabling more than 4 HD TVs per household?
          At $4000 FTTP per premises, 10m households account for $40bn of the $64bn FTTP cost. With MTM, these households will get 50/100Mbps for a cost of $8bn. What is the economic justification for the $32bn difference?

          Also, the majority of households are currently on <4.8Mbps. What is the justification for forcing the majority of households to wait 10 years for 1Gbps that they don't want, when their requirements would be met with 25-100Mbps in 3 -4 years and 50-100Mbps in 5-6 years?

          • “Also, the majority of households are currently on <4.8Mbps. What is the justification for forcing the majority of households to wait 10 years for 1Gbps that they don't want, when their requirements would be met with 25-100Mbps in 3 -4 years and 50-100Mbps in 5-6 years?"

            Conjecture.

            :/ amazing

          • On another note… Why are we forcing houses on technology that will only be viable for 5-10 years which they don’t want? Why are we spending billions of tax money “that’s just enough” for today and is already superceded by ongoing roll outs in other countries?

            See anybody can pull that “why do we have to argument” both ways….

          • “Why are we forcing houses on technology that will only be viable for 5-10 years which they don’t want? “Why are we spending billions of tax money “that’s just enough” for today. See anybody can pull that “why do we have to argument” both ways….”

            That would be a good argument if it were true. But studies cited in the review show that 50-100Mbps will be more than viable in households for at least 10 years. And in countries with widespread high-speed broadband the take-up is 33% across all technologies i.e. the take-up for FTTP is on par with FTTN and HFC and only 11% of subscribers choose plans >50Mbps.

            “and is already superceded by ongoing roll outs in other countries?”
            Again it would be a good argument if it were true. But the evidence is that ongoing roll-outs in every other country is around a mix of technologies. No country is rolling out just FTTP to 60%, let alone 93% of its population. FTTP has very low penetration rates, just 2.5% and <2% in comparable countries to Australia like the UK, Germany, Canada.

            So yes, anybody can pull that “why do we have to argument” both ways but since the evidence is all on one side, it doesn't work quite as well for the other side.

          • So just like some disgracefully or gullibly in the name of the cause… say things like FttN is the better alternative because BT rolled out to 10m houses (then it magically jumped to 16m houses… just two days later… WTF) in the UK…

            And then when the person who said this was asked a simple but obvious question… so your are using this to suggest that Malcolm’s plan will be able to roll past 10m houses here by March 2016…? That person and his claim turns to water, he refuses to answe and takes his bat and ball and trudges off home, you mean?

            :/ Amazing.

          • in other news Malcolm Turnbull announces ADSL2 already runs at 25Mb/s. They tested 1 house that was next to the exchange, so they can cancel the entire NBN rollout now and save $60b

          • Steve rites: ” when their requirements would be met with 25-100Mbps in 3 -4 years and 50-100Mbps in 5-6 years”

            We’re presently achieving 0.2Mbps on ADSL2 & Ziggy has stated his full FTTN roll-out won’t occur until 2018.
            Also no speed guarantees, just “up to 25Mbps” then likely “up to 50Mbps” on average.

      • steve, there is apparently no requirement to even upgrade to fibre to the node, where promised and within the promised timeframe or promised costing either.

        But that’s all ok of course…this mob have a free ride to do as they wish… as long as that last mob are still even now, criticised endlessly for missing their targets, Telstra’s asbestos and greedy contractors…

        :/ Amazing

    • Its 10 years before they start upgrading to fiber
      Its 5 year when they start upgrading to 3.1 and g.fast instead of doing that during the rollout

      But I do agree with FTTB atleast it gives them some thing until they work up how to run fiber

    • Turnbull has been white anting the NBN since day 1. We’ll be lucky so see anything other than ADLS2+ delivered on existing infrastructure before he and Switkowski are done.

  2. “In an apartment building in Melbourne, over 150 metres of existing Telstra HFC cable is delivering download speeds of 100Mbps, upload 5Mbps. That’s blisteringly fast and at a fraction of the cost of taking the fibre into every apartment.”

    WTF?

    Over HFC, which I assume to mean coax they are running at 20:1 Down:Up?

    Turnbull was trying to assure everyone he understands the importance of upload bandwidth, yet the trial seems to demonstrate something more commensurate with 25Mbps down.

    Jesus, even Opticomm boosted their 25/2 offering to 25/5 early on as 2Mbps up was not enough to make full use of the 25Mbps down. How will 100Mbps Down be served by only 5Mbps Up?

  3. HFC – “Way of the future”? Maybe if you’re living in 1992. This “optimised” broadband plan reads like satire you’d expect to see on The Onion. I don’t whether to laugh or cry that this is what the NBN has become.

    • Indeed we knew MT and Co were going to put us all in their DeLorean and take us back to the early/mid 2000’s with FttN…

      But who would ever have thunk they’d renege on even that paultry plan and now want to take us back further and do so with a straight face?

      Of course the apologists who were most vocal when NBNCo1 missed targets are the one’s who will not only accept this current farce but will promote it?

      Unbelievable.

  4. Rather than Satire, how about a serious article looking at chances of a Royal Commission into this sad dirty saga.

    • What else can he do? It is as though Turnbull had forgotten when April 1 is.

      Yet another backflip by Cirque du Coalition.

  5. I guess NBN only focuses on the East Coast seeing as we have minimal HFC infrastructure in WA.

    • WA doesn’t need broadband, we’re too busy digging up our state and selling it to China :-Þ

      • Being one of the earliest to get fibre in our business in Perth when started up over 40 years ago, we have already settled with clients in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Tanzania, China, NZ, America, the list goes on and on, all this because of one man in the business looked passed the present. Yes it costed a staggering amount of money back then but it has paid for itself many times over.

        • “because of one man in the business looked passed the present. Yes it costed a staggering amount of money back then but it has paid for itself many times over.”

          Precisely. There is a return in fibre to businesses which is why it is already included. The ~$10bn investment in fibre to businesses make sense.
          But what is the return for the ~$40bn fibre investment to households now, rather than an upgrade when justified by demand?

          • For starters we have to change our thinking about households, just like iinet here in the West, we started at home in a garage, a quick look at the australian bureau of statistics will show you the percentages of small businesses ran from home is very large and increasing every year.

          • “For starters we have to change our thinking about households, just like iinet here in the West, we started at home in a garage, a quick look at the australian bureau of statistics will show you the percentages of small businesses ran from home is very large and increasing every year.”

            Did you need fibre when the business was in the garage? In any case, co-pay fibre is available, it’s a cost of doing business. And wouldn’t it be more efficient to create a scheme for small businesses in residential areas to apply for a grant/subsidy to cover the co-payment than to invest ~40bn to cover 10m households who don’t need it and from whom there will be no return on investment?

          • “Did you need fibre when the business was in the garage?” To deal with overseas clients yes we did.
            “co-pay fibre is available, it’s a cost of doing business” A staggering amount of cost that most small timers can’t afford.
            “And wouldn’t it be more efficient to create a scheme for small businesses in residential areas to apply for a grant/subsidy to cover the co-payment than to invest ~40bn to cover 10m households who don’t need it and from whom there will be no return on investment?” Effecient yes, short sighted completely.
            Just because you don’t run a business from home doesn’t mean that somewhere down the track you won’t be working from home (Australian Small Business – Key Statistics and Analysis – Working Arrangements) the benefits to a business having that option is huge. 10m households who don’t need it? Are you saying if you don’t run a small business from home you don’t need reliable and faster internet?
            “Also, wouldn’t start-up businesses in garages prefer 25/50/100Mbps in 3-5 years rather than fibre after 10 years?” Both doubtful dates and doubtful speeds which can be achieved in some areas.
            “There are 770,000 businesses in Australia” Huh?

          • “A staggering amount of cost that most small timers can’t afford.”
            A staggering amount? The MTM scenario models FTTN with 400 metres radius nodes. BT charges 1000 pounds ($1,800) for fibre to premises 400 metres from the node. So the maximum co-payment would be $900.

            “Effecient yes, short sighted completely. Just because you don’t run a business from home doesn’t mean that somewhere down the track you won’t be working from home the benefits to a business having that option is huge.”
            You need 1Gbps fibre just in case you may somewhere down the track occasionally work from home? Telecommuting takes place now using today’s technology, FTTP certainly isn’t a pre-requisite. I work with telecommuters everyday in Asia, Europe, North America and regional Australia and none of them are on fibre or on the NBN. 50Mbps is sufficient bandwidth to run 10 HD TV streams or 20 Skype HD sessions. 100Mbos is sufficient to run 20 HD TV streams or 40 Skype HD sessions. And there’s nothing stopping you from co-paying the $900 or applying for a subsidy/grant.

            “10m households who don’t need it? Are you saying if you don’t run a small business from home you don’t need reliable and faster internet?”
            In 2023 40Mbps would be sufficient for a household of 4 adults with 3 HD TVs and a 4K TV.This household would be in the top 1% of household requirements. How many households will need more than 20 HD TVs and what is the return in economic growth of enabling the use of more than 20 HD TVs on a $40bn investment?

            “There are 770,000 businesses in Australia”
            ABS 8129.0 – 770,000 businesses in Australia. The report also shows that 8.1% of these businesses don’t use the Internet.

          • ““A staggering amount of cost that most small timers can’t afford.”

            $40bn/10m households = $4000. So the government investing $4000 on behalf of every single household in Australia including the 99.99% that don’t need the higher speeds or can’t afford it is not a staggering amount.

            But a $900 co-payment or simply applying for a grant/subsidy at zero cost is a staggering amount of cost?

          • Throw less money at something that will bring in a return on business development but will cost more in the future to upgrade and maintain for everyone else and will make no infrastructure return or throw more money at something that will bring in a business return, won’t need upgrading for a long time, will cost a lot less to maintain and will bring in a return.
            Look to the future son.

          • Oddly, according to the usual suspects..no matter how much the real NBN will or was estimated to cost, it was/is always too much?

            But whatever MT says is always just right.

            I recall when MT’s plan was estimated to be $7B and the NBN was estimated to be around $27B… this $27B figure was scoffed at as being astronomical for FttP and $7B was just right…

            Then CitiGroup suggested that MT’s plan would probably cost around $17B, this of course was then just right and FttP was still way too much…

            Now anywhere from $29.5B – $41B is just right for FttN – Fuck-up to the Nation.

            :/ Amazing

          • “BT charges 1000 pounds ($1,800) for fibre to premises 400 metres from the node. So the maximum co-payment would be $900.”

            I’m getting sick of people who can’t read.
            BT charges much more than the line-item price.

            1) 400meters is 1000 pounds! (good work you read one number!)
            2) There is a connection fee, 500 pounds. (oops you missed this)
            3) There is an Additional Annual Fee on-top of any plan. 456.00 pounds.

            So lets add this up.

            1956 pounds! All ex tax.
            + 10%
            2151 pounds.

            As of today (18/12/2013) 2151 pounds is 3927.17 aud.

            Remember; on top of your standard plan cost; you also have to pay 456 pounds (no wait, 501 pounds – 914aud) every year after this in addition to your plan as “rental”. (I have included the 456 for the first-year – don’t misunderstand the $4000 dollar figure – that is the first year exclusive of plan, inclusive of the rental charge).

            It isn’t 2000 dollars to get connected. It is at least double that with an ongoing cost of 1000 dollars every year.

            Oh; and the minimum term is 36 months.

            Which means at a minimum you are signing up for 6 thousand dollars. (before you start talking about the plan cost).

            I hate it when people don’t bother reading when quoting figures from websites they have never tried to buy something from.

            It’s like when people try to buy stuff from American retailers; because it looks so cheap, saying “this 20 dollar widget is great value! its 50 dollars in Australia!!” before getting to shipping; and being offered the low rate of $60 shipping.

            It isn’t a good deal until you get to see the bottom line.

          • Ah, but Peter A, can you read?

            “1) 400meters is 1000 pounds! (good work you read one number!)”
            No. 0-399 meters is 600 pounds. 1000 pounds is from 400-599 meters.
            “2) There is a connection fee, 500 pounds. (oops you missed this)”
            600+500 = 1100 pounds
            “3) There is an Additional Annual Fee on-top of any plan. 456.00 pounds.”
            We are talking one-off connection costs, not ongoing costs.

            “So lets add this up.”
            1100 pounds ex tax

            GST would be an input tax credit to the business (and we were talking businesses)
            So, 1100 pounds (as of today) = $2010
            50% co-payment = $1005

            The entire installation cost would also be a tax deduction to the business.
            At a 30% tax rate, cost to the business = 70% x 1005 = $704

          • “At a 30% tax rate, cost to the business = 70% x 1005 = $704”

            And the remaining $1301 is picked up by taxpayers…

          • P.S. Also, wouldn’t start-up businesses in garages prefer 25/50/100Mbps in 3-5 years rather than fibre after 10 years?

          • Newsflash… 25Mbps isn’t guaranteed (let alone 3-5 years) to households, only retailers…according to today’s news…

            Was anything they told us in relation to their pre-election broadband policy, factual or truthful…?

            :/ Amazing

          • P.P.S. There are 770,000 businesses in Australia, most of them already covered in the fibre footprint.
            A $2bn subsidy/grant program would cover the co-payment for more than 1,000,000 businesses.

          • ABS 8129.0 – Business Use of Information Technology, 2011-12

            Estimated number of businesses (`000)
            2009-10 776
            2010-11 764
            2011-12 776

          • The ABS business stats are reported on businesses operating in the ‘zero to less than $50k’ turnover range which equals around about 739,869 June 2012.
            Overall there are over 2 million businesses in Australia.

          • See my post above.

            Your figures for cost of fibre extension are wrong.

            Total cost of extension is $6000 AUD (minimum contract term 36 months).

            so sadly; only 300,000 are covered by your 2 billion dollar subsidy. (assuming administration cost is 0 – do you often assume administration costs nothing?)

          • You made the cardinal sin, you gave an absolute figure. Because you didn’t say “up to” the trolls will claim you are wrong.

    • Don’t worry; less HFC means more Fibre.

      It also means more FTTN; but longterm if we are stuck with the liberals HFC areas won’t be getting upgrades for 30+ years.

  6. We will regret this decision for decades to come.

    is there any way to hold the LNP to account for the financial losses that will arise from the pending debacle?

    Shit!

  7. It’s just so very sad. Here he is “optimising” the future for us. We don’t even have ADSL and it’s not forecast to come to us for the next five to eight years according to the council. We live in Tewantin in Qld. We were actually offered Dial up. If you weren’t assured he was being serious, you’d have to assume it was just a very silly and poor joke. Thanks Malcolm,

  8. Guys, please…. “fake news” was the heading.

    Renai’s just checking if we pay attention…

    nice one Renai

    • Ah, okay, well that would explain how you can ¨roll out existing infrastructure¨.

      It´s not April so I don´t know how we were supposed to expect that.

  9. The problem with this “fake news” is that it’s all too believable. :(

    I hope you’re not trying to con the other media into running this story using your site as a source Renai – that could backfire.

    • Whilst I am a bit of a smart-arse, and do appreciate a laugh, I’d be careful in pushing the voodoo on this subject.

      It may just become our nightmare…

  10. You know a government has a really shitty policy, when parts of it are near indistinguishable from satire. Nicely played Renai :)

  11. “Rolling out existing telecommunications networks will avoid the NBN project turning into a repeat of the Collins-class submarine disaster.”

    What Ergas is now proposing would be like the Howard Governments failed “Karman Seasprite” helicopter debacle where 40 year old airframes were to be fitted with new engines and electronics to “upgrade them to todays standards”, it cost Australian taxpayers a billion dollars and no working aircraft were ever delivered ( it would have been 400 million cheaper to buy brand new Sikorsky Seahawks).
    Sounds a lot like Turnbull’s FTTN, which now faces non delivery for Turnbull’s first term. That’s what happens when you have a politician that thinks he’s an engineer.

  12. Here are my thoughts on this:

    1.We don’t tell Malcolm or anyone else that they don’t need a Mercedes or a BMW and that a Toyota is more than enough comfort and speed for anybody in Australia. By the same measure, neither Malcolm or Tony can say that 25Mbps is more than enough speed for us and we do not need anything more. If we want it, we’ll pay for it – whether we need it or not is none of their business – their job is to spend our money wisely and not throw it on crap (second hand copper) that we don’t need. By restricting the max speed to 25MBps they are preventing retailers from selling higher speed plans. So there is no incentive for retailers to join the NBN bandwagon, and there is no scope for increasing revenue. Also there will be no customer interest if the fastest plan out there is 25MBps. The NBN will not make any revenue and end up as a big white elephant.

    2. All this hubbub and $41 billion later if all they can show is a 25Mbps network then they might as well forget it, stick the money back in the bank and we’ll wait for Labor to come around next time and do a proper job. Seriously $41 Billion to run FTTN to 32% of housholds? Really?? If they are doing nothing for the 30% of houses covered by HFC, then what the heck are they spending the money on?? Seriously: let NBN co complete its existing contracts and then shelve further builds project till Labor comes back – don’t waste our taxpayers money on this drivel.

    3.If you want to cut costs, build FTTB to units and MDU’s, build FTTP to freestanding premises not covered by HFC, let the HFC (30%) & Satellite (7%) cover the rest. This way we can decide to decommission the HFC later and upgrade those premises to FTTP – no old copper is reused in this way and no money is wasted upgrading FTTN to FTTP down the line.

    4.If you build it, we will come: If you build a 1Gbps FTTP network to 93% of the population then we will build services that run on that network. If all you do is polish a copper turd with $41 billion then we will take our business elsewhere. You do not know what is possible till you build it. Facebook would not have taken off if some old fossil thought there was no need for a 3G network.

    Cheers,

    Rajiv

  13. “I am personally quite looking forward to the scenario in which the NBN turns up at my house, delivering me a 100 megabit broadband service via the cable box that is already on my wall right now, and turning off the copper line sitting just above it,” Hackett wrote.

    Im 99% certain Hackett already has Fibre to his home… unless hes referring to one of his many other dwellings?

  14. Renai,

    When I look at Hackett’s blog post, it says:

    “In fact, the review proposes to take the existing Telstra and Optus HFC cable networks, and to transform them into a modern broadband network via major investment in these areas.”

    Your quote in this article, says:

    “The review proposes to take the existing Telstra and Optus HFC cable networks, and to transform them into a modern broadband network via a lack of major investment in these areas”

    The “a lack of” seems to completely change the meaning of the quote. How did that happen?

    If you’re deliberately misrepresenting his words, even if that’s for humour or parody purposes, that’s not cool.

    Also, out of curiosity, which bits of Hackett’s blog post are you interpreting as having “praised the Government’s new policy”?

    Cheers,

    prk.

      • Alex,

        So you’re saying it’s okay to deliberately alter someone’s words to contradict their original statement for humour value?

        ’cause I still think that’s not cool.

        prk.

        • “So you’re saying it’s okay to deliberately alter someone’s words to contradict their original statement for humour value?”

          Umm…. Yeah as it was clearly mentioned at the top of the article this is Fake News and as such it needs to swing loose with the truth, kinda like Malcolm’s Cheaper, faster sooner bullshit.

          It is also humorous in how many people failed to read those two words and thought that is a real statement by the Earl of bullshit himself, I agree with those above that the policy is that pathetic that people could not see that this was sarcasm.

          Thanks for the laugh Renai, top job :)

          • I know it said “fake news”, I just think it’s incredibly poor form to deliberately alter someone’s quote (lie about what they said).

            IMO, it’s much more clever to use their exact quotes (or parts thereof) to create the parody article.

            Obviously YMMV.

            prk.

    • He’s not wrong though. I consider it a paraphrase, because whether it’s a major investment in these areas or a lack of major investment in these areas depends on your perspective.

      Is it a major investment in HFC? Yes.

      Is it also a lack of major investment in these areas by using HFC? Yes.

      Bottom line: Renai should have used single quotes, I guess?

  15. Back to reality….

    Just heard a news report (forgive me if this is old news, because they seem to be reneging on everything, in relation to FttN – Fuck-up to the Nation and it’s hard to keep abreast :) with a recording of Conroy and Dr Zig clashing…

    Bottom line… the 25Mbps minimum guarantee the current governmnet gave us pre-election was for retailers not for households.

    :/ Amazing

    • I recall one of the take-aways from Thursdays arrival of the NBNCo Review was that the 25Mbps was no longer going to be guaranteed. I think, at the time, that news was eclipsed by the larger issues such as HFC being incorporated into the plan, the subsequent shrinking of the footprint by ~28%, the cost going up another $12 billion, the end-date being extended, and then the Earl of Wentworth’s inability to see that any of this is “bad news”, except the bits that he blames on the previous administration.

      25Mbps no longer being guaranteed would have been big news any other day, it just happened to drop amidst a tsunami of bigger news.

    • Could I have an explanation as to what that means, the difference between those two?

      I mean, other than congestion (which we know).

  16. Still waiting on detail on how long and what they *will* do to get HFC working.

    All I’ve seen in the documents are ‘strategies’ to get it work.
    Even the words from Simon Hackett only indicate what the *can* to do to improve the HFC. Not what they *will* do.
    Even the core parts of HFC in the NBN Stratgegic review have been redacted. We know Jack Schitt about this.
    It does not address the core issues. Wholesale access. Discussions with Optus and Telstra. HFC re-mediation costs. ACCC. Timetables. Cost to the home owner to get it installed.

    I am personally quote looking forward to the scenario in which the NBN turns up at my house, delivering me a 100 megabit broadband service via the conduit running under my driveway already to my stand alone house in the back of a subdivided lot, all at no cost to me to have it installed. Replacing the current copper twisted pair that resides there, which delivers me a measly 3.5mbps of speed.

    • Here is what I have been able to gather that they assume they will do.

      It is assumed:

      – They will complete negotiations for HFC purchase* from Telstra and Optus in the second half of 2015 (see p96). *It actually says access which is more vague, however three things indicate that it will be a purchase: Simon Hackett’s recent tweet, and the fact that they have not estimated the cost of a managed service (see p83), and the fact that in their HFC vision they must later kick FoxTel off (see p90). There will be 2.5 million premises (out of 3.4 million in the footprint) that will suddenly be on the “NBN”.

      – In the next four years (2016-2019) they will complete fill-in (not passed) and lead-in (passed, no coax) work for the gaps in the HFC footprint (see p96, 89). Of the 0.2 million without a lead-in (see p89), some MDUs will get FTTB (according to Simon Hackett’s recent blog post), while the rest will get HFC. Of the 0.7 million that have not been passed, some houses will get FTTP (see p96) or FTTB if appropriate, while the rest will get HFC.

      – They will guarantee a peak contribution per subscriber of 4-7Mbps (see p90): this, apparently, is reflective of user experience consistent with 50Mbps downstream or greater (see p90) (compare this with NBN FTTP, where your peak contribution per subscriber is 78Mbps).

      – In order to increase capacity (see p90): NBN Co
       . Reallocates the unused portion of downstream spectrum (14×8 MHz);
       . Reallocates the DOCSIS 1.1 capacity to support additional upstream and downstream capacity on DOCSIS 3.0;
       . Upgrades upstream channels to 64QAM;
       . Upgrades downstream channels to 256QAM; and
       . Splits nodes.

      – They consider the possibility of a 1:3 upload:download ratio, with a speed of 120Mbps download and 40Mbps by example (see p90).

      – Voice will be provided via VoIP; Telstra will migrate customers from the copper onto HFC (see p90).

      – Total Capex to do all of this is… redacted. Cost per premises (excluding OSS/BSS costs) is… redacted. Operating costs are estimated to be between $15-25 per premises per year. (see p90)

      – HFC at current DOCSIS standard is assumed to be able to deliver 100Mbps (see p100).

      – They consider potential future options for further capacity expansion beyond 4-7Mbps peak contribution (see p90):
       . Building out the network from 750MHz to 1 GHz, providing access to another 30 8MHz channels (adding 1.5Gbps at 256 QAM). This could be done concurrent with upgrading to DOCSIS 3.1, expected in 2017, to allow expansion of upstream capacity concurrent with expansion of downstream capacity.
       . In relation to the Telstra HFC network, should Foxtel agree at some point in time to move off HFC, this would free up another ~30 8MHz channels.

      – In order to allow for 250Mbps download, HFC will need to be upgraded to DOCSIS 3.1 and 1 GHz spectrum, rollout beginning in 2025 (see p100).

      – In order to allow for 1Gbps download, HFC will need to be replaced with FTTP, rollout beginning in 2030 (see p100).

      ** Btw, as a side note, p101 shows that the cost of deploying FTTN to ~3.6 million (between 3.55 and 3.65 million) premises is ~$2 billion (between $1.5 and $2.5 billion) at present value, or between $410.96 and $704.23 per premises on average. I guess they forgot to redact that.

      • ** Btw, as a side note, p101 shows that the cost of deploying FTTN to ~3.6 million (between 3.55 and 3.65 million) premises is ~$2 billion (between $1.5 and $2.5 billion) at present value, or between $410.96 and $704.23 per premises on average. I guess they forgot to redact that.

        I saw this when I was reading the report the second time. This is, quite frankly, ludicrous. They’re assuming a lower cost than almost all worldwide operators for deploying FTTN. And that is in dense city deployments. The FTTN being deployed here will be, by and large, in considerably less dense outer suburban and regional areas. We know this, because the dense areas are already covered by HFC and that is being reused.

        Turnbull himself suggested, before the election, FTTN deployments might be closer to $1300 per premises, in which case deploying more FTTH may be acceptable in dense areas. Yet now, all of a sudden, FTTN is magically cheaper than almost anywhere on the planet to rollout in suburbs that are among the least dense of any cities worldwide.

        There is so many fudged numbers in this review it’s not funny. Their paragraph on ‘median 8Mbps for UK households” is total balls. Apart from it being a totally useless measure of speed measurement, Akami measures average, not median and they’ve also misrepresented Akami’s own data several times in that paragraph.

        • seven_tech: “between $410.96 and $704.23 per premises on average….This is, quite frankly, ludicrous. They’re assuming a lower cost than almost all worldwide operators for deploying FTTN.”

          Pg. 78, “For networks most comparable to Australia,…FTTN is lower cost, at ~$350 – 700 per premises”

          seven_tech: “Their paragraph on ‘median 8Mbps for UK households” is total balls. Akami measures average, not median and they’ve also misrepresented Akami’s own data several times in that paragraph.”

          Pg. 78, “A recent UK study estimates that the median UK household today requires a maximum download speed of 8Mbps.”

          i.e. the SR says “median UK household”, seven_tech interprets as “median speed”.
          SR says “8Mbps is the maximum download speed requirement”, seven_tech interprets as “median speed”
          NBN weekly metrics say 4,919 premises passed in October, seven_tech interprets as “NBNCo. passed 33,000 premises in October”

          Reading skills, comprehension skills?

          • Steve:

            For networks comparable to Australia– Evidence? Sources? Even single examples?? AT&T & BT are not comparable examples. 90% of their FTTN/C deployments are in high density situations and are therefore on the lower end of the deployment cost scale. There is no given source for this.

            My comprehension skills are fine. The Median Household is also a misnomer- medians are always skewed to the lower end because of the large portion (around 25% in the UK I believe) of below the poverty line premises and wireless only premises. Average is the correct statistic and it is not used. Also, 8Mbps is not peak speed. Akami says average speed. The average peak speed is 38Mbps. (see Akami 2013)

            On both counts, this statistic is completely irrelevant. My comprehension skills are fine, if originally confused thanks to the nature of the statistic. The statistic is a concocted number to make the speed appear considerably lower than required.

            And you missed my point anyway- average or median peak speeds are, ultimately, not what matters. It is average peak period throughput. If you can find such a statistic that shows it is 8Mbps, I will retract my statement.

            On the point of premises passed- correct. I was mistaken. It was November they passed 33 000. Apologies for being out by 1 month.

          • “Evidence? Sources? Even single examples?? ”

            seven_tech, do you think any telco would ever publish their detailed cost ratios and breakdowns? These are their most close guarded secrets, but they are available to consulting firms, analysts and research groups to use in analysis under non-disclosure agreements. That’s the one of the reasons for engaging international consulting firms – they have access to global detailed internal company cost and price data and analysis not available otherwise. The reference (pg 78) is “Per The Boston Consulting Group analysis”.
            Here is further evidence. http://phildobbie.com/main/podcasts/crosstalk/item/1083-fibre-to-the-pom
            BT Openreach MD Mike Galvin stated to Commsday “So for two-thirds of the U.K. we’ve already said it’s costing us £2.5 billion [AUD$4.16 billion]. There is a think-tank called think broadband in the U.K. which actually costed out fibre to the premises for the U.K., for the whole of the U.K. And that came out at around about £28 billion [AUD$46.2 billion].” The $4.16bn is to 19 million premises or $219 per premises, the fibre is to 28 million premises or $1650 per premises.
            So where is your alternative evidence?

            I don’t know how to get it in your head that the 8Mbps is the maximum speed requirement. The study looked at the speed requirements of devices used in each household. It has nothing whatsoever to do with current line speeds, whether peak, average or median and nothing to do with Akamai. I despair at the incomprehension of this simple concept. Come back with when you understand the difference between required maximum speed (a consumer demand metric) and current line speed (a technology metric).

          • Dont bother 7T. I had hope for steve, but as time goes on he’s shown he’s only interested in one side of the discussion.

            But have a closer look at p78, and in particular the footnotes (fn64 specifically). The cost of rolling out FttP includes the cost of the NTD, which the FttN cost doesnt. The cost per premises isnt comparing apples to oranges. More mandarins to oranges.

            But that wont matter to those against FttP, just the ~$350 v $1100 mentality they have.

            So dont bother. You’re not going to be able to take the blinkers off him, just as he wont somehow make us drink Abbott’s kool-aid.

          • “The cost of rolling out FttP includes the cost of the NTD, which the FttN cost doesnt. The cost per premises isnt comparing apples to oranges. More mandarins to oranges.”

            Great logic GongGav. FttP needs an NTD, FttN doesn’t need an NTD (as it already exists). Therefore comparing FttP costs to FttN is mandarins to oranges? That’s a bit of a desperate effort. Is that the best you can do?

            P.S.”For a FTTP connection, fibre is connected to a device known as a Network Termination Device (NTD), which is a powered box that converts the optical signal to an electrical signal and provides outlet ports for both data and analogue telephone. This device is currently provided by NBN Co and will continue to be provided under the new model.”
            “For an FTTN/dp network, the point of network termination is the current copper network connection point, usually the first wall socket inside the customer’s premise (a 605 or RJ11/12 port).”

          • Steve:

            The review specifically notes providing a VOIP solution for PSTN equivalence is their preferred option. This requires a NTD. It also notes that analogue PSTN standalone option would add significant unknown cost and OPEX to the project.

            Either way, GongGav is correct- the comparison includes cost for one (FTTP) and not the other (FTTN).

            And no, the cost cannot be simply lumped onto the RSP/customer- for VOIP solutions, USO would be required. That means NBNCo. as the wholesale carrier would be responsible for the termination device.

          • “The review specifically notes providing a VOIP solution for PSTN equivalence is their preferred option. ”

            seven_tech, read and comprehend. “The Strategic Review has also considered the continued provision of PSTN voice services. Should this occur, costs additional to those allowed for under the scenarios modelled may be incurred to, for example, provide copper based connectivity between exchanges and nodes providing FTTN.”

            SR says “has also considered …Should this occur”, seven_tech interprets: “the review specifically notes this is their preferred option”

            “has also considered” means the SR considered and discarded.

          • Steve, you have, quite rudely, mocked my comprehension and understanding of things several times. Perhaps it would be wise to read thoroughly what you have written, in light of this paragraph directly above the paragraph you have quoted from the Review, split across pages 81 and 82:

            3.2.4 Voice architecture choices
            Providing voice via CPE using voice-over-internet-protocol (VoIP) is viable for Australia and
            represents a relatively easy, proven approach based on local and international experience as a
            stable, high-quality solution. Customers can connect their analogue telephone to CPE with a voice
            port. 12-15 percent of current NBN Co end-customers use the voice port to receive voice services.
            VoIP is already used by more than 4.4 million Australians, with 0.6 million relying on VoIP without a
            fixed line phone connection.

            The Strategic Review has assumed voice will be provided in this way and proposes NBN Co works
            with industry partners and Government to make this solution the new standard in Australia.

            NBNCo. are working on the assumption VOIP will be the standard. That is- the NBNCo. CPE will have to provide an emulation port (ie. a NTD will be required on ALL architectures- means a home visit to every premises or alternately a robust piece of deliverable equipment that is easily self-installed and can guarantee a minimum standard of quality for voice & data), or, alternately, the RSPs must individually take responsibility for the USO provision of voice services. That is extremely unlikely, as most waver just the CSG on VOIP now, let alone the USO.

            NBNCo. have chosen VOIP as their assumption, as provided currently over the FTTP services. Any PSTN equipment for scenario 6 will be on top of current costs and timeframe. Revenue is also noted to be diminished as a result. We have no indication of how much costs will rise or revenue decrease.

            Can I suggest you take a view to discussing rather than attacking. People may find it more enjoyable to converse with you then.

          • steve, this is just another example of how you’ve disappointed. You cant even differentiate the costings for both rollouts, to see that one rollout has costs that the other doesnt. Instead you choose to try and start an argument.

            Nice tactic.

            One rollout costs ~$400 per premises, the other costs ~$1100. Fair numbers?

            But what components make up each of those costings? What makes FttN cost $400, and what makes FttH cost $1100? The implication is that its the same gear at each end when it isnt.

            Two families buy a new Commodore (before the Lib’s force Holden out of Australia), with the first family gloating that he only paid $40,000 while the other paid $60,000. What he doesnt say is that the $60,000 version came with all the opptional extras – how is that a fair comparison?

            The debate is representing an unfair playing field, and trying to narrow it down to just 2 numbers as if they are the same thing, when they arent. If you want a fair debate, look at what makes up the $400 amount for FttN, and cost the same equipment for the FttP equivalent. FttP wont be $1100 per property, and it would be a far more accurate comparison.

            Basically, what does it cost to get the connection to the house. Dont include the technology once inside, but just the delivery conduit. Thats really the only equivalent technology we should be debating, because the NTD or equivalent CAN be put into the hands of the householder to supply, or supplied to the masses under both rollouts.

            FttN will still be cheaper, I have no doubt, but what if the costs are suddenly $400 versus $700? Then its a different argument altogether.

            Or how about adding on to the $400 cost to include what else will be needed. What about the modem you have for FttN or VOIP phone? From what I can tell, your current modem should work, but you’re not going to be seeing the speeds you should expect from FttN, so will more than likely need a new modem.

            So how about tossing in ~$150 per premise for a new FttN modem. Include a VOIP phone, or add another $50 (which you wont do, it upsets your vision) for one, and suddenly that $400 amount starts to add up. Then add on whatever it will cost in the future to upgrade to FttP, plus replacing all the equipment thats going to need replacing at that point.

            My post was about how that cost per premises figure isnt representative of the actual cost, but suggests that it is. Compare the two rollouts on an even billing for once.

            End of the day, I have global experts in this technology in my family, and they laugh at posts like yours. Whether you care or not doesnt really matter, I know which opinion means more to me personally.

            And no, thats not the best I can do. I was replying to seven_tech, not you, so I’m not sure why you chose to attack me that way. What I am is tired of the hypocrisy and contempt that Turnbull and Abbott have shown for everyone, including you.

            Its just sad that you cant see the damage this will do to Australia, in the short, medium, and long terms. I actually respect you for being so passionate, yet pity you for not being able to understand why you are so wrong.

        • Median is the correct way to measure, because it throws away the top and bottom counts which are by no means representative of the service overall. Median give you what “most” people would get and is by far the best and most appropriate measure.

          • Daniel- Median, as far as I’m aware, is not regularly used for communications measures. I’ve never seen any premises/household measures for communications use median before. All global statistics are average, such as Akami and Cisco.

            For median to be used, the data has to be represented in some way (even a highest and lowest is normally enough) so the portions “thrown away” as a result of providing a median on the data, can be proven to be statistically irrelevant. This is particularly important in communications, as often a few kbps from poor DSL, satellite and fixed wireless are very relevant, depending on their locations/usage. And of course, while removing a 1Gbps dedicated link of an enterprise is reasonable, removing a 300Mbps business retail connection is not.

            My point about this statistic is- no other communications measure uses median. Why does this study? The only conclusion I can come to is because it makes a significant difference to measured speeds. Without the data, we cannot determine this.

          • Because its not a communications measure, it is a measure of consumer demand. Like measuring the consumption of electricity in a median household, or measuring the size of the mortgage in the median household, this is measuring the demand for bandwidth in a median household.

          • Steve,

            How do you measure the bandwidth demand of a “median” household? Electricity is easy- contact electricity companies. Gas- same. Mortgage- same. Bandwidth? When? How often? Which company? Is the peak speed limited by plan, technology or CPE?

            Median household might be a standard statistic. Median household bandwidth is not. Because you cannot directly compare the fibre connection to a copper connection to a satellite connection to a medium business connection.

            Again- show me an IT company that measures bandwidth by “median household”?

            Akami- Average and Average Peak
            Cisco- Average
            Ookla- Peak (biased)

            I am not disputing the standard Bureau of Statistics measure of Median household (though I do have my issues with it- ABS says Median household income is $1400 a week in Australia….get real). I am disputing the measurement applying to bandwidth as the connection and type of plan significantly changes the statistics relevance in communications.

          • “How do you measure the bandwidth demand of a “median” household? ”

            This is explained in the referenced document. did you read it?

          • Yes, I have. The way they have worked it out is completely made up.

            They have taken household connectivity gadgets now (such as a HD stream from iPlayer in the UK at 5Mbps , not noting that is the lowest bandwidth true HD can be streamed, let alone 4K which has assumptions made about it that don’t exist) and average data usage and split it, without stating how, over a specified period to arrive at a peak speed requirement for the “median household”. And I must point out, specifically, their own admission here:

            Clearly this approach is ripe for interrogation and debate and as the
            report makes clear, reducing the excluded minutes pushes up the
            requirement. For example for a 4 adult, high usage household with
            a 4K TV, reducing the excluded minutes from 4 to zero would push
            the bit rate requirement in 2023 up from 38 Mbps to over 50 Mbps.
            In that vein, the report also highlights a number of sensitivities to
            the model results which could change anticipated requirements.
            These factors include changing user expectations for factors such as
            download speeds and notably, reducing the time one would expect
            a software download, such as a console game, and upload of files to
            take. For example, in significantly reducing the base case
            assumption of 10 minutes waiting time for a console game to 2.5
            minutes, then 16% of households require 83 Mbps. Reducing the
            waiting time further would quickly take demand over 100 Mbps for
            those households.
            Accordingly what we are keen to emphasise in publishing the
            report, is that we are not presenting or endorsing an absolute
            “truth” on speed needs over the next decade. As with any report
            looking forward, one cannot predict the future with exact certainty.

            Apologies for the extensive quote, but essentially what they are saying is “We have arrived at this number thusly. There are plenty of other ways to arrive at this number. We don’t say they are any better or worse, but we clearly lay out how we came to our conclusions. You can disagree with them if you want, cause that’s outside our scope”

            In other words “We’ve done this. We make no comment or guarantee it’s the right way to do this.”

            This consulting firm has assumed negligible change in consumer habits (notably that people will not expect faster broadband or considerably less waiting time than now- especially seeing as they calculate “Console game” to be 1.5GB, when the newest generation- XBone & PS4- Average 10-12GB per game) That is ridiculous. New technologies have drastically changed consumer habits over the years. Assuming monumental change is foolish. Assume almost none at all is just as foolish.

            Ultimately, my point is made by the study itself- they note a further 16% of households would need 83Mbps if waiting time for console game downloads is reduced to 2.5 minutes. That’s at 1.5GB. At the actual size for curren tgen consoles, close to 10 times that, it would be 25 minutes. Not an unreasonable amount of time to wait. I believe 40% (off the top of my head recollection, someone please correct me) of households own a console in Australia. That means a not unreasonable number of Australian households would expect >50Mbps to make downloading current generation (not even the next gen consoles in 6 years!!) console games not take hours. And that would be 10’s of %. Not single %.

            My point is made- “median households” means nothing when your calculation of what a median household is is entirely made up by your own study.

          • ““Why does the review choose that one report to decide what we’re likely to need in 2023, as compared to the other half dozen which range from slightly higher to about 10 times higher, depending on which you choose?”

            So where are your half a dozen reports which range from slightly higher to about 10 times higher, depending on which you choose?

            We have only one authoritative study and that one study says 8Mbps.

          • The Cisco VNI states 100Mbps will be demanded by 2018 & 1Gbps by 2025. They have used the Cisco VNI, which I might point out has been correct for the past 20 years within 10%,for other parts of the review sources, but not for calculations of customer demand of speed. I note this is demanded speed, not actual average speed- Cisco predicts what speeds
            consumers will begin to use, not what the average speed might be. If customers can’t use it, demand is not met & the network is considered under-developed.

            So why does the review use the Cisco VNI for many other data points, but skip over it for a study that instead has a dubiously arrived at speed which doesn’t even include current technology trends like new consoles & 4K adoption??

            I note you’ve not responded to any of my explanations about why the study figure of 8 Mbps is very dubious.

          • even THATS going to be under inflation, 7T. from here you can see that some PS4 downloads are in the hundreds of MB ranges, but the popular games trend bigger to much bigger…. just looking here at the download store lists

            http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/11/22/uk-ps4-game-download-sizes-and-higher-than-retail-playstation-store-prices-revealed/

            i think an expected average of 10-12GB is conservative….. the average is ~14GB totting up that links list there, and thats launch titles; i fully expect future titles will easily blow past Killzone @38GB, and certainly the more popular titles to skew larger as well. popularity=sales, a portion of which will be digital=created load on the delivery network.

            then you can add on the other console, and you can see that dismissing entertainment uses on any future network (oh its just for porn/movies/games, we dont need to spend on that) is shortsighted. it is and will continue to be a significant load on peak time attainable speeds – network bottlenecking effects – and as a metric of network usability PAR is pretty important in my book.

            i fully expect that most parents dont understand digital downloads and GB and all that but they certainly will understand the howling of their progeny at ‘that download thats taking forever’ and so forth. i fully expect there will be further problems in this vein by the time the next generation come along in 5-7 years; given there is a growing expectation that disc base titles will then be the minority of releases, and there will probably be a size jump again.

            no longer being able to guarantee rates is a warning flag for anyone who can see those larger filesizes coming – my feeling is there are going to be significant network issues with this design when it comes to usage in peak hours.

    • “I am personally quote looking forward to the scenario in which the NBN turns up at my house, delivering me a 100 megabit broadband service via the conduit running under my driveway already to my stand alone house in the back of a subdivided lot, all at no cost to me to have it installed. Replacing the current copper twisted pair that resides there, which delivers me a measly 3.5mbps of speed.”

      midspace, your stand alone house in the back of a subdivided lot is a good illustration of the difference between the previous FTTP model and MTM.
      Delivering a 100 megabit broadband service in the FTTP scenario involves obtaining permission from you and each the other sub-lot owners, requiring the active co-operation and coordinating entry and access with each of the owners, estate agents, tenants and any strata body corporate, breaking up each of your driveways, landscaping, lawns and garden beds to lay conduits between the street and your stand alone house and each of the subdivided houses on the lot. Then restoring your driveways, landscaping, lawns and garden beds to pristine condition, then co-ordinating again with owners, tenants and agents for the installation of equipment inside each of your houses and finally hoping no owner or tenant sues for private property damage or injury caused by this work on their private property and in their houses.

      Delivering a 100 megabit broadband service in the MTM scenario involves simply installing a node on public property in the street outside the subdivided lot and the current copper twisted pairs that reside in your house will deliver 100mbps.

      • Steve:

        What if midspace (I’m unsure if he is, but many premises will be) is in the position of having HFC run past his premises? All that requirement for drilling, running lead-in etc. will be required for HFC connection. There is therefore no reason not to do FTTP, as it is cheaper overall (HFC cable and requirements are considerably physically larger than FTTP). This would mean you’d be running fibre, for GPON, past dozens of premises just to get to this block of premises….which means you may as well run GPON for the street.

        There will be hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of cases of this. And yet, somehow, using the HFC, even though the lead-ins are the most expensive part of both rollouts, is “faster, cheaper and easier”….sure. Pull the other one.

        • Seems like you are making up your own scenario seven_tech, let’s call it Scenario 7 – seven_tech’s strawman scenario

          The SR specifically says that what you are suggesting (in an HFC area units would be served by HFC) applies to scenarios other than Scenario 6.
          The SR says: “In Scenario 6, the preferred choice of technology for MDUs in a particular area will depend on a range of factors including the technology in the surrounding area, ability to access the building and relative cost. NBN Co will evaluate the appropriate technology for MDUs in a particular area as part of the network design process. ….”
          “In all other Scenarios, the cost assumption has been modelled such that units within MDUs will be served with the same technology as neighbouring single dwelling units. For MDUs in an FTTP area, fibre will be run to individual units, for MDUs in an FTTN area individual units would be served by their existing copper lines to a node outside the MDU building, and in an HFC area units would be served by HFC.”

          P.S. how many fibre premises were passed in October – you said 33,000, the NBN weekly rollout metrics only show 4,919.

          • Actually steve, that scenario description specifically does not cover the scenario I listed. Thanks to the fact that if the surrounding SDUs are HFC fed, then the MDU is analysed and found that HFC is going to be similar cost to FTTP….they must either go with HFC and have a NPV loss (singularly, not a large loss, over a network of thousands of MDUs, a significant loss) or go with FTTP and have wasted the CAPEX deployment of HFC to those SDUs who are not yet connected, seeing as FTTP would be in that street, most likely in the pit outside those SDUs.

            If surrounding SDUs are being fed by HFC and surrounding MDUs are getting FTTB and other MDUs are getting FTTP….you can’t possibly believe this would be the most efficient way of deploying BB to a single street for the least cost? This was the whole point of a mass FTTP rollout- some premises would be a NPV gain and some would be a NPV loss, overall in many cases balancing or even favouring FTTP. Treating each MDU individually will significantly increase the cost (as already seen with FTTP to MDUs) rather than blanket treating an entire street or Serving Area Module.

            TL;DR The Review is suggesting MDUs, SDUs and sub-divisions are treated on an individual basis to gain maximum already deployed network usage. In reality, this will consume a significant portion, if not all, efficiency gains due to project management/design costs over the increased CAPEX of an entirely FTTP rollout in that street/module.

          • I’ll take the opportunity to have my point reinforced about what I’m trying to say here, but whom puts it more succinctly than I. He also happens to be a highly respected telecommunications expert. Paul Budde:

            So one can’t simply select a suburb or town and use one of the [HFC, FTTN, FTTP] technologies – it is possible that many areas will have to be serviced by three different technologies. This in itself will be a logistical nightmare. Just think about how to design such a network – street by street, house by house – and what would be involved in getting the design right. It will be impossible to know all of this upfront; so again design and developments will take place on the go, as the quality of significant parts of the infrastructure will only become clear once work is commenced.

            http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/analysis-of-nbn-2-0/

            I am not the only one and far from the most experienced in the industry to foresee this problem. And it will be a problem. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

          • “I am not the only one and far from the most experienced in the industry to foresee this problem. And it will be a problem.”

            I agree that it will be a challenge. But on the other hand we have an impossibility, an impossibility that costs twice as much, takes twice as long and will need 100% government funding.

            “At the end of this year, the fibre rollout will have passed 260,000 fibre premises. We have 1 million out of 13 million passed by the end of 2014; 1 million of the remaining are meant to be in the satellite and fixed footprint. That still leaves 11 million premises to be passed.
            “[Over] 10 years, that’s 1.1 million premises passed per year. That’s 100,000 premises per month. How is that going to happen from where we are today?”
            It is not possible to meet a run rate that high,
            It’s not going to happen. It was never going to happen.”

            This from the only person in Australia with all of the information, all of the data, all of the experience and all of the authority to make a fully considered and informed judgment.

            Even with the 3-year delay to 2024, NBN needs to pass 100,000 premises and activate 80,000, including 30,000 MDUs every single month for ten years. 85% of these are brownfields.

            In October NBN passed just 5000 premises, in November NBN passed 24,000 and activated just 8000, of which just a handful were MDUs and only 70% were brownfields.

          • Steve, this:

            This from the only person in Australia with all of the information, all of the data, all of the experience and all of the authority to make a fully considered and informed judgment.

            Are you serious?? Ziggy has zero experience in network rollouts. Zero experience in the NBNCo. rollout (he’s only been spending 3 days a week doing NBN stuff and didn’t even know what the passed premises number was, having issued a weekly update only a few days ago!) and doesn’t even know the rollout figures properly- he concludes 1 million premises passed by end 2014 and says there are 12 million to go….without noting 250k will be covered by satellite by 2015 and at least the same number by wireless by a similar timeframe. Half a million premises may not seem like much, but it is a significant number and notably adjusts the per day premises figure over the 10 year rollout. He’s also suggested that NBNCo. and their partners essentially shutdown over Christmas/New year for nearly 4 weeks…when 2 years of experience says there is about a 6 day shutdown, depending on the state. You might call that conservative. I’d call it reporting the worst so you look better without doing any extra work.

            If you truly think Ziggy is the best and most knowledgeable person about “all this” at this time….I’m speechless.

          • Mate, I enjoy our little discussions in the true spirit of debate and I apologise if I’ve been impatient today. But IMO opinion you’re been off your game all day, which is frustrating, means I have to repeat everything twice. Take this example:

            seven_tech: “without noting 250k will be covered by satellite by 2015 and at least the same number by wireless by a similar timeframe.”

            But the quote says: “1 million of the remaining are meant to be in the satellite and fixed footprint. ”

            seven_tech: “he concludes 1 million premises passed by end 2014 and says there are 12 million to go…”

            But the quote says: .”That still leaves 11 million premises to be passed.”

            See what I mean? if you had read through my comment you’d have seen that Ziggy deducted the 1 million wireless and said there will be 11 million (not 12 million) to go, which would have let you address the substantive part of my argument, which was:
            “Even with the 3-year delay to 2024, NBN needs to pass 100,000 premises and activate 80,000, including 30,000 MDUs every single month for ten years. 85% of these are brownfields.
            In October NBN passed just 5000 premises, in November NBN passed 24,000 and activated just 8000, of which just a handful were MDUs and only 70% were brownfields”

            Instead of addressing the substance of the argument, the reponse was a verballing of Ziggy for not deducting 500k wireless when he deducted 1 million wireless. Forget the personality, address the point of the argument.

          • Once again, a long winded and insulting replay. Nice to avoid answering his post by picking on one point. Then as you seen to like to do with everyone, pretty much call them stupid.

            “This from the only person in Australia with all of the information, all of the data, all of the experience and all of the authority to make a fully considered and informed judgment.”

            Back to his point. How can you possibly make this claim about Ziggy?

            Read, comprehend, hello in there!? Capable of thought are you? (Here, have a dose of your own language)

          • “But on the other hand we have an impossibility, an impossibility that costs twice as much, takes twice as long and will need 100% government funding.”

            Careful there stevo…

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

            Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness.

            Comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate

          • “Seems like you are making up your own scenario seven_tech, let’s call it Scenario 7 – seven_tech’s strawman scenario…”

            :/ Amazing

      • Currently we have a Telstra installed satellite dish on the roof. This was installed by the previous owner/resident. We don’t use it though.
        We have both Optus and Telstra HFC running down the street.

        It has been my broad assumption, that because of the presence of the dish, that Telstra were unable to previously install a cable in the conduit that runs under the driveway.
        It could however, be a cost issue as the lean-in would have to descend the power poles, enter whatever conduit is there already that my phone line uses, and cross under the road before emerging at the pit at the property line. And then, enter the next conduit to pass beneath the longish driveway, before coming up again at the building.

        We own our property.
        As a two lot subdivision in Victoria, there is no requirement for a officially lodged ‘strata’ body corporate.
        Just agreement between us and our neighbour in the front. (And the occasional meeting). As we’re on good terms, any permission will be quickly granted. And considering the driveway (even though it is common property) is primarily used by us, and not the neighbour, the only people affected by ‘works’ would be us.

        FTTB will not work. There is no conduit between my neighbour’s house and ours. All cable to ours is separate, and runs under the driveway.

        I believe the plans clearly indicate that I should get HFC, and not FTTN.
        If the HFC doesn’t fit the conduit however, or there isn’t enough turn radius at the end, it still won’t work.

        Though I must admit, that FTTN would be the easiest way out. The closest Telstra pillar, is 360 metres away. Again I’m assuming this would be the best spot to place it.

        I still see no timetable for deployment. Not that Ziggy will make any promises. But something along the lines of “We aim to achieve blah% by year blah” couldn’t go astray.

        • Just FYI midspace

          Most likely your possible HFC connection would be aerial. They are in my suburb. The Cable is aerial and all connections to SDUs & sub-divisions are aerial. Quite long ones too.

          Still not cheap however, as a new pole would need to be erected on your side.

          • Somehow I just don’t see aerial happening. A lot regulatory work with the council. Especially with the number of subdivided lots you get in the suburbs.

            We have 13 more properties down the street also subdivided in similar manner, and more popping up all the time. The council will more than likely say no.
            I sure don’t want a pole next to the driveway.

  17. Soth: “…cost more in the future to upgrade”
    Actually It will cost less to upgrade MTM to FTTP in the future than to deploy FTTP now.(Section 4.3.2) – at least $6bn less.

    “and maintain”
    Steady state opex + capex is $3.5bn p.a for FTTP and $3.6bn p.a. for MTM, so a 3% difference (Exhibit 4-6)

    “and will make no infrastructure return”
    The return on MTM is 33% higher than FTTP. (Exhibit 4-6)

    “or throw more money at something that will bring in a business return, won’t need upgrading for a long time, will cost a lot less to maintain, and will bring in a return.”
    The business return on FTTP is 33% lower than MTM, it will cost at least $6bn more to deploy now than to upgrade MTM later and will cost just 3% less to maintain (Exhibit 4-6)

    “Look to the future son.”
    Sure dad. In the future I see MTM at least 10% cheaper to upgrade to FTTP, generating a 33% higher return (IRR), just 3% more to maintain and meeting the requirements of businesses and households now and into the future with a 56% smaller initial investment.
    What’s the colour of the sky in your world dad?

  18. Dr Switkowski said. “It’s clear that after four years of NBN, guarantees have lost currency.”

    Quite so.

    • Ah yes…

      That’ll do to now excuse all of Mal’s already missed targets, blown budget, broken promises and downgrades…

      The old, because Ziggy says…. And don’t forget the old tried and true… Simon says.

      :/ Amazing

  19. These guys have NO idea !

    “I am personally quite looking forward to the scenario in which the NBN turns up at my house, delivering me a 100 megabit broadband service via the cable box that is already on my wall right now, and turning off the copper line sitting just above it,” Hackett wrote.

    So he is talking about a Telstra HFC Cable box (as its not copper as he says) and he is looking forward to NBN showing up so he can get 100mb….. WHY he can call Telstra NOW and get a BigPond Ultimate Cable plan at 100mb !!! cant believe what they are trying to sell, its like selling ice to eskimos and Australia is paying $41b for it.

  20. “The Cisco VNI states 100Mbps will be demanded by 2018 & 1Gbps by 2025”

    Link and page?

    • Apologies, it is in fact the Cisco Paper: Establishing the Zettabyte Era. It’s an addendum to the ordinary tri-annual Cisco VNI referenced in the Review:

      http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/VNI_Hyperconnectivity_WP.html

      It shows an average global fixed-line speed increase from 11-39Mbps by 2017. Before even half of the MTM solution would be completed.

      Cisco’s own stats for Australia, point to an increase to 36Mbps:

      http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/06/14/3524848.htm

      These are based on current demand, likely increase in demand, current technologies and technology updates going forward. Cisco has been broadly correct (within about 10%) for between 15 and 20 years now.

      I’d also like to note Cisco predicts an Average usage per household of 44GB/month in Australia in 2015. ABS lists it as 51GB now (630000TB/12.36 million fixed subscribing premises). Number of subscribers on >8Mbps is 63% of all subscribers. That is, the number of subscribers who want more than the median household now in the UK, is 63% of all fixed-line internet subscribers.

      I think it’s pretty clear the idea that 8Mbps, peak, as a reasonable measure right now of demand is quite ludicrous…

  21. Lionel: ““This from the only person in Australia with all of the information, all of the data, all of the experience and all of the authority to make a fully considered and informed judgment.”
    Back to his point. How can you possibly make this claim about Ziggy?”

    Ah Lionel. As executive chairman, Ziggy has access to all of the internal information and detailed data about the company and its operating and strategic position. He is also the only person with the authority to make a judgment call on the strategic direction of the company. Now how can you possibly dispute this claim?

    While you’re mulling that over, think about this:
    Premises passed July-Nov: 20709, 29877, 32901, 4919, 30848
    Premise activated July-Nov: 5688, 8088, 7596, 7284, 10320

    Even with the 3-year delay to 2024, NBN needs to pass 100,000 premises and activate 80,000 premises (85% brownfields, 35% MDUs.) every single month for 10 years.

    Its run-rate per month this financial year has averaged 24% and 10% of the targets, including <5% MDUs and just 70% brownfields.

    • “He is also the only person with the authority to make a judgment call on the strategic direction of the company”

      Yes, I agree with this, but that isn’t all you said.

      “the only person in Australia with all of the information, all of the data, all of the experience … fully considered and informed judgment”

      This is the portion I dispute.

      “While you’re mulling that over, think about this: blah blah blah”

      I know the rollout has been slow, and there are many reasons for it being slow. It needs to be fixed. It doesn’t need bogus numbers and blaim game politics. Rolling out crap leaves us in the position we are now in 2020, needing to roll out a network but with a lot of money wasted. Save you cheaper to rollout fibre in 5 years claims until you can do it using real figures rather than ones Turnbull is using simply so he can make that claim.

    • And unlike Quigley who also had all the info, the Zigmesiter is on ‘our side’, so… *nudge wink*

    • steve,

      I’m going to point this out to you. Because apparently short-term memory is an issue.

      Ziggy had all the facts and figures whilst he was at Telstra, too. And others. Didn’t improve his decision making process, then, either.

      Here’s a very very simple concept, to illustrate.

      You can see a car coming, you look both ways and cross, regardless, hoping you’ll make it to the other side just fine. You get hit by the car. Ouch.

      Just because you might have information available, doesn’t mean you’ll automatically make sensible decisions when furnished with that information.

      Turnbull is no different; he has been furnished with a plethora of information; including the risks associated. This doesn’t automatically mean he’ll make the best decision for the broader community. Just the best decision for him (which at present is to do nothing and instead go for photo ops with start-ups, online businesses and revolutionary companies in the US; he can’t really do that here because we don’t HAVE the infrastructure to build it).

  22. Mr Fraudband’s new policy appears to be discontinuing fibre at the completion of contracts (not completing the Tasmanian rollout he promised during the election).

    Giving handouts to Optus and Telstra to upgrade their networks and rebranding it as High Speed Fibre Broadband.

    Rebranding ADSL 2 (now the nodes have been put off until after the next election, with a few “trials in the 3rd quarter of 2015) as the “NBN”.

    The furious backpedalling of Mr Fraudband and “I’m no tech head Kerry” to reduce the NBN program to zip just indicates the level of deception foisted on the Australian people by these bald faced liars.

    Time for criminal prosecution of lying politicians

Comments are closed.