feature The chief executive officer of upstart telco MyRepublic has described the Coalition’s move to significantly water down Labor’s National Broadband Network vision as “criminal”, mourning the loss of the “marvellous” universal fibre dream promoted by the previous Labor Government.
MyRepublic was formed in 2011 as a new broadband provider in Singapore by telco and network specialists Malcolm Rodrigues and KC Lai. The company quickly shot to prominence in the island state through providing unlimited broadband plans at 100Mbps speeds over Singapore’s Next-Gen National Broadband Network, which is based on the Fibre to the Premises network rollout model.
The company has also launched in New Zealand and is planning to launch in Australia in the second quarter of 2016.
Rodrigues — the company’s chief executive — generated a large amount of headlines last week with controversial comments made to the Financial Review newspaper, in which he alleged the Coalition’s Multi-Technology Mix approach to the NBN was “shit”, and that the Coalition Government had “completely stuffed” the project. The comments were quickly denounced by the NBN company and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Asked about the instant reaction in an interview with Delimiter later in the week, the good-natured Rodrigues chuckles and notes that he suspected his comments had “struck a nerve”.
The executive says he has some experience of dealing with Minister Turnbull. When the Liberal MP was in Opposition, he notes, the pair spent half a day together in Singapore, during a broadband fact-finding mission which the then-Shadow Minister had engaged in throughout Asia.
Rodrigues says he has “a lot of respect” for the Minister, who he describes as a “smart guy”. He notes that Minister Turnbull may not always be able to pursue the path he would like to — in his Cabinet role he has a lot of “handcuffs” on him.
However, the executive notes that even at that stage, in Opposition, the Member for Wentworth didn’t see the need for universal fibre as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy did.
“He said, ‘I don’t know what anyone will do with 100Mbps, I think 20Mbps is fine’,” says Rodrigues.
The executive says that he understands where Minister Turnbull would be coming from with such comments. However, throughout some parts of Asia, he notes, even 100Mbps speeds are obsolete. In Singapore, gigabit speeds have become common following the country’s own NBN rollout. If customers really didn’t want those speeds they could buy 500Mbps plans instead, Rodrigues notes.
In Australia, there is sharp disagreement between the major political parties on the topic of the National Broadband Network. Since 2009, Labor’s policy has focused on near-universal Fibre to the Premises throughout Australia. The Coalition has had a number of alternative policies, before settling to the Multi-Technology Mix of HFC cable, Fibre to the Node and Fibre to the Premises.
Rodrigues notes that the political dynamic in his company’s two main countries of focus, Singapore and New Zealand, has been dramatically different around broadband to that in Australia.
“In New Zealand … everybody supports it, they know this is critical to the future of the country,” he says. “There is no debate on copper or alternate technologies.” For its part, Singapore developed an ‘Intelligent Nation 2015’ masterplan. Rodrigues notes that back in 2005 the country realised it needed to move away from its past and reskill its workforce, develop broadband infrastructure, datacentres, invest in the high-value banking sector, to create a high-level economy.
“They have this huge plan, which is all underpinned by having this connectivity,” he says. “Not only have they built the NBN, but they have a very strong approach on how to leverage the digital economy. Venture capitalists are coming here. Startups are coming a mile a minute.” A whole environment was created in Singapore that sustains the intent to develop its digital economy, Rodrigues says.
“In some other countries, the intent was there — but it somehow has been lost,” he says.
The executive describes building a fibre NBN as like constructing a beautiful house overlooking a lake. “Then,” he says, referring to the Coalition’s new model, “someone came in and said ‘it’s too expensive, we can do it cheaper’. The mandate is not to fulfil the dream of the vision, it’s to build it cheaper. Now you don’t get a brick house overlooking the lake — now it’s made of bamboo in the forest.”
From a foreign perspective, Rodrigues says the previous Government’s plan to build an all-fibre NBN was “marvellous”, with Australia waving the flag for NBN infrastructure across the entire region.
Now, he said, the Government has “lost their way”. “They started off building a superhighway, now they’re building a cobblestone street,” he said. “Because they didn’t know why they were building the superhighway in the first place, the cobblestone street looks OK.”
According to Rodrigues, the reality of the NBN is that the current Government is looking to spend $30 billion or so on a platform that he described as “useless”. “It’s criminal,” he said. “They would have been better off to spend $90 billion and build it [fibre] everywhere.”
Rodrigues said he accepted that some countries would see themselves as being focused on different sectors — countries of “farmers and miners” rather than technology specialists. “If you make that decision, then that’s fine,” he says.
However, ultimately the executive believes the global nature of the economy is accelerating beyond this kind of paradigm. “Because of the global nature of where the economy is going, all your consumption will happen online,” he says. “Chinese retailers or American retailers — online. People will be forced to leave the country to get meaningful jobs and a meaningful education. You may think you’re a mining resources country, but the reality is the world is changing.”
Not everyone has the same overwhelmingly positive view of Fibre to the Premises that Rodrigues has. Globally, it is true that a mix of technologies are being used for broadband networks. Fibre to the Node is particularly popular throughout Europe, and is the dominant technology being used to upgrade BT’s copper network in the UK, for example, while HFC cable is very popular throughout the United States.
However, Rodrigues has a message for Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has regularly talked up the potential to get high speeds over Fibre to the Node.
“If he gets 90Mbps to everybody then I will come down and apologise in person,” says Rodrigues. “If you’re getting 90Mbps you’re probably sitting in the office next to the equipment and there’s no external conditions. If you’re one metre away from the node, it all looks good.”
“You go a kilometre away from the exchange, you could get 40Mbps, 2km away — you’ll get 15Mbps. The Chorus guys [in New Zealand] — they’re building the same technology — the most they’ll promise is 17Mbps per second. if you get 3km away, you’ll get nowhere near that speed.”
“If he believes — if his technology guys think they can get 90 megabits per second on FTTN, then they’ve never built networks. What he’s doing is building a grass hut to meet commitments in the election.”
And in the long-term, Rodrigues believes, Australia will turn back to the universal fibre path.
“I don’t think anybody’s mean or not smart — they’ve started and have done down a path and it’s the wrong path. At some point they’ll realise they’re in the wrong place and they’ll back up,” he says. “At that point, East Timor will have 1Gbps to the home, New Zealand will have 1Gbps to the home.”
“I think the reality is Australia will find their way. People will complain about FTTN, [saying] ‘You told me 90Mbps but I’m getting 4Mbps’. At some point they’ll kind of realise — as businesses start leaving the country and moving to NZ — and there’ll be a gradual policy change.”
Image credit: MyRepublic
Rodrigues is once again spot on, all his comments regarding GimpCo are quite accurate. Especially the “shit” one. However he should pay more attention to what the coalition clowns promised, we weren’t promised 90mbps to everyone, we were only promised “super fast” 25mbps in 2016. That is the limit of their vision and they cant even achieve that… 497 Days to go!
Even with your angle, you’re drinking the Coalition’s Koolaide. They were very clear on their #fraudband policy.
“The Coalition’s plan to transform the NBN will see:
· Download speeds of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by the end of 2016 and 50 to 100 megabits per second by 2019.
· The rollout of the NBN under the Coalition will be complete by the end of 2019.
· Regions with substandard internet services will receive priority…
Under the Coalition’s NBN all premises will have access to download speeds 25mbps to 100mbps by the end of 2016. The minimum speed will rise to 50mbps by the end of 2019 for 90 per cent of fixed line users.”
Just fraud. How can there be no legal process for convicting such fraud in government? How long until these tricksters delete this inconvenient promise from their website?
Indeed Hubert, and what a great comment from him:
I wonder if MyRepublic will be the new iiNet?
Criminal? No, we don’t see MyRepublic funding infrastructure in any market because it doesn’t make economic sense for it to do so. Instead, it has a sense of entitlement that governments should pay for it and it reaps all the benefits by operating a second-rate low-cost service – just look at the feedback from their users in markets where it already exists.
Makes the whole point about performance quite moot when your congestion remains at the ISP, not within the wholesale last-mile.
Telstra shouldn’t be worried.
It has nothing to do with a “sense of entitlement”. It’s simply not economically viable for them to build the infrastructure required. If the whole nation, including business, are going to benefit from it, the government SHOULD be building the infrastructure, not private enterprise who will then charge exorbitantly to access it.
+1
+1
Are you a communist, because they believe the government should to everything and own everything? That has worked out well hasn’t it.
I doubt you’re old enough to remember what it was like waiting until after 8pm to make cheaper long distance phone calls was like, and there was no choice but to use the government monopoly known then asTelecom (and now known as Telstra).
You’re both disillusional and ignoring history if you believe government monopolies result in the best possible prices for services.
I think you’ll find logical fallacies wont work too well here Mr Shark.
Indeed +1 HC.
But yet again we see the old naysayer’s each way bet…
One naysayer arguing that…
“…we don’t see MyRepublic funding infrastructure in any market because it doesn’t make economic sense for it to do so”…
And another arguing…
“Are you a communist, because they believe the government should to everything and own everything?”
So one admits the mystical private enterprise will save us, is exactly that, mystical, because it’s not just MyRepublic who haven’t or won’t invest. Then the other arguing the government shouldn’t invest either…
So what? Australia just misses out entirely because of dumb contradictions relating to even dumber ideology?
Natural monopolies (which fixed line comms is, same as power gas and water) should never be given to corporations to own and run.
1stly, if left to corporations they’d have never existed in the 1st place (too much risk)
2ndly, as the privatisation of electricity has proven, prices go up not down – here in victoria prices had fallen every year for decades and we had world class sparkies trained and maintaining the networks. Now we have the reverse.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-shocking-truth-about-the-privatisation-of-power-20131108-2x76f.html
“It found NSW has the highest “electricity bill for the typical residential customer” of $1,925, followed by Queensland at $1,547, Victoria at $1,495 and AER or the AEMC, examining South Australia from 1998-99 to 2010-11 and the other three states from 1996-97 to 2012-13.
It found that since privatisation, electricity bills have increased less in the privatised states of Victoria (99 per cent) and South Australia (80 per cent) than over the same period in the non-privatised states of NSW (158 per cent) and Queensland (152 per cent).”
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/fact-check-does-privatisation-increase-electricity-prices3f/6329316
@Richard, strawman argument If I ever heard one:
Those 2 states have only themselves to blame, here in Victoria until privatisation our Power prices went down every year in real terms until privatisation in 1995, after that they shot up 170% over 15 years or four times higher than the rise in the consumer price index.
It’s not surprising that infrastructure competition in natural monopolies doesnt work, it’s pointless duplication and very inefficient. Here in Victoria the rise of the manager class is an example – the number of managers in the sector grew from 6000 to 19,000 in the five years to 2012.
But all that is very inconvenient for a right-winger like you who thinks the market is god and fails to realise markets are supposed to serve society, not the other way around!
@derek recent price increases in Victoria have the same basis; legislated network infrastructure, renewable energy targets, carbon tax.
Pre-1994 historical data is difficult to find, however ABS data presented by UnitingCare Australia in their “Network tariffs applicable to households in Australia: empirical evidence” shows Melbourne electricity real prices increasing 1980 to 1994, then failing after privatisation. After 2008 prices increased dramatically directly a result of regulator intervention. However the smaller increases in private than public own infrastructure so their efficiency.
Number of managers an odd metric, care to explain?
Markets exist to efficiently facilitate goods and services exchange between buyer and seller. They serve no master.
Which woks so we’ll that wee need things like the ACCC, ASIC, APRA, NBN Co, etc, etc, etc…
“Free Market” pfft…
lol way to take something I said and turn it into an extreme absolute. No where did I say the govt should own “everything”. I said if everyone is going to benefit from a large piece of infrastructure then the govt should build it. That way you can have private enterprise come in and access the infrastructure to provide value-add services and to compete with one another to create opportunities they wouldn’t be able to create on their own if they had to build the infrastructure themselves.
I remember those times, and want to forget it.
I want to have a beautiful crystal glass cable entering my home.
BTW, what’s wrong if the Gov. builds it, makes some money and again huge money if they decide to sell it?
Ask your Master to re-write the manual, not many is woundable to that version anymore.
Did you really just call communist on someone.
Wow…. just wow…
Spot on JT. Although I don’t agree with liberals FTTN plan. The ONLY reason why this guy is kicking up “shit” is because he lost potential $$$$$. Malcolm Rodrigues = Whiny Bitch.
lol he can’t have an opinion because he owns a business with a vested interest? Yet big mining companies can use the PM as a mouthpiece to espouse the “benefits” of their business model and access huge financial subsidies without anyone questioning their motives?
Oh he can have an opinion but he’s still a whiny Bitch. Nice try with going off subject about comparing the mining industry that employed thousands of Australians to a random foreign ISP who have given nothing back to the community. Good job 10/10.
How so?
He didn’t disagree w/ him being a “whiny bitch” as you say. He was countering the fact you said he shouldn’t be allowed an “opinion” as a “business” when we have another business with even bigger vested interests that is allowed their own “opinion”.
Oh and good job on the brilliant personal attacks and overuse of profanity instead of putting forward a reasoned argumentl! 10/10!
@RocK_M 21/08/2015 at 1:54 pm (for some reason I can’t reply to him)
“He didn’t disagree w/ him being a “whiny bitch” as you say. He was countering the fact you said he shouldn’t be allowed an “opinion” as a “business” when we have another business with even bigger vested interests that is allowed their own “opinion”.”
Okay at no point did I ever say he couldn’t have opinion. NOT ONCE.
So instead of making stuff up and pretending to be a “white knight” about it, maybe you should READ what I said and then hit that Reply Button.
I look forward to your surely well planned counter argument soon enough.
That the same mining industry that employs less people in Australia than ICT? (and that only includes Information Media and Telecoms, not Scientific and Technical).
https://gelptest.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/slide1.jpg
Seems the billions heading to the mining industry in taxpayers support would be better used elsewhere IMHO….
+1
How is he going to lose $$$$$$
He can still use spaghetti network to make some?
You lost me.
Another self opinionated overseas “expert” who fails to grasp the essential difference between supplying an heavily populated urban island with broadband as compared to a huge continent with population densities less than one tenth of that in his “home” market. Sure we would all like “Rolls Royce” broadband connections but the problem is that somebody has to pay for them. To make matters worse there is a substantial proportion of the population who use their internet connection for little more than email and occasional browsing – do they really need 100MBPS or greater for that activity? I think not. The coalition solution makes sense in the current economic client. If some customers want superfast broadband then it is available – for a price. This is the user pays principle that has been the backbone of most good economic outcomes – not pie in the sky dreams that can’t be delivered on time or on budget!
The “current economic environment” is not what building infrastructure is about. Imagine if last century the govt had said “does everyone really need a phone in their home?” and not built the copper network because it “cost too much”?
Building a FTTP network will attract and generate business. It will open opportunities for Australia in the digital economy that it will otherwise miss out on. It’s an investment, which means you have to front up money (which btw the govt can access at near 0% interest rates right now) in order to get returns later. But because the govt can’t quantify it in a current year spreadsheet, they instead worry how it will get them back into surplus in time for the next election. Short-sighted and severely lacking in vision.
Do you even pay tax, or pay enough to care about how well it is spent or whether it is spent on the right thing?
Asserting that “FTTP network will attract and generate business” is true doesn’t make it guaranteed to be true.
Nobody is going to develop high bandwidth applications for fixed line networks because they’ll miss more than 50% of the potential market – as more than 50% of people are now using tablets and smartphones to access the Internet.
Born and bred in Australia and been paying tax for 20 years mate.
What the hell does people accessing the Internet via tablets and smartphones have to do with high bandwidth applications? What do you think Wi-Fi is attached to? lol
Lol, you didn’t read my post properly!
Here it is again.
“Nobody is going to develop high bandwidth applications for fixed line networks because they’ll miss more than 50% of the potential market …”
Errrrr … you are aware that wireless (not 3 or 4G) when connected to a broadband connection can make that sort of speed at home. Kind of makes your point somewhat irrelevant when applications can easily be developed for that sort of speed as long as your wireless device is using your home broadband.
How’s your percentage now?
The issue is not how much it costs, but the return on investment. Even if assuming all fiber would have cost 90bn (which is false) the fact is the immensely strong digital economy it would have facilitated could have been a a potential multi billion dollar a year industry. Not only that but all reports suggest that the cost of the network will be paid off by the consumers within a decade after the rollout, after which the government would be making money off of it regardless of the technology used. Consumers alone would pay it off, the thing is though the cost to the consumer is no different now than it was when the consumer was going to get fiber. The many different industries that would have benefited from the all fiber network, the industries it would have created here would have been just a bonus.
Ultimately with our major industries like coal steadily dropping in revenue, losing business with our largest buyers like china the best thing we could be doing is investing in new industries, fiber is just one way we could be doing that. I mean for fucks sake, our country has so much god damned sand.. why aren’t we taking advantage of that and manufacturing things like fiber cables, and solar panels for the rest of the world?
The other thing is, this isn’t taxpayer money.. yet. It is being paid with government bonds. Learn the difference.
“more than 50% of people are now using tablets and smartphones to access the Internet.”
The telcos must love you if you haven’t worked out how to use wifi on your tablet or smartphone yet…
“Asserting that “FTTP network will attract and generate business” is true doesn’t make it guaranteed to be true.”
Currently we are asserting that no one needs more than 25Mbps. That we won’t have to respend the money we ‘invest’ in FTTN/HFC/etc. We voted in a government that asserted a CBA would be done BEFORE anything was done, and then it would be done right. Those against assert that it is just too expensive.
The problem with all the above is that it doesn’t really stack up. Before netflix, 25 Mbps would have been fine for most Aussies. Not so now, as they have shown a large hole in the plan of such slow speeds. FTTN is going to require constant maintenance ($1B /year or so Telstra spend), constant upgrading (advances in copper tech bring the node closer to the home, adding more fibre….how many times do you want workmen digging up 100 foot of road every year?). HFC is a mixed bag everywhere. I don’t have anything more than what I have read to go off, but it can work upto a point depending on the investments made on that shared bandwidth, which do not look to have been done.
CBA front. Want to show me one that was done for this MTM NBN? Or should I say an unbiased one that didn’t ignore facts and make so many wrong assumptions (proven time and again). We have to face it. The coalition won’t spend money on putting things into the ground for long term profit when they can spend it to get short term profit digging it up.
We have to spend the money at some point. Fibre has been shown to have no real upper limit (43 Terrabits per second was last record. What is next? Changes each year.) so really, it makes sense to invest in a PROVEN technology with PROVEN capacity. Copper has gotten what…. 10GB/s under 1km length runs on quality lines.
Netflix issues are backhaul contention related, affecting even iiNet NBN fibre users.
@Richard Which would also effect Foxtel, yes?
I’ve had both, Netflix is way better…
MrShark:
Asserting that “FTTP network will attract and generate business” is true doesn’t make it guaranteed to be true.”
Nothing in this world is guarantied, apart from that everyone will pass away at some stage. The point is, if you don’t risk you want get anywhere.
GT:
don’t get involved and answer personal questions. This is old propaganda method.
Same as “Rolls Royce” or communist comments.
They are here to distract.
Oh dear, elections are getting closer…
+1
“Asserting that “FTTP network will attract and generate business” is true doesn’t make it guaranteed to be true”
Sharky,
Since it has been shown to be true by every study there is (like the 3 year long Chalmers University study), then it probably is true…
As to “missing 50% of the market”, that’s just really bad business acumen.
Fixed and wireless have very little competition with each other as they are for entirely separate circumstances. So what you are doing is comparing two DIFFERENT markets…
“It’s an investment, which means you have to front up money (which btw the govt can access at near 0% interest rates right now) in order to get returns later. But because the govt can’t quantify it in a current year spreadsheet, they instead worry how it will get them back into surplus in time for the next election. Short-sighted and severely lacking in vision.”
So spend a lot of money now and worry about it later. Fingers cross that turns out alright. Totally not short-sighted and severely lacking in vision at all. – Greece 2007 (satire Obviously)
I like your guts kid but there is good reason why maintaining a balance surplus is important to a country’s future especially in these dark times.
“I like your guts kid but there is good reason why maintaining a balance surplus is important to a country’s future especially in these dark times.”
And isn’t that going well. Not only has the deficit increased substantially but we’re now blowing $30bn on something that will provide a small improvement at best and do little to provide for an economy that will be needed in the future.
Why do you think we are experiencing such uncertain economic times? Because the govt has sold off all the assets that were generating revenue, killed the taxes that the rich would have had to pay and instead lumped everyone else with the cost.
“Spend a lot of money now and worry about it later”? Yeah or to put it another way, assess the financial risk, INVEST a lot of money now into a project that will make returns because literally everyone will benefit from it and then REAP the rewards later. You know, like what every single infrastructure project that has ever occurred has done?
All a surplus means is that the govt is hoarding all the money, meaning there is less money in the economy. Not a smart thing to do when there is such economic uncertainty. It just means less jobs, less spending, less prosperity. Building assets generates revenue. Basic business 101.
“Why do you think we are experiencing such uncertain economic times”
He doesn’t think so. He is here to make everyone else to think about this irrelevance, reverting from real issue.
Another attempt to get away from exposing failure of the spaghetti network.
+1 again drone.
@GH
“Building a FTTP network will attract and generate business.”
What business specifically will be attracted with FTTP rather than the MTM?
“It will open opportunities for Australia in the digital economy that it will otherwise miss out on.”
What opportunity specifically will be missed out on with FTTP rather than the MTM?
“…which btw the govt can access at near 0% interest rates right now..”
Govt bond rates are demonstratively not near zero.
“But because the govt can’t quantify it in a current year spreadsheet, they instead worry how it will get them back into surplus in time for the next election.”
Govt borrowing treated as equity in a GBE like NBNCo is off-budget. Has no affect on budget deficit.
Continue…
@Richard
There have been exhaustive studies on the benefits of increasing bandwidth. Doubling the bandwidth increases a country’s GDP by .3 percent on average, and doubling again increases it again.
http://www.chalmers.se/en/news/Pages/New-study-quantifies-the-impact-of-broadband-speed-on-GDP.aspx
The biggest difference between MTM and FTTP is that FTTP has no real ceiling, and the MTM certainly does…
BTW, .3% of our GDP is currently $5 Billion/year…
*chas being old fashioned I need the study not a press release. Article appears paywalled, from the abstract:
“The study found that the estimated coefficient of broadband speed is statistically significant. The hypothetical result of this study shows that doubling the broadband speed will contribute 0.3% growth compared with the growth rate for the base year. The results convey that the impact of increasing broadband speed on GDP growth will largely depend on two aspects: 1) the size of the coefficient of the broadband speed (ß); 2) the existing economic growth in each country”
So we don’t know the magnitude of the doubling modelled nor the increase has “no ceiling” (sound preposterous). Other research also shows the rate of return for increasing speed is lower than for increasing penetration (Kenny & Kenny, 2011) and marginal effect diminishes as the speed increases (Copenhagen Economics 2010, Meek et al. 2010)
I don’t think anyone is denying internet has a positive affect on GDP, nor that it has a dollar cost. However can most of those benefits be captured with incremental upgrades (publicly or privately financed and / or operated)? Claims that we’re missing out should at least be able provide a single example. Incorrect statement of facts should be challenged.
Since we are at the end of replies Richard, I will only say that the documents can be found many places. It is now considered a main reference by the UN, World Bank, and most nations…
Here is the pdf…
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/local_159056.pdf
On the other hand, the Kenny study was bought and paid for by the LNP to produce a specific result. It was done in a vacuum in a few months by a group that had previously done the same sort of hatchet job for the same group.
The Chalmers study was 3 years in the making and the study was done over 33 OECD countries. It is quite comprehensive and was not bought and paid for by either party.
The important part is that the Chalmers study actually has a quantitative result rather than saying “it helps the GDP”.
@chas thanks for the link (author “Arthur D. Little” different to your press release link, but is referenced).
Your link supports GDP increase from penetration rates. Their “theoretical model” uses econometric techniques to estimate speed impacts on GDP. They found strong positive correlation between GDP and square broadband speed but note:
“If the speed level is doubled, the impact on GDP growth is 100*0.003= 0.3% (relative to the growth in 2008)….Note, however, that the doubling of speed is a hypothetical and simulated (‘what-if’) impact based on an elasticity interpretation of the significant broadband speed variable. The hypothetical impact will depend on the size of the coefficient of speed and the actual economic growth in each country, counting from the base year that is used.”
concluding:
“hypothetical impact is based on an elasticity measurement and any forward-looking simulation should be applied with care.”
And why we don’t use the result as fact, preferring “helps GDP” (ie positive correlation, magnitude unknown).
@richard
I agree that the the study is quite forthright with the usual disclaimer that all such studies make (e.g. “your mileage may vary…”). That said, it appears to be the best estimate with the most data points by any group to date.
All properly done economic modeling will have the very same caveats, so this is the very best “guess” to date. Since all planning is guess work with the very same restrictions, why not follow the advise of the best model we have and go back to FTTP?
At the end of the day, this does indeed fulfill your request for a study that shows how business will increase more so with FTTP than with MTM…
@chas they aren’t disclaimers, stating the context for the analysis. The study itself is a useful contribution to the debate, but itself warns against the conclusions you’re jumping to.
It doesn’t model FTTH vs MTM. Again can the majority of economic benefits be gained more cheaply using MTM with fibre-on-demand (doubling speed, 100% penetration) in the next 7-10yrs?
Importantly we’re only now talking the 30% FTTN. Multimix already accepted for the remainder.
They actually are disclaimers…
A disclaimer is a way to state the context of a study, and list any possible deviations.
While it doesn’t model FTTH vs MTM specifically, it does model the results of those 2 proposals. For example, you speak of FoD, but no model I have seen yet shows how that will be engineered and what it will cost…it seems more like “wish it were so” solution. In fact the UK has shown that the costs for FoD are outrageous and hence limit economic growth dramatically.
As to a 7-10 year time frame, since conversion of the network to FTTP (which is the end game as admitted by all parties) would take a minimum of 3-4 years, that means that any MTM build would necessarily last for less time than it takes to build…i.e., we will have to replace it before it’s finished being built. I can’t concieve of this being a cost savings in any way, and it plays Russian Roulette with our economy by risking a huge limitation to our ability to grow.
It’s fine for the LNP to speak of cutting expenditures, but they are doing so at the cost of revenue and growth…very penny wise/pound foolish.
Basically, the people who wave flies from their eyes should just wear cork brim hats instead. The look is not very good for you, Richard. Stop yourself from asking people for data that you will just wave off. It looks pathetic and we know it.
+1
What does your business use the Internet for Richard? Asking a question like that, I suspect it just email? Maybe a website?
The old adage “if you build it they will come” applies!
It annoys me when people say 25mb will do for today (it doesn’t people merely make do and put up with less because there’s no alternative). It might suit for an individual but try sharing said connection … its still a do one thing well at a time and the rest will have to suffer! I know several families where it doesn’t cut it. There are curfew’s and fights over bandwidth constantly and they’re talking high teens and one lucky bugger with 23Mb connections (that are stable).
Lets see … what will swamp a said bandwidth now.
Online gaming,
Consoles,
Youtube (those cat vids),
Netflix (and the rest of them),
Skype/FaceTime,
Web/email/facebooks,
Anything related to 4k content,
Over IP TV stations (imagine AFL running their own station etc)
Operating a remote support/training dept across Australia.
Current Business applications going from desktop into cloud/web etc.
These are a mere few quick products off the top in the here and now that are running out of bandwidth. If your building something for the future, building of off today’s assumed needs is guaranteed to fail. Who knows when the next NetFlix/FB/Youtube will appear. (without the infrastructure you can guarantee it won’t appear in Australia first though).
Any business that wants surety about an end users connection. Being able to guarantee that a bandwidth requirement can be met anywhere.
Copper is variable based on distance and quality (both things Australia isn’t in good stead for either).
If you want to offer an over IP service under MTM you’ll need to account for FTTP, MTM FTTN, HFC, Fixed Wireless, Satelitte and even privatised and wholesaled FttB rollouts. At least 4 different ‘networks’ with all their own foibles and issues and more importantly different speeds!
right now we’re getting a Fibre-glass shell over a lada that looks like a Rolls Royce and paying the exact same (or close enough) amount for it.
Fact it’ll need a new ‘shell’ in the future just means we’re going to be paying for the Rolls Royce twice over! This is coming from a South Australian that let their govt of the day build a one way major freeway to save a minor (and somewhat similar %) of the budget on hand.
Have you seen the latest take up figures that NBNCo published today? 35% on fibre opted for 12Mbps and a further 42% opted for 25Mbps. The reality is for 80% of Australians, FTTN, HFC & FTTP will deliver equivalent speeds.
As predicted the average speed dropped by 1Mbps because the ‘late adopters’ are opting for the slower speeds.
ROFL…
So in the real world, it’s not 50% on 12Mbps as you have been repeating ad nauseum every day for the last 5 years, after all?
How about that!
Yes but you are paying the same price for the MTM as you were for the FTTP. So you pay the same amount (more now isn’t it) for a piecemeal service that suits 80%(your number) NOW, but has no room to grow, or the same amount for a “Standardised” service that provides several baselines for business to target and has 50 years worth of growth built in?
@Richard Most of the answers to your….questions? Troll? are here:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2014/nov/30/fiber-figh-broadening-broadband-gig-city-touted-as/275567/
>What business specifically will be attracted with FTTP rather than the MTM?
Back to base security HD monitoring
Well, I guess it is a good thing then that we weren’t going to build FTTP to the entirety of the country, and that Australian cities are actually quite dense.
People claim things like “Japan is more densely populated, and that’s why they can all have FTTP!” the population density of Japan is actually lower than the greater Sydney area. Australia’s population is largely centered around dense pockets, hence why 93% FTTP was going to work just fine…. But, lets not let the facts get in the way of your narrative now shall we?
“People claim things like “Japan is more densely populated, and that’s why they can all have FTTP!” the population density of Japan is actually lower than the greater Sydney area.”
Your Probably right…..But there’s a just a tiny bit more to Australia than the greater Sydney area. So your figures may be skewed.
They weren’t rolling out FTTP outside major cities, so his figures are pretty good.
I am glad someone understood the implication…
I get that but all I was saying was that by adding all the population density of each major Australian cities (not included town and regional cities that were gonna to receive fiber FTTP as well). The average density would be less than that of japans population density.
The bulk of the 93% footprint is however very comparable to Verizon’s mostly suburban US FiOS rollout – passing 18 million premises has been enormously profitable for them and they have recently floated plans to abandon their US PSTN and HFC networks entirely (which btw they have largely overbuilt with FiOS … that alone says a lot).
@derek Verizon abandoned the FiOS network plans back in 2011. Verizon recently announced it’s redirecting future capex from wired to wireless networks.
@Richard still behind the times i see!
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/20/verizon_fibre_is_so_much_cheaper_than_copper_were_going_allfttp/
And
Reality strikes again eh Richard, how about joining the 21st century along with the rest of us?
Oh and just for fun Verizon have finished initial trials of NG-PON2
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/verizon-test-10gbps-fios-says-new-fiber-tech-can-go-up-to-80gbps/
Pretty much destroys your silly argument that fibre isn’t future proof and might get replaced by another technology!
@derek
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/verizon-nears-the-end-of-fios-builds/
I’ve never denied opex of FTTN less than FTTP, just not enough to offset capex.
No technology is future proof, as your very link demonstrates.
@Richard as usual you are out of date, the article I linked to is 6 months newer than yours!
Fibre is future proof, in that it has a minimum of 60 years useful service life with known usefulness into the terabits per second range.
And once again the naysayers having the old each way bet…
Richard here is telling us (and apparently with a straight face/he’s serious) MTM speeds will be fine for Australia’s foreseeable future and in the same breath saying fibre isn’t future proof… (because something faster than the already substantially faster than the 25Mbps we don’t need any better than) may come along.
You guys really are special.
But can you please start to offer a rational (or something that can possibly even be considered minimally rational) argument, which doesn’t simply automatically contradict yourself or each other?
Which was why 7% of Australia would be serviced by satellite.
If you want to build an NBN to Australa, you mostly need to stick to the East Coast (or at least the coastal areas).
http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/population.html
Nope he is correct. The other areas outside the 93% were to be serviced by other methods (wireless and Satellite, both of which have now been reduced in numbers). Which leaves only the pipes between cities as the difference. Which whilst significant, is not insurmountable, and of course is going to have to be paid whether we got FTTP or MTM.
Population density of Sydney (327), Australia’s largest and most densely populated city, is greater than Japan (303). Therefore roll out FTTH to all of Australia (3).
Japan’s debt of over 200% of GDP and printing money is clearly of no concern given the massive productivity improvement sure to flow.
Singapore worried about the competition from NBN FTTH area like Brunswick.
This discussion is comical. The article’s line of build it even if it costs $90b sums up the fibre crowd perfectly : irresponsible.
Considering that MTM will cost the same to keep it running by 2027 and after it will cost more than FTTP already shows FTTP to be a better investment.
@Jason you continue to ignore revenue.
No, the person ignoring revenue is you, FTTP has a range of speeds from 100-1000 mbps that FTTN can’t offer, factor in the huge amount of wasted money on opex and FTTN is the platform with the revenue problem!
Richard
You are ignoring revenue as any revune MTM makes is off set by the opex of keeping it running when FTTP is complete 3 years after MTM would be make at least the same if not more revune with a lot less opex to keep it running. Your arguments are falling apart.
Or why does our CBA only say $2b to the economy and NZ CBA say $50b to the economy.
@jason you fail to comprehend financial projections in the strategic review.
Faster deployment of MTM results in earlier revenues (cumulative $18b vs $9b to FY21), revenue is not the same. Combined with lower costs (total, even though opex is more $27b vs $23b) NBNCo cashflow positive in FY22 (vs FTTH 25-27), peaking funding of MTM $39b vs radically redesign FTTH $54b.
A CBA for NZ’s Ultra-Fast Broadband upgrade was never performed.
@derek usage numbers are in, few demand 100-1000gbps services. Revenue for these users much less than the cost to provide.
We should see the updated corporate plan in the next few weeks. I expect costs to continue to blow out (govt project after all). However MTM remains the more financially responsible option of a number of financially irresponsible policy follies.
@richard, your numbers are not credible, nice try tho!
100mbps plus services arent being offer because hardly any businesses have been passed, that’s why the demand is low. There’d be greater demand if TurnBULL hadnt stalled the brownfields FTTP rollout!
Richard
It nice you miss out the $15b FTTP makes between 2021 – 2024. So a completed MTM only make $9B while a completed FTTP makes $24B. But we don’t want to compare apples with apples do we.
MTM peak funding $39b revenue $9b
Vs
FTTP peak funding $24b revenue $24b
Again show FTTP the better option.
Sorry NZ case study gives it economy a $33b for FTTP still better than $17b from our CBA.
But can you explain why Ergas uses his own review in the CBA which has already proven to be flawed.
Sorry peak funding $54b revenue $24b
@derek they’re not my figure, we’re talking the strategic revenue p104.
@jason I took the figures to FY21, if we go to FY24 indeed the numbers change. The revenue identifies the additional revenue expected during this build FTTH ($15b). However you incorrectly assume MTM doesn’t generate anything during this time. The item you’re looking for is titled “Steady state financial performance (FY28)”: FTTH ($6.6-7.5bn) vs MTM ($6.3-7.2bn). This is the projected annual performance after network completion. Revenue for FTTH thru FY24 is again less than MTM, EBITDA (due to lower interest charge) is devastatingly in favour of MTM.
Please provide a link to your imaginary CBA performed for NZ.
Oh wow, the professional astro turfing is in full swing I see. It’s a little unfair, don’t you think, that you’re getting paid to spruik your nonsense when those you are arguing against have to waste time invalidating your FUD seeding in their free time.
Richard your figures may sound convincing to the lay person, but they kind of lose their believability when the reader becomes aware that you’re referencing a document that has been roundly criticised by the entire professional industry as biassed and factually inaccurate. For example, a significant argument for the NBN, a factor that was routinely included in the business plans released prior to the LNP Government takeover, is ARPU, and how that was affected by high revenue plans (high performance). That argument runs counter to your claims that the high performance plans are more expensive to operate than the revenue they generate – the inverse is in fact the case, because revenue is pegged to performance category while costs vary based on usage.
Analysis of Internet usage patterns demonstrate that very significant proportions of total bandwidth used is caused by a small percentage of users. This is the business model behind low cost ISPs like iPrimus & TPG – they may not have the same investment cost without fibre to every building, but they still provision their services in the same way. Companies like Dodo take this a bit too far, as has Telstra with HFC, as contention ratios are too high and performance slows to a crawl for everyone on those networks routinely. But that doesn’t invalidate the technique of utilising as much available capacity as possible by providing customers ‘slices’ of shared bandwidth rather than provisioning a network where every connection is provided with a dedicated ‘pipe’ that will remain 90+% unutilised for the vast majority of users.
So high performance products provide the highest revenue and profit, yet simply aren’t available on a FTTN network. The easiest way to deal with this disparity is to simply ignore it – the FTTN justification tries to overinflate the cost of FTTP while claiming that there is no demand for high speed, high revenue products.
But the reality was we saw faster uptake of high performance products than the conservative business plans predicted, and we have no idea what the real demand for the highest revenue generating products (between 200mbps and 1gbps) because they were never made available. But likewise, the released business plans demonstrating affordability and positive 7% ROI from the project didn’t include anything greater than 100mbps products either, so adding those into the mix would only make FTTP more affordable and capable of paying off the capital costs faster (making the MTM argument significantly weaker).
And then there’s your argument about EIBTDA, which ignores the multi-year delays to the whole FTTN network and the much slower FTTP rollout. It also rests on assumptions about the costs of FTTN based on node density far, far lower than what people are actually reporting (even in this comments thread).
So yes, based on the document you’re referencing, your argument seems to have some validity, but that document is flawed, biased, inaccurate and badly outdated, just like your argument.
That was a classic Richard…
Your entire bean counter nonsense argument here (while again ignoring the benefits of FTTP entirely or desperately trying to refute them) is based on “the faster roll out of MTM…”
Oh, please my sides are splitting… 2 years for SFA (even with all the from scratch foundation work in place from Quigley & Co). Now projecting to have the same FTTN in 2020 that was promised in 2016…
Faster… ROFL
@Jason
Potential future speeds are pretty irrelevant for all but a very small minority. Labor predicted less than 1% on 1Gbps speed tier in 2026 while close to 50% remained on the 12Mbps speed tier.
If you are in the 1% able to justify and pay for 1Gbps then a fibre on demand install is probably also within your budget.
@ Mathew…
Wow after 5 years of daily spruiking 50% on 12Mbps you just told us (above) that you were wrong as it is actually only 35% on 12Mbps not 50%… d’oh!
Yet here you are again repeating the old chestnut of 50/12 nonetheless… old habits eh?
Instead of harping on about one small projection you (and no one else) bothered to handpick and rave about every fucking day, as if pertinent and factual (not a projection), why not tell us each day, what the government actually promised pre-election… “25-50Mbps for all Aussies by 2016″…?
Using the population density for the whole of Australia here is utterly ridiculous. FTTH wouldn’t have been to ALL Australia. It was 93%, did you forget about the other 7% covered by satellite and fixed wireless IN LESS DENSELY POPULATED areas???
But anyway, if you want to play the density game let’s have a look at a somewhat more relevant example:
New Zealand 16.8/km² (80% FTTH)
Victoria 25.79/km²
New South Wales 9.12/km²
So yes, we shouldn’t be using Japan as an example but going by density logic alone VIC and NSW combined should get 80% FTTH at the very least.
@HC not just ridiculous, comical (as posted). Clearly the only population density of any relevance is the footprint to be covered. Even then it would be one of the silliest arguments for FTTH.
Of course it’s comical, because R0ninX3ph wasn’t suggesting rolling FttH to 100% of Australia like you were alluding.
And again HC, the old each way bet from the naysayers…
Remember when they were all telling us previously, how great FTTN is and how quick it is to roll out, well, look how fast it was done in the “UK”, they said…
I bet the irony of this comment still eludes them.
But from memory the naysayer (and to clarify, it wasn’t Richard) was saying something along the lines of, the UK had rolled out to 18m residences in 3 years. Look how great FTTN is…
But… the truth was that the UK had rolled out to (iirc) about “1/2 of the UK in 5 years” and the “UK is about the size of Vic..”
Again I bet the irony here eludes them too.
They are priceless though.
Just goes to show what a conservative government can do in 60 years ;)
No the Argument is if you are going to pay the same amount to build something, (and currently that is what we are looking at, in fact the MTM is now more expensive) then why not build the better option that is technically superior and will last for an extended period of time.
Australia has an urban population of 89% of our total population. Japan has 93%. United Kingdom has 82%, USA 81%, South Korea 61% etc etc. We ARE a highly urbanised nation. The population density argument IS valid.
Source
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
The population of your household is not a substantial proportion.
Here here HC, I’ve seen retirement homes with PC’s and facilities setup for more than just the above! People have moved well past ‘just email’!
If it was even true of today and today was only what we cared about then why even build MTM!
Very accurate insight Hubert. My household could best be described as “50+”, and the Internet has replaced out TV, our phone (heck, even the mobile), our mailbox, the video store, our tax agent…the list goes on.
I’m going to guess it’s even more so for the GenX, GenY crew.
“pie in the sky dreams that can’t be delivered on time”
Here, on time goes the spaghetti:
http://blog.jxeeno.com/analysis-164k-nbn-fibre-to-the-node-premises-delayed/
In November 2013, the FTTP works suppose to start in my area. So by now I should be close to, or have it. Now after 2 years I got still my slow ADSL and been scheduled to spaghetti network in another…. hmm not sure, 1 maybe 3 years? But, but, I was told by present Telco Minister I will get it sooner. How come?
Indeed me too, so we are clear proof that MTM isn’t faster to roll out all Australians at all. Period.
Of course, as no one else has FTTN… all of the other Australians are also proof…
You are aware, that the Rolls Royce solution was the same price as the General Motors option we are getting now. Also that it was a leased vehicle that we paid for whilst using it? In fact it was a leased fleet vehicle where everyone paying for the use was covering the entire fleet?
As to need. If someone offers you a Rolls Royce that you can drive at the speed limit, but can go faster if you choose to go on the highway, or for the same price they offer you an older model Holden, that works fine up to the speed limit you want now, but can’t get to highway speeds. Bearing in mind, the cost is the same. Oh sure you’ll pay a little more in fuel usage at highway speeds, but other than that the base cost is the same.
Are YOU going to pick the Holden?
Stupid car analogies are stupid.
Go and look at the facts. And start doing a little bit of critical thinking.
The FTTP NBN was not being paid for by tax, it was being covered by government investment.
Our urban population density is around the 90% of our total population.
As for usage, average bandwidth usage increase by 50% EACH YEAR.
The User pays principle is EXACTLY what was driving the FTTP NBN, with the High end user’s paying a larger proportion of the cost. With the FTTP NBN, Return On Investment would have allowed to both pay off the cost of the build, as well as continued growth in the system. However with the MTM NBN it is appearing increasingly likely that that ROI will not be met, at which point Taxpayer dollars will need to be spent to repay the investment loans.
Actually I believe Australia is more urbanised than the US.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html
Australia 89%
UK 80%
US 82%
NZ 86%
Canada 81%
Germany 74%
Japan 91%
South Korea 83%
Interesting stats.
Just goes to show that our urbanisation and population density is perfectly high enough to affordably roll out fibre to 90+% of the nation (like the experts said), and anyone saying otherwise is just making poor excuses.
So journalists should at least try to use the right adjectives. It seems “universal” still means 93% here, where as everywhere else it means 100%.
The only time when Renai actually referenced Labor’s plan himself, he referred to it as “near-universal” the other times universal was used, was in reference to the idea of having a universal fibre rollout, or quoting other people discussing universal fibre.
Defending the indefensible.
http://delimiter.com.au/2015/08/17/new-greens-leader-holds-firm-on-fttp-nbn-policy/
“New Greens Leader Richard Di Natale has confirmed he will stand firm behind the original universal Fibre to the Premises version of the National Broadband Network, rejecting what he said was the “half-measures” being implemented by the Coalition Federal Government.”
Renai knows the clickbait formula for page views – appeal to fanboi FTTP biases, even to the point of making up things about what was actually going to be built.
I actually agree with a 100% FTTP build out. But the moment it isn’t 100% FTTP because of economic reasons, then proper economic analysis needs to be done – and Labor didn’t do it.
To be fair to Renai he was accurately quoting a Green (leader). Perhaps a few articles about his time in policy meetings with such intellectual giants.
So Mr Shark, you’re a FTTP fanboi…? In fact a 100% FTTP fanboi, no less? Really (Frank)?
What, you support a “premium solid gold, Rolls Royce network, paid by my taxes”? *sarcasm*
Unlike us who aren’t going to get FTTP either, we continue to support “NEAR” universal roll out of FTTP as per the previous plan (as a commonsense approach) for as many Aussies as possible. But because you aren’t going to get FTTP, you’d prefer no one gets it?
And even as a 100% FTTP fanboi, you as a consequence (clearly appear to) support MTM instead? MTM which is even less universal in supplying world class comms to Aussies?
Ooookkk.
You’re right, I should be using “near-universal”, rather than universal. I have meant to do this, but I occasionally slip regarding such things. I’ll try to make sure to use “near-universal” in future. Thanks for highlighting this!
I think everyone else but you have problem with it. Maybe, back to subject?
Err, that was already explained last time you pedantically brought it up…!
“Criminal” is how I’d describe how much this guy wants to sponge off of tax-payer funded telecommunications infrastructure.
“Criminal” is using outright fraud to build yesterday’s comms infrastructure, tomorrow!
Laughing stock is planning to build a FTTP network and predicting that 50% would connect at 12Mbps and in 2026 less than 1% would connect at 1Gbps. Alternatively you could take the view that Labor planned a FTTN network in 2007 and when Telstra refused to co-operate they didn’t comprehend the implications of changing to a FTTP network.
But you just told us it is 35% on 12Mbps, not 50% as you kept saying and err, keep saying! Speaking of laughing stock…
In all the years of the great NBN debate this is probably the most ridiculous comment I have ever read.
I must say I had forgotten about the wonderful quality of debate from these folks since Delimeter went away..
Refreshing to see denial at work again.
I’d be interested in the means used to call out the LNP forum hit squad, or is it one person using multiple names?
They are prolly all members of the IPA’s Astroturfing unit.
I don’t know mate…..there have been so many “Dial up should be good enough for anybody” posts, maybe your just in denial ;)
You’re probably right, maybe what I should have said is “this is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read THIS WEEK” :-)
Now that, I’d grant you :)
So, somehow Telstra paying for access to the NBN is different to someone else paying for the same access. How is that?
“Criminal” is how I’d describe how much you want to sponge off of tax-payer funded public roads.
Mr Shark how about try again considering that he would have the NBN to use its network which would then go towards paying the loan back so the Taxpayer would be sponging off him.
Indeed…
We need competition , the more the merrier, oh except those terrible foreigners, who criticise our beloved leaders?
Apparently a foreign RSP utilising our infrastructure (to err, help repay the cost of our err, infrastructure) is criminal.
Whilst, large overseas mine owners shipping Australian resources abroad, profiting handsomely and not paying a fair share of tax (with the tax burden falling upon, umm, us) isn’t criminal? Or instead of big polluters being fined for over polluting, they receive a juicy cheque and told (wink, wink) pull your socks up.
Sorry to veer somewhat off topic here, but it seems some people’s ideas of criminal are pretty well, fucked up IMO.
How would they be sponging? They would be paying the exact same amount as everyone else who used it, and more importantly they would be bringing competition to the market.
is how I describe the fraudulent SR, CBA and other reviews created by TurnBULL’s cronies – I hope the ALP holds a Royal Commission into the destruction of the NBN and then we’ll see real corruption exposed on a multi-billion dollar scale!
Criminal is how I’d describe Labor’s lack of CBA.
where was the CBA for the PSTN?
Fast reliable Comms is required for any advanced economy to continue competing globally, why is it you conservatives want to keep the country back in the 60’s?
If not doing something is criminal, how much worse if concocting a fraudulent one?
Mr Shark a CBA wasn’t required are it showed it would make a return.
“Criminal ” is promising an upgrade and actually providing more of the same (but spending 30b+ to fake it).
Telsta was already rolling out FttN (they called it Top Hat) https://exchange.telstra.com.au/2011/10/25/telstra-will-start-rolling-out-top-hats-in-november/
That was 4-5 years ago. Ask anyone on Telstra ADSL what they think of it.
You can see the results here too:https://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/isp/r2126-Telstra%20Bigpond
Keep in mind that the Telstra results include Cable(HFC) which will be the results above ~20-25Mbps
Ah yes, as usual the true colours show.
In Newcastle (where they are rolling out FTTN like mad) the nodes are spaced between 100m and 400m apart. So the most people will be away from a node is maybe 250m of copper. This is the case for the inner city and inner suburbs. I haven’t checked the outer suburbs yet. There is absolutely no way anyone is over 700m from a node from what I can see happening here.
That does mean its going take probably 3-400k cabinets to service everyone then … that is a lot.
We could speculate that the FttN speed results from Newcastle will come just in time for the next election so Turnbull can fool enough people and just long enough to say “yay! look at the “sooper dooper fast” FttN speeds everyone is getting, vote us again, yay megabites”. Then if they do win the election the node spacing in other areas will be wider because they’ll then be trying not to go over the apparent $70 billion.
Yep and by the time the last one is rolled out they will start dumping them on the scrap heap.
You could work it out (roughly) by using this map ( http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/population.html ) and putting 7Km circles on all the areas marked 1.1-10 (or higher). You’d have to use the same scale as the map of course.
If you do, I’d love to hear your results :)
AFAIU, that does not mean that you will be connected to the closest node.
In fact, it goes from the node to the pillar (sometime to another pillar)and then to you.
So, you can have node at your doorstep but if your pillar is 300m away, the copper length will be 2x300m plus about 30m to your telephone socket. So here you go, 630m. What if your pillar is 400m away?
Sounds like we need someone to go out there and photograph all those nodes going in and measure them… I’d like to see the figures on the build cost Vs number of connections at that kind of density. That is going to have a very, very significant impact on the overall construction cost. Remember Turnbull and Abbott talking about 50,000 nodes total for the whole country?
There is an upside – if Labor trounce them next year, demonstrating that MTM / FTTN is going to cost substantially more than FTTP would have is a good argument for re-evaluating it.
The five stages of Mourning, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance are a part of the framework that makes up our learning to live with the one we lost. Malcolm appears to be in the Anger phase. I’m permanently stuck in the ACCEPTANCE phase, I can’t accept this Coalition shit Malcolm.
It’s not just Malcolm, the whole government have the same problem in every portfolio/aspect, Malcolm is just a lot more competent that the rest of the idiots in “Team Australia”, so his changes have stuck.
@Tinman, are we talking about the same Malcolm, my is Malcolm Ridrigues CEO of MyRepublic not the other Malcolm (who I wouldn’t fart in his face if he was gasping for breath) Turnbull.
And now the 200,000 node trial that’s been reduce to 165000 now has even more delays as they where estimated of getting 37,200 ready for service but now only expect 2100 for sept, and again for OCT was 35,200 now 9,600.
WOW a blistering fast rollout lucky they didn’t promised to be done by 2016 oh wait.
He makes some good points, especially Australia being known as a “Farming & Mining” country, it’s something we should be leverage to progress into other markets such as technology/medical research where we could be extremely successful given the education system in this country.
Politicians should be held accountable for their decisions, you only need to look at the millions if not billions wasted on the change of direction at NBNCo, we’ve essentially pissed away three years of the roll out.
As far as FTTN goes, good luck with it, having spent seventeen years in this industry I can safely say that people are going to be disappointed with the results, or substantial amounts of money will be spent in overbuilding the network to meet the target speeds.
“Fibre to the Node is particularly popular throughout Europe, and is the dominant technology being used to upgrade BT’s copper network in the UK”
Which BT have publically announced was a mistake.
“HFC cable is very popular throughout the United States.”
*was*. Verizon FiOS and Google Fibre are highly sought after and Time Warner (amongst other monopolistic providers in their respective areas) are universally condemned.
Comments are closed.