Turnbull asked NBN Co to generate info to tear down FTTP


news A letter tabled in the Senate by the Government yesterday has revealed that as Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull explicitly asked the NBN company to create information that could help the Coalition make the case that Labor’s Fibre to the Premises model was not worth pursuing.

In mid-September, former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy successfully moved a motion in the Senate which required the Government to table a number of key documents relating to the NBN company and its most recent Corporate Plan from 2016.

In his motion, Conroy sought the following documents: The ‘Operating Plan’ referred to in the NBN company’s latest corporate plan; financial and deployment forecasts for the Multi-Technology Mix model from FY2015 to FY2022, as included in the Operating Plan; the most recent ’12 Quarter Integrated Deployment Plan‘ referred to in the Corporate Plan 2016; and the high level desktop analysis of an all-FTTP fixed line deployment scenario referred to in its Corporate Plan 2016.

Lastly, Conroy also requested a copy of a reported letter from Turnbull and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to the NBN company requesting that it prepare a high-level desktop analysis of an all-FTTP fixed line deployment scenario for the project.

In response, yesterday new Communications Minister Mitch Fifield tabled a letter in the Senate refusing to meet most of Conroy’s demands — defying the Senate’s Order for the Production of Documents. You can download the full letter in PDF format here.

Most of the material which Conroy had requested, Fifield wrote in the letter, could not be released as it contained material which was commercial in confidence. “Disclosure of this material would cause commercial harm to the Commonwealth, which would ultimately negatively impact Australian taxpayers,” Fifield wrote.

The Senate may or may not recognise a claim of commercial in confidence — such a claim is not inherently valid. Further information on this can be found in the Senate’s brief guide to procedure.

However, perhaps more interesting for those who follow news related to the National Broadband Network is that Fifield did table the letter from Turnbull and Cormann which Conroy had requested.

The letter, sent to the NBN company on 29 April this year, details a number of requests which the two NBN shareholder ministers had made with relation to the 2016 NBN Corporate Plan. The pair had received a draft of the plan, but requested modifications be made to it before it was published.

One of the key modifications which Turnbull and Cormann requested was that an explicit examination of the cost of returning the NBN to its original near-universal fibre model be included.

Turnbull and Cormann wrote that they viewed this required examination of FTTP costs as an “important counterfactual” to the Multi-Technology Mix rollout which the Coalition preferred — in short, that they wanted the NBN company to create information about the cost of returning to a FTTP rollout for the NBN so that that information could be contrasted with the cost of the MTM network.

“Shareholder Ministers believe an updated cost estimate for a network where FTTP serves the entire fixed-line footprint is a critical data point that needs to be credibly costed,” the pair wrote.

The two ministers went even further in their request, asking for the costing to be based on a fictituous FTTP model which had never previously been technically defined in the NBN company’s planning, and which they left nebulously defined.

The NBN Strategic Review, which was put together in the closing months of 2013 by new NBN executive JB Rousselot, a close personal associate of Turnbull, listed several different potential models for a FTTP rollout of the NBN, including pursuing the original model (Senario 1) and a radical overhaul to cut costs (Scenario 2).

“While it is up to the company to determine the basis for its estimate of an FTTP rollout, it may be that a Scenario 1.5 approach aligns most closely with reality,” Turnbull and Cormann wrote.

The two ministers wrote that this ‘Scenario 1.5’ should include new information gathered by the NBN company since the Strategic Review was published in late 2013, “particularly in areas such as historical and current costs per premise, the ability and distribution of productivity gains in an outsourced delivery model, competitive threats from alternative networks and technologies, achievable peak construction rates, and cumulative operating costs likely to be incurred over the build”.

“While any updated cost estimate for a FTTP rollout scenario is not expected to replicate the rogor of NBN Co’s Business Plan for the MTM rollout, it should be sufficiently robust and detailed that the company is prepared to stand behind its credibility and comparison of FTTP and MTM costs,” the Ministers wrote.

“Accordingly, we ask that the updated FTTP scenario provide each of the high-level metrics in Table 0-2 on page 17 of the Strategic Review. This updated scenario should be included in the Board-endorsed draft 2015-18 Corporate Plan that is due to us by 31 May 2015.”

The NBN company acceded to the request, and the FTTP ‘counterfactual’ did make it into the published version of the 2016 NBN corporate plan, which states:

“The high level analysis has enabled management to confirm that despite higher than anticipated cost and risk, MTM remains a superior strategy to an all-FTTP rollout for fixed line areas.

Management estimates that an all-FTTP fixed line rollout could be completed by 2026 but possibly as late as 2028, with a peak funding range of $74-84 billion (vs. $46-56 billion for MTM) depending on critical sensitivities around peak construction rates, construction and operating cost, and revenue generation. First positive free cash flow is estimated to be achieved between FY26 and FY31 for an all-FTTP fixed line rollout (vs. FY22 for MTM).”

The news represents only the latest occasion which Turnbull, as Communications Minister, sought to have information generated which could be used to criticise the former Labor Government’s near-universal fibre approach to the NBN. Turnbull also commissioned a series of reviews of the project, several of which were partially completed by analysts such as Henry Ergas who have been severely critical of the NBN’s model in the past.

The letter also reveals that the two ministers pressured the NBN board to endorse the company’s long-term financial forecasts out to 2040. The board had been reluctant to endorse the projections, due to the inherent uncertainty in the telecommunications market. However, Turnbull and Cormann urged the board to find a version it could endorse.

“… such projections are needed for Shareholder Departments to update financial forecasts that inform the Commonwealth’s budget accounting treatment of NBN Co,” the pair wrote.

Opinion/analysis to follow separately.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull


  1. Share this. He is a liar. We all should have known this so it comes as no surprise. So much for technology agnosticism. When can we have real politicians and real prime ministers, instead of weasel wording politicians.

    • Why should this surprise? Cost comparision critucal in the debate. There should be more of it and why the fibre fanboys ignore any figures.

      What should be made available is the cost modelling for all technologies so we can compare.

      • You’re not too good at reading are you?

        basing the cost comparison on a fictitious model created for the purpose of making the figures appear larger.

        don’t forget that they also ignore the maintenance costs and shorter lifespam of malcolms mess

        • One of us can read. The scenario wasn’t fictitious, one not included in SR13. We need that scenario.

          Where were NBNCo instructed to make the difference larger?

          • “The two ministers went even further in their request, asking for the costing to be based on a fictituous FTTP model which had never previously been technically defined in the NBN company’s planning”

            Looks like English to me…notice that word “fictitious”?

          • Right, more talk. Like the often repeated mantra on time and on budget.

            How can they be instructed to use a scenario that doesn’t exist? Your reading belies comprehension.

            I agree (and have been calling for) details of scenario 1.5 should be released as with other modelling.

          • And is MTM on time and on budget?

            So as the answer is an obvious and overwhelming, no, when are you going to bag it, as you promised you would?

      • What cost comparison Richard. What they are rolling out now vs plus the $15B cost blowout plus the extra years for stop start for FTTP again.

        But Turnbull got you a good one when you where claiming it was labor model when it’s not.

        The cost comparison would if they had continued rolling out FTTP but we don’t want to look at those figures do we. As the last figures known makes MTM a joke.

        • @jasonk

          Actually Turnbull didn’t as I’ve never assume Labor’s scenario 1.

          Where’s your evidence the switch to MTM has cost $15b. CP16 states costs differ from SR13 because of better information (as discussed before SR13 models used costs supplied by NBNCo).

          An “apples to apples” capex comparision would use the Cost per Premises (CP16 p67). Capex of MTM vs FTTH (excludes transit network costs $3.5b same for both):

          FTTH 2.4m x 3700 = $8.9b
          FTTN/B 4.5m x 1600 = $6.7b
          HFC 4m x 1100 = $4.4b
          LTE 590k x 4100 = $2.4b
          SAT 400k x 7900 = $3.2b
          Total $25.6b

          FTTH 10.9m x 3700 = $40.3b
          LTE 590k x 4100 = $2.4b
          SAT 400k x 7900 = $3.2b
          Total $45.9b

          You’re welcome to privide you own cost figures (expect to support them). NBNCo should supply all their modelling (as Clare has requested) so various scenarios can be examined and reproduced. NB FTTH won’t come close to FTTN / HFC; many realworld example demonstrate it.

          • Tell us again what it said in CP16… as if that is the be all and end all… yes the document we all know has blown out by $15B (shhh).. but please continue…

            *sigh FFS*

            What about the sacred CBA you kept telling us was instrumental? You know the one which stated Quigley’s FttP figures were ball park (and that was coming from noted FttP haters)…

            Oh yes, we ignore the must have CBA now, because of such statements… sorry I forgot…*shrugs*

            Seriously Richard, if you would like to join the rest of us here in reality instead of living in that conservative wonder bubble… you can… you just need to open both eyes and stop believing the ultra conservatives can do no wrong…

            In the meantime you keep supporting the FRAUDBAND you derided some 8 years ago and believing copper isn’t obsolete. :/

          • Your thinking that is that over a 10 million rollout figure would stay the same at $3700 per premises, which we know is not true (Verizon, AT&T, Google, NZ Rollout, UK Rollout, and Europe rollout).

            Let’s not forget the improvements made by Project Fox.

            And $45 billion was the original amount that Labor put forward (~$44 billion).

            So not only you blow your own argument, but your failed to back up the arguments.

            You have no evidence to claim that Labor project is either not affordable, or cost more than Fraudband Liar.

          • Richard really
            “I’ve never assume Labor’s scenario 1.”
            Conroy’s NBN policy blew out from $4.7b to $74-84b
            Service level zero for FTTP model clearly not an issue, nor the slow rollout performance (FY26-28).

            LOL Daniel that great

          • Jk Actually I’d assumed the CP16 figure modelled scenario 2 (revised FTTH).

            Scenario 1 was dead, a complete failure. We wait to see 1.5.

          • But Scenario 1, 1.5 and 2 are dead anyway Richard, the new Telstra deal locks NBN Co into using HFC no matter what, so who cares about discussing 93% FTTP now?

      • @Richard

        How much are you paid to astro-turf the LNP position on the NBN and troll any discussions when it is put to the test? You only ever turn up to bash the original FTTP (Labour) model or to praise the MTM (LNP) model, and either ignore, gloss over, or incorrectly use words and data to represent your paymasters point of view. I know it’s a free world and that you are free to make comments however you choose, but it beggars belief that an actual, real person of your apparent intellect would engage in the comments section in the way that you do without being compensated by someone with a vested interest in opposing one view and supporting another.

        • Dan, I really don’t think it is productive to the conversation to assume just because someone is good at derailing topics that they are an astro-turfer.

          Richard was notorious for doing this over at Zdnet before he was banned (could speculate that may have been the reason he was banned), but I don’t think he is an astro-turfer. The paid shills left the building long ago when the village idiot became prime minister. Mission accomplished, so they are now an unnecessary expense. The only ones left are the ones willing to do it for free :-)

          • @HC After posting for more than a decade on Zdnet I was banned for a post critical of Abel’s ludicrous ‘Brisbane Line’ post and in their words the number of dislikes (basically everything I posted the fanboys (MS & NBN) flagged).

            Any criticism from you (or others from there) is extraordinay; for years I pleaded for civility, never once flagged a post or complained to moderators. HC on the other hand posted my work email address and threatened to post my phone number in an attempt to silence my opinion.

            I’ve appreciated Rizz’s new found restraint, hopefully not slipping.

            The most vile comments on this site have been direct towards me, yet Renai warned me for an innocuous post referring to blind men.

            Tomorrow I head off from Kathmandu into the mountains to review (gratis) govt school’s IT in earthquake devastated north-east Nepal. What will you be doing?

          • Nonsense Richard. I did nothing of the sort. You are flat-out lying now. You made a claim about your work. We asked for evidence and you said something along the lines of “find it yourself”, so I did. IIRC I think I posted the URL to your website and asked you to confirm your email, something anyone with Google could do. It’s all on the website. So is Beomix, trying to “silence” you too? Silencing people is not my style Richard. At all. I want to hear everyones opinion regardless of how retarded it is. I even said so on Zdnet numerous times.

            Also, I agree about your innocuous comment. I backed you up there. I consider most comments innocuous and don’t consider any “abuse” because I’m not a SJW nutjob.

            I wouldn’t necessarily call your ZDnet posts civil or uncivilised. I don’t actually care, however it was funny how you would whine everytime we made and innocuous comment. That said I will always back up someone right to say whatever they like. Including you. You however called for censure of innocuous comments, so that is where we differ…

            Kathmandu is the new Argentina I assume. Still don’t care.

          • @HC The posts still there last time I checked.

            Posters claimed no experience, I said position, posters denied. You googled me, I didn’t challenge anyone. I congratulated you on using google and confirmed. What more was required?

            But that wasn’t when you posted my email address, nor asking me if you post my phone number. Right I was in Argentina when you posted the later, but not the former.

          • I cant recall saying anything about your phone number but if I did it was most likely in jest because all that crap is the website. Surely you can see how ridiculous a comment like that would be. If I post a link to that very same Beomix website now am I trying to silence you?

          • @HC perhaps you can see it from my perspective, why else would anyone post someone’s email then follow up with threats to post phone number? My company and position was settled.

            I’ve now finished there, replacement of their software (Java EE & SaaS) and hardware (ARM linux) platforms a complete success. Affording me plenty of time to post:-)

          • Also, for the record I generally don’t endorse banning either, so what ever you said certainly wouldn’t have bothered me. I cant even recall this “Brisbane Line” post though. I must have missed the whole article.

          • Once again Richard I’m fairly sure I did not say anything about your phone number.

            Website yes, I recall it and I did.
            Email yes, I recall it and I did.
            All were on the website along with your phone.

            But phone I do not recall mentioning it or even anything about it.

            You’ll have to provide evidence for this one if that is your claim.

            I don’t get your logic though, obviously you want to be able to be contacted, so why put the phone number on the website if that number was meant to be private? If I did do a copy/pasta as you are now apparently concerned about is that any different to me copy/pasta the URL and telling people to click on the “contact” link?

          • Absolutely correct HC.

            Back some years at ZD, Richard told you and I that he was a highly qualified bean counter (slang term) after I said he was uneducated (in relation to comms). But not grasping the simple protocol of topical commenting, Richard took holistic offence to my uneducated reference and then rattled off what he did, was, etc (and how superior to me he was/is… ahem, speaking of civility)…and he indeed said “find it yourself”…

            You then found it yourself… and yes he was a CIO (and TBH a CIO who promotes mid 1900’s tech is quite bewildering IMO, but I digress)…

            You never mentioned a personal email or phone numbers, so that is either a mistake or out and out lie by Richard. And let’s face it in those days Richard you posted by your full name and derided both HC and I for not doing likewise. Yet these days you do as we do and no longer pot by your full name either. I think there’s a word beginning with H which describes this ;) So finding you would have been easy, but finding a personal email or phone not so easy and really, I have read HC’s comments for years (and as he clearly demonstrated above) he is fair and would never disclose such private details, nor would I.

            As my exhibit A, neither HC or myself have since mentioned your surname Richard, because if you no longer wish to use it, it’s no one else’s business.

            So this strange and baseless attack on HC is really a bit low, IMO Richard.

            But keeping civil Richard (as I don’t want us both banned again ;) I’d be interested in knowing if you believe you have ever erred in your claims regarding the comms of which we all speak of?


          • Well Rizz just to clarify initially all I mentioned was info I found website. Turns out I didn’t even post the URL there, that was someone else named Yettie79 a year later (bizarre) The article is here: http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-the-hfc-is-no-nbn-alternative-a-sob-story/

            It was only a few months later did I mention the email when I was asking Richard about the page number, however I did not think it was a big secret because that information was on the website for all to see already. I assume clients would be contacting him this way so I’m really not sure what the big deal is.

            Nothing about the phone number though, unless Richard is referring to Yettie79 saying “I’m calling you tomorrow”. That is not me though.

          • Indeed HC and just to clarify, by “personal” email I meant that you may have mentioned the work email, which was readily available to all that bothered to “find out for themselves as dared” on the website (and really let’s face it, our friend only said this because that’s exactly what he wanted… so that he could in turn skite about me, me ,me and in turn try justify his “comms uneducated” comments, as superior and to look down on us) but you never posted a personal/home email or phone number… which was my point.

        • Precisely Hubert, it’s just those who’ve swallowed the un-kool aid left pumping the libs idiotic propaganda!

    • The two ministers went even further in their request, asking for the costing to be based on a fictituous FTTP model which had never previously been technically defined in the NBN company’s planning, and which they left nebulously defined.

      They should all be charged with conspiring to defraud the Australian Tax payer of much needed 21st century infrastructure!! #FraudBand is being shown to be more more more accurate every day!!!

    • Not just a Royal Commission for this, but the fact that the majority of appointed NBN execs that were hired to negotiate with Telstra were actually substantial Telstra shareholders. Mr Turnbull said that there was no conflict of interest…if that doesn’t require a RC, I don’t know what does.

  2. So Richard can we go back to comparing apples with apples
    Cp15 upto $56B complete by 2022 MTM
    SR senario 2 $64B complete by 2023 FTTP

    • @Jason

      comparing apples to apples doesn’t mean what you think it does.

      We have the cost blowout figures for scenario 6 between SR13 and CP16, a reasonable assumption that’s the scenario adopted.

      If NBNCo acted as instructed then CP16 provides cost for scenario 1.5, which we don’t know anything about. First step is to get release the SR data for this scenario.

      None say scenario 1 or 2 costs haven’t increased. You could use the CCP numbers to model difference in capex.

      • “One of the key modifications which Turnbull and Cormann requested was that an explicit examination of the cost of returning the NBN to its original near-universal fibre model be included.”

        Or what Mortow said in the senate that the cp15 for FTTP was if they had to switch back to FTTP not if they had continued with FTTP.

        So a $15B cost blowout on a project that has nearly even started is quite remarkable. That cost has nothing todo with the FTTP it’s all Turnbull MTM

        • But really MTM has a cost blow out of upto $27B since he said it all could be done for just $29B

        • The coallition pre-election figures were wrong – massively. SR13 figures were revised in CP16, also underestimating costs ($5–15b). But also the figures used in the first two CPs (3rd suppressed by the minister) have been shown to be wrong from actual deployment (1m premises). Obvious from released performance data at the time, posted to the abuse of many here.

          NBN is a monumental stuff up, as I’ve been saying from day one.

          • No MTM is a monumental stuff up (behind ten fold more than the start up FttP’s own aggressive targets and with a massive $15B blow out) EXACTLY as we told you it would be and your reply was… that Turnbull’s plan was perfect, so perfect that you could have written it…

            Well you wrote a complete FUCK up…

            So please enough back pedalling…time to man up.

          • @rizz

            Sadly we can’t return to the actual post, one of hundreds deleted because of others abuse.

            My post referred to coalitions plan for reusing existing infrastructure because it was much cheaper, a position vindicated.

            I’ve always maintained any NBN will be a stuff-up because of govt involvement, maintaining reusing infrastrucure saving billions.

            The fanboys keep posting without any evidence that I’m paid to write, imagine a coalition connection, refuse to put figures, misinterpret basic words and phrases,

          • Nonsense Richard.


            Richard Flude APR 17, 2013

            My first post after the announcement started “Govt should be out of broadband”! The Liberal policy document includes everything I’ve been posting about for years; use of existing infrastructure, priority for areas where market failed, access to infrastructure for competition, review of NBNCo past activities, CBA, etc It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it;-)If they fail to deliver expect me to be as vocal as I have about the massive disaster that we’ve witnessed with Labor’s attempt, and you’ve apologized for, all this time.

            Playing the victim while calling someone a clown.

          • @HC I stand corrected I couldn’t find googling. As you know many posts deleted.

            Your post confirms mine, yet unsurprisingly you claim ‘nonsense’.

            Please explain for others the clown-in-chief comment.

          • Sorry for the confusion Richard when I said “Nonsense” I was referring to you saying Sadly we can’t return to the actual post, one of hundreds deleted because those comments do exist.

            I cant explain the “Clown-in-chief” comment, you said it, and I don’t know if you were saying it to Rizz or myself because the comments hierarchy has been “flattened” since they changed it.

          • @Richard “My post referred to coalitions plan for reusing existing infrastructure because it was much cheaper, a position vindicated.”

            So how in the world do you countenance rolling out NEW copper? It’s NOT existing infrastructure! How is it cheaper to replace existing copper with new copper? Knock me stupid but replacing with fibre (and a NTD) would be cheaper than rolling new copper, dropping a node and then powering the bugger for the next 20 years…This clearly shows how delusional the ideology has become concerning this project. It appears that NBNCo are under instructions, FTTN at ANY cost.

          • + 1 Sean. Great point.

            This really does undermine our friends entire argument of using existing (albeit obsolete) infrastructure.

            But yet all we hear is, page such and such of CP16 (note the MT yes men’s CP is the go to doc.) and how bad in one’s own incorrect opinion, the FttP roll out was.

            Funny how my friend Richard also told HC and I many years ago (since we are all reminiscing – and our friend thinking he could rewrite what he said because it was so long ago,…LOL) that if MTM/FttN that he could have written (I never accused him of being paid to write it or paid for comments) was a failure, he would (like us) attack it too.

            But even with much worse hold-ups than FttP, a $15B blow out and as you allude to Sean, not just utilising the existing (albeit obsolete) infrastructure, but rolling out new, err obsolete infrastructure, he point blank, refuses to actually do as he promised.

            Yes, he has had the the odd very guarded potshot (think such as Syd profusely apologising for vaguley but not really, criticising Telstra) but inevitably, backing MTM to the hilt.

            How bad does MTM have to get before we see this promised attack?

  3. Malcolm Turnbull disguised as Tony Abbott, lies, lies and more lies. What can you expect from a Minister who hasn’t got a clue about technology, he also has no interest in furthering Australia or Australians fortunes in this world. I sincerely hope this stupid ignorant Government is thrown out at the next election. It is just disgusting that we pay so much for obsolete technology that other countries are throwing out, then to be forced to use it is criminal.

    Forget a Royal Commission, they are paid by the Government via the Governor General who is elected by the Government. Guess what will be the outcome… Yep, we get shafted again.

  4. Are we even surprised?

    Do I even need to say anything at this stage?

    I don’t think I do.

    I’ll just sit back eat some popcorn and watch the apologists defend the indefensible.

  5. Hey Richard, remember when you said Turnbull wasn’t as arrogant and pig-headed as Conroy? :)

    We did have a laugh. Guess what. He actually is as arrogant and pig-headed and vaguely dangerous as Conroy was. I should have waged lunch on it!

    And yes, cost comparisons are crucial in a debate; as long as they use a known metric and are comparative in structure. When you ask a company to come up with different numbers, to what they were actively working with; you have to question motive.

    Otherwise it’s two entirely different costing models; remember when Telstra tried that and got away with it, to build their FTTN using a bizarre model and needing legislation changes? Me either.

    • @brendon

      How is this even close to the Conroy examples presented? Threatening billions of value?

      The request to compare costs is perfectly reasonable. The lack of detail and preferring a scenario not in SR13 is not. But again you claim equivalence.

    • at least Conroys faults are transparent! :)
      his attempts at sarcastic jokes come across as bad taste (senate committees, hearings etc) and sure he , like Turnbull seems to be a very big fan of himself but I haven’t seen anybody with Turnbull’s ability to present as likable,interested in listening to people, knowledgeable and affable but then in his portfolio to be amazingly deceptive, churning out statements that imply he is promising something grand but give him future wiggle room to completely destroy expectations and what the public were owed. I laughed out of awkwardness each time he patronised a journo in 2013 for daring to question the FTTN line , there was one google hangout where he told a journalist that he didn’t know how to ask decent questions or get his facts straight but that it was OK cause the guy was still young – something to that effect.

      I still can’t workout how much of the FTTN plan is him doing what was necessary to get and keep the comms portfolio and eventually get where he is today VS him actually thinking that Labors FTTP proportion was not doable.
      maybe its option 3 and he thinks it should all be privatised but is accepting a hobbled mess as an alternative to a piece of consistent national infrastructure that would eventually have earnt kudos for every successive government who furthered its installation.

      I cringed at Peter Reith last week on Sky News – interviewing Mitch Fifield, his main question RE the NBN part of the Comms portfolio? ‘When are we going to see this thing privatised’ – Fifield gave some nothing answer that seems to confirm that behind closed doors the coalition think having a patchwork of different fixed line tech peppered across the country owned by 30 companies would be an optimal solution.

  6. The way I see it when you ask for a costing to ‘return’ to a full FTTP rollout (and are using this to make your MTM look better) it would include all the money wasted to date on the MTM side of things added to the fibre rollout just to make it look even worse. So they must be running short on imagination (not that they had much to start with) for ways to magically increase the cost of FTTP in line with or greater than the increased cost of MTM. They must really think we are stupid.
    Which they certainly do as seen in the news article today stating “Public doesn’t understand taxation well enough for companies to publish tax contributions”. I guess if we are that dumb then there is not a hope in hell of us understanding the complexities of the costings of the NBN/MTM.

    • I wonder if the FTTB/FTTN/HFC CPP includes all the IT, design standards, wasted FTTP design and lack of revenue…

  7. “The high level analysis has enabled management to confirm that despite higher than anticipated cost and risk, MTM remains a superior strategy to an all-FTTP rollout for fixed line areas.

    Management estimates that an all-FTTP fixed line rollout could be completed by 2026 but possibly as late as 2028, with a peak funding range of $74-84 billion (vs. $46-56 billion for MTM) depending on critical sensitivities around peak construction rates, construction and operating cost, and revenue generation. First positive free cash flow is estimated to be achieved between FY26 and FY31 for an all-FTTP fixed line rollout (vs. FY22 for MTM).”

    Well thats silly. All fixed line areas means Greenfields and HFC areas. Of course it’d take much longer if that was the case.

  8. 1984, yes comparing cheese with chalk. Mtm aren’t coin hfc areas. So to compare costs with ftth, they would have to eliminate 1/3 of ftth from total cost. That makes ftth (without hfc roll-out inclusion ) ,substantially cheaper than mtm

    • Richard will come to tell you that you’re actually just arguing the final 30%, the portion that will be FTTN because Greenfields are getting FTTP, with the HFC footprint and FTTB for MDU’s.

      So… you actually should take off 2/3rds of the cost from the “full FTTP” numbers they released.

      • You both clearly don’t understand the numbers presented. You can’t just ignore millions of premises.

        • Again I ask those who can’t see past their own nose, why weren’t the iron wires good enough..? Wanna answer this time?

        • Why can’t they ignore millions of premises? Abbot and now Turdball are ignoring a bit over 23 million of them.

        • If all we are discussing is the final 30% assuming that Greenfields will get FTTP in both MTM and Scenario 4, and HFC is the same, and FTTB is used for MDU’s, then ALL we need to worry about is the cost for doing brownfields FTTP or brownfields FTTN.

          SO, all that matters is that final 30%, or do you also not understand the conversation is comparing the MTM to Scenario 4?

          • Except that’s not yet Labor’s position to use HFC, or indeed FTTB.

            Assuming HFC & FTTB the CPP figures:

            FTTH 5.9m x 3700 = $21.u8b
            FTTB 1m x 1600 = $1.6b
            HFC 4m x 1100 = $4.4b
            LTE 590k x 4100 = $2.4b
            SAT 400k x 7900 = $3.2b
            Total $33.4b

          • Richard
            According to the new deal with telstra. NBN now has to maintain all of the HFC where they use any some or none at all.

            So regardless of where Labor wants to or not use it the NBN is stuck maintaining all of it until such time foxtel stops using it.

            so regarding that Scenario 4 is the best option of going back to giving most people FTTP.

          • @Richard,

            Labor aren’t in power. Who cares what Labor want?

            The LNP are in power, their own SR had an option for HFC in the HFC footprint and FTTP elsewhere for fixed line, nobody in this specific line of replies mentioned Labor at all, only you.

          • @jk yes capex: not peak funding, time to completion, year breakeven. We know peak funding will be more than capex, however we need the models.

  9. Turnbull is a lying sack of garbage! Wake up to yourselves voters, and get rid of this corporate-controlled wanker before every cent of the taxpayer war chest is wasted on a network that will keep us in the dark ages for the next quarter of a century! In 2026 if Ordinary Everyday Australian User X is not on a minimum 5 gigabit per second (625 megabytes per second) speed tier in both directions, then we’ll be just as far behind the rest of the world as we are right now. Thing is, our trading partners will have their slowest client giving us the bird from a 50Gbps symmetrical tier, because that’s what they’re working toward right now…

    • Actually on the contrary.

      Richard will invariably resort to blaming Labor, “the Fanboys”, Conroy, Quigley or anyone else. He refuses to acknowledge obvious failings that call the documents he oft quotes into question. He also refuses to acknowledge the parts of those documents that don’t support his argument. Or if he does, he uses some other document, that also has questionable basis to call those elements into question. He will also call into question other documents that people raise, but then when the same methodology is used to question his own documents, he will ignore it.

      The great thing is the responders who argue against him every time provide the evidence and details needed to show his bias. I salute them in general, and can only say keep up the good work.

      I do caution them against making it personal though. That appears to be Richard’s last ditch tactic. By pointing out that someone else has “attacked” them, then their opinion is clearly flawed. Which in and of itself only further shows his bias, when he refers to people as “fanboys”, in a clearly negative fashion.

      • Had Richard quote ofcom report last year saying that there test people where getting within 10% of the advertised speed. But then failed to mention it was based on 20 premises

  10. Oh Please! We have a business highly reliant on internet. I don’t dare estimate the time I lose each day struggling with slow internet speeds (KBS here on satellite). Would seriously love to use cloud accounting, finance, and other amazing software only available through cloud subs. So frustrating. So costly. How can we innovate without world-class internet?

  11. Right, so i’ve read much of the replies here and i lack to see why anyone would support the lnp FTN.
    Here it is simply put –
    FTN is using 70 year old copper wire.
    That technology IS being ripped out and sold off as scrap all over the world.
    To defend a government practise to reuse it, is mindblowingly stupid.
    Now, onto the next part –
    With costs obviously showing lnp’s fail in this area, has anyone thought how a slower connection will effect Australian business or study or entertainment area?

    It seems people are so focused on the installation $$ but noone thinks about how a laggy video conference can hamper a students ability to keep up with overseas lectures or being even a connection able to keep up with business video calls , HD streaming and netflix giving a half-assed product.
    Yes i had to mention netflix…
    my point with that – On the official day of netflix open to Australian’s, HD streaming FAILED at the party.
    Netflix HAS admitted that Australian Internet is not fast enough for HD and in some areas of Australia even the SD will lag.

    It’s not always about the bottom $$ for installation.
    Being connected to the world also either lowers or increases costs commercially.
    Kids consoles may not seem “important” but i view it otherwise.
    Sony , microsoft & nintendo are/will be offering stream services, even going as far as to preload games you may enjoy.
    I work my ass off for my money and pay for a 500gb connection, even i know that would be a slow data leak that will prevent me from achievable speeds online and increase my data consumption even when im at work (standby features).
    If i had to take the NBN now, my neighbor has a FTN of 20mb’s .. thats it… every new connection in this block WILL make it slower still… thats not worth it.
    It’s not worth using copper… as an average working Australian, i dont agree with FTN at all.

    The lnp said that 25mb’s was more than enough for Australian people…
    I dont believe that old tech and old men should tell me i deserve less for my tax money.

    • For the life of me Bryza…

      After years of witnessing and stomaching the apologists ridiculous comments, the only explanation I can come up with as to why anyone would want third rate anything – roads, rail, hospital, education, FttN/MTM etc as a prosperous country like we are, for all Australian’s including their own families… is dumb, mindless, political obedience/ideology.

  12. Anyone factoring in the lower uptake on plans given the FttN won’t be able to deliver on speed tiers (so who is going to pay for 100/40 when the best their line does is 25/5)?

    • We don’t mention that Simon, thats a bugbear in the closet that has to stay there…. Considering now that your line is fine as long as you can get 25Mbit sync speed at some point in the day for 1 second, then you don’t have a problem.

      • R0
        You would think for the 100/40 they would give a pir range of at least 51-100 not 25-100. But then they where happy to charge 100/40 even though the customer would only get 40mbps. Might be there way of hiding it from the ACCC

        • I just do not understand how there can even be speed tiers on FTTN when they cannot guarantee any given speed.

  13. The sooner Joe Average learns about the way this government are ripping the country off, and how they’re forcing Australia to remain as a ‘communications backwater’, the better. Malcolm Turnbull is on target to take the place of Tony Abbott in another record – that of Shortest Term Of An Australian Prime Minister…

  14. I just want FttF (fibre to the farm) instead of this slow satellite service that is the best that rural people can no longer get. It’s expensive and slow and woeful when compared to the services city and town people can get.

    • One of my favourite arguments on Whirlpool involved one farmer luddite in favour of getting FttN/wireless/satellite simply because while FttP was slated for their area it wasn’t built in whatever random timeframe they deemed acceptable (as it turns out it would have been within two years post-election, though shortly revoked thereafter). Of course, because they were now getting an inferior technology at the same (or more) taxpayer expense, they could see no reason why anyone else should have better either.

Comments are closed.