news Former NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley has stated that the up to $15 billion blowout in the cost of the National Broadband Network was due to the Multi-Technology Mix imposed by Malcolm Turnbull, using previous comprehensive audits of the company as evidence.
In August this year, the NBN company revealed up to 550,000 less Australian premises would receive the full Fibre to the Premises rollout than had been previously been planned under the Coalition’s Multi-Technology Mix, with the project’s funding requirement also blowing out by between $5 billion and $15 billion.
The original version of the NBN as envisioned by the previous Labor Government called for 93 percent of Australia’s approximately 13 million premises to be covered by a full FTTP rollout, with the remainder to be covered by satellite and fixed wireless technology. However, as Communications Minister, Turnbull radically overhauled the plan, instead re-using the copper and HFC cable networks owned by Telstra and Optus.
In a press conference associated with the release of the new NBN corporate plan, Turnbull said the new management of the NBN company had achieved a “formidable turnaround” in the company’s fortunes, stating that its chief executive Bill Morrow and his team had “done a remarkable job in getting this project on track”.
The previous management of the NBN company (led by Quigley), Turnbull said, had “missed every single target” the company had set, and “by a very wide margin”.
The company’s new cost estimates — including the multi-billion-dollar funding blowout — were based on the fact that the NBN company now knew more about deploying high-speed broadband than “anyone else” in Australia. “All of that information and experience,” the Minister said, had led to its revised funding estimates.
However, in a new interview with the ABC published over the weekend, Quigley himself refuted Turnbull’s claim. We recommend you click here to listen to the whole Background Briefing episode on the NBN. A substantial part of its transcript is also available online.
“On NBN Co’s own numbers, together with a strategic review, you can absolutely prove that the $15 billion has nothing to do with the fibre to the premises or the fixed wireless or the satellite, the original technologies. It’s nothing to do with that,” Quigley said.
“In fact, those costs came down between the strategic review and the latest corporate plan, which means the actual costs of the other parts, the newer MTM parts, have gone up more than $15 billion.”
The former NBN chief executive highlighted the strong scrutiny of the NBN company’s accounts as evidence for his claim that Turnbull was wrong on this matter.
“It wasn’t a complete shambles at all. We had four years of being reviewed on a very regular basis by a number of auditors, the Australian National Audit Office, PwC, you name it. Never ever did we get any significant problems,” he said.
opinion/analysis
Quigley’s comments should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the NBN saga closely. There is no doubt that the NBN company did miss some of its targets. but there is also no doubt that in the main, it was healthily on track.
In August 2012, as the NBN company was getting sharply attacked by Australia’s conservative press on all angles (you know — the kind of conservative press that is *still* attacking the NBN), I wrote:
“NBN Co has, over the first few years of its life, suffered a continually changing policy and commercial negotiation landscape which has forced it to change many of its construction assumptions on an ongoing basis. And yet, despite this, it has managed to keep its overall projected capital expenditure costs within 3.9 percent of its original projection. Incredible.
… Last week, Liberal MP Paul Fletcher wrote that if NBN Co was funded by private sector investors, its chief executive Mike Quigley would “probably have been fired by now”.
But the truth is, as was also true of his tenure at his previous employer, Alcatel-Lucent, that by all indications Quigley has been managing NBN Co in an exemplary fashion. Its corporate plan shows that he’s keeping NBN Co on track despite extraordinary external pressures and a constantly shifting landscape. At the moment, the project displays all the right signs of being able to deliver on the aims it was set up for — and within its original projected financial guidance, providing the financial returns it originally envisaged.
Maybe it’s too much to expect from Australia’s media at the moment that it represents what NBN Co does accurately and in context. But for my own part, I’d like to pass on my congratulations to the company for keeping things on an even keel so far. Contrary to most media reports, NBN Co isn’t drowning — it’s waving. And I believe as its volume rollout gets into gear over the next several years, many currently critical of the project will be forced to realise just how sound its governance has been.”
Is it possible that in his interview with the ABC that Quigley put a positive spin on the NBN’s problems under his tenure? Is it possible that the full extent of the NBN company’s issues and cost blow-outs didn’t become fully apparent until several years after he had left? Yes, of course it is.
And, as with all issues, I am sure there is a degree of fuzziness about the truth here. It’s not quite black and white.
But in general, what I continue to believe about the NBN — based on all the evidence that I have seen — is that it was broadly on track to meet its goals under Quigley’s management, and that the executive did Australia a great service in competently setting up this hugely important project from scratch.
There is no doubt that Malcolm Turnbull is in an extremely powerful position now as Prime Minister. But there is also no doubt that the Member for Wentworth will not find it easy to simply brush Quigley’s comments aside.
As Quigley has shown us over the years, those with integrity often speak with a quieter voice. But people also tend to listen harder to what they do choose to say.
Image credit: The NBN company
Before anyone comments, the attacks by the NBN Media Team should be noted by the NBN Rep
karina keisler @karinakeisler Nov 1
Sad to hear former #nbn CEO being defensive. Opportunity to focus on/be proud of achievements. Opportunity missed. #ABCRN @gpaddymanning
These and many others should be a sackable offense, and the media team should have their pay refunded to the tax payers.
She and the rest of the hacks brought in to replace the previous visionary NBN Co leadership team are nothing more than a bunch of partisan Lib trolls who are breaking the GBE rules on a daily basis!
We need a Royal Commission into everything that has been done to the NBN by the Lieberal government!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/quigley_ends_his_silence_unloads_on_government/
Another “I told you so” moment to add to the growing pile.
Turnbull apologists/copper zealots have probably already forgotten the times I said “We should roll out FttP while we have the chance because if we end up rolling out FttN we’ll be stuck with it for a very long time” etc.
Hubert your pronouncements were many and varied and of course the ex chief of the NBN should be listened to BUT it is understandable that his comments are tempered with a fair amount of bad blood since he lost his job. The NBN is rolling out, is adequate and affordable.
So you think a 15 billion budget blowout before the build had even started which pushed the MtM price above that of a fibre network that lasts for 60 years and needs to be replaced/upgraded within 10 years is somehow more “affordable” than the cheaper superior long term option?
#LibLogic #Fail
Slower.
False.
Hypocrisy at it’s finest.
Sydney
What bad blood he was retiring before the election even started.
How well is the rollout going we where promised by the end of 2016
How is it affordable when it now cost more than the original plan or that as Turnbull claim it’s the price that limits customer well news flash ISP are selling FTTN plan for the same price as FTTP plans.
And most importantly to you Sydney is Telstra is making more money from the MTM. How are those Telstra shares going, got back anywhere near what you paid for them in the float yet?
if its affordable on a cost per megabit basis (even a very generous one to FTTN) then Labors was bargain basement wholesale madness closing down sale stuff!
Considering the repeated attacks on not only his tenure, but on him. I think he has been pretty bloody reserved.
Love it Sydney, same price and missed the election promise of everyone getting 25megabits by 2016 by 10 years.
Missed an election promise of cheaper (it’s basically the same price)
By all accounts, NBN is now going to be basically what you were complaining about before it was a liberal policy. A technology that no one wants, for a sum of money beyond what a sane person would pay, taking an additional sum of years longer to build, but now, it’s a liberal policy so it’s ok?
Have some frigging consistency. Either government intervention in a market is good, or it’s bad. Sigh. (Fwiw, fttn vs nothing – fttn is better, at least, I will know to check what speed I will get in any house I might live in, and I will choose the property with 50megabits plus, everyone else can live with their 12 megabits).
There NEEDS to be a Royal Inquiry.
“It wasn’t a complete shambles at all. We had four years of being reviewed on a very regular basis by a number of auditors, the Australian National Audit Office, PwC, you name it. Never ever did we get any significant problems,” he (Quigley) said”
Exactly… more like it was another debt & deficit crisis, which really didn’t exist but certainly does now :(
We await the usual suspects to try to deflect to but they, but FttP, but, but, but.. anything but NOW and this complete fuck up…
So true mate, even the Libs own audit found absolutely nothing wrong with NBN Co and yet now we have head Lib-Troll TurnBull running around telling us that NBN Co had no idea how much FTTP was costing per premises …. sheeesh!!
Royal Commission Please!!
They tried long and hard to discredit Quigley but now that the real incompetents are running the show complete silence. They don’t mind billions being pissed away now because they have this insatiable need to see it succeed regardless of the cost.
Meanwhile in GimpCo land we get diarrhea class blog posts & tweets hyping technologies by incompetents when they haven’t even finished the task the coalition clowns set them out to do. Your taxpayer money hard at work giving the political shills a platform. $700,000 used to rebrand NBNco already forgotten, a mess is still a mess, the $56 billion price tag enough to distract them from that one apparently. Coffee machines are far more important when the technology used is FttP.
Popcorn HC?
Not yet Rizz, wait a few more days perhaps :-)
We have to wait for Ricard and reality but then we know how much they hate facts they might not read what Quigley PDF.
It’s a very comprehensive document. Got to give credit to Quigley for setting the record straight.
Actually I remember there was some word of an audit or some sort from Lazard that was pretty negative.
Just putting it out there, I’m no LNP bot. For the record I think the MTM is bullshit and that Turnbull is a cunt.
You might be thinking of the politically motivated “policy audit”… Shock horror it was mostly negative in its findings.
I’ll do a longer piece on this later, but check out the PDF Quigley just posted:
http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/6905096/data/exploding-malcolm-turnbull%25E2%2580%2599s-myths-to-pm-data.pdf
Interesting thanks Renai…
This is well worth the read. I look forward to Renai’s comments on this.
A very good read very detailed has real facts good luck from the usual mod to try and discredit it.
That was a good read. I trust Quigley over anything the current NBN say, no matter how much they try to discredit him (as they have tried before). He earned my trust, with truth and integrity.
The fact that he made that document just shows that he really cared about the NBN, doing whats best for Australia and doing a good job. The guy came out of retirement to do it. He has no political motivation. He’s simply giving the facts and the truth of the matter.
I was most impressed, especially the detail. realistically the Current crew and their ex fearless leader have been absolutely shot down in flames
Quigley for PM ;)
…550,000 FEWER Australian premises…
Looks like Keisler will be blocking Quigley now too ;)
I’d be interested to know how these figures would effect the results for the CBA if they where put back into some original spreadsheet of costings? if the costs of fiber are down on the predictions and the costs of FTTN and HFC are up……..
Why do you think most of the useful numbers were redacted in the first place? They’d merely have shown up the lib lies even more than the other bits did!
I believe the total FTTP cost cell formula is the FTTN cost cell + $30B
It be great to see those CBA formulas if they ever get released.
“but there is also no doubt that in the main, it was healthily on track.”
You must be joking. What possible “evidence” are you talking about?
The fibre rollout figures were disastrous, a fraction Of prediction. Transist and satellite both delayed. Quigley required $2200 per connection, Tas was $5,000. I’ve never seen a NBNCo actual below $3,000 (only predictions / estimates). To claim on budget is comical.
By the time Quigley left NBNCo had no answer to MDUs, they just kept moving on. Revised their definition of premises passed to include these service class 0 premises (indefinite wait to connect).
Their contract model was so poor a number went broke.
His claim re audits is a complete misrepresentation of the function of auditor in business accounts. It displays either a failure to understand this function or an intention to mislead. None of the auditors statements relate to the performance of the company re their corporate plan.
Quigleys never meet the CPs targets, pointed out at the time. Also laughible is the claim of his independence; rushing out 1Gbps when there was no demand, his “ontime and budget” mantra up to the election, his performance behind Conroy in senate estimates.
He, and the rest of senior management should be ashamed of their performance against a metric they themselves defined. If I performed so poorly I’d be fired, they awarded themselves millions in bonuses.
Time to put up some figures supporting this ludicrous claim of well run. Contrary figures already posted.
Ah Richard, we almost missed your biased, partisan, cherry picked point of view.
#slowclap
Ps I’d refute your b.s. But it’s a waste of time, your ideology won’t allow you to comprehend it.
@derek So not a single figure. Nothing from the fanboys. Not one, anything that indicates Quigley was on target.
Even Quigley’s pdf numbers confirms my position. Looking forward to destroying the rest. Fanboys so financially illiterate you can’t see the holes.
Oh that’s hilarious, this new delusion just confirms Im right not to waste my time on you!
Richard
FTTP
Previous NBN Co 2013 LNDN 1731 Cust connect 1375 3106
Current NBN Co Annual Results FY 2015 LNDN 2080 Cust connect 1552
But there you never like to compare apples with apples.
Audit “an official inspection of an organization’s account”
Turnbull ” the company’s cost accounting systems frankly were so poor”
Hows the target for the pre election promises with just 5% to be connected to FTTN pretty nice to go from 80% to just 5% in 3 months or only 15% of the SR target missed there to by 2016 in just 2 years but we wont talk about those targets will we Richard
@jk coalition targets have been talked about (even before their election). Turnbull’s pre-election claims have been destroyed. But it beyond comprehension that anyone continues to claim Quigley’s NBNCo was on target with his own CPs.
Have you ever performed a company audit? Do you have any accounting qualifications? Sorry rhetorical, you clearly don’t. I’ve warned before about posting pieces off the internet you obviously don’t understand, you look ridiculous.
Back on the actual topic Richard,
Can you refute the claims that switching to MTM has been the cause of the $15b blowout?
And can you refute that NBNCo’s own numbers show that FttP was tracking below the expected cost, such that the actual difference in total cost between models is reduced in the order of $20b? (not including Earnings per user calcs, which NBNCo’s own Numbers also show that FttP was exceeding expectations)
StevoTheDevo
“Can you refute the claims that switching to MTM has been the cause of the $15b blowout?”
Yeah easy, because it’s not a $15b blowout.
“And can you refute that NBNCo’s own numbers show that FttP was tracking below the expected cost, such that the actual difference in total cost between models is reduced in the order of $20b?”
Between what two models show a diff of $20b, Jason K says it’s only a $1b difference, so which one is it?
“Numbers also show that FttP was exceeding expectations”
How you do that is you drastically downgrade the expectations.
@std
The blowout is much more than $5-15b, you’re just talking the SR13 > CP16.
True some of the blowout is the delay from switching to MTM, actually billions but we don’t have the financial modelling Labour’s Clare has been calling for (with my support). However that isn’t the only delay, FTTH rollout performance was disastrous (nomother word to describe it). Transist network costs already committed, delayed customers delyas revenue increasing losses. NBNCo was losing $1b a year before the election, today $2b. This has little to do with MTM.
Quigley was under budgeted expenditure, but only because he couldn’t rollout his network (see revenue). However CPP were much higher than predicted, being the most significant component of the company’s budget this alone enough to destroy his budgets. CPP published in his own PDF confirm my much posted position, if we go to the reviews his figure is much below actual performance (claims expensives not accounted for correctly). This is also clear given the equity spent and the piddling number of premises connected.
Given the technologies (third party), equipment (third party) and many other realworld deployments on which to learn from it’s impressive NBNCo’s performance has been so disappointingly awful. But even more impressive is the denial of its failure by many.
Yes Turnbull pre election claims has been destroyed the MTM in the SR has been destroyed. They revised there target 3 times in a year so they can claim they hit a target.
You claim they have all these real world figures to go off yet they continue to be wrong.
What numbers shown your position that the FTTP cost have not much changed. Contrary to the claims by Turnbull yet the cost of MTM have sky rocket.
You obviously missed the Senate hearing in which Mike Quigley discussed collecting a performance bonus.
Morrow, on the other hand is a big taker of performance bonuses.
@a perhaps a link. That senior management can miss their own targets by such a margin yet award themselves bonuses is a disgrace. Only in the public sector (GBEs included).
I’m not defending the new management either, pointing out the continual farce that is this policy folly.
By contrary figures you mean those you particularly continue to cherry pick from a number of post Quigley docs (whilst ignoring others and completely ignoring Quigley’s) including the CBA from a bunch of FttP agitators and Liberal party donators…a CBA which depending on the BS you are spinning at any given time, must be trusted/but can’t be trusted…
You really do take the fkn cake Richard…
Q. What sort of accountant and business person would accept, let alone promote, obsolescence which is many years behind it’s roll out estimations with some $15B blow outs.
A. Only one embarrassed one, who said “it’s as if they had commissioned him to write it”.
Thanks for popping in.
@rizz again not one figure.
Tell you what, you try bringing some actual real life verifiable facts for a change, as opposed to your usual liberal party propaganda, and we might bother to post in more detail.
You tell us two figures Richard… IMO two very pertinent figures, which you always seem to run from, let’s see if you put those designer Nikes on and hot foot it as usual…
I’m asking you because obviously we aren’t bean countery enough to know such adult figures, so please bless us with your immense abacus knowledge, since you are the best bean counter in the universe, well at least this solar system (ooh apart from Henry of course – fuck always the bridesmaid)…
Just the figures please…no political grandstanding, no spin, no BS, no lies (I know it will be hard for you to break the habit – but give it a go, even once).
Figure 1. Q.What was Quigley and NBNCo’s final cost for the FttP network before the change of federal government in 2013?
A. $
Figure 2. Q. What’s the latest cost from NBN for the MTM network as of now?
A. $
I await your two simple figures with bated breath.
Thank you, we are indeed blessed.
@Rizz, he will just claim any figure by Quigley before the change of government as a lie, so it really doesn’t matter to him what that value was.
@rizz, a simple answer is actually quite difficult. I’m assuming by “cost” you’re talking peak funding as opposed to cumulative capex or opex (or combination). If so your answers are:
A1. Quigley’s (CP13-16p13) $45.6b (inc $3.3b capex contingency)
A2. MTM (CP16p68) $46-56b, expecting $49b (inc $4.9b contingency)
Thank you Richard…
Regardless of which way we look at it, FttN is certainly (at this stage) “not proving to be faster to roll out whatsoever” …
From Rod Tucker: – “At the end of July 2015, almost two years after the 2013 election, only 67 premises had been served by multi-technology-mix technologies.”.
Do you think FttP eclipsed 3 per month, even as a start up? Whereas MTM could only manage 67 with the groundwork already in place for them.
Plus as I have mentioned, areas like mine who would have (even with the FttP hold-up) already had FttP, but still await FttN are absolute proof that MTM is no faster… in fact it’s?
And looking at the figures you’ve supplied (although I’m sure you have a bean counter angle to push FttN/MTM to the fore in there) it’s not looking any cheaper.
So I guess the only thing left for the naysayers is to bag Quigley and then dismiss every thing he claims/claimed.
Oh and look…
@rizz
You might have misunderstood whatbwas meant by faster. There is not doubt connecting premises using FTTN & existing HFC is faster. The current deployment schedule would be impossible with FTTH (yet to see results that match/destroy these forecasts. As before I’ll be watching). But Quigley’s performance against his own predictions now known; disasterous.
The transition to MTM has taken longer than planned (I described timeline as ambitious before the election).
What’s interesting is you didn’t ask the revised number after review of the orginal NBN. Clearly not on target, hint of the impending financial destruction included in another post (we’ll wait for Renai’s pdf analysis before destroying the rest, unless he does the work for us. Figures are no longer predictions, but on the historical record).
That’s correct Richard I asked for two simple apples/apples answers, as opposed to what you normally do cherry pick, apples and oranges…
But I guess it’s all just pointless fruit to a bean counter eh?
As for misunderstanding faster roll out… err, no faster means umm faster, what does faster mean to you Richard?
Regardless, 67 premises in 2 years and neglecting those who should already have had FttP, does not equate to faster in anyone’s book, even your book surely?
Oh… I see they didn’t actually mean faster than FttP, they meant faster than a sloth on Mogodon, how silly of us all, we should have known that.
So I look forward to them possibly, actually exceeding their goal of eventually being faster than said sloth.
Please continue…
Here you go Richard.
http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/6905096/data/exploding-malcolm-turnbull%25E2%2580%2599s-myths-to-pm-data.pdf
Cost per connection – See page 1 and 2 for FTTP Brown and Green. And if you want an Apples for Apples run down, see page 9 (10 for the actual figures)
MDU’s don’t need an answer, as everything was FTTP.
Contract Model, also addressed in the Apple for Apple run down, see page 10/11
No demand for 1gbps. What a silly comment. You are assuming that reaching 1gbps was some massive cost over the base 100mbps. It wasn’t. See that is one of the nice things about FTTP, they can actually define specific speed groups, and stick to them. As opposed to FTTN. They can also upgrade the back end and add more speed without ever having to bother the user. Something FTTN can’t do.
Oh he does address broadband demand briefly on page 8 “Can FTTN really provide the Broadband that Australia needs?”
He also points out on page 6 under “Average Revenue Per User (ARPU)”, that the ARPU achieved for FTTP is actually higher than the estimate that NBNco made, so is actually more profitable than expected.
Oh and you mentioned Satellites before. He mentions them on page 7 “Claims regarding the Long Term Satellite”
Generally he takes all of your arguments and makes a laughing stock of them.
So now lets talk about who are the Fanboys? Those who believe the Fibre model was the better solution over all, or those who stick to the Copper Religion despite evidence to the contrary.
There ARE zealots and Fanboys on both sides. The rest of us like to look at information, use our heads and work out what is the better solution. It was clear before the MTM and its clear now, the FTTP NBN plan was the better long term solution, Technologically, Socially, AND Financially.
@w (apologises bad internet; no not the coalition’s fault travelling)
$3106 (Quigleyp10) x 12.2m (CP12-15p15) = $37.89 ie more than his CP’s total capex ($37.4b) budget whilst excluding transit & satellite ($5.5b), fixed wireless ($1.1b) and the $11b promised to Telstra/Optus. Then add cumulative losses.
MDUs were service class zero at Quigley’s departure. Sure FTTH, they just didn’t have a workable strategy to actually connect customers (FTTB rejected by Conroy). Optus HFC avoided MDU entirely, Telstra required strata opt in. NBNCo nothing, simply moved on by.
There’s no demand for 1gbps. A total of 30-something connections to date, all unused. Upgrade cost is not insignificant. CVC charge alone makes the proposition hysterical.
I’ll destroy the rest of Quigley’s assertions of fact once Renai publishes his analysis to the pdf.
There’s basically no major ISP’s offering 1gbps plans so it makes demand very hard to gauge
Another another note, commercial DOCSIS 3.1 modems have been announced that can do 5/2 gbps and that is apparently fantastic news in partisan lib troll land!
“I’ll destroy the rest of Quigley’s assertions of fact once Renai publishes his analysis to the pdf.”
It must be great living in your own little world, far from reality Richard. Did somene say grandiose delusions or narcissism?
BTW how’s that MTM you could have been commissioned to write coming along? More than 67 customer in two years yet? Still blown out the budget by a mere “UPTO (lol)” $15B, even though using existing infrastructure?
*sigh* whatever dude.
Richard – “$3106 (Quigleyp10) x 12.2m (CP12-15p15) = $37.89 ie more than his CP’s total capex ($37.4b) budget”
Qdoc – “In 2013 NBN Co reported that its best estimate of third party construction costs for the FTTP network forareas already underway or completed was $2,600lxix per premises ($1,500 for LNDN and $1,100 for customer connect).”
So the figure you are working with is an adjusted figure to the one that was in the CP12-15. The CP being a best estimate at the time. Not even the best accountant in the world can guess every fluctuation. Also it is entirely possible that with the efforts put in to further streamline the process that $3106 may have reduced by 2015, which was 2 years away from the Actual figures he used. Very possible in fact being that the trend had up until that point been downward.
Richard – “MDUs were service class zero at Quigley’s departure. Sure FTTH, they just didn’t have a workable strategy to actually connect customers (FTTB rejected by Conroy). Optus HFC avoided MDU entirely, Telstra required strata opt in. NBNCo nothing, simply moved on by.”
They didn’t move on by.
CP2012-2015 – “The 2012-15 Corporate Plan incorporates a provision for increased MDU costs relating to the design and cabling of all End-User units inside MDUs, with the following assumptions:
NBN Co will build, at the same time, the Local network and the drop inside the MDU (‘BuildDrop’), from the Network Access Point to the PCD; and NBN Co will need to have a higher degree of engagement with body corporate entities and
undertake site surveys ahead of time, incurring the detailed design and installation costs for the internal cabling of MDUs. ”
Richard – “There’s no demand for 1gbps. A total of 30-something connections to date, all unused. Upgrade cost is not insignificant. CVC charge alone makes the proposition hysterical.”
How would we know the demand? NBN hasn’t allowed anyone to sell it yet?
Oh that’s right we can look overseas.
Qdoc – “AT&T In April 2015 AT&T, the largest Telco in the US, announced it was expanding its FTTP rollout. “Demand is growing for faster broadband speeds than AT&T, or anyone else for that matter, can deliver with FTTN, which cannot match the highest speeds tiers offered by … rivals in the marketplace”
Richard – “I’ll destroy the rest of Quigley’s assertions of fact once Renai publishes his analysis to the pdf.”
Now THATS Hysterical.
Edit – Attributed something to QDOC that was from the CP
If the Labor FTTP rollout was left to run as per usual , as per usual I mean this was what was the norm at the end.
“The National Broadband Network Company has revised its fibre to the premises rollout forecasts dramatically down for the third time in six months, with the company now projecting that only 729,000 premises will be passed by its fibre by the end of June 2014, a little over half of what it was projecting in August 2012.”
I will repeat the key end statement, “a little over half of what it was projecting in August 2012.”
https://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/25/credibility-blown-nbn-co-wildly-revises-targets/
What sort of blowout would we have in the dream of 93% of premises connected to FTTP by 2021?
You could glibly state there would have been zero blowout because the rollout stopped so you can say anything, no one can disprove or prove a unknown.
Apparently only the Coalition MTM has blowouts because that is a known and a massive national construction project that is happening now, with costing available to the Senate committee as it should.
Also ONLY a Coalition NBN Co has blowouts in satellite, wireless and what FTP that they are constructing, a Labor NBN Co would have all of these well in check with zero blowouts because umm they just would.
Also the ‘blowout’ in the FTTN bit is apparently the worst segment of the MTM, but wait there is a solution, if FTTN was substituted with FTTP magic happens and no more blowouts – amazing.
NBN Co may have been forced to revise down its build Targets but what you fail to acknowledge is that NBN Co where on target financially, simply because ALL of its contracts where fixed price and cost overruns where the contractors problem!
But as usual you Lib-Trolls fail to acknowledge that! Simple fact is NBN Co at no stage had to tap into its 20% contingency fund … unlike MtM who has blown its budget by 15 Billion dollars already and halved the contingency fund to 10%.
#LibLogic
#LibFail
Derek O
“NBN Co may have been forced to revise down its build Targets but what you fail to acknowledge is that NBN Co where on target financially, simply because ALL of its contracts where fixed price and cost overruns where the contractors problem!”
First you acknowledge the build targets were revised downward, then you say they were on target financially, well yeah that’s one way to do it, build less by nearly 50% on original estimates!
You also ignored the increase in the funds required financial target.
“Simple fact is NBN Co at no stage had to tap into its 20% contingency fund … ”
Yeah because they stopped building the NBN, there is no way you can predict a 93% of premises FTTP build by 2021 would NEVER have dipped into the contingency fund.
“unlike MtM who has blown its budget by 15 Billion dollars already”
Maybe ‘up to $15 billion’ , oops there goes that deliberate misquote again the ‘up to’ disappears, don’t you and other FTTP supporters have anything statistically substantial unless you misquote in a vain attempt to frantically try and beat it up?
Guess not.
Reality
Can you explain when Turnbull and even NBN claiming a min 50Mbps to 90% when it’s just an “up to” or is that to a deliberate misquote there as well.
But then those 3 revised targets in six months where under the new management so that Turnbull could claim they hit a target.
“Can you explain when Turnbull and even NBN claiming a min 50Mbps to 90% when it’s just an “up to” or is that to a deliberate misquote there as well.”
Because what you are referring to is a 2019 target not 2016, they are obviously are not going to hit the 2016 target, I am not aware they have revised the 2019 target (yet).
” Download speeds of between 25 and 100 megabits per second by the end of 2016 and 50 to 100 megabits per second by 2019.”
http://www.liberal.org.au/fast-affordable-sooner-coalitions-plan-better-nbn
“But then those 3 revised targets in six months where under the new management so that Turnbull could claim they hit a target.”
Yes I know they all do it, the point is that waving a resurrected FTTP Labor plan around is not a magic solution to the Coalition MTM problems, both in regard to rollout speed and cost blowouts.
@alain
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/the-nbn-why-its-slow-expensive-and-obsolete/story-fnjwncel-1227518982203
“The Coalition’s original target was to bring at least 25 Mbps to all 13 million Australian premises by 2016. That target has now been quietly dropped and replaced with a target of more than 50 Mbps to 90% of premises by 2020.”
And what about this for fast paced…
“At the end of July 2015, almost two years after the 2013 election, only 67 premises had been served by multi-technology-mix technologies.”.
Wow what, about what 3 per month…ROFL…and all the grounwork was already done for them by Quigley and Co…ROFL.
But, but, Quigley, but, but back of a napkin, but, but, white elephant… oh i almost forgot shhoy messenger if if his message is factual. because he’s not one of Turnbull’s team…
Keep ’em coming… I await with smirk at the ready…
Popcorn please HC
Reality
NBN CP16
“at least 25 megabits per second
(Mbps) to all premises and at
least 50 Mbps to 90% of fixed line
premises”
now you will notice the word AT LEAST.
Term at least, “at the lowest estimate or figure”
:The repairs will cost at least $100.
An email from NBN about the min and up to
“nbn™ ‘s FTTN services will deliver maximum wholesale speeds to retail services providers of up to 100Mbps (download) and up to 40Mbps (upload). However, speeds actually achieved over the nbn™ network depends on end-users’ copper line length to the cabinet, as well as other factors outside our control like your equipment quality, software, internet plans, the quality of the copper line and how your provider designs its network. nbn expects that around 90% of FTTN end-users will be able to get access to wholesale download speeds of up to 50Mbps.”
So again with the “at least” and “min” of when Turnbull and NBN state it when it’s just an “up to” or is that to a deliberate misquote there as well.
Jason K
I have read that through a few times, could you summarise your point (there must be one in there somewhere) in four lines or less?
“… waving a resurrected FTTP Labor plan around is not a magic solution to the Coalition MTM problems, both in regard to rollout speed and cost blowouts.”
No, waving it around solves nothing. And I completely agree, FTTP is not a magic solution to anything. However, FTTP *is* a solution to the MTM problems, both in rollout speed and cost blowout.
Let’s get back to basics – FTTN is faster to rollout that FTTP because physically pulling the cable through the ground takes time, as does termination and installation of endpoint equipment. The downside to FTTN is the difficulty and complexity of cabinet installation and the vastly more complicated exchange equipment and management systems needed for VDSL2 over GPON. There are also substantial downsides in terms of customer outcomes, which could lead to substantial followup technician time required to ensure minimum performance standards are adhered to, but of course NBN Co have set such a ridiculously low bar here the only way most people will ever have any rectification work performed is if the government steps in and regulates/legislates reasonable minimum standards (like 25mbps minimum sustainable for 24hours).
So, there’s some give and take, but essentially FTTN is faster because you don’t need to replace the cable, but due to other issues there is still substantial time required to get FTTN rolled out.
What happens when you need to replace the copper, though? At what point does FTTN become *more* expensive, when replacing copper is vastly more expensive than pulling fibre? Turnbull has loved trotting out examples where FTTN has cost a quarter what FTTP would have (based on figures provided by companies trying to spruik their own FTTN deployments and make FTTP look worse), but all of those examples have come from countries with vastly greater population density, where the copper originally installed in the ground was of a lower gauge (ie thicker) and where their copper networks were both newer and better maintained. We *know* there are substantial problems with Telstra’s copper, because Telstra have come out and said so. And because we’ve seen bucket loads of examples from ex Telstra techs, too, but we don’t need to focus on anecdotes when Telstra themselves declared their network was falling apart 15 years ago.
And then there’s the node density problem. When you have reasonable population density, you need fewer nodes, because each one is closer to a lot more people. Originally, when this was all spit balling, the LNP said their estimates accounted for somewhere between 50 and 70,000 nodes. The problem is, that means coverage that requires premises to be 8 or 900m from the node. At around 700m with good copper ADSL2+ is a better technology to connect with, providing greater performance. Early rollout zones are reporting that node density is such that no premises are greater than 300m from each node. Now, we don’t know exactly how they’re designing it because NBN Co and the LNP are being utterly opaque about it, but part of the reason for that complete lack of transparency and honesty is the inconvenient fact that by increasing node density to that level it will take somewhere between 2 and 300,000 nodes to complete the network. Can you imagine the blowout in both time and cost that would have? It’s astronomical.
So, FTTN is faster to rollout *if* you hardly have to replace any copper *and* node density meets the original pipe dream estimates, that are comparable to the international examples cited by Turnbull. The problem is, neither of those is true. The question isn’t whether or not they’re true, it’s just how untrue are they?
As for cost, the same arguments apply – it is only cheaper if node density is low enough and the copper cable is of sufficient quality that it doesn’t need replacing.
You also need to remember that the FTTP rollout will ramp up and proceed rapidly because the task is easily repeatable, so you get vast economies of scale as teams gain experience and engineers become familiar with the equipment – NBN Co had numerous public statements reporting that both cost and time frame were falling as efficiencies were found during installation testing and early rollout.
FTTN will improve slightly based on economies of scale, but because every brownfields area is different, with its own set of issues, that will necessarily slow things down – FTTN cabinets are not ‘set and forget’, they require substantial testing to deploy and then for every connection. FTTP suffers no such problems – you either get an optical signal at the requisite quality or you don’t, and there’s no hunting for issues partway down the cable. That side of things is vastly quicker.
So you’re relying on statements made by politicians claiming it will be faster to deploy and cheaper, that have been followed up with precisely zero facts in more than two years, where we know the criteria required for those claims to bear out is tenuous in the first place, where we have evidence trickling in that suggests those assumptions to be badly flawed, and you consider that to be a strong platform on which to Base your argument? Seriously?
So, I hope you can see, at this point, how FTTP can be faster to deploy and cheaper than FTTN, because that’s how the facts and the modelling stack up, because the alternative argument is not a technical one, it is a political claim backed up by no evidence.
And that’s without even discussing ROI, the competitive environment and operational costs… ;-)
So you complain about us saying a blowout of $56B when its an upto
But when Turnbull and NBN say min atleast to deliveran upto you dont complain
I didn’t know 26Mbps was the new “MIN” AT LEAST” for 50Mbps to 90%
Permission to partake in the eating of popcorn granted :-)
LOL Reality
Here this might help
for the current MTM and Scenario 2 has a taxpayer cap funding of just $29.5B (Scenario 1 cap funding is $30.4B)
Peak funding for MTM is $56B (not going to say up to since we have Turnbull claiming Min 50Mbps when its an up to)
Scenario 2 has a peak funding of $64B
Jason
“Peak funding for MTM is $56B ‘
No it’s not, it’s ‘up to’, you changing their published statement on the funding change because you and others are really scratching hard to make a point proves nothing , so any figure you provide to support FTTP I can change it can I, because I need to make a point – jeez that makes argument easy, you just deliberately misquote figures.
How about I use that technique of dropping ‘up to’ when estimating peak funding for the original FTTP rollout from the latest NBN strategic review.
Peak funding for the FTTP model is estimated to be $84b, with a completion date of 2028.
ok by you?
(“not going to say up to since we have Turnbull claiming Min 50Mbps when its an up to)”
umm what?, where are you getting this ‘up to 50 Mbps’ statement from in the context of the Coalition MTM rollout and targeted speeds?
“Peak funding for the FTTP model is estimated to be $84b, with a completion date of 2028.”
According to who?
Regardless, this is where I could enter your childish world of pedantic argumentative BS and argue, how can that model be estimated at $84B upon completion, when it has been halted and ergo, will never be completed? That’s pure conjecture.
Or better still…
As you did with Quigley’s estimations, just refute them because “they weren’t set in stone they were only estimations”…ROFL
Umm yes like everything yet built, but eh, that didn’t matter to you… :/
The complete flip flopping from one extreme to the other is breathtaking, even for you alain.
*golfclap*
Again little wonder you are the undisputed champion of Delimiter bannings.
Reality
you make it so easy
“Peak funding for the FTTP model is estimated to be $84b, with a completion date of 2028.”
Now that funding model is if they stop MTM now and start FTTP again which will give it all the cost blow outs of MTM so far $15B (lol) and delay to the roll out making it y28 (eg 2 years delay switching to MTM then another 2 year switching back to FTTP). Morrow said that at the last hearing
Now if we look at scenario 2 of the SR had they CONTINUED could have been done with peak funding of $64B only $8B more than MTM. But now we are stuck with this dog breakfast and the complete fail of it.
The coalition claim to beable to deliver a MIN 50Mbps to 90% and a MIN 25Mbps to all. So here is a quest for you Reality i am just asking one company that are offering a min or at least 25Mbps or even a min or at least 50Mbps. If you can find one company offering a min on HFC or FTTN then i will start to write UP TO $56B until then i will still just say $56B while you still clutch at straws
Rizz can you pass the popcorn
Didn’t the way that premises pass change in definition, and thus disqualify a considerable amount of in-build? Also fixed cost contracts, sir.
I find it hilarious that you could claim the labor government botched NBN, and yet MTM is somehow working out swimmingly.
Yes, there were issues; but to point this out and ignore the ongoing haemorrhaging that is happening now, is beyond partisan; it’s patently just myopic bullshit. :)
+1
@bb new nbnco management returned to the original CP (aka Quigley) definition of premises passed. They actually publish both figures for comparision.
i’m certainly not ignoring either past or present failures. I’ve been pointing them out since the first AR to the denial of many familar names here. Many more failures to come for this policy folly.
Why would they publish both figures if they do that then Turnbull cant make his outrages claim.
BS Richard you have bagged FttP, Quigley and the previous government endlessly and when ridiculed for doing so, to attempt to show some sort of basic impartiality you played the libertarian card and said all governments suck, so both NBNs suck…(even the one I could have been commissioned to write – ahem)
…. but the Rudd/Gillard most dysfunctional government(s) since Whitlam and FttP suck heaps more…
So please.
Your Zealotry is showing Reality.
“Also ONLY a Coalition NBN Co has blowouts in satellite, wireless and what FTP that they are constructing, a Labor NBN Co would have all of these well in check with zero blowouts because umm they just would.”
No one here is saying that there wouldn’t be blowouts. In fact most of us all agree that any project, private or government usually has some sort of Blowout. That’s because unexpected things happen in Projects. Its part of why you need project managers.
Nooo. You’ve got the stick by the wrong end. FTTP *was* substituted by FTTN ‘magic’. Magical FTTN which was claimed to be a quarter the cost, but based on the LNP’s own figures prior to implementation only made a $1bn difference overall. Which also assumed a node density amounting to 50 to 70,000 nodes (depending on which stooge you got a quote from) but that could only be possible with nodes at 800+m from premises. Halving the distance increases the number of nodes by a factor of four, which blows FTTN costs out of the water – I wonder where that extra $15bn is coming from?
No, replacing the replacement FTTN sabotage with FTTP won’t magically fix everything – far too much structural damage has been done to NBN Co and contracts that are now binding and the competitive market. But scrapping FTTN and going back to FTTP would, eventually, be more cost effective. Yes, unfortunately it would be a possible blowout of more than $10bn over what the NBN should have cost thanks to industrustrial sabotage on a national basis, but long term not having to purchase and deploy several hundred thousand FTTN cabinets, not having to power them, not having to remediate tens of thousands of kms of copper and, you know, not having to build a full fibre network right after finishing the stupid copper upgrade will be far more cost effective. Yes, it will take time to train contractors (again), get deployment up to speed (again) and hit the kinds of economies of scale that would see the price per premises drop to its lowest level, but anything at this scale takes time. Which is just one of the reasons Turnbull’s claims were just so utterly ridiculous.
You keep going on about the FTTP rollout being far higher than projected costs and taking far longer to get there. But this argument has been pretty exhaustively refuted. If you examine both the rollout time frame and the cost per premises, both follow a curve that was very similar to projections, just shifted to the right due to delays. And what caused those delays? Well, the LNP stalled requisite legislation for 9 months. Telstra delayed negotiations for 18 months. Telstra failed to disclose either the extent of asbestos in their pits and ducts or how much remediation was required, nor did they actually get on with that remediation until NBN Co were physically working in the pits, delaying the project by a further 6 to 12 months. Failure of major contractors threw a huge spanner in the works, despite financial penalties they had to wear. Could the contractors have been handled better? Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean NBN Co were incompetent in they way they set things up, contacted out to private industry and tried to involve the private sector as much as possible.
But overall, the project *was* broadly on track and budget – over the life of the project, that delay would have all but vanished as a proportion of total rollout. Cost per premises was falling as the deployment picked up pace, as planned. Increases in overall cost were so small they fell well within the $4bn contingency.
Seriously, you keep trying to bandy about figures but the reality is the only verifiable numbers we have are those published under the original NBN Co – since then we have nothing but rubbery totals and redacted figures and zero independent auditing. Remember, original NBN Co was frequently audited by completely independent teams. The only audits since then have been rubber stamping efforts performed by political appointees with vested interests and published ideology actively hostile to both Labor and the original NBN. You want to talk figures? No one has any problem with that, but you need *real* figures to discuss, not fairytale fiction. We’re busy people concerned with facts and what is happening on the real world – when you want to have an adult discussion based on verifiable facts, come back and talk to us. But otherwise, we don’t need your unhinged foaming-at-the-mouth tantrums, so take them somewhere else, mmkay?
+1
Great post UninvitedGuest +1
+1
That must be one of he top comments here. Precise, to the point and factual. No fanboy insults or other personal attacks necessary……..just the truth!!! Well done……..
Alfred
Thanks Alfred, HC & Rizz, glad it was appreciated :-) Not bad for tapping away on my phone, compared to certain others with their multiple screens, backgrounding and astroturfing budgets behind them ;-) Just goes to show, no matter how complex and impressive an argument might sound, what it really boils down to are the key facts…
At the risk of waffling on, certain people spend a lot of time shooting complex arguments full of references into the void, a scattergun of impressive sounding misinformation. Unfortunately it is only the efforts of well informed, well intentioned, mostly anonymous Internet commenters (not a word, but it fits) holding these astroturfers to account based on hard facts that stop them from having a serious impact on the minds of readers. Left unchallenged their arguments seem perfectly plausible and even well informed to 99.9% of the public.
So as frustrating and as pointless as it may seem ‘wasting’ time refuting the toxic partisan misinformation churned out tirelessly by these (probably well funded) keyboard abusers, you may actually be helping to change people’s minds, or stop them from being changed, which is as good as. Just think – if you have a meaningful impact on the opinion of just one person, how many people might that person help to change the minds of, armed with their new knowledge? That’s precisely what the astroturfers are aiming for, and what they’ll achieve if left to their own devices.
I do feel extremely self-conscious typing this – I don’t have any delusions that my impact is anything but incredibly low. But a thousand times I’ve got halfway through writing something on a forum somewhere, feeling like it’s pointless, and then I remember that if I help just one person, then it has been worth my time.
So today I had three people take the time to agree with what I wrote. Three people, perhaps, who already agreed, but nonetheless the praise makes it more than worthwhile. So thanks, I’ll keep chipping away at the lies and the fraud with my pickaxe of choice – well-reasoned argument.
Keep up the good work work UG, many more ppl read your posts and appreciate them than you realise.
Keep it up UG!
Consider yourself well and truly invited :)
+1 to Derek.
Kudo’s give it all you got
How many years and changes to policy have to go by before the fault actually gets shifted to the Coalition?
If the Coalition win the next election next year, can we then start blaming NBN failures on them? (Don’t answer that, because I know your answer is going to be “LABORS FAULT LABORS FAULT”)
At some point, the Coalition and their NBN Management team have to start taking responsibility.
Just on a tangent here…
By contrast when the Republicans in the US won the Senate elections a year ago, a day or two later, economic data was released showing the US economy was improving.
The Republicans said it was the positive sentiment from their election win that did it.
I’m sure the government of “adults” will start taking responsibility any day now…
“Apparently only the Coalition MTM has blowouts…”
FFS alain, your pedantry is so childish.
Everyone here that I have read, acknowledges the original FttP was behind schedule, beadue it was (this is a fact). So your typical ploy of but they won’t work here…
Now that we have that out of the way, what about the relevant FACT now… how far behind MTM is and the UPTO (lol) $15B blow out, to $56B.
Remembering a fully costed $29B plan (so it’s almost doubled) of 25mbps-50mbps was promised to all Australian households by 2016.
MASSIVE FAIL. FttP was cruising in comparison, slightly behind their own aggressive targets (and just ignore all of that factors) but still on budget.
Oh BTW those aggressive target were from Mike Quigley, who rather than do as Morrow & Co and attempt to make targets so easily attainable that it’s not possible to miss (but yet) made aggressive target because he didn’t see the point in not striving to do better.
Striving to do better – obviously a philosophy beyond the 1950’s copper throwbacks (well after all it a 4 word slogan, way too many words)…
Thanks for popping in…
Please give them a chance. At least wait 423 days before making this pronouncement.
Fair enough HC…
Although since we are dealing with the cyclopic pedantic one (again nicely spotted), I’ll again state a fact just for him.
The thousands of Australian households in my area and others just like it, who were programmed to have had FttP by now (even allowing for hold-ups) but were taken off the FttP roll out list, yet still await FttN, are actual proof that FttN is not quicker to roll out to “all Australians”.
And by doing sums ala our other friend from ZD (cherrypick those that suit), by taking Quigley’s FttP cost and NBN’s FttN/MtM costs, the alternative to FttP is no cheaper either.
:0
“You could glibly state there would have been zero blowout because the rollout stopped so you can say anything, no one can disprove or prove a unknown.”
Or you could be a dang fool and claim that the targets weren’t missed because the rollouts were stopped and blame it on something else.
Do you know what ‘rollout stopped’ even means?
Let us compare and contrast between mtm rollout target of: all premises in the footprint will get 25megabits by 2016, to nbncos targets shall we?
Well sure we can postulate about potential delays for the FTTP. Or we can see the actual delays that have occurred with the MTM.
When were we supposed to have 25mbps again? Oh sorry let me clarify that, Up to 25mbps?
The REALITY is the only rollouts that occurred since the management changed were the ones that the previous NBN management had put in place to occur.
Can anyone point out the definitive argument that a NBN FTTP to 93% of residences in Australia by 2021 by purchasing and rolling out all new fibre infrastructure all the way to inside the residence equals or is only slightly more costly than the Coalition NBN fixed line MTM plan that is underpinned to a large extent by using existing fixed line infrastructure at 72% (HFC + FTTN/B)?
Well i already showed you the cost of the taxpayer is less than $1B
You are very very careful in your choice of words in describing the $1b difference, ‘cost of the taxpayer’ , how have you calculated that difference?
Do we really have to go through this again labor cap funding was $30.4B Turnbulls cap funding is $29.5B
Yes I thought that is why you selectively picked the Government Equity cap figures, of course the majority of the cost blowout of either rollout will be funded out of borrowing reflected in increased required funding figures, or dipping into the contingency fund, the equity cap remains static.
The Government equity cap in no way reflects the actual cost of what the respective rollout actually ends up being as it progresses, and it is definitely not the definitive argument that FTTP to 93% is only $1b more than a Coalition fixed line MTM.
Reality
If we use Turnbull own SR because the CP16 states
“Management and the Board have not taken
a view on assumptions beyond that time, and no
better estimates exist than the assumptions applied
in the Strategic Review dated December 2013.”
So senario 2 from the SR is only $8B more and complete y23
Reallity if the NBN Co has (well had now) an 8% ROI it ultimately doesn’t matter what the big number is that gets raised by borrowing.
Under MTM a shakey 2% ROI should have you very worried, especially given the timelines involved.
Jason K
Wow the difference moves around all the time it was $1B and now it’s $8B (does $1B still apply or have you dropped that one?) and another poster here:
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/11/02/turnbulls-nbn-blowout-caused-by-mtm-says-quigley/#li-comment-705454
says it’s $20B.
So are you wrong twice or once and he is right, or are you both wrong, and the figure is something else altogether?
Stay tuned.
So your plan of attack here is to ask a question, develop a problem with the answer and then when another answer is given to counteract your problem, you develop a problem with the way the two answers differed?
Flawless.
Hotcakes
Well perhaps you can answer which ‘difference’ is the correct one then, $1B, $8B or $20B or none of them, or do we average them and the figure is $9.3B?
Exactly right Hotcakes…It’s classic alain all over.
When he doesn’t have any facts in his favour (i.e. pretty much all of the time) he just FUD’s everything up.
Get used to it, it won’t improve…
Wait until you a supply a multi-paged doc to completely disprove him and his position. Yet in the face of all common sense he’ll hone in on just one word to argue over and do as he has done above.
Welcome to the strange world of the illogically ideological.
@Reality, the $1Bn difference is referring to the Funding Cap from Taxpayers.
Any other difference after that is largely irrelevant as the project, using either method, is going to produce a return on investment, yet only FTTP will be able to provide that return for decades to come.
Hotcakes, welcome to our world. Also I no longer envy you ;-)
Simon M
“Reallity if the NBN Co has (well had now) an 8% ROI it ultimately doesn’t matter what the big number is that gets raised by borrowing.”
I like how a FTTP ROI gets rounded up, it was actually 7%, but a obsolete figure in 2015.
“Under MTM a shakey 2% ROI should have you very worried, especially given the timelines involved.”
…and of course the MTM figure is rounded down to a ‘shaky 2%’, it is estimated to be in the range 2.7 -3.5%., and is a current 2015 revised estimate.
So what’s the 2015 revised timeline for a FTTP rollout and at what cost, and why is a ROI 7% locked in forever never to be revised?
R0ninX3ph
“@Reality, the $1Bn difference is referring to the Funding Cap from Taxpayers.”
Yes I know, that’s what I said.
” yet only FTTP will be able to provide that return for decades to come.”
So a large telco like British Telecom is getting less a return on their investment in FTTN than FTTP even though they stated the FTTN rollout cost them less than FTTP and was faster to deploy?
Wow alain…
UPTO 3.5% ROI on 67 customers FTW…
Well you start with your definitive argument as to why you believe FttN/MTM with all the costly add ons to increase speeds, all the added maintenance costs, electricity costs, new copper, and the one you guys love to overlook, the lesser increase to GDP with lesser speeds, which Richard kindly supplied data for us (LOL), to prove your point and we’ll go from there eh?
Because as we see, you like to ask, but don’t seem to like to hear the factual answers and you certainly don’t like to answer anything of substance yourself. Especially since that early faux pas (and subsequent rap on the knuckles, one would assume) when you said the FttP NBN couldn’t help but be a success because it was a monopoly.
Of course you were told NEVER say NBN and success in the one sentence again… well until now.
So again I await your pearls of wisdom, thank you.
I wrote this above, but you seem to have missed it…
“… waving a resurrected FTTP Labor plan around is not a magic solution to the Coalition MTM problems, both in regard to rollout speed and cost blowouts.”
No, waving it around solves nothing. And I completely agree, FTTP is not a magic solution to anything. However, FTTP *is* a solution to the MTM problems, both in rollout speed and cost blowout.
Let’s get back to basics – FTTN is faster to rollout that FTTP because physically pulling the cable through the ground takes time, as does termination and installation of endpoint equipment. The downside to FTTN is the difficulty and complexity of cabinet installation and the vastly more complicated exchange equipment and management systems needed for VDSL2 over GPON. There are also substantial downsides in terms of customer outcomes, which could lead to substantial followup technician time required to ensure minimum performance standards are adhered to, but of course NBN Co have set such a ridiculously low bar here the only way most people will ever have any rectification work performed is if the government steps in and regulates/legislates reasonable minimum standards (like 25mbps minimum sustainable for 24hours).
So, there’s some give and take, but essentially FTTN is faster because you don’t need to replace the cable, but due to other issues there is still substantial time required to get FTTN rolled out.
What happens when you need to replace the copper, though? At what point does FTTN become *more* expensive, when replacing copper is vastly more expensive than pulling fibre? Turnbull has loved trotting out examples where FTTN has cost a quarter what FTTP would have (based on figures provided by companies trying to spruik their own FTTN deployments and make FTTP look worse), but all of those examples have come from countries with vastly greater population density, where the copper originally installed in the ground was of a lower gauge (ie thicker) and where their copper networks were both newer and better maintained. We *know* there are substantial problems with Telstra’s copper, because Telstra have come out and said so. And because we’ve seen bucket loads of examples from ex Telstra techs, too, but we don’t need to focus on anecdotes when Telstra themselves declared their network was falling apart 15 years ago.
And then there’s the node density problem. When you have reasonable population density, you need fewer nodes, because each one is closer to a lot more people. Originally, when this was all spit balling, the LNP said their estimates accounted for somewhere between 50 and 70,000 nodes. The problem is, that means coverage that requires premises to be 8 or 900m from the node. At around 700m with good copper ADSL2+ is a better technology to connect with, providing greater performance. Early rollout zones are reporting that node density is such that no premises are greater than 300m from each node. Now, we don’t know exactly how they’re designing it because NBN Co and the LNP are being utterly opaque about it, but part of the reason for that complete lack of transparency and honesty is the inconvenient fact that by increasing node density to that level it will take somewhere between 2 and 300,000 nodes to complete the network. Can you imagine the blowout in both time and cost that would have? It’s astronomical.
So, FTTN is faster to rollout *if* you hardly have to replace any copper *and* node density meets the original pipe dream estimates, that are comparable to the international examples cited by Turnbull. The problem is, neither of those is true. The question isn’t whether or not they’re true, it’s just how untrue are they?
As for cost, the same arguments apply – it is only cheaper if node density is low enough and the copper cable is of sufficient quality that it doesn’t need replacing.
You also need to remember that the FTTP rollout will ramp up and proceed rapidly because the task is easily repeatable, so you get vast economies of scale as teams gain experience and engineers become familiar with the equipment – NBN Co had numerous public statements reporting that both cost and time frame were falling as efficiencies were found during installation testing and early rollout.
FTTN will improve slightly based on economies of scale, but because every brownfields area is different, with its own set of issues, that will necessarily slow things down – FTTN cabinets are not ‘set and forget’, they require substantial testing to deploy and then for every connection. FTTP suffers no such problems – you either get an optical signal at the requisite quality or you don’t, and there’s no hunting for issues partway down the cable. That side of things is vastly quicker.
So you’re relying on statements made by politicians claiming it will be faster to deploy and cheaper, that have been followed up with precisely zero facts in more than two years, where we know the criteria required for those claims to bear out is tenuous in the first place, where we have evidence trickling in that suggests those assumptions to be badly flawed, and you consider that to be a strong platform on which to Base your argument? Seriously?
So, I hope you can see, at this point, how FTTP can be faster to deploy and cheaper than FTTN, because that’s how the facts and the modelling stack up, because the alternative argument is not a technical one, it is a political claim backed up by no evidence.
And that’s without even discussing ROI, the competitive environment and operational costs… ;-)
Excellent comment :-)
UninvitedGuest
Yes I read your two extraordinarily lengthy explanations trying to see some actual figures, not conjecture based theory that proved your point, but they are missing in action.
So what we need to do is go to a large Telco that has real world experience over many years of rolling out both FTTN and FTTP, that is we don’t theorise about what MIGHT happen but see what ACTUALLY happened.
“the mixed-technology rollout of superfast broadband in Britain had allowed the company in five years to pass 85 per cent of the population of which 19 per cent had now signed up services with BT.
“We have invested £3 billion ($5.9bn) but to do FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) it would have been ten times that and the speed of deployment would have been at 10 per cent at this point,”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/nbn-co-unites-with-british-telecom-on-secrets-of-speed/story-e6frgakx-1227368826268
Now what you and others need to prove is why that real world experience and the figures stated are incorrect and why you cannot apply it to a FTTN/B/FTTP based MTM rollout here in Australia.
Still awaiting your view rather than you continually asking of others with the sole aim of then FUDding and arguing over every word they say…
Verizon (who own both a Copper PSTN & HFC) passed 19.8 million homes in less than 15 years with 10 million of those actively using their FiOS service. They’ve repeatedly tried to get users off the old copper networks due to the high cost of maintenance …. that says it all really!!!
http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/new-ip/verizon-saves-60–swapping-copper-for-fiber/d/d-id/715826
Oh look, 60% lower OpEx costs for Fibre from a real telco!!!
Derek O
That’s getting users off their POTS (PSTN) network onto their fibre network.
“The second was to migrate subscribers off copper and on to fiber, a sometimes formidable challenge with those who wanted to keep their POTS around awhile longer, which would necessitate keeping the entire copper network up and running. ”
The Coalition (and Labor) plan is to get residences off a total POTS network as well, either FTTN/B, HFC or FTTP so how does that relate to this discussion about comparative costs and speed of deployment of FTTN vs FTTP?
Well of course they want to get customers off the PSTN, the copper maintenance bill is 60% higher than the fibre maintenance bill – try comprehending the point next time!
The bulk of the maintenance is in the last mile!
Still demanding ‘figures’ when your plan of attack here is to ask for them, develop a problem with them and then when clarifications are given to counteract your problem, you develop a problem with the way the two figures differed?
Flawless.
“of course the majority of the cost blowout of either rollout will be funded out of borrowing”
So much for debt crisis eh?
Funny how the alain commentary has again done a 180… when we tried to explain the borrowing scenario to him many moons ago, good old alain didn’t want to hear about it (much like the stuff we’re telling him now)… but now, he’s using it…?
So give him time, at least he is learning… if only out of desperation to keep flying the flag.
Rizz don’t forget the $11 billion gifted to Telstra courtesy of the sucker taxpayers.
Ah yes of course HC…
It’s been “fixed” since MTM was negotiated, it’s only umm, err, now $11B…
+ $1B p.a copper maintenance (give/take)
+ new copper
+ new costly copper g.fast add ons ($?)
+ HFC maintenance ($?)
+ HFC upgrades (DOCSIS $?)
+ while were at it we’ll just let good old Rupe and Telstra continue to use the taxpayer upgraded HFC to profit from…
Yes a much better result for us taxpayers now HC.
Oh wait…
Rizz
You forgot the remediation of the ducts and pits which was originally the responsibility of Telstra
+1
And the asbestos problem, strangely both of those aspects were Telstra’s responsibility at their cost and part of the $11Bill, they apparently allocated $2Bill for it, then found out that was just a drop in the bucket (It had been part of the remit that one of NBN’s brilliant current leaders had been responsible for along with the copper, no wonder they were tardy with remediation and managed to put a halt to rollout for 6 months prior to the election.
Telstra will still be doing the work , but will now be paid by NBN on a cost + basis.
Talk about a scam
Comments are closed.