Devil’s Advocate: What if the MTM NBN actually turns out to be great?

94


This article was originally published for Delimiter Members only. In late September 2016, Delimiter ceased publishing new articles. Because of a number of operational and other factors associated with this decision, we subsequently withdrew membership articles from publication. If you would like to see a copy of this article, please contact Delimiter directly with your request. Requests by Delimiter Members will be granted. We will consider all other requests on their merits.


94 COMMENTS

  1. Also on Telstra HFC here, and, yes, it’s been pretty reliable for the past 10-12 years I’ve had it. Upload speeds suck, as does download speed during peak periods.

    Using HFC as a bridge to a full FTTP rollout is not that bad an idea, especially if you can increase upload speeds and contention ratios. Relatively limited infill to the HFC network (to cover those premises skipped by the original rollout) isn’t such a bad idea, either. Definitely not preferable to a full fibre rollout, but I really wouldn’t have minded if the NBN had been prioritised to areas that didn’t have HFC coverage, provided the HFC was on an equal footing w.r.t. price & service. After you’ve finished rolling out fast broadband to people who don’t currently have it, then come back and overbuild the HFC with FTTP.

    But the FTTN part of the MTM is a bad idea, IMHO, for reasons I suspect most readers here are quite familiar with. :-)

    • I think FttN is a good stepping stone for the owner of a network to get to FttH.

      I’m looking forward to getting it soon (a new cabinet has just been installed today 5 houses down the street.)

      Buying several old networks, then attempting to retrofit them all together just seems silly.

      • But it’s not a stepping stone to FTTP, that cabinet in your street and tens of thousands like it are not required for FTTP.

        Unlike copper phone based technologies, fibre (depending on the version of GPON used) works from 14 to 40 kilometres line lengths meaning you need a hell of a lot less cabinets.

  2. Off course just about anything is better than ADSL. I live in a area that offers both (ADSL/HFC). I also live within 1.5 kilometres of the exchange. The ADSL, in any form, is terrible. I returned to Telstra HFC because off the poor ADSL. I pay the $$$ for the high speed and large data plan. To date it has been my best Telstra experience so far (still not as good as it should be, but best so far).

    The MTM brings inequity for most, in performance and price and benefits for those that can pay more or as a result of your geographic location, you get the better technology. It is not looking cheaper to build or providing more coverage/connectivity, to all Australians.

    The MTM runs a big risk of creating poor suburbs/locations/disadvantage and greater economic inequities, due to location (where you live) in this great big island.

    The MTM is risky, not just technology wise. In its current form it has the potential of being very divisive and destructive, socially.

  3. FTTN’s massive and inescapable flaw is that it -cannot- deliver a uniform service to all users.

    I know in my DA there are streets at least 1km from the local node and as far as the techs doing the install knew there was nothing special planned for them, they were connected to the node like everyone else. In the DA next to mine there is an entire street up the back, which according to nbn’s maps misses out completely. I can only hope that is an error in the mapping data.

    We’ll find out next year once we’re ready for service, but at the moment it’s looking like my area is going to be have users on everything from 100Mbps down to ~10Mbps speeds.

  4. What if the MTM NBN actually turns out to be great?

    If someone posed this question to me I’d ask when, for how long, for who and which parts?

    The FttP parts already built will be great.

    The rest not so much in particular FttN

    Data requirements ever increasing, it might be “great” for a while and for a few but it’s “greatness” and honey moon period will be short lived. Even GimpCo themselves admit this much by hyping g.fast, another sloppy solution to fix a sloppy solution. People will eventually wake up (even a few fo the dumbasses) and say “Is this it? Ok, what solution do you have for the next 10 years?” (copper zealots and/or turnbull apologists of the time will say “give g.fast and fttdp a chance” and everyone else will say “told you so, should have done it properly with FttP the first time”) Until then everyone else will have to deal with the uncertainly and lack of consistent upload speeds until the whole network is fixed properly with FttP, which will now happen later than it should have due to coalition clown incompetence with politically motivated agendas. Lack of plan to FttP end goal one of it’s biggest flaws. Those needing faster upload speeds than FttN can provide will also be subject to the FoD nightmare that GimpCo have deliberately made difficult to ensure “no one wants faster speeds” is a self fulfilling prophecy too. Yep, it’ll be gr8 m8.

    • If visionary and crash through NBN had not been an “arthritic snail”, the then opposition in 2013 wouldn’t have been able to argue an nbn as a sooner, cheaper and fast enough alternative.
      Certainly whacking Opel Networks DSL/ WiMAX in 2008, or Telstra FTTN in 2005 meant the fed gov needed to try something different. (I’ve enjoyed many an article that contrasted the difference in approach between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, France, …)

      Greenfields fibre, tick.

      More wireless for regional and beyond Australia given population density, tick. How come it took to 2015 to put the first nbn/ NBN Ka-band satellite up, given NBN was announced in 2007? Especially when limited (48K premises, actual 32K?) and capped (50 GB) nbn/ NBN ISS seems to have lotsa congestion issues, and the demand seems to go as high as 400K premises?
      With regards to brownfields, HFC/ FTTx, when Telstra redid South Brisbane in the 2010s, it put in fibre (and GPON will go 10G/ NG/ PON2).
      Surprised the ACCC let HFC and copper both be transferred to nbn/ NBN, seems like an all eggs in one basket approach to a newish PMG mk2/ lite. Moving on more wholesale for nbn/ NBN like speeds however does make sense to me.
      TPG FTTB/ VDSL2 at 50 to 100/ 20 Mbps for multi-user dwellings seems feasible, and if not the risk is not on the taxpayer. Even if some liken it to cherry picking.
      Similarly surprised regional vs metro didn’t get treated differently (just compare the mynbn.info projections on FTTx, say between Redfern near Sydney (median 71.51 Mbps (length 176.3 meters), at least 50 Mbps for 88.74%) or Tamworth (median 45.04 Mbps (length 353.4 meters), at least 50 Mbps for 40.51%).
      Fttx/ FttDP/ etc at least put fibre further into the network. Either nbn/ NBN’s DG or Alcatel-Lucent seem to be positioning G.Fast after 5 to 10 years of VDSL2, and 100/ 40 Mbps up to 400 meters subject to …
      Upgrading HFC cables seems to be running up against utility pole limitations, rather than those of exchange space or DOCSIS3.1?
      Technologies change, be it wired or wireless, I would not be at all surprised if from 2020, VDSL2/ G.Fast portions will be replaced either by aerial fibre, or wireless.
      Chances are HFC will by then have been spun off (nbn/ NBN taxpayer equity, debt from markets, …).

      Right now, if all you do is call/ browse/ txt or email, right now 4G seems faster than Fttx or HFC?

      Besides OECD policy advise has for a while now focused on regulatory reform, competition for infrastructure and services, besides neutrality of technology.

      • “How come it took to 2015 to put the first nbn/ NBN Ka-band satellite up, given NBN was announced in 2007? Especially when limited (48K premises, actual 32K?) and capped (50 GB) nbn/ NBN ISS seems to have lotsa congestion issues, and the demand seems to go as high as 400K premises?”

        Putting things in space is expensive,risky and very hard to do (assuming you want more than just a paper weight up there). Getting them to work after surviving launch or just flat out work whilst up there even moreso. I doubt you’ll find anyone that actually knows how to build a satellite that thinks NBN Co screwed up there (they or Labor buggered up in plenty of other situations).

        Also there’s 2 satellites (take about a year for first to be online and operational at full capacity by the sounds and probably similar to the 2nd once its up there).

        “More wireless for regional and beyond Australia given population density, tick. ”
        93% wasn’t the original coverage figure it was smaller than that with a bigger wireless/satellite. Turns out it was cheaper than originally thought such that one could get to 93% before costs started spiralling upwards.

        The idea of also covering 93% was that when it’d paid itself off then you could start covering the remaining 7% with fibre subsidised by those in the metro area’s. (We’d never hit 100% but heck any extra folk on fixed line alleviates the congestion on wireless).

        “Technologies change, be it wired or wireless, I would not be at all surprised if from 2020, VDSL2/ G.Fast portions will be replaced either by aerial fibre, or wireless.”

        I would. There simply isn’t the bandwidth for wireless to work (short of some outstanding new piece of science discovery). If the fibre cables already that close under ground then there’s little need to suddenly go aerial (that won’t change the costs that much at that point … visiting the premise to install several pieces of equipment will be the biggest hit).

  5. Not sure if you can punt Australia’s largest infrastructure program which costs multi-a-billions to a “what if?”
    :)

  6. MTM and its Cu is inequitable, distance and line conditions will determine what you will get. If you want more you can’t pay for it as its not physically possible.

    Will it work? yes of course there’s no real reason for half the world to have ever gone down that route if it didn’t. It just won’t work anywhere near as well as the fibre alternative will and its simply hideously outclassed currently let alone projecting into the future. Cu methods that only work in lab conditions don’t even come remotely close to real world deployment of fibre.

    Issue is best case currently we’ll have a company that will spend $46 billion and need a return on that before it can look at realistically upgrading anything unless it wants to write off large portions of brand new (2nd hand) infrastructure as a loss. This company has bought those assets today at a cost and the time to recoup isn’t small. That wouldn’t matter if the Cu was the future for next 10-20 years but it isn’t everyone and anyone says fibre is the ultimate goal and that is touted at lasting well past 50 years from now.

    So the issue with the current method is we are doing things twice to ultimately reach the same destination and if history of this fair country serves as a warning its going to cost more than double to do it that way (ie twice). We’re going to have to ultimately visit 93% of the premises in Australia to install all that equipment and pay those wages (its the wages which will vastly increase the costs too just look at construction/roads etc).

    If we’d owned the Cu assets and already recouped their costs then upgrades would make more sense and more importantly would have been completed by now! That interim step will have been valid.

    The difference between both methods (even taking worst case scenarios) ends up meaning it doesn’t matter what fibre ultimately costs if its generating a larger return because currently its at the same stage as copper was back in the 1890’s. Its going to be around for the next 50 years so if it takes half that long to completely repay itself then what is the issue? Is this not a nation building exercise? Defence contracts to build up our defence take 20-25 years to complete (whilst being a complete net loss)!!

    Secondly fibre solves the distance problem that plagues Australia. You’re suddenly able to get equitable access to 93% of the country (reliably and stably). We have a lot of outlying suburbs where distances are measured in km …. 800m FttN isn’t very good at managing that.

    Want an even bigger kicker! That last 7% would be able to be upgraded far sooner to a fixed line rollout than its going to be under the Cu and MTM. I don’t think we’d ever hit 100% but aspiring to get close would at least be possible!

    What if the Snowy river mountain scheme was never built? what about the Harbour Bridge? How about we go back to black and white TV since it took us what 20 years to make the switch (that was obviously too quick).

  7. Even in the best case scenarios for the MTM we will still be an eccentric backwater while the rest of the world rolls out faster internet such as FTTP. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics will be a major before and after moment for internet and virtual reality technology. We will know by then if we have become a 19th century, low tech backwater that may as well be using dial up.

    The above doesn’t really answer the ‘what if’ question. But I can’t ask that because I cannot create an outcome where the MTM works and “turns out to be great”. Barely acceptable for the moment? Maybe. But it cannot be good or great.

  8. At as much as $56B, it’d wanna be great…IMO.

    Unfortunately so far, with cost and timeframe blow outs and seemingly daily issues of magnitude, to be kind, MTM is currently unsatisfactory and to be more realistic, MTM is a complete fuck up, aptly dubbed fraudband by those now promoting and rolling out, the very same fraudband.

    In comparison… the original, from the back of a napkin [sic] FttP network built up to what was NBNCo circa mid 2013, even with obvious teething problems of their own, was going along swimmingly.

    But unlike the political stooges here who must talk the original FttP network down at every discussion, I don’t have such affiliations or weight holding me down and can say as I wish, not as I’m instructed.

    Ergo, I for one hope I am wrong and MTM is great!

    Because regardless of what is best, it appears as though we’ll be stuck with MTM for quite sometime, as the opposition probably no longer have the guts to spend $B’s more (on top of as much as $56B already) to upgrade to FttP and as we have seen the conservatives certainly don’t have the balls to do it…

    So we’ll be trying to compete abroad with nations who have vastly superior networks and as Richard linked to (thank you)… according to a recent recognised study, a doubling in broadband speed increases GDP by 0.3% (iirc) and every doubling thereafter by another 0.3%. So this alone demonstrates the B in cBa which is always brushed aside by the cheaper/faster proponents.

    So we will be falling further and further behind, if MTM can’t live up to all the Coalition/NBN’s hype…

    …and as I have made it clear many times, unfortunately for us all, I don’t think it ever will or even can.

  9. I believe that the MTM actually *WILL* turn out to be great. In comparison to what we have now.

    I also believe that the FTTP would actually be *GREATER*, at not much more cost.

    • This.

      But I’ll also point out the clever slight of hand that has left the cost of rectifying the Cu from the curb to the premise has now been xfer’d to the Resident, whereas the cost of replacing the Cu was worn by NBN under the FTTP model. When that is added in as part of the TCO, the MTM is in not that much cheaper at all.

  10. Considering that NBN is only required to deliver a min 25Mbps to the ISP and not the end user pretty much shows how well FTTN will be. Yes it will be better than what we have had but it wont be as good as what Mr Turnbull has claimed is can do. As i don’t believe 60% of FTTN users will get up to 100Mbps.

    We have already countries supplying 1Gbps yet now NBN is only required to supply an up to 25Mbps.

  11. I’m confident that the HFC upgrade will be a fairly good interim solution into next decade. But I can’t say the same about FTTN, which is a monumental error and poor value for money when we’re pouring at least $50 billion into this mixture. FTTdp would be far better if you want to cut costs. But if there are suburbs where most of the premises have existing good conduits to pull through a fibre, why wouldn’t you?

    I have doubts about whether HFC will last as a solution and agree that we’re taking the much more expensive route in the long term while not saving much, when you look at the benefit to the economy. The cost saving is so much more short-term than long-term.

    Think of the companies that would benefit from world-class infrastructure. Companies benefit from state-owned and maintained road, rail, electricity infrastructure, the list goes on, so it’s no reason to limit this.

    In light of the recent Deloitte report about government revenue as well as economic indicators, we should be pulling out all stops to bolster the economy with infrastructure that facilitates growth. No? Or will we do nothing and allow a recession to just happen? Lay down and die?

    • “I’m confident that the HFC upgrade will be a fairly good interim solution”

      Sure, but I think HFC is going to cost quite a bit, probably more than expected. If getting everyone on high capacity was so cheap and easy, Telstra would have done it already. The existing infrastructure only supports a fraction of the residences that it passes and to bring it up to NBN standards (in terms of upload speeds) will require hardware and wiring. Last year someone in my building got Foxtel, and Telstra needed to run new cabling, in my impression because only a fraction of residences were expected to sign up to cable, there is a distribution point out front but there aren’t already cables going to every single unit in the building, only as needed.

  12. MTM will probably work. It’ll probably even be good, though I imagine provisioning will always be a nightmare with so many different technologies.

    However, my big fear for it is that once it’s rolled out (maybe even before then) the government will decide it’s ‘good enough’, and we’ll end up with another 10-15 years of not very much happening with our national telecommunications infrastructure.

    • 10-15 is optimistic. The last major investment in our telecommunications cable, and that wasn’t to 90%, and was done by a commercial entity without politics at its back.

      I would actually be surprised if we ever again got significant investment (75% of end users experiencing a doubling or more of capacity) in our telecomms in my lifetime. (I expect to live another 50 years).

      • Sadly with fibre those upgrades would have been viable (as its just an electrical component at each end that needs an upgrade). That and running out fibre further than 93%.

        Now portions of the remaining 73% will need all those funds to upgrade to fibre instead.

  13. I am a staunch FTTP supporter…it just makes more sense, BUT I am afraid what TURNBULL is banking on is the fact that the connection that most people have at the moment is so bad that once they are connected to even the MTM will seem such a great improvement that he can still get away with all his misinformation. Most people will simply not get it, that for all that money spend they could have had a MUCH better outcome…a future proved one. They will simply be happy about the little improvement they may have now. By the time they find out they have been duped (possibly a few years down the track) Turnbull will be gone and we will simply have to start again. That is when most people will figure out what when on NOW.
    I believe the problem is that this is NOT effectively communicated by the media (except Delimiter). Of course there are some critical articles appearing here and there but not enough that the average person can get a coherent picture and make an informed decision…..maybe we have to start focusing on educating the wider journalist/reporter community?

  14. What are we talking about? Performance or Cost?

    Ok I’ll say this now, any upgrade to my current service is going to be positive. Which is what the vast majority of people will see. I don’t think MT will let them cock it up so bad that it won’t work.
    I’ll be interested to see what happens with the first decent rain though.

    From a cost point of view. If they somehow manage to pay it off without dipping into taxpayer funds, I will be astounded.

  15. If you wish to play devils advocate look at some of the constraints imposed by FTTP.

    It does require new infrastructure to be installed in the house. The layout of your property will influence where this is placed (and may require further in-house cabling to get the service where you need it). Additionally if you are not the owner, you will likely need further approvals to get the service installed in the first place.

    By comparison FTTN can be as simple as remove old ADSL2+ modem, replace with new VDSL2+ modem, nbn do some work offsite & you are all set.

    • I use my old ADSL2+ modem for my 100mb NBN. Works a treat.

      Landlords don’t have to agree to upgrade to a free fibre connection…but there won’t be any copper down the track either. I doubt that’s a problem for most people.

      • What make and model is it because the vast majority of ISP supplied ADSL modem routers can’t route data faster than about 70 mbps?

  16. You’re happy with it now – now what happens as network requirements double every year?

    This is where the mistake is continually made, specifying a network with minimal growth potential in a sector that has only ever grown logarithmically. It’s an idiotic assumption and all the evidence shows us that.

    You don’t make a twenty year comms plan based on the capacity you use ‘right now’.

    • Technically, according to Nielsen’s law states a high end users connection speed will increase by 50% per year.

      As much as I am a fibre advocate, it cannot be automatically said that because a high end user wants more and more each year, that low end users require increases in speed at the same rate.

      • I’ll go with Metcalfe’s Law, it has evidential backing unlike anything Nielsen’s (unless you like cherry picking):

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

        Frankly Nielsen has been shown repeatedly to be a clueless, self promoting hack with a very loose relationship with evidence. Only management types cite him as a reputable source.
        When he was predominantly spruiking himself (at great cost) as a usability expert his web pages were both ugly and appalling to use.

      • Its worth noting that we’re getting a rather bad deal now with ADSL so just about any upgrade is likely a boon. I think the comment section here had someone post saying they’d be overjoyed with a 4mb connection etc.

        MTM and their CVC repricing is because they are seeing a higher usage pattern as well!

  17. Personally I’ve softened my stance on re-using parts of the PSTN, namely the Copper lead-in via FTTdp for the following reasons:

    FTTdp:
    * Reuses the Telstra PSTN lead-in’s from the pit to the Premises (saves a lot of money in install costs – HFC lead-ins will be expensive where they dont exist)
    * 4-8 port micro-nodes can be reverse powered by the customers own modems cutting out $200 million per year in FTTN power costs (lower Opex)
    * Due to very short copper lines to the in-pit micro-nodes, sync speeds would be easily in the 100-250mbps range using normal VDSL2 (no more Node lotto with some barely able to get 25Mbps)
    * The micro nodes are now so small they fit into the Telstra pit with the GPON Multi-Port they plug into (no unsightly powered Nodes sprouting up along side all the Telstra pillars that will be mostly redundant in 5-10 years time)
    * Completely removes the need for any powered HFC OSP (Out-Side Plant) lowering Opex (HFC OSP costs about $3 million per year for power per 1 million premises passed)
    * Provides a cheap easy FoD (Fibre on Demand) option – would likely cost less than $2k for those who need it (currently FoD is not a realistic option)
    * FTTdp can generate more revenue from users as those requiring faster speeds actually have access to them, under FTTN they are likely to not have 100/40 plans and higher available at all (power users tend to generate much more revenue than basic users)
    * Allows Businesses to get full Fibre to the premises from day 1 enabling our business community to be as competitive as possible
    * Provides a genuine, straightforward and economical upgrade to full FTTP as it’s required without wasting resources on items such as powered node cabinets (most of which would be redundant under future GPON build due to 40km range of NG-PON2) and HFC CMTS’s and optical nodes etc.

    Imo, FTTdp is a much better short & long term option for Australia as we get a full GPON network running past every Australian premises but get to reuse the Telstra PSTN lead-ins that nbn™ now owns.

    If you would like to read more on FTTdp, I highly recommend this article:

    http://telsoc.org/ajtde/2014-03-v2-n1/a26

    and here are nbn’s own figures showing the cost per premises for FTTdp to be only slightly more expensive than FTTN but with lower opex and Higher revenues:

    https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/ej3frvwjk4wclfi/images/5-b0f0fb81b7.jpg

    I’d have prefered full FTTP but FTTdp would provide a good middle ground for the next 5-10 years.

    • I too support FTTdp as the solution nbn should be using now that we are stuck with the MTM. In addition to VDSL over those incredibly short loops being as fast as you say, I believe Alcatel has recently shown G.Fast mini-nodes for FTTdp that would allow homes to have well over those speeds over the copper lead in, then if someone does require FTTP for a home business, then they have the option of the very short length FOD request.

      • Two more joining the team. Back in August most were reduced to arguing the %30 fttn given HFC, FTTB, LTE & Satellite all accepted. Now open to FTTdp. Funny to reread past posts.

        • Well Richard we have to try to make the best option if a stupid mess we have wouldn’t you agree. Since the cost of MTM keeps increasing how much cheaper is it.

          Will the NBN deliver the min 25Mbps to all and a min 50Mbos to 90% or even 100Mbps to 60%.

        • Ah Richard, unlike you I’m not welded to a Political Ideology, I’m able to adapt to changing circumstances.

          The fact that nbn™ now owns and has to maintain the PSTN means they might as well use a small part of it to save costs – it’s prolly around $1,500 per premises using FTTdp and at least FTTdp will provide a sensible upgrade path combined with useful bandwidth and a real FoD option.

          Unlike FTTN and HFC which your favorite party is still welded too!

        • Let me repeat what I said above Richard…

          “At as much as $56B, it’d wanna be great…IMO.

          Unfortunately so far, with cost and timeframe blow outs and seemingly daily issues of magnitude, to be kind, MTM is currently unsatisfactory and to be more realistic, MTM is a complete fuck up, aptly dubbed fraudband by those now promoting and rolling out, the very same fraudband.

          In comparison… the original, from the back of a napkin [sic] FttP network built up to what was NBNCo circa mid 2013, even with obvious teething problems of their own, was going along swimmingly.

          But unlike the political stooges here who must talk the original FttP network down at every discussion, I don’t have such affiliations or weight holding me down and can say as I wish, not as I’m instructed.

          Ergo, I for one hope I am wrong and MTM is great!

          Because regardless of what is best, it appears as though we’ll be stuck with MTM for quite sometime, as the opposition probably no longer have the guts to spend $B’s more (on top of as much as $56B already) to upgrade to FttP and as we have seen the conservatives certainly don’t have the balls to do it…

          So we’ll be trying to compete abroad with nations who have vastly superior networks and as Richard linked to (thank you)… according to a recent recognised study, a doubling in broadband speed increases GDP by 0.3% (iirc) and every doubling thereafter by another 0.3%. So this alone demonstrates the B in cBa which is always brushed aside by the cheaper/faster proponents.

          So we will be falling further and further behind, if MTM can’t live up to all the Coalition/NBN’s hype…

          …and as I have made it clear many times, unfortunately for us all, I don’t think it ever will or even can.”

        • Now open to FTTdp. Funny to reread past posts.

          So just to clarify the speeds that FTTdp can deliver will now be needed?

          What of FttN? Shouldn’t it be sufficient?

          Should we reread past posts of yours that defined 12/1mbps as “high speed” when asked? Also said but 7 years I can’t see anything on the horizon that’ll take it above 50/4

          Makes a FTTdp roll-out a bit pointless by your limited logic…

          According to you:

          Studies continue to show the majority of benefits from broadband are captured by penetration, not speed

          So what use is FTTdp here???

          FttN network a failure already (just as predicted by me) even before it’s complete already talking about a FTTdp upgrade. Sure, bring it on so I can say “I told you so” yet again. Then go FttP like we should have from the start…

          • Richard
            So far any costing on the MTM has been wrong. Went from $29B to $41B now up to $56B with a $10B margin for error what a joke.

            What’s it going to be next year more as they still don’t know the condition of the copper.

            So far $8B less than FTTP SR own figures that the CP16 mentions.

            But as we are now stuck with all of Telstra HFC and mostly likely Optus HFC if it has the same deal. Considering Turnbull own pre election was going to allow them to compete against the NBN. So much for infrastructure competition.

            Now the question of FTTN with 1800km of new copper purchased to make it work and that’s only a 6 month supply.

          • Yes but the problem is HC… as you say I told you so, the naysayers will say, but that’s what I said would happen with govt. involvement… even after beating their chest previously, proclaiming they could have been commissioned to write the very fucking same government policy…

            As someone (Derek maybe) previously said…

            http://cdn.meme.am/instances/38886752.jpg

          • @hc Like the brisbane line another concoction. Have I argued FTTdp speeds now required? Have I argued future upgrades will never be required?

            I simply welcomed the guys to the MTM team, and now I congratulate him on his per premises savings. $1500 per premises, not bad considering 3m potential premises.

            Interesting though I wonder what circumstances changed that allowed DO to make is unbias change that the bias people didn’t recognise years ago.

            Comically Alex is still claiming the original plan was going “swimmingly”. Perhaps like “obsolete” I’m not use to the alexism, does it mean drowning?

          • Richard that’s becuase we have to try and make best out of a fucked up situation. You beloved policy went form a $29B mess to now an upto $56B fuck up with a $10B I don’t know. But apparently they know more now than before but still can’t account for a $10B margin for error.

            Have FTTdp will require less maintence will generate more revune because it can deliver the faster speeds. Like I said you can’t name a single ISP anywhere that offers a min 25Mbps service on there FTTN.

          • @hc Like the brisbane line another concoction.

            Take your issue up with the author of that comment. This is a technology news information website not a history forum. Quite frankly your derailment of these articles is getting tiresome. I’m going to direct you to the comments policy here https://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/ Please read it.

            Have I argued FTTdp speeds now required?

            No Richard. Pay attention and try to understand written words. It was a question asking you to clarify your position. Notice the question mark?

            I simply welcomed the guys to the MTM team

            So you endorse the coalition clown MTM policy? Team implies something you would cheer for if endorsed (another question mark in there if you missed it)

          • @hc derailing the thread by directly addressing the posts? Sorry I don’t see that in the policy; perhaps you can be more specific.

            Lets see be pollite, respectful of other’s opinions, repetitive trolling, posting demonstrably false information. I’m surprised you project violations on me!

            A request to clarify my consistently articulated position? Sorry no it hasn’t changed. However my position is rarely questioned, a demonstratively false strawman presented (petulant when called out for it).

          • @ Richard,

            Like all blinded and irrational conservatives, you love to give a bit, but when it’s returned, such as highlighting your own humiliating (but well articulated…lol) ridiculous contradictions, you cry poor me…?

            Your obsolete copper solution is wrong. The reuse of existing assets theory has been proven wrong/ineffectual (copper needs replacing err, with copper and HFC does/doesn’t need to be overbuilt).

            MTM costs have blown out (it’s not proving to be cheaper, don’t exclude to suit), time frames have been thrown out the window (it’s not proving to be faster), the wonder FttN still has little or no customers after two years and that’s all the while, whilst riding on the back of the groundwork put in place by the previous Quigley NBNCo.

            These are irrefutable facts…

            So to deflect from your chosen method’s abysmal performance, as we have become accustomed to since Sept 2013, you instead keep warping back to the past, not addressing posts at all, so please.

            But not just back to the last mob like your brothers do, but talking absolute rubbish from the 1940’s (yes and here we were thinking people such as you, had at least progressed to the 1950’s)… raving about something which has absolutely nothing to do with anything or anyone here, “whatsoever”.

            Yet you beat your chest and actually think you’ve made a valid point or checkmated people here… really, seriously? That’s your smoking gun…?

            Richard feel free to bring your 1940’s antiquated, backward looking and forever contradictory views here, but don’t sob like a spoilt brat (which it would appear is inherent in people with such self centred, ideology) when people here tear those ridiculously insulated views to shreds.

            Please, also at least attempt to refrain from saying one thing then the complete opposite and we won’t have to humiliatingly bring it to everyone’s attention and you then won’t have to even more humiliatingly (but humorously) have to invent more equally embarrassing excuses to “vainly try to get out of those contradictory statements”, rather than manning up and accepting accountability for your own words…

            Thank you.

          • @hc derailing the thread by directly addressing the posts? Sorry I don’t see that in the policy; perhaps you can be more specific.

            Abels post about the “Brisbane line” on Zdnet from years ago has nothing to do with this article or any of the other GimpCo articles.

            I’m surprised you project violations on me!

            I’m not surprised you lack self-awareness…

            A request to clarify my consistently articulated position?

            Yes. I think it’s reasonable request considering how much you flip flop. It’s hardly consistent. Contradictions exposed and demonstrated already. Your denial changes nothing. Continue to bluster if it makes you feel better.

          • @hc as I posted at the time the brisbane line vile concoction was a classic. Not only did hc buy into the fantasy (it never happened) he instructed us on the importance of learning from history.

            When you think it couldn’t get better he concludes:
            “Seems the coward attribute is ingrained into their [Liberal Party] firmware.”

            A massive call when based on pure fabrication.

            “Fail”

          • Just can’t let it go eh, Richard…?

            I suppose those of you with little, need something to cling to, no matter how lame, to desperately attempt to distance one’s self from one’s own humiliating contradictory gaffs… FTW

            Now tell us about the $667B debt, since you’e on a roll.

          • Amazing. Are you really this thick?

            Once again take it up with Abel. Already said I’m not a history buff. It has nothing to do with the NBN or me.

            Coward attribute comment stands on it’s own regardless of what else I said. It’s true. Being a conservative should be considered a disability, it’s clear such ideology makes these people cowardly and afraid of change where those that are more adept to changes adapt and flourish. Rizz posted an interesting quote yesterday from Mark Twain that is quite succinct.

            Of course rather than answer the simple questions posed to you to clarify your position you’d much rather divert the topic (not surprised) clearly the embarrassment from having your contradictions exposed has hurt your ego again, so in your mind clinging to this “brisbane line” thing provides some relief. Remind us why you were banned from Zdnet again? (don’t) I think I can understand why now (Not an endorsement btw)

          • “I simply welcomed the guys to the MTM team, and now I congratulate him on his per premises savings”

            Where exactly is MTM planning FTTdp? They’re doing FttB which is different albeit similar but MTM isn’t planning on a dp rollout or from what I can tell even holding trials for it (I may have missed those announcements).

          • Oh dear, looks like I hurt poor Richards feelings again :-(

            Must really hurt to be associated with such inferiority. You know you could always try evolving like the superior specimens do… or play the victim like you usually would (another indicative conservative trait)

            Still no answer to the question. Continue to dodge and obfuscate with more inane bluster. It’s what you do best ;-)

          • @Richard, that trial is in regards to FTTB, they are using a FTTdp rollout to the “basement” of MDU’s.

            They aren’t trialling a rollout of FTTdp to other premises.

          • But again, if all we need is 25Mbit… Or was it 15Mbit by 2020? No wait… 50Mbit will be enough for 10 years after the build is finished… Thats right, thats the new speed picked out of the air…

            Why do they need to be spruiking near 1Gbps over copper with G.Fast? Surely that’s overkill, right? Since we don’t need those speeds so we don’t need FTTP, thus we don’t need those speeds over copper, everyone will be fine with 50Mbit for the next 20 years.

          • @ Richard…

            Did you ever produce that “fabled” page number you were asked by HC for many moons ago?

            Hmmm?

          • @ Richard

            Nice work too, linking to the g.fast article where g.fast can (theoretically anyway) produce those wonder speeds… you say we simply DO NOT need…

            FTW yet again :/

      • Two more joining the team. Back in August most were reduced to arguing the %30 fttn given HFC, FTTB, LTE & Satellite all accepted. Now open to FTTdp. Funny to reread past posts.

        Of course MTM will work, technologies deployed in millions of premises. Sure the shrills squealed smaller copper, plastic bags, copper speeds were improving. Mighty gullible to have fallen for it.

        Here we are. Ten billion spent, 10% into a build that could already be compete in the fixed line area. Money that will never be recovered.

        • Yes Richard can you give an example of just one ISP delivering a min 25Mbps on HFC or FTTN/B but you can’t can you just shows how well it works for those millions already have it.

        • You can take it that way, or you can take it that we are still completely supportive of FTTP but have resigned ourselves to knowing that isn’t going to happen with the current Government or even if Labor get back into power.

          So, we have to take the next best thing.

          Do not mistake supporting FTTdp as not supporting FTTP, also do not mistake supporting FTTdp as supporting FTTN, because it isn’t.

          I still wholly oppose FTTN.

          Did that $10bn spent go on nothing? Definitely not on building Wireless towers… Or ordering satellites… or building the POIs and backhaul network… or planning…. No, nothing like that. It’s just $10bn that has been spent on air and sparrow farts.

          Extrapolating from the planning phase and initial build costs and then saying “LOLOLOL THEY IS GONNA SPEND SO MUCH MUNNIEZ” is ridiculous.

          • +1

            “Do not mistake supporting FTTdp as not supporting FTTP, also do not mistake supporting FTTdp as supporting FTTN, because it isn’t.

            “I still wholly oppose FTTN.”

            Just thought I’d make another copy of that. Thank you R0ninXeph.

        • Additionally, we can only argue the final ~30% now anyway Richard, as nbn is locked in to paying for Telstra’s HFC as long as Foxtel wants to continue using it.

          So, yes, FTTB should be for MDU’s (I agreed with this long ago), Wireless and Satellite are in both plans (so I agree with this also), we are stuck with Telstra HFC and that leaves the remainder, since FTTP is off the table for the final brownfields area, should we not be fighting for the absolute best solution? Which given the option is FTTdp, not FTTN. As evidenced by Derek O above.

          • @r thanks to jk we have some detail re telstra’s definitive agreement outcome. Again you are mistaken; NBNCo has agreed to support Telstra’s HFC network for as long as Foxtel has contracted to use it (Conroy believed this to be 2023-25) in exchange for a per user spectrum fee (undisclosed but increases with CPI). It is not indefinite.

            Even Quigley give HFC the thumbs up today, sadly years after he could’ve actually used it and FTTB to deliver internet to real users and save taxpayers billions.

            As I said we’re left arguing the 30% FTTN. Why is FTTdp the best plan? The FTTN rollout is already delivering speeds demanded by the large majority of NBNCo paying customers. What is the additional cost of rolling fibre now even closer to the home?

          • Keep beating that many contradictions drum Richard…

            All the while arguing the miserably failing MTM is the answer (because you could have been commissioned to write it) but in the next breath muttering government involvement shouldn’t have occurred, because markets will always delver…

            Of course that’s straight after stating MTM was the right avenue to take as it dealt with “areas where market has failed”.

          • @Richard, once again you like to cherry pick which responses you reply to. Nothing to my first response but then this to my additional comment? Alright, whatever mate. You’re incredibly boring to interact with.

            Why is FTTdp the best plan? Because it provides the absolute best speeds possible while still utilising the copper we are now bound to use (I say bound to use, as the LNP isn’t going to NOT use it after making such a big deal about how amazing copper is).

            FTTdp provides great speeds, it provides a legitimate way for businesses to upgrade to Fibre if they so wish (none of these $20,000 quotes we are seeing reported on places like Whirlpool), and it gives an easy upgrade path for the inevitable (yes, even Turnbull thinks Fibre is the end game) upgrade to FTTP.

            You have denied this in the past, but nobody in their right mind thinks that Fibre isn’t the end game, nobody in their right mind thinks copper is the be-all-end-all of fixed line communications.

            As Rizz has said previously, why weren’t the Iron Wires good enough? When are you going to answer this one? It has been asked enough times.

          • @R0 you do understand posting comments? You were wrong, man up.

            Yes rizz has repetitively trolled his iron wires request hundreds of times. It was answered many months ago, I pointed this out after repeated requests and he even acknowledged it. It appears it’s been forgotten again, memeory of a gold fish.

            Fibre is not the end game, high speed internet is. Nobody in their right mind would think fibre is the be-all-end-all of communications; change and technological advance is continuous. Again I’d point out the fixed line upgrade would today be complete if not for the insistence on FTTH (see BT or DT or …).

          • So Richard can you point to before 2009 of Telstra rolling out FTTN.

            Would be a lot of help to see where the market hasn’t failed. Lol

          • @Richard, I will happily admit that I was unclear of the exact HFC contract for Foxtel, I, unlike you, am willing to admit when I am wrong.

            I was wrong Richard, do we know though, if Foxtel are able to re-contract after the end of the current period of use? I am legitimately asking, because if they can, then my statement could still possibly stand, at least in some form.

            “High speed internet is”. Please define high speed. What was “high speed” 10 years ago, is not now. What is “high speed” now, won’t be in 10 years time.

          • Fibre is not the end game, high speed internet is.

            As far as fixed line networks go it is. Sure some future super dooper technology could make it redundant, but when building communication infrastructures you don’t rely on unknowns and uncertainty. FttP provides certainty for the foreseeable future based on what we know now (data requirements growing etc).

            Fibre is not the end game, high speed internet is.

            Wait, didn’t you say 12/1 is high speed? And in 7 years 50/4?

          • @HC this is why I generally dont waste my time on Richard, he’s had more positions than a $10 hooka!

          • @ Richard,

            “Yes rizz has repetitively trolled his iron wires request hundreds of times. It was answered many months ago, I pointed this out after repeated requests and he even acknowledged it. It appears it’s been forgotten again, memeory [sic] of a gold fish.”

            Having seen your constant contradictions, how can we take anything you ever say at any point as your hard and fast answer or position..?

            Tell us again (better refer back so you tell us the same)…

            Regardless, here’s 2 more reasons not to take you and your ridiculous contradictions seriously…

            17/4/13 – “The Liberal policy document includes everything I’ve been posting about for years”…

            5/11/15 – “I’ve also been very critical of the coalition policy well before the election…”

            Yes any more critical you’d need knee pads ;)

            &

            17/4/13 – If they (Coalition) fail to deliver expect me to be as vocal as I have about the massive disaster that we’ve witnessed with Labor’s attempt…

            1/12/15 – “I simply welcomed the guys to the MTM team…”

            Ah yes $15B cost blow out and time frames out the window and you vocally…. welcomed the guys to team MTM.

          • Rizz the only time Richard is critical of the current NBN tell to be attached with labor wasted $B or its labor fault or just blame labor.

          • @HC this is why I generally dont waste my time on Richard

            Indeed Derek. Perhaps I should add Richard to my invalid comment protocol list. Two lucky contestants have already taken the prize. We shall see…

  18. Define Great.

    Here’s my go. It ought to be/have:

    1) Min 25meg for all.
    2) That 25meg to be an ACTUAL 25meg under all circumstances (i.e. 25meg for all at peak times)
    3) 25meg by the end of 2016.
    4) Clear, reliable plan to increase speed FOR ALL (up and down) moving forward in the next 10 years that does not end up costing billions and enables 98%+ to achieve.
    5) Cost = Original “fully costed” plan, not a cent more.
    6) Reliable network and connection to home for 10 years. i.e. as good as a brand new connection would have been for all, on average.

    I can’t see a single one of these items coming to fruition any time soon – if at all – and I can’t think of a reasonable list of other items that could be categorised as “great” in the future.

    By just about any reasonable measure I can’t see how it _could_ be “great”.

  19. You write these really good articles about the NBN and holding people to account… and I see you desperately want bipartisan support for a futureproof NBN and for MT to be right… but it’s a half-arsed temporary measure. The MTM is now costing more than the NBN, the speeds are slower, we’re investing in thousands of km’s of new copper… and for what? Political points.

    Malcolm Turnbull and Mitch Fifield have very smooth tongues and would make great used-car salesmen. Here, buy this copper from us, it’s all you’ll need! Forget that you’re now paying BMW prices for a Holden…you don’t need a BMW.

    The 121 points of interconnect are a disaster for regional cities (not many RSP’s), capital city blackspots are still black and the network price keeps going up.

    So if the total price is $94b for FTTN (that would be ironic) with further money required to upgrade it to FTTP (as everyone agrees), is it still going to be great?

    • “So if the total price is $94b for FTTN (that would be ironic) with further money required to upgrade it to FTTP (as everyone agrees), is it still going to be great?”

      Even if FTTN was to end up that expensive, the anti-FTTP crowd would just claim that FTTP would have cost 3x as much to build, because that was the number they decided on pre-election, that FTTN is 1/3 the cost of FTTP.

    • Do you really believe the CPP of FTTH is anywhere near the same and that NBNCo is choosing inferior technologies purely for politicial reasons?

        • @a the NBN is a remarkable policy folly. A expensive joke perpetrated on the Australian taxpayer. Designed and executed by people who underestimated the task, reflected in its poor performance. Such incompetence is not uncommon, and in this case entirely predictable.

          However your claim, if I’m reading it correctly, is beyond incompetence. Is it really your contention that CPP for fibre is similar to alternatives and that NBNCo management (against their company’s statement of expectations) is choosing inferior valued options for political reasons?

          • Of course had “markets” stepped up and delivered, as you gullibly always state they will (err, even after admitting markets failed… in your initial mouth frothing adoration of the MTM… you could have been commissioned to write) then we wouldn’t have needed err MTM or an NBN, would we?

            More ridiculous contradictions to suit the daily narrative from the usual suspects FUDsters…

            :/ unbelievable

          • Regardless of what the policy is, or who underestimated what, it came down to the Government doing it, because Telstra sure as hell wasn’t going to, not without significant taxpayer money to do so anyway.

            The market failed, Telstra weren’t interested in upgrading their fixed line network, they were far more interested in investing in their mobile network because of the far more significant profit they can gain from it.

          • No, it wasn’t underestimated. Malcolm Turnbull told you that they’d underestimated and you took his argument hook, line & sinker. You still believe his figures are accurate even though it’s now costing an extra $15b – and that’s to buy shiny, new copper cabling!

            You wave CPP around like it’s a magic number and nothing else matters and ignore the significantly higher OPEX which erases and the CPP “discount”. Not to mention, that every agrees that FTTP is the end game and that the total CPP will be much higher now that we’re building the network twice.

            And yes, Malcolm Turnbull selected the board currently in NBNCo to carry out his FTTN goals. No surprise there.

  20. My issue with the MTM debate is it makes for a colorful sideshow. If both sides are done properly FTTP is the superior solution. Done properly though MTM will more than meet needs going forward.

    The slightly more interesting debate that should be happening are around the number of nbn points of interconnect and general backhaul pricing inside Australia. Over the last few years the industry has gone through a rapid period of consolidation as all parties try to build scale. Most of the top players now either own a noticeable backhaul network or have the scale to deploy third party leases cost effectively.

    In my view this is starting to lock new (potentially ‘challenger’) brands out of the market. How can a new player launch without scale and expect to compete with the Telstra, Optus & TPG of the world? The danger in this is the incumbent providers will have little benefit in looking at innovative offerings or higher speeds.

    If the market lacks this sort of competition, it will hurt the offer of higher speeds far more than MTM will.

    • It always was about looking after the Telstra Shareholder and the News Ltd propaganda organisation

  21. “This gravel road is much better than the dirt road I used to have… thanks Turnbull for spending $70-80 billion on a national highway network consisting entirely of gravel roads!”

  22. A new suburb in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs that is spacious? Is this whole article a work of fiction?

Comments are closed.