Govt censors NBN Co’s FTTP projection data


news The Federal Government has taken steps to stop the public getting access to a key data set which details why the NBN company believes a full-Fibre to the Premises rollout would cost up to $38 billion more and take eight years longer to finalise than its currrent controversial Multi-Technology Mix plan.

In October last year, former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy successfully used Senate powers to extract a letter sent in April 2015 from then-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to the NBN company.

The letter confirmed that as Communications Minister, Turnbull joined forces with Cormann to explicitly ask the NBN company to create information that could help the Coalition make the case that Labor’s Fibre to the Premises model was not worth pursuing.

The NBN company complied with the request, and a very heavily summarised form of that information, known as a ‘counterfactual’, made its way into the NBN company’s most recent corporate plan published last year, finding that a full-Fibre to the Premises version of the NBN, similar to the one originally envisioned by the previous Labor Government, would cost between $74 billion and $84 billion to complete (versus $46-$56 billion for the MTM) and could take until 2028 to be finished, compared with 2020 for the MTM.

However, at the time, Communications Minister Mitch Fifield refused to release the ‘high-level desktop analysis’ that the numbers were based on, citing a commercial in confidence rationale. Conroy did not pursue Fifield over the matter further in the Senate.

Last week, the Department of Finance released new documents pertaining to the issue, in response to a FOI request filed by Crikey.

They reveal firstly that it was not only Turnbull and Cormann, but also the Department of Finance itself (in a letter authorised by Cormann) which had simultaneously asked for the NBN ‘counterfactual’ information from the NBN company in April 2015. You can download that letter here in PDF format. Much of it has been redacted.

In an initial response to the two Ministers on 8 May last year (here in PDF format), NBN chief financial officer Stephen Rue wrote back responding with a letter containing unofficial financial projections for NBN company for the years from 2023 to 2040, based on its current Multi-Technology Mix model.

However, those projections have been completely redacted by the Department of Finance on the rationale that they could disclose commercial information.

On 28 May last year, the NBN company’s chief executive Bill Morrow sent a second letter to the two Ministers (here in PDF format), noting that the NBN company had complied with the Government’s request for ‘counterfactual’ data about a possible FTTP rollout to be generated.

However, as with the previous letter, the Department of Finance completely redacted all of the actual rollout and financial projections which the FTTP ‘counterfactual’ was based on.

Because of this, it is not clear what data the NBN company is basing its massively enhanced cost and rollout time projections for a FTTP rollout on.

The release of this so-called ‘high-level desktop analysis’ of a possible return to a FTTP scenario for the NBN company is one of the key current points of contention between Labor and the Coalition Federal Government over the NBN project.

Many in Australia’s technology community — including former NBN chief executive Mike Quigley, who founded the company and ran it for the first four years of its life — believe that the NBN company and the Coalition are currently overstating the cost and rollout time required to progress Labor’s original FTTP version of the NBN.

In November last year, Quigley released an extraordinarily detailed and highly referenced document analysing the NBN company’s publicly known costs, to back his claim that a recent up-to-$15 billion blowout in the cost of the NBN was due to the Multi-Technology Mix imposed by Malcolm Turnbull.

In the letter Morrow sent to Turnbull and Cormann in May 2015, the new NBN chief executive confirm that the MTM model had contained a “higher than anticipated cost and risk”.

However, he claimed, “the Multi-Technology Mix rollout remains a superior strategy to an FTTP rollout for fixed-line areas”.

Why is the NBN company happy to release its detailed costs and figures for its MTM model, but not for a projected return to a FTTP model? There can only be one reason. Because the company itself and the Government do not want journalists such as myself poring through this financial data and comparing it to the MTM model.

In the past, we’ve seen how even the NBN company’s own analysis under a Coalition Government shows that a FTTP model continues to make more sense than Malcolm Turnbull’s MTM model. I continue to be confident in the veracity of the original FTTP model as developed into a workable NBN plan by the company’s initial management led by founding chief executive Mike Quigley.

Perhaps someone at the NBN company would be brave enough to send me a copy of the ‘FTTP high-level desktop analysis’ which the company carried out at the behest of Malcolm Turnbull and Mathias Cormann. I think the release of that document would be strongly in the public interest, given the intense public debate about the MTM/FTTP models.

If so, Delimiter’s secure anonymous tips form is here. Thanks for any help anyone can provide.


  1. Turnbull’s job is done. When he’s booted from politics at the next election, he can get a highly paid senior executive role at Telstra, due to his “experience” in telecommunications, AND probably another highly paid job on the board of directors at Optus at the same time.

    No where else in the world would anyone get away with paying Telstra THREE times for the same infrastructure! (the pits, the copper, and then the HFC) (Maybe even FOUR times if you include the NBN paying Telstra for every customer it cuts over to the NBN, and then allowing Telstra to hike up fixed line rentals, because there are less customers they can gouge!, even when they are likely STILL Telstra’s customers on the NBN!)

    Just ludicrous, and it will all be for nothing, when we have to roll out the full FTTP in the future anyway.

  2. There is only one reason for them to hide this info, it shows them up for the corrupt lying charlatans they are!

    A Royal commission is required!

    • I can’t think of anything more deserving of a Royal Commission than this fiasco, past and present.

      • I think we really need a Federal ICAC with real teeth and powers to charge corrupt pollies for rorting their entitlements and corrupting projects and services, unfortunately every time the Greens put up a bill to create one, both the Libs and Labs vote it down!

        We really need a referendum to create one as then it goes into the constitution where it cant be watered down or scrapped by the parliment – unfortunately it still needs major party support to have the referendum in the first place! :-(

        • Aaaahh… Good idea, but referendums don’t automatically mean “inclusion in constitution”. But you’re on the right track if you mean “referendum to alter the Constitution”.

          However I’m sure we already do have a Federal version of CCC/ICAC/whatever, I just don’t know where it is.

          • However I’m sure we already do have a Federal version of CCC/ICAC/whatever, I just don’t know where it is.

            Pretty sure it’s just the Federal Police that handle that, but they never check their bosses out unless asked by them, so they aren’t really the same as ICAC.

  3. Maybe I just have a very dirty mind. OTOH, these words:
    “The letter confirmed that as Communications Minister, Turnbull joined forces with Cormann to explicitly ask the NBN company to create information that could help the Coalition make the case that Labor’s Fibre to the Premises model was not worth pursuing.”
    seem to be prima facie evidence of Official Corruption.

    Of course, our politicians are naturally incorruptible, no?

    In WA we have the CCC ( What anti-corruption avenues are available in the Federal sphere? What do we have to do?

      • Actually it gets worse. Having a big think and recalling my good mate Wossisname from Rome, who said “Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?”, it occurs to me that IF we ever got a Federal CCC/ICAC, it would routinely be crippled by the incoming government UNLESS it was funded and controlled by a superior agency, like the Head of State of Australia, our Queen Liz I.

        On that subject, I have exactly NO confidence any local hero could keep a Federal ICAC out of political hands, which is one reason I do not support any “Republican” movement.

        It’s perturbing that the State anti-corruption agencies seem to get on without political interference, but we have no such confidence when talking about the Feds.

        Something to cogitate when we talk about having or getting a real democracy.

        • Aye it’s one of my fears regarding Republic status as well. That and the inordinate influence of the US system of republic which is hopeless.

  4. “I think the release of that document would be strongly in the public interest”

    That should be the end of it right there. AFAIK, NBN Co aren’t going to make a whole lot more FTTP connections, so there aren’t serious commercial considerations that need to be protected.

  5. Let’s not forget that Labor purchased the copper network from Telstra, then the LNP sold it back to Telstra, then the LNP bought it from Telstra again, which makes no commercial sense !

    • Labor purchased it to switch it off (ie. Decommission) because they were future thinking and visionaries. Malcolm bought it back so he could pay billions of dollars in maintenance to his mates in Telstra.

      • FibreZeolot,

        Of course what you didn’t say and it is a crucial point (you must have forgot) is that the Coalition NBN Co got ownership of the copper and HFC for the same amount Labor were paying them to shut it down so that the Labor NBN Co could replace it with the more expensive and slower to deploy FTTP rollout.

        The Labor NBN Co needed to remove choice, giving customers a infrastructure choice is a risky strategy.

        A case of build it and they might come.

        The visionary bit is getting existing infrastructure included in the Telstra and Optus packages.

        • No Reality you forgot that he coalition now has to pay for the repair of the ducts and pits that they are renting. That is not the same amount as labor was paying now is it?

          • NBN FTTP uses Telstra ducts as well, is that a better quality and totally different maintenance free duct than FTTN uses?

          • Reality_Distortion how do you think the fibre gets to the nodes? MtM fairy dust?

            The fibre is pulled from the poi through the ducts that NBN rent from Telstra to the nodes and now NBN has to pay for their renovation and Telstra have effectively gained an extra 2 billion dollars from the deal!

          • Of course the $2B is a total fiction, what did you do, roll some dice multiply it by last weeks Tattslotto numbers and add a shitload of zeros?

          • Reality_Distortion: Unlike you I don’t pull things out of my A$$:

            In the first detailed look at the financial implications that could impact Telstra because of asbestos safety breaches, Citigroup analysts said that while Telstra had budgeted about $2bn over 10 years for remediation work, this could rise because it was “very likely” that government intervention would lead to stricter procedures.


        • ANNNNND got all the costs associated with shutting it down.

          Good thinking, lets pay the same amount to buy an aged asset, and then we can pay the costs from removing the physical infrastructure from power lines etc.


    • Gary Mickelburgh ,

      ‘Let’s not forget that Labor purchased the copper network from Telstra,’

      We can forget it, because they didn’t purchase the copper network from Telstra.

      ‘then the LNP sold it back to Telstra,’

      huh???? never happened, complete fiction.

      ” then the LNP bought it from Telstra again, which makes no commercial sense”

      There was no bought it from Telstra again , Labor paid Telstra the same amount to shut down the copper and HFC and Optus to shutdown their HFC as the Coalition did for getting ownership of the Telstra copper and Telstra and Optus HFC for NBN Co FTTN and HFC rollouts.

      Which makes it complete commercial sense.

  6. So, let’s just be clear on this.

    The Libs are saying “We’ve proved that the MTM model is better value for money that Labor’s FTTP model, but we’re refusing to show you the proof”.

    That IS what they’re saying, isn’t it? Just, “Trust us”?

    • That IS what they’re saying, isn’t it? Just, “Trust us”?

      Seems so. They were not able to fool those with more than one brain cell when they said “Sooner, Faster, Cheaper” either though.

    • No wonder they redacted it, if all we are going to get out of Malcolm’s “alternative” solution is 15 years, then we need to spend the $56b or $81b or whatever it is in 2030 dollars, all over again to replace the “end of life, copper/HFC”, and get a proper solution in 2030, this is a scandal of monumental scale.

      Malcolm Turnbull needs to resign or be sacked immediately, and have all his entitlements stripped from him.

      Kicking the can down the road, and throwing away $81 in 15 years? You have got to be kidding me Malcolm!

    • That’s pretty damming evidence. Nothing “Commercial in Confidence” about that – just proof that MTM is a waste of money.

  7. “Why is the NBN company happy to release its detailed costs and figures for its MTM model, but not for a projected return to a FTTP model?”

    They haven’t. CP16 contained mainly summary figures. Also they’d not developed the FTTP model as far given its no longer applicable. For political reasons a high-level figure required.

    “There can only be one reason. Because the company itself and the Government do not want journalists such as myself poring through this financial data and comparing it to the MTM model.”

    Two points; 1) one reason? Cost more likely, 2) journalists haven’t shown evan a basic financial comprehension (see ‘detailed analysis’ story).

    “I continue to be confident in the veracity of the original FTTP model as developed into a workable NBN plan by the company’s initial management led by founding chief executive Mike Quigley.”

    And this is the issue. The original 3 CPs (3rd withheld from electorate by Labor) have been comprehensively destroyed, Quigley belatedly confirming CPP and delayed rollout (off linked in very article).

    You could argue the figures weren’t as bad as presented by the SR, but the media fibre cheerleaders don’t even recognise Quigley’s CP failures (CPP, rollout, revenue).

    Lack of financial detail is frustrating. Information (official and leaked) is not kind to FTTH. Original management performance v CP terrible. MTM too will fail, taxpayers copping the tens of billions hit.

    • Well, at least there were figures to grill Quigley on.

      You say the original 3 CPs have been ‘comprehensively destroyed’, however information that is critical to the situation is being withheld so we cannot know the true costs.

      You can’t claim they have been ‘comprehensively destroyed’ when the counter information is by definition not comprehensive.

      • @d Quigley released very little, prefered to publish forecasts. Only his pdf, years after his departure, were actual CPP figures publish (confirming what a few of us were pointing out for years). Up until he was shown the door he continued the mantra of on time and on budget, how the fanboys cheered (many still do).

        The ARs destroyed the CPs, discussed many times. Most unable to comprehend them.

        • Years after really Richard
          LNDN cost from senate estimated April 19 and Nov 19 2013
          CC from JCNBN 19 April 2013

        • You have yet to actually prove anything Richard.

          If we are not “comprehending” then that comes back on you. Effective communication puts the onus on the person who is attempting to put the idea across.
          It’s not hard. However reading what you write is. Mostly because you can’t keep your personal politics out of it. People ask for figures and you use things that have been discredited, when questioned on that you raise different issues.
          You use dishonest tactics to try and prove your point. Whereas in reality all it does is make us believe you less.

          • It’s his circular logic that does my head in, most of his “facts” are self referencing and when you look for the basis of them, it’s either redacted or based on some other made up “fact”.

    • Yet you support Turnbull failures of CPP rollout and revenue.

      Wow numbers boy “you could argue the figures weren’t as fab as presented by the SR”. Must be embarrassing that MTM keeps going up while FTTP keeps going down.

      But then let’s rig a review with incorrect figures for FTTP and with all that real world rollout out of FTTN and HFC could get there figures so wrong and chose that one.

      • @jk when have I supported Turnbulls failures? Don’t worry, more ignorance.

        Still claiming FTTH is close to the same cost and speed as FTTN / HFC. Embarrassing.

        • Richard
          Do I need to supply you the link of you claiming Turnbull $29B 2016 target as ambitious. Or is going to be another one of your claiming I didn’t really say that lol.

          Well Richard show me figures other wise since last know figures for FTTP was $64B and MTM $56B

          • $64B incorrect, $56B incorrect.

            Repetitive deliberate misquoting of comparative figures only shows all that for many pro FTTP argument has no substance in fact.

          • Jasonk, you are totally missing the point. The recovered text that was redacted in the FOI request shows the MTM network only has a useful life of 15 years. That means even if it is $6b cheaper the whole thing will need to be ripped out and re-run again in 15 years!

            So in 2030 the taxpayer has thrown away $58b and has to cough up the equivalent of $64b in 2030 dollars to run the FTTP anyway.

            this is a criminal act by Turnbull, who’s entire political strategy is to kick any problems down the road for someone else to worry about when he’s gone.

          • I know Peter I just like using there own figure when Richard was using them as gospel with has now been destroyed by the CP16

          • I’d love to see the real figures too, but I suspect they are just as much fantasy as the rest of Turnbull’s BS. Shame we can’t make these guys accountable in the future for the decisions they make today.

            If Turnbull was in power in the late 1920’s the Harbour Bridge would have cost 20 pence less, but only been 1 lane.

          • @p most telecoms equipment is replaced every 7 years. Such is the rate of technology change.

            Why we have a capex replacement budget.

            The savings you’re identifying here is the cost of the fibre and laying it. Fibre life expectancy some 65 year. It’s active equipment will also be replacement.

            What has been discussed often (jk still doesn’t understand) is cheaper capex, direct opex that’s more (but insignificant compared to rest opex or revenue), faster rollout leading to earlier revenue plus majority of available revenue captured by speeds matching large majority of customers demand and time value of money; MTM can be much cheaper even IF upgrade to fibre later.

            @jk why do I need the link? I know what I’ve written (HC provided the link destroying the fanboy wrote it claims).

            Calling rollout times “ambitious” is not supporting it, actually pointing out the timelines contain large risk. Then this is complicated stuff, isn’t it?

            Jk happy you’re finally supplying figures, the remaining issue is you don’t know what they mean.
            Peak funding doesn’t only include CPP, capex costs large. The fibre CPP are now known (inc Quigley). They were much higher than budget in original CPs. FTTB finally gave an option of 30% service class zero properties.

            CPP much lower for HFC & FTTN/B. I’ll be looking at future actual financials to discover if correct, calling out failures as I did with Quigley’s management (to abuse inc yourself). Don’t worry you won’t understand them.

            You can’t have CPP of 1/2 (FTTN) to 1/3 (HFC) with earlier revenues (transist cost sunk), speeds capturing customer demand, and insignificant difference in opex and then discover small difference peak funding without asking what in the policy is failing? Only joking, you wouldnt understand it.

          • Lol Richard
            much higher lol $500 compared to the $1000 a lot less in the cp16 compared to SR. Yes CPP is higher still waiting for that mythical faster rollout what was it 9 sec faster. But than that’s all you can point to that the MTM is better yet it peak cost is so bad. Not only with 2 blow out cost in 2 years $11B in 3 months and then another $15B 2 years later. So calling of the COP cost difference and not calling out why the peak cost is almost the same numbers man shows you only want to use figures to make you point. Like falling for the $74-$84B lol.

            Calling it ambitious on rollout and cost was never going to meet that cost or target is not supporting it either. When a failed of your beloved MTM all you do is critic the previous management not the current which according to you is more competent with has a $27B blowout in 2 years and hide behind commercial in confidence.

            But then you still failed to give me a cost of labor rollout of the hand continued.

            I have never said FTTB was bad but a good idea as copper is short (funny that) and not prone to the weather and should be in decent condition compared the the CAN.

          • @jo I’m assuming you’re drinking this Oz day. Your post less comprehensible than usual.

            CPP of options published. Capex savings enormous.

            Peak funding is so large (and will continue to climb) because the policy itself is a joke. Sat & LTE requiring indefinite subsidies and delayed (plus the most expensive copper kept), Transit rolled out despite tiny customer base, high value customers not targeted, overstaffed, massive payroll and luxury work places, etc

            I’ve called out current failures, however the original policy decisions are a leading cause of the issues today and the future. The policy is a disaster (all models). That MTM is better from a financial perspective doesn’t mean I endorse it.

            But I get it, you refuse to learn anything.

          • Lol best one yet Richard.
            So it’s original FTTP fault that the caused the $27B blowout lol Labor made Turnbull chose FTTN and made him claim he could have it done for $29B and complete in 3 years. It’s also the fault of the $15B blowout cost on the MTM just classic showing you fanboy support again.

            How is it better than in a financial when according to your beloved SR need major upgrade in 5 years after it complete as you say it’s not going to make a return does the gov of the day have to pay even more than the original cost to upgrade it great saving there lol.

      • @do another wonderful contribution. Anything specific you disagree with? Sorry, you believe CPs are audited.

        Perhaps do can help with the financial analysis;-)

        • There’s plenty we disagree with Richard including your previous comments which you now (rightly so as they were so fucking wrong) desperately attempt to completely distance your self from, or try to FUD up to distance yourself from.

          But hey all good we are used to it with the flip-flopping, I have no position but what I am told each day, FRUADBAND brigade…

    • “Lack of financial detail is frustrating. Information (official and leaked) is not kind to FTTH.”
      Of what scarce information there was, NONE of it suggested that the plan would have blown out by up to $27billion – even after being around 3 times longer than MTM has been today…

      • @hotc it’s just the beginning. The policy (all models) a massive failure. Expect revenue to fail to materialise.

        Can’t work out the rest of your post.

        • No you cant seem to understand any posts which are factual and make sense, but thanks for the frank admission ;)

        • “Can’t work out the rest of your post.”
          I suspect not working things out is a daily occurrence for you.

          “The policy (all models) a massive failure.”
          Except for the FTTP portion, which according to your own statistics provided an 11% increase over ROI and had Labor been able to roll out as fast as they’d planned would have provided a 200% increase over ROI.

  8. Hey Wait a minute they are not Censoring anything.

    To censor it you have to assume this data actually exists. Just like the proverbial math test if you make up the answer you have no working out to show.

  9. Here’s a tidbit…

    NBN contractors (those who hire other sub-contractors to actually install the “NBN” in whatever form), get all their data from a NBN SharePoint portal, NBN do EVERYTHING using massive excel spreadsheets. They have no internal job system or ANY streamlined processes.

    “NBN” is a failed project waiting to happen.

    • Yep: It’s the Royal Commission election we had to have… this is the very reason Bill Shorten isn’t going anywhere as the whole country knows that not one single Liberal voter is proud of copper internet.

      People died for this.

    • We all know Richard is one of the most hard core blind Liberal supporters here and the last time he posted his numbers it was revealed that FTTP figures were the ONLY figures providing above projected ROI, DESPITE Labors delays and Liberals halting the rollout!

  10. Someone please take these criminal dickheads to court already.

    I was in Cambridge park today. They have HFC but were on the FTTP map. I don’t doubt for a second without reason only a fraction of those houses will get FTTP.

    Since getting it this household has never had downtime because of rain compared to copper and then get treated with contempt by the ISP !

      • I have 3 times in one year also every couple of years have to get Telstra in to replace wall sockets due to the copper oxide corrosion.

        • likewise – I’ve had Telstra out 2 times in the last 2 months to fault find noisy connections after the rain. The tech tells me its water in the pits, and Telstra needs to rerun all the copper, but won’t pay for it, so every time it rains they comes out and find which (of the many) joins in the copper has gone faulty this time, and re-terminate it.
          I see them so often, they’ve given me their personal mobile numbers to contact when it stops working again.

  11. Fuckn comment system logged me out while commenting that is a bug.

    The FTTP setup I saw was a beautiful thing. No silly faulty HFC. The first FTTP setup I’ve seen in Sydney. Very simple wallmount setup. Of course TPG have to go and complicate things with their piece of crap non standard netcomm routers that neither TPG or Netcomm want to support and firmwares can’t even be user upgraded so a massive security hole. How they seem to deal with fixing router problems is to send new ones ! I wonder how people go with BYO routers.

  12. Overseas evidence and specifically comment from one of the worlds biggest telco’s rolling out both FTTP and FTTN BT in the UK state that FTTP is more expensive and slower to deploy than FTTN.

    What exactly is the argument that Australia is unique in the world when it comes to infrastructure rollouts, where the opposite is the undisputed truth?

    • The $56B price tag said other wise but then when claiming the $29B price tag on figures of a pop density 3 times the size of Australia no wonder the figures are so wrong.

      • Your point is based on deliberate misquoting of MtM funding projection figures again and again, that’s the best you can do over and over week in week out?

        • Reality Yes or No can the MTM in its current projection cost $56B

          But we both know the answer to that even though you won’t reply back and because of that answer I am not misquoting.

          Trying the hid behind that claim is all you can do to defend the MTM lol

    • Most of BT’s profits are generated by its Openreach subsidiary, which controls the UK’s ‘last mile’ copper infrastructure. Since 2005, BT have been accused of abusing their control of Openreach, particularly by UNDERINVESTING in the UK’s broadband infrastructure, charging high prices and providing poor customer service. The UK’s telecoms regulator Ofcom is currently investigating whether to order BT to sell Openreach, and is expected to report in January 2016.

      • Huge progress in the UK today, having the majority of PMs put their names in behind a BT split and remove copper.

        • Soth, MikeK,

          This is what I asked :

          What exactly is the argument that Australia is unique in the world when it comes to infrastructure rollouts, where the opposite is the undisputed truth?

          How do your responses prove that FTTP in Australia and only in Australia is cheaper and faster to rollout than FTTN?

          • Ah good old Reality_Distortion blatantly ignoring that MtM means an obsolete Patchwork network is tarted up temporarily before being scrapped at a huge loss, never making an ROI and costing the country billions in lost productivity and opportunities!

            Bravo sir bravo!

          • And here it is 2016 and the same old mindless yes men are still here arguing contradictorily and baselessly for the FRAUDBAND/COALITION cause 24/7 … FFS, seriously.

            Nice work alain but not AO for you yet, just for Henry… *sigh*

          • I assume a answer is impossible explaining why Australia is unique when to comes to FTTN vs FTTP costing and deployment times, best to try to frantically divert to other subject matter add a few meaningless terms like fraudband and plug on keeping the mindset firmly stuck in 2007-2013, the era of the failed Labor NBN rollout.

          • Because reality unlike the UK have a lot higher pop density most of Australia has suburbs which the problem with FTTN is distance. Or as the SR put it the 3 years difference is only 9sec faster per premises. So 9 sec difference of hooking copper to a node vs laying fibre in the ground lol.

            But why can’t we call it fraudband when the ones currently building already called it that lol.

          • Oh I see Australia has unique suburbs, different from any other country in the world, totally unsuitable for FTTN but perfect for FTTP.

            That’s a compelling case, stop the FTTN rollout immediately.


          • Lol Reality $8B cheaper for a 9 sec saving per premises lol almost a $1B for each sec

    • Australia was in the reasonably unique position that the “incumbent” wasn’t playing ball. Hence the decision was made to build new infrastructure that removed the incumbent as much as possible.

      That’s pretty damn unique actually.

  13. Your point is based on deliberate misquoting of MtM funding projection figures again and again, that’s the best you can do over and over week in week out?

  14. The cost of fibre is DECREASING due to economies of scale as production scales up to meet the needs of massive rollouts around the world.

    They are hiding lies.

    • So the fibre component of FTTN is also decreasing, this coupled with the fact the Coalition NBN Co obtained ownership of the Telstra copper for the same price Labor were going to pay them to shut it down makes for a compelling case as proven the world over that FTTN is cheaper and faster to deploy than expensive FTTP which requires new fibre runs all the way to inside the residence NBN NTU box.

      • But the level of service is not. FTTN is also proven around the world to be not as good as FTTP.

        From an installation point of view, yes FTTN is cheaper. Even taking into account having to buy the network back. But from an ongoing cost and best bang for buck point of view. Nope Fttn is a fail.

        Oh and by the by that all depends on how you consider the cost. Being that FTTP has already shown that it was getting a better ROI than was expected, which means it would have paid for itself sooner, pretty much nullifies the whole concept of installation cost.

      • No real NBN involves copper. You’re doing it wrong. I don’t care if it’s cheaper, it’s wrong. I don’t care if another country did it like that… they are also wrong. The Liberals are wrong and now the next generation will pay for your ineptitude.

        • “I don’t care if another country did it like that… they are also wrong.”

          Actually they just already owned a fully paid off copper network so their level of investment and return quite significantly different than say the only country to purchase a ‘brand new’ old and poorly maintained copper network for $11 billion.

          We’re basically screwed for the next 25 years now too. 10-15 years to get a return on Cu investment and then we might be able to afford to actually lay the fibre for the remain 70-80% that we should have in the start. It will probably cost 100 Billion or more then too (wage/labour cost only ever increases).

      • “a compelling case as proven the world over that FTTN is cheaper and faster to deploy than expensive FTTP which requires new fibre runs all the way to inside the residence NBN NTU box.”
        Which as Turnbull and his paid-for SR (and Morrow) states needs to be done 5-10 years after FTTN completion anyway. Compelling!

    • The actual fibre cable isn’t the ‘really’ expensive bit in the end. Its the Labour costs to employ people to lay the fibre and connect to peoples homes (requires 2 site visits after street work is done) where the big differences come down.


  16. Turdball and Corman or is it Conman. The term Fraudband is even more appropriate after reading this article. The the dirty tricks these two used to con the electorate into thinking Turdball’s back to the copper ages NBN was the best way to go. The lies and deception never stop when it comes to this gang of self serving rorters and schemers.

Comments are closed.