news Analysis by the NBN company’s first chief technology officer Gary McLaren appears to have shown that the activation rate of new NBN broadband connections is actually slowing, in a move that McLaren has speculated may be due to political reasons in an election year or merely the difficulty of dealing with copper and HFC technologies.
Experienced technology executive and engineer Gary McLaren served as the NBN company’s first chief technology officer, spearheading the company’s development of a strategy which has seen Fibre to the Premises technology deployed to more than a million premises throughout Australia, as well as complementary Fixed Wireless and satellite technology.
However, McLaren was made redundant by the NBN company, along with its chief financial officer and head of its commercial operations, shortly after Malcolm Turnbull became Communications Minister.
Last week the NBN company released its latest set of financial results. The results show that the company continues to make strong strides in deploying its network — both the original FTTP network envisioned by Labor as well as the Multi-Technology Mix approach favoured by the Coalition.
As part of the results, the NBN company said in a media release that activation rates (where actual customers sign onto the NBN) continued to ramp up:
“The number of homes and businesses with an active nbn™ service increased to 736,000, with nbn breaking the 10,000 activations per week threshold in December 2015 (12-week rolling average) and will continue to climb.”
However, analysis published by McLaren on his blog over the weekend appeared to show that activation rates on the NBN were actually forecase to decrease in the next half year.
“In 1H FY 16 (from July to Dec 2015) NBN Co have moved from 486,000 to 736,000 active premises or an increase of 250,000 active premises. But the forecast for 2H FY16 (from January to June 2016) is to grow this to 955,000 premises or an increase of 219,000 premises,” wrote McLaren.
Delimiter recommends readers click through to read McLaren’s entire post, as it is quite detailed and appears to be well-argued, as well as featuring useful graphs.
According to the former NBN CTO, there could be a couple of reasons for this discrepancy.
“The FY16 target of 955,000 active services is unchanged from the last set of financial results released in August 2015,” wrote McLaren. “So it may be that NBN Co are simply being conservative. They may have over-achieved in 1H FY16 but don’t want to adjust their forward targets. The actual result could turn out to be much better than the forecast. Could the timing of an election in 2016 have anything to do with the change?”
“Or maybe the FTTN and HFC technologies are taking longer than expected with new operational systems required for both NBN Co and its RSP customers needing to be put in place. If the actual number in FY16 comes out around the forecast number then this will probably have been the case.”
McLaren further pointed out that the slower activation rate would have some significant implications for the NBN company — ranging from delays in achieving revenue growth, to delays in hitting its ultimate target of 8 million active premises by 2020.
Delimiter has contacted the NBN company to invite a response to McLaren’s analysis.
opinion/analysis
Fascinating analysis by McLaren, and I find it very hard to fault his reasoning.
Personally I strongly suspect that the NBN company is … let’s not mince words here: I suspect the NBN company is lying.
It is simply not reasonable to assume that the NBN company’s projections regarding activation rates on its network have not changed over the past six months since the company last released its activation rates in August 2015. Six months makes a huge difference in terms of the NBN company’s operations … by now it will have a huge degree more visibility in terms of its projected activation rates over the next six months than it would have had six months ago.
As McLaren says, there can only be a few alternatives here. Either the NBN company is downplaying its projections in order to ensure it does not miss any targets in an election year, or the situation with the MTM model is actually resulting in poorer than expected activation rates.
I prefer to believe the former.
It is also important to note that downplaying these results now could give the NBN company a chance later on to announce that it has exceeded its targets — at a time very close to the election currently slated to be held later this year.
Of course, it is also possible that both are true simultaneously … representing the worst of all worlds.
I must say, it must be quite inconvenient for the NBN company and the Government having former NBN insiders such as McLaren and former NBN chief executive Mike Quigley regularly publishing this kind of detailed analysis about the NBN rollout (see further pieces here and here).
It is very hard to refute their analysis … after all, they built the NBN company from the ground up and are personally responsible for almost all of its success so far. They know what they are talking about — and I have usually found them significantly more honest and transparent with the truth about the NBN rollout than some of their successors.
Hear, hear.
+10000000
Delimiter- the Russia Today of tech blogs.
In Delimiter NBN, fibre deploys you!
Thank you for the laugh :-)
I’m sorry but the documents released by the NBN company in their media release was not signed off by the CEO, and therefore has no bearing to the NBN company and will self detonate in 10 seconds.
“As McLaren says, there can only be a few alternatives here. Either the NBN company is downplaying its projections in order to ensure it does not miss any targets in an election year, or the situation with the MTM model is actually resulting in poorer than expected activation rates.
I prefer to believe the former.”
There’s a third option, lowered consumer confidence (down 20% over the last 4 years) and lowered available discretionary income (the money that’s making the rich richer comes from the middle and bottom) has made this less affordable and a lower priority.
Additionally many employers have been removing benefits like subsidised broadband where employees were working from home. Especially prevalent amongst our ‘innovative*’ governments nowadays as they penny pinch their public servants.
* Why does ‘innovate’ now taste like a particularly filthy swear word when I say it?
Or people are realising they don’t need wired broadband when they only use 1GB per month.
Who’ll need more than 640KB of memory?
Hey my Commodore 64 still works great and it’s only got 64kb* of RAM!!!
*ironically it’s currently got 32GB of actual flash storage via my 1541 Ultimate II Cartridge and full IP Networking via my C64 Flyer Net modem! :-D
“As McLaren says, there can only be a few alternatives here. Either the NBN company is downplaying its projections in order to ensure it does not miss any targets in an election year, or the situation with the MTM model is actually resulting in poorer than expected activation rates.”
Or the company performed better than expected in H1. With zero evidence call the managers liars. Extraordinary hubris.
NBN discussion comical this year, failures to meet targets by massive margins ignored for (bonus paying) Quigley’s team. Yet Morrow is being criticised for not “substantially” exceeding his quite aggressive targets. Bizarro world of the NBN fanboys; unable to read the rollout / activation numbers (not their coloured graphs start after new management).
“failures to meet targets by massive margins ignored ”
Ignored? Ridiculously and blatantly untrue. Don’t you remember the media chortling over it (Annabel Hepworth/Mitchell Bingemann anyone?). Not to mention Quigley himself addressing it. Hardly ignored.
“… quite aggressive targets …”
LOL! O … you were serious? ROFL!
I guess Bizarro thinks his world is normal, while the rest of us ask about what the environment is like on that planet.
Oh no … I fed the troll didn’t I? Yep, you got me Richard.
Feeding the trolls on replies is old now.. They have adapted and get their power from another source
http://i.imgur.com/k8v8RwJ.jpg?1
Always wondered what was inside one of them, now I know.
@m
“He [Quigley] said NBN Co was confident it could bring the project in within the timetable and budget.” April 2013. Quit two months later, end of year review destroys the claim.
Imagine any senior management from any publicly listed company making such a statement and having it repudiated within 6 months. Regulators would be all over them investigating.
Lol Richard end of year review shown to use completely wrong figures claim restored lol
“Imagine any senior management from any publicly listed company making such a statement and having it repudiated within 6 months. Regulators would be all over them investigating.”
Yeah imagine that. Imagine stating that you could do it cheaper and faster then doubling your spend to 56 billion and you have to inflate figures to try and force your rhetoric to be right.
Yep, you’d be out on your backside in no time. Or that numpty could get the top job. Doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence does it.
Imagine stating that you could do it cheaper and faster then doubling your spend to 56 billion and you have to inflate figures to try and force your rhetoric to be right.
Which is exactly what you have done here to force your rhetoric to be right with the deliberate $56B misquote.
But that’s ok
Sorry reality wrong again as the CP16 has the number $56B in its cost it’s not a misquote but that’s all you can do to deflect the $27B blowout lol
It’s up to $56B in the estimated funding range, as you well know because you like many other ‘Back to 2013 FTTP’ fans have to rely on deliberate misquoting stunts to desperately try and make a MtM bashing case.
When that fails resort to personal attacks and swearing to try and carry the rapidly sinking argument, at a all time frenzy in this discussion.
Desperate whites of the eyes stuff as the FTTN rollout gains momentum.
Ummmm ….
Up to $56 billion …. from up to $29.5 billion. clarifying with an “up to” doesn’t really make the case any better.
You were talking about a sinking argument?
Thank you Reality showing that there is a $56B number in the CP16 lol
clarifying with an “up to” doesn’t really make the case any better.
It certainly does, what also makes it really much better is funding estimates for FTTP from CP16.
$74B-$85B finish date 2026-2028
“It certainly does, what also makes it really much better is funding estimates for FTTP from CP16.”
Which is adding the Coalition MTM to the cost, rather than letting the original FTTP rollout continue.
Oh dear.
Lol Reality and those figure have been shown as false but please keep trying even Richard doesn’t touch those anymore lol
Sorry, putting BS in front of them doesn’t count as ‘been shown as false’.
It’s about time I should supply the link saves you looking like a fool lol
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/12/07/our-prime-minister-may-have-been-factually-inaccurate-on-730-on-nbn-copper-costs/
Which has nothing to do with the NBN Co FTTP CP16 figures as quoted.
Lol so it is lol
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/10/13/turnbull-asked-nbn-co-to-generate-evidence-to-tear-down-fttp/
in short, that they wanted the NBN company to create information about the cost of returning to a FTTP rollout for the NBN so that that information could be contrasted with the cost of the MTM network.
The gospel is now CP16…
Oh the idiocy just gets more humorous by the day.
Straight from the same clowns who gave us U P T O $15B down the drain and 4 year waits… here’s CP16.
And you blokes have the audacity to criticise Quigley who in case you can’t quite grasp, started NBNCo from scratch and was doing much better with FTTP than the current impostors, who had it all there for them as a platform are doing with the (ahem) faster/cheaper MTM – FRAUDBAND.
Halving NBN Co FTTP targets at the end in 2013 from original estimates is doing much better with FTTP.
yeah ok.
Reality FTTP doing a lot better than MTM atm lol 50000 in 3 years is something to be proud of
It’s not in three years, FTTN was only commercially released last September.
Labor gained power in 2007, first commercial release of FTTP was 2010, so FTTP has been rolling out for six years.
FTTP fanboy ‘fair comparison’, a six year rollout of FTTP = a five month rollout of FTTN.
Ahh reality lol well let’s do a Richard and you and compare MTM to BT rollout they started in 2010 and now have 16M connected so the MTM is now in its third year so it should be hitting 8M by now lol
oh having being nailed on a Australian FTTP vs FTTN comparison on timelines it’s time to divert to the UK.
Which has nothing to do with the timeline comparison here, but I’m glad you mentioned BT, the company that has the historical runs on the board when it comes to FTTN and FTTP infrastructure rollouts.
They stated FTTN is faster and cheaper to rollout than FTTP, and are well advanced in their G.fast trials on the FTTN network.
Apparently Australia is unique in the world where the opposite is true, the evidence for this?
The FTTP ‘Back to 2013’ cheer squad said so.
Reality double standards are showing again can’t compare BZ now we can’t compare UK even though you and Richard do lol.
Yes Reality we are unique are we are the slowest rollout of FTTN in history lol. 50,000 connection when we should have had 8M by now
8 million in five months eh, so which country has managed to do 8 million FTTN connections in five months?
I will give you the country and the address:
1313 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA. USA.
Lol reality the MTM has been going for 3 years now BT done 16M in twice that time
@ alain…
You used to claim regularly that the original NBN roll out started in 2007. And when I said it couldn’t start in 2007 as the NBN that was rolling out, was only announced in April 2009, you then went off on some ridiculous, mindless rant of… demanding what was promised, no revisions or alteration were accepted, were they?
Yet now EVERYTHING you criticised them for is quite OK with the new roll out. In fact instead of winding back to Sept 2013 for your comparison (as you used to do to 2007 with the others) you now wish to use the commercial release date of last September, as your figures and every revision and alteration are welcomed with open arms. Aren’t they?
Absolutely fucking unbelievable, perpetually growing (with each MTM fuck up) hypocrisy.
You’re welcome.
Lol Richard
Aggressive targets lol. What 10M by the end of this year. Oh wait 4.5M by the end of this. Oh wait 2.5M by the end of this year.
How many time in 2014 did they revised there targets so they could claim they hit a target lol.
It is an absolute farce that you can claim to hit a target that has continually been lowered because of your constant failures.
Yet the LNP supporters nail the previous management to the wall for reducing targets, hypocrisy is fun!
The best thanks to Richard with BT passing 16M (not 60m lol) that the MTM by those same standards should be hitting 8M by now lol
He lol corrected the lol BT figure lol
But you know that.
oh, lol
Here is the Reality you’re acting like a child!
Yes, he corrected it… BUT only after we laughed at how WRONG he was, but you know that’s what it takes for the copper throwbacks to retract such BS.
Never fear, we are used to correcting intrepid anti FTTP BS from a few mindless minions here.
You’re welcome.
But continual repetitive use of $56B as the actual peak funding figure for MtM is ok, and when it is pointed out over and over the funding estimate is a range there is no apology, nothing, it’s just repeated again and again.
The in your face hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Lol Reality thank you again for confirming that there is a $56B figures in the CP16 lol
Where you addressing those lies towards me alain?
Please note I always say UP TO $15B because I find your continued childishness in this regards something to ridicule (hence the capitals)…
Anyone who thinks it’s ok to justify $10B (for example) in cost blow out for something which was only supposed to cost sub $30B, by justifying it with UP TO $15B, really needs a long hard look in the reality mirror.
You’re welcome
Interesting you categorise stating funding estimates in the correct manner as ‘childish’.
I’m not interested in justifying the changes in funding figures, only ensuring it is correctly stated, it is quite easy to do it correctly, the only reason it is not is the desperate need to exaggerate over and over MtM funding increases when pushing a MtM bashing/pro FTTP agenda.
“failures to meet targets by massive margins ignored”
Oh yeah, how’s 25Mbps minimum to 100% of Australians by the end of 2016 going?
326 days left btw Hotcakes.
Yes I look forward to the Labor NBN ‘let’s have a second go’ policy sometime soon in that time period as well.
The highlight of which will be finding a new name for MtM.
Easy… FRAUDBAND.
You’re welcome.
Your comment is invalid.
Nice way to address the topic Troll
From the government that smashed the ALP over broken promises I expect to have at least 25Mbps by the end of the year.
You need to update yourself Mitch, that target has been revised long ago, let’s not look for what you don’t want to find eh?
They were elected on many promises and broke all of them. Let’s gaol them instead of pretending it’s OK, OK?
Funny you didn’t say that about Labor NBN costing and target revisions along the way between 2010-2013.
But that’s ok, there is a special ‘look the other way’ technique of looking at things when the term FTTP is in the equation.
But wait Reality labor FTTP complete target was still 2021 only took 3 month for Turnbull to charge his lol what was it again 2016 to 2020 lol
@ alain
“Funny you didn’t say that about Labor NBN costing and target revisions along the way between 2010-2013.”
But you did… constantly and would not accept any revisions or missed targets. In fact it was derided by you (almost) daily as mismanagement.
But now you laud every cost blow out and hold up and accept all revisions.
I don’t know whether the word hypocritical or grubby suits such disgraceful double standards.
You’re welcome.
I don’t laud them, as you are aware much MtM bashing relies on pretending revisions have not been done and targets and minimum speed promises updated and quoting outdated targets and promises to spin up the problem.
The Coalition have got smart about it they must have learned from Labor who also did it at their final years, when you revise costs and targets make sure the estimates take you beyond the next election year.
“It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.”
Tony Abbott 2011
Yes Labor did a doozy in 2007, one minute the electorate were reading their FTTN policy before the election, post election it was changed to FTTP.
At least the Coalition have stuck to their MtM mix, a policy that won them the last election.
Lol Reality can you point me to the pre election policy that used 0% HFC again it was such a laugh
I’m glad that you agree that the coalition broke their promise of 25Mbps by 2016.
It doesn’t matter if I agree or not that’s irrelevant, the Coalition NBN Co decided they can’t make that 2016 speed promise and changed it, if it is a key broken promise to you and for many it may well be vote for the alternative NBN policy. (I just hope you get to read one)
So Reality of Labor Say they can deliver FTTP in 3 years for just $29B as there policy for 2016. It would be OK with you because cp change
Wow, just wow.
I see there truly is no point in any further discussing anything with yourself.
Wow Richard, with every post your desperate alain-isms are showing…
You bag Quigley & Co at every opportunity for lagging behind their own targets and just like your mate, would never accept any of their revisions to their “actually initially, very aggressive targets” and described them as mismanagement.
Yet (again like your mate) you welcome with open arms the latest mobs, woeful hold-ups and blow outs (err actual mismanagement). Why…? Because they have upgraded (i.e. downgraded) their estimates accordingly.
Wow did you also do a Masters in contradiction and hypocrisy?
@alex is looking a bit ridiculous these days. Years of abusively denying the failures I pointed out. Evidence ignored. You were wrong.
On time and budget mantra exposed for the con it was.
I’ll certainly be watching the company’s performance re CP16. Rollout currently tracking above predictions, maybe the first CP not to be destroyed in 12 months. Don’t worry, you won’t understand any of the numbers.
The “downgraded” forecasts claimed by the fanboys are actually multiples of actual performance in any year of the old management. Worth reading a few times, though the impact will be lost on those proudly innumerate.
Ah infrastructure reuse; faster to deploy, cheaper. Both demonstrated with actuals (since overseas evidence ignored). Fanboys and their cheerleaders looking stupid.
Again fixed line upgrade would be complete today. How’s Alex’s FTTN upgrade going?
Richard faster to deploy according to your own standards using BT 16M rollout the MTM should by around 8M now lol.
Or how about the ones on the 3 year rollout plan for FTTP that was taken off. According to you they should have had MTM by now.
@jk right, with FTTB / FTTN / HFC the fixed line upgrade would have been completed today. Thanks Conroy, his gift for generations of taxpayers ($16b 1.5m premises).
Lol Richard the BS of that billion investment that didn’t want $4.7B help from the government lol.
But I can do one better we would have had FTTP if it wasn’t for the privatisation of Telstra lol
Really??
Take us through the thought processes of that amazing bizarre conclusion.
This will be good
Lol Reality what is bizarre
Lol this will be good
I told you it would be good.
Yep though so troll at it best can’t explain its claim
Unbelievable…
4 year hold ups and $15B blow out are shrugged off and the finger always pointed at the last mob (hmm sounds familiar).
Why? Dumb, blind ideology mixed with narcissism…
You were right (once and once only) you could have written this complete farce…Dick!
BTW – speaking of “actual performance”… which actual part of the promised 25mbps-50mbps to all Australians by 2016, is too hard for you to understand?
Well it’s easy to understand because the targets have been revised, but you know that.
Just like the Labor NBN Co did with every CP it put out for their failed NBN FTTP rollout, and no doubt will continue their trend after a three year breather if they win government later this year.
The big difference between the lib MtM and the alp NBN is costs, MtM keeps going up in costs, NBN was going down in costs.
Try comprehending that Alain you small minded LibTroll!
If you care to read the latest NBN Co half year report available to all to read on their website there was a rise in brownfield FTTP CPP from the last reporting period.
Interesting definition of it going down.
Of course it still has a hell of long way to go before it gets near to FTTN and HFC CPP.
So you believe a partisan organisation that had political reasons to overstate FTTP costs when every other FTTP rollout on earth shows costs going down, including project fox which the libs tried to bury!
How sad for you!
So FTTN and HFC costs never go down because?
Of course what you left out is any evidence that shows FTTP cost being the same as or lower than FTTN, which is the aim of any cost comparison.
@tizz 4 yr holdup? Election policy distroyed both parties, only NBNCo management though so far. Infrastructure delivery as predicted, denied by fanboys.
You’d love Gregory over at BizSpec. GPON is now “obsolete”. Even the cheerleaders are becoming desperate. Squeal piggies…
Derek O,
Oh you would like to know why the FTTP costs went up? – glad you asked.
Brownfield FTTP Network
The CPP increase during HY2016 is
primarily driven by higher customer
connection costs due to a higher volume
of complex connections, removal of
blockages and construction of new
lead-ins where existing lead-ins could not be re mediated.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/media-releases/Strong-result-continues-nbns-momentum-to-full-year-targets.html
Thank you reality for shows how great a Turnbull negotiated the new $11B deal couldn’t have done it with out you lol
I’ll spoon feed you again child…
A cover up revision doesn’t actually cover up the actuals alain.
They still blew the promised time by years and the costs by as much as (for now) $15B…
I reiterate, following your hypocritical deriding of the others for revising, it’s quite telling in your cycloptic world, that you will readily accept any and everything the current NBN and government dish up, now matter how disgraceful the fuck up is… and they are completely fucked up.
But you know that, just never allowed to admit it.
You’re welcome.
Alain, CPP for FTTP went up because Lib_nbn cooked the books by adding the OpEx cost to a CapEx cost to make FTTP look worse than it is!
This is nothing short of deceitful, just like everything else that comes from you LibTrolls!
Show us all where they did this.
Reality you already showed us with your link above the cost of removal of blockages and leadins which was never a cost until the new $11B deal thanks for the link lol
the new 11b deal??, umm ok
yeah Alain, you know the new deal that gave Telstra a 2 Billion dollar freebie by handing over the remediation costs to NBN!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/telstra-reviews-pay-rates-for-work-on-nbn/story-e6frgaif-1226658167954
Which once again has nothing to do with brownfields FTTP CPP figures from the NBN Co financials.
So basically more partisan behavior from a GBE that is not supposed to play politics – but then we’ve seen time and time again TurnCoat and his goons at the gimped nbn play dirty politics with our national infrastructure!
Even if we could show incontrovertible proof that they were just low-balling to make MTM look better in an election year, do we really think the LibTrolls here or really anywhere, would listen? I, personally, doubt it.
@r0 evidence would be a pleasant change. But continue with the unsupported accusations…
You first.
Ok how’s this Richard, the liberals (including Howard) are big spending, high taxing govs compared to the Rudd /gillard gov’s.
http://adelaidereview.com.au/opinion/politics-opinion/the-small-government-myth/
And yet what do we get from your mates, sfa if you aren’t a corporation after handouts.
Beautiful Derek O, I would call that article a KNOCK OUT PUNCH on Richard, Richard is on the canvas you can see canaries circling his bruised and battered head. Richard for your own sake don’t get up all you will do is make an even bigger fool of yourself and just so you don’t you can have this article as well. But knowing Richard it will be a case of only fools and horses.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html
And yet under Howard infrastructure spending fell to record lows of less than 2% of GDP. Basically Howard pissed it all away!
I heard he had infrastructure debt of 80 billion. That’s why they call the coalition governments ‘The Do Nothing Governments’.
@do & @mk sadly for you both I’m on the record saying the same thing. You’ve concocted some connection to the Liberal party. The stupidity of the fanboys is never ending, laugh at their gullibility and ignorance.
As I said only fools and horses and which one are you Richard, well your no Mr Ed.
A horse is a horse
Of course of course
And no one can talk to a horse,
Of course
That is, of course
Unless the horse
Is the famous Mister Ed!
Go right to the source
And ask the horse
He’ll give you the answer that you’ll endorse
He’s always on a steady course
Talk to Mister Ed!
So Richard, are you admitting that in the last 20 years, alp gov’s have been the most fiscally responsible?
*Mind blown*
@do nice laugh, Howard wasn’t low spending. Neither is Abbott/Turnbull (as stated pre-election).
Rudd/Gillard ecilpses Whitlam as our worst/incompetent govt (quite an effort). Competition for the prize is tough. Spending and deficits their legacy.
Didn’t stop you “leaning” on Whitlam’s free education though?
I guess ideology vs selfishness is the hard part for people such as you to deal with eh Dick?
@rizz wrong again about my age (Hawke reintroduced fees). But don’t stop making stuff up like the other fanboys. The squealing post at delimiter are amazing, not one addressing half yearly results (best ever), squeal on…
“not one addressing half yearly results”
You mean about how the FTTN rollout is slowing down?
Maybe you missed it – here:
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/02/08/analysis-by-ex-nbn-cto-shows-nbn-activation-rate-is-actually-slowing/
@hotc steps up with a gem, claiming I missed a story I’ve already commented on. Fanboy ignorance continues to surprise. What’s next?
My apologies Richard, it was after all, simply a stab in the dark admittedly…
But you did admit at one stage to being “in a different time zone”, which we can all clearly see, reading your last millennium driven comments :) So…
As such, I would have assumed one with such visionless, insular, conservative 1950’s views, would have been born in the fifties not the “flower power 60s”, man.
Surely the little woman belongs in the kitchen and (add Tony wink…now ;) bedroom ;) ;) while you and the chaps head down to (L)libertarian HQ, for a few cognacs and Cubans (shhh don’t tell anyone about the Cubans)
But the bile… suggesting I make stuff up, when I was simply surmising, shows the hypocrisy of you forever sobbing about, err, bile.
It also shows that anal bean counters obviously lack, well everything from common sense, vision and now we can add sense of humour.
Oh well :)
“Fanboy ignorance”
Ignorance indeed. Once again, you fail to put two and two together. I feel like I’m going to have to spell it out. How embarrassing for you.
Dodging and weaving as usual Richard. You should join the Australian Rugby team with that dexterity.
I said “IF we could” and you won’t even say “If you could show the evidence I would agree with you” you just throw it back at me? Cool story bro. Back under your bridge LibTroll.
@r0 your unsupported conclusions are suddenly my fault.
Thanks for having great reading comprehension Richard.
I love when you don’t read peoples comments then reply with inane bollocks.
Even when presented with evidence, you ignore it anyway, so tell me what the fuck is the point?
@r0 what evidence? None, zero. Zip.
Fanboys think they can write other’s replies, upset when not as expected. It’s a comedy.
Dick you keep demanding proof and wrongly claim you have supplied proof. Yet all you do is simply quote the latest NBN rubbery figures (accepting every “downgrade”), over and over and then beat your chest (it is the chest you are beating isn’t it ;)
These figures you love so much have been at best demonstrated as politically manipulated and at worst shown to be a complete farce (proven daily with each and every catastrophe) so therefore you have supplied nothing but an already proven failure.
All to support an ideological position of supplying an obsolete (read: OBSOLETE), second rate, mish-mash network, at the expense of what was a superior network, already underway? No where else on earth are people so stupid? FFS, even those rolling it out now, described it as fraudband when the others had it as their policy some 9 years ago…
I also love the way you state something and when it’s found wrong you then never mention it again, following a lame excuse…
Like you asking for proof that BB speed increases, improve GDP (when you already had the answer – tut tut). And when your own link (obviously accidentally posted) from Ericsson stated…
“A new report, conducted jointly by Ericsson, Arthur D. Little and Chalmers University of Technology, in 33 OECD countries, quantifies the isolated impact of broadband speed, showing that doubling the broadband speed for an economy increases GDP by 0.3%. A 0.3 percent GDP growth in the OECD region is equivalent to USD 126 billion. This corresponds to more than one seventh of the average annual OECD growth rate in the last decade.
The study also shows that additional doublings of speed can yield growth in excess of 0.3 percent (e.g. quadrupling of speed equals 0.6 percent GDP growth stimulus) Both broadband availability and speed are strong drivers in an economy.”
…. you never mentioned it again (after making some pathetic excuse)…
And what about the CBA? You used to mention it all the time as your smoking gun. Until it was pointed out that the Coalition friendly panel performing the CBA, even had to admit Quigley & Co’s figures were pretty good.
Of course you then said the CBA can’t be taken seriously as the figures used were flawed, because they were Qyuigley’s figures? Now the CBA is never mentioned.
And what about that IMO, dishonest, intentional posting of 60m premises passed in the UK to try to talk up FTTN?
Love your work Dick, most subservient…
Indeed Rizz. It’s quite extraordinary what has happened here. Only the copper fanboy knuckle-draggers fail to comprehend the sheer idiocy of going backwards.
Good old conservatives, always going backwards because their gearbox only has reverse!
Rizz,
I assume therefore all of Australia’s GDP growth will be limited to greenfields estates and areas of Tasmania.
A needed boost to their economies.
@r @do @brisyline all but one of the numbers are from Quigley’s CP and ARs. Perfectly illustrating their remarkable ignorance.
RR hasn’t changed in years. You should have a look at some of the insane ramblings of his on Zdnet from a few years back (pure gold) destroyed by myself and Rizz countless times. Will provide entertainment for years to come as the MTM patchwork “progresses”.
I know HC I have been looking and I still haven’t found a comment calling out the $29B for what it was the he claimed he had lol
@ alain,
Once again you take the childish route and assume wrong…
“I assume therefore all of Australia’s GDP growth will be limited to greenfields estates and areas of Tasmania.”
The answer is no of course not, to even suggest it is moronic.
It’s not all or nothing… but again we understand with you people if you aren’t 100% with us you are against us.
Here learn something (ahem) about speed improving GDP and the added improvements for each incremental increase in speed: – c/- your mate Dick (who accidentally posted the wrong link previously…lol)…
http://www.ericsson.com/spotlight/media/blog/isolated-impact-increased-broadband-speed-gdp/
Reality,
What an inane comment.
The old FTTP what it can do for a area economically argument gets trotted out quite often, this goes way back to arguments put forward that it allows a start up like digital photo labs to flourish in FTTP areas.
Of course FTTP rollouts have been in Australia for many years, way before the Labor NBN was ever thought of and the first commercial NBN Co FTTP rollot in 2010.
When asked for supporting evidence of all the new ‘digital age’ businesses flourishing in well established FTTP areas and there are many in Australia in 2016 it’s always met with a rapid diversion to another subject or total silence.
Argue with Ericsson…
Your infamous GDP report, which gets a airing at random intervals, which is all about doubling of BB speeds and its effect on a nations GDP.
So you have ADSL2+ or less and you get a doubling of speed when you get FTTN or HFC or FTTP or Fixed wireless or even going from 3G to 4G the GDP outcome still applies irrespective of infrastructure type.
> “A new report, conducted jointly by Ericsson, Arthur D. Little and Chalmers University of Technology, in 33 OECD countries, quantifies the isolated impact of broadband speed, showing that doubling the broadband speed for an economy increases GDP by 0.3%.
> The study also shows that additional doublings of speed can yield growth in excess of 0.3 percent (e.g. quadrupling of speed equals 0.6 percent GDP growth stimulus) Both broadband availability and speed are strong drivers in an economy.
Thanks for reminding us again why speed tiers are such a bad idea. If you removed speed tiers on FTTP we would see an instant increase in speed on fibre from 33Mbps to 1000Mbps. I wonder what effect that would have on the economy.
Yet another example of how badly Labor screwed the country with it’s NBN plan.
@Mathew,
Yes, speed tiers were and are a bad idea, yet we don’t see the LNP doing away with them.
Your turn.
@ alain
“Your infamous GDP report, which gets a airing at random intervals, which is all about doubling of BB speeds and its effect on a nations GDP.”
No it’s not my report it was actually (accidentally I’d suggest) posted by your mate Richard.
Infamous says who, you? ROFL.
So you know better than Ericsson do you?
Well in that case, you take them to task for bursting your bubble by finding that faster speeds increase GDP and that speeds (unavailable on FRAUDBAND) but available on FTTP, would increase our GDP even further.
Copy/paste your mails here…. onya bike.
You’re welcome.
BTW Mathew… in relation to your other spiel. Yeah speed tiers eh?
You hated the FTTP roll out for that, but don’t seem to be taking FTTN/MTM to task. Curious.
Speed tiers are obviously the wonderful, butter wouldn’t melt in their mouth’s, purer than driven snow… private enterprises way to typically, rip us the consumers off eh?
HC…
“…Will provide entertainment for years to come as the MTM patchwork “progresses”.
I don’t mean to be picky here, but I believe the letters “MTM” and the word “progress” are mutually exclusive.
;)
Although I do note the snide ” ”
:)
Rizz,
Of course what the Ericsson report didn’t say is that FTTP is mandatory to get the GDP increase, so the point you want to push amongst all the usual ranting has no validity.
#royalcommission
> So basically more partisan behavior from a GBE that is not supposed to play politics
You mean like Quigley releasing wildly inaccurate roll-out maps just prior to the 2010 & 2013 elections or were you referring to Quigley on the same stage as Gillard & Conroy announcing 1Gbps in response to Google Fibre.
Note that even though 1Gbps plans that have been available from NBNCo since December 2013 because Labor’s artificial financial model makes it impossible for RSPs to offer them at a viable price.
Back from WP to spread more lies and misinformation?
_mathew_ the rollout was ramping up until the election and was promptly flat-lined by the liberal goon squad!
The 1Gbps announcement was genuine, all FTTP connected premises technically can access it right now, the hold up is the ISP’s (CVC & POI’s are prolly sizable factors in their reluctance to offer it).
Quigley acknowledged that the 1Gbps announcement was a direct response to Google Fibre. In the 6 years since then, Google Fibre have moved to provide free 1Gbps to public housing and in Australia we have 16% and falling connecting at 100Mbps on a 1Gbps connection.
The reason RSPs cannot offer 1Gbps is because based on Labor’s artificially constructed pricing model 1Gbps are simply unviable.
Lets make a couple of crude assumptions and find out just how expensive 1Gbps is to offer:
* CVC is $20/Mbps
* 8 million connections
* 5 RSPs with an equal share of the market
* 1% on 1Gbps (optimistic until after 2026)
* 121 POIs (CVC needs to be purchased separately for each one)
* 8,000,000 / 121 / 5 * 1% = 132 customers on 1Gbps plans per RSP
* 1:50 contention ratio (not good) = $52,892/month = $400 per customer in just CVC
* 1:20 contention ratio (more reasonable) = $132,231/month = $1,000 per customer in just CVC
Add on to these numbers the AVC cost, RSP backhaul cost and RSP margins then realise that most PoIs are no where near their target number and it is easy to see why 1Gbps was at best fanciful announcement by Labor & Quigley.
irrelevant, the capabilities of GPON always meant 250-1000 mbps plans would be made available at some point.
I’m not sure you will find many proponents of FTTP claiming that the CVC system or the 121 PoIs were good decisions. Yet, we don’t see the Liberals doing anything to change either of those either…
exactly right R0, the CVC and POI issues are absolutely ALP failures – no question about it.
Nah Derek, we have to be fanboys, we have to 100% blindly support anything and everything the ALP did while in Government because apparently, that is all the LibTrolls seem to do regarding the LNP.
We can’t ever be allowed to criticise the ALP because we’re fanboys and we luuuurve them so much. (Or something….. who the hell knows)
yep, and he calls us fanboys!!!
” in Australia we have 16% and falling connecting at 100Mbps on a 1Gbps connection.”
Where did you source this statistic from? The only FTTP NBN connections in this country are all equally capable of 4Gbps (doubled upon request, limited only by hardware installation), are you talking about Telstra or TransACT or something? How does that even relate?
> Where did you source this statistic from? The only FTTP NBN connections in this country are all equally capable of 4Gbps
The 16% (and falling) connected at 100Mbps comes from the NBN Financial Results Presentation. It is the available in the media section of the NBNCo website. The presentation is interesting because it reflects real world response to the NBN and shows that as the late adopters are forced to transition to the NBN that they are choosing slower cheaper plans. This highlights the fact that only a small minority are prepared to pay for the speeds that will enable the game changing new services that Labor used as the justification for building the NBN.
What we have in the NBN is a classic case study of the Labor Party. A great idea worthy of support (even if they did initially propose FTTN and only switched to FTTP to save face) followed by an implementation with massive issues which didn’t even plan to deliver the promised benefits to most Australians. In this case Labor’s plan rather than providing digital equality has entrenched the digital divide.
Imagine building a new freeway where a lane was reserved for the 1% who were prepared to pay for access to the fast lane and most people were travelling at 2.5% of the top speed? That is Labor’s NBN in a nutshell.
That is correct about the falling 100/40 connections, it was 19% Dec 2014, it was 16% December 2015.
The average speed provisioned across all fixed line wholesale services was 34 Mbps a slight decrease from 35 Mbps at December 2014.
Wow really…
You mean introduce FTTN, which can’t achieve 100/40, and we all watch the numbers fall?
Gee how about that?
Thanks for showing we are going backwards with FRAUDBAND
Matthew completely failed to grasp the context of my question (shock, horror) and didn’t answer it. At all.
And both muggins’ both completely failing to understand how percentages work at the most basic level. Thanks for stating the obvious once again Rizz. It’s unbelievable that such elementary basics should need to be taught (repeatedly) in a supposedly technical forum.
HC, notice how _Mathew_ suddenly stopped banging on about “only 16% wanting 100/40 services” when I pointed out to him that 1.4 million premises out of 9 million was not exactly a trivial number!
Hotcakes, were you seriously trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is widely regarded as a “clown”?
Just pointing out the obvious for the passers-by.
> HC, notice how _Mathew_ suddenly stopped banging on about “only 16% wanting 100/40 services” when I pointed out to him that 1.4 million premises out of 9 million was not exactly a trivial number!
The point about percentages is that it gives you a perspective on the proportion of premises that will receive the benefits. 1.4 million sounds large, except when you compare it with 7.2 million premises on 25Mbps or slower.
Have a read of this article on the digital divide: http://www.fastcompany.com/3036659/elasticity/lessons-from-googles-first-rollout-of-google-fiber
Matthew, throwing 1.4 million premium customers revenue under the bus is why MtM will never make an ROI.
Keep demonstrating your idiotology Matthew, it’s hilarious!
> throwing 1.4 million premium customers revenue under the bus is why MtM will never make an ROI.
Now lets pick apart your 1.4 million ‘premium’ customers.
* 20% will have FTTP available = 1.12 million
* 33% will have HFC available (3 million premises) = 0.74 million
* NBN are expecting only 70% of premises to connect = 0.52 million
The loss of revenue will be further reduced by FTTN connections that will order 100Mbps.
This is before you consider that the NBN plan is for revenue growth to come from primarily from data usage (CVC) and the impact is reduced further.
Do you know which number hasn’t changed in all of this? 7.2 million still choosing to connect at 25Mbps or slower!
Government policy that denies the proposed benefits of the government program to 7.2 million people should be considered bad pollicy. You’ll notice that the voters agreed and Labor lost the election.
> Keep demonstrating your idiotology Matthew, it’s hilarious!
Please try to think through your argument before criticising others.
Mathew, you know full well I was talking about the 9 million FTTP scenario, not Malcolm TurnCoats Mess.
Nice try, come again!
> Mathew, you know full well I was talking about the 9 million FTTP scenario, not Malcolm TurnCoats Mess.
Which is exactly what I’ve explained to you. Less than a third of the 1.4 million premium customers are actually impacted by the change to a multi-technology solution. These people have option of either moving or waiting for fibre on demand. People move for many other lifestyle choices: jobs, public transport, schools, recreation, etc., Internet speeds is just one of those factors. If it was significant you would see it prominently displayed in real estate advertising.
> Nice try, come again!
What I’ve been attempting to help you understand is that Labor’s implementation of FTTP was going to deliver limited benefits to such a small portion of the population that changing to a technically inferior multi-technology solution hasn’t had anywhere near the impact that you might expect.
A couple of examples of Labor’s spin are:
* Promising 1Gbps prior to the 2010 election response to Google Fibre, but omitting to note that they were predicting in 2026 less than 1% would connect at 1Gbps
* Promoting eHealth as big benefit, but omitting to note that the high quality video conferencing required won’t work on 79% of FTTP connections and 100% of wireless / satellite connections.
If you read the NBNCo Corporate Plan, you find that:
* Labor correctly identified fast internet as being of benefit to the country.
* Labor correctly identified that 100Mbps was the minimum speed.
* Labor designed an implementation plan which predicted 50% would connect at 12Mbps on fibre and only a tiny elite would connect at the full speed.
Either Labor preferred spin to delivering the benefits of fast internet to everyone, or Labor understood the impact of their policy on the disadvantaged and didn’t care that it would increase the digital divide. It is possible that both is true.
Mathew
The MTM figures for 2020 are expecting
31% on 12Mbps
36% on 25Mbps
11% on 50Mbps
22% on 100Mbps
But then your example of electricity show what your no teir price on FTTN will do lol. As when are only supply what customer are mainly using now 5 years late.
But are you happy to just supply 25Mbps for upto $56B vs 100Mbps for $64B
It’s not 100mbps for $64B, and it’s not just 25Mbps for up to $56B.
Two out of two deliberately misquoted again.
Lol Devoid of reality trying and fails again could you please show me where I am wrong. It will be a great laugh can’t wait
Of course, he is a completely objective and unbiased observer. And the pigs are ready for take off.
His era was the one where NBNco would use premises passed as a performance metric even when the premises passed couldn’t actually connect. Talk about lying! What a useless metric. They may as well have also reported how many lunches their staff had eaten.
Because they aren’t doing that now by saying how many have been passed and then how many are “RFS”? How the hell is that any frigging different?
@mrsh except the number of lunches would have been higher.
RFS was defined in their corporate plan. After a number of years of massive underperformance they dropped the requirement of able to order a service inflating premises passed by 30%. Mostly MDUs, these were left unable to connect at service class zero. Conroy/Quigley with no answer.
Management invented a new metric; premises commenced. An irrelevant rubbish metric. Like some Orwellian novel, but such was the Rudd/Gillard years and their (here) lauded transparency.
“They may as well have also reported how many lunches their staff had eaten.”
There was also outrage about NBN Co having coffee machines.
Don’t you just love speculation, where would MtM bashing be without it.
Troll
Hi Rizz.
Sorry to disappoint, I’m not Rizz. I’m just pointing out some very obvious Trolling.
Still not sure why the Banhammer hasn’t smote you yet…
I see you have met our resident child, Mitch?
He seems to live in a parallel dimension, where everything backwards, retrograde and contradictory are the norm?
As such, he refers to everyone as Rizz… except me of course…
Just a heads up – all my comments calling for Alain to be banned/reprimanded as a result of claims flying in the face if observable facts have simply been deleted by your know-how,as though I didn’t take half an hour out of my day to write a calm deconstruction if his comments and why they were in breach on the comments policy. Something is rotten…
lol you got called Rizz, that means you’ve been noticed! Presumably for pushing the right buttons.
Page 9 of the half year results presentation vindicates the Liberal decision to not roll-out FTTP based on Labor’s financial model and predictions. 79% connected at 25Mbps or slower. Not much point in building out FTTP when only 16% and falling (19% in 2014) are connecting at 100Mbps. No sign of RSPs offering 1Gbps plans that have been available from NBNCo since December 2013 because Labor’s artificial financial model makes it impossible for RSPs to offer them at a viable price.
Compare that with Google Fibre where 1Gbps is free in public housing! Labor could have constructed a financial model without speed tiers and Australia could have been world leaders. Instead 79% on fibre are connecting at 25Mbps or slower and FTTN is being installed. Sadly this makes it perfectly reasonable that the 16% (and falling) who want 100Mbps should either move or pay for fibre on demand.
Back from WP to spread more lies and misinformation?
Rather than suggesting it is a lie, can you point out which part is a lie?
* The 79% connected at 25Mbps or slower
* The 16% (down 3% in the past 12 months) connected at 100Mbps
* Zero connected at 1Gbps?
If you actually studied what Labor promised, rather than being blinded by the shiney fibre there is a chance that Labor (or at least the independents) might have changed the model and we would still be seeing FTTP being rolled out. It is easy to justify FTTN when 79% are connecting at speeds easily provided by FTTN but much harder when you are replacing 1Gbps with 25Mbps.
It’s much easy to claim that more people are connecting to 25Mbps or below when that’s the speeds it’s required to deliver.
It is not a claim it is the connection numbers from NBNCo that have fallen only slightly in average speeds as the late adopters connect.
and yet the revenue for FTTP customers continues to be above predictions! The same cant be said for MtM revenues!
What predictions?
These prediction which can be found a the link provided
“$23 in 2013 to $32 in 2015 and $52 by 2020”
https://delimiter.com.au/2012/02/10/nbn-pricing-revisited-the-arpu-argument/
Current ARPU figures in the latest Half Year Report are based on all revenue streams for the NBN Co of which FTTP is a component, so I don’t know how you conclude FTTP ARPU is above predictions.
Well reality what’s the % of active connection of the different tech and that will be your answer
Not 50% on 12mbps after all? 79% on 25mbbs you say.
So they are surpassing the conservative estimations of 50/12 (you parroted daily for years) just like we tried in vain to explain to you…!
Thank you.
Apologies if you aren’t actually “that” Mathew… but the DNA seems apparent.
It’s clearly the same _Mathew_ and still fixated on todays speed requirements – he is just too stupid to comprehend building infrastructure to meet tomorrows requirements!
Imagine if he was responsible for the Sydney harbor bridge, it’d be 1 lane in each direction!
#LibFail
Labor’s “conservative” estimates had very few on 25/5Mbps and significantly more on 100Mbps than the current reality. I expect a key reason for 12Mbps being 33% is Telstra not offering a 12Mbps option.
I’m curious as to what you think you is the significant difference between reality (79% connected at 25Mbps or slower on fibre) and Labor’s prediction *65% connected at 25Mbps or slower in 2016? The fact is more people have connected at slower speeds than Labor’s “conservative” predictions.
I put “conservative” in quotes because i find it amusing that only those parts of the NBNCo Corporate Plan you disagree with are “conservative” and those parts that Labor have shown to be optimistic on (build plan, costs, etc.).
Standard _Mathew_ troll BS – lets design a system for the lowest common denominator!!!
your sir are not even bright enough to be called a half-wit!
The difference is Mathew, someone used to comment daily about 50/12mbps being “the number”.
This person was told this number isn’t set in stone and is just a conservative estimation.
But there was no correspondence, no compromise and absolutely no rationality – it was 50/12 – period..
But looky now, you are proven – wrong/we are proven – correct (you even posted the figures, which I’ll take on face value, above).
I can’t see 50/12 there, can you?
But feel free to argue, because saying one thing for years and then altering (even to the point of complete contradiction) to suit the narrative happens here regularly, via the copper throwbacks.
lol, the MM is back again and still spouting the same erroneous crap, this time with a goalpost movement. Not surprising, it’s hard having to debate with facts that don’t suit your agenda so the best thing to do it just make some up. Coalition clowns would be proud. Meanwhile down a few comments RR is actually defending this idiocy as if his credibility couldn’t sink any lower…
“very few on 25/5Mbps and significantly more on 100Mbps than the current reality”
Do you seriously not know how percentages work?
” It is easy to justify FTTN when 79% are connecting at speeds easily provided by FTTN but much harder when you are replacing 1Gbps with 25Mbps.”
Right, so right now, 79% are connecting at 25Mbit or slower, right now. What about in 10 years? In 20 years? In 30 years? When their FTTN either stays as is, and they are still stuck on 25Mbit or slower because their line doesn’t provide faster, or the inevitable more expensive upgrade from FTTN to FTTP takes place….
Right, nah its better to spend $50bn now then another $XXbn in the future. Its someone else’s problem then.
“* Zero connected at 1Gbps?”
Previously available pre-election, no longer mentioned as being available even on nbn website. I’d say another obvious political manoeuvre.
@mathew points out the obvious figures (with reference); look at the fanboys decending. Nothing but bile. What a bunch of vile nobodies, too ignorant to even identify how little they know.
Yes Richard and how is the MTM been going according to your standard quote the BT rollout it should be at 8M by now lol
But then your just the same showing how bad the current congestion on the node is but you go they have room to upgrade lol. It’s the slowest FTTN rollout in the world lol
Richard, seriously? Mathews argument relies on ignoring ALL high end and ALL future requirements and you buy that garbage?
Oh that’s right, you’re not a liberal fanboy at all are you?
So my comment about future speed requirements amounts to bile in your mind?
Good to know.
+1 having had 110/2.5 mbps HFC (rental prior to buying our own house) and now languishing on 12/1 mbps ADSL I know which technology can meet my current and future requirements and it’s not FTTN!
12/1 ADSL is not FTTN.
If you can’t stand the heat (or rather the scrutiny of those dumb past and present comments, which always side with antiquated obsolescence and the Coalition), Dick… get out of the kitchen.
Leading four step straight up.
So, you feel that anyone commenting with actual rational responses is “bile”? I just want to get it on record that I am not allowed to say anything at all that disagrees with you because it will be considered “bile”.
So, I will ask you directly again: “Is commenting about future bandwidth requirements considered bile?”
Oh look, it’s WP’s “Mr Speed” troll, Hi _Mathew_
Lol Mathew I wonder who pays for those free connections.
So what your saying is FTTN should be charging $24 where you get 100Mbps 50 Mbps or 12Mbps. But that is the model we already have with ADSL people getting less than 1Mbps paying the same as people on adsl2+ great value for money there.
But why should they move or pay for it when people on HFC are getting a free upgrade. As well as the cost is a lot more than building the FTTP in the first place.
Sky mesh is offering a 100/100 connection can FTTN do that.
And just how many people are connected to Sky Mesh at 100/100Mbps? Not enough to even make it on to NBNCo’s speed tiers percentages.
Lol Mathew well the sky mesh is really offering 250/100 but slow down the 250 connection. But you can’t argue the rest of my comment lol.
“And just how many people are connected to Sky Mesh at 100/100Mbps? Not enough to even make it on to NBNCo’s speed tiers percentages.”
His point is completely unrelated to how many people are using it, FTTN cannot offer those speeds. End of story. Thus if someone wants/needs it, they cannot get it.
WRONG! If someone really wants / needs it they have the option of moving or having fibre installed.
BS, FoD is pure FUD and nbn have admitted they cant deliver it from FTTN nodes as there isnt the room for the GPON/AON equipment!!
it’s also not possible to run FoD from HFC optical nodes as there isnt a single HFC system commercially available anywhere that supports FoD!!
pull your head out troll!
Right Mathew lol. If NBN can only give upto 25Mbps due to your poor copper but your neighbour gets up to 100Mbps and your expected to move or pay more to get the same level of service lol
Mathew,
Bzzt, epic fail.
That may not be feasible nor practical.
Mathew, provide evidence of FOD being an option.
You, like Reality and Richard, love demanding evidence from us so called “fanboys” so, perhaps you can show me where it is I can get the promised FOD?
Before the election figures similar to BT’s FOD were bandied around by our now PM, once they got into power? Not a peep about FOD. Other than people who have requested it on Whirlpool getting quotes in the multiple tens of thousands.
provide evidence of FOD being an option.
Technology Choice provides a mechanism for interested parties to pay for a change to their nbn™ access technology.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/technology-choice-program.html
It’s marketing BS Alain, but you know that already because we’ve proven the nodes dont have the room for the optical fibre management required or the “line cards” if configured to their full 192 port capacity!
We’ve also told you that HFC has ZERO commercially available FoD options!
You sir are a true partisan LibTrol
I guess I have to qualify my request by saying “affordable”, we were told before the election of affordable FOD, where is it?
People who have gone through that system are quoted tens of thousands of dollars for FOD.
But of course, Reality knows that, and is just throwing out links as if they were true evidence.
We were told that BT charges around $2000-$3000 for FOD, so why is FOD in Australia 10x the price?
I guess I have to qualify my request by saying “affordable”
Oh you need to ‘qualify your request’ eh? careful the back pedal might come off, so put in a application in and let us all know what it cost you.
I figure many fans who will have FTTP if the Government fronts up the cost 100% will suddenly find FTTN is ok after all.
Reality, once again ignoring the point, we were told that FOD would be affordable.
In what universe is $20,000-$30,000 affordable?
It isn’t backpedaling when I am clarifying what I was requesting, I shouldn’t have to fucking clarify it though, as it is implied by talking about Malcolm Turnbull referencing affordable FOD from BT in the UK.
But, you don’t actually have issues with reading comprehension, you just like to twist someones words around to suit the bullshit you spout.
So, if you think multiple tens of thousands of dollars for FOD under the current system is fine, why did MT mention the costs of FOD being in the low thousands in the UK? Surely its irrelevant right? Why is it okay to talk about BT when its positive but we shouldn’t compare the MTM rollout to BT when its negative?
More god damn hypocrisy.
You asked for evidence where NBN FOD is available, so having been provided with a NBN Co link complete with application form and up front costing before a quote is finalised you now decide what you really meant was it has to be affordable.
Of course that would vary on a case by case basis from individual to individual or area by area, you don’t get to decide what the definition of FoD (called NBN Technology Choice) is, and if you don’t like some examples of costing (wherever you got them from), it therefore according to R0ninX3ph is not FOD.
Derek O,
We’ve also told you that HFC has ZERO commercially available FoD options!
Not that I expect too many takers on HFC DOCSIS 3.0 and especially DOCSIS 3.1 compared to FTTN, but the NBN Technology Choice site does say it is under development.
There has not been ONE SINGLE NBN IMPLEMENTATION OF FOD!!!
Why, because it’s nothing more than propaganda which you Alain stupidly swallow every time even when presented with the technical reasons why no-one has it despite many having actually applied for it!!!!
Reality shouldn’t the user on HFC should be paying for the 3.1 upgrade as you expect FTTN with FOD
How do you know what RSP’s will charge for DOCSIS3.1 over bog standard HFC, it hasn’t been released yet.
Reality lol failing to answer the question why aren’t the users on HFC paying for the 3.1 upgrade or are you saying that FTTN FOD should be free then.
@Reality, we were told of FOD from BT in the UK, we were told of a world where FOD would be similar to what is on offer from BT, we were told of affordable ways for those who want to pay for FOD to get it.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/archive/coalition-broadband-policy-frequently-asked-questions#$500
Even Malcolm’s own website still mentions the costs of FOD in the UK. Now, of course, we cannot expect every single FOD installation to be that low, but it is an average. A longer fibre run would cost more, a shorter run would cost less, that much is obvious.
Yet quotes given for FOD requests (as seen on whirlpool) have been in the realms of tens of thousands of dollars, no where near the costs of BT FOD.
“You asked for evidence where NBN FOD is available, so having been provided with a NBN Co link complete with application form and up front costing before a quote is finalised”
All you’ve provided is evidence that nbn is happy to steal $660 only to return with a quote that says ‘too difficult’. Please provide evidence that the service is actually available.
All you’ve provided is evidence that nbn is happy to steal $660 only to return with a quote that says ‘too difficult’.
Has that actually happened to you or is it just speculation?
Please provide evidence that the service is actually available.
So a whole section devoted to Technology Choice on the official NBN Co website with detailed information about the service means it’s not available?
A page with the heading Technology Choice web page under development indicates it’s not available.
Yeah the “Things to Consider” section is most interesting…eh alain?
Anyway you wont be wanting FTTP or FTTN or HFC, after all you’ve had the “failed” HFC hanging across the road from your place. “HFC which is only good for the pigeons to perch upon and nothing else” and ADSL speeds were enough for you and everyone else.
That’s what you told us before anyway, didn’t you?
Hilarious that when someone/you has no morals or ethics, the ridiculous comments they/you made previously with no regard for facts and made simply to suit the blind narrative, then comes back to bite them/you, making their/your current ridiculous comments that much more ridiculous.
You’re welcome.
“R0
If I remeber BT price for FOD double now since Turnbull claim”
That might be the case, but I wanted to still use only the figure quoted by the face of the current plan we have, besides, if I said anything else, it would just be thrown back in my face as not having any “evidence”.
> So what your saying is FTTN should be charging $24 where you get 100Mbps 50 Mbps or 12Mbps. But that is the model we already have with ADSL people getting less than 1Mbps paying the same as people on adsl2+ great value for money there.
If you accept the argument that usage in Australia is limited by data quotas, then it is to everyone’s benefit that a flat connection fee is charged. Most utility services are charged based on usage and that usage can make up a significant portion of the bill.
> But why should they move or pay for it when people on HFC are getting a free upgrade.
Simple, life isn’t fair but there isn’t any reason why a government should be investing significant money for a service to meet the needs of only a small number of people when those exact same people regard a substandard service as acceptable for the majority.
> As well as the cost is a lot more than building the FTTP in the first place.
It depends on which numbers you believe. Labor have shown at every step of the NBN to be wildly optimistic in their numbers, so i have my doubts.
We dont accept your troll logic, even with data quotas faster speeds equals higher productivity!
I dont see you applying this to roads, water, power, sewerage etc – your logic is non-existent and you continue to show your ignorance when it comes to building infrastructure!!!!
labors costs never required revising upwards, sure they were behind by 6-9 months but they were at least on budget!! cant say the same for MtM!
> I dont see you applying this to roads, water, power, sewerage etc – your logic is non-existent and you continue to show your ignorance when it comes to building infrastructure!!!!
Lets apply the Labor’s speed tier logic to power. Rather than purchasing a connection people can choose a range of capacities.
* Plan A: Sufficient to run a microwave oven & 3 lights. If you want to run the aircon, you need to turn off the oven, lights and TV.
* Plan B: Sufficient to run the aircon with lights but only on days under 32C.
* Plan C: Sufficient to run the aircon with lights and TV but not the oven unless the aircon is not working too hard.
* Plan D: Sufficient to run most requirements
* Plan E: Sufficient to run everything and light the house up like a Christmas Tree.
Lol lets use Mathew logic.
Some of houses get plan a as that’s all they need to supply want any more pay extra.
Some houses get plan b as there lines are alittle better than plan a ones but again if they need more have to pay for it.
Some houses get plan c as there lines are newer but again if they need more have to pay for it.
And so on and so on up to plan e where they don’t have to pay any extra lol
So your current excuse it that electricy should be only supplying enough for 3 light and a microwave if they supply more free of charge great if not tough luck pay up lol
I used that analogy because most people on this thread would be of the opinion that providing electricity on that basis would be unacceptable and would agree the bottom 3 speed tiers are too slow but are perfectly prepared for 79% of the country to connect at those speeds just as long as they have their 100Mbps connection.
To express it another way, I don’t care that your connection is too slow to run an aircon on 40C day as long as you help pay for my high capacity connection.
If speed tiers don’t exist and someone finds their speed is slow compared to the average, then they can make a case that most people in Australia have 100Mbps at a minimum and NBNCo should be upgrading the network. The media always like stories of the government disadvantaging people. WIth 79% connecting at 25Mbps or slower, this person will struggle to make a case for a faster connection because their network speed is close to the average.
Lol Mathew
But that’s your problem.
“I don’t care that your connection is too slow to run an aircon on 40C day as long as you help pay for my high capacity connection.”
Your model does exactly that lol.
But that 16% is paying a 3rd of what the 79% are currently paying on just avc. With your model they would be paying a lot less.
Your model doesn’t work with FTTN as everyone gets a different speed or are you happy paying the same getting 12Mbps while your the home next to you gets 55Mbps. You might be willing to use more but the NBN can’t give you more due to your connection so you have to pays even more to get that level of service. While FTTP governing the same level of service where your model would work lol.
So in a nut shell you expect people on slower speeds to pay for the ones getting higher speeds. Expect the ones getting slower speeds to pay even more or more to get faster speeds. Your own analogy shows how flawed your argument is lol as the NBN is only required to supply 3 lights and a microwave worth of power lol
“If you accept the argument that usage in Australia is limited by data quotas, then it is to everyone’s benefit that a flat connection fee is charged. Most utility services are charged based on usage and that usage can make up a significant portion of the bill.”
Because someone receiving a different speed than someone else while paying the same price is even close to the same right?
If I have a line speed of “up to” 100Mbit and I get 20Mbit down, and my neighbour who is lucky enough to have newer copper in their property thanks to it being a subdivision, gets 55Mbit down, yet we pay the same price, that’s perfectly acceptable in your world? The current world of ADSL2+ style charging makes perfect sense to you?
> Because someone receiving a different speed than someone else while paying the same price is even close to the same right?
Yes, you are paying for a connection fee not a speed guarantee. If your house suffers from poor water pressure because you are at the end of the line do you pay less in connection fees? No, you pay the same as your neighbour but only one person can shower at the same time.
Interestingly in this case the water supply company receives less revenue from usage charges so they have an incentive to fix the pressure issue. NBNCo is the same. If their revenue is predominately derived from usage charges then they have a great incentive to build a congestion free network.
Lol now Mathew is arguing why we should all have FTTP lol.
Because it not only congestion lol
The only way your analogy works for a data network is when all users have access to the same universal speed, then congestion at the backhaul level determines the speeds.
Everything should be a level playing field, if you want to base the revenue stream on usage, you give everyone equal speed and charge based on usage, if you want to base the revenue stream on speed, you give them unlimited usage.
Combining the two is ridiculous.
So, if you base it on usage, everyone is given a universal speed guarantee (which NBN are refusing to do and CANNOT do with FTTN because of line issues. It ~could~ be done with FTTP as you can guarantee a line speed from the wholesaler) then you charge based on how much the users consume.
I’ve never said we shouldn’t all have FTTP. What I have said is based on Labor’s predictions that only a small percentage (1% on 1Gbps in 2026) is that for majority of Australians (79% and rising) there isn’t a discernable difference between FTTN, FTTB, FTTP & HFC.
There is no need to provide a speed guarantee. NBNCo don’t provide that on FTTP unless you buy CIR ($300/month extra for 5/5Mbos). Just has been the case for the last 15 years with ADSL premium RSPs will provide a high quality network with close to zero congestion while budget RSPs will sacrifice performance for price. Customers have the option of choosing what is important to them.
Network performance guarantees are a minefield, because no one entity has control of the entire transit path and spikes in demand can create congestion if they exceed the network design parameters.
The second part of the story is that currently there exist very few use cases for 1Gbps, and I don’t expect that to change because companies simply won’t be interested in innovating when 79% are opting for 25Mbps or slower.
> The current world of ADSL2+ style charging makes perfect sense to you?
It makes perfect sense to someone who had an ADSL connection back when Telstra were the only provider with three speed tiers: 256Kbps, 512Kbps & 1.5Mbps. VoIP was painful on 256Kbps, okay on 512Kbps with careful configuration and good on 1.5Mbps. People were reluctant to upgrade to 1.5Mbps for VoIP even if it would save money because they couldn’t test it. When Telstra’s competitors rolled out ADSL2+ people were able to try VoIP found the quality was better than a landline and transitioned quickly. The same issues exist today with speed tiers.
But then you also told us daily about 50/12 for about 5 years…
Glad you have finally realized the silliness of doing so and moved on.
:)
Lol no difference between tech lol.
So NBN FTTP has a pir of 100Mbps on the 100Mbps, pir 50Mbps on 50Mbps, pir 25Mbps on 25Mbps. FTTP has 2.5Gbps pipe for 26 homes.
FTTN has s pir of 25Mbps on 100Mbps, has a pir of 25Mbps on 50Mbps, has a pir of 25Mbps on 25Mbps. FTTN has a 2Gbps pipe for 200-400 homes
> Lol no difference between tech lol.
From an end user perspective if your connection is throttled to 25Mbps then it doesn’t matter how fast the cable is.
> FTTP has 2.5Gbps pipe for 26 homes. FTTN has a 2Gbps pipe for 200-400 homes
Considering the cost of upgrading 2Gbps to 10Gbps versus the increased revenue from CVC, I would expect that NBNCo will be pro-actively upgrading backhaul as necessary simply because it makes financial sense.
Also I think you will find FTTP is higher than 26 homes per GPON.
“Also I think you will find FTTP is higher than 26 homes per GPON.”
You’re right, its 32 users per, not 26.
Still a far cry better than 200-400 per node.
Mathew, the original FTTP design used 32-way splitters with 8 ports reserved for “non-addressable” devices (traffic systems, CCTV, Mobile phone tower backhaul etc).
The technology makes a huge difference – medical alarms for example!
http://www.vcint.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Medical-Alarms_on_the_NBN-June-2015.pdf
Lol Mathew so now we limit everyone to just 25Mbps lol 1Mbps than what ADSL2 offers then why are we spending $56B oh wait sorry Alain upto lol on it just to make your argument lol.
Gpon has 32 connection current design has only 26 used and the rest as spare if needed. So current design allows all home to have 100Mbps if they want.
FTTN design has a congestion of 5-10Mbps if all is in use at the same time doesn’t mater what your paying for lol yep really the same.
“From an end user perspective if your connection is throttled to 25Mbps then it doesn’t matter how fast the cable is.”
While true 25Mbit over fibre is going to be the same throughput as 25Mbit over copper, your statement ignores the eventual future requirements for bandwidth.
Whether you want to admit it or not, copper cables are at their end-of-life. Sure, they might still hang around for another 10 years and they might even get another speedboost (ignoring the fact all the current speed improvements for copper, G.Fast and Vplus require shorter and shorter copper runs) fibre research isn’t sitting still either. In that same time, fibre will still be outperforming the ability of copper by significant amounts.
If someone right now only needs 25Mbit, sure, they will probably be able to get that from their copper, but in a year, in 5 years, in 10 years, when they want 100Mbit or 1000Mbit and they’re 1,000m from their node? Hah, good luck.
If they had FTTP? Its a matter of calling their ISP and requesting a speed change and they WILL get that speed. Show me a future-proofed FTTN network that can do that without taking more copper out of the network and replacing it with more fibre (for free) and then you might have a point.
> If someone right now only needs 25Mbit, sure, they will probably be able to get that from their copper, but in a year, in 5 years, in 10 years, when they want 100Mbit or 1000Mbit and they’re 1,000m from their node? Hah, good luck.
So you accept that currently for 79% there isn’t a real world difference between FTTN & FTTP?
Labor’s predictions in the NBNCo Corporate Plan were that the power users would continue to upgrade in speed increasing the width of the digital divide while almost all of those on the slower speeds (79% at 25Mbps or slower) wouldn’t upgrade. As for 1Gbps in 2026, Labor planned for less than 1% to connect at those speeds.
What you need to do is distinguish between the spin that Labor promoted (1Gbps, eHealth, etc.) and the reality as outlined in the NBNCo Corporate Plan where almost no-one would have those speeds and the vast majority wouldn’t have the speeds necessary for quality video conferencing. If Labor had chosen not to implement speed tiers their spin would have been closer to reality and FTTN would have been a much harder for the Liberals to sell.
Sadly you can only blame yourself for not understanding the implications of Labor’s plan, not arguing for change and by default allowing the Liberals to build FTTN.
The people who are charge of the NBN rollout have the FTTN capacity issue covered.
By contrast an FTTN cabinet will serve only around 384 premises so we don’t need anything like the same amount of capacity as we do for an FTTP Optical Terminal.
In areas where the nbn™ Transit Network is available we could provide all the way up to 20Gbps backhaul for an FTTN cabinet if we chose to do so – but it’s highly unlikely that we will need that amount of backhaul capacity for an FTTN cabinet for quite some time.
The reality is that we can quite easily upgrade our FTTN cabinet backhaul capacity whenever we need to do so by simply installing a new optical interface – there is no need whatsoever to run any new fibre.
We are building a network that we can upgrade in an efficient manner and we are making investments in the right amount of capacity at the right time.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/the-nbn-project/getting-the-balance-right-on-building-the-nbn-network.html
Lol Mathew do you realise that all those higher speeds come down in price by the the 100Mbps would cost the same as 25Mbps. But why would you pay the same for 100Mbps when you are getting 25Mbps. Plus those 1Gbps plan would have come down in price as well lol. So it’s quite possible that by then most people would be on 100Mbps lol. Oh wait it’s starting to look like your model your suggesting by then lol.
Reality but we where told by Turnbull a min 25Mbps not a min 5Mbps. Oh wait promise broken oh wait revised.
“Sadly you can only blame yourself for not understanding the implications of Labor’s plan, not arguing for change and by default allowing the Liberals to build FTTN.”
Hardly, I have never agreed with having speed tiers on the fibre and always thought it should have just been 100Mbit to all with usage being the defining factor.
Just because there is no need right now for 100Mbit for the majority, it is incredibly foolish to build infrastructure and plan for current needs, and not plan for the future.
That seems to be the modus operandi for most who oppose the NBN being FTTP, that we shouldn’t be spending money on tomorrow and should only be building what we need for current needs and let “tomorrow” deal with it when it will be then “current” needs. (Despite costs being more for doing a rollout more than once)
@Reality, replace FTTN with FTTP in that statement, and it is equally true, and the end user will also experience significant speed increases too. Simply by changing the end points on the fibre. Funny how that works.
The problem with that statement? It is true they can increase the backhaul to the FTTN cabinet, nobody denies that. What they cannot do is easily increase the speeds customers get over the copper.
Every speed currently available for copper requires removing copper from the equation, shorter and shorter copper loops and more fibre.
Every speed currently available for copper requires removing copper from the equation, shorter and shorter copper loops and more fibre.
If and when required, yep got it, from the NBN Co link above.
We are building a network that we can upgrade in an efficient manner and we are making investments in the right amount of capacity at the right time.
@Reality, I missed the word “increase” in there.
Every speed increase requires the removal of copper.
They can increase the backhaul to cabinets easily, they cannot increase the speed that end users receive over their copper without removing copper from the equation. There is no “easy” upgrade path from FTTN to moving fibre closer to the premises.
Do you know what year/decade this full nationwide upgrade of all FTTN to FTTP needs to happen, and what will happen to us if we don’t?
I assume Labor is aware of this urgent problem and their new NBN policy will have full costing of the urgent retrofit of all active FTTN residences and the time to completion.
Lol Reality the SR has an upgrade at 2025 and 2030 lol
@Reality, it doesn’t matter what year it needs to happen. No matter what it is going to cost more than it will to cost to roll it out once.
Labour costs increase each year, and labour costs are the major portion of the rollout and not the actual physical hardware.
No matter what it is going to cost more than it will to cost to roll it out once.
Pure speculation that a FTTP upgrade in [insert guess year here] to FTTN will cost more than the current $4,400 for brownfields CPP in 2016.
FTTP fans love to crow about ‘falling FTTP costs’, apparently falling FTTP costs do not apply to future FTTN upgrades to FTTP.
Labour costs increase each year, and labour costs are the major portion of the rollout and not the actual physical hardware.
Glad you mentioned labor costs, because one key component of the labor cost for FTTN the fibre link to the cabinet does not have to be done again.
@Reality, really? Because we keep getting told over and over by you lot that a large portion of the cost of FTTP is the lead-in to the house, the last 20m so to speak… Huh… Which is it?
You are correct the major proportion of the high FTTP CPP especially brownfields is the fibre lead in to the residence, that’s why using existing infrastructure as in FTTN and HFC eliminates the high cost component of the all the way fibre run.
So putting aside the fact you have just provided a strong case for a lower cost FTTN rollout we get back to the assertion that FTTP costs are falling, so fibre lead ins from a FTTN cabinet which is the high cost component will be part of that fall (when required) will it not?
You could also provide a case that FTTN CPP will fall as the rollout gains momentum because it is still in its infancy here, but you don’t want to go there.
The pro FTTP argument wants to look at FTTP CPP in isolation, the other fixed line infrastructure types in a MtM mix don’t exist (and their CPP will never fall) because you need to avoid CPP comparisons.
@Reality, if we can just assume for a moment that FOD was similar to BT in the UK, according to MT’s own website a 500m fibre run FOD is in the realms of $2500.
Surely we can use that as a rough guide as to what it would cost per premises to upgrade from FTTN to FTTP. (Despite some premises being over 1km from their nodes).
So, $1,600 per premises with FTTN + $2500 for FTTP FOD (using BT UK’s figures from MT’s website), now… that’s assuming only a 500m run of fibre, but that puts it only $300 below the apparent “real” FTTP costs for all premises in Australia. The moment you go to those far further premises from the nodes? Expect that FOD cost to rise.
R0
If I remeber BT price for FOD double now since Turnbull claim
Posted this in reply to the wrong comment like a derp.
““R0
If I remeber BT price for FOD double now since Turnbull claim”
That might be the case, but I wanted to still use only the figure quoted by the face of the current plan we have, besides, if I said anything else, it would just be thrown back in my face as not having any “evidence”.”
“79% connected at 25Mbps or slower.”
You mean 65% connected at a speed previous copper based technologies couldn’t achieve? Higher estimated connect rates at higher tier plans? ROI on FTTP portion of MTM at 7% higher than forecasted?
“Not much point in building out FTTP when only 16% and falling (19% in 2014) are connecting at 100Mbps.”
Translation: not much point in building out FTTP when only 16% and falling (19% in 2014 when only FTTP was available) are connecting at 100Mbps, due to halting FTTP rollout and substituting with a service that will never deliver 100Mbps and therefore dragging the average down but I don’t realise that because I am a mathematical gumball .
> Translation: not much point in building out FTTP when only 16% and falling (19% in 2014 when only FTTP was available) are connecting at 100Mbps, due to halting FTTP rollout and substituting with a service that will never deliver 100Mbps
Please try to be factual. The NBN Financial Results presentation stated that there are 6,636 FTTN connections versus 610,978 on FTTP. In 12 months time your point might have some validity, but now it just proves that you really haven’t looked at the numbers and like most NBN fanbois are dreaming more than grounded in facts.
I provide references to help you check the accuracy and avoid basic mistakes. Just in case you missed the link in the article: http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/media-releases/Strong-result-continues-nbns-momentum-to-full-year-targets.html.
Your points still, as ever, only work when relying on current bandwidth needs. FTTN might be fine for the current needs for a majority of users, but what happens in 5 years? In 10 years? When FTTN cannot provide speeds needed? Like ADSL currently?
If someone is able to get 25Mbit now, sure its awesome (when compared to their 5Mbit ADSL2+ connection) but in 10 years time? When their copper length hasnt changed? When their line has degraded a further 10 years? You truly expect that 25Mbit (in best case) is going to cut it?
It doesn’t matter about current needs, what matters is can the network being constructed support 50-100 years of required bandwidth? Show me the research that says FTTN can.
It is well known and accepted that FTTP is faster than FTTN. It is also a fact that Labor predicted in 2026 that close to 50% on fibre would still be on 12Mbps connections and that less than 1% would have 1Gbps connections. It is also a fact that currently on fibre 79% are connected at 25Mbps or slower.
> FTTN might be fine for the current needs for a majority of users, but what happens in 5 years? In 10 years?
So if we were to use Labor’s numbers in 10 years time FTTN should be adequate for the majority. For those who need extra performance they have the option of moving or installing fibre.
What is clear is that both the Labor and Liberal plans are increasing the digital divide especially when compared with Google Fibre which is offering free connections in public housing.
Seriously Mathew, a new take on your old, already disproved theory re: a reliance upon “conservative estimations, such as 50/12”?
Didn’t the first 5 years of being “wrong” daily, by repeating 50/12, mean anything to you?
You yourself, just yesterday supplied the actual figures (which I take on face value) of 79% on 25 mbps or less, which disproved your own daily 50/12 spiel. You know actual figures like we were supplying back then to try to persuade you of the folly of depending upon such conservative estimations, but yet you argued… with the accompanying ad nauseam daily spiel, at multiple sites too, of course.
I would have thought that once you finally realized, hey they were actually right, we have surpassed those conservative estimations (refer to your own figures, again) and ergo the folly and embarrassment of having used and blindly argued in favour of using such estimations as being gospel, you’d at least have learnt something…?
But alas :/
> You yourself, just yesterday supplied the actual figures (which I take on face value) of 79% on 25 mbps or less, which disproved your own daily 50/12 spiel.
The figures are easily available on the NBNCo website in the media release section.
> I would have thought that once you finally realized, hey they were actually right, we have surpassed those conservative estimations (refer to your own figures, again) and ergo the folly and embarrassment of having used and blindly argued in favour of using such estimations as being gospel, you’d at least have learnt something…?
You do realise that 16% (and falling) on 100Mbps is significantly less than Labor’s predictions? That means demand for high speed internet is less than what Labor forecast. I’d suggest that this confirms I was right to be concerned that Labor planned to build a high speed network on which only a few would ever connect at fast speeds.
I’m disturbed that six years later that you still claim that Labor’s NBN plan was conservative after missing (almost?) every target. I’m concerned that six years later you consider that 16% (and falling) connected at 100Mbps on fibre capable of 1Gbps should be considered an outstanding achievement and not an indication of abject failure.
Wow all that and not one mention from you of the embarrassing 50/12? But I guess that’s an unspoken given.
But my how times change eh?
No unlike some, I’m more concerned with the now, not wallowing in the past and particularly not being bogged down in trying to manipulate “conservative estimations” to suit the narrative… particularly after 5 years of ad nauseam incorrect spiels.
In other words what the previous NBNCo or government predicted means SFA now.
But what is of concern (forever deflected by those such as your good self) is MTM time frames being so far behind the promised schedule, the immense cost blow out of MTM, Telstra again being given the reins over Australia’s comms, the reuse or worse the renewal of obsolete infrastructure (copper/HFC), the lack of transparency and of course the fact that MTM is vastly inferior… do I need to continue the list of MTM failures?
I’m sure we can now look forward to hearing your latest spin on the last mobs estimations I’m sure, daily, at least until 2021 :/
Sorry, I’d prefer some reliable analysis over corporate spindoctoring. Try this:
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/02/08/analysis-by-ex-nbn-cto-shows-nbn-activation-rate-is-actually-slowing
And also would help if you learn how percentages work.
Renai, you need to fix the comment section. It appears to be mirroring whirlpool forums.
@j don’t say that, invited the other day to join their “intelligent” conversation and escape the bile here. Agree something has to change…
I invited you Richard, and that’s not what I said. Please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. “Bile” was your word.
I wanted more room to debate than a comments section at the bottom of the article. I don’t see you around there though, funnily enough.
Murdoch you should know the only reason why RR is posting on Delimiter is because he was banned from Zdnet, I’m sure if he wasn’t banned he’d still be hiding under his rock there. Don’t expect an appearance on WP anytime soon he has enough trouble keeping up with his contradictions and hypocrisy here.
Oh right, I see Hubert. Thanks dude, I was unaware, that clears a lot up.
@m true, I was being polite. More like challenged, me accurately predicting the outcome (same as the Alex / Rizz & HC / brisyline’s challenge to come here).
One site of bile is more than enough.
FFS, we must have really bruised that H U G E narcissistic ego of your’s by tearing you a new one, way back in what 2010-11, eh Dick?
Seriously, even when I’m not involved you still, years later, feel compelled to mention me… to try to finally get a win whilst deflecting from your own proven, ridiculously and gullibly wrong position.
But if you feel your wonder MTM plan “that you could have been commissioned to write”… is going along so swimmingly, with massive hold-ups (years) and an UP TO (lol) $15B cost blow-out, on the back of the work already carried out by MQ’s NBNCo (backhaul etc) the need to renew rather than reuse large sections of the existing copper and HFC – with copper and HFC *sigh*, the need to consider upgrades to faster avenues (extra cost) for the existing HFC and FTTN (when these basic speeds were supposedly fast enough for the next decade) etc, etc.
Oh that’s right… nothing to see here… it’s all aok says Dick, because Morrow & Co have revised the plan…
Oh the bile, the bile *shrugs*
Yes you do
You could try actually taking part in a debate rather than ignoring anything that may challenge you opinion.
You could admit some things in the current plan are imperfect or flawed for once.
You could admit that FttP is better in some ways.
But you won’t do any of those things ever.
@aj I’ve done all those things (with numbers). I’ve called out many NBNCo failures (all mgmts) and continue to do so. Most here don’t acknowledge Quigley’s CP failures despite his own CPP and delays admission (after he left). FTTB now demonstrated (as predicted, denied by others), HFC deploying overseas at 1gbps (as predicted, confirmed this year) and FTTN deploying at pace (fanboys saying wouldn’t work).
Direct opex & ARPU model developed, ignore because it doesn’t show the fanboy position. Most ridiculous “detailed analysis”, destroyed in minutes, written about and lauded. Pointing out the obvious errors attracts bile, even after the author engaged and agrees.
I’m on the record saying fibre is better in many ways; but expensive and time consuming to deploy. Reusing infrastructure defeats these limitations whilst delivering speeds demanded by consumers. NBN policy is a disaster, all models will fail.
Yet I’m expected to argue against imagined fanboy positions.
No you haven’t.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide figures without political rhetoric. You have yet to do so.
Your “destruction in minutes” is consistently based on figures from documents that have already been proven to be misleading or false.
You use financial knowledge to “baffle with bullshit”, when asked to break it down, you claim a “finance person” would understand.
In short you have the credibility of the political stooge you are.
@aj like what? don’t echo the fanboys, be specific.
Many failures in all plans called out by myself, continue to monitor performance. I actually have the skills to understand the numbers (others proudly proclaiming their ignorance).
There’s enormous problems with the current plan. Again they’ve been identified. I don’t believe even MTM will break even (dozens of posts defending that position). My position is the losses will be less and that MTM will deliver ubiquitous high speed internet at speeds demanded by the majority faster and cheaper than the original model. All actuals support this position, destroying th fanboys (why they don’t reference any).
Your claim I don’t do any of those things is pure tosh. Break away from the fanboy groupthink.
The problem with providing a safe space for people to discuss the facts is that you end up with knowledgeable people discussing facts – and inevitably ~4 trolling and providing ad revenue for said safe space.
Comments are closed.