NBN raises possibility of multi-gigabit symmetric HFC speeds

218

news NBN could soon roll out symmetric multi-gigabit broadband over its HFC network following developments announced by CableLabs, the US consortium that sets standards for cable technology.

CableLabs recently unveiled a full duplex DOCSIS technology that uses brand new techniques from wireless network research to achieve a doubling in the upstream speeds for DOCSIS-delivered broadband services.

NBN’s Chief Technology Officer Dennis Steiger is currently meeting with CableLabs in the US to discuss the arrival of the new technology.

steiger

“Although it is still very early days the arrival of full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 is extremely exciting news for NBN and a real game-changing moment in the ultra-fast broadband market,” Steiger said.

“We will be working closely with CableLabs to track the development of this technology and are excited about the potential this offers for the four million premises that will receive their NBN services via our HFC network,” he added.

CableLabs explained in a statement that existing broadband technologies mostly use either frequency division duplexing (FDD) or time division duplexing (TDD).

In FDD, upstream and downstream traffic operate separately in dedicated parts of the spectrum. In current DOCSIS networks, the lower part of the spectrum is dedicated for upstream traffic and the upper part of the spectrum is dedicated for downstream traffic.

In TDD, the upstream and downstream traffic share the same spectrum, but take turns in using the spectrum.

In full duplex communication, the upstream and downstream traffic use the same spectrum at the same time, doubling the efficiency of spectrum usage.

A DOCSIS 3.1 full duplex network provides the peak speeds and flexibility of TDD networks, but doubles the capacity of TDD and FDD.

“These developments are expected to yield DOCSIS 3.1 network performance of up to 10Gbps symmetrical on 1GHz HFC networks, with the potential for even higher performance by utilizing spectrum that is currently available for future expansion above 1GHz,” said CableLabs.

“Previously it was only possible to deliver multi-gigabit symmetrical broadband if you deployed an FTTP network – but HFC is now right up there in terms of being able to deliver these kinds of speeds,” said Steiger.

“We now have the pathway to deliver these ultra-fast symmetrical speeds to our HFC end-users both very cost effectively and far more conveniently than we could if we had to deliver fibre all the way to their homes,” he said.

CableLabs said it will engage with a team of its members and vendors in the coming months to further “validate and mature” the technology.

If this process is successful, the project will move from an innovation effort into an R&D project, open to “all interested participants”.

Image credit: NBN company

218 COMMENTS

    • Don’t worry. If the back haul is anything like the sooner, faster, cheaper FTTN then you won’t get them.

  1. No one needs more than 25mbps yet GimpCo are happy to hype speeds on HFC they’ve previously told us we don’t need. Dullards at GimpCo apparently lack the self-awareness to see their hypocrisy here and don’t even realise their acceptance of these speeds actually proves FttP is needed despite their erroneous claim of the opposite. All speeds mentioned achieved on fibre with greater efficiency. Wasting money on costly upgrades that could be used to build it right the first time not the smartest thing either but considering it has to adhere to the politically motivated policy set by the coalition clowns to appease copper fanboy knuckle-draggers wouldn’t be surprising.

    • Warning more impending sarcasm imminent, thank you.

      The only people who need such FTTP speeds are pirates, immature gamers and porn downloaders, HC.

      The rest of us “adults” understand reality and the need to tighten our belts, with such a debt and deficit disaster, which our kids will be paying for, for generations.

      You leftoid socialist leaners always want your handouts, grow up, get a job and start paying tax and then you’ll know what it’s like. Then see if you want to waste your taxes like you want to waste ‘MY TAXES” on your $200B FTTP white elephant, games network.

      So no gold plated Ferrari FTTP fibre fanboys, with wasteful speeds no one will ever use and which there are no apps for. What are you going to do open heart surgery over the internet on your kitchen table, yeah right.

      Such FTTP network speeds are not needed, ever. If you want those speeds fibre zealots, get a job and you pay for them…yourself.

      Oh… we are talking about HFC and the Coalition’s plan now?

      Oh yeah great idea fantastic, see how fast HFC can go, we’ll be ready for the future now, great work…

      Sad part HC, I wasn’t even exaggerating, those are actual comments from past and even present :/

    • The point of the CableLabs announcement is to point out there is some future for the technology (which can reduce costs) before you have to bin the lot of it and pay for something that will be far more expenseive and take longer to achieve. The more you spend upfront, the larger the interest payments you’ll have for a longer time.

      As for the 25mbps issue, the applications that open up are significant. The leap from dialup to DSL2 meant I could work from home. Going to 100mbps would enable me to be more productive at my job and open up more opportunities. It’s true that having more than 25mbps isn’t going to help home entertainment much, which is the current predominant use – but the argument shouldn’t be about building a better home entertainment system.

      • Thanks Greg and right on cue.

        I did mention… those who said ridiculous things such as …”then see if you want to waste your taxes like you want to waste ‘MY TAXES” on your $200B FTTP white elephant, *games network*

        Sorry my faux pas… “entertainment network”.

        :/

      • Oddly enough, “+1”.

        “As for the 25mbps issue, the applications that open up are significant.”

        Occasionally I’m forced to face what I have now–2.5Mb/s@4Km Cu–against what I will soon be getting: 20-25Mb/s FTTP. OK, 1 magnitude improvement doesn’t seem much, but when I can download a Java update (x32 + x64) in <5s, that's good!

        Ahhhh, the Good Ol' Days, 15 hours to download Open Office from Europe, only 50MB!

        • Yes great but what if…????

          To spell it out for those a bit dim… what if, FTTP had NOT have been halted…

          Anyhoo…enjoy your mediocrity, you deserve it.

          • > Anyhoo…enjoy your mediocrity, you deserve it.

            By that measure 79% of Australians are currently choosing mediocrity by choice.

          • By that measure 79% of Australians are currently choosing mediocrity by choice.

            shh, stop bringing real world facts into the discussion, it’s bursting the FTTP fans who are stuck in August 2013 fantasy bubble.

            lol

          • “Is bringing up the past at every opportunity truly all you’ve got left Alain?”

            Apparently, when we bring up current things and he exhausts his arguments, he just says we’re living in the past, despite discussing current issues.

      • the argument shouldn’t be about building a better home entertainment system

        That’s right. The argument shouldn’t be about building a better home entertainment system. The argument should be about moving data from point A to point B faster and more efficiently. Such arguments are lost on the ill-informed and the copper fanboy knuckle-draggers who insist we to do it in the least effective and most convoluted way possible. It’s why we now have to and will have to put up with the half-arsed MTM patchwork plan (which could have been avoided) until it is repaired with FttP.

  2. So once again we have nbn pushing vaporware in order to conflate the abilities of MtM with those of FTTP!

    A royal commission cant come soon enough!!

    • Is Labor’s promise of 1Gbps speeds prior to the 2010 election any less vapourware? I’d say yes, especially when you consider that Labor predicted less than 1% would connect at those speeds in 2026.

      I’d start a royal commission by considering Labor’s sales pitch for the NBN (e.g. eHealth), examining what they planned to deliver and evaluating Quigley’s statement that 12/1Mbps wasn’t sufficient for video conferencing with a hospital.

      • Of course you would, as your motive for opposing everything associated with the previous FTTP roll out (and still harping on) was always bleedin’ obvious.

        Even us FTTP “fanboys as we are childishly referred to” asked questions and had concerns about FTTP. The hold up’s, Telstra, CVC etc. But the MTM fanboys (for the want of a better word) never ever, question the complete MTM shemozzle?

        There can be only one rational conclusion as to why.

      • “Is Labor’s promise of 1Gbps speeds prior to the 2010 election any less vapourware? I’d say yes, especially when you consider that Labor predicted less than 1% would connect at those speeds in 2026.”
        Any clues on just how badly you contradicted yourself?

        No? I guess the amusement continues.

  3. It’s like a bad marriage isn’t it?

    At what point are the flowers and little gifts enough to pad over the volatile connectivity and they trade up to a much more predictable medium?

    Get over it CableLabs …. this is the final sweating of copper cable, it’s just a question of when you realise that you are promoting a dying technology while the competition (fibre) forges ahead with terabit speeds.

    • You’re making an argument similar to that of the dial up days. Do you ignore technologies like DSL which could levergage much of the existing infrastructure to quickly achieve orders of magnitude improvement and make everyone wait for coax to be pulled through every street to deliver the upcoming HFC technologies that have more potential further down the road.

      The trick with all of these investments is not just pouring in money to archieve the best final end goal, but how much money you can put in at various times. It’s not dissimilar to taking out a huge mortgage to fund your dream home (and be burdoned with massive interest payments for a lot longer) versus buying something cheaper that meet your needs now, pay down some of the debt, then buy your dream home.

      • “It’s not dissimilar to”

        No, here’s a more accurate house analogy.

        We have a crappy run down house that barely meets our needs and costs a substantial amount to keep liveable. We’re now going to blow a substantial portion of the price of a new house adding some extra rooms. But we don’t get the benefit of the lower cost of maintenance or the additional quality of life that would go with no living in a rat-infested, watery hell hole. And THEN, when we’ve paid down the debt on adding a few rooms to our dump (and blown yet more money on maintaining it), we go and throw it away and spend almost as much money again buying the house we wanted in the first place. All in all, we end up spending almost double.

        • + 1

          A reconditioned donk, a paint job and even a turbo, bro, for the ’89 Commodore and in the end… yes it’s still an ’89 Commodore…

        • -1.

          This iggerant flea would be spending a re-mortgage on fixing the swamp-water issue, thus also taking out the rat problem. This also adds to the resale value, so the next re-mortgage can be greater…

          I know from experience that the recon donk in the ’89 Commode makes a much more liveable car if the interior has been kept rip-free. OK it was a much better XF Falcon, but the reasoning is still the same.

          • Yes ignoring the moronic first part of your illegible BS…

            I agree, it does make a lot more liveable car Gordy… but it’s still a fucking ’89 Commodore… prove me wrong…

            Waiting…

            Now, enjoy your MTM mediocrity, you deserve it…

          • Point being the money spent isn’t recoverable in a sale because ultimately its a 30+year old whatever and its what it is ‘under the bonnet’ that will determine the price, the additions will just make it easier to sell for that price not actually increase the price!

  4. Cost per Premises (CP16 p67)
    FTTH Brown 3700 + 700 = 4400
    FTTH Green 2100
    FTTN 1600 + 700 = 2300
    HFC 1100 + 700 = 1800
    Fixed Wireless 4100 + 800 = 4900
    Satellite 7900

    Deployed tech costs confirmed in HYR16 from actual performance.

    Revenue profile developed here https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/04/detailed-analysis-of-nbn-cos-finances-shows-fttp-better-value-than-fttn/#li-comment-711774

    ARPU FY22
    fttn $44.10
    ftth $47.50 (+7.7%)
    hfc $48.28 (+9.5%)

    An additional 4m high value customers in the fixed line premises (4 x brown FTTH deployment) would be connected today if not for Conroy/Quigley NBN at a third of the spend. Policy is a disaster. Technology continues its (entirely predictable) advance.

      • @s read the article, direct application to the NBN and technology costs and realworld performance. Expanded with actual figures and sources (innumerate won’t understand).

        Compare with s’s post below.

          • @jk again none, upgrade/buildout required to deliver min speeds (cost sub. below ftth). Technology advance a bonus, but then you claim copper speeds not improving (must be hard to reconcile with these articles).

          • So Richard upgrade / buildout to deliver ver min speeds. What are those min speeds. Soe is 25Mbps Telstra already offers an upto 38Mbps that’s already about the min. What min speeds are you claiming well you did say we only need 15Mbps now which again is already above that lol. Are you now claiming we need more than 25Mbps now?

            Yet still failed to give an app example of why we even need 3.1 lol.

            Lol Richard I didnt claim it was improving. But then what’s the distance for g.fast vdsl. From your own statements we don’t need nodes NBN should be able to run vdsl from the exchange

          • While ignoring all the technological advancements in the FTTH hardware & deployment industry.
            Horse blinkers activated

          • @jk Minimum speed set by coalition policy, not me (my numbers on the record here as well). Neither HFC network in their present configuration can deliver the speeds required due to their low current number of users (predicted to be 80% of premises passed).

            We don’t NEED 3.1, it just happens to be the latest standard.

            Like your copper “knowledge”, another amazing display of ignorance.

            @s another ignorant stalker. Who’s ignoring them?

          • Yup the advancements of copper has been outstanding.
            Let’s see the latest criteria’s of the advancements –
            Lab tested, minimal meters, dual pair, mini-nodes (wouldn’t really call this advancement more like less copper).
            Let’s see the latest advancements on second hand degraded copper out in the field –
            *crickets chirp*
            The ignorance is strong in this one

          • (wouldn’t really call this advancement more like less copper).

            Nailed it.

          • @brisylineboy rejoins the conversation. His last “told you so” moment in response to the incorrect assertion that FTTN end users congestion problems related to the network (deja vu).

            What’s the collective noun for fanboys? Squealers?

            To summarise; hfc CPP 1/3rd of FTTH, can deliver speeds offered on FTTH today, future capacity increases demonstrated.

            Whilst most have accepted FTTB (Conroy/Quigley left 30% of premises unable to order a service), HFC (4m more today would’ve been connected), as posted only FTTN for most fanboys. Except brisylineboy refuses to accept HFC!

            Rizz is still raving about iron wires:-) Other’s unable to acknowledge the technical advance over copper (everyone in the industry thinks is amazing). But knowledge and experience not important.

            A week of destruction of fanboy’s claims (FTTN capacity, privatised power, PWC valuation of the network, 7% defence of original CPPs, …). A few conceding I’m “technically correct”, like there’s some other kind.

            Numbers still confuse them, more proudly identifying themselves as innumerate (sniff test all that’s required). The nut jobs over at WP only more ignorant.

            As previously post 2016 is a bad year for the squealers, continuing.

          • “To summarise; hfc CPP 1/3rd of FTTH, can deliver speeds offered on FTTH today, future capacity increases demonstrated.”

            But you’ve told us again and again that no household needs those speeds. What application would an HFC household getting gigabit have to use said gigabit connection?

          • @jk @r0 none, answered multiple times (here). Maybe I was too quick to out WP posters as more ignorant?

          • No Richard you havnt answered the question.

            you say Telstra HFC isn’t fit for propose for an upto 25Mbps due to lack of people on it be lit then Telstra is offering an upto 38Mbps service on it. You still have given a reason for 3.1 when we don’t need those speeds.

          • You’re either missing the point, or intentionally ignoring it, you’ve told us many times over that households don’t need the kinds of speeds offered by FTTH (100Mbit/1000Mbit) so why do we need to waste any money upgrading the HFC network to DOCSIS 3.1? They’re perfectly fit for service with what they already offer right?

            While we’re at it, we might as well just speed cap FTTN at 25Mbit because nobody needs any faster than that. No single application that requires more than that, we’ll just keep ignoring households with more than a single user using the internet at any time. (Despite the fact I regularly hit 50-75Mbit usage at home…. but nah, it’s all about having a SINGLE application require that speed, and not about multiple applications/users using the connection).

          • Lol Richard lol
            ” it’s the new standard”

            So is FTTdp but we are not rolling out it how about g.fast where is that it’s the new standard too.

            Or how about we use that excuse for FTTP it’s the new standard. We don’t need to supply you an app or examples to justify its the new Standard lol

          • @r0 because the current HFC can’t deliver the min required by the SoE an upgraded is required. If upgrading upgrade to the current standard 3.1 (2103). There’s no other way of stating the obvious.

            Why would you cap what’s available for no addition expense?

            @jk G.Fast included in the cost of HFC upgrade? Again his ignorance is amazing.

          • But Richard, Telstra already offer more than 25Mbit over it, and as you’ve said, since we can’t show you single applications that need more than that, then it should be perfectly fine, right?

            “Why would you cap what’s available for no addition expense?” Because, as you’ve said, there is no need for additional speed. No single application needs more than 25Mbit, so no house should need 100Mbit FTTN. So we’re just saving them money, so they don’t waste their precious magic beans paying for a service they don’t need.

            We have to save the idiots from themselves, they don’t know they have no application for a 100Mbit connection, so we should protect them.

          • But you’ve still not explained why they need the upgrade? You’ve said yourself households don’t need those speeds. So surely you would be against wasting money on upgrading HFC when households have no need for the speeds the upgrade will bring?

            Let me ask for a definitive answer from you then:

            How much speed do you think a household requires now?
            How much speed do you think a household will require in 5 years time?
            How much speed do you think a household will require in 10 years time?
            How much speed do you think a household will require in 15 years time?

            I know you don’t like direct questions, because people might bring up what you’ve said in the future when you inevitably contradict your own previous statements.

            (Also, quoting your own statement that has no supporting evidence, doesn’t mean it is evidence when you quote it later)

          • @r0 answered months ago
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/16/analysts-expect-unchained-turnbull-to-return-nbn-to-fttp-model/#li-comment-701285

            When you asked again brisylineboy posted the link to my original which you even commented after
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/12/16/fttn-rollout-hits-50000-homes-in-record-time/#li-comment-710496

            The memory of a goldfish. Then she accuses me of contradicting myself (repeating fanboy bile, always shown to be wrong). One of the very few poster’s providing figures and references.

            Nobody knows data requirements in 10+ years, ridiculous.

            “Also, quoting your own statement that has no supporting evidence, doesn’t mean it is evidence when you quote it later”

            Answered the question multiple times, links provided to answers. Bile retort. What supporting evidence for none is required?

            But let’s humour them; what are your figures?;-)

          • I was just wanting to clarify that you’re sticking with 12/1 is what is needed now.

            https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

            So, as you said that for last year, that means 12/1 in 2015, 18/1.5 in 2016, 27/2.25 in 2017, 40.5/3.38 in 2018, 60.75/5.07 in 2019, 91.13/7.61 in 2020.

            Though, I’m sure you dismiss Nielsen’s law, and fine you can do whatever you want.

            You’re on the record as having said you don’t see 4k video as “essential” services, if you’re going to go that far, you might as well say that internet access isn’t an essential service either.

            Oh and you don’t see any services in the future needing higher speeds? What were you saying in 2004? YouTube came into existence in 2005, in 2004 I’m sure you’d have been saying the same thing about not needing more than 1.5Mbit on ADSL.

          • @r0 typical fanboy retort (sure a clarification;-). Her linked article has 100mbps in 2013. Amazing, how do we survive?

            4k video isn’t essential therefore internet isn’t either. WTF? Yet I’ve continuously posted the majority of benefits of ubiquitous high-speed internet are captured at relatively low speeds (with references). It’s impossible to fight the fanboy concoctions.

            WP commenters I was wrong. Exactly the same here. Sadly most stalking my posts.

          • “(with references)”

            Would they be the same references that talk about GDP increases through penetration? The same references that also talk about significant GDP increases through every doubling of average speeds?

            Interesting though that you choose female pronouns when addressing me or talking about me, I guess it fits with your using the name “Brissyline” for HC, or whatever other childish names you decide to call other people by. I don’t really care what gender pronoun you use for me, as gender has no influence on this discussion.

          • @r0 yes the very same. But you might like to actually read them before jumping to unsupported conclusions.

            I use she because today they’re more likely to be offended (clearly not always), your name sex indeterminate. Now I know. Sorry, difficult tightrope we walk today (leftoid frightbats).

            Given what’s directed at me I should be devastated. But couldn’t care, their admiration worthless.

            Any corrections you’d like to acknowledge?;-)

          • @r0 perhaps a figure or two? Especially given the (wrong) accusation you levelled at me;-)

            Note none provided by any of the squealers in the links either. Surprised? Numbers just for clarification of course;-)

          • What “wrong accusation” would that be? All I have “accused” you of is claiming that no household has a need for more than 25Mbit as no single application requires more than that, repeated many times over by you.

            Similarly, I have only “accused” you of claiming that 12/1 is the speed everyone should have, again, using Nielsen’s law which has evidence behind it, if a high-end users bandwidth requirements increase 50% each year, the same could be assumed for most users (though that is an assumption I am willing to admit is stretching it a bit, but in 7 years to say that 50Mbit down will be enough for everyone is also stretching it, given what we have seen with YouTube in just 10 years)

          • @r0 wrote
            “I know you don’t like direct questions [speeds], because people might bring up what you’ve said in the future when you inevitably contradict your own previous statements.”

            Yet demonstratively not true, direct question answered months ago (no inevitable contradiction). Also not true I claimed “no household has a need for more than 25Mbit”, my first post linked stating “Yes there are specific users that will require more, today we run fibre to them”.

            The “law” (it isn’t) simply shows a historical trend. Extending it’s own data 100/2013, 150/2014, 225/2015, 340/2016. Comical!

            So that’d be “no” to any correction acknowledgement, nor it seems any numbers of their own, nor apps requiring the high-speeds they seek. No surprise, WP fanboy clones.

            For a technical topic the NBN attracts surprising low IQ commenters. I suspect their bile turning away informed discussion.

          • “The “law” (it isn’t) simply shows a historical trend. Extending it’s own data 100/2013, 150/2014, 225/2015, 340/2016. Comical!”

            Nielsen’s Law is just as much a “law” as Moore’s Law. Both work on using historical data to plot a path for future growth, one in the transistors (aka the power) of a CPU, the other in the bandwidth requirements of a high-end user. I am not claiming that either Nielsen’s Law or Moore’s Law are akin to a scientific law of the universe…. But keep conflating the argument by calling it a “law” all you want, the evidence shows it is pretty well backed up.

            You laugh at 225Mbit in 2015? I have that, right now at my house. 250Mbit down and over 100Mbit up.

            Even if you half the data again from Nielsen’s law to say that the average user, rather than a high end user, has bandwidth requirements increase by just 25% a year instead of 50%, using your 12Mbit as a baseline in 2015, by 2022 said user requires 57.25Mbit down which I will happily admit is close to your “prediction” of 50Mbit in 7 years time (only assuming that the baseline of 12Mbit now is required however).

            Though, you also like to take out usage cases like 4k video, which you claim is “non-essential” so to make sure your case for 12Mbit actually works.

            You can already buy 4k televisions for less than $1,000, in 5 years they will be the standard. Streaming Netflix at 4k on multiple screens in a house at 25Mbit each? That is already over the projected 36.64Mbit bandwidth when using 25% increase annually.

          • @r0 so no to corrections, again not surprising (still fun though isn’t it).

            I don’t see the need for 4 & 8k video to be funded by govt (posted months ago) when few feel the need for even HD (see digital tv experience). Is this the innovation revolution now being promised? Revolutionise our economy and generate unimagined riches;-)

            The Australian population will miss out on ultra-high def porn and youtube hamster stares, whilst saving taxpayers billions.

            You asked for my speeds, they were given (months ago, I now see you commented on the original post as well). I suspect you’re not proposing 250/100 an baseline universal (but little surprises from fanboys these days), do you have an actual number?

            How advanced is your planning for the inevitable 375/150 upgrade this year?

          • “The Australian population will miss out on ultra-high def porn and youtube hamster stares, whilst saving taxpayers billions.”

            Not surprising you say stuff like this, basically parrotting Abbotts view of the internet. That its only for TV, Porn and Games.

            “I suspect you’re not proposing 250/100 an baseline universal (but little surprises from fanboys these days), do you have an actual number?”

            You would be correct that I am not proposing 250/11 as a baseline universal speed, I am, and have said many times on Delimiter, I don’t agree with speed tiers in the first place. Then even more so with FTTN adding in another layer of uncertainty. ISPs locking customers into 12 month contracts at speed tiers they are unable to attain because there is no guarantee of the speed.

            My personal ideal would be no speed tiers lower than 100Mbit (currently), with a MINIMUM guarantee of 25Mbit (also supported by Presto who says they will not be offering 4K as they cannot guarantee a customer will have 25Mbit continually while streaming) to be raised to 50Mbit in 5 years. Any lines falling below the 25Mbit then 50Mbit minimums then either remediated if only small copper faults, or replaced with either FTTdp or FTTP.

            “How advanced is your planning for the inevitable 375/150 upgrade this year?”

            Nice of you to be concerned about my situation, don’t worry, I already have my Gigabit upgrade scheduled for next month, so I’ll be fine for a few years yet. :-)

          • R0 looks like we have to resign to the fact Richard can’t answer his own question why we need 3.1 when he has clearly stated we don’t need. 3.0 already meets soe.

            So Richard shouldn’t HFC customers be paying for the 3.1 upgrade like you expect FTTN with FOD since 3.0 already meets SOE standard

          • @r0 “100Mbit (currently), with a MINIMUM guarantee of 25Mbit” would require max 1:4 contention with near 25mbps provisioned backhaul. The CVC charge alone for guaranteed min would be over $400 a month, double that for RSP backhaul and internet bandwidth. Such capacity for everyone doesn’t exist.

            I’d be surprised if your 250/100 has more than 5-7mbps provisioned backhaul. How much are you paying?

            @jk still doesn’t understand a basic post. It’s really amazing.

          • Lol Richard still failing to give an answer oh wait ” it’s the current standard” lol what an answer.

            Not even an app to explain why we need those speeds you claim we don’t need lol.

            Does 3.0 meet the soe yes or no

          • ” The CVC charge alone for guaranteed min would be over $400 a month, double that for RSP backhaul and internet bandwidth. Such capacity for everyone doesn’t exist.”

            I also am against the CVC model, when I say my ideal, I am speaking in an imaginary sense where the CVC model with its ridiculous pricing structure doesn’t exist.

            “I’d be surprised if your 250/100 has more than 5-7mbps provisioned backhaul. How much are you paying?”

            What I am paying is largely irrelevant as it isn’t on the NBN and it isn’t in Australia.

          • Richard’s m/o reminds me of the antics of certain posters on WP:-
            -go onto a forum
            -demand answers to their questions
            -go m.i.a. when the answers don’t suit them

            The same applies to Reality and to mathew.

          • @r0 we don’t live in your imaginary world (clears a few things up). So returning to the realworld and the tens of billions of real money…

            @jk still going, extraordinary. Explained multiple times (unable to make it any clearer).

            What a bizarre thread. These the fanboys stalking every post. Mental asylum?

          • Lol Richard yes you did multiply times failed.

            None.

            Yet you are fine wasting money on speeds we don’t need. Excuse it’s the new standard.

          • “@r0 we don’t live in your imaginary world (clears a few things up). So returning to the realworld and the tens of billions of real money…”

            Right, so I’m not allowed to talk about hypothetical situations when you ask me about my proposed hypothetical baseline speed…. Kay.

            How about we build the best possible infrastucture level network, then let RSPs compete on whether they want to have ridiculously high contention ratios with low prices or low contention ratios with high prices, but the NBN themselves guarantees the lines be capable of 25Mbit MINIMUM AT ALL TIMES, which they are refusing to do.

            I also have to agree with Jason, you might think you have “explained it” but DOCSIS 3.0 already meets the SoE, why pay to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1 when customers on FTTN would have to pay for FOD?

            Why do HFC customers get a free upgrade to possible gigabit speeds, but FTTN customers get the short end of the stick?

          • Please note Richard, I don’t oppose the use of HFC, I don’t oppose the use of DOCSIS 3.1 or any new improvements to HFC to provide better speeds.

            What I personally oppose is the argument made by many, that we “don’t need the speeds provided by FTTH” while the same people then laud the fact that HFC will be able to provide those same speeds…. Its a false dichotomy.

          • + many R0

            “What I personally oppose is the argument made by many, that we “don’t need the speeds provided by FTTH” while the same people then laud the fact that HFC will be able to provide those same speeds…. Its a false dichotomy.”

            Absolutely…

            It’s known as hypocrisy and those here banging the ideology drum who always criticised FTTP (as they must) are the epitome of hypocrisy.

            But don’t stop there… whether it be the speeds of which you speak – we don’t need them/ oh look at the HFC speeds now. Or calling FTTN fraudband in the past when it was still pretty current but now fully supporting it. Screaming socialist government monopoly – bad then/not even mentioned now. The timeframe blowouts – months previously criticised/years now accepted. Following on from that, derision of NBNCo for revising their aggressive timeframes/now not only accepting revisions but using them to excuse blown timeframes and blown costs. A complete non acceptance of any of Quigley’s figures/estimations but religious belief in the latest mob (even following their $27B cost blow out from the fully costed $29B pre – election plan and years of timeframe blow outs) and then of course claiming MTM is going along better than FTTP (even though it isn’t – but it should because after all it’s ‘faster and cheaper” isn’t it? And all the ground work has been done for them).

            And the list goes on and on…

            Fucking unbelievable.

          • @tj steps in to make me reassess my apology to WP for not being as dumb as here with a gem; my modus operandi (without the latin, abbreviation incorrect of course) is demanding answers from others; in a thread where I’m answering other’s questions (some even answered months ago) and claiming MIA when answers don’t suit (in a thread of dozen responses). Comedy writersw would struggle to make such stuff up.

            True once the “living an imagined reality” was exposed there was little point continuing, R0 min speeds a fiction. JK’s ignorance of HFC networks precludes him understanding my very simply response (very same position a few days ago with FTTN).

            However @Alex / Rizz / Alex (NBN) / RS-ef540 / Jack Torrens (?) steps up to confirm my apology to the WPers was warranted. Brags about his lack of technical, political and financial knowledge, yet rants incidentally with abusive (foul) posts at anyone not supportive of the fanboy line. His alexisms like “obsolete: technology generating billions and advancing” are legendary, as is his linking to articles that actually disprove his position (forbes). “Iron wires” squawked regardless of topic (his question answered several months ago). His lack of knowledge of every topic precludes him from recognition of how little he knows, unparalleled “confidence through ignorance”. Calling out imagined contradictions when there’s demonstratively none.

            Thousand of abusive posts, yet not a single contribution (figures, analysis, technical details, etc). An amazing record.

            This squealer of fanboys stalking every post. More responses to me than entire articles (bizarrely even when I’ve not posted), few if any addressing any point raised (post or article). Such a squealer is unprecedented, not even the MS fanboys at ZDNet fell to this level. But such is today.

            WPers need to improve their game. The standard of delimiter commenters is by far the lowest (loons), though you do see the same name hopping from site to site with exactly the same posts balancing out the competition.

          • “True once the “living an imagined reality” was exposed there was little point continuing, R0 min speeds a fiction. ”

            I am not living in an imagined reality Richard, YOU asked me what I would propose ideally, I answered.

            I am well aware of what is the reality, and that minimum speeds would require too much CVC to be affordable, but you didn’t ask what my ideal would be now for the NBN, I answered what my ideal situation would be overall.

            But keep drumming that “lob abuse at anyone who doesn’t agree with you” tune, it is nice to know that when someone comes along to read this exchange, the main person who is going to be seen negatively is the one slinging abuse at people who disagree, aka Richard.

            I asked you if we do not need the speeds provided by FTTP, why do we need those speeds on HFC?

            Or you can keep ignoring it and keep being hypocritical.

          • Lol Richard I know HFC needs increase node splitting for the SOE of 25Mbps but you have still failed to give a valid reason for why we need to pay for 3.1 when 3.0 meets the SOE.

            The fact that you champagne the speed improvements of the speeds we don’t need as you claimed.

            Or that you are praising an FTTN rollout which is still slower then FTTP is thanks to your 16M BT (60M lol) MTM should have had the 4.5M FTTN done in 1.5years yet they are in there 3rd year.

          • Poor, poor sorry Richard (no I won’t use you surname)…

            Anyhoo, obviously there at that quaint, unknown little place you work, you and that ego aren’t used to anyone talking back to you are you?

            And you become obviously (deliciously ;) riled when people have the audacity here, to question King Richard (feel free to use that) and his antiquated, dumb conservative, 1950’s views.

            Why?

            Because Richard says Richard has all the answers… period.

            Pity then in reality, that 99.9% of those answers are either absolutely incorrect, biased without rationale or just plainly moronic.

            BTW that percentage was + or – 0.1%

            You’re welcome.

          • Richard,
            My name here is “Tim J”, not “@tj” (incorrect abbreviation of course).

            Speaking of comedy, have you looked in the mirror lately?

            You bemoan the standards of posters here, yet you seem to live in a glass house.

          • Why do HFC customers get a free upgrade to possible gigabit speeds, but FTTN customers get the short end of the stick?

            Good point R0ninX3ph.

            You bemoan the standards of posters here, yet you seem to live in a glass house.

            Same irrational pattern demonstrated on Zdnet afew years back before he was banned Tim J:

            1. RR posts something ridiculous.
            2. Others disagree and/or destroy him with facts.
            3. RR then starts abusing others (by his measure)
            4. Other posters respond in kind.
            5. RR then claims he is the one being “abused” as good as any “leftoid” SJW nut job could and also that no one understand his poor plight because he knows it all from counting traffic in supermarkets etc.
            6. RR will then go into delusional mode and start projecting, will say you are “stalking” him for having the audacity to post a response to his ill-informed nonsense.
            7. RR will pout until the next GimpCo article shows that the plan he endorsed is a failure and an unmitigated disaster in the making…

            And you become obviously (deliciously ;) riled when people have the audacity here, to question King Richard (feel free to use that) and his antiquated, dumb conservative, 1950’s views.

            He seems to becoming even more unhinged and shrill lately Rizz, just as I predicted, yet another “I told you so” moment ;-)

          • And yet I was criticised for calling you Dick… you guessed it, the abbreviation of Richard.

            And you yourself complained when another poster here posted your original claims that you “could have been commissioned to write the MTM plan”… because it had your full name on it, “which YOU YOURSELF posted”… he just copy/pasted your words…

            Indeed, simply amazing the complete hypocrisy of those still pining for the 1950’s!

          • JK/Rizz,

            Or that you are praising an FTTN rollout which is still slower then FTTP is thanks to your 16M BT (60M lol) MTM should have had the 4.5M FTTN done in 1.5years yet they are in there 3rd year.

            Amazing you keep repeating this BS comparison even when slapped down multiple times, how do you compare a FTTN rollout that started in 2009 with a rollout that started in September last year?

            (on standby for tortured logic and grammar response that says nothing.)

          • Lol devoid of reality

            MTM started at the end of 2013. It’s not BT fault that the MTM has the slowest rollout of FTTN. The current 8k a week rollout is still slower than FTTP.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            Why do HFC customers get a free upgrade to possible gigabit speeds, but FTTN customers get the short end of the stick?

            Why do ADSL2+ residences close to the exchange get a ‘free upgrade’ than those on the short end of the stick being further from the exchange, why do 4G customers get a ‘free upgrade’ than those who get the short end of the stick on 3G, why do NBN wireless customers get a ‘free upgrade’ than those on the short end of the stick on NBN satellite.

            Why? because FTTP fans only want to myopically compare the two MtM bashers favourite targets FTTN and HFC, that’s all.

            We just loved stacked comparisons.

          • “Why? because FTTP fans only want to myopically compare the two MtM bashers favourite targets FTTN and HFC, that’s all.

            We just loved stacked comparisons.”

            The entire point of this specific comment thread is to point out the god damn hypocrisy of the MTM crowd.

            We are continually told nobody needs the speeds provided by FTTP and then on the other hand, have you lot jumping up and down cheering when HFC or G.Fast or Wireless breaks a new “record” (which mind you are all still significantly behind any and all of the records fibre has set and will set in the future).

            If we don’t NEED those speeds, why do we NEED to upgrade the HFC to DOCSIS 3.1? DOCSIS 3.0 should be more than enough, we were told that in the CBA that 15Mbit in 2025 will be more than enough for anyone, then that logic was used as the basic assumption for the MTM.

            So, if 15Mbit is all we need 9 years from now, we don’t even need to upgrade the HFC to DOCSIS 3.0, the current setup will be fine.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            If we don’t NEED those speeds, why do we NEED to upgrade the HFC to DOCSIS 3.1? DOCSIS 3.0 should be more than enough,

            There is no timetable put out by the NBN Co when the DOCSIS 3.1 upgrade will take place, if it is needed they will do it, this discussion heading is about what HFC is capable of not a guarantee of if and when it will happen here.

            we were told that in the CBA that 15Mbit in 2025 will be more than enough for anyone, then that logic was used as the basic assumption for the MTM.

            Yes and what that’s got to do with maybe’s on any HFC upgrade?

            So, if 15Mbit is all we need 9 years from now, we don’t even need to upgrade the HFC to DOCSIS 3.0, the current setup will be fine.

            You mean upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1, and if it does happen within 9 years and the incremental cost to do so is low so what?

          • “You mean upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1, and if it does happen within 9 years and the incremental cost to do so is low so what?”

            No, I mean DOCSIS 3.0.

            DOCSIS 2.0 already provides 38Mbit over HFC, which is more than double the 15Mbit “required” by 2025. No need to even rollout DOCSIS 3.0.

          • “Rizz is still raving about iron wires:-) Other’s unable to acknowledge the technical advance over copper (everyone in the industry thinks is amazing). But knowledge and experience not important.”
            lolololololololol

            FTTNnnnnn clueless. No amount of education helps. Some people are just lost.

          • R0ninX3ph,

            No, I mean DOCSIS 3.0.

            Oh you did need mean that, unbelievable, so you mean the upgrade Optus and Telstra have done to their HFC network in 2010/2011, you want the NBN Co to uninstall it?

            Really?

          • “Oh you did need mean that, unbelievable, so you mean the upgrade Optus and Telstra have done to their HFC network in 2010/2011, you want the NBN Co to uninstall it?

            Really?”

            Yes, that is clearly what I am saying…. I’m not at all saying that even Telstra and Optus thought that DOCSIS 2.0 wasn’t good enough for them, so even they went and upgraded their networks.

            The entire MTM is based on the false assumption that in 2025 according to the CBA, the bandwidth a household will need is 15Mbit.

            If that were true, Telstra and Optus wouldn’t have upgraded their own networks with DOCSIS 3.0, as DOCSIS 2.0 already provided more than double what their customers would want in 15 years time from when they upgraded it.

            (Oh, maybe you’ll finally get it…. My point is the assumption made in the CBA is a load of bollocks, and to claim that we will only need 15Mbit in 2025 is ridiculous..)

            Glad we finally got there.

        • Richard do your HFC costs above include the cost for node splits, new CMTS devices and DOCSIS 3.1 full duplex compatibility? Also can you advise how you are going to use the full spectrum of the HFC to achieve these faster speeds given Foxtel use some of that to deliver PayTV?

          • @fz no, the article is talking about future upgrade options.

            It can’t use the full spectrum today. However available spectrum is being better utilised. In the future additional spectrum can become available (eg foxtel moving to IP distribution).

            HFC networks aren’t new, plenty of realworld examples.

        • @ Dick,

          See we should have just kept the iron wires (and maybe, strapped on the turbo thruster) after all eh Dick?

          You making excuses after the fact for copper (and to be on topic HFC – yes that HFC that some in your camp referred to as failed networks perpetually in the past)?

          Oh but look, back then the iron wire knuckle draggers were doing exactly as those such as yourself and the rest of the copper knuckle draggers ™ are doing right now, screaming about reusing obsolete copper networks (and to be on topic HFC) did regarding iron, about 100 years ago.

          Just think had they listened to the Dick from 100 years ago, the Dick of today wouldn’t have Dick’s copper now, would Dick? Let alone HFC, such unwarranted new fangled contraptions, would never have been tolerated, eh?

          Oh but you explained (in “hindsight”) why we didn’t reuse the iron wires didn’t you, that’s right… yet we have Dick’s deja vu, here daily, hmm curious.

          It seems fucking obvious that (L)libertarian/anal bean counter lunatic conservatives, thrive on hindsight, but don’t do foresight well at all…

          In fact not at all.

        • @60m passed boy (Dick)

          “I use she because today they’re more likely to be offended (clearly not always), your name sex indeterminate. Now I know. Sorry, difficult tightrope we walk today (leftoid frightbats).”

          That comment typifies perfectly your antiquated (copper-esque) 1950’s, dumb conservative mentality, thank you for proving me right once again…

          Call someone she, exclusively just be a dick (no pun intended)… for a reaction… not for any rational purpose or rational reason or with any cause… and not to aid the conversation… then blame now for your own stupidity…

          Oh well like all rad cons, gotta blame someone….

          …. else, eh?

          :/

    • FTTH cost per premise for a 50 year return vs FTTN/HFC cost per premise for a 10 year return.

      It’s pretty plain which one we should pick.

      P.S. That’s why you preloaded the argument with the ARPU FY22 amount … right Richard? Fingerpainting with numbers is so transparent.

        • It’s hard to tell about GPON, because it’s not a medium, just a standard. I know very few standards that last 50 years. New standards get ratified all the time.

          Media however …. well … that can last much longer than a standard. Copper for telephone use is still good for that purpose today. Not so much the increasing needs for data. But then again, you already knew that Richard.

          Fingerpainting again it seems.

          • @m writes

            “FTTH cost per premise for a 50 year return vs FTTN/HFC cost per premise for a 10 year return.”

            Suddenly we find out FTTH spend is just the physical layer medium. This is amazing, rewriting our entire understanding of the financials. Continue, lets learn more…

          • Nope, that’s just you attempting to spin it by oversimplifying.

            Please … fingerpaint away, lol.

          • Fingerpainting again it seems.

            We can only imagine what they use for paint.

        • I thought with FTTH the cable can last for over 30+ years, and all you need to do is change the hardware at the end of the fibre cables ?

          Isn’t this much more cost effective than running FTTN and needing to “upgrade” (probably have to rip it all out) again to FTTdp and/or FTTH when it can’t handle anymore growing bandwidth demands. Also copper and HFC maintenance gets more expensive as they’re legacy infrastructure when compared to fibre.

          pay for MTM now and then pay for incremental upgrades (costly), or do it all at once with FTTH (just change hardware at end of fibre cable to upgrade bandwidth + speeds) ?

          • @s You don’t have to rip it all out, upgrade path in design. Future technology uncertain (except progress). MTM captures the majority of revenue, earlier and at less cost.

            Over investing is a waste. Even if fibre is the end point (I don’t agree, certainly never beyond the boundary) there are many ways a two-stage rollout is cheaper.

            The entire benefit of NBN would be available today to all Australian’s within the fixed line network if MTM had been adopted, today (7th year) 15% complete $16+b borrowed taxpayers money sunk. NBNCo will loss $2+b this year alone, climbing to almost $3b in FY18.

            PWC valuation demonstrates what a few of us (one?) have pointed out since NBNCo formation. Numbers (actuals) support this position. A policy disaster.

          • “60m passed boy”…Dick, says….

            We can do this and add that and upgrade this and replace that and, and, and … CP16 says, we can, can, can… FFS.

            Or we can be sensible and (just like the iron wires) realise it’s time to do fibre.

            Oh sorry 60m passed boy, you don’t do sensible do you.

    • The article has nothing to do with this rubbish you just posted….

      HFC is being used, nobody is talking about the previous Labor policy in this article, it is about HFC.

      Please show me why we need to spruik DOCSIS 3.1? Or this new full duplex DOCSIS 3.1 when there are no applications for a 100Mbit connection to households, let alone multiple gigabit connections to households? Isn’t 25Mbit enough for anyone?

      • NBN servicing the most needed first, remember that web page Turnbull had paid for to see which areas where needed to be upgraded first..
        So if the most needed areas are first, why are they even bothering with HFC until they have finished the most needed places first?
        If HFC is so good it can stay untouched until FTTN rollout is completed.

        • @s or they can be done is parallel; different skill sets, earlier revenue from high value customers to try pay for the NBN disaster.

          • With any like they can find some people with those skills who are still capable of using them if the do the rounds of the retirement homes.

          • Richard NBN too busy overbuilding those places that already have FTTB, FTTP and HFC from other carriers.

        • So if the most needed areas are first, why are they even bothering with HFC until they have finished the most needed places first?

          Questions like this were asked before the election. Coalition clowns disdain for transparency apparent even then.

      • @r0 first 5 posts referencing NBN policy changes. HFC upgrade/buildout required to deliver min speeds (CPP 1/3 ftth). Technology advance a bonus.

        • Then that’s what the lovely reply feature is for.

          Posting a new comment thread, one would assume you are applying to the actual content of the article itself.

          So, apologies. But still, why do we need 100Mbit HFC or Gigabit HFC or Multi-Gigabit HFC?

  5. Well there already is 1gbps cable in America, except it costs about 4x that of FTTH 1gbps.
    So great that cable can get those speeds, but as NBN have been telling us with FTTH, nobody will be able to afford it anyway!

    • It is RSPs that have made the decision that FTTH isn’t viable as they’ve chosen not to sell 1Gbps speeds that NBNCo made available in December 2013.

      It is Labor that promoted 1Gbps, but omitted to mention that in 2026 they expected less than 1% to connect at those speeds. What speeds do you think Google fibre (1/1Gbps direct fibre now) will reach in 2026?

      • If your incompetent and corrupt mates in the LNP hadn’t killed the FTTP rollout, it would be worth selling 1000/400 mbps plans because they’d actually have business customers to sell them to.

        Now back under your bridge LibTroll!

      • “It is RSPs that have made the decision that FTTH isn’t viable as they’ve chosen not to sell 1Gbps speeds that NBNCo made available in December 2013.”

        That’s a hell of a conclusion jump Mathew. Par for your course though.

        I find it a little amusing that you continue to tout the tack of Gigabit plans as some sort of failure considering the trending of speeds that has occurred ever since broadband was introduced. Everyone, even the lowest broadband user will get there at some stage. But with FTTH we would have got there without expensive interim last mile upgrades.

        • Currently USA RSP’s like Google sell 1 Gbps plans in selected limited cherry picked areas to their own customers only at $300/mth.

          Should take off here in a big way, that’s exactly how the NBN Co model works, no worries.

          • Lol Reality they sell 1Gbps for $79 and with video it’s $129.

            The $300 is a once off payment for people who don’t want 1Gbps and they get a 5Mbps for free for 7 years.

          • You play with lock in ‘package pricing’ from one RSP in the USA and that’s how it would work here?

            You also ignored the bit about the selected limited 1Gbps rollout for their customers only, but pro FTTP argument does a lot of selective ignoring when you are scratching hard to make a point.

            Why isn’t Google 1Gbps in Australia JK?

          • Another typical deflection of devoid of reality been caught out about a wrong statement claim something else lol.

            Why are you asking me ask google.

  6. Obvious Q’s:

    1) does this require new ‘nodes’ to be deployed at the fibre/coax interface? (I’m gonna go ahead and say ‘yes’ to this one)
    2) what length of coax can this be delivered over (I’m guessing very short, so more fibre to be run & more nodes to build)
    3) can this be done with the type of coax used for Australian HFC builds? (I’m guessing probably not, so all the coax will have to be replaced, in which case why the hell wouldn’t you run fibre?)

    IMHO it boils down to nbn™ doing more hand waving about how there are wonderful technologies to eke more out of copper, see, we don’t need no stinking’ fibre! (i.e. propaganda to fool the masses into thinking the MTM is in some way equivalent, or even better, to FttP)

    • I’m more interested in how they’re going to operate the currently required bidirectional amplifiers used for DOCSIS.

      Using FDD is easy, you just split the signals by frequency… But if you have both up/downstream signals sharing the same spectrum, shit gets interesting.

      Loss at higher frequencies requires more gain. There is also less noise at higher frequencies. This is why DOCSIS doesn’t typically use channels lower than 20mhz. But as there is less loss at the current upstream spectrum, less amplifiers are needed for the upstream path.

      You’d need to either use lots of fibre to remove as much signal loss as possible, or move the nodes much closer to the home, negating the need for amplifiers altogether.

  7. Is this anything like 6G, 7G, 8G, 9G or any other from of imagineware.
    I’ve been trying to sell my Dilithium for years.

  8. This is good news. Lucky break on the HFC possibly.

    But now the bad bits.
    Do both HFC networks meet the standard needed for this? I recall some question about DOCSIS 3.1 and size of cable or something similar.
    How long will it take? I am assuming(incorrectly?) this is available now, so what needs to be done to make it work?
    How much extra cost, nothing is free, what sort of effect does this have on the bottom line per HFC premise?

      • Copper destroyed by fibre with both hands tied behind it’s back. Too easy.

        btw Verizon refers to copper fanboy knuckle-draggers as “chronic” copper customers. I think they have a good point. The filth needs to be purged.

        • Verizon needs to come to Australia, they could cherry pick lucrative areas and just sell FTTP to their retail customers only, at whatever price they like.

          That’s just how the NBN works here, no worries.

          • Before roads there were no roads still wins, but that comment was almost as silly…

            BTW you didn;’t answer if you are pissed about being forced onto MTM?

            You know like you were pissed about being forced onto FTTP?

            Simply just another flip-flopping contradiction to suit the needed narrative.

            You’re welcome.

          • Alex, NBN Alex, RS etc etc,

            The usual ranting response that has nothing to do with comparing Verizon and NBN Co FTTP rollouts, because FTTP fans avoid comparisons at all costs.

    • smite … lol

      “For that, you have to strip out blather both misleading and patronising from CableLabs announcement, at which point you realise that a technology that CableLabs might one day develop has passed a feasibility study that says it is not stupid to pursue.”

  9. Another technology that might, maybe, could etc improve the MTM – if it works!

    FTTP works now, is cheaper, provides a better roi, offers these speeds already and is much easier to upgrade.

    What have I missed – why is anyone defending the LNP’s policy?

    • I think there is just one stooge named Richard defending the MTM, the rest of us all seem to be on the same page.

      • There’s a few, Richard, Reality, Mathew and Mr. Shark, all with varying degrees of success/what they are defending/saying.

        • That’s just Richard and Alain and their aliases and they don’t even like each other because Alains weiner is larger than Richards. And Richard doesn’t like people being a bigger dick then him.

  10. As soon as I read US Consortium, I soiled my pants.
    The USA is a basket case just ask Trump, Trump, Trump or his hair dresser.

  11. hahahahahahahhaha oh my god hahahahahahha….let me get my breath

    So the NBN will offer RSP a 2000mbps product.

    Imagine my ISP buying 2000mbps of CVC bandwidth at $17.50 per mbps…Oh lets see how much that is for a 1:1 connection. Oh yeah thats right it’s $35,000. Oh and lets add in the RSPs transit costs from the POI back to their megapop/network. Its about what $15 a mbps so basically double that to $65,000 for a 1:1 2gbps service.

    To make any margin with those costs the telcos would have to be running contention ratios of at least 500-1000:1.

    Which, as per my previous comments, is a pretty terrible thing when you’ve been told you’ve just signed up to a shiny brand spanking new HFC gigabit product. Your usage behaviours will change. You’ll start using the service with the belief its a broadband service and not the narrowband piece of crap ADSL2 with a broken line run and heavy contention at the exchange.

    Seriously i get it. Contention ratios are designed to protect the SME/Corporate/Government market that the telcos gouge (at incidentally those sorts of prices i.e. $20k for a month for 100mbps 1:1 ethernet over fibre service).

    If the ISP didn’t content the residential market to buggery the commercial operations would simply buy multi-gigabit residential tails at a fraction of the cost.

    Again the NBN is a complete and utter fraud – irrespective of whether its FTTN or FTTP the entire project is design to enrich a small group of pigs at the trough.

    We could have built the NBN by now – here is 1984s simple plan

    1. compulsory acquire AAPT/PowerTel conduit licence. This allows you to provision fibre via power conduit. This is the very mechanism that TPG are using to provision FTTB at such a blistering rate
    2. Acquire darkfibre non-telco networks for inter-capital transit. The railways, electricity, utilities and radio networks have build a comprehensive network spanning the country. These loops were simply for command and control but are so heavily overbuilt that these companies have wanted nothing more then to sell their excess capacity. Cross media ship laws and tough carrier licences conditions have prevented this from happening.
    3. Acquire the fibre networks of a major telco. Just buy it out. Probably AAPT again – they had 12,000km of fibre .
    4. Obtain agreements from gas network owners to use their conduits for fibre (non-flammable optic fibre right).
    4. legislate federal control of town planning laws regarding telegraph poles. Allow for FTTP to be provisioned via conduit or telegraph pole before a trench has to be dug. Allow for the copper lead in cable to be cut on the provision and activation of fibre to the end-user.
    5. Do not use sub-contractors for installation. Build an inhouse multi-state teams that start working in the capital cities. Provisoining outward.
    6. Allow councils and other public entities to fund the creation of their own NBN rollout teams (trained and controlled by NBN), if they want fibre to be deployed in LGA
    7. Mandate 100:1 minimum contention ratio. Require RSP display on pricing/contract contention ratio from POI.
    8. Corporate users can use NBN but contention ratio for corporate user must be the same provided to residential customers.
    9. Less PoIs (about 10 times less).
    10. NBN build competition to southern cross. Enter wholesale transit IP market.
    11. Launch satellites and wireless for country users.

    End-to-End.

    Pricing
    Residential
    25mbps – Unlimited – $19.95 per month
    50mbps – Unlimited – $49.95 per month
    100mbps – Unlimited – $99.00 per month
    1000mbps – Unlimited -$50.00 per month

    QOS UBR.

    SME

    25mbps – Unlimited – $50 per month
    50mbps – Unlimited – $100 per month
    100mbps – Unlimited – $200 per month
    1000mbps – Unlimited -$300 per month

    QOS – voice traffic; CBR.
    Backup offerings include discounted satellite, Wireless and 4G options.

    Corporate SL

    25mbps – Unlimited – $100 per month
    50mbps – Unlimited – $200 per month
    100mbps – Unlimited – $500 per month
    1000mbps – Unlimited -$1000 per month

    QOS: configurable/VBR for time sensitive products
    SLA: 99% up time. 2 hour response times

    Corporate services are VPN’d and connected to a single connection for gateway/internet. Gateway internet packages sold according to market pricing of multi-terrabyte usage plans. X thousands per month.

    • Labor designed the NBNCo financial model to increase the ARPU through growth in data consumption (CVC). Customers will not pay more for the same product 100Mbps with unlimited quota, and are less likely to upgrade speed iters. However customers will pay more for higher quotas and will readily change to higher quota plans as their needs increase.

      If the NBN network had been designed as a dumb network giving RSPs more control over traffic then RSPs could have provided some of what you requestion. Some of the potential innovations:
      – Internode’s defunct FlatRate rate plan
      – premium plans guaranteeing minimum speeds (e.g. 1Gbps burst speed, but guaranteed 50/20Mbps minimum)
      – prioritisation for certain periods (e.g. I have a video conference as 3pm, please reserve 100/40Mbps connection from 2-6pm)

      None of this is possible, because Labor added more complexity than necessary and NBNCo decided to charge $300 months for 5/5Mbps CIR on top of existing AVC connection.

      • “If the NBN network had been designed as a dumb network giving RSPs more control over traffic”

        Clearly, you have no idea what is asked of a wholesale provider’s network design and the management of it. No wholesale provider will EVER give you layers 1 and 2 control over their network.

        Try asking Telstra for that sort of control today? You’ll get a “no”, but only after they’ve stopped laughing at you.

        “Labor added more complexity than necessary ”

        Considering you’ve been talking about the technical layers of the network, Labor added no complexity at all to this.

        lol Mathew. I wonder if anyone actually believes the garbage you write, considering the slapdowns you have received over many sites, and over many years.

        • I wonder if anyone actually believes the garbage you write, considering the slapdowns you have received over many sites, and over many years.

          You probably already know the biggest slapdown came in the Senate Estimates where he was referred to as a clown.

        • Pales into insignificance compared to the slap downs pro FTTP and anti MtM argument gets over many years.

          Considering much of it is personal attacks, swearing and deliberate misquoting of figures and not much else it’s not surprising.

          • ROFL!

            Says the guy who was banned for the first first one, and uses the last one regularly. Not sure about the middle one, as it’s hard to keep up with your posting history at the best of times, but if it has occurred it wouldn’t surprise me.

            If you’re accusing people of spin, best look at your own backyard first mmm?

  12. Quote from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/18/gigabit_docsis_31_passes_feasibility_study_kind_of/ : “And, by the way, if we’re talking about a new modulation scheme, that means that every single HFC node – the ones that aren’t yet NBN-ready – will have to be upgraded to support Gigabit speeds”.
    More costs.

    And another quote from same site :
    “CableLabs has built a solution that proves the viability of full duplex communication”.
    Note “viability”. Meaning it’s not available yet and for who knows how long.

          • You want ‘evidence’ that back in 1996 or earlier they knew about the future of copper for use in ADSL2+, VDSL, VDSL2, VDSL2 vectoring, G.fast, and FTTdp?

          • I want evidence that people claimed that there would never be improvements beyond ADSL1.

          • Inane drivel it is then Reality.

            Nobody has said that HFC will never develop further than currently, just as nobody said copper would never develop further than ADSL did.

            What people are saying however, is that just because there might be further developments in HFC and Copper, they are still just about trying to stretch the life of products already near end-of-life. Fibre is already capable of speeds well and truly higher than HFC or Copper based DSL technologies will ever be able to reach. That is fact. Dispute it all you want, but show me anyone claiming Copper of HFC will be able to transfer multiple terabits of data a second over distances further than a few metres.

  13. Clearly gigabit HFC means gigabit for whole node and not for a single person. What happens when everyone is on at the same time? Trying so hard to make old technology work. This will blow up in their face sooner or later. In the time it takes them to get everything working, we could have been well on our way to 93% FTTP.

  14. HFC definitely seems a useful interim-ish solution, I think Simon Hackett was right. Quality cabling is the key part as always.

    Although fttp stops about 200m from my home (assuming rollout maps are anything like correct) Im much happier to be in an HFC footprint than an FTTN one. If I can get Gbps in say a decade and 50+ up/down now / soon its not a bad thing.

    I do think its important though to rebut the arguments about how tech X is progressing -v- 1Gbps gpon. Replace the content of a few fttp pits (large value of few) and the cables are capable of Tbps today. It puts the theoretical capabilities and future development stuff in its place.

  15. I’m a bit over NBN thought bubbles as PR exercises. I’m not overly interested in what they might possibly one day maybe be able to think about perhaps delivering – if all goes well.

    Start delivering on what you were supposed to as a starting point.

  16. So, how does a research-stage future HFC protocol help with a universal project that is promised for completion before it is commercialised?

    • +1

      Looking at the usual suspects here, it helps them with PR and of course their best friend, FUD.

    • FY,

      Because it shows there is a upgrade path for HFC, this is the infrastructure Conroy and Labor were paying Telstra and Optus to shut down so they could overbuild it with that bargain basement stuff FTTP at $4,400 per residence.

  17. In other DOCSIS 3.1 news

    “The U.S. operator has said in the past that it will push deployments throughout 2016 and plans to cover its entire network footprint with DOCSIS 3.1 by 2018.”
    http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2016/02/abi-forecasts-9m-docsis-31-subs-2017

    Let’s compare, Conroy/Quigley’s NBNCo was formed in Apr 2009. By the time the ALP/Greens were kicked out of govt (sep13) they’d passed just 227k premises, however only 154k of those could actually order a service. Today NBNCo’s network is barely 15% compete for $16+b (almost all passed by Turnbull/Morrow).

    Conroy threatened Telstra (withhold future cellular spectrum, best Comms minister ever;-) when they suggested they’d upgrade their HFC network for no cost to taxpayers. 4m Australians should thank him (well they have, generous taxpayer gifted lifetime salary) for his $11b Telstra gift to prohibit HFC use for high speed internet.

    Comcast offering 1gbps in upgraded areas already. A product not available from NBNCo’s RSP, despite the taxpayer money spent on it by Quigley pre-2013 election.

    NBNCo an asset valued on completion around half of taxpayer equity injected.

    • And here we have again Richard champagne speeds we don’t need lol

      But then Turnbull claimed before the election that he would allow Optus and Telstra complete with there HFC against his FTTN what happen there

  18. Conroy/Quigley predicted 80% of fixed line footprint will take up NBN service. NZ Chorus reports take up in their fibre areas of 14% (AR15p3), but they haven’t excluded competive technologies.

    Chorus’ $1b taxpayer equity available to upgrade entire country, Conroy/Quigley S1 blowing out to $73b (SR13p17).

    Conroy/Quigley’s CPP blown out, rollout failing a achieve 30% of forecast, revenue underperforming by the same margin (Quigley paying bonuses).

    Last week the revenue elephant in the room again shifted.

    “Optus, Huawei attain 1.4Gbps download speeds in 4.5G trial. Huawei is continuing to push the development of gigabit-speed 4.5G mobile networks, having attained download speeds of 1.41Gbps in a trial with Optus.”
    http://www.zdnet.com/article/optus-huawei-attain-1-4gbps-download-speeds-in-4-5g-trial/

    Note how much better informed ZDNet is today after leftoids Braue (ABC) and Taylor (Crikey) have moved on.

    Mobile bundled and consumed bandwidth continues to explode. My $16/mth plan including $500 calls and 1.5gb, admittedly small for the 4k porn and YouTube hamster stare addicted (little economic value anyway).

    NZ Chorus will release their half yearly report shortly. Their weighted cost of capital on 6.5%, three times IRR expected for NBNCo. Comparison with NBNCo (quickly) released half yearly report will be instructive (for the few that understand).

    NBN policy failure becoming more apparent it would seem.

  19. Lol Richard show your Turnbull fanboy status again lol.
    “Last week the revenue elephant in the room again shifted.”
    So who is running the NBN Quigley or Morrow.

    Turnbull had $20B capped funding with peak of $29B. Then $29B capped funding with $41B. Now $29B capped funding with a $56B peak.

    Can you point out the CPP blow out as its was only $500 difference. But then the cp16 CPP is below what was quoted in the SR so wouldn’t you agree that $71B price is incorrect. Or are you claiming best figures at the time.

    And here we go again show speeds we don’t need.

    • What we can reiterate because the FTTP fan club avoid fair comparisons at any cost, is that FTTP estimated peak funding is $74-$84B with a finish date of 2026-2028.

      Also FTTP brownfields CPP between the last two NBN Co half year reporting periods actually increased.

      • Lol Reality show your desperation again iof claiming the $74-84b as labor original rollout lol. Just priceless Reality.

        Or are you claiming what NBN has said about those figures are wrong

        • Tortured logic and grammar again I see, but then it’s not meant to make sense is it, it’s just a quick, ‘I got a email I need to respond, anything will do’.

          • No Reality it’s that you can’t even use the facts right but nice try on a detour as usual

          • The facts are from CP 16 and the latest NBN Co Half year report, the fact that you and other FTTP cheer leaders don’t like seeing them on display quoted and linked to the reference doesn’t make them invalid.

          • Lol devoid of reality the facts that you quoted isn’t labour FTTP rollout. As you have admitted in other comments lol. But please keep trying in desperation

          • It’s not possible to quote figures about the Labor rollout in 2016, it stopped in 2013/14, you are aware of this crucial detail?

          • Lol devoid of reality

            Apparently you are not aware of that crucial detail when your trying to claim CP16 reset figures as labor FTTP figures. But please keep up the diversion just showing the desperation.

            So are you now saying we should go off the cp13 FTTP figure of $44B complete by 2021 vs upto $56B complete by 2020.

      • “that FTTP estimated peak funding is $74-$84B with a finish date of 2026-2028.”

        Where’d you get those figures from?

        P.S. Just checking.

          • It is interesting we don’t see any comparisons of what Scenario 4 from the SR would look like in the corporate plans isn’t it.

            Could it be because it would make the current rollout not look so grand?

            Similarly, I wonder what that costing would be if they hadn’t had to change tack and absorb all the costs related to the MTM rollout….

          • Senator CONROY: So your counterfactual is not actually a counterfactual of an ongoing fibre rollout. It is a counterfactual of, ‘If you had to start again today, what would happen?’
            Mr Rue: It is a counterfactual of, ‘If the company were to do all fibre-to-the-premise, what would it take?’ Senator CONROY: From today.
            Mr Rue: From today, what would it cost?
            Senator CONROY: Not what it would have cost if you had kept going.
            Mr Rue: I do not know how I would do that analysis. I can only do the analysis as of today.

            http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/5da16dd3-ceb5-45be-994e-c57ab82d8e67/toc_pdf/National%20Broadband%20Network%20Select%20Committee_2015_09_14_3789.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/5da16dd3-ceb5-45be-994e-c57ab82d8e67/0000%22

            Page 17 reality because there are no pictures

          • Last year when the CP16 came from the looks of it.

            So if we look at that compare to a start of 2011 complete by 2021 for $44B vs a restart in 2015 complete by 2028 for $84B

          • Last year? So … after Malcolm got in and changed things?

            That’s supposed to be evidence?

          • The same tired old mantra, if only Labor hadn’t lost the election, the FTTP rollout was just ramping up (from 2010? lol), if only they hadn’t missed targets, if only Conroy and the NBN Co had a different construction model , if if, and on and on it goes.

            Hello! an alternative NBN policy was voted in, in the meantime in 2016 the MtM rollout gains momentum while the FTTP cheerleaders are stuck in the past looking back at the ever fading FTTP rollout failure of 2010-2013.

            One that Labor will not dare ever to repeat again.

          • Not a mantra Reality. Just that everything that encompasses the MTM calculations comes asterisked with the fact that FTTP was added as another rollout after the MTM finishes … the cost of letting the existing rollout continue was never even looked at. Admitted by Morrow himself.

            So any numbers afterwards that might you wish to use is tainted by that fact. Which makes most of your points to prove FTTH wrong …. invalid.

            I guess at least you’re using different colours to fingerpaint occasionally. There’s some attempt at creativity.

          • Murdoch,

            the cost of letting the existing rollout continue was never even looked at.

            Well you have hit the nail on the head, why on earth would the NBN Co look in detail at continuing on with the Labor policy beyond the CBA and SR findings when the alternative NBN model was the well publicized MtM Coaltion policy?

            It’s like FTTP fans cannot get their heads around the real world facts:

            1. Labor lost the 2013 election.
            2. Quigley is not running the NBN Co anymore and has not since 2013.
            3. Coalition NBN policy is different than Labor NBN policy, that is it is not FTTP to 93% of residences and never will be.
            4. The NBN Co now owns the quite substantial existing copper and HFC infrastructure and will use it to speed up the rollout of their NBN.

          • Lol Devoid of Reality yet you quote figures for labour rollout which you have admitted doesn’t.

            The coalition policy is completely different to what we have now.

            Where is that speed up the SR had 4.5m premises connected by the end of this year. Most of which was HFC which now won’t happen until 2018. So being 2 years behind there own target is faster. Or being 5 years behind there pre election policy is faster.

          • “.. why on earth would the NBN Co look in detail at continuing on with the Labor policy .. ”

            To prove that their way really was cheaper/faster. Ya think? Couldn’t do that without rigging the result though.

            And simply making out that it’s water under the bridge, the Coalition won the election nah nah nah …. doesn’t make it any less than the stinker policy it was, and still is.

            If you want to talk about living in the past, that’s exactly what the Coalition are doing. They’re not even building a network for today, let alone the future.

          • doesn’t make it any less than the stinker policy it was, and still is.

            If you want to talk about living in the past, that’s exactly what the Coalition are doing. They’re not even building a network for today, let alone the future.

            Nailed it.

          • Murdoch,

            To prove that their way really was cheaper/faster. Ya think?

            The CP 16 CPP figures prove nothing has changed in the three years since 2013, FTTP CPP is still the highest compared to FTTN and HFC.

            Couldn’t do that without rigging the result though.

            How are the results rigged?, FTTP is still the most expensive comparative fixed line deployment cost the world over, what’s different about Australia that it is not?

            They’re not even building a network for today, let alone the future.

            Australia is not unique in the world deploying a MtM rollout using FTTN, FTTP and HFC, there are a lot of well developed countries that are stuffed if only a full FTTP rollout to all residences is defining the ‘future’.

          • So Reality is not unique then why is it taking MTM to connect FTTN to 4.5m homes as it did BT to connect 16M homes.

          • “The CP 16 CPP figures prove nothing has changed in the three years since 2013, FTTP CPP is still the highest compared to FTTN and HFC.”

            Lovely.

            Effectively ignoring what was to be a ramp up in the FTTP, effectively stopped as soon as Turnbull became comms minister. Which would have driven CPP down.

            You’re comparing CPP apples and oranges Reality … guess you must have found some paint.

            “How are the results rigged?”

            I already told you … the cost of letting the FTTP rollout continue without an MTM rollout was not done.

            “Australia is not unique in the world deploying a MtM rollout ”

            The thinking being that if it’s good enough for other countries … it’s good enough for Australia right? Lazy thinking at best. Do those other countries have a similar last mile provider such as Telstra agressively defending their patch? Do the other countries have poorly maintained copper and HFC deployments already in place? Did other countries do analysis on which was cost efficient, or faster? And were their priorities the same as what the Coalition think they are?

            And how many of those have pushed ahead, and found an “MTM” deployment wanting. I can name 2 (UK and NZ) that were used by this government as shining examples to follow that are now deploying FTTH.

            See, this is where oversimplifying gets you Reality. Nowhere near reality.

          • Murdoch
            There are at least 3 version in the US Verizon has stated one reason for switching from FTTN to FTTP was due to maintenance.

          • Jason K,

            Exactly. The devil is in the detail. Ironically the Coalition likes to gloss over those little details, which, when they do come to light, make all the difference in the real world performance of their hack job.

          • I know it’s cheap upfront saying lol.

            If we use Richard increase of $10 month cost in opex the cost difference of FTTN to FTTP is paid for in 8 years.

      • @r they’ll keep going until any dissenting view is silence. As happened at ZDNet.

        Their vile abuse justified for “the cause”, hundreds of examples. Renai had to shutdown comments after posting his reasonable analysis that Ross wasn’t gagged by the ABC (I suspect learnt his lesson).

        It’s only a matter of time. Welcome to the new world.

    • Sorry Hotcakes but I don’t see how that is sexism unless you redefine the meaning of the word sexism.

      • I think the “sexism” is the assumption that Richard needed to refer to me as a “she” because “wimmenz get upset if you don’t placate them”.

        So, referred to me as female just in case I was a crazy woman who couldn’t control her emotions, or something.

        I don’t particularly think anything needs to be done specifically about it, I agree with Hotcakes and think that thinking is sexist, however, I don’t think banning or punishment need be discussed, I made my stance clear on the issue, gender has no bearing on arguments made for or against the NBN and the various rollout strategies employed by either party.

        • @r0 and if I used he and you’re a she (sex indeterminate from name) I would have been accused of even greater sexism. Impossible to win (high income, middle-aged white man).

          Why were you claiming offence anyway? Sexist;-)

          • Firstly, I didn’t claim offence, but I know reading isn’t your strong suit.

            Secondly, using “he” when not knowing someones anonymous gender on a text based forum is not sexist, choosing to use “she” because women get upset if you call them “he”, so you assume someone is female and call them “she” to avoid making them “angry” IS.

            And lastly, why don’t you actually reply to the person who started this thread of comments, why reply to me? When I specifically said I didn’t believe any punishment or banning was required, even if I thought your way of thinking (aka the logic behind why you called me “she”, was sexist).

            Just to spell it out, even if I think that thought process was sexist, that DOESN’T mean I think you as a person is sexist, or is always sexist, or even meant it to be sexist.

Comments are closed.