news The telco deploying New Zealand’s own version of the National Broadband Network has revealed that it was able to cut the cost of deploying its Fibre to the Premises model by 29 percent in a single year in 2015 and will cut it evern further this year, bringing the overall cost down to a comparable level with rival mdoels such as Fibre to the Node.
With its Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative, New Zealand originally pursued a Fibre to the Node model similar to the approach that the NBN company has adopted under the Abbott and Turnbull administrations. However, it eventually switched to a Fibre to the Premises model similar to the model originally preferred by Labor for the NBN.
Last week, the company deploying the UFB project, Chorus, appeared as a witness before the Senate Select Committee into the NBN.
At the hearings, Labor Senator and former Communications Minister Stephen Conroy noted that according to its financial results, Chorus had been successful in getting its capital expenditure costs for FTTP down “considerably” over the past few years, cutting its costs from $4,753 per premise in 2014 to $3,367 in 2015.
Chorus network strategy manager Kurt Rodgers agreed with Conroy’s calculations, and further revealed out that Chorus had more recently succeeded in cutting the costs even further, with the company taking a further $400 from the cost.
“We always had a declining view of the cost per premise passed as our factor gets better at delivering fibre to the home,” said Rodgers.
The Chorus executive said that the company’s experience was that deploying FTTP was almost more expensive at the start, before it went through a three year cycle of broad cost reductions.
“We are now into year five so we have a relatively smooth factory going, where we have time, cost and quality under control, as much as we can, and it is improving every year,” he said.
Rodgers said there were a variety of ways in which costs could be taken out of the FTTP production and installation process.
The first step, he said, was that Chorus did not mind spending more money on materials for its network if it meant they were cheaper to install. The executive noted that the highest cost of rolling out the UFB was labor.
“If we can provide technology—tubes, ducts, pipes and widgets—that takes someone five minutes to install instead of 30 minutes to install then we do not mind spending a bit more on the material,” he said.
Secondly, Rodgers said, Chorus tried not to change its solution too often.
“Our build program works by having consistency and homogeneousness,” he said. “Keeping things simple allows the build program to build up efficiency: for technicians to build up skills that are repeatable and for systems to allow automation. Basically, it is a sausage factory approach to just keeping it rolling out.”
Rodgers’ colleague, Chorus head of market insights Rosalie Nelson, said that it was also worth bearing in mind that Chorus’ UFB rollout initially targeted high-priority areas such as central business districts, businesses, schools and institutions, which were complex and high-cost areas.
“Now we are moving more into residential suburbs,” Nelson said, noting they were less complex and easier to deploy FTTP to.
The rapid decrease in the UFB rollout in New Zealand is starting to bring the cost per premise of its FTTP rollout close to the cost of FTTN in Australia.
The NBN company has recently quoted a figure of about $4,400 per premise for connecting FTTP, while it calculates the cost per premise of FTTN as about $2,300. Chorus’ figures appears to show that its cost for FTTP is slated to hit about $2,900 per premise.
The New Zealand example matches up with recent leaked documents from the NBN company which have shown that the company has recently conducted trials of a new rollout model which could drastically cut the cost of FTTP.
However, the argument that FTTP costs come down over time runs directly counter to ongoing statements and calculations by the NBN company and the Federal Government to the effect that the cost of FTTP can be calculated on a ten-year basis, meaning that its costs would remain significantly higher than those of FTTN.
At the hearings, Senator Conroy indicated he was extremely pleased by the progress made by Chorus, intimating that the NBN company was not doing a similarly good job.
“I have a $3 million CEO’s job I would like to offer you,” Conroy said at one point, upon hearing of Chorus’ FTTP cost-cutting.
“I am sure that the poor guys down at NBN could definitely use your help,” Conroy added. “They have said that over a 10-year period they can make no productivity gains whatsoever over the entire build of fibre to the premises. I will not ask you to comment on their methods.”
Opinion/analysis to follow.
I was aware of the roll out in NZ but hadn’t delved in to any of the details. It would be interesting to know how far along the FTTN roll out had progressed before moving to FTTP. The pertinent question of course would be, can it be done in Australia.
Listening to Chorus in the senate they said they started rolling out FTTN in 2008 and then started switching over to FTTP in 2012.
Thanks Ayz, maybe there’s hope for us yet :)
It’ll be messy as hell and whoever does it will be reamed by our media, but I guess it’s not over yet.
@JohnOz – Can it be done in Australia??? Only if Politics stays out of it. Whilst ever this is a political hotcake, the Australian public are going to get shafted. End of story.
Yeah I fear that to. I guess all we can do is make as much noise as possible in the hope that we get traction on making sure the NBN is a voting issue. It’s a job Delimiter is working hard on.
Perhaps then they may listen and make some changes.
MT , Stalag 13.. I see nuthink, nuthink..!
LibTrolls here in 3…. 2…. 1….
@johnOz – Listening to Chorus in the senate they said they started rolling out FTTN in 2008 and then started switching over to FTTP in 2012.
I wonder if the Libs will discount this information since “NZ isn’t Australia” at the same time as citing FTTN rollouts in other countries as rationale for doing it here.
‘Libs will discount this information since “NZ isn’t Australia” ‘
And yet Turnbull was more than happy to point at NZ broadband FTTN plans *before* they switched to FTTP…
+ 1
Has me wondering, when was the last time the Lib’s used the “NZ is rolling out FttN” line. I dont remember any recent comparisons to what NZ IS doing…
Well he wont be able to point to the UK for too much longer, BT seem to have decided to change direction and accelerate the deployment of fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500278249/BT-CEO-hints-at-change-of-direction-on-FTTP
DO,
You left out these bits, don’t know why.
It remains unclear whether or not Patterson’s remarks hinted at a wholesale change of direction at BT, or whether he was expanding on previous pledges he made.
You do know what ‘it remains unclear’ means.
Here is one of the pledges he made referred to in the link.
To extend fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) broadband roll-out beyond 95% of UK premises, and to work with government, if necessary, to support a future public funding model that would help achieve that. Patterson said BT would adopt a “never say no” model when it came to reaching the most remote communities, and said it would explore more innovative funding and technical solutions to accomplish this.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500253932/BT-unveils-ultrafast-broadband-pledge-card-to-support-digital-economy
There you go the full picture of what is happening at BT for you.
More alain contradictions…
Tells us not to compare to overseas when that suits (with smart arse comment attached such as, well why doesn’t XYZ should come here and invest in FttP) then continues to compare to overseas himself when that suits…
Nice… by nice I of course mean WTF?
You’re welcome.
Alain, and you ignored me using the word “seem”. Go buy yourself a dictionary, Mmmmkay.
“Last week, the company deploying the UFB project, Chorus, appeared as a witness before the Senate Select Committee into the NBN.”
And not one word has been spoken about this in MSM as far as i have seen.
To be fair how often to do you hear anything about any senate committee hearings in MSM?
That is true, but not all matters in that come before senate committee will have such a terrible and lasting effect on our country now and for a long time into the future.
At the very least i would have thought Labor senators would have offered to give interviews etc etc to prove their point.
“And not one word has been spoken about this in MSM as far as i have seen.”
This is why there is a viable model for me to be in Canberra as a dedicated tech journo … there are just so many stories that nobody else is reporting *sigh*
+1
If it’s a viable model for you Renai, I don’t see why it’s not viable for the major newspapers. We are in the digital age after all :)
Keep up the good work.
If you only (and i mean no disrespect) reached more people on a daily basis, i honestly believe, they (see politicians) would have to be more accountable re the tech sector in Australia, on one hand Mal wants Australia to be more innovative yet on the other hand he has doomed us to fall even further behind the rest of the world with his MTM, only a small percentage of our population actually understands what he is doing, while the rest clap and cheer as we technologically go down the gurgler…
MSM isn’t about reporting news. Its about fear (or fluff) and pushing the owners political views out there. (Just look at the USA atm, its also why they had to put up with a second Bush!)
Also the digital era for old school MSM is them losing their profitability as well so they’ve not exactly been keen on the transition.
“on one hand Mal wants Australia to be more innovative”
They’ve been talking the talk … yet to actually see anything substantive from them however (and giving back part of the funding they took in the first place doesn’t count).
its why I’m subscribed too :)
Can you talk to a site like Gizmodo and get them to parrot some of your stories like this?
There is such a missed opportunity to spread the word wider that surely there is a way.
The Gizmodo guys pretty much hate my guts ;) Amongst technology journalists in Australia, I am either good mates with them or they hate me. Giz falls into the latter category …
Lol, juicy story behind it?
Yeah but.. ‘Ustralia is different… cause.
I was sure MT used NZ as a prime example for FttN as well no? … woops
He stopped talking about NZ when they switched from FTTN to FTTP.
Are the only ‘witnesses’ invited to the Labor controlled Senate estimates hearing those they know will deliver a message they want to hear?
Are you implying chorus makes business decisions based on ideology?
We all know MTM is corruption disguised as ideology. Libs, turnbull, Murdoch, Tesltra & Foxtel are all ‘servicing’ each other.
hey Reality,
there were some NBN FTTP dissenters at the hearings … one academic in particular was pretty supportive of FTTN.
I may write up some of the dissenting comments if I get time … although, to be honest, some of these comments were a bit nutty.
I don’t think the hearings came across in general as being biased. Conroy didn’t ask that many questions, and Ludlam and the other Labor Senators just appeared to be more interested in learning rather than pushing a view.
The Liberal Senator (David Johnston) did appear to be largely interested in pushing the Coalition view, as obviously Conroy pushed the Labor view.
Renai
It still would informative for the Senators to hear from a one of the worlds largest Telco’s BT in the UK rolling out both FTTN and FTTP in 2016 and beyond and the reasons why.
It would also be informative for the Senators to hear from the USA’s largest RSP Comcast as to why they are keeping their vast HFC infrastructure and upgrading it to DOCSIS 3.1 and not overbuilding it with FTTP.
It’s all very well having academics supporting FTTN and appearing at the hearing, but there is nothing like practical overseas experience of others well versed in infrastructure rollout providing balanced information to the hearing.
As you asked
“One of the UK’s foremost telecommunications experts, a former chief technology officer of British telco BT, has publicly stated that fibre to the node-style broadband is “one of the biggest mistakes humanity has made”, imposing huge bandwidth and unreliability problems on those who implement it”
https://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/
It’s not likely a ex BT employee with a comment from 2012 would be invited, something more current like last year from the current BT CEO would be more appropriate.
We have invested £3 billion ($5.9bn) but to do FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) it would have been ten times that and the speed of deployment would have been at 10 per cent at this point,”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/nbn-co-unites-with-british-telecom-on-secrets-of-speed/news-story/59d1cd696ffb4bd1cabb81c4416d04a1
@Reality
OK, from 29 Feb 2016
Business leaders’ group the Institute of Directors (IoD) has accused the UK government of a “poverty of ambition” on broadband speeds.
Companies such as Sky, Vodafone and TalkTalk, who pay to use the network, had claimed that BT underinvested in Openreach, leading to a poor service with interruptions and slow speeds.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35681475
Or 3 March 2016
Britain’s broken broadband: Speeds quicker on Mount Everest than in many UK homes
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/498608/Britain-s-broken-broadband-speeds-Mount-Everest-UK-homes
When everyone from the IOD to bottom dwelling tabloids are criticising your broadband, something ain’t right.
You give him exactly what he asks for and all you see after that is yeah, but… but… but…
He is as delusional as Richard.
The reports don’t say that FTTP is the only solution to the problems, it reads like here backhaul and capacity provisioning etc after the cabinet is a problem as speeds across areas are all over the place using same infrastructure.
@ alain.
Relating to one of your above ramblings…
“It’s not likely a ex BT employee with a comment from 2012 would be invited, something more current like last year from the current BT CEO would be more appropriate.”
Yet you continually post a Delimiter article from years ago as your smoking gun, about Renai’s thoughts at the time, on the NBN?…
Nice contradictory stupidity. About your 4th for today, kudos.
You’re welcome.
@ alain.
And your last post here.. “The reports don’t say that FTTP is the only solution to the problems”
Of course not…
Our government and Prime Adult, here too have options, such as pigeons, smoke signals and of course the ever popular string/cans (I believe Edgell creamed corn are especially gratifying for you 1950’s iron wires cavemen).
You’re welcome
BT is a holding company, Openreach is its retail outlet.
Most of BT’s profits are generated by its Openreach subsidiary, which controls the UK’s ‘last mile’ copper infrastructure. Since 2005, BT have been accused of abusing their control of Openreach, particularly by UNDERINVESTING in the UK’s broadband infrastructure, charging high prices and providing poor customer service. The UK’s telecoms regulator Ofcom is currently investigating whether to order BT to sell Openreach, and is expected to report in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group
Comcast is a Cable TV company they are locked in, their only avenue for upgrade is doc3.1. Retailer
The company’s customer satisfaction often ranks among the LOWEST in the cable industry. Comcast has violated net neutrality practices in the past; and, despite Comcast’s commitment to a narrow definition of net neutrality, critics advocate a definition of which precludes distinction between Comcast’s private network services and the rest of the Internet.Critics also point out a LASK OF COMPETITION in the vast majority of Comcast’s service area; there is LIMITED COMPETITION among cable providers.[23] Given Comcast’s negotiating power as a large ISP, some suspect that Comcast could leverage paid peering agreements to unfairly influence end-user connection speeds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
So you provide Wikipedia links to Comcast and BT, you could provide a Wikipedia link to every RSP/Telco in the world that no doubt has issues of one sort or another, what is your point exactly, the Senate hearing should not invite any overseas Telco for information gathering and just sit there reading Wikipedia?
You do know that wikipedia has links to all its statements, dont you? You may not want to trust wiki itself, but question the integrity of the links rather than the accumulation.
If the links are bodgy, or biased, go for it. Just as you should recognise when the links have a valid point in favor of FttP. Something I doubt you’re capable of.
I don’t see where the links favour FTTP.
@ alain.
You also can’t see $26.5B MTM blow outs above the promised “fully costed” $29.5B or 4 year time blow outs…
You can’t see OPEX expenditure regarding the copper and (failed – your word) HFC over and above the $11B.
You can’t see the benefits of broadband speeds, until an add on to MTM can “theoretically” produce slightly better but still greatly inferior speeds yo FttP…
But you can clearly see the word might in a full document with clear intent which you can FUD up and argue over, like a child…
So not surprising you can’t see here, what, err you want to see…
You’re welcome.
Call it balance. All they normally here from are all the MTM shills that were parachuted into the NBN by Turnbull.
If you think there is a witness whose voice would contribute to another angle on the positives of the multiple technology soup, you are welcome to bring it to the attention of any of the politicians on the panel. That is the wonder of participatory politics. Probably the Liberal Deputy Chair is a good candidate for your emails.
@ Dick/alain, but but but since you missed it…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/09/nz-brings-fttp-costs-fttn-levels/
FttN is NOT cheaper, got it now? And looking at the 4 year time blowouts, little if any faster (certainly not faster to people such as me who would have had FttP, but do not have FttN).
But you can rest assured and be proud that it is still… immensely inferior.
You’re welcome.
FttN is NOT cheaper, got it now?
Really?
“Undoubtedly there will still be many challenges ahead, but the addition of fibre-to-the-node to NBN Co’s suite of technology solutions will allow the NBN to be built more quickly and at less cost to the taxpayer,” Mr Quigley wrote.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/liberals-nbn-gets-mike-quigleys-green-light-as-ziggy-switkowski-to-head-new-board/story-e6frgaif-1226732614762
Yes really…
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/20/hockey-says-govt-spending-70bn-on-nbn/
You’re welcome
@ alain
Read the below link again… and feel free to find an adult, perhaps next door to you, to explain it to you…
I could do so, but to be frank, as I have found over the years with all of your lies, contradictions and your political fellationics (that’s my word for what you do, like it) I’d get more sense by explaining it to my letterbox, car or the neighbours cat.
You’re welcome.
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/20/hockey-says-govt-spending-70bn-on-nbn/
Wait… you’re quoting a 2013 story to refute something stated a day ago?
Interesting tactic.
Yes I thought you wouldn’t like it, Rizz as per usual has the smoke puffer working overtime, divert-divert-divert.
ouch moment eh?
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/20/hockey-says-govt-spending-70bn-on-nbn/
Ouch indeed…
Feel free to prove Joe and the Coalition wrong…
You’re welcome
Indeed GongGav,
But when you ask him about the MTM cost disaster and time frame crisis, he’ll desperately try to excuse them by stating recent “revisions have been done”…
… and the hypocritical irony of him ignoring now and harping back when it suits (as you posted) and vice versa, when that suits, obviously eludes him.
Excellent contribution from a company rolling out an upgrade. Where have we heard this before?
Quigley’s CP13-16 was withheld from the electorate by the minister in 2013. However the draft showed NBNCo had reduced brownfield fibre access CPP from $5000 to $1100-1400, connection costs from $2400 to $1100. Quigley and NBNCo has since put their best estimate for CPP at $3500 (Quigley’s PDF) – 3700 (CP16).
The claim costs haven’t fallen here is demonstratively false. Indeed the decrease is quite extraordinary. Why wasn’t these techniques adopted from day one given NBNCo was so late to the party is a question best directed to the then management. I’ve often pointed out NBNCo’s relative poor performance re international & private sector experience.
Sadly it appears some believed that volume cost decreases weren’t also achieved in Chorus’ FTTN program. Nor do many acknowledge such savings are identifiable with alternate technologies eg NBNCo’s leaked FTTN costings document shows their $75k node is expected to cost $180k to install and commission; an unimaginably large number.
The largest cost component is entrance into premises. There is no magic solution (as Chorus pointed out with their labour comment). Interesting will be what Chorus’ capex figure covers. Fibre take up rate in their last AR15 very poor.
Nice to see the senate following my advice re others experience. Time to read all the evidence (Tucker & Gregory surely impressive) before Renai’s analysis.
Transcript here
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/4cfc1ef3-94eb-4b14-93e1-736786dc098e/toc_pdf/National%20Broadband%20Network%20Select%20Committee_2016_03_04_4250.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/4cfc1ef3-94eb-4b14-93e1-736786dc098e/0000%22
For the many here that work read, or comprehend the evidence given.
Academics and user’s group summary summed up with “stop talking about costs; start talking about investment”. No numbers, just generalisations “fibre, fibre, fibre”. Ridiculous 20+ or 40 year investment cycle.
Chorus’s presentation instructive: ultrafast broad initiative decision to switch to fibre was political. FTTH to 75% (now 80%) of premises, regions tendered with incumbent winning 69%. $1.35b interest-free loan from govt. Focus on high priority and high revenue (CBD) areas first. No copper-to-fibre migration.
Wholesale pricing of FTTH $37.50/mth (30mbps) and $55 reduced to $40 (100mbps) is below cost. Regulatory intervention required to increase copper cost to make fibre competitive.
20% end user connecting, 45% choosing 30mbps the remaining 55% on 100mbps.
RSPs handle connection to premises. Aerial connection by far the cheapest.
All damning criticisms of the so called “panel of experts” and NBNCo. NBN policy and implementation extraordinarily inefficient, tens of billions of borrow taxpayer money wasted.
Thank you Richard…
*sigh*
@r you’re welcome. Amazing what could be achieve for such little taxpayer money isn’t it? Conroy was right re bring them here, unfortunately 7 years to late.
Returning to:
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/02/senate-committee-calls-nbn-co-full-day-hearings/#li-comment-720552
And the $27B blow out from the promiseg “fully costed and ready to rll plan” and the 4 year hold ups from the promise for all Aussies by 2016?
Once again… shh, nothing to see here…move along.
I await but Quigley to again, put the icing on the rad con cake.
@r yet I’ve pointed out the waste of money of all plans. It’s the public sector delivering as expected. MTM substantially less.
NBN a policy folly requiring $50b (and growing) and 11 yrs (2016 and only 17% complete), already delivered in other markets for comparatively loose change. Great work Conroy/Turnbull! Aussie innovation;-)
“It’s the public sector delivering as expected. ”
You keep saying this…. But care to show some evidence of it?
Do the mobile networks now count as “broadband infrastructure”?
Richard,
Conroy was right re bring them here, unfortunately 7 years to late.
Yes I had a chuckle at the irony in the light of this not so subtle dig Conroy made at the hearing, always ready to stick the boot in.
“I have a $3 million CEO’s job I would like to offer you,” Conroy said at one point, upon hearing of Chorus’ FTTP cost-cutting.
“I am sure that the poor guys down at NBN could definitely use your help,” Conroy added.
‘NBN could definitely use your help’ as in NBN Co 2009-2013 you mean?
Lol Reality they need more help than even with a cost blowout of $27B in 2 years. How they all have kepted there job for such a poor performance.
So Richard how would 100Mbps be below cost would it would cost the same to deliver 30Mbps as it would 100Mbps.
@jk read the Chorus evidence, link provided.
Their revenue is almost NBNCo’s ARPU, yet costs much lower and they’re not doing copper migration (20% premise take up, big savings on drop). Not looking good for profitability here is it?
What’s chorus revune for there FTTN then we can compare.
Was Turnbull FTTN going to charge $16 not the same price of FTTP. There own figures where expecting only ARPU of $38 by 2020 but $60 for FTTP.
But why would you want to spend $5200 CPP on a 2 rollout build when it cost $4400 to do it once and done in half the time.
JK,
But why would you want to spend $5200 CPP
Where did you get this figure from?
on a 2 rollout build
Where does this estimate come from?
and done in half the time.
Where does the ‘half the time’ estimate come from?
Lol reality
FTTN $2400
Chorus getting there price down to $2900
= Well it’s really $5300. So that you for pointing it out cost keep going up for the MTM.
Well Richard claim there where upgrading there FTTN to FTTP hence 2 rollout build. $2400 FTTN then another $2900 + for FTTP.
Well MTM complete by 2020. so with the SR saying the FTTP upgrade would start around 2030 so complete possible 10 years later.
Labor FTTP still had a target of 2021
Or the SR of 2023. For FTTP.
lol JK,
FTTN $2400
Chorus getting there price down to $2900
= Well it’s really $5300.
That’s not a CPP for upgrading a FTTN cabinet in Australia to FTTP, (when ever that is required), estimating a CPP for that in 2016 five months into the FTTN rollout where both the FTTN and FTTP CPP is a dynamic is a mindless exercise in dice rolling.
so with the SR saying the FTTP upgrade would start around 2030 so complete possible 10 years later.
The SR doesn’t say a FTTP upgrade would start around 2030, it outlines all sorts of upgrade scenarios, under the heading ‘Hypothetical upgrade timing’, including FTTdp ,G.fast and HFC DOCSIS 3.1.
You do know what hypothetical means? it is ‘not real : imagined as an example’.
Just like the content of your posts.
Labor FTTP still had a target of 2021
Or the SR of 2023. For FTTP.
Imagined, Labor lost power and control of the NBN Co in 2013, CP 16 has a finish date of FTTP of 2026-2028.
reality lol
So which is it a full FTTP rollout costing almost the same as rolling out FTTN. Or is it an upgrade for FTTN reducing the cost but still costing more the a FTTP build.
The SR had g.fast at 2025 then FTTP at 2030. But we all know how the hypotherical of MTM turned out $29B no wait it’s $41B no wait it now lol “up to” $56B.
Lol devoid we don’t have to image with a $27B blowout and counting this year we can expect another $10B blowout.
That’s because those costs are for different things. The first costs are for only part of the network, the second for complete cost from FAN to premises. FFS, if you want to make an argument at least make it semi valid.
So Richard $2400 for FTTN and $2900 for as you say upgrade for FTTP $5200. $1000 more than to do it once and that taking just as long for only half the job.
@jk I didn’t say that, nor have I said FTTH is required.
Yep sure Richard lol
Excellent contribution from a company rolling out an upgrade. Where have we heard this before?
C’mon Jason, Richard (in hindsight) told us exactly why the iron wires needed to be replaced. And now in foresight he says the opposite – the copper wires “don’t” need replacing…
You do know conservatives do hindsight really well, but foresight, well not so good…
Mark Twain 1898 – The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
Get ready to adopt fibre Dick… E V E N T U A L L Y.
First your comment on Quigley’s document is blatantly incorrect. That figure you mention is NBN co’s figure post corporate plan 2015. Quigley’s figure’s used was $3900 which included the $700 lease contract which the $3700 Figure you mentioned above does not. The $3500 figure is a complete fabrication and doesn’t even exist in that document.
No one is claiming that costs haven’t fallen. They are claiming that statements and calculations do not take into account the potential for the costs to continue falling based on the evidence of industry experience.
“However, the argument that FTTP costs come down over time runs directly counter to ongoing statements and calculations by the NBN company and the Federal Government to the effect that the cost of FTTP can be calculated on a ten-year basis, meaning that its costs would remain significantly higher than those of FTTN.”
No one is assuming that Volume costs weren’t reduced in the NZ FTTN rollout. But they stopped that rollout, and moved to the superior and longer term infrastructure. As opposed to the reverse, or in their case continuing on with the old technology rollout. Hence they believed they could provide the superior system at a cost that whilst higher was still economical.
“The largest cost component is entrance into premises.”
That is not what they said in the above article. They stated the largest cost component are labour costs. By standardising and planning better, they have been able to reduce labour costs. At no point is the cost to enter premises mentioned, in fact they specifically state that the residential area is easier and less complex, which tends to suggest the opposite to your statement.
You still choose to interpret in a manner that can only be will full misinformation, to support your stance.
You sir are still a liar and a cad.
I wonder if he actually knows he is making a fool of himself? I’m guessing not.
Its worth noting those labour costs will never change either. The longer we delay the more it will be to do it right anyway!
It was interesting to note that NZ saw and recognised this and how they adopted better hardware and equipment to try and reduce the time component for said labour!
Its sad but we were meant to get MTM ‘experts’ and Chorus quite openly has shown we got anything but without meaning too! Will Morrow donate his bonus?
“Its worth noting those labour costs will never change either. The longer we delay the more it will be to do it right anyway!”
That doesn’t matter to Richard, he has made it clear previously he doesn’t see the future being FTTP, so the only costs that matter are the costs now.
@R0 also ignores the time value of money and earlier revenues.
And you ignore the benefits to GDP of every doubling of speed, evidenced by the same report you claim that only penetration matters.
+ 1
@R0 clearly you haven’t read or comprehended the very reports I provided. Not surprising.
Richard, just to get this straight, are you claiming the same report you quote when talking about GDP increases from broadband penetration doesn’t also say that GDP increases with every doubling of average speed?
RO,
We have been down this well worn theme before, the old doubling of GDP assertion.
The doubling factor could apply to any infrastructure baseline, fixed wireless could double what you had before, FTTN and FTTP could double or triple what you had before, HFC DOCSIS 3.0 or HFC DOCSIS 3.1 could double or triple what you had before.
It’s not FTTP is the only constant required to make the GDP doubling assertion work.
http://www.ericsson.com/news/1550083
@ alain,
Today’s contradiction from you.
Yes we have been down this path many times before and you used to argue that speeds have/had no effect, at all… and that we don’t/won’t need such speeds, didn’t you?
Regardless read the link, it’s not just a one off doubling but every doubling. So the faster the better.
So contary to your initial nonsense that speeds don’t matter… bzzzt
And contrary to your upgraded nonsense… bzzzt, because the greater the speed, the greater the benefits. So the faster FttP is more beneficial.
Got it now? I thought not. But at least you have progressed form the we don’t need 100mbps… ROFL.
Well done. Small steps for those with limited forward vision, eh?
You’re welcome.
Reality, you clearly can’t read. I said with EVERY doubling of speed.
If the average speed is 5Mbps, every doubling, to 10Mbps, then 20Mbps, then 40Mbps, then 80Mbps, then 160Mbps then 320Mbps and so on, increases GDP.
Now, how many of those doublings can FTTN provide for? 3 maybe 4 providing the lines are all capable of 80Mbps?
But it’s not just about speed having a effect on GDP is it?
Last year Ericsson and Arthur D. Little concluded that for every 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration GDP increases by 1 percent.
BB penetration at 1% has more of an effect on GDP than speed at 0.3%.
So if you can get more residences on higher speed BB either wireless, satellite or FTTN in the fastest possible rollout time frame all the better for the GDP.
Nice to have the full story contained in the detail of the link, Rizz and RO always leave that other key GDP statistic out, no idea why, but fixed it for you.
The definiition of broadband is 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up.
That doesn’t help with penetration via Mtm
“Nice to have the full story contained in the detail of the link, Rizz and RO always leave that other key GDP statistic out, no idea why, but fixed it for you.”
Penetration is equal in both rollouts numbnuts.
93% of the population will have fixed line, the remaining 7% covered by Wireless and Satellite.
Hence why penetration is a moot point.
@ alain
“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)”
Got it now… no thought not.
So do we need speeds or not, what’s today’s angle?
You’re welcome
RO,
Hence why penetration is a moot point.
Actually it’s 10 percentage points and worth 1% to GDP, increases in speed is 0.3%, confirming the Coalition has the correct approach with BB penetration being the priority.
On the scale of change to the GDP speed is the moot point.
“Actually it’s 10 percentage points and worth 1% to GDP, increases in speed is 0.3%, confirming the Coalition has the correct approach with BB penetration being the priority.”
Its a moot point because it is equal in both rollout methods.
Penetration will be 100% in either case, FTTN cannot provide the speed that FTTP can.
Even if you’re assuming there is 0% Penetration now, it would be a 10% increase to GDP under both rollout models.
FTTN can only provide 3, to 4 doublings of speed, where FTTP can provide for infinite scaling.
So the Australian economy will have to ‘survive’ knowing we are propped up by brownfields and greenfields FTTP infrastructure GDP.
lol
“So the Australian economy will have to ‘survive’ knowing we are propped up by brownfields and greenfields FTTP infrastructure GDP.”
I don’t remember that article discussing average broadband speeds only contained within CBDs.
Huh, its almost like productivity increases can happen outside of business districts.
This just in: In Reality’s world, nobody works in home offices or in residential areas, people only work in business districts in capital cities.
If brownfields and greenfields residential areas aren’t influential on GDP, then why do we need to increase penetration of broadband services into them?
Typical, when they have no response to explain their faulty logic, they disappear only to reappear on other comments threads acting as if nothing ever happened.
Sorry $3105. Quigley AR’s preferred models to actuals.
First your comment on Quigley’s document is blatantly incorrect. Quigley’s figure was $3861 of which $755 was lease costs. Your figure is a complete fabrication and doesn’t even exist in the document. You sir are a liar and a cad.
“Quigley and NBNCo has since put their best estimate for CPP at $3500 (Quigley’s PDF) – 3700 (CP16).”
Quigley’s PDF linked below
http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/6905096/data/exploding-malcolm-turnbull%25E2%2580%2599s-myths-to-pm-data.pdf
Page 1
FTTP Brownfields
“The average cost per premises for FTTP Brownfields in the new Corporate Plan, August 2015 is $3,700iv,
or $4,400 including $700 lease costs, which is slightly higher than NBN Co’s internal costings in 2013 of
$3,900. But the $15 billion increase is measured against the Strategic Review, not previous management’s
internal estimates. And the cost per premises used in the Strategic Review was $4,100v
, or $4,800
including $700 lease costs. ”
Those new figures you have do not appear in Quigley’s PDF, though they may well be correct.
You sir are not only a liar and a cad, but a buffoon as well.
P10
Well played Sir. You have spotted a mistake I have made. I missed the more exact figures on Page 10.
Despite this however, It still does not change the fact that you Conflated the original CP2015 figures with Quigley’s figures, your Page 10 and my page 1 figures both appeared in the document. Whilst those figures you initially bandied around did not.
You attempted to make Quigley’s look worse than they were, and you attempted to pass it off as “Quigley’s figures”.
For what it is worth, I retract my buffoon comment. It appears your comments were not simply foolish mistakes, but instead purposeful mis-truths.
Don’t worry Woolfe Richard did try and claim the SR was not done by NBN when the $15B blowout came out.
@w no I made a mistake. If anything th lower cost would have better supported my position.
@jk yet another fabrication.
I must admit going by the articles the MSM media write those are the sort of numbers bandied around. You should know better. Over the years the costings for comparing FTTH to FTTN have changed, depending on what was included in the costs.
Initially FTTH costs were from the end of the street, the FDH, to the premises. This was on the assumption that the fibre run from the fan would be the same cost if you allowed for future upgrades (though that seems it may have gone by the wayside).
Next it started including build drop costs in the CAPEX, portrayed by Turnbull as a blowout rather than the overall cost saving it was to achieve.
Next you have Turnbull lumping is the cost of the fibre to the FAN, pit and pipe leasing into the CAPEX figure.
Please don’t treat Delimiter readers like those that comment in the News Ltd articles. I have trouble understanding the high regard you hold yourself in. Come on, you work in a pissant little niche IT company that seems happy to just keep doing it’s own thing like it has done for the last 20-30 years. Hardly ground breaking stuff. Plugging a few infrared sensors into a router to collect data isn’t exactly rocket science, nor a basis for expertise to design nation wide network infrastructure. Get over yourself.
see above comment re: Richard making a fool of himself.
Doesn’t he always? I am fed up with him posting blatantly incorrect information then arguing in circles with people and constantly belittling and talking down to people on here. I am a little sorry for what I said. I normally wouldn’t say anything to anyone about their own personal position. I am sure he is proud of the work he has done for his company and may have done wonderful things in his area, but to constantly act as though he’s God’s gift to the IT community and a project management God. Come on, get real, your job/company really is “all that”
I remember when he used to comment @ ZDnet, anyone would think he was the only person qualified to do anything technological and we were simply there to bow to his brilliance.
@d yet you posted it. Plenty of like persons here, spewing abuse. Never a contribution (evidence transcript).
@k what name were you using over at zdnet? It’s hard to keep up.
What name were you using Richard?
I know…
@r everyone knows, HC and others even printed it here.
Perhaps you’d like to post all of your aliases. A genius like yourself should have his contributions acknowledged;-)
No Richard, that”s a lie…
HC did not say your name is Richard _____.
Here’s what actually occurred…
You were claiming that you hadn’t previously made a comment and HC simply copy/pasted that very comment -“YOUR” comment, from the past, which “YOU YOURSELF” had put “YOUR” own name onto… FFS
Seems to deflect from the comment proving you wrong, you decided to instead make an issue of your name (yes the name you put there)… In other words, instead of manning up, you took the childish route?
So please…!
You used your real name on ZDNet Richard F?
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/10/13/turnbull-asked-nbn-co-to-generate-evidence-to-tear-down-fttp/#li-comment-703107
As I posted. Apology?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/many-unanswered-questions-in-coalitions-nbn-plan-macquarie-telecom/
Where he quoted you from.
Richard A G A I N…
That was a “copy paste of YOUR complete post” FFS (including your childish headline and the name/your name YOU posted)… helllooo earth to planet L(l)ibertarian…
Exactly as I said… thank you for proving me right.
But of course in Richard’s world, the world is about Richard and what Richard says and what Richard does…because Richard is a narcissist with accompanying ego, as we have all discovered (of course Prof. Tucker and Mark Gregory know SFA about comms compared to Richard, just ask Richard)
NEWSFLASH Richard… the world does not revolve around Richard…
If you didn’t want your name copy/pasted years later you shouldn’t have posted it… Like really, for someone who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else in history, now or in the future, that’s pretty rudimentary.
It’s also very hypocritical … remember you giving me shit for not posting my actual name? But now you sob like a child because people know your actual name… err, because you posted it…
That’s GOLD Dick!
The irony of ironies in all of this Richard…
You have whined like a spoilt brat incessantly, at the fact HC copy/pasted a comment of your’s which included your full name…
So to be fair, are you now going to whine like a spoilt brat for ever more and criticise Richard, for doing the exact same thing…
FFS you just posted the very same link above, which includes your name, that you said HC should not have posted… GOLD x 3 or 4
Unbelievable…
Unbelievable indeed Rizz. Idiocy is on an all new level now, MTM patchwork disaster he endorsed has really had a profound effect on him, perhaps RR should be renamed RRR…
Nailed it.
@r sobbing? I pointed out it was printed by HC and others, you called me a liar. Link again disproves your claim (it had been corrected previously).
You imagine some affront (then and now) , I never claimed it. It was expected when I joined this forum. This is someone that believes in concocted fantasies and posts person’s place of business, his email addresses and threatens to post their work phone number.
Such is the internet today, know nothings use such techniques to intimidate those who’s position they disagree with. Never worked with me so they repeatedly call for a ban, Renai realising the low quality of his commenters unwilling to silence the few voices that actually contribute something (like this very thread).
Given yesterday’s BT apology after yet another stream of abuse from you I read a change, clearly not (rofl). Many years ago it was pointed out the most abusive commenters are those that hide behind their anonymity. The trend continues.
Fear not, I’m moving off (2 new project kicking off, funding secured by the numbers man). Too few posters here (DC & CW thank you) one can learn anything from. Enjoy your ignorance (Renai time return your shareholders money). Abuse and inane +1s (just like WP).
Yes sobbing and still doing so.
Problem is evident Richard, you have such a H U G E ego (why?) which disallows you from doing what you accuse others of… accepting (but worse, not even considering) anything outside of your blinkers
So good luck with your new (let me guess copper/FTTN – Coalition adviser) business ;)
You ever wonder why you’re “the lone voice of reason” on all these forums Richard?
Food for thought perhaps?
@d and your numbers are? Mine from NBNCo.
Clearly most think I’ve only ever held one position. Amazing I could correctly predict the components of NBNCo’s deployed node when the “expert” commentators were all posting tosh.
We know Richard… “you could have been commissioned to write MTM”.
As such you are compelled to defend each and every complete crisis as if your own child… it really is deliciously humorous to watch you squirm and desperately attempt to defend the indefensible. Normally by, you guessed it… blaming the last mob. ROFLMFAO.
Richard, we told you, we told you, we told you… I said it three times – Candyman, ooh.
And look at how well MTM is travelling in actuality.. not in Richard’s world, Richard’s world, party time, excellent…
$27B/4 year fuck-ups and all for a completely inferior product we now find will cost as much as FttP…
It’s more like, Richard’s world, Richard’s world, delusion time, excrement…
@r what crisis? The only real contribution of the day from the very voices I recommended. Funny re-reading discussion link.
BTW what components did you think were in the nodes? (rofl)
More than a few poster being exposed these days for the depth of their “analysis”. A few dissenting voices to share their abuse, sorry in-depth analysis.
Looking forward to Renai’s analysis, plenty more. The evidence given a gold mine. Then one of us has been pointing it out for years.
If $27B and 4 years isn’t a crisis, but Quigley being months behind and on budget was, well I think you need to go back to school to study bleedin’ fucking obvious/reality…
and New Zealand have already upgraded their nodes once –
Chorus press release –
“Chorus are currently making changes to their VDSL coverage and speed (specifically band plan change from 997 to 998). For a lot of people this means better upstream speeds due to the removal of the 10Mbps upstream cap.”
More $$
VDSL is offered as only an interim solution while the customer is waiting for their FTTP connection in areas where UFB is still being rolled out.
Tell the full story, FTTN/VDSL is not just a interim solution, FTTN is the solution for rural areas and a percentage of that as in schools and businesses will get upgrades to VDSL.
No FTTN is FRAUDBAND…
Well, that’s what the political party now rolling it out referred to it as some 8-9 years ago, when ironically, it was still somewhat feasible……
You’re welcome
LIAR!!!
Richard forgot the SR figures of $4100 + $700 = $4800.
Come down a lot since then hasn’t it.
Gigatown: Dunedin, New Zealand
https://www.chorus.co.nz/what-is-gigatown
Chorus: Our Network
https://www.chorus.co.nz/our-network/about/our-network
Chorus also offers an *INTERIM* VDSL product in areas where customers are still waiting for fibre connections
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/462152/chorus_offers_interim_vdsl_product_during_nz_fibre_rollout/
I’d be very interested to hear what model Chorus are using?
My guess is they are doing the Project management and sub-contractor management in house like Telstra & Optus did during the 90’s HFC roll-outs.
Just as a side note: We will probably never get to hear about the marvelous idea of upgrading HFC networks to DOCSIS 3.1. LMAO!
Several cable companies in the U.S. have reported that it doesn’t make economic or technical sense and is more feasible to overbuild these old networks with FTTP.
http://www.lightreading.com/cable/docsis/bridging-the-docsis-31-gap-/a/d-id/721635
http://www.lightreading.com/cable/docsis/smaller-msos-prep-for-docsis-31-and-pon–/d/d-id/721118
“Several cable companies in the U.S. have reported that it doesn’t make economic or technical sense”
I’m 100% positive that will mean that it will be high on the agenda for Mal & his cronies
They will just add the expense to the ever exploding cost of Malcolms $150 billion broadband network
Kunty,
“Several cable companies in the U.S. have reported that it doesn’t make economic or technical sense”
I didn’t conclude that from your links.
Nevertheless, a number of large, midsized and even smaller MSOs have already embraced DOCSIS 3.1 and are moving forward with field trials and deployments of the new spec. As we recently reported, for instance, Comcast is now rolling out the spec to support its Gigabit Pro service in two US markets, with plans to expand D3.1 to at least three more cities later this year. So clearly there are plenty of cable folks who view D3.1 as the industry’s salvation.
Quite the opposite in fact.
SPECSAVERS
I put it in bold, what’s up still hurting the eyes?
BTW thanks for the link Kunty, most informative, but not what you intended.
Yes alain/Reality/DICK, stupidity in bold is much, err, more stupid.
So thank you for the extra stupidity effort… although I’m sure many wouldn’t have even noticed the extra stupidity… but I did maaaate.
You’re welcome.
Gigabit Pro is a 2Gbps FTTH service available in 14 States
Yes and…?
Fool!
In the first link I provided, have you read the second paragraph yet or are you illiterate as well? PMSL!
http://www.lightreading.com/cable/docsis/bridging-the-docsis-31-gap-/a/d-id/721635
Simon
Don’t worry realty needs lots of pictures. He linked the pre election policy claiming it was us ring HFC. Which it stated it didnt. And the only quote which talks about HFC was for Telstra and Optus to use there hfcas competition against the FTTN
Additionally, in a couple of years or so, all copper will be replaced by fiber which is an order from the FCC!
Perhaps you haven’t heard of the FCCs IP Transition requirements yet, which are also part of America’s National Broadband Plan.
Rizz,
When you don’t like the HFC upgrade comments just ignore it and rabbit on about something else.
@ alain/reality/Dick…
You mean the HFC you told us years ago failed and was only good for the pigeons to rest upon?
Oh yes that HFC… GOLD
And are you still awaiting Clare to save the Coalition with a “solution” for the failed MTM too?
LOL
You’re welcome.
Kunty didn’t provide the links, idiot! LMAO!!!!
I never posted a link.
Someone forgot to take her meds
Edit: Beaten before i caught the timer…
Dude (reality) i feel sorry for you, you are really trying to defend the indefensible with HFC & FTTN.
Simon Hackett has been pro HFC and DOCSIS 3.1. I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt on his recommendation.
I’m not, Simon has precisely no experience building and managing a HFC network.
If it were Michael Malone that would be a different story.
I am not aware iiNet rolled out HFC infrastructure.
Not surprising, you seem to be unaware of quite a few things Alain – iiNet didnt actually build it but they bought it with TransACT so they have experience managing and upgrading HFC in Geelong, Mildura and Ballarat.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/442273/iinet_launches_hfc_network_nbn-like_speeds/
So iiNet buying out Internode and SH being on the iiNet board counts him out? and what’s with the you cannot comment on infrastructure unless you have actually rolled it out yourself.
Well that has eliminated 99.99% of all infrastructure comment on Delimiter or Whirpool etc in one hit.
Simon was a non-executive director of iiNet for 14 months, non-executive director’s act in advisory capacity only, they show up to a monthly board meeting and that’s it.
iiNet bought TransACT several years before it bought Internode so Simon has no practical exposure to HFC like he does with xDSL and FTTP.
You let the second part of my comment go through to the keeper I see?
Perhaps if you stopped talking from your poop shoot, you might get some more answers.
Is that still a current view though?
My worry is we’re basically finding out the hard way by buying 2nd hand, upgrading to ‘as new’ and hoping it works.
http://simonhackett.com/2013/12/14/hfc-in-the-nbn/
The 45% that are going to end up with FTTP or HFC are the lucky ones in my opinion. The satellite, wireless, and FTTN not so much.
Lucky is in the eye of the beholder, I have relatives on NBN fixed wireless, they consider themselves lucky compared to what they had before, nothing and intermittent slow 3G.
Those on FTTN now might consider themselves lucky compared to a lengthy wait for FTTP, assuming they were on a FTTP list in the first place.
Lol lengthy wait for FTTP it’s still a lengthy wait for MTM what’s the difference
Lucky depends if HFC has the bandwidth not to be congested. Lucky would also be if they actually had done it by now because at the rate of LNP delays lots more coulda woulda shoulda had fibre instead.
Optus and Telstra HFC now is not NBN Co HFC product post upgrades and made available to RSP’s to resell into HFC areas.
Lol lengthy wait for FTTP it’s still a lengthy wait for MTM what’s the difference
The difference is FTTN is faster to rollout than FTTP, so we know where the lengthy wait is.
Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare has admitted the national broadband network’s rollout was “too slow” under Labor
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/coalition-should-have-improved-labors-nbn-clare-20140609-iwo59
Lol devoid
What is faster only one year faster from labor target or 3 years faster than the SR?
The ones than was mark to get FTTP the the 3 years since the coalition moved in have they gotten the MTM yet?
Yeak ok Rizz, jumble it up so that it makes no sense, it looks like a ‘response’ but it’s just tortured grammar repetitive no meaning rubbish with a grab bag of figures from all over the place from different sources, chuck in a few acronyms like SR, CP, out of context and from different time periods, use incorrect or out of date figures, use MtM when you mean FTTN and vice versa, who cares eh?
Lol devoid
Can you please answer the question it isn’t that hard your desperation is showing. Or didn’t I put enough pictures in it.
Or are you agreeing the fact MTM isn’t faster to rollout than FTTP now due to the cost and time blowouts.
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/02/fifield-refuses-accept-nbn-cos-evidence-fttn-delays/
It’s like the things you read here are like water off a duck’s back sometimes Reality…
@ alain…
Tell the people who would have had FTTP (yes you read it right – WOULD HAVE HAD FTTP) and don’t have FTTN that FTTN is quicker..
You’re welcome
Tell the people who would have had FTTP
When you take the axe to 50% of the original FTTP rollout target that prediction was always going to be conjecture.
Lol devoid
When you take the axe to 75% of the original FTTn rollout target that prediction was always going to be conjecture.
There fixed it for you
So you’re agreeing that FttN is slower to roll out? wow.
It makes me weep!
You iterate on your production workflow over time on a small set of products to bring costs down, and then you increase the complexity by introducing new builds. It’s how every successful company from Chorus to Apple works. Turnbull increased the complexity and axed the knowledge base.
Imagine if we plugged the Chorus figures for FTTP and the actual NBN figures for FTTN cost and time into that daft cost benefit analysis now.
Every major Telco in the United States said that costs reduce over time more than five years ago as well as various white papers from The FTTH Council in Europe and U.S.
It is also stated in one of the various National Broadband Network documents.
Peter Ferris also made this very clear in his lecture at Macquarie University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2ne1WKxek
Some companies can get it down even more too:
http://www.buffalonews.com/business/verizon-still-cant-justify-expanding-its-fios-service-20140421
It would be interesting to know if Chorus continued on with the FTTN rollout if that infrastructure cost would have fallen also, well below FTTP, we will never know.
Also the Chorus FTTP rollout is to about 70% of the population of Melbourne, they also own the majority of the communications ducting in NZ anyway before they started, so no lengthy and costly negotiations with a incumbent like Telstra as here to use their assets.
The FTTP rollout in NZ is a private/Government partnership, a key reason Chorus was structurally separated and is listed company on the NZ stock exchange.
Also a lot of the Chorus FTTP rollout is the much cheaper to deploy aerial cable slung between power poles.
The new emphasis on cheaper aerial cabling would likely lead to more street clutter as some copper cables that are now buried underground were replaced by overhead lines.
Experts said it would also mean the network would not last as long and be more prone to outages.
A construction industry source said the change was being considered because Chorus was struggling to bring down the average cost-per-premise-passed with fibre, to within its intended target band of $2500 to $2700 this financial year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8315887/Chorus-may-put-UFB-on-power-poles
A Chorus spokesman points out that aerial deployment is a normal part of the fibre rollout programme across New Zealand.
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/opinion/1998940-135/chorus-picked-worst-place-to-start
Other than those points, it’s equivalent to a FTTP rollout here.
The global stats on FTTP deployment approaches are:
Aerial (20-25%)
Duct Insertion (<5%)
Directional Drilling (70-75%)
Trenching (<5%)
Right, so we should ignore everything Chorus say about FTTP because its not equivalent to Australia, but we SHOULD listen to BT or Comcast about FTTN or HFC because that suddenly IS equivalent?
Be more hypocritical Kettle.
Strangely enough Comcast are also rolling out FTTP.
Also BT have recently come under heavy fire in British Parl. for providing extremely slow broadband speeds and much more including separation from Openreach.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12119005/BT-chief-exec-faces-MPs-grilling-over-slow-broadband-speeds.html
There was also recently a damning report from Ofcom.
Strangely enough Comcast are also rolling out FTTP.
Strangely enough so is the NBN Co.
Also BT have recently come under heavy fire in British Parl. for providing extremely slow broadband speeds
Across all infrastructure types.
I repeat for you once more because you are intellectually handicapped!
FCC finalised orders for IP Transition which is to replace all copper with fiber last year
City of Chattanooga is the blueprint for Americas National Broadband Plan.
I am sure you will find many documents since 2008 on this policy. I believe they are available in braille format.
Currently in the U.S. several telcos rolling out FTTP are eating cable companies lunch, literally!
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/centurylink-says-its-ftth-eating-cables-lunch/2016-01-11
….and satellite TV providers are eating their dinner
http://www.businessinsider.com/2007/10/satellite-eating-cables-lunch-with-hd-sports/?r=AU&IR=T
ahh yes it is Rizz, extremely poor taste inappropriate personal attack as a opener, always the class act.
Awaiting apology reality…?
Or are you just so shattered by me forever demonstrating your stupidly contradictory comments, that no matter who comments you’ll try to claim it is me (as you have done now with some 5 or 6 posters – *sigh*) so as to desperately, but inevitably unsuccessfully, try to get your first ever win here?
ROFLMFAO.
PRICELESS child, being PRICELESSLY childish. Grow up child.
You’re welcome.
“It would be interesting to know if Chorus continued on with the FTTN rollout if that infrastructure cost would have fallen also, well below FTTP, we will never know.”
Well ‘we’ will because MTM is going that route. Everywhere else in the world noticed that FttN was too expensive to run and maintain (in comparison to Fibre) so just went fibre instead whereby the infrastructure cost doesn’t matter as the return time is extended significantly so they considered it a wise investment.
Also Australia is the only place in the world whereby if starting from scratch we go and buy a copper network!
Well we are not the only place in world, because we didn’t ‘go and buy a copper network’.
who owns all the copper cabling then if not NBN™ Co (or whatever its called)?
I’m pretty sure Telstra and Optus used to own some HFC networks around there ere parts but don’t anymore?!
Umm yes our government did buy the copper network “back” (FFS, you even now contradictorily, surprise, surpise, have claimed over and over that our government bought it to use, not to, not use) and no other government anywhere else did the same as us…
Bzzzt.
Hence us trying to explain the incumbents wringing every last cent from their obsolescence. But we may as well tried to explain it to a stapler or the neighbour’s dog, who would have at least not childishly and stupidly argued, as you did (DO).
You’re welcome
Today’s hypocrisy from alain/reality/Dick…
“It would be interesting to know if Chorus continued on with the FTTN rollout if that infrastructure cost would have fallen also, well below FTTP, we will never know.”
Oh… just like when people here have tried in the past to explain to you the exact same scenario about, had the FttP roll out continued here in Oz, sans FttN… etc.
Yet you refused point blank to accept this as valid. But you now not only apparently understand this exact scenario, but feel the need to mention it regarding FttN…
Really? Is anyone that biased, hypocritical, disingenuous and let me say it fucking dishonest?
Apparently yes, you are.
Although having seen your previously disgraceful contradictions and out and out lies, why should I or any one else for that matter, be surprised?
You’re welcome.
“the Chorus FTTP rollout is to about 70% of the population of Melbourne”
How is that relevant in a cost/premises discussion?
Ask the FttN crew here (including Mal) who used to use NZ as their poster boys… err until now?
Tim J,
“the Chorus FTTP rollout is to about 70% of the population of Melbourne”
How is that relevant in a cost/premises discussion?
That wasn’t all I said, you stopped at ‘…. of Melbourne’ in the copy and paste, insert the rest.
More deflection.
You still haven’t answered the question.
Population of NZ is a little over 4.6 Million
Population of Australia is a little over 24 Million
Wouldn’t that make a massive difference in cost?
That’s the good thing about talking about averages and not the total costs.
Nope. In fact it actually works somewhat in reverse. Because of the larger volume we in theory can leverage larger volumes of purchases to reduce cost.
So yes it costs more to complete, but the average cost per user in Australia (assuming all other elements are equal) would in fact decrease.
It is one of the biggest complaints I have regarding the MTM concept, you lose all the benefits of a standardised rollout, and thus reduce the buying power across the entire platform.
So because you are concentrating on FTTN and not FTTP it is logical to assume that at some point the FTTN CPP will fall as you scale up the rollout, a rollout that only started September last year.
Bottom line alain/reality/Dick…
FttN (FRAUDBAND) is NOT cheaper…. bzzzt.
But FRAUDBAND is still greatly inferior, it is indeed the FRAUDBAND it was dubbed by it’s now master’s … how ironic eh?
But you keep banging the FRAUDBAND drum, while we point and laugh, even more than usual, if that is actually possible…
You’re welcome.
What are you babbling about?
Are you suggesting that if we only did FTTN that the cost will fall as we scaled up? Why of course it would. What is your point?
Are you suggesting I should be supporting an increase in the FTTN portion of the MTM. If FTTN was in fact the most economic long term solution that would bring the greater degree of benefit to the Australian people, then yes I would.
But it isn’t. FTTP is better in every technical sense. FTTP is also more economically viable as a long term solution in every sense.
What is happening here is that not only do we have poor decision making on the technology, but we also have poor decision making on the business side. We are choosing to ignore the benefits of scale and volume in favour of some “reuse old technology” rubbish, that will be more expensive to operate, will need to be upgraded sooner, and is ultimately a monumental waste of resources.
Are you suggesting that if we only did FTTN that the cost will fall as we scaled up? Why of course it would.
What is your point?
That is my point.
Yet you would never accept the same “point” when explained to you, for FTTP.
So you point is moot and your comment “once again” contradictorily nonsensical.
You’re welcome A G A I N.
So not a particularly well thought out point then hey?
They have specifically stated they will spend more money to get the better solution for the process.
NZ are doing it correctly, as opposed to the idiots here, who are going for the cheapest option on the books, despite the fact it costs more long term.
You are a shill. Nothing more, nothing less. Take your politics out, and you have nothing. Sad.
Shouldn’t that mean then that the average cost per user in NZ would be significantly higher? I took at a look at NZ UFB pricing plans and theirs is simular to ours (ignoring exchange rates). Plus unless I’m mistaken there is no cost to the user in NZ to have fibre connected.
Chorus Costs
We cover the cost of fibre installation for most residential properties. This service includes:
Connecting your property to the fibre network in your street via the existing infrastructure
Reinstating any surfaces that have been disturbed during the install
Installing the external termination point on the exterior of the property
Installing the optical network terminal inside the property
Connecting your broadband provider’s modem
Testing to make sure everything is working
Please note Chorus does not cover these costs:
Any alternative installation from the road to the property that is outside our five different installation options.
Electrical work to add additional power plugs
Moving the optical network terminator after it has been installed
I just noticed a grammar mistake (I took at a look at), sorry to any grammar police as it should be ‘I looked at’ or ‘I took a look at’. I would have/should have used ‘I looked at’ (I was in a rush but no excuses, I stuffed up haha)
Here is the link to the Chorus site I obtained the connection cost info from.
https://www.chorus.co.nz/broadband-options/for-home/fibre/installing
Not necessarily, the goal is of course to get internet to the consumer. The goal is not wealth generation in and of itself.
Hence the cost of the services would be based on a long term pay out cost. As in X is the magic number that consumers will suffer for the improved experience that still allows to pay off the costs over the long term.
The differences may occur simply in the length of time to recoup the costs etc rather than the exact cost to the user.
Verizon: fibre is MUCH cheaper than copper, we’re going all-FTTP
US telco says all-fibre diet cuts maintenance costs, increases revenue-per-user
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/20/verizon_fibre_is_so_much_cheaper_than_copper_were_going_allfttp/
Don’t you know, only companies rolling out FTTN are comparable to Australia?
They are a dying breed.
Also become familiar with America’s (FCC) Broadband Plan (yes they have one) and look up details about the FCC’s IP Transition strategy finalised last year.
Snow Crash,
we’re going all-FTTP
To selected areas of the USA cherry picked by us for our customers only.
Actually that is to selected areas of the USA where there is a hint of competition, and therefore we must innovate or die.
Hence why so many local municipalities are forcing the hand of the incumbents by starting to introduce local Fibre rollouts, and why the incumbents are constantly attempting to force state laws to prevent it.
It’s a very different structure in the US, there is no single entity attempting to bring about an NBN type infrastructure, so from that point of view you really can’t compare. Now the techs they choose in the areas that ARE moving forward, well that you definitely can compare.
Ignorant statement!
There is no such thing as a nationwide network provider. Not even AT&T. You don’t know much about U.S. Telecommunications do you.
Telcos have territory assignments and Verizon have Frontier subsidiary who are also required to roll out FiOS.
There are over a 1000, thats right, One Thousand FTTH ISPs in North America. How many do you have backward boy?
Verizon is a massive giant compared to Telstra. In May 2013, Verizon announced it had passed 18 million homes with Fios and 5 million customers.
In April 2015, Verizon announced that it added 133,000 new Fios Internet connections and 90,000 net new Fios Video connections in Q1, taking its total subscriber base to 6.75 million and 5.74 million, respectively
I think you’d better make that appointment Specsavers.
Oh and don’t forget to take your meds
“Ignorant statement”!
+1 Snow Crash.
But wait there’s more.. contradictions, dishonesty, childishness, it get’s better than just plain old ignorant, I promise… (by better I of course mean WTF).
“Oh and don’t forget to take your meds”
I don’t think they make a pill for absolute confirmation bias, subservience and the associated maniacal stupidity ;)
Perhaps that’s one for Novartis, Pfizer et al to work on so that we can then enjoy adult correspondence here at Delimiter and elsewhere… :)
There are a few antipsychotics (typical or atypical) that would do the job.
Malcom is a Rugby man, he’s just following Rugby’s policy “always behind NZ”.
+ 1
LOL Oh! so true.
“Chorus had been successful in getting its capital expenditure costs for FTTP down “considerably” over the past few years, cutting its costs from $4,753 per premise in 2014 to $3,367 in 2015.”
” Chorus had more recently succeeded in cutting the costs even further, with the company taking a further $400 from the cost.”
I seem to be confused on the actual cost to the NZ home owner or a body corporate, can anyone provide details on that?. All I have found, are sites that are implying No Cost, Chrous included.
https://www.chorus.co.nz/installing-fibre
Is it just businesses that pay? while homes are free?
You’d only pay for whatever plan you go with, you wouldn’t pay to have the fibre run to your place (unless you’re outside the area they are doing the roll out).
According to the Chorus rep the FY2016 figure was on track to be $1770 vs the $4700 figure from 2014… dunno why you failed to publish the new half yearlys he mentioned Renai but this would be a saving of 62%
??!#$*%&!!
This sounds kinda familiar… Didnt the lib plan assume costing of around $4000 per prem vs where the original NBN plan before the libs came in and f**ked it up, stated that while the cost was high to begin with (around $3000 per prem IIRC) cost efficiency measures could bring prices down…
Which is precisely what is reflected in Chorus deployment and (if they are telling the truth) with other major fibre providers they have consulted with around the world?
wow… just wow… so libs will you acknowledge you’ve been trying to buttf**k the country in true Noam Chomsky style?
Yeah, but I doubt you’ll ever get the LPA to acknowledge anything that they’ve done as being “wrong”, they’d just find a way to blame it on Labor…
Labor blames it on Labor!
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/03/09/nz-brings-fttp-costs-fttn-levels/#li-comment-722155
:)
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/20/hockey-says-govt-spending-70bn-on-nbn/
You’re welcome.
Unlike the LPA, Labor never denied their weren’t issues, and they were working towards fixing them.
That’s why the LPA has “sexy fingers”, everything they touch they fuck, and it’s due mostly to their denial that anything they do is wrong, or goes wrong.
There’s a really good article showing how TurnCoat’s “ideas boom” has been setup for failure:
https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/10/behind-the-glossy-ads-turnbulls-ideas-boom-looks-more-like-a-bust/
Sounds familiar right? TurnBull destroying public-good science by forcing it to be commercial can now be added to him destroying the public-good FTTP NBN by forcing it to adopt commercial style goals and metrics!!
It’s the Liberals and their “sexy fingers”. Greg Hunts “Emissions Reduction Fund” is exactly the same, $2.55b down the drain and it won’t even achieve half of what it was meant to do.
Instead of “sexy fingers”, replace the term with “prick-fingers”
so much for the myth of “Liberal’s being the superior economic managers”!
Personally I think this has always been Murdoch/Liberal propaganda and nothing more.
There was a site showing all the lib claims over the years at what they claim was better than labor and when they got into office was even worst.
There’s a few:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-07/abbott-government-broken-promises-jumps-to-12/5870784
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbotts-new-world-record-25-broken-promises-in-150-days,6145
But I think you mean this one?
http://brokenpromises.org.au/
No not those ones it wasn’t about broken promises. But what they claimed they where better it.
Eg the current mob claimed they where better economic mangers.
Can’t remember what’s Howard’s ones where. But it goes back acouple of decades
I can’t find a website, but this article from Tim Dunlop sums it nicely: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/dunlop-the-myth-of-coalition-economic-management/6308704
“NZ brings FTTP costs down to FTTN levels”
And thats great news for New Zealand, a completely another country than Australia.
FTTP has always been very viable on a mass scale due to the small size of those types of countries including Japan, South Korea, etc.
But the problem with FTTP is that it does not scale.
New Zealand’s land mass could fit inside Australia twenty-eight times over, so it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice the cost of deployment in an entirely different country may differ from them cost of deployment in a massive country like Australia.
There are also other considerations such as differing labour laws, differing tax laws, and other things like that that will contribute.
For instance if it was 100 years ago you would be buying slaves and paying them peanuts in which case I’m sure the cost of rolling out FTTP in Australia would be very affordable. But in 2016 we have very high standards of care for our workers, slavery was outlawed decades or perhaps even centuries ago so you need to pay the workers a very high rate often calculated per kilometre of fibre or per kilometre of copper ducts that need to be remediated.
More kilometers directly equals more dollars.
It’s not impossible, its just very very expensive to do it in Australia. It would never return even a slim profit on top of the tens of billions of tax payer dollars in investment, there is actually a high chance it would make a HUGE loss perhaps the biggest loss in the history of capitalism, and would need to write off large percentage of the company to even remotely be able to find a private buyer and also increase the cost to consumers.
I’m afraid Delimiters advocacy journalism which would not be inline with the editorial standards of even the Australian broadcasting corporation, is not equivalent to actual journalism and the vast majority of articles posted to this site are nothing more than political lobbying rather than actual journalism which is unfortunate.
What’s next A, Australia not densely populated enuf for a power grid, water mains, sewerage or phone lines?
Yep as I thought, your argument is b.s.
Invoking slavery.
Desperation much?
Our power grid, water mains and sewerage lines were installed decades ago nearly up to 100 years ago or more.
So you’ve actually referred to a point which I covered in my previous post which you may not have read thoroughly or comprehended correctly.
As I said:
“For instance if it was 100 years ago you would be buying slaves and paying them peanuts in which case I’m sure the cost of rolling out FTTP in Australia would be very affordable. But in 2016 we have very high standards of care for our workers, slavery was outlawed decades or perhaps even centuries ago so you need to pay the workers a very high rate often calculated per kilometre of fibre or per kilometre of copper ducts that need to be remediated.”
And the main difference is those utilities are being constantly patched up when there are issues, much in the same way fibre to the node and fibre to the distribution point is a patching up of the copper network.
No one says ‘well our sewerage system is a bit leaky so lets go ahead and dig up the entire city and put in another one’ or ‘well these above ground power lines are a bit annoying so lets rip out the entire power grid and build an under ground one’.
All of these things are done incrementally and water pipes for instance in many areas are literally ancient they’ve been there so long they’re bursting spontaneously due to their age. A crew is sent out to patch the holes or replace a small section in the line and the job is complete.
The reason why we are patching up ancient infrastructure is because its cheaper, and if you can squeeze a few more years out of it you can defer or phase in changes which will save billions upon billions of hard earned tax payer dollars.
Just because one section of a water pipe is broken we don’t rip out the entire cities water pipes, do we?
Aaricus
You know the out Sydney areas didn’t have sewerage 3 decades ago and the similar clowns where against that too.
Btw how is our $667b debt going
I’ll let you know when Labor loses this year. Keep praising Shorten even though his popularity polls are in the toilet.
Wow aaricus
Were is our dept and deficit disaster. Debt gone from 13% of gdp to 19%. Deficit more than doubled.
Spending at labor gfc spending levels 26% of gdp (but we had a dept and deficit disaster). Thx to the last report they are now the highest taxing govenment as well.
Okay so your argument is our debt position is worse and therefore we can afford to blow even more on this abject failure of a broadband policy?
Voters rejected it last time and they will again this year. Shorten back stabbed two prime ministers turned the whole country into a TV drama and international joke and he will be the next Latham.
Anyone who would vote Labor for fiscal responsibility I have a bridge to sell you.
No that’s your excuse. Apparently building the MTM for $56B is cheaper than $44B for FTTP
So aacruis what’s your reason for us spending more than FTTP in our current debt and deficit crisis
Hey, thanks aaricus!! I didn’t realise slaves got paid 100 years ago!
“paying them peanuts”
Try to think before you speak, it helps.
Try to join the real world, your right wing ideologies are showing again.
Hint: Slaves aren’t paid anything.
Not big on taking your own advice, are you ;o)
I guess Reality deleted this comment:
because it was pretty easy to answer.
Yes, FttN costs don’t fall, because it has a lot more Opex.
FttP costs fall, because it has no power costs and low maintenance.
thanks for bringing it up (and deleting your comment!).
Tinman
I think it’s becuase from the SR to CP16 we have seen cost of HFC and FTTN more than double in cost while FTTP price has fallen
Indeed, as the “figures” in CP16 are based on those in the SR, is it any wonder?
Comments are closed.