Shorten promises “greater role” for FTTP in NBN if Labor wins election

78

news Bill Shorten this week said Labor would make sure that there would be a “greater role” for Fibre to the Premises technology in the National Broadband Network if it won the upcoming Federal Election. However, the Opposition Leader also intimated Labor wouldn’t be able to reverse the changes Malcolm Turnbull has made to the project.

Speaking to reporters in Gosford on Wednesday, Shorten said the region had suffered from the changes which Turnbull had made to the NBN as Communications Minister.

“It’s unacceptable that Malcolm Turnbull, who was the Minister for Communication for the last two and a half years is offering an NBN to locals which is slow, expensive and late,” Shorten said.
 
In response to Shorten’s comments, journalists followed up by asking Shorten several pointed questions about precisely what Labor would do if it was returned to power, stating that there had been a “a lot of problems” with the NBN in the region.

Shorten responded by firstly attacking Turnbull’s NBN legacy.
 
“There have been a lot of problems and Malcolm Turnbull promised before the last election he would deliver the NBN for a price tag of $29 billion,” said Shorten.

“He’s been the Minister in charge, whose only real experience of running anything in public life, in politics, has been the NBN. The cost has blown out from $29 billion to $56 billion. Everyone here was promised a better quality and faster NBN. Many places haven’t got it at all and those that have are experiencing great difficulty with it.”

“The other thing he’s done is he’s sold Australia short by proposing a second-rate copper network, which isn’t going to actually fulfill the needs in the future of the people who require a quality NBN. My view about the best technology is that we get the best technology in the world and we do it right the first time. The problem with this Government is they can’t seem to do anything right the first time.”
 
The Opposition Leader said Labor would release its new NBN policy “between now and the election”.
 
“We believe fundamentally there should be a greater role for fibre to the premises as opposed to just the second-rate fibre-to-the-node,” Shorten said.

However, Shorten stopped short of committing to returning the NBN to a full FTTP model, and he didn’t mention the HFC cable component of the rollout.

“What we won’t do is pretend you can start everything again and we’ll look at what the Turnbull Government’s done and see how we can improve upon that,” he said.
“For us, it’s all about making sure that small businesses on the Central Coast can compete with anywhere in Australia. For me, we just don’t live to work, what we do is we work to live and that means we need an NBN which allows people to live in this part of Australia.”

“The Central Coast is fantastic, you know that, you live here and my candidates are on to me every day about our policies. What we will do for the Central Coast is make sure that the NBN is working properly, that we have a better policy for people who commute, especially with roads, but also how transport interacts with public transport here.”

“We want to make sure that the schools here are the equal of anywhere in Australia. We want to make sure that the hospitals here get the same sort of resources that the big city hospitals get and, of course, it’s all about jobs. We want to make sure that we’ve got a confident economy where people can invest and we start generating more jobs right here on the Central Coast.”

Image credit: Parliamentary Broadcasting

78 COMMENTS

  1. “He’s been the Minister in charge, whose only real experience of running anything in public life, in politics, has been the NBN. The cost has blown out from $29 billion to $56 billion.

    oh dear, deliberate misquoting again, and so early in the campaign.

    However, Shorten stopped short of committing to returning the NBN to a full FTTP model

    I bet he did.

    , and he didn’t mention the HFC cable component of the rollout.

    No bit of a curve ball that one, best not mention it, don’t want to look too ‘Coalition MtM like’ this far out.

    • “oh dear, deliberate misquoting again, and so early in the campaign.”

      Nothing at all like the LNP saying the Labor NBN would cost $90Bn pre-election.

      Is the lie the fact he didn’t include “UP TO” in his statement?

    • @ alain,

      You have been whinging and whining endlessly about the opposition needing a “solution” to fix the MTM complete fuck up and here it is… more FTTP.

      And now, what a revelation… you whinge and whine.

      BTW – why would he mention that FAILED (your word) – HFC…?

      You’re welcome

    • What devoid did you expect him to say they have a fully costed plan of $29B to be complete within 3 years and ready to go day1.

      • Well if it has a [insert roll the dice figure] of more FTTP to be completed by [insert roll the dice figure] with brownfields CPP of $4,400 it is always going to require more funding than the MtM estimate which has a lower component of the more expensive brownfield FTTP.

        • Well if it isn’t our resident bridge underverse dweller with his demonstrably false numbers sticking up for “his” corrupt team as usual!

        • “MTM is current at $46Bn – $56Bn of peak funding yes?

          The rollout is 2.4m premises getting FTTP (unknown number of brownfield/greenfield), 4.5m getting FTTN/B (unknown number split between N and B), 4.0m getting HFC, 0.6m on Fixed Wireless and 0.4m on Satellite.

          Even if we are overly pessimistic, you’re looking at 10.56Bn for the FTTP portion (assuming ALL are brownfields, which they aren’t, at $4400 per premises), 10.45bn for FTTN/B, 7.2Bn for HFC, 2.94Bn for Wireless and 3.16Bn for Satellite, using the CPP figures from CP16 for a total infrastructure cost of $34.21Bn to get to the $46Bn of the CP16, you’re looking at an additional $12bn. Kay?

          HFC in the HFC area and FTTP everywhere else in the fixed line rollout (save for FTTB in MDUs though, we still dont know how many that is so lets just call them FTTP for the sake of argument) has, HFC (4.0m premises) at $7.2Bn and even assuming all the properties are brownfields, FTTP (6.9m premises) at $30.36Bn with Wireless and Satellite the same as the MTM rollout, for a total infrastructure cost of $43.66Bn + the same $12Bn from the MTM as the additional expenditure, you have $55.66Bn.

          So, MTM you’re looking at $46 – 56Bn to rollout, where a modern scenario 4 you’re looking at (even when fudging numbers and not including greenfields FTTP AT ALL) $56 – 66Bn.

          So, what is essentially $10Bn more over the build of the project, which is what… a 10 year build? $1Bn more a year in peak funding, for a vastly superior and actually futureproof network.

          D’oh, those CP16 figures….

          Even less now to go and roll FTTP out to the remaining fixed line footprint if you don’t go back and overbuild the FTTN already built/in construction/end of planning stage.

          But who wants to let facts get in the way of a good argument based entirely on ideology?”

          Not to mention the recently revealed trials to reduce the cost of FTTP.

          • So you have emailed that ‘gem’ stacked analysis off to Clare to use or are you shy?

          • Is that the only response you have to it after all these times I’ve posted it and you’ve ignored it? You’re a joke.

            I will happily admit it is napkin math, but it IS using all the data provided by your favoured LNP cronies over at NBN Co.

          • Your deflections are hilarious.

            Can’t refute what I have posted, so you try to deflect from it.

            It is great. Showing yourself to be more of a joke with each post.

          • I said the argument was stacked, why have you left out HFC in the calculation of a all FTTP rollout because the NBN Co in their calculations of a FTTP rollout is based on all fixed line being FTTP.

            You had to do that to get your FTTP total down because all the 4.0 million residences targeted for HFC is brownfields.

          • I “left it out” because all I was interested in was why Scenario 4 was ignored from the SR, when it clearly represents the best way forward when reusing current infrastructure.

            I am a proponent for the reuse of HFC assets, and have stated such many times over.

            I wasn’t attempting to prove how much a full FTTP rollout would cost, but I know you have issues reading. How do you go through life with the reading comprehension skills of a year 3 student?

            Are you saying that $1Bn a year in peak funding over the life of the project, is too much to spend on an infinitely better network?

            Even YOU have to admit, when head to head, FTTP is better than FTTN. You cannot possibly deny that technologically? Right? (I am not talking financially, I am talking in plain technical terms.)

          • Oh I see you are a great supporter of HFC now are you, especially as it was crucial in leaving out HFC areas when calculating and justifying brownfields FTTP replacing MtM fixed line and trying to get near to MtM funding estimates, because it would have added 4M residences @ $4,400 CPP to your ‘all FTTP’ bottom line.

            I wasn’t attempting to prove how much a full FTTP rollout would cost,

            lol, yes you were! that’s exactly what you were trying to do, you got caught stacking the books and now you decide that’s not what you were doing, classic.

          • “Oh I see you are a great supporter of HFC now are you, especially as it was crucial in leaving out HFC areas when calculating and justifying brownfields FTTP replacing MtM fixed line and trying to get near to MtM funding estimates, because it would have added 4M residences @ $4,400 CPP to your ‘all FTTP’ bottom line.

            lol, yes you were! that’s exactly what you were trying to do, you got caught stacking the books and now you decide that’s not what you were doing, classic.”

            You’re an idiot. I clearly stated I was talking about Scenario 4.

            Scenario 4 being HFC in the HFC area and FTTP elsewhere. Go back under your bridge, libtroll.

            Actually read what I wrote for once, you moron.

          • Personal attacks, the last resort when caught stacking the figures, par for the course eh R0ninX3ph?

            Look forward to your next biased stacked pro FTTP analysis, and the manic tap dancing and a load of abuse when caught out.

          • Just because you can’t read and don’t comprehend what Scenario 4 was, don’t call it stacked.

            I’ve told you numerous times in the past I support Scenario 4, Scenario 4 which isn’t full FTTP.

            So just seriously, stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.

          • Alain, we’ve had a gut full of your hypocrisy, now fk off back under your troll bridge and stay there!

          • Reality, highlighting from my post above:

            “So, MTM you’re looking at $46 – 56Bn to rollout, where a modern scenario 4 you’re looking at (even when fudging numbers and not including greenfields FTTP AT ALL) $56 – 66Bn.”

            A modern scenario 4, scenario 4 aka HFC in the HFC area, aka scenario 4 from the strategic review, aka the better option for now and the future, which was ignored in favour of a politically ideological choice for the MTM.

            If the LNP were truly “technologically agnostic” then scenario 4 is clearly the best option, as it gives the best technological option for a minimal increase in peak funding when compared to the non-future proofed usage of FTTN in the MTM.

            But keep spinning those wheels, keep accusing me of trying to prove full FTTP when I clearly talked about scenario 4 from the SR. It is hilarious to watch your childish antics.

          • You are still incorrectly using the NBN Co SR Scenario 4 hypothesis.

            Scenario 4 has the following mix: FTTP 63%, FTTN/dp/B 5% and HFC 32%.

            Now re do it with the correct figures instead of making up the cooked up ‘R0ninX3ph Scenario 4’ .

          • “Scenario 4 has the following mix: FTTP 63%, FTTN/dp/B 5% and HFC 32%.”

            You… do realise I can’t do that, right?

            We have no idea the costs of FTTdp/FTTB, hence why I couldn’t include it.

            FTTN and FTTB are lumped together in the CP, no difference, no way to differentiate.

            We have no costings of FTTdp, so I cannot use it.

            The best I can do, is HFC in the HFC area, which is the 4 million premises, and FTTP everywhere else (because I dont have any numbers for how many premises will have FTTB because it isn’t given anywhere. And we have no numbers for the CPP for FTTB)

            Though we can both agree that FTTB would be cheaper than FTTP right? So…. If including FTTB into what I worked out above…. it would be CHEAPER. But, nah, too logical for you.

            My costings are ONLY HFC and Brownfields FTTP, to show a “worst case”. Too hard for you to understand, I know.

            It is amazing though, you now accept that scenario 4 exists, when months ago you were trying to pretend like I was making it up and no such scenario in the strategic review existed.

            If you want to show me where the CPP for FTTB is listed, and not just lumping FTTN and FTTB together, and the number of premises to receive FTTB and their split from FTTN, then I will happily redo my workings. I just cannot see how it would end up being “more expensive” than my worst case above.

          • If you are going to use the NBN Co SR Scenario 4 as your example you use all of Scenario 4, not cherry pick the bits you want, leave out the bits you cannot calculate, add figures from CP 16 which are not used in the Scenario 4 infrastructure mix anyway chuck it all in and say there ya go this is what the (R0ninX3ph fudged up) MtM rollout should be, it’s only a extra $10B over a extra 10 years!

            You… do realise I can’t do that, right?

            Yes. lol

          • “If you are going to use the NBN Co SR Scenario 4 as your example you use all of Scenario 4, not cherry pick the bits you want, leave out the bits you cannot calculate, add figures from CP 16 which are not used in the Scenario 4 infrastructure mix anyway chuck it all in and say there ya go this is what the (R0ninX3ph fudged up) MtM rollout should be, it’s only a extra $10B over a extra 10 years!

            You… do realise I can’t do that, right?

            Yes. lol”

            So, you admit that Scenario 4 would actually be cheaper than my workings above.

            Thanks. Thats all I wanted.

          • Well since Devoid doesn’t want you to use figures current rollout figures you could always then go back on the SR figures which the CP16 said was the best estimates available which makes S4 come under the MTM

          • But, if you really want a closer estimate to the SR Scenario 4, then here we go.

            You say 32% HFC, 63% FTTP and 5% FTTN/dp/B. Right?

            So, currently HFC is at 34% with 4 million premises. 32% would be 3.5m premises. 63% FTTP is 6.87m premises and 5% FTTB(Have to use FTTN figures because according to NBN Co FTTN and FTTB are the same, right? lololol) is 550k premises.

            HFC costings are then 6.3Bn, FTTP costings (still only using brownfields CPP because we dont have a breakdown of brownfields or greenfields, so we have to use the worst case scenario here) are then 30.22Bn and FTTN/FTTB costings are 1.27Bn, with the same wireless and satellite workings from above, giving us a total infrastructure spend of 43.89Bn + $12Bn additional expenditure, and it is $55.89Bn.

            So really, my use of 34% HFC and FTTP everywhere else is actually better by a couple of hundred million dollars. But, lets not split hairs. Though I am sure you will. It is your pastime after all.

          • There you go you are doing it again, the SR was produced in December 2013 using costings available then with six Scenarios proposed of which Scenario 4 was just one, the one you cherry pick.

            You don’t have to redo the calculations for Scenario 4 because they are listed under each Scenario 1-6 in the categories CAPEX, OPEX, Peak Funding etc etc.

            Corporate Plan 2016 was released in August 2015, well after the 2013 SR, you cannot selectively choose one out of six scenarios you like because it has the highest percentage of FTTP after Scenario 1,2 and 3 which are in the range 100% – 87% to give you the outcome you want using CP 16 CPP and rollout estimate figures, and totally ignore Scenarios 1,2,3,5 and 6 as if they don’t exist.

          • “Corporate Plan 2016 was released in August 2015, well after the 2013 SR, you cannot selectively choose one out of six scenarios you like because it has the highest percentage of FTTP after Scenario 1,2 and 3 which are in the range 100% – 87% to give you the outcome you want using CP 16 CPP and rollout estimate figures, and totally ignore Scenarios 1,2,3,5 and 6 as if they don’t exist.”

            So when I do what you request, you deflect with this rubbish?

            Why can’t I choose which scenario is the one I prefer? You do it every day talking about the MTM. Why am I not allowed to say I prefer scenario 4 out of the others that were offered up?

            If I were choosing the one with the highest ratio of FTTP, surely I wouldn’t choose scenario 4 would I? You’re a twit.

            I choose scenario 4, because I support the reuse of HFC. It is still capable of delivering decent speed in the short term, and doesn’t require much in the way of upgrading.

            If the LNP are truly technologically agnostic, as they claim to be, they would choose the rollout which provides the most future-proof, best technological outcome for Australia for the medium and long term.

            FTTP is the BEST form of infrastructure for the long term, that is fact. However, as it has been brought up before, it does take the longest to rollout. Hence why I support the reuse of HFC in the HFC area, hence why I make the statement that Scenario 4 is the best scenario and want to know why it was ignored in favour of the MTM.

            I don’t have to provide an updated costing for all the other scenarios in the SR, because that isn’t what I am trying to show. I am showing that, if they had chosen Scenario 4 instead of the MTM, we would be spending a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of the rollout, to achieve a far better outcome.

            They can benefit from having the HFC customers paying quicker, and then rollout FTTP/FTTB to the rest of the fixed line network.

            TLDR?

            I DON’T HAVE TO SUPPORT EVERY SCENARIO IN THE SR, BECAUSE I DON’T AGREE WITH THEM. I ONLY AGREE WITH SCENARIO 4 AND AM ONLY SHOWING THAT WITH THE MOST CURRENT FIGURES WE HAVE.

          • It’s entertaining to watch Alain go from not understand what Scenario 4 is, to not understanding how to work out its costs, to contradicting himself twice, to the absolute garbage of his last post to silence.

          • @Hotcakes, I especially liked his accusations that I am trying to prove that a full 93% FTTP rollout is cheap by using the current figures applied to scenario 4.

            Somehow that means I am claiming full FTTP is cheap.

        • “with brownfields CPP of $4,400”

          This is a good example of Turnbull’s horrible management…

          FTTP for brownfields in NZ is $2900, Verizon in the US has it down to $800…

          • FTTP for brownfields in NZ is $2900, Verizon in the US has it down to $800…

            I have already explained both the Chorus and Verizon figures and why they are different to here, but for arguments sake let’s average them, so you think the newly reformed Labor NBN Co when it does a NBN FTTP restart at some yet to be determined point in the future will have no problem doing Australian suburbs brownfields FTTP for $1850 CPP while matching the FTTN RFS activation speed?

          • So what has NBN built them selves so far 30k in 7 months of 1000 a week. I think FTTP was higher than that wasn’t it lol.

          • No it’s 120,000 FTTN RFS in five months, but let’s not the facts get in the way eh?

          • Well Devoid you claim 120k FTTN RFS when most eg 90k are from the Telstra paid trails which have been started well before the offical release of FTTN. The best NBN has done so far then selves since the release is 30K. 90K +30K= 120k your claim. I know reading wasn’t your strong suit but now maths is too.

          • What’s a Telstra paid trails? and it’s not ‘my claim’ it’s from the audited NBN Co latest Half Year results.

            The performance across the company was complemented by a number of milestones in the multi-technology mix, including the commercial launch of the FTTN product. More than 120,000 premises are now ready-for-service (RFS), with demand strong in initial launch areas such as Bundaberg, QLD and Belmont, NSW. More than 600,000 premises are currently under construction and a further 1,289,000 in design and preparation, with the company on track to meet the full year RFS footprint target of 500,000 FTTN premises.

            http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/media-releases/Strong-result-continues-nbns-momentum-to-full-year-targets.html

          • @ alain,

            Explain to everyone who would have (yes would have) had FTTP but don’t have FTTN, how FTTN could possibly be faster to roll out to all Australian’s, as promised?

            GO…

            You’re welcome.

        • @ alain

          So can the detail come later or not? Well???

          And…

          What a hypocrite you are, seriously…

          “Oh I see you are a great supporter of HFC now are you”

          You… chastising someone about HFC, when you said previously HFC was a failed network only good for the pigeons to perch upon.

          You’re welcome

          • He can’t contemplate the idea that people on the left aren’t all unified behind 100% FTTP.

            I have been open about my support for HFC reuse, I think 100% Fixed Line FTTP is the best option, but reusing HFC and FTTP everywhere else is still better than HFC and FTTN (in 2016) with maybe some greenfields FTTP.

            But he can’t keep track of who says what because unlike himself, Richard and the other LibTrolls, we on the left often have very different opinions about different things.

          • Indeed R0ninX3ph,

            And as I mentioned to you many weeks ago (months perhaps) when you first explained the scenario’s (including 4) to alain, as of he hadn’t even heard of them (let alone Project Fox, that neither him of his mate hadn’t heard of either *sigh*)….

            At the time I suggested he would return, as he already has about 2 weeks ago, to try to use your info against you, in his own twisted, childish, crusading way.

            I see he’s doing it again telling you, if you are going to use S4, use all of it.

            Classic he’s telling you, the guy who told him about S4 he knew nothing about, to use S4 they way he wants you to use the S4, err that he knew nothing about until you told him…. and the circle of imbecility continues…

          • Rizz, apparently I’m not allowed to support scenario 4 because thats “cherry picking” and “ignoring” the 5 other scenarios in the SR, but also, the SR scenarios can’t be retrofitted with the current CPP numbers because the SR was from 2013 and we’re in 2016 now, so that somehow means that looking at the breakdown of the number of premises in a certain scenario means you can’t apply the current rollout costs to those numbers…. or something.

  2. Be interesting to see what he means by “greater role”.

    I would like to think he would undo all of Mals MTMess but i dont think that will happen.

    • Spot on, a greater role for FTTP could mean stipulating that all greenfields sites would get FTTP, in other words mandating that new infrastructure sites have to rollout NBN FTTP.

      It is something that should be in place now anyway.

      Labor may also slip FTTdp in as being a junior FTTP. :)

          • Labor need the solution, it’s called Labor NBN Policy 2016, they are calling the MtM a mess not me.

            Shorten, Clare, Husic and Conroy and other Labor MP’s wanting to take the easy course over the last two and half years and have just stuck the boot in while coming out with deep meaningful stuff about Black Adder TV series comparisons and we are the Party of fibre.

            Now the screws are turning in as the election year rapidly progresses and so far Labor have come up Short(en).

          • @ alain

            You said solution and said it many times…

            Solution: a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation.

            Got it now?

            Once again this is one of those rare moments when I actually agree with you and your incessant politicking. Labor do indeed need –

            .. a means of solving the problem or dealing with the difficult situation, known as the Coalition’s MTM delay & deficit crisis™ ”

            You’re welcome.

          • Please point to the estimated funding and infrastructure mix details of Turnbulls’ fully costed pre-election 2013 plan and please show where it was released prior to the election being called.

  3. So pretty much what we would expect. We’ll do what we can, but can’t promise anything because of Malcolm’s mess.

    FTTP playing a bigger part it about the best you can say at this point. They will need to sit down and work out what can be changed safely.

    • It’s not that hard is it, stop the FTTN rollout immediately upon gaining Government and accelerate the FTTN wind down by renegotiating outstanding FTTN contracts for FTTP.

      They could announce that basic intent now.

      • Sure … why not make the same mistake the existing Coalition numpties did when they were leading up to the 2013 election.

        Or … I know it’s a radical idea … perhaps be smarter than that.

          • Sorry, say again … is that meant to prove that they aren’t numpties? Because their record over the last term speaks for itself.

            But hey … a vitriolic opposition must make for a good government in your eyes … right? That’s the logic you’re applying here.

            Well, maybe not, lol.

          • “Sorry say again, who won the 2013 election easily?”
            Numpties. The fact that voters show complete inability to follow a 2 sentence context as you have done here only serves to explain why the numpties got in.

      • Reality 12/03/2016 at 9:48 am (re: the opposition’s NBN plans): “I said the detail can come later…”

        Yet you demand details here…

        GOLDEN irrationality.

        You’re welcome

  4. So now even Google have realised competing last mile infrastructure is wasteful and stupid!

    https://backchannel.com/you-didn-t-notice-it-but-google-fiber-just-began-the-golden-age-of-high-speed-internet-access-67b3f775fb85#.yioe2bn20

    But in Huntsville, it will lease “dark” fiber that will be built and owned by the electric utility in that city. … The Google lease is nonexclusive — any other ISP can show up and provide services — and will allow Google to provide retail gigabit fiber Internet access services to any home or business that Huntsville decides to serve.

    In reality, the way competition actually happens in telecommunications is to have a world-class, basic, fixed-price, passive, wholesale wire to every home and business that can be used by any retail operator to provide services. That’s it. That’s the sensible model. Once you have that in place, competition explodes: the retail sellers know how much the wholesale input costs and can rely on that pricing while they differentiate their services by price, customer service, and quality commitments. Presto: prices charged to consumers begin to approach the marginal cost of the service and service quality climbs.

    • If there is merit in replicating approaches for power, water, roads, trains, airports for wired broadband (may be in regional and beyond, let’s have competition in extended metro), I’d like to know when FTTP will go away from 2.5GPON to 10G NG PON2.
      For 2.5GPON seems like the two lanes each way approach for Sydney’s Orbital M2/ M7. Then again, over copper, modems gave way to ISDN to DSL …
      Even if three quarters on nbn today seem to be on 25/ 5 Mbps or below, nation building and all, enabling sea or tree changes, cost of living, opportunity?
      Mind you, it would seem to put too many eggs in the PMG mk2 basket, rather than limit it to the copper/ fibre transition (aka backdoor separation of Telstra), and have competition from HFC (given HoWARd privatised a vertically integrated Telecom/ OTC).
      The fed gov seems to have no trouble finding dollars for “entitlements”, stupid wars on drugs, terror, subs, JSFs, just not Csiro, education, healthcare, human rights or infrastructure, it would seem.
      It seems the mindset of Boer War, Dreadnoughts and Gallipoli is as present as the colonial Union Jack on the flag, Australia Act(s) of 1986 or not.

      At least HFC to a third of premises is no longer going to be shutdown, after being bought with taxpayer dollars (nbn equity, so far capped to AUD/$29.5B). May be FoxTel could be interested, or NC at TransACT/ iiNet/ TPG?
      It is presently what my New Holland home in the ‘burbs can get up to 100/ 2 Mbps, even then we’re only on 30/ 1 Mbps with a 500 GB quota, Netflix, two teenagers and a neighbour on our guest network, and all.
      My old Holland home in the ‘burbs has a choice of cableco HFC up to 250 Mbps, or telco fibre at 500/ 500 Mbps.
      And there’s DVB-T, not just -C or -S.

      Diktaats resulting in service class zero premises instead of FTTx are gone (FTTDp or FTTB/ G.Fast seems likelier than thin fibre for multi-user dwellings, in terms of Gbps or Mbps/ $ or GB/ $).
      My old Sydney CBD apartment presently can have DSL, TPGW FTTB/ VDSL2 (cheaper for an unlimited bundle by about $20 to $30 per month, for 50 to 100/ 20 Mbps), even nbn.

      I reckon instead of doing fixed terrestrial wireless it would have been better if the fed gov had done more mobile blackspot auctions with carriers (“across the ditch” tendered regions for wired broadband to commercial parties).

      Long term satellite wireless still hasn’t launched, presumably because Hawke offloaded Aussat with more than three times debt over equity to a then start-up Optus.
      A least one person I know cancelled interim satellite wireless and has gone back to 3G/ 4G for now.

      I wonder when the money/ pollyTICs/ media spin cycle will be replaced by a focus on advancing Australia, fair.

      • “For 2.5GPON seems like the two lanes each way approach for Sydney’s Orbital M2/ M7.”

        To be fair if you split against all 32 channels its 84Mbps per guaranteed (there’s reserved slots in that 32 so) back to the POI with no contention ratios which aint half bad!

        Then you have to consider the timeline too (NBN Co only had 18 months under its belt as far as actual function goes) NBN Co did announce Gb services at the 2013 election times. NG PON2 came after and has simply been ignored by MTM (imho its the distances which make this particularly enticing as some of the less remote wireless or heck even sat connections could switch out to some aerial fibre wth a 40km length!).

        (Whereas say Optus I think have finished their national upgrades to their backhaul networks).

  5. I can’t add much to a debate about what will happen next but I can say that the rollout just ground to a halt around here after the election. My area on the Central Coast was due to commence FTTP construction in Feb 2014 and at that time the FTTP rollout was up and running two streets away.

    I’m now waiting for FTTN to commence in my area – due to start by the end of this month. Our area is one (of many, I suppose) of the regional areas where the NBN should dramatically improve performance and lower cost. I’ve had discussions with the local member about how her government has stalled opportunities for local business but to no avail.

    We are getting an inferior service two years late. Sooner, better, cheaper, faster… methinks not. The ideal result would be Labor and the coalition agreeing on the very sensible fibre to the curb that delivers fibre speeds at lower costs.

    I’m not so optimistic on each party being willing to deliver that kind of outcome.

    • Unfortunately real issues are no longer reported during an election – the winner now seems to be whoever the media back and make most popular, regardless of actual policy.

      When the majority voted in the LNP, they put a nail in the coffin of what could have been, and this pathetic MTM NBN is what everyone gets as a result.

  6. However, Shorten stopped short of committing to returning the NBN to a full FTTP model

    Everything that needs to be said really…

    • Considering NBN isn’t for inning with cost.

      What would have him say eg. Build an NBN foully costed $29B complete in 3 years.

Comments are closed.