Success: “Skinny” fibre trial cut FTTP costs by $450, rollout time by 4 weeks


news The NBN company this morning revealed that its trial of “skinny fibre” to some 4,500 homes in the Victorian towns of Ballarat and Karingal had been highly successful, cutting the cost per premise of a Fibre to the Premise rollout by $450 and the rollout time by four weeks.

Several weeks ago Delimiter and a number of other media outlets published a set of leaked documents produced by the NBN company in August last year. The documents detailed the fact that the NBN company was set to trial a new style of fibre cable deployment in the ‘Local Fibre Network’ which delivers fibre to neighbourhoods as part of the NBN rollout.

The aim of the project was to test a new kind of “skinny” fibre deployment which the NBN company hopes will allow it to drive down the cost of rolling out fibre cables around Australia.

The cables involved do not run all the way to customers’ premises. Instead, they run around the local neighbourhood as part of what the NBN company terms its ‘Local Fibre Network’. This aspect of the network supplies a variety of different technologies; although the Victorian trial this year used FTTP connections, Fibre to the Node, Basement or Distribution Point can also be connected to this style of fibre.

In this sense, any cost savings to be achieved by the trial can be applied to any of the NBN’s technologies as part of the Government’s Multi-Technology Mix approach, although one significant benefit is that the cost savings helps to drive the cost of the technically superior FTTP option for the NBN much closer to the FTTN approach favoured by the Coalition.

This morning NBN chief executive Bill Morrow told a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the NBN in Canberra (click here for the full PDF of his opening statement) that the trial had gone extremely well.

“We have been working on something we call skinny fibre which reduces the amount of civil works needed to push fibre down a street. We’ve taken concepts from paper analysis to field trials and have recently completed 4,500 homes in a fibre application using skinny fibre,” said Morrow.

“This area actually went live a few weeks ago and we’ve been studying the data since then. The findings are encouraging. Relative to costs, we were able to reduce the [cost per premises] by roughly $450 per premises. Relative to time, we also believe we could shave four weeks off the time of the build.”

Morrow believes the technology would primarily be used as part of the NBN company’s plans to use Fibre to the Distribution Point as part of its network. This network rollout method pushes fibre further out into neighbourhoods, but not all the way to customers’ premises.

“We believe there is merit in exploring this technology further,” said Morrow.

“When we combine skinny fibre with Fibre to the distribution point (FTTdp), we see opportunities in unique areas that would otherwise be slated for fixed wireless or FTTN.”

“Further, skinny fibre on its own may be well suited for new developments. It is important to note there are trade-offs with skinny fibre, and it is still in development to some degree. This is a good example of our technology agnostic approach in finding the fastest way to deploy at the least possible cost.”

Su-Vun Chung, the NBN executive account manager at Corning Optical Communications, which is supplying the NBN company with with the fibre used in the trial, said the skinnier cables were the same ones as the NBN company used to connect individual customer premises. He told the Senate Committee there were a number of advantages to using the cables, such as the ability to pass through pre-established underground ducts with little space.

The ability to do away with some above-ground cabinets is also a feature of the technology.

Image credit: Parliamentary Broadcasting


  1. Yes, but what, specifically, are the trade offs? You can’t say ‘it’s important to note that there are trade offs’ and then not communicate what those trade offs actually are. It sounds suspiciously like there are significant capacity issues with such an approach – what is potential contention based on that tecchnology as opposed to the original FTTP network design? How does it compare in terms of redundancy and reliability? Is this another case of selling us short in terms of future upgradability for a short term and meagre saving?

    • You will never get an answer to your question unfortunately. That is how this Government and the current NBNCo like to do things.

    • It won’t do 10Gbps. Even 1Gbps is only possible under ideal circumstances using technology that doesn’t exist in COTS form yet. Who needs those speeds? Few years time it’ll be standard around the world, and impossible in Australia.

      You can already do 10G-PON on the fibre that Labor was rolling out. And 10Gbps to the home is being offered in some countries (notably Singapore).

      Skinny fibre is another turd in sheep’s clothing. Good enough for the short term (5 years) but doesn’t have the 50 year vision needed for an infrastructure project like this. This country’s telco situation is stuffed beyond all hope at this point. My suggestion; emigrate.

      • Been in the pipeline for me for 2 years. Given the results of the upcoming election, will probably only be working on it for another 2 years.

      • Sorry Jason but you are entirely wrong here – “skinny fibre” deployed as “GPON” can easily support NG-PON2 and more which makes NBN Co refusing to deploy it more widely or underpinning FTTdp with it even more galling.

        • No, you are wrong. You’re confusing two *different* models of FTTdp deployment. Skinny fibre is *not* the same deployment model as the FTTdp reverse power units connected to a GPON distribution, as shown in the recent powerpoint doc.

          In the powerpoint doc, they’re talking about FTTP areas where they’ve already run PON and installed the splitters. But they can’t install the fibre from splitter to premise because the conduit (to premise) is blocked. Possibly from collapse of the conduit or from dirt flooding in. The traditional solution is dig up the conduit, replace it, and then run the fibre. That’s expensive. They’re using FTTdp in this scenario – hanging from PON – to avoid having to dig up and replace the conduit.

          However Skinny Fibre is different. This is a shared fibre where the devices are daisy-chained. It’s a shit solution. And nothing like PON.

        • Sorry mate but you are incorrect, there are several different designs that can take advantage of the “skinny fibre” architecture, they include GPON and a more basic FTTdp design.

  2. It is also interesting to note that the NBN company have been highly critical of the factual reality that the cost and time to deploy FTTP will decrease over time, as efficiencies in both skills and technique, and manufacturing are found from experience and economies of scale, and yet here they are spruiking a less than 10% saving by using a *different technology*. And then they claim this is an example of being ‘technology agnostic’. No, Mr Morrow, if you were being technology agnostic you wouldn’t have chosen FTTN, which is more expensive and actually longer to deploy when you include the extra two years it took to negotiate. If you were being technology agnostic you would be looking at the examples internationally such as Chorus in NZ demonstrating FTTP can be deployed much faster and at significantly reduced cost to the 2012 methods you’re still using today, in a desperate attempt to justify the political decision to choose a particular technology mix that did not agree with the expert design commissioned under Labor.

    It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it, how you try to soften it up, Mr. Morrow, the original FTTP design was vastly superior to everything you and Turnbull have come up with because you have comprehensively failed to offer a reasonable alternative that is actually objectively, factually, fiscally and scientifically better. You’re playing catch up to a superior design run by superior professionals with a superior mandate – deliver a 21st century network with sufficient future capacity and upgradability for the next five decades. Your network isn’t even fit for purpose *today*.

    So if you want to claim you’re technology agnostic, come back when you have a product that can deliver on capacity, future upgradability and reliability, that can be deployed faster and cost less than the mess you’re currently running with. Here’s a hint (because it’s not a secret, it’s a technology that’s already five decades old that no one has been able to replace, only improve upon) – it’s fibre, with greater economies of scale for both manufacturing and experience. There’s your saving. You’re welcome.

    • UninvitedGuest,

      the original FTTP design was vastly superior to everything you and Turnbull have come up with because you have comprehensively failed to offer a reasonable alternative that is actually objectively, factually, fiscally and scientifically better.

      You mean the ‘original FTTP design’ that was so slow it was at a half of what the Labor NBN Co had originally estimated at the end in 2013, so appalling slow that at the end only 51000 premises were connected.

      The alternative has connected 120,000 FTTN residences in five months, and the connection rate is accelerating.

      The complete opposite of a failure, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a no fact ranting MtM bash eh?

      • FTTP never had as much as $26.5B/4 years blow outs, did it?

        Go on tell us…

        No shhh, just pluck some lame figure and try to fake it.

        NEWSFLASH, like FRUADBAND, it ain’t working…

        You’re welcome.

      • You mean the ‘original FTTP design’ that was so slow it was at a half of what the Labor NBN Co had originally estimated at the end in 2013, so appalling slow that at the end only 51000 premises were connected.

        Making up numbers again Reality?

        At 3 November 2013, construction of the network had passed 354,793 premises and there were 109,862 active customer services.

        I couldn’t be bothered fact checking the rest of your post, I’m fairly sure we can assume it’s just as wrong…

          • I suppose your “reality” swings somewhere between Sociopath and Psychcopath.

            It must be nice to live in a world where you can pick and choose your arguments, ignoring historical fact and ideas.

            The main reason that it cannot be costed is because the liberals decided to be absolute cunts and lock up billions of dollars in contracts. Without seeing the contracts, which NBNCo refuse to release, how are costings supposed to be made?

            How many years did it take to rewrite those contracts? Why, I think it was around 2 years – about the same as labour and the primary reason for the initial rollout delay.

            The rest was on schedule – Fiber backhaul, satellite and wireless

            Then again, if you are who I think you are, Richard, then you’re a fuckwit by defaulty and can go fuck your hat.

          • Alain aka reality is more in the full ideological nut bag group. At least you can have a debate with Richard.

          • Interesting that both of you think that a constant stream of personal abuse counts as solid ‘argument’.

          • Your record of hypocrisy here is second to none so there’s absolutely no point trying to have a rational discussion with you – pure contempt is all you deserve.

            Frankly I dont know why Renai tolerates your blatant partisan hypocrisy!

          • Don’t forget alain’s ridiculous (yet pricelessly humorous) complete contradictions…

            They take the cake IMO.

          • Its not ‘argument’ alain, its frustration. You continuously present such an amazing distortion and selective view of the information, and repeatedly do so to the point people are frustrated with you and your view.

            Its like you think its somehow true just because you’ve said it 50 times while leaving out other highly relevant information to present the distorted view you subscribe to today.

            You need help. Really, you do. As others have said, at least with Richard theres a chance of debate, but with you, the distorted nature of your claims are so laughable that it invites ridicule, which is what you see here.

            Straight up ridicule and frustration with your biased and selective opinion.

          • Exactly GG, it’s quite sad really that someone would choose to be such a hypocrite and political patsy!

          • You are absolutely correct GG…

            I no longer even try to correspond with alain (reality) I just copy/paste his previous comments which inevitably contradict his current comments, which at times are literally only hours apart.

            I actually find this more satisfying than banging my head against alain’s obtuse brick wall. And he doesn’t like it because he won’t reply. He certainly will never refute, because he knows (unlike his mate who refuted and copped the consequences) we will simply google, find and humiliate. As it stands he’s currently just embarrassed…

            But the fact that many people (I’d guess almost all) here feel the same proves your point.

            But of course that is easily countered by one so imaginative… we must all be the same single person, posting with multiple monikers.

            Brilliant (or an insight as to how he actually operates).

          • Exaclly GG.

            The thing is, he can actually discuss things like a normal person occasionally, so when he goes “wacky”, he’s just being an obvious troll.

          • I’d agree with that Tinman, alain can conduct meaningful correspondence, at rare (very rare – think bluer than blue ;) moments…

            … until he inevitably says something stupid/factually incorrect, is corrected with irrefutable proof, refuses to accept actual/factual proof and slips into childish mode.

            He also loves to argue against facts, but then try to turn the same facts he had argued over, against others later.

            I’ve seen him argue that the RFP’s were for FTTN only and I told him, no they explicitly asked for FTTN or FTTP. He then got all in a tizz and argued and argued, until I had had enough playing with him and posted the original announcement from Conroy stating FTTN or FTTP…

            He of course, after hours of stupidity, then disappeared immediately… LOL

            Only to resurface a few weeks later to use the very FTTN and FTTP RFP info I gave him (which he had argued over and never retracted after knowing he was WRONG) to completely deride a FTTP person who claimed (as alain himself did previously) that the RFP was for FTTN only …

            He also has done the same recently, not knowing anything about the “scenarios (especially no:4)” and R0nin explained how wrong, naive and uneducated he was, arguing about FTTN/FTTP etc, whilst not knowing any of this info…

            He has since returned twice to “wrongly” have a go at R0nin himself, about the scenarios that he (alain) knew SFA about, until R0nin explained them to him..

            WTF… *shakes head*

      • I think you might be clutching at fibres there “Reality”, perhaps you should consider doing what Dean suggested with your theories and hat.

      • “The alternative has connected 120,000 FTTN residences in five months, and the connection rate is accelerating.”
        If the connection rate is 3x faster for FTTN than FTTP, how come the FTTN has been delayed to the point that it will finish less than a year before the FTTP rollout?

  3. “This is a good example of our technology agnostic approach in finding the fastest way to deploy at the least possible cost.”

    How did Australia let the NBN turn into that? ^^^

  4. “..least possible cost”.

    Therein lies the problem. These people seem to be obsessed with that phrase, putting it first, above and beyond :

    “long term goals”
    “promote competition”
    “keep it simple”

    Cost is important but it’s not the number one goal.

    Spend $50b+ if required – but let’s get something _really_ great out the other end.. Something that one day people will say “that was the right decision back in 20xx.” – it just isn’t looking like that at the present.

    • Don’t forget making a return on the investment as well.

      People want to spend far far less and don’t realise what happens if MTM makes a loss as a result.

      • We know exactly what will happen if MTM makes a loss – it’ll be flogged off to Telstra at below cost to ‘repair the budget black hole caused by Labor’s white elephant NBN’…

    • This.

      This is the stupidity of it all. If this is what the coalition believe is good management then the mind boggles.

      The long term OPEX will be higher. The long term CAPEX will be higher. The short term OPEX will be higher, the short term CAPEX will be lower.


  5. Its sad that Morrow only sees skinny fibre as a possible resolution to “unique” areas, and not as a way to actively reduce the FTTN footprint. It appears they are only planning to use it in places where remediation is needed because FTTN wont do the job.
    What a waste if that is the case!
    NBN Co are not technologically agnostic. This is more than clear. They are doing nothing to substantially minimise FTTN.

    • Here’s hoping this means being too far away from a node actually gets you decent speeds. It would be somewhat ironic if the closer to a FttN node actually means you get a ‘worse’ connection lol!

    • Mr C,

      NBN Co are not technologically agnostic. This is more than clear. They are doing nothing to substantially minimise FTTN.

      You don’t get to define ‘technologically agnostic’ as replacing FTTN with FTTP because as a FTTP fan that’s what you want it to be.

      Technologically agnostic is using the best infrastructure type for a area where it is the most cost effective and appropriate.

      FTTP ,FTTdp, FTTB, FTTN, HFC, fixed wireless and satellite are technologically agnostic.

      Just FTTP and only FTTP to 93% is not.

      • @ alain,

        “You don’t get to define ‘technologically agnostic’”

        He has more right than you and your ridiculous 24/7 desperado, cyclopic electioneering.

        But no, FTTN (FRAUDBAND) and HFC (the failed network according to you) are “technologically obsolete”… just throwing stupid topology into the mix doesn’t make it wise, as we can clearly see by the -$26.5B/4 year hold-up, FRAUDBAND/FAILED network Fiasco…

        FTTP, fixed wireless, satellite are technologically agnostic.

        You’re welcome.

      • You do not get to define it either.

        Technologically Agnostic does not mean selecting multiple solutions. It means not having a preferred technological solution. This is clearly not the case, as they are doing everything in their power to push FTTN over FTTP.

        And from a business point of view Technology Agnostic generally extends only within the decision making process. Once a decision is made, then they stick with that particular Technology, in order to exact the savings that scale brings in areas such as process, and volume purchasing.

        You are a shill, who has no argument beyond what is trumpeted by the coalition. Sad.

        • Woolfe,

          It means not having a preferred technological solution.

          Like FTTP you mean?

          This is clearly not the case, as they are doing everything in their power to push FTTN over FTTP

          But pushing FTTP over FTTN is ok?

          Once a decision is made, then they stick with that particular Technology, in order to exact the savings that scale brings in areas such as process, and volume purchasing.

          Yes you have just made a strong case for MtM, is that what you meant to do?

          • But pushing FTTP over FTTN is ok?

            Sure, if you start from the premise that you don’t want to upgrade it again for ~100 years…you’re obviously Ok with spending more taxpayer dollars than would otherwise be required…

          • But with the vast majority of current FTTP users on 12/1 or 25/5 plans the need to upgrade FTTN to FTTP will be when?

          • Based on the year on year growth that has been pretty constant for more than 30 years, about 4 years an upgrade needs to be in place. Given the lead times, they should have already started. Oh, that’s right, they did. but a bunch of ideologists can’t think ahead more than on election cycle so they halted it.

          • So users on 25/1 and 25/5 plans should have moved to higher plans four years or less ago or they will move in 2016-2020?

          • But with the vast majority of current FTTP users on 12/1 or 25/5 plans the need to upgrade FTTN to FTTP will be when?

            Was that a comment to me? Because it doesn’t address a thing I said…

          • It’s a general comment on the timing for the need to upgrade FTTN to FTTP.

            First of all you need to convince the majority of FTTP users to get off FTTN like speeds.

          • Lol devoid first you have to convince them to move from ADSL speeds. How are they doing that

          • Alain, You really fail at knowing how to plan dont you, just shows complete ignorance.

            The standard rule in ICT is work out todays requirements and multiply them by 2.5 – then build it.

            Your corrupt mates in the LibTroll party have worked out the requirements for 10 years ago and are building that!

          • Are you Babbling again?

            The FTTP solution was not “technology agnostic”. They looked at the available solutions and determined (correctly) that the most ideal solution for Australia in the long term was to move to as close to full FTTP model as possible.

            The MTM with its mix of technologies is the issue. If FTTN was the best solution for Australia long term, then I would be supporting it to the fullest. But time and time we show that not only is it technically inferior, it is costing us more in the long term (possibly more in the short term “Up to $56 billion” and is almost as slow to roll out. (one year behind original rollout)

            Why don’t you try looking at the facts without the Shill glasses on once in a while.


          • First of all you need to convince the majority of FTTP users to get off FTTN like speeds.

            Now your starting to sound like Matthew :o)

            If people choose to go with a lower speed, then that’s their choice, yes?

            But if they have to take a lower speed (due to “the system” not being able to go higher like when you are 700+ metres from a node), or higher speeds aren’t offered, then that’s a problem for the nbn™ company to address.

          • No it’s a problem the RSP needs to address, if your RSP doesn’t have high speed plans go to a RSP that does.

            Not hard is it?

            The majority of users on lower speeds are obviously satisfied with the lower speeds.

          • @Reality

            Great, now you’re just saying what I said, but with a little bit of patronising thrown in :/

            Here’s 10c, go buy a clue…

          • Rizz I’m not sure they make clues in his size, even if they did they’d need a Super Guppy to ship it and they’re all busy in Europe transporting A380 components.

    • NBN Co are not technologically agnostic. This is more than clear.

      Indeed you are correct Mr Creosote, because the MTM patchwork mess is politically motivated they never had current or future speed goals in mind and what technology they could use to achieve them. This is why they set the bar so pathetically low with 25mbps, they had to ensure that their political choice of technology (FttN) was capable of delivering it.

      • Or the bar of FTTP is set too high, with 77% choosing 12/1 or 25/5 speeds it seems so.

        • And let’s all ignore the high revenue 23% of customers – that is only about 1 million premises!

          Keep on trolling Alain!

          • The so called ‘higher revenue’ for 50 Mbps and 100Mbps customers on Tier 4 and Tier 5 NBN plans is a only $10/mth, no way compensating for the vast majority on Tier 1,2 and 3 plans.

          • I abuse you because you are incapable of comprehending reason and you are an oxygen thief. Those are facts.

            Note I don’t abuse anyone else here that I disagree with, just you.

          • So you multiplied out the so called ‘higher revenue high speed’ plans by the small percentage of users on them and compared them to the revenue received from the majority on lower speed plans and went ‘oh shit’ I see.

        • Sorry but does it matter as the FttP portion is making more revenue per connection than projected!? Also the % predicted to opt for base 12/1 was/is higher than actual with more choosing faster speed plans.

          yeah 23% isn’t actually a small # either.

        • What exactly is the split there tho Reality? How many are 12/1 and how many are 25/5.

          If 12/1 is any less than 50% then your argument is shown as the dribble it is, as that is in fact better than the amount that was required to meet ROI.

          I don’t have the numbers on me and couldn’t be stuffed looking them up. So lets do some general rounding.

          (Remember, these are fake figures)
          Lets say that the original plan called for 75% on 12/1 and 25/5. But actuals are 80%.
          But lets break that down a little.
          that 75% was actually split into
          50% on 12/1 and 25% on 25/5.
          So that says that to make the ROI that they were expecting, that they had to get the above figures.. Are you with me so far?

          Now the actuals are 80% on 12/1 or 25/5, which of course looks bad…
          But the actuals are in reality 35% on 12/1 and 45% on 25/5.
          That means that whilst you have 5% paying less than was expected, you actually have 20% paying more than expected.

          Now these are of course fake figures, but I hope they show how stupid your argument about the 77% is. Because it really is pathetic.

          • Yeah I knew it was vaguely in that territory, but couldn’t have been arsed looking for the exact figures…

          • It is in the latest audited NBN Co Half year report ended December 2015 Page 16.

            31/12/14 – 12/1 38% 25/5 38% Total 76%
            31/12/15 – 12/1 45% 25/5 33% Total 78%

            31/12/14 – 100/40 19%
            31/12/15 – 100/40 16%

            These are not ‘fake’ figures like yours, interesting to see the fall in demand for 100/40 eh?


          • @Reality I checked for myself Here is the exact quote
            “As at 31 December 2015, 16 per cent of
            nbn’s fixed line services used a 100/40
            Mbps* wholesale speed tier (31 December
            2014: 19 per cent), 45 per cent used a 25/5
            Mbps* wholesale speed tier (31 December
            2014: 38 per cent), and 33 per cent used
            a 12/1 Mbps* wholesale speed tier
            (31 December 2014: 38 per cent).”

            2014 38% were 25/5, 38% were 12/1, 19 were 100/4
            2015 45% were 25/5, 33% were 12/1, 16 were 100/4

            So I am sorry, but you appear to have a reading comprehension fail.
            We have an increase in the 25/5 of 7%, a decrease in 12/1 of 5% and a decrease of 100/4 of 3%.
            Correct Figures indeed.
            And by the way, these are the concurrent figures for different financial years of the new NBN(Only the FTTP component).
            These are not the Estimates made for the previous plan as to the numbers that would be on. So you have another comprehension fail.
            All this shows us, is that indeed the 25/5 is growing larger, at the expense of the 12/1 and 100/40. Pointedly the change is greater in the 12/1 area.

          • If you look at on Page 64. You will see a chart. Unfortunately it doesn’t have exact numbers on it. But it will serve to show the approximate estimates that had been made for the speed tiers.
            You will see that the 12/1 tier was assumed to sit just below 40% from 2016 onwards. In reality we have had a much greater drop there.
            Unfortunately now it gets messy, and I’m pretty sure you won’t comprehend the next bit.
            So because the new NBN has cut out the majority of the additional tiers. (25/10, 50/20, 250/100, 500/200 and 1000/400) We have the bulk of people now sitting in the 25/5 tier. Now had the 25/10 and 50/20 tiers existed you would likely have seen some movement from 25/5 up into them, as the price sweet point would have been better. And those who have dropped from 100/40 would have been split between 25/5 25/10 and 50/20.
            If we assume that the 25/10 and 50/20 tiers are now sitting in the 25/5 tier, then that accounts somewhat for the growth of that tier
            Now as I am sure you will leap upon with glee, the larger section of 100/40 and above is much reduced from the around 20% mark. However other than the 100/40 tier, the others (250/500/1000) are all very small, and likely very susceptible to demographic changes etc. The target for these would be the high end users and the SOHO market, who could sustain those sort of costs. However as the FTTP rollout was not continued it may simply be that the vagrancies of who got it and who didn’t. Unfortunately we will never know if those figures would have been born out across the greater rollout.

    • “technology agnostic” is just political nonsense. An agnostic is someone who does not know. Once nbn choose a technology, they are no longer “agnostic” about it.
      They say they are “technology agnostic” in order to portray anyone who criticises them as an irrational zealot.

    • You do not need to sell me FTTP, what you need is to sell me a skinny invisible elephant that fits into the existing ducting between me and that Node that has been sitting there on a Telstra plot for over 10 years now waiting for somebody to upgrade it. Not to mention that the weight of that fat elephant sitting on that lightpole, means skinny is in and fat chance is out. Whatever policy you want to spool had better mean something for the majority or you will be out. Meanwhile you go and dig up your own street so everybody can have FTTP. You are right FTTN won’t do the job because most homes built 10 to 15 years ago are already on FTTN. It is called an upgrade path and costs have nothing to do with it.

  6. Yah another complication.

    Everyone ready for broadband lotto everytime you move.

    Yes this could be a good idea but to keep adding another technology only increases complexity and expense to the overall project. At this stage NBN seem to be collecting network technologies like some people collect stamps.

    • How does evaluating a technology like FTTdp with thin fibre as a way of getting FTTP costs down increase the complexity and the expense?

      • Oh FFS you stupid LibTroll, how often do we need to explain simple Math to your tiny little mind?

        Even using nbn numbers:

        Option A/ FTTP = CPP $3,700 (OpEx removed from FTTP)

        Option B/ FTTN = CPP $2,100 + FTTP CPP $3,700 = $5,800

        Option C/ FTTdp = CPP $2,700 + FTTP CPP $1,400 (assuming only customer Lead-in is required) = $4,100

        FTTP done the first time is always Cheaper than doing it twice and reduces the complexity …. Next

      • Start again, they are overbuilding hypothetical options for Optus HFC from a NBN Draft document not officially released NBN Co CPP figures, use the CPP figures from the NBN Co CP 16.

        Wonder why you didn’t? oh brownfields FTTP is $4,400 CPP, that’s why.

        • Lol Reality
          The $3700 is – the $700. So in all those option you still have to add the $700 ducts and pits.

          • Here comes the 24/7 tagger, Rizz/Alex/RS, chuck a strangled grammar nonsense BS figures smoke grenade, exit left.

          • Normal devoid abuse defection when he is caught out in a lie lol exit stage right.

            But let’s start to help your maths 1+1=?

          • @ alain, Dick, node for me, advocate… gee look I can do it too…

            Regardless, I’m glad, nay overwhelmed (ROFL) that my little exposes of your moronic (it must be said as it is) contradictions and baseless waffle have hit a nerve…and you are compelled to mention me at (if not every) well many of your, otherwise laughable posts.

            Anyone who says FTTP NBN will succeed because it’s a monopoly, then 2 weeks later says FTTP will fail like the failed HFC did, then years later supports the use of ‘failed” HFC…

            Cannot be all there…

            I have plenty more of those GOLDEN contradictions, just request and I will “gladly” provide… :)

            BTW, FYI –

            You’re “most” welcome.

          • Yes got the normal DO abuse and school yard swearing when backed into a corner, you still used the incorrect CPP figures.

          • Yes, you are deserving of nothing but utter contempt, your track record of partisan hypocrisy is 2nd to none on this site!

        • You argue as if the infinitely superior FTTP option at $4,400 CPP isn’t still cheaper than the technically inferior FTTN option Derek presented above.

      • Because it is being added to the mix, it is another thing to support it is an expansion to the skillset required by deployment tech you can’t optimize the deployment process, the support process or even you back end computer systems if you keep adding stuff on. The number one reason for project failure is scope creep and that is what we have here, as they add extra things to support.

        The reason why the MTM is bad isn’t because they are using FTTN it is because just as the project was getting to point of scale and effiecient they through the baby out with bath water wasted a heap of money redesigning things when all that was needed a pragmatic approach to managing the project. Mike Quigley was trying to take that approach but was hamstrung by Labor fibre at any cost policy. Right now it all pure political bull and mismanagement, thanks to a policy of anything but what Labor did. You can’t improve a project by ignoring or destroying the good work that was done in the past just because you don’t like the other guy. To be honest I’m surprised the first satellite even got launched and wasn’t just replaced with network of balloons.

        • It was well in development at that point – we are talking hardware construction mixed with rocket science after all. The real test will be to see if the second one launches at all, I suppose?

  7. Isn’t this just a similar system to HFC where the load is shared within their ‘Local Fibre Network’ so peak times will see great drops in throughput?

  8. Great. This Government sure likes to cut corners. With every proposal they make, they end up replacing it with another that is another step closer to FTTP. Technologically agnostic? Sure, for all technologies except FTTP.

    The fact that they have been trialling this “skinny” version of FTTP without making it public shows that their original plans were doomed to fail. They obviously didn’t want this making the news until they’ve connected a few thousand homes with success. That way, they will get some applause from the public and can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. When exactly did they start this trial and how long has bit been running for? Why are we only finding out about it now? For all I know, they are probably trialling a “fatter” version of their “skinny” FTTP somewhere just in case this does’t work out either.

    This is never going to go well with the tech community. They are getting so close to FTTP that it no longer makes sense to trial these shortcut fibre technologies because it is just more money down the drain. I don’t think the $450 per house and 4 weeks off rollout time matters anymore. This project is already over budget and well overdue. Government and NBNCo need to stop mucking about. They’ve spent the last few years in power trialling last century’s technology instead of picking the NBN up where Labor left it.

  9. Chatting to various NBN workers, it seems (at least in WA) all that fiber, regardless of its obesity factor, was to be stuffed down Telstra conduit. Given Telstra’s claims, not a bad idea.

    Except… When Telstra contractors had used 19mm conduit rather than 25mm or 30mm as specified… So many contractors had to under-bore new conduit, or in those cases where Western Power’s Bright Communications had pre-laid fiber casing, those conduits were utilised. Of course, this means that MY nice shiny-new fiber is sharing its home with 240V, but hey, who’s caring? The electricity is insulated, and the fiber is insulated, it’s all good.

    “Skinny Fiber”! Well, who would have thought? “This is never going to go well with the tech community.” Actually, it will go well. At some stage, someone will have to replace FTTN with FTTP, and using Skinny Fiber will immensely cut the costs. It won’t cut all costs, alas, since so much Telstra conduit is either substandard to start with or has been grossly over-stuffed over time. But Skinny Fiber will make a Big Difference to a lot of people.

      • Oh dear… OK, short answer: it doesn’t.

        Tutorial. You don’t have to read this, but it will help you if you do. It’s very simple: Comms conduits are for comms, so contractors know where to look. Power conduits are for electricity, and are appropriately marked, so contractors know where to look. It is generally accepted that you don’t mix technologies in conduits, as doing so can make life difficult down the track.

        Easy, yes?

        • Yes, but power poles are for power, and they run a lot of other stuff on them too ;o)

          I just wanted to clarify they you weren’t meaning a short somewhere along the power cable would cause the fibre issues, your follow-up makes more sense.

    • > At some stage, someone will have to replace FTTN with FTTP, and using Skinny Fiber will immensely cut the costs.

      No, it won’t. Skinny fibre (FTTdp) is a shared loop. PON (FTTP) requires a passive splitter and a direct fibre from premise to splitter. There is *NO* simple upgrade from Skinny Fibre to PON. It is not a stepping stone towards FTTP.

      Meanwhile the fibre used in GPON – the technology Labor was deploying – is rated to 10Gbps today (XG-PON), 40Gbps next year (TWDM-PON), and 100Gbps in the near future. All using the *exact* same PON physical layer.

      • “Skinny Fibre” can be used in a PON network design – I think you need to re-read the LFN document Jason. They specifically trialed it in 2 Victorian Brownfields GPON/FTTP builds and it worked perfectly.

        • You have NFI what you’re talking about. Using G.Fast with a PON distribution is *NOT* what they’re talking about here.

          • Mate, you are conflating things and not understanding that Skinny Fibre can be used in multiple different scenarios to support different technology roll outs.

  10. People may bring up time and future requirements…

    ~30 years ago… computers had between amber/green monochrome, 4 colours(CGA), and maybe 16 colours depending on the system, KB to MB of RAM, cassette tapes for storage, floppy discs, or very small (MB) hard drives, running at 16MHz or below.
    20 years ago, sub 56.6k dial up internet was still a luxury charged per hour. LANs were still running 10Mbit coax networks, moving into UTP.
    10 years ago, ADSL2+ was introduced…. around the same time as Telstra announced FttN, then scrapped that idea. 1080p was high end.
    Now… FttP can do 1Gbit speeds. 4k TVs have been introduced. TV shows are streamed on demand in high res.

    Taking into consider the rapid changes in the technological sphere, where do you think things will end up in 10 years?

  11. Wouldn’t it be good if a set of business constraints and objectives were set at the start of the project, then both sides of politics gets the F*** out of the way and leaves NBN to do the implementation (including decisions) based on financial and technology basis.

    By having either side pushing and meddling, particularly on the technology side, all it does is force NBN into bad situations.

    • It does sound like old school bi-partisan politics…and the way it should be, for the betterment of all Aussies.

      Unfortunately however it seems the US style us vs. them approach has been adopted here too (thanks Abbott ) and “I am taking sides here” not due to politics per se` but because I support FTTP as the best outcome for all Aussies…

      When you have the Coalition government late 90’s calling the oppositions FTTN plan fraudband and offering a shitty alternative (ironically saying there’s will be quicker and cheaper) then when their foes, following expert advice introduce FTTP, they bag that too, only to then years later adopt and roll out the very FTTN they called fraudband, (many years earlier when it was still somewhat viable)… To me demonstrates that politicians in general are mostly pretty low, but the current (particularly Abbott era) crop of complete grubs are lower than I have ever witnessed.

      • Alas, while Abbott (& 2X too) used the US-style antagonistic model, he didn’t bring it over. I can’t remember Menzies using those tactics, but OTOH…

        Don Chipp founded the ADs with the concept of ameliorating the disease among other things, but the ADs were never influential enough, that comes from a permanent position astride the electric fence.

        Look on the bright side: at least we don’t have filibustering in Parliament–yet.

  12. Nice article Renai, thanks, BUT PLEASE… it’s a *premises*, a million *premises*, not every noun ending in ‘s’ is plural. Sorry, one of my pet hates :)

Comments are closed.