news Independent telecommunications consultant Paul Budde has said that defenders of multi-technology mix (MTM) are getting “more and more desperate” in their defence of the fibre to the node (FTTN) model used for the NBN.
Writing on his blog, in a post titled The Fibre Witch-Hunt, Budde said those supporting more fibre in the network – via fibre to the home (FTTH) and fibre to the distribution point (FTTdp) – are now labelled by MTM pronents as “zealots, theologians and scaremongers”.
By so doing, they are “toeing the political line drawn by the Coalition government”, he added.
The Coalition Government has a policy of rolling out the NBN via MTM, which employs both fibre and the existing copper and HFC cable networks, saying this adds flexibility and can prove more economical when used appropriately.
However, late last month, the NBN company strongly hinted that the Federal Government was blocking a switch to a Fibre to the Distribution Point (FTTdp) model, despite the fact that new revelations have shown the cost of that option is coming very close to that of the technically inferior FTTN incumbent model.
“While the Communications Minister is talking about the FTTH theologians, at the same time he only wants to discuss the MTM technology; so in that respect he is as dogmatic as he and his supporters claim the FTTH supporters are,” said Budde.
He stated that, rather than discussing the difference in technologies based on what Australia needs to advance in the digital world, the FTTN advocates have now turned to “name-calling of those with a different vision of the future”.
If innovation is such a “critical” issue for this government, Budde asked, what role do they envisage for the NBN?
“The very fact that even the Prime Minister doesn’t use the NBN as a spearhead in his very own innovation policies tells you something about what he thinks of his MTM NBN,” he said.
If Australia is really so poor as a nation that it can’t afford to get this national infrastructure right the first time, “let us at least have a plan that looks towards the future needs of the NBN”, he suggested.
Another issue is that technologies such as 5G will soon surpass the quality of the NBN and become a “serious threat” to the economic viability of the NBN, Budde said.
Similarly, the rapid deployment of fibre to the basement (FTTB) networks to multi-dwelling units around the country via an NBN “loophole”, also threatens its financial viability.
“Furthermore, the Communications Minister is basing the fact that MTM is good enough and FTTH/FTTdp is not needed because today people are not buying the higher-speed services to any great degree” he said. “If he is so short-sighted that he believes we are building the NBN for today then there is a huge question – why we are investing $56 billion in this project?”
Netflix has shown that one new application can “totally change the whole issue of what speeds are needed”, said Budde, adding: “Does the Minister believe there will be no more new innovations that will bring in another huge change to people’s NBN requirements? Why have an innovation policy if this is indeed the view of the government?”
The other major argument against the economic viability of the current NBN, Budde cites critics as saying, is the fact that the financial model of the NBN relies on charging higher prices for higher speeds.
With regulations are making it difficult for others to offer more competitive solutions for fixed high-speed broadband, the NBN “monopoly” allows the company to limit the use of the network by making higher quality services “too expensive for most people”, he continued.
“On the other side, lowering these prices undermines NBN’s financial model. So the company is between a rock and a hard place. For the record the core of this problem dates back to the previous government,” he said, adding: “These are all very serious issues …”
Budde concluded by suggesting that rather than changing the debate to “zealots and theologians”, the focus of those who are defending the MTM model should be a more “mature” discussion on the future of the NBN and its role.
Image credit: Paul Budde
We have seen plenty of that here…….Being labeled as “Fanboy” (implying ignorance and/or simpleminded) no matter how solid the reasoning or how powerful an argument is offensive…..
I was going to say, he must have spent some time in the comments section of Delimiter articles ;-)
I think it’s because the MTM folks “are no Bill Gates”…
On the flipside I’ve been labeled a “retrograde Liberal shill” for suggesting HFC and FTTdp weren’t that bad.
A bit harsh, even tho I disagree with some of your comments you don’t troll like Matthew and “reality” do.
Really? So being told my opinion of Morrow was because “my pony was taken away” and requests for why they believe Morrow was doing a good job replied to with “neigh” isn’t trolling?
It’s the exact sort of dismissive behaviour the this article is condeming.
@bt that’s all? You’re lucky.
Most ironic NBN story ever.
I can tell you a funnier one… about writing this shitty plan…
Nah Riz claiming FTTN is rolling out faster 30K premises in 7 months is pretty impressive
Welcome to the club. Nothing new there, verbally molesting anyone not implicitly in favor of the favourite of the month has been going on since ALP/Telstra bellyflopped NBN Mk I.
We used to get comment and participation with the likes of Bevan Slattery, Grahame Lynch & Simon Hackett. Whether their commentary was on the ball or not, getting insight from some of the well known people in the sphere of information and telecommunications was a privilege. And one by one they were pilloried out of the community, mostly for expressing one wrong opinion at one point in time.
I’m kinda surprised someone hasn’t jumped on Budde for suggesting 5G is a viable alternative to wired NBN of any flavour… X D
Well if you guys generically, didn’t come here with the typical Labor’s (note politics) FTTP was a wasteful, white elephant like the pink batts (note political commentary), delivering speeds no one will need (ditto), etc… FFS
Then go on to say, The Coalitions MTM (ditto) is a great improvement (totally ignoring the promised ready to go fully costed $29.5B plan for all by 2016 blown out by some 4 years and depending on who you believe, involved in MTM, as much as $40B) it’s much cheaper and faster and look at the speed we can get with g.fast and FttDp (yes the speeds you said no one will need) and which weren’t factored into the initial plan. Sure it’s ok to revise, in fact it’s silly not to where need be but be accountable for such revisions, which impinge upon faster/cheaper, the whole apparent reasoning for them choosing inferiority (they called FRAUDBAND) in the first place.
At some point the trade-off must hit home?
Add an endless array of contradictions to the speed spiels above, particularly from one… and sorry, but you just can’t be taken seriously.
So if you can’t even accept this occurs, I rest my case.
People who call FTTP a white elephant, I would go as far as to label evil.
It is the extreme opposite of a white elephant. In 2010, Alcatel-Lucent (a FTTN supplier) made reference to there being about 100 FTTP projects underway worldwide. Verizon and AT&T in the US as well as BT in the UK have stated their imminent transition to FTTP rollouts. SingTel in Singapore has a project underway to deliver universal FTTP. Renai pointed out the potential sale price by the government of an Australia-wide FTTP network to be “~$1 squillion.” Renai’s statement.
“People who call FTTP a white elephant, I would go as far as to label evil.”
They may not be evil, but they certainly have no idea what a white elephant actually is, and were just parroting the LNP party stance of the time. Opposition for opposition’s sake.
Exactly my point R
“Grahame Lynch & Simon Hackett”
They were “pilloried out of the community” for the exact behaviour Budde mentions. Lynch was very fond of attacking the man and not the argument. Hackett, once he accepted NBN Co’s offer, rather than discussing any with people as he had in the past, refused to discuss anything on a factual basis other than telling people they were idiots and wrong and promptly spat the dummy never to return.
No big loss, Hackett may in the past have discussed things in a civil fashion, but not now. Before NBN Co we had quite a number of email conversations over many days discussing the NBN, but that was while he was while he was with Internode and free to express his opinions with reasons why he has those opinions. Sorry, but “I’m right and your an idiot because I have more inside information than you” isn’t a discussion.
Not only that, anyone who bothered to read Simon’s “fibre on a copper budget” speech, found it laden with vested interest concepts and didnt actually achieve any significant savings.
@Orgasmo – the actual response has not been a popularity contest, but a reduction of the tolerance of foolish comments…sorry you took offense.
But Budde didn’t say that about 5G – are you putting words into his mouth?
Indeed Tim and these are the sorts of things these guys do and when questioned, sob personal attack (although to be fair I gave him a serve, the other day :)
But that brings up an interesting point.
When FttP was being rolled out, some of the now MTM supporters here used 5G as a continual point to argue over (yes not correspond, argue) as a technology which could/would render FttP obsolete (sure) and they then suggested rolling out a multi $b network was ridiculous …
This totally slipped my mind!
So using their logic and Budde’s comment, what does that do for the multi-$b MTM, which actually can be made obsolete by 5G?
Especially FTTN (which is probably already made obsolete by err, 3G anyway ;)
We’ll need more time to make a proper judgement on 5G, it isn’t even slated for a commercial trial till 2018.
It’ll be interesting to see how it handles the wireless contention issue with several thousand people using it.
We’ve got plenty of time Tin.
Just look at BT the bastion of FTTN, with their blinding roll out speeds who, as R0nin pointed out at another thread, “only took 7 years to pass premises throughout (most?) of the UK”, which is a little bigger than Vic”.
I guess we’ll need to wait for it’s commercial trial in 2018 to make a call on that.
Helps if you have the ability to comprehend what was actually written:
Yeah…. Reading comprehension isn’t part of their strong suit, I have begun wondering if org’asmo is just a Reality sock-puppet due to the lack of comprehension.
5G will supercede anything that doesn’t demolish it in data throughput, which is literally nothing other than fibre.
4G used to be the poster child for “The NBN will be destroyed by wireless” crew, but you only need to see how the network degraded on the “free” days to see it couldn’t cope with normal internet usage with all of Australia piled on.
Indeed Tin,
But to prove their disingenuousness, they no longer claim 4G wireless will destroy the “vastly inferior” FTTN based MTM…
The ironic part is the 4G wireless only will destroy FTTP spiel which had no merit whatsoever, was one of Mal’s pets back then. But now it actually has some merit in relation to Mal’s current shitty fixed plan.
Then the obvious minions here who used to repeat Mal’s spiel verbatim but no longer even give it a thought, wonder why they are called out for being ideologically biased?
My favourite story is the one about how my lecturer (with Telstra shares) tried to tell us all that wireless was the future. This was back before 4G was a thing. This was in a government subsidised Telecommunications Cabling course. You know, to train people for installing the NBN.
That’s the brilliant thing about the argument – there’s always a new G right around the corner. That argument never has to end.
Not by me, I happen to agree with you on HFC and FttDP.
TinMan, the guy’s inside nbn arent calling HFC “Operation Cluster Fuck” without reason – heck nbn couldnt even get 100/40 out of the steaming turd that is Optus HFC and that was after spending money upgrading it!
FTTdp is certainly a sensible compromise but imo the HFC networks should be abandoned, especially the Optus HFC network.
You may be right about the Optus network (I have no experience with it), but I have very few problems with my Telstra cable. There may be a few people with horror stories, but the overall system seems pretty robust (in my neck of the woods anyway, none of my neighbors have an issue with it either).
As a medium term upgrade, I think the plan with DOCSIS 3.1 is worthwhile, as it’d allow those in the HFC footprint to get fibre like speeds, and it’d allow nbn™ to get on with deploying (hopefully) FttDP where it’s needed elsewhere.
Telstra HFC works well atm because it’s only servicing around 30% of premises it passes with broadband.
I had it until July last year and like you thought highly of it, aside from it dying every time the power went out in the area.
I’d expect nbn™ to up the capacity if that becomes an issue.
For sure but Node-Splitting isnt all that cheap and the extra optical nodes all require fibre and power.
Sure, HFC is a “shared” medium, but much like if they ran into capacity issues somewhere else in the NBN, we’d all expect them to address it, and I’d expect that the upgrade wouldn’t cost as much as a new network being put in.
But like I said, I’m only viewing it as, at best, a medium term solution and not the end game (which would be either a two step process of either HFC->FttDP->FttP or HFC->FttP at some stage in the future).
HFC as a technology that a company who had already employed it for over a decade, then spending some money to upgrade it is ok – not great.
Buying 2 networks, spending a small fortune upgrading them, and attempting to manage to imply that it is in the same league as some thing like FttN is a bit much.
Indeed.
I have been pretty open to discussion, but being labelled a Fanboy, or being told I don’t “get” the financial stuff etc, is a bit frustrating.
I choose FTTP, not because of some insane belief in its godlike status, but rather because it is the best choice technically, and has the most readily apparent long term path. It’s also an industry standard and is being supported and improved constantly.
It also made sense Financially. Spend more now to save over a longer period. Sure short term it would be more expensive but that would be made up, and the performance was significantly greater than other solutions.
Paul Budde better have a good explanation to why he speaks the truth all the time…
Paul Budde making a lot of sense as per usual.
Well Turnbull did start by calling Conrovian and koolaid
In the absence of any sensible alternative plan, all they had was coining phrases. Sadly, that’s all they’ve been doing successfully since being elected, too.
Sorry Paul, but theological arguments will always win over over superior technological arguments. At least until the next election?
What a sick sad world we live in..
Logical arguments are a clear sign of fanboyism… So, naturally, you can just dismiss them.
I think Budde is a bit late in his realisations here.
We’ve known this for years, we already understand the desperation and the motivation of those that are scared of progress labeling everyone that supported the original NBN plan as “fibre zealot” etc. They are the same ones who espouse the “technology agnostic” line without understanding what it actually means.
hey are the same ones who espouse the “technology agnostic” line without understanding what it actually means
It means I can’t be bothered to educate myself? ????
The mtm lnp mob have always tied fibre zealots with alp zealots.. Which is not necessarily so. Most fibre supporters I know are not mixing politics in the debate. In fact they are in favor of fttp on a technological basis rather than a political basis.
However, it is obvious from reading the whirlpool forums , that the main supporters for mtm or fttn , are arguing purely on political affiliation.. IE lnp..
FTTN would of been OK 10-15 years ago.
But not in todays standards.
Show you how far behind we really are.
And sadly FTTN will keep us stagnated yet again.
It keeps the Telstra shareholders happy, with Telstra getting paid billions in maintenance fees for the copper and HFC they no longer have to deal with ;-)
It really shines a light on the whole situation and why certain people are so adamant about FTTN, look at their stock portfolios.
Sad and true,
You can certainly tell that Telstra didn’t put much of their hefty profits on maintenance on the copper network and HFC. And charge customers like wounded bulls for it.
How lucky is this country.
Not.
look at their stock portfolios.
You know all about everyone’s stock portfolios, how?
There are those on the NBN Co board known to have interests in Telstra, this has been brought up many times. Back under your bridge troll.
Not many people in Australia that don’t have a interest in Telstra if they have superannuation.
Was that a copy/paste from Mr Telstra Syd… ?
Because he literally said the exact same thing when OPEL got the WiMax deal…
Oh, I see, hi Syd? It all makes complete sense now.
You’re welcome
What can you expect when Telstra wasn’t de-monopolised (split up) 10 – 15 years ago?
We are so far behind that we don’t even have useful anti-trust legislation. I would expect the LibCo to be iffy on this, it’s only their life-blood, but Labor? And we note that the iconic private/free enterprise bastion of capitalism, being the USA, has broken up some of the largest and most powerful monopolies ever, going back at least to the early 70s.
> the iconic private/free enterprise bastion of capitalism, being the USA, has broken up some of the largest and most powerful monopolies ever, going back at least to the early 70s.
They only broke up a large National Monopoly into smaller Regional Monopolies, who have since re-merged into 2-3 National Monopolies who’s network coverage barely overlaps and does so only in the most profitable areas.
The US situation is arguably worse than ours apart from the stagnation of the past 20 years following Privatisation
Yep, they should have followed the UK model (BT/Openreach), not the US one. Which is what NBN Co was originally designed to do in a way, and where they avoided the issue the UK has with BT still owning Openreach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openreach
So why would anything be different if Telstra was split up 10-15 years ago?
I assume you mean structurally separated, at present they are operationally separated, by a Coalition Government in 2005.
Labor said they would structurally separate Telstra 2007-13, they never did.
“Labor said they would structurally separate Telstra 2007-13, they never did.”
You’re correct, they should have.
“Labor said they would structurally separate Telstra 2007-13, they never did.”
Once again the incessant politics lol…Labor didn’t/Coalition did.. ooh!
You do understand, once FTTP created an even playing field by eliminating the Telstra wholesaler/retailer scenario and finally prising Telstra’s fingers from around Australia’s comms neck, the necessity of separation wasn’t quite as important?
No? Thought not
You’re welcome.
Nope nope nope devoid fails again
“at present they are operationally separated, by a Coalition Government in 2005.”
So after 9 years as you claim they still haven’t wow
https://delimiter.com.au/2014/05/27/telstra-still-abusing-monopoly-powers-warns-accc/
They still haven’t wow what ? – you left it hanging, deliberate of course
Now children this is what clutching at straws looks like.
Kepping trying the detours devoid
Labor didn’t need to once NBN Co was created, but feel free to have the retention span of a peanut…
Oh so you don’t support the structural separation of Telstra then, glad we got that sorted.
Lol devoid Telstra still isn’t operation separated
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/telstra-staff-systems-errors-expose-wholesale-data-418196
That has nothing to do with the fact Telstra is operationally separated.
If you read the article it is about the 2012 structural separation undertaking, the SSU, not the Operational Separation.
Breaches of the SSU are being dealt with by the ACCC, as they should be.
Lol sorry devoid forgot to put pictures in it if your read the article the while us still leaking info to the retail
Under Labor, no, they had it sorted in an even better way.
Under the LPA? Hell yeah, they couldn’t even manage a chook raffle…I’m sure they’ll find new and innovate ways to screw even that up.
FttN as a technology is not necessarily a bad thing.
FttN as an upgrade path for a company with a copper network makes sense.
Buying a copper network to remove a monopoly, then upgrading it to FttN does not.
The NBN obtained the copper for the same price Labor were paying Telstra to shut it down, it had nothing to do with removing the Telstra monopoly but everything to do with along with obtaining the HFC infrastructure as the most cost effective option instead of overbuilding it with expensive FTTP.
Once upon a time…
Without factoring $B’s in OPEX, replacement HFC, upgrades, etc, as you always do, you also again also forgot to mention that…
FttN is FRAUDBAND (the Coalitions own name) and HFC is (your word) FAILED.
Fixed that for you, also for the umpteenth time.
You’re welcome.
Nope.
Original Plan, Pay for use of pits and to stop using copper. Replace with better technology, lower opex, remove monopoly from private entity. Leave costs of removal of infrastructure with private entity.
New plan, pay for ownership of the copper, Reuse copper at a cost almost as high as replacing with new technology, higher opex, take on costs of removal of infrastructure.
Quite a few differences there. Being that the biggest cost of the Copper was the cost of maintenance.
The different between the deals is Labor didn’t want the copper is they didn’t want to pick up the maintenance tab…
“The NBN obtained the copper for the same price Labor were paying”
Still trotting out this obvious falsehood? Oh Alain, when WILL you stop embarrassing yourself?
Can’t really disagree with anything hes said.
And the FttN approach really is a waste of “up to” $56+b dollars of investment.
If anyone has been watching what Elon Musk has been up to lately, they’ll have noticed he’s planning on launching 4,000 LEO broadband satellites ( http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-seattle-plant-to-build-4000-broadband-satellites/ ).
And his latest success? http://www.space.com/31420-spacex-rocket-landing-success.html
So he’ll be able to cut the cost of launching the satellites by a factor of 100
So, he’ll have 4,000 satellites in LEO, so the latency issues Sky Muster has from being parked in a GSO won’t affect them, and the cost of a setup will be between $100 to $300 USD.
FttN will have no hope, as it won’t offer any benefit over that many LEO satellites, it’s only FttP/FttDP that would offer a benefit (higher speeds and immunity to weather conditions).
Sorry Tinman, but even that many satellites won’t be a solution.
“So 90 percent of people’s local access will still come from fiber but we’ll do about 10 percent business to consumers directly, and more than half of the long-distance traffic.” – See more at: http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-seattle-plant-to-build-4000-broadband-satellites/#sthash.Bf2Qujae.dpuf
Thats the link I posted Paul, I know what it said ;o)
Elon didn’t think they’d have the demand for his Model 3 either, so he doesn’t always get that part of it right.
And dropping the ping time from ~500ms (for a GSO) to ~80ms (for a LEO) is pretty attractive for the setup price…
80ms, while not fantastic by today’s standards, is definitely usable.
Didn’t Malcolm start the ‘fibre zealot’ moniker back in 2013? I believe he was using ‘NBN fanboy’ at least two years earlier than that, too. From the man that claimed he wanted a discussion and debate based on facts… I guess Paul’s been too busy to notice for five years ;-)
pretty much, he is right that the MtM loonies have gotten more shrill lately as their copper fantasy has unraveled, as we all predicted it would.
Its funny though they don’t use MTM terribly much anymore since the wider group of ‘zealots’ coined its real meaning!
Malcolm Turnbull Mess! It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
As was foretold :)
It’s pretty easy weigh up technology on a factual/logical basis, but choosing technology based on politics? Debacle/disaster/deficit waiting to happen…
How can the MTM be justified without “fibre zealot”.
Didn’t you follow the debate that Malcolm says happened before he switch to MTM.
You know, the one where everyone pointed out the benefits of FTTH over FTTN and all the problems that would, and since have happened with FTTN. The debate was settle with by the claims of Turnbull, Lynch and Brown, that everyone who didn’t agree with them were fibre zealots. I resounding victory that one.
Based off what I’ve seen and read people on both sides of the argument are acting little better. I agree there needs to be a more mature discussion, but both sides need to calm down considerably for that to happen.
I do totally agree with Paul’s point that the nbn was setup to fix certain problem(s). We need to be having the discussion now on does the current approach still fix those problems with the best outcomes for tax payers (us).
In my mind there are two big issues that need to be fixed. First is the need for a more level playing field for small-mid sized ISPs. Arguably we have less ISPs now (so less actual competition) then we did pre-NBN which is a bad outcome for us as consumers. Second is we need to do more to encourage infrastructure level competition & the nbn should form a big part of that. Allowing people to compete on infrastructure and technology is in general good (i.e. Google Fiber).
Without fixing those things we are unlikely to get to the same level as other countries. Sadly all the arguments to date have been MTM vs FTTH which in my mind is a second or third order issue.
Infrastructure competition is simply not viable in this country in the Telco realm. Returns are too low at the wholesale level compared to things like mobile. If it was we’d have had it before now.
Who is going to invest in such a low return field? If you say TPG and FttB well they’re cherry picking all the profitable hotspots and leaving the rest to flounder. That’s not competition, and if it is its a serious detriment to Australians as all it will do is create the haves and have nots.
Not just telco, other realms as well. We don’t have multiple power lines, water or sewage either.
I really think they (the Expert Panel, not Labor) got that part of the NBN right, put in the best transport medium and “sub lease” it to the RSP’s just makes the most sense.
Why waste money duplicating infrastructure? You’re just destroying capital…
+1
For me, bypassing the FttN and FttDP levels creates an environment that just stops wasting infrastructure development. You can develop copper as much as you want, but the reality is that it can never match what can be done with fibre optic, so anything you develop is just trying to hold the tide back.
Get beyond that, and start developing fibre infrastructure to the same level, and get IT working for the next hundred years.
Copper has been the exact same approach through dialup, ADSL, and ADSL2, and its those exchange level developments that have made better and better use of the copper, not the line itself.
So now we should be looking at that next level of delivery, and doing the same thing as they did when they developed ADSL. Finding ways to make FttP better, not ways to make copper better.
Its just insane to waste money on something that has no future.
“You can develop copper as much as you want, but the reality is that it can never match what can be done with fibre optic, so anything you develop is just trying to hold the tide back”
This is exactly it. G.Fast, XG.Fast, DOCSIS 3.1, they’re all being developed to eek the last drops of blood out of their respective technologies.
Talking about those improvements then ignoring the fact that Fibre can do everything those improvements do already, and more, over longer distances… is just stupid.
But R0ninX3ph you forgot about the development of SuperXtraXG.Fasterer. Works over 1m copper lengths and is also “technology agnostic” Coalition clowns were right you don’t need FttP.
You have to keep in mind, these technologies are just meant as a stop gap measure, not a permanent thing. As HC points out, the trade off with the whatever.fast tech is they work on shorter and shorter lengths of copper. Using XG.fast you can only get 1Gbps within 100 meters of the node, so it’ll only be a handful of houses that’ll be in the “lucky zone”.
FttN really is a stupid waste of capital…
‘Using XG.fast you can only get 1Gbps within 100 meters of the node, so it’ll only be a handful of houses that’ll be in the “lucky zone”.’
Hmm… how do you break that down? Assuming a house frontage of 14m, thats 7 in a straight line, so 14 if you cover both directions. Its fair to assume the other side of the street would use that node, so double it again to 28.
Put it on a corner, you might double it again, so 56 houses. Thats pretty much the best possible outcome without considering MDU’s.
Make it a round 50 houses, with 10 million across Australia, and its 200,000 nodes. That need to be independantly powered and maintained.
That aint cheap by any measure, so even MORE money wasted on a stopgap solution.
NOTHING about anything short of FTTdp makes financial sense.
My understanding of the design of the FttN section of NBN, is that they will have copper runs up to 1Km long?
So, only around 10% of the people hanging off a node will be able to get the full benefit of X(g).fast (I’m talking about FttN here, not FttDP which won’t have that issue as the “node” is right out front of your house).
Was breaking it down to the potential of everyone getting those speeds. 100m loop to deliver that speed, you need a hell of a lot of nodes.
But if its tried with FttN and you arent in that range, how quickly does the speed drop off? What are the speeds at 200m or 300m? Or the potential 1km?
They talk about the best case scenarios, but as you point out, most people wont be in the best case scenario. So what are the worst case connections on the planned distances?
Like ADSL2 where speeds drop off after a km or so, its going to happen here as well for exactly the same reasons, so how bad is it?
By 250m it drops to 150 Mbit/s
It makes a lot more sense to use it for FttDP, as wikipedia points out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.fast
I still prefer FttP, but have moved on to thinking FttDP isnt a bad option, for a number of reasons. This speed issue is just one of them, but primarily, it reduces the copper loop to a small enough distance it delivers, and is easily upgradable for the consumer.
Just an FYI, but if the loop is 1km, and the XG.fast only delivers speeds for 100m, isnt it more like 1% that will benefit, not 10%? The radius from the node will cover roughly a circle, not a straight line, so its an area that is relevant.
100m circle is roughly 30,000 sqm, while 1000m circle is roughly 3 million. Obviously not going to be a perfect circle, but you get the drift.
Just saying the problem is worse.
You are probably right about the circle thing, I was thinking in straight lines running up the street, but that would only apply in certain situations, and the circle scenario would be more typical.
The other bonus to FttDP which really won me over is it’s far, far cheaper for a full fibre rollout/upgrade later, so a FttDP build isn’t wasted capital like FttN will be.
Yeah the cost to upgrade is one of the things thats sold me on FttDP as well. It brings that last mile cost down to something like a new phone service in terms of cost, which is a reasonable cost to the homeowner.
The thousands its expected to cost from the FttN node to the home isnt.
It just makes sense to build FttDP, if they arent going to build FttP. Instead, we have idiots with agendas that are convinced otherwise.
I have my FttP, I dont really give a shit from a personal perspective, but it doesnt mean I dont still have an opinion on whats going to be a waste of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, and a waste for a number of reasons.
Those that think otherwise can go screw themselves. They are wrong.
Any opinion that espouses that a (best case) $46b FTTN rollout was somehow a better investment than a ~$45b FTTP rollout can safely be laughed at. And since the case for MTM has only gotten steadily worse over the last 3 years anybody still in support of it can only be thought of as a clown.
There is simply no room for any other viewpoint to sneak into this discussion any longer.
Now, a new technology such as FTTdp on the other hand… THAT changes the discussion. Not by much, and to no avail going by the current political climate, but the potential for rational converse is at least there.
Reading through, I’m not sure where you’re heading with this.
Firstly, infrastructure level competition is why we’re in this mess in the first place. ISP’s dragged their feet over and over and werent competing, to the point the Govt stepped in to push things along. Then basically got slapped in the face by the biggest players in the game. Nobody wanted to pay for fibre.
That was how NBN started, so to think we need to get back there is risking those same things happening again. That doesnt mean competition cant happen, more that if you stick with copper we’ll see the same behaviour again, with none of the ISP’s stepping up to cover the last mile cost, where real competition can begin. Instead we risk seeing the same self serving behaviour we saw with ADSL2 and HFC, with no actual competition beyond cherrypicking markets.
Secondly, small-mid sized ISP’s is a hazy concept. There are still plenty out there, and while there ARE less ISP’s than before, there is also one very big one now with TPG that (for better or worse) can stand up to Telstra and Optus.
The issues that made it hard for those mid level ISP’s can also be addressed, but its going to take Govt intervention. Until that happens (and it looks like it will), its moot to discuss it. After it happens, its up to the ISP’s to compete.
Personally, for the next 5-10 years there shouldnt be a great level of competition anyway, unfortunately. With a broadly equal connection, differentiation becomes harder, and comes down to value added services. And thats going to be tough.
How can a mid range ISP compete with a large ISP that has Netflix, Stan, Foxtel, or similar to call on as part of a packaged deal? Its going to be difficult for any of them to compete with that, and that would have been the situation regardless of ISP costs.
Observing there are more important things to be discussed than FTTP vs MTM.
Arguably we are in this mess in the first place due to the government handling of Telstra & overall regulatory environment. Those in turn limited opportunities for infrastructure competition. Where environments where appropriate, things did improve & arguably start to flourish (i.e. ADSL2+ rollout in Australia).
There were many ways to fix the problem – the solution adopted in nbn was only one of them. I have two main concerns with the nbn model as being deployed. First is it favours the top end of town – if anything it puts Telstra even further out front. Second is it doesn’t offer sufficient incentives (at least in my mind) for providers to deliver actual superfast services – the AVC / CVC model means that higher priced services aren’t economic for providers to deliver.
Yeah, the AVC/CVC model needs work, not many would argue against that. But for now, its enough. Right NOW theres no need for 1 Gbps for most people, so the issues those costs create dont really have relevance yet.
And it can be changed easily enough, its just words on paper, but its not up to the ISP’s, they have zero control over it. I expect that will happen as needs increase regardless. The base level speeds, as they go up, will maintain a similar price. They always have.
As for solutions, I thought the FttP model was the most aggressive and future proof of the lot, squarely to solve a lot of the problems you list. Namely, too much power with Telstra.
What it does is put everyone, including Telstra, on equal footing, and gives true competition with infrastructure. That competition needs to be in the exchanges, not in the wiring, and while there are different levels of infrastructure, you always have ISP’s playing catchup.
A full fibre network puts us at the forefront of the world, and lets us compete in ways we can sell to other countries. Isnt that an outcome we all want?
Indeed. Our LPA government totally screwed up (as usual) and should have followed the method the UK government used with BT and split the retail and wholesale sections off on their own.
LPA government? it was Labor who said they would structurally separate Telstra and for six years they just talked about it, you are blaming the wrong political party.
Full marks to the Coalition government for at least operationally separating Telstra in 2005, oh yeah you ‘forgot’ about that.
So when Howard sold it, and kept them together for purely dollar purposes, theres no blame?
Screw you alain. Now you’re just rewriting history to suit yourself.
You’re a laughing stock, if only for this single wonderful view into your thinking.
Yes most MtM bashers hate what actually happened as distinct from biased speculation being stated.
Most MTM fanboys keep making excuses as to what was claimed as to what is acutely happening.
Let’s see
pre election said it would use HFC lol.
A cost blowout of $27B in 2 years without building anything oh wait “revised”.
A 25Mbps by 2016 to all now 2020 askrd who said it now oh wait “revised”.
A missed original target of over 75% claimed it was made up now oh wait you guessed it “revised”.
With the up to $15B blowout the fault of FTTP because it cost has cone down while FTTN and HFC cost has increased.
Yes, full marks for a “operationally separating Telstra” that still gets hauled off to the ACCC almost every year because they abused one or another of their monopoly positions… yay /WavesLPAflag
Yay indeed, but you said the the creation of the NBN Co means that it has virtually had the same effect of a structural separation.
So what do you want to reign in Telstra’s market dominance?
It’s taken quite sometime for it to resurface but I see your second one-eyed, fav, wonder boys Telstra, are again being defended too, Syd (whoops alain)…
Oh it just gets better as in funnier…
You’re welcome.
Get it right son, we aren’t MtM bashers (even the Labor NBN was MtM using FttP, FW and Sat), we’re FttN bashers (because FttN is a waste of money and crap).
+1
I guess you haven’t noticed, but the NBN isn’t actually finished yet…
“Labor didn’t separate Telstra, so it’s Labors fault that the Liberals fucked up the privatisation of Telecom”
Yup.
“This is exactly it. G.Fast, XG.Fast, DOCSIS 3.1, they’re all being developed to eek the last drops of blood out of their respective technologies.”
So Bell Labs are closing then? I didn’t catch that article – can you link it please?
Are you trying to claim that they aren’t being designed by companies/people with vested interests in getting as much further life out of their assets as possible?
Fibre already beats all speeds capable over all three of those technologies, it isn’t as if Fibre research has stopped in favour of copper research, copper research is only occurring for companies who have assets to get as much additional time out of said assets as they can.
But… Nice strawman.
Yes that’s why it is entirely suitable for two key NBN assets, copper and HFC.
Strawman not.
xg.fast isn’t the saviour of FttN you think it is…
DOCSIS 3.1 is viable to get another 10-15 years out of the HFC however.
Lol 2 suitable key assets that blowout the cost by up to $27B lol
Congratulations on not reading what I wrote Reality. Thanks.
Moron.
G.Fast/XG.Fast and DOCSIS 3.1 have been developed to stretch and wring as much life from legacy systems as possible before inevitable upgrades to Fibre are required.
Fibre can already handle magnitudes more bandwidth than any of those options. Without even mentioning that XG.Fast is still only in lab testing. Using even shorter copper runs than are feasible in a FTTN build.
As we have told you many times, G.Fast is not the saviour of FTTN, but is perfectly placed to be utilised with FTTdp, and NOT FTTN as copper runs with FTTN are too long in Australia. Averages of 800-1200m, G.Fast quickly drops down to only 150Mbit at 250M copper length.
BUT… This all just goes to show, while you fucking libtrolls keep harping on and on and on and on about how we don’t need speeds faster than what VDSL can provide, you will undoubtedly show up to harp on and on and on and on about how other technologies will bring these miraculous speeds to copper and HFC.
Speeds you keep harping on about we don’t need. Speeds that your fabled CBA claims we don’t need, 15Mbit by 2023, right?
For once in your fucking life Reality, answer this question:
“Why are we building a network capable of even 25Mbit, when we only need 15Mbit in 2023?”
FAILED (your word) HFC and FRAUDBAND…
There fixed that for you, alain.
You’re welcome.
Ronin,
It’s quite simple, you said that ‘copper research is only occurring for companies who have assets to get as much additional time out of said assets as they can.’
The NBN Co have copper assets, so it is smart to get as much additional time out of it as they can, the same would apply to HFC.
So looking forward to the future to implement G.fast and DOCSIS 3.1 is exactly what you would expect them to do.
Precisely. But Ronin-wrong will never accept that. So I encourage you to fight the good sensible fight when it suits, but let him rant away whilst taking a break and sexing your wife or drinking a beer – as the guy will never ever quit and no argument will ever silence him.
You are ignoring the fact the copper loops are too long for G.Fast again.
G.Fast drops to 150Mbit at 250m copper lengths. With average copper loops of 800-1200m, that is a tad longer than 250m…. right? XG.Fast suffers from degredation even more than G.Fast does, dropping to around 1Gbit at around 100m (in lab testing with perfect brand new copper with no bridge taps or damage from being in real world environs for decades…)
I will happily admit DOCSIS 3.1 will give the HFC portion of the NBN a longer lifespan, which is why I, like tinman, believe HFC is a good medium term option. WHICH IS WHY I SUPPORT SCENARIO 4 BTW…
G.Fast is not going to be the saviour you want it to be on FTTN, and claiming it is, is ridiculous.
Once again I will ask:
“Why are we building a network capable of even 25Mbit, when we only need 15Mbit in 2023?”
“Why are we building a network capable of even 25Mbit, when we only need 15Mbit in 2023?”
Because the NBN is a upgrade to existing infrastructure using a MtM mix appropriate for a given area with minimum speeds, not sure what you mean by the 2023 and 15Mbit comment.
Unless you are advocating going really cheap and punting for more Telstra sub exchanges putting ADSL2+ DSLAM’s closer to residences.
:)
The MTM was designed based around the CBA, that claimed that households will only require 15Mbit in 2023, thus the entire basis of the network design was built on that one complete underestimation.
Households now want that speed, and we are supposed to believe that they won’t want any bandwidth increases in 7 years from now?
Or, have you wiped the CBA from your memory?
R0ninX3ph,
The MTM was designed based around the CBA, that claimed that households will only require 15Mbit in 2023, thus the entire basis of the network design was built on that one complete underestimation.
Your are confused (again) about that having anything to do with the network design, you are referring to this.
How much speed will we need in 2023?
Which said:
The myth
Example follows: “A recent government funded report about future broadband demand in Australia contends by 2023 the typical household will need an Internet connection running at just 15 megabits per second.”
This is only one example of many but is absolutely, without question, false.
……..
To make it crystal clear that the authors of the original report did not consider 15 Mbps would be a sufficient speed for the NBN in 2023, and that they were not trying to suggest that it was
http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/industry/how-much-speed-will-we-need-in-2023.html
I will let you read all of it yourself.
Budde’s absolutely right as shown right here. You are getting more and more desperate there alain …lol
Resorting to those old tricks of yore of your’s (like that?)…
Not only have you restarted defending Telstra (I was wondering how long you’d bite your tongue) and out of the blue, I see you’ve also reintroduced the Hyde to your Jekyll, again.
There’s a blast from the past.
PRICELESS.
You’re welcome.
lol, Ronin’s disappeared after that one, jeez I wonder why?
Time for the old 24/7 gap filler to insert some OT diversionary rubbish as usual.
So the all important CBA is wrong devoid the CBA that claims MTM is better than fibre. But thanks for pointing that out.
What, so R0nin didn’t reply to you “ONCE?”
No, really, “ONCE”?
And you pige… strut around and knock over all of the pieces… ROFLMFAO
Well alain… if he doesn’t respond to you about 50 more times, he will have caught up you (the king of non-replies) not replying to him.
Then times that by 10 (so a crate of gap filler) for what you owe me.
You’re welcome.
Wow, I’m not allowed to have a weekend with my wife in another prefecture without replying to Reality’s ludicrous response?
Kay.
Reality, why the fuck would I believe a PR response that says “Nah we totes didn’t build our plan based on the CBA that we previously lauded”
Oh so you read that NBN site link and went ‘oh shit’ eh?
Here is the pertinent bit in case you blinked.
To make it crystal clear that the authors of the original report did not consider 15 Mbps would be a sufficient speed for the NBN in 2023, and that they were not trying to suggest that it was
I repeat, I don’t believe PR releases from NBN Co.
You choose to believe it, I choose to remain skeptical of what they say.
You expect them to anything other than denying they took bad advice?
R0nin, he only believes the Propaganda from nbn because he recognises a bunch of fellow Libtroll’s!
Would that be the same CBA that found Quigley’s FTTP figures were on the money, so to speak, R0nin?
Yes I believe it was, which is why most of the Coalition copper crusaders have pretty much distanced themselves from the “must have CBA”.
But I suppose with MTM in total disarray, even a PR spiel from Karina relating to the CBA has something they can cling to. It sorta reminded me of a PR promo from Rod or Dr Phil on Now we are Talking some ten tears ago…ROFL
You.. don’t know what a strawman is do you?
R0ninX3ph (nice name btw, you 12 years old or something?) I’m pointing out that your “last drops” statement is nonsense. Bell labs will continue to innovate more technology that extracts performance out of copper so the idea that what is available now is it, is just plain WRONG.
How about renaming yourself to Mr Wrongly Wrongson. Or Mr Wrongly Straw since you love the word straw and throw it all over the internet like it’s the most adhesive label ever.
Each “innovation” they have come with for copper, has involved shorter and shorter copper loops. I never claimed that these innovations are the end to copper innovation, just that Fibre innovation is continuing at the same time, and Fibre will ALWAYS beat copper, as you need to continue shortening the copper loop to extract more speed out of it.
But lets ignore that, because you can’t argue it away…. So best to ignore it and talk about the amazing speeds over copper that we have been told we don’t need.
Won’t even touch the ad hominem you’re throwing out at the start there. :-)
“Fibre will ALWAYS beat copper”
Wrong. If copper is in the ground already then fibre clearly loses by omission.
Fibre is good for backhaul and longhaul yes, but copper is excellent for going from your house to the roadside node – not better, just excellent, because excellent = doing the job it needs to do without new stuff being thrust this way and that way.
Sure, but I was talking from a technical standpoint. Fibre in like for like testing, will outperform copper over the same distances.
I also fully support the use of FTTdp, using G.Fast over the copper loop from the distribution point to the home. Thus giving premises great speeds, sooner.
Which if you are talking about going from your house to the “roadside node” it certainly sounds like you’re talking about FTTdp and not the FTTN rollout being performed in Australia.
You still aren’t addressing the issue of copper lengths with FTTN and claiming that G.Fast can be utilised with copper lengths of 800-1200m.
So verson which already has done FTTN are now going back and replacing it with FTTP is a lost by omission
Were you doing Pilates when you typed that?
@John Doe
“Wrong. If copper is in the ground already then fibre clearly loses by omission. ”
Only if you own it already. If you buy or install one that’s somewhat silly given installing fibre has well a lifespan people can’t put a number on.
Laws of Physic’s however mean coppers only capable of so much before the distance shrinks to 0.
“Wrong. If copper is in the ground already then fibre clearly loses by omission.”
Then how do you explain the fact that reusing the copper for FTTN has now cost the nation up to $11b MORE than if fibre were laid to 93% of premises? And counting…
Yes, no doubt they are working out how to word the release that they can now do 1Tbps…..over 5m!
So devoid are you saying it or is the NBN saying the CBA is wrong. The document that Turnbull kepted in going on about that it needed.
Look, finish the Pilates session then respond.
Sorry devoid your not making any sense but then you never really did
You mean the Bell Labs thats now owned by Nokia?
and the Bell labs who invented the laser and optical fibre communications.
Yes indeed and the MtM makes hefty use of fibre as well, that’s good isn’t it?
Indeed, I agree that it uses more fibre. Unfortunately, it’s about the worst way possible to use more fibre.
The irony of a FTTP zealot, who recently then said FTTdp should be supported, calling others who are technology objective (the clue if in the name – *Multi* Technology Mix) zealots is quite entertaining.
People who’ve said MTM only equals FTTN (Renai and Paul Budde for starters) are only doing so to create an enemy for their FTTP zealotry.
The irony of someone calling others fibre zealots… speaking of entertaining.
Then more entertainment and as Budde said, desperation. FtttDp was NOT (still isn’t AFAIK) ever part of the original MTM plan nor was FttB…
Unlike you guys who are negative about the best option but support the worst option? We of course would welcome any improvement over shitty FttN… with FttP being the obvious way to go… Got it now?
But you don’t just keep adding to your already blown out, cheaper fully costed $29.5B plan for all by 2016 with costly add ons and then say… nope, nope, nope – “multi”. That was just a name for the Coalition’s plan which they changed because they were no longer positive FRAUDBAND was their wisest choice of monikers (but as we can see it was)…
You do realise as each better tech is used and fibre is taken closer to the premises (gasp) up goes the price? Well that’s what the FTTN fans have been arguing from day one in relation to FttP, haven’t you?
With each step closer to the (theres that P word again) premises, it therefore negates the so called cheaper.
But I do love the way all of you guys love your contradictions and each way bets. You all said we don’t need better than FttN anyone who wants better can pay for their own. So you were happy for the government to spend many $10’s of B’s to supply you FttN but not spend to supply everyone including you FttP… Que?
Also the same claim, we don’t need better than FttN. But now you welcome the wth open arms FttB and FttDp as if your long lost siblings… FFS
With blow outs now in the many, many, many, $10’s of B’s…and a recognition that FttB and FttDp, which were never factored may be needed after all…
When will you blokes admit you were supporting retrograde FTTN technology, which isn’t good enough (as FttB is & FttDp at additional costs may be required) and as Budde said, stop toeing the party line and also just admit, as the cooper gets closer and closer to the P… it was DUMB to not have kept FttP rolling out?
Just to clarify, although never initially factored, yes I do realise FttB was actually introduced about a year ago…as such I didn’t word the second line second last paragraph too well.
Even so it was a brilliant post Rizz +1
lol, only a 1?
Your comment is invalid…
You’re welcome
His comment is actually retarded.
Retvalid.
Thanks hotcakes new name I can use for him
Not true, they do so because they see FttN for what it actually is, not “fit for purpose”* and the destruction of capital.
* fit for purpose means being able to be used in 50 years time.
*fit for purpose
You don’t get to define fit for purpose by plucking random figures out of the air.
Neither do you.
I was being generous by saying 50 years, Malcolm and nbn™ think it’s only around 20…
20? Wasn’t Ziggy saying it would have to be upgraded around 5 years after completion?
You both need to work a lot harder to get the overwhelming majority off 12/1, 25/5 first.
Latest figures have FTTP 100/40 figures falling yet again.
oh dear.
Which is nothing at all to do with people being unable to get 100Mbit… at all.
Because you have surveyed all those on FTTN and determined they have all chosen 25Mbit because of what they need, and not at all because of what they actually receive on their line.
You first.
Why is the takeup/activation rate for FttP 52.69%, while FttB/N it’s only 5.37% (Source: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/nbn-half-year-financial-results-2016-report.pdf)
Latest figures have FttB/N activation rates failing yet again.
Oh my!
R0ninX3ph,
I didn’t say FTTN, start again.
Yes, Ziggy did say that. I was being generous ones again.
I figured it’d cut down on the Reality spin cycle if I cut him some slack, and it still makes my point.
Have you ever read the disclaimers littered through CP16 R0ninX3ph?
Some of them are hilarious, like this one:
So the best assumptions they have is from the discredited SR 3 years prior to the FttN rollout lol
“R0ninX3ph,
I didn’t say FTTN, start again.”
Right, so falling speeds being ordered as FTTN ramps up, is 100% only people on FTTP dropping their speed by choice, and couldn’t ever be those new customers on FTTN being unable to obtain higher speeds due to their copper. Got it.
Thanks.
“So the best assumptions they have is from the discredited SR 3 years prior to the FttN rollout lol”
And the LibTrolls claim we’re the ones “stuck in the past”….
Tinman_au,
So the best assumptions they have is from the discredited SR
There you go at it again, you don’t get to define what is ‘discredited’, because of what ‘gut feel’?
Tinman_au,
Why is the takeup/activation rate for FttP 52.69%, while FttB/N it’s only 5.37% (Source:
Look at least make it somewhat difficult to respond, you keep handing out gifts.
FTTP has been rolling out since 2010, FTTN was commercially released September 2015.
Devoid if your going to claim 2010 for FTTP you would have no problems than of us claiming 2013 start of the MTM
You can if you like, as long as I can use 2007 as the start of FTTP.
Sound fair?
Lol devoid I didn’t know labor was doing FTTP in 2007.
Oh wait wasn’t it called fraudband that same fraudband that the coalition went to the election in 2013. That fraudband you now support.
Another blink-blink moment eh Rizz? not interested in fair, never have been never will.
Lol devoid blink blink no you not interested in fair are you when you keep changing the goal post so when was the first retail rollout of FTTP?
@ Syd (whoops alain),
WTF are you on dude…?
I want some.
You’re welcome.
Yes you did, you’ve argued many times that FttB = FttN…
It’s worse than that R0, only ~5% of folks on FttB/N are even bothering to sign up, according to the latest NBN financial report…
You don’t get to define what is and isn’t either. I’m going off the multi-party senate committee and independent experts, what are you going off?
Peanut…
Which has what bearing at all?
Back when FttP was being rolled out, the take up rate was 44%, it’s only dropped recently thanks to the weak FttB/N portion. (source: https://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/18/huge-100mbps-demand-44-of-nbn-users-take-top-speed/)
Speaking of which, you never, ever, provide a source for your guesses/conjecture, kindly start providing some if you wish to be included in the conversation in the future, otherwise, you are just full of shit. I’m perfectly happy to have a discussion with you (possible one of the only ones here), but you need to start backing up your assumptions with some facts.
Sure, if you can stomach the original float of FttN as being 2003 which was when the idea was actually originally floated by John Howard.
Sound fair?
@ alain
“You both need to work a lot harder to get the overwhelming majority off 12/1, 25/5 first.”
WRONG… at least you are very consistent. It’s not even a majority let alone an overwhelming one.
The majority (as we did the figures with Mathew only days ago) are on 25mbps – 100mbps
You’re welcome.
78% on 12/1 and 25/5 is not a majority is it?
ok
Isn’t that then broken up into ~65% on 25Mbit and ~13% on 12?
So actually, the majority is 87% on 25Mbit or higher.
Anyone can twist and play with statistics to make anything look the way they want.
You are proving nothing.
R0nin, lets not forget that 12/1 was designed for Voice only services and so doesnt actually count towards BB usage stats.
So that makes his argument null and void. (which is normal anyway)
You could call FTTN and Coalition MtM bashing a ‘witch hunt’ and supporters of FTTP getting more and more desperate as the chances of a FTTP resurrection dim with every passing comment on the NBN from Labor.
It depends on your agenda.
Or alain, you could do something which you never seem able (even in your meagre four lines above) and take the political parties out of one’s analysis, weigh the facts and come up with a weighted Apolitical stance, which would be best for all Australians not a political party’s aspirations.
So as you have actually called us Coalition MTM bashers and claim anyone who calls people such names is on an agenda (wink)…
Thanks finally for the frankness of the admission of you being here on such an agenda (wink). But we all knew, well after all, it’s the worst kept secret at Delimiter.
Devoid can you please stop making things up
it’s all he’s got, it must be tough being on the wrong side of a black and white technical & economic argument … I hope the IPA is compensating him poorly just to rub salt into the wounds…
Doh, who am I kidding, devoid is delusional and see’s himself as a “heroic lone crusader”!
@alternate – “as the chances of a FTTP resurrection dim”
This is where you go furthest off the rails and into another wormhole…I imagine everyone here understands that FTTP is the only possible end game. Even Turnbull realizes that…
The question is how long and how much money will be wasted in the meantime.
This is why you get all the derisive comments, your posts make very little sense.
+1
Exactly Chas. It’s not a matter of “if” FttP, but “when”.
Everybody knows FttP will main game in the future (even Malcolm isn’t stupid enough to deny it), so why are we wasting capital on a technology that can’t be upgraded into that path? This is where FttDP makes a lot more sense than FttN, and what the NBN should actually be installing.
Chas,
The question is how long and how much money will be wasted in the meantime.
So you fully expect Labor to stop all FTTN and rollout FTTP in its place immediately they gain Government?
“The question is how long and how much money will be wasted in the meantime.”
According to CP16, up to $41b.
So now you’re a witch? Cool story bro!
As usual alain you conflate an opinion into something it isnt. People here arent necessarily pro-FttP, but anti FttN. For the very simple reason that its NOT cheaper, NOT faster, and NOT quicker.
End goal is getting to FttP. Its going to happen, its a question of how many steps to get there. So whats it going to cost? FttN has added costs along the way, and they arent cheap. FttDP has added costs as well, but they are acceptable.
Maybe you should start understanding why people are against FttN, and stop assuming they are something they arent. The facts are that FttN is an unnecessary expense when its known its going to be DOA.
More and more desperate eh, devoid you are what’s known as a DelCon or delusional conservative.
And the best part about this new term is… It was created by one of your own right wing nutters, Miranda Devine!
Australia is such a basket case when it comes to .. almost everything. ><
Hardly surprising considering it’s currently being “run”* by a bunch of DelCons!
*ruined is actually more appropriate!
Plenty of evidence to support Buddes notion here and on Whirlpool, indeed :)
Comments are closed.