Turnbull NBN advisor leaves key facts out of MTM defence

140

news An influential advisor to Malcolm Turnbull has published a spirited defence of the Coalition’s controversial Multi-Technology Mix approach to the NBN, but without including key facts which show a stark difference between the MTM model and similar policies in comparable countries.

Robert Kenny is co-founder of Communications Chambers, a UK-based telecommunications analysis firm. The analyst has emerged as a critic of the Fibre to the Premises model which Labor initially set up the NBN to deploy.

Instead, Kenny has regularly supported the case for deploying other technologies, such as the HFC cable and Fibre to the Node mix which the Turnbull and Abbott administrations have forced the NBN company to adopt.

Kenny was viewed as a key third-party advisor to Turnbull personally when the Member for Wentworth was Shadow Communications Minister in the three years leading up to the 2013 Federal Election.

In a policy analysis published in 2013 (PDF), for example, Kenny argued strongly against Labor’s FTTP model for the NBN, and listed himself as “an advisor to Malcolm Turnbull”. When the Coalition took power in September 2013, Turnbull appointed Kenny to provide key analysis for the Vertigan review of the NBN.

Late last week, Kenny published an article in The Australian newspaper, again strongly supporting the Coalition’s MTM model. In the article (we recommend you click here for the full article), Kenny argued that Australia was not alone in pursuing a complex mix of technologies to upgrade national broadband infrastructure.

The analyst paid particular attention to the HFC cable and FTTN technologies at the heart of the MTM model, noting that both of these technologies were being deployed and upgraded around the globe, and that some countries, such as South Korea, actually had a mix of infrastructure being used, not dissimilar to the MTM vision.

As Shadow- and then Communications Minister, Turnbull made a number of the same points in arguing that the NBN should change its model.

However, as Turnbull has done in similar situations, Kenny also left key facts out of his NBN commentary.

The analyst is correct in his assertion that the technologies at the heart of the MTM model are being deployed globally and that some countries have a complex mix of technologies in use. However, Kenny failed to mention that no other country is pursuing a similar commercial model to Australia for deploying those technologies at a government level.

The pattern for NBN-style policy globally is two-fold.

In countries where the incumbent telco is still owned by the Government of that country, the country has tended to take a long-term view and force that telco to deploy the best possible FTTP infrastructure, with the view that this style of infrastructure will serve that country’s needs over the long term.

This is the model being pursued in both New Zealand and Singapore, where the FTTP option has emerged as dominant in terms of government policy. It may be viewed broadly as a ‘command and control’, heavy-handed policy approach to the broadband issue.

In countries where the government has already largely privatised the incumbent telco, those countries have tended to instead place regulatory controls on that telco, as well as incentivising it to upgrade broadband infrastructure, often using Fibre to the Node infrastructure.

This is the case throughout Europe, where countries such as the UK, France, Germany and others are deploying FTTN infrastructure, often alongside existing HFC cable networks.

This approach may be regarded broadly as a ‘light touch’, regulatory policy approach to the NBN issue.

However, Australia currently appears to be the only country globally where the Government of the day is pursuing a model of acquiring legacy telecommunications networks — copper and HFC cable — which were already owned by that country’s major telcos — and upgrading them at the cost of many billions of dollars, instead of deploying new FTTP infrastructure to meet the country’s long-term needs.

In addition, Australia currently appears to be the only country where the Government of the day is directly deploying a diverse combination of technologies that will result in citizens, sometimes in the same street, receiving fundamentally different broadband technologies.

That option has been viewed unfavourably in a number of countries, because it undercuts the concept of equality in public service delivery.

None of these issues were addressed by Kenny in his article.

Delimiter invited Turnbull to comment on this issue directly during the Coalition’s NBN policy launch in April 2013, asking the then-Shadow Communications Minister: “The Coalition has made a great deal of the fact that the Australian Government is the only government globally to be rolling out fibre to the home but won’t a Coalition government be the only government rolling out fibre to the node globally?”

In response, Turnbull confirmed a Coalition Government would be the only government to roll out FTTN globally — an issue not addressed in Kenny’s article. “The answer is you are right,” he said at the time.

The Member for Wentworth added that the Australian Government shouldn’t be building broadband infrastructure itself, and it wouldn’t have done so, if it had had the choice. However, Turnbull said, the Coalition had been forced into the NBN model by Labor’s policy choices on the issue.

opinion/analysis
I have highlighted this article published in The Australian by Robert Kenny last week because it is a perfect example of the kind of flawed thinking, and misleading argument that those supporting the MTM model for the NBN use.

Kenny has, in effect, cherry-picked his facts to provide justification for the Coalition’s MTM model.

Sure, the analyst is right that FTTN and HFC cable infrastructure is being deployed in many locations globally. That much is obvious to anyone, and it’s impossible to argue against that fact. And of course these technologies can provide faster speeds than the previous crop of broadband options.

However, what Kenny won’t tell his audience is that these technologies are not being deployed by governments globally. FTTN and HFC cable are primarily technologies being deployed by telcos such as BT or AT&T which are already well-established in the markets which they operate in, because they are former incumbent telcos in those markets. As such, the use of these technology represents a logical minor investment for these private sector entities in infrastructure which they already own.

Nobody wants FTTN or HFC cable when they could have FTTP. These are clearly inferior technologies. But incumbent telcos deploy these technologies to keep existing customers happy with gradual capacity upgrades on networks they are already connected to.

Governments, on the other hand, aren’t forced into the same nasty and limited incremental upgrade cycle. They can afford the capital investment to deploy FTTP in their own right, and they historically do prefer it, because of the long-term, country-wide benefits that these kind of infrastructure can bring. Governments in countries such as New Zealand and Singapore have been saying this for years. They can afford to take the long view on infrastructure.

What Turnbull is doing with the NBN right now — and what Kenny won’t admit, because he helped put this botched policy together — is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

It is, in essence trying to upgrade legacy networks owned by Telstra and Optus for them and short-changing Australia in the process, instead of following Labor’s approach and using the Government’s own capital resources to give Australia the best broadband available in the long-term and making a profit off that infrastructure several decades down the track.

But you won’t hear many members of the MTM cheersquad admit this fact. Because to do so would be to admit that they personally have been complicit in tearing down a government policy that could have resulted in a network that would serve Australia’s needs for the next century.

140 COMMENTS

  1. “Australia is not Singapore” – Kenny

    Hey Kenny, Australia is not the UK or America either.. See what I did there.

  2. Not even sure it’s Rob Kenny who wrote that, he knows almost nothing about the technology he models. If you look at previous articles of his he will mention the various places he got the data he used for modelling and on a few occasions mentioned his lack of technical knowledge.
    The Australian article reads like the techno bullshit Tony Brown spouts all the time. It reads like his entire tech knowledge comes from talking to marketing managers and that he doesn’t really understand what he is talking about.

      • Including the technologies he is currently creaming himself over. I wish they’d stop pretending FTTdp is an upgrade path from FTTN, it’s complete new damn rollout ffs.

        • In practical terms, if the belief that FTTdp is an evolution of FTTN is what actually gets it over the line into full scale deployment, I am happy to encourage it.

          • That isn’t what Darren is saying though, there is this weird idea that you can upgrade from FTTN to FTTdp, which you cannot. There is no upgrade path from a FTTN rollout, to upgrade it to FTTdp.

          • Chris, no such luck. They have already suggested moving to FTTdp and it was rejected. Now all we have is spin doctors claiming FTTdp, G.Fast etc, are upgrade paths for FTTN. They aren’t they are completely new rollouts. Even the idea of reusing the fibre that runs to the node is ridiculous. How do you use that when it’s needed until everyone is moved over to FTTdp and the node decommissioned?

  3. Under Labor, nbnco was a big government run monopoly slowly and expensively building infrastructure that would last essentially forever.
    Under the coalition, the nbn is a big government run monopoly which is just as slowly and just as expensively building obsolete infrastructure.

    It was too hard to get rid of the downside of Labors approach, so they got rid of the upside instead.

  4. Although late, that was a nice smackdown Renai. Very well written article, certainly one of your best :)

  5. Excellent article Renai!

    And you capture exactly how I feel about it in this paragraph:

    It is, in essence trying to upgrade legacy networks owned by Telstra and Optus for them and short-changing Australia in the process, instead of following Labor’s approach and using the Government’s own capital resources to give Australia the best broadband available in the long-term and making a profit off that infrastructure several decades down the track.

    When they get in next, I really hope the ALP does a full review of what happened with the NBN under Malcolm, I’m pretty sure they’ll find some very, very dodgy stuff….

  6. The other big difference between Australia and the rest of the world is that nowhere else has a large telco spent years and billions of dollars setting up for a fiber rollout, only to abandon it and spend years and billions more reorganising for a FTTN/HFC rollout.

  7. It doesn’t matter what you say to the MTM LibTrolls, they won’t read any of this article save for skimming it then ranting about something unrelated to the matter at hand.

    They aren’t interested in reasoned discussion, I’ve noticed this recently because they generally either ignore any article not related to the NBN here or, if it isn’t related, start posting unrelated rubbish to twist the comments into whatever NBN related thing they want to talk about.

    • You guys go about it wrong with them, they aren’t actually here to debate/discuss anything. You should try to keep your post short, preferably one point per post, otherwise they latch on to some minutia that wasn’t your main point and then they spin that out of control.

      Keep it short/one point and when they go off topic, you can then call them on it and they’ll have trouble coming up with plausible spin.

      • I know I should, I just wish they weren’t so obvious in their trolling.

        I’d like to know if there is common ground somewhere, not related to the NBN. Just somewhere… but there doesn’t seem to be, because LibTrolls gonna LibTroll.

      • Tinman,

        That’s fine except for one key point, I usually call you and Ronin out over and over, the response is usually no reponse and usually followed by diverting OT waffle from the FTTN haters 24/7 gap fillers.

        you can then call them on it

        Rarely happens, a total figment of your imagination.

        • Just because you don’t like our responses, or when you have called me out on something that I was wrong about and I admit I was wrong, you ignore that and just bring it up completely unrelated elsewhere, doesn’t mean we ignore you or waffle about things that are off-topic.

        • Lol devoid

          Much like you getting called out then your common response is ohh its revised

        • Rarely happens, a total figment of your imagination.

          Proving what a misnomer your name tag actually is…

    • Classic irony.

      It appears today (superficial) analysis of the rest of the world is not “harming the discussion”.

      Why not discuss the failed NBNCo and renegotiated contracts that acquired billions in infrastructure (used in many countries for successful upgrades) for zero cost? Why ignore changes to a monumentally dysfunctional company and rollout model (including FTTH), unworkable revenue and cross subsidy model, and the failure to meet any of the major KPIs set by their own management?

      Perhaps one example of another country that had a Communications Minister so conceited that he believed, without any commerical experience, he could start & run a telco from scratch and overbuild existing telco infrastructure. One that dismissed every competent player in the market, adopted a contractor model with inexperienced installers and insufficient oversight, unable to run even a barely competent expressions of interest. A Minister that paid $12b in subsidies to telcos to retire existing infrastructure!

      A company that in 4.5year passed a pathetic 250k premises blowing several billions dollars, a third of which could not order (nor for the forseeible future) even a basic service , abused and threatened anyone not buying into his fantasy and ensuring zero private sector investment to service even highly profitable areas.

      Turnbull is spot on, govt should never intervene at this level. How many times does their failure need to be shown, their incompetence highlighted? No one ever held accountable, move onto the next spend. Turnbull bought into this folly, his failures to deliver and costs blowouts are on him. But let’s not pretend they all started after the election.

      The NBN policy is the most monumental policy folly (of an incompetent govt that perfected delivery failure). A failure predicted from the announcement, pointed out for years as actual performance data (as little as there was) released.

      Dozens of examples of the alternatives. Countries whose citizens are today enjoying near-ubiquitous high speed internet today with comparatively minimal govt subsidies.

      “Flawed and misleading” is the position that Conroy’s NBN was going anywhere, or could be achieved for anywhere near the costs he and his CEO were defending as they were shown the door. Taxpayers are going to lose tens of billions on this folly. MTM (or the hybrid) billions less than the failed FTTH model.

      Again the fixed line upgrade would be completed today but for Conroy. Dozens of overseas upgrades performed whilst remaining profitable every year, ours will lose over $2b this FY and is forecast to lose at least that for every year into for the foreseeable future. Wait until revenue fails to materialise (domworry, ARs won’t be understood).

        • Indeed Tin…

          You can imagine Richard et al… espousing a “very fast train”. for us poor dumb skips, some 50 years after Japan first built their’s.

          A VFT.. which in FRAUDBAND speak… is (theoretically) a bit quicker to construct and (theoretically) a bit cheaper to construct and in the end…

          It’s not cheaper and certainly not very fucking fast (UPTO what we had plus a smidge) and we still need a VFT…

          But hey, err, umm, go Trump…

          *crickets*

      • @Richard – “renegotiated contracts that acquired billions in infrastructure (used in many countries for successful upgrades) for zero cost?”

        Because it was only zero UPFRONT cost…the cost will be in the maintenance and disposal of those assets that were past their prime years ago. That cost is many $billions, and is dumped onto the long term cost of the NBN like an anchor.

        “A company that in 4.5year”

        Again, you keep inventing timelines. By using your metric, we should ask how many premises has FTTN passed in the 3 years Turnbull has been working on it?
        The first POI was shipped in March 2012, the “pit and pipe” agreement wasn’t signed until March 7, 2012….and the Labor Government went into caretaker mode slightly more than a year after that.
        Maybe you should research what you are talking about first?

        • Not inventing timelines; I’m correct.

          Number of premises since the election is discussed all the time (including me), as are the subsequent delays and cost blowouts. Apparently those prior to the point election can’t be discussed, nor international alternatives.

          • BS Richard, the Lib’s killed off contracted FTTP build work while wasting time buying the obsolete Telstra and Optus copper networks!

            There are a stack of examples were construction / Remediation work had visibly started in early to mid 2013 for FTTP and that work got binned.

            eg where I used to live in Adelaide, I saw boots on the ground myself and then after the election, poof nothing.

            Here is what was happening in April 2013:
            https://www.dropbox.com/s/4jwn7bgktdormms/NBN_Map4.png?dl=0

            and only now are they building FTTN …. 3 years later!
            https://www.dropbox.com/s/etmmhbhyb8z3cq1/NBN_Edwardstown.PNG?dl=0

            it’s a bloody disgrace!!

          • it’s a bloody disgrace!!

            Indeed.

            An independent audit of Labor’s National Broadband Network has found the policy’s formation was rushed, chaotic and inadequate.

            And yet your general contention is they took too long…make your mind up.

          • @Richard – “Not inventing timelines; I’m correct.”

            Not even close…the original rollout was only 1.5 years, not 4.5 years.

            “Number of premises since the election is discussed all the time”

            Sorry, but you transitioned from FTTN rollouts to number of premises passed…how many FTTN connections has Turnbull had in the last 3 years?

          • Kudos Tin…

            Seems I missed and you found yet another in a perpetual line of (what one can only define as imbecilic) contradictions and double standards from our dear friend alain …

          • “Not inventing timelines; I’m correct “

            Richard again says Richard is correct, well with such overwhelming, irrefutable evidence (ahem, cough, lol) I for one am completely convinced…

            After all look how swimmingly his, for all Aussies by 2016, $29.5B FRAUDBAND plan is travelling…

            Oh wait.

          • Our most Honourable PM promised that everyone would have FttN by… well… about now.
            Some RSPs haven’t quite gotten their FttN plans sorted because it took a bit longer than the “faster” promise.

      • (David Attenborough voice) and what we see here, is another delusional conservative displaying the standard traits of cognitive dissonance when trying to justify his own illogical mental constructs- this is fairly typical behavior for DelCon’s when trying to ignore facts and history in order to justify their feelpinions to themselves out loud.

      • Lol Richard
        Lol acquiring infrastructureat Zero cost even you gave admitted there are other cost that have been shifted from Telstra to the NBN so keep on with the lie if you like.

        Yet you don’t want to talk about the failure to meet major koi if the current rollout.

        Every competent player didn’t want to rollout out FTTN in the tender but apparently there where $B of dollars ready to be invest lol.

        So while still rolling out labor FTTP in 2.5 years they have managed in there own to connect 30K on FTTN. Numbers man is that more or less than labors FTTP?

        Other countries yes with high speed networks but with a telco rolling out the competent. Where was Telstra upgrading its network with the national average of just 4Mbps. Remember you said there was $B ready to be invest but no where in sight.

        Flawed and misleading” is the the policy you could have writen. So how much less is the MTM to FTTP last know figures it is $8B ( according to hockey MTM is $6B more than FTTP last know figures). But apparently it’s not comparing apples with apples but then you love to compare a completed rollout with a not completed rollout with missing figures.

        Lol yes it would have if but not for Conroy but Telstra took up the tender as you claimed $B ready to be invested but never happen. And yet the policy you could have writen now standing at $56B with a resell value of $27B great value right there isn’t it numbers man.

      • So…. instead of trying to prove my assertion wrong in a reply to me…. you do exactly what I said you’d do?

        Classic.

      • @R You missed the $1.6B T$ contract they just got recently then I take it.

        Otherwise how is that considered for free.

        How do you consider the undisclosed amount that they will get in maintenance fee’s over the next 10 years?

      • You do know risk has a cost?

        Miscalculating the cost of risk is what undoes a lot of businesses.
        Your sure you don’t work for NBN someone was telling everyone the cost was $0 the bam $Billions over budget because of miscalculated risk.

          • and this is why bean counters have a poor reputation amongst the rest of humanity…. you guys are pretty much in the same fetid bucket as Lawyers and bankers.

          • Newsflash: I’m an accountant, I am god’s gift to this nation, I am Dick…

            Ooookkkk.

            Moving right along.

          • Hey, accountants are just what this country needs. Why actually produce anything when you can just juggle numbers and make money without producing anything at all?

          • You must work with some pretty crap accountants. Telstra knew the cost of risk when they gave away the copper network and HFC. You can ignore risk when it is a GBE you are trying to run into the ground. We are seeing the same kind of thinking at AusPost with the sub contracting of one of their core businesses the actual delivery of letters and packages.

          • Hey, accountants are just what this country needs.

            Didn’t they throw all the accountants on the B Ark in Hitchhikers?

      • “renegotiated contracts that acquired billions in infrastructure (used in many countries for successful upgrades) for zero cost?”
        Zero cost? You mean the 11 billion up front and the almost $2b in subsequent directly related expenses? Zero eh?

        No wonder you think a $56b inferior network is cheaper than a $45b superior one.

  8. Oh Lordy. It’s my favourite internet man, the Kenny.
    Like the Kenny of ablutions, Robert Kenny flushes all sense and logic down the toilet.
    Kenny, just go. Internet doesn’t need you. The Robert Kenny that is. As for the Kenny le Dunny, we can keep him.

  9. And I’m amused no end that he starts the article extolling the virtues of FttN and then gives mostly examples of countries using FttB and FttDP :o)

    • He also talks about how Japan uses HFC. Which is hilarious…. because it’s all either VDSL FTTB/FTTN or FTTP over here…

      They also stopped rolling out FTTN years ago, favouring FTTP for single premises (or up to the second floor of apartment buildings, as most fibre here is aerial because of earthquakes) and FTTB for large apartment blocks.

  10. Thanks for this piece. Well done.
    Too little too late I am afraid though.

    Cheers
    Cabidas

  11. trying to upgrade legacy networks owned by Telstra and Optus for them and short-changing Australia in the process

    Extremely well put Renai, you nailed it!

    • The legacy networks are not owned by Telstra and Optus anymore, so there is no process of ‘upgrade legacy networks owned by Telstra and Optus’.

      The said ‘legacy networks’ are being upgraded for all ISP’s to use at the same NBN Co wholesale pricing, available to resell to all residences in the targeted footprints.

      • Lol they can buy it back for $27B nice value since the ex treasurer said they are spending $70B to upgrade it. Great discount for them.

      • Oh look it’s our very own delusional conservative devoid here to tell us black is white and white is black as usual!

      • You are correct, this should read:
        “upgrade the poorly maintained, unfit for purpose, legacy networks, previously owned by Telstra and Optus”.

        I left out “upgrade at great expense” as I cannot recall the costs of doing the first round of required upgrades that get these technologies to the state where NBNco can offer retail services across them.
        It appears however that other telcos are realising that upgrading HFC to DOCSIS 3.1 is more expensive than overbuilding with FTTP, so I think that buying and upgrading assets that have a short lifespan is the absolute antithesis of a strategic nationwide infrastructure build.

      • The legacy networks are not owned by Telstra and Optus anymore, so there is no process of ‘upgrade legacy networks owned by Telstra and Optus’.

        Jesus, would you stop trying to rewrite history with bullshit. Telstra and Optus still own the infrastructure, the deal was to LEASE them, not BUY them. Malcolm is going to use more than $98 billion of public funds over the next 55 years to upgrade their crap infrastructure because he is a fucking clown that can not admit MTM is an expensive joke.

        Telstra agreed to an $11 billion deal to rent its infrastructure to the operator of the state-owned network. (Source:
        http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstras-nbn-deal–what-it-means-20110622-1gg5a.html)

        TELSTRA could pocket more than $98 billion over the next 55 years as the company rolling out the National Broadband Network pays the telco giant to access its network of pits and pipes. (Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/telstra-to-pocket-98bn-nbn-infrastructure-fee-windfall/story-e6frgaif-1226883568200 )

        • Tinman_au,

          oops and oh dear!

          Your first link was to the original Labor negotiated deal with the NBN Co, the date should have warned you, 22/6/2011.

          Well before the 2013 election and the deal the Coalition negotiated with Telstra for ownership of their copper and HFC in 2014.

          Telstra will hand over ownership of its copper and hybrid fibre-coaxial networks while remaining committed to its structural separation under renegotiated definitive agreements with NBN Co that retain the $11 billion value of the 2011 deal.

          http://www.itnews.com.au/news/telstra-hands-over-copper-hfc-in-new-11bn-nbn-deal-398793

          Your second link is subscriber content, but the key points as you copied are could pocket and over the next 55 years.

          You were saying?

          https://delimiter.com.au/2016/04/26/turnbull-nbn-advisor-leaves-key-facts-mtm-defence/#li-comment-732466

          • Oh dear indeed alain…

            Once again intentionally and disingenuously (why would anyone do that, if fair dinkum and not simply a shill/goon) ignoring the associated additional (OPEX) remedial/replacement, upgrade, power etc costs

            Of wait for it… FRAUDBAND and FAILED (your word) HFC?

            You’re welcome.

          • The 24/7 resident gap filler fills the embarrassing void with OT rambling no fact waffle yet again.

          • Yes, it’s terrific Reality, it’ll “shave years off the rollout schedule and save billions of dollars at the same time”…

          • The 24/7 resident gap filler fills the embarrassing void with OT rambling no fact waffle yet again.

            You’re denying there are additional costs to owning the copper network over and above the $11b?

          • Inconvenient and very embarrassing (for you) gap filler, alain…

            There fixed that for you AGAIN… spoon after spoon…

            So why don’t you finally grow some and fill in those gaping gaps in relation to you stating HFC [quote] FAILED but now support FAILED HFC and explain how FTTN was referred to as FRAUDBAND by the same political organisation who now rolls out and also supports, err FRAUDBAND.

            GO…

            You’re welcome.

      • @ alain.

        “The said ‘legacy networks’ are being upgraded for all ISP’s to use at the same NBN Co wholesale pricing, available to resell to all residences in the targeted footprints.”

        Oh but didn’t you used to argue back in the “good old days”, that FTTP was a socialist monopoly and we must have “network competition”?

        Yes you did, didn’t you?

        But now you have the opposite view, how curious.., *sigh*

        You’re welcome.

  12. The main thrust of the comment here is that Australia is unique in that its Government owned communications company is rolling out a mix of infrastructure instead of just concentrating on FTTP for its fixed line rollout.

    What is missing in that comment is Australia is also unique in the world in that the copper and HFC infrastructure were handed over to the NBN Co for the same price the previous Labor government had negotiated to shut it down, under those circumstances to overbuild it all with expensive brownfields FTTP at a much slower rollout rate would have been totally irresponsible.

    The original proposers of the FTTP snails pace rollout folly the 2007-2013 Labor Government have also recognised what the responsible and cost effective option is and will virtually continue with the infrastructure MtM mix as is if they win Government this year.

    • What is missing in that comment is Australia is also unique in the world in that the copper and HFC infrastructure were handed over to the NBN Co for the same price the previous Labor government had negotiated to shut it down.

      Except for some reason the cost has gone from $29B to now $70B according to an ex treasurer for upgrading said networks. Which is now costing more than the labor $44B FTTP and now taking just a long.

      How unique is this country to be building a faster cheaper network which is now just as slow and more expensive.

      • You are using out of date figures, which doesn’t stop you using out of date figures over and over, the reason you do this is that you don’t like the updated figures so you pretend they don’t exist and all time stopped at September 2013.

        They certainly do exist and they are in the latest NBN Co Corporate Plan 2016 on Page 39.

        FTTP $74-$84B, finish date 2026-2028.

        • No reality I am not using out of date figures
          $44B to rollout FTTP complete by 2021.

          Switching to the MTM and going back to FTTP $74-$84B, finish date 2026-2028.

          Spin it how you want devoid you can’t change the facts.

          • Jason K,

            No reality I am not using out of date figures
            $44B to rollout FTTP complete by 2021.

            You left out the date those figures were calculated by the Labor NBN Co, 2013.

            Update: it is now April 2016, so the figures are at least three years out of date.

          • Lol reality I am not the claiming the FTTP $74-$84B, finish date 2026-2028 is labor rollout.

            But if you can come up with figures to labour FTTP continued rollout instead of the now MTM of $70B be my guest

          • @ alain

            “You left out the date those figures were calculated by the Labor NBN Co, 2013.”

            You mean Mike Quigley’s figures you yourself admitted couldn’t be disproved?

            Well try to disprove again… GO

            You’re welcome

        • FTTP – Guarantees 100mbps to everyone on that technology (sync, throughput is another story)
          FTTN – Doesn’t have a guarantee at all. NBN have cleverly guaranteed themselves absolution by stating a connection is working ‘not faulty’ if it reaches 25mbps for a single point in time in a 24hr period. Also allowing up to 5 disconnections per day, before it is classed as a faulty connection.

          Malcolm keeps stating that FTTN is upgradable, but any upgrades are on top of the $56B already costed JUST FOR the FTTN rollout. No DOCSIS 3.1 or G.Fast/XG.Fast, these are mythical beasts spouted time and again yet they’re not costed out or even projected in the build or for a time after the build is completed.

          FTTP had 100mbps as standard, with lower tiers available for households not wanting to spend their money. The upgrade path is a lot simpler than FTTN. As it stands the FTTN has no upgrade available. The cabinets themselves have no room to place fiber hardware in them. G.Fast and XG.Fast would require FTTdp into the pits in the streets making the ‘cabinets’ 60-97K paper weights.

          Fiber on Demand is a joke. Malcolm promised it would be available. Even if it’s costs are astronomical NBN is dragging its feet not only with potential residential customers but whole towns sponsored by their town council. There have been 4 connections confirmed in all this time by NBN’s own reports. The best thing is that these connections are CIC. No details are allowed to be released regarding the quotation/how much fiber was used, or even if it connects to the FTTN cabinet or goes directly to the multiport.

          NBN MTM is ridiculous, paying for HFC then paying again to install FTTN over the top of it to connect people in the ‘too hard’ category to connect to HFC.

          I want FTTP, but I’ll settle for FTTdp (pit in street). This will give me VDSL, possible FoD, G.Fast/Xg.Fast options.

          FTTN is a nowhere connection. What ya get now is what ya get forever due to line length.

          • I second the well done, but all you will get out of Reality is either a disappearing act, or he will play semantics with one tiny part of your post.

            Or, will distract with something completely unrelated to your reply.

          • +1 here, but I’m also with R0nin and tinny. Far too many words.

            Summary could have been. FttP offers guarantees, FttN doesnt. There is an instant and simple upgrade path with FttP, while there isnt with FttN.

          • Ollie,

            FTTP – Guarantees 100mbps to everyone on that technology

            No it doesn’t, all speeds are quoted as ‘up to’ irrespective of infrastructure type.

            FTTN – Doesn’t have a guarantee at all.

            So it’s just like FTTP then?

            Malcolm keeps stating that FTTN is upgradable, but any upgrades are on top of the $56B already costed

            It’s not $56B.

            NBN MTM is ridiculous, paying for HFC then paying again to install FTTN over the top of it to connect people in the ‘too hard’ category to connect to HFC.

            You mean people that didn’t have HFC available in the first place, and they may use FTTN for infill in a few HFC residential pockets.

            You want to start again and have another go using the facts this time?

          • See, I told you he’d play semantics. Ignoring your point that FTTP is about sync and not throughput.

          • Devoid
            FTTP guarantees 100Mbps PIR for 1sec in a day for a 100Mbps
            FTTN guarantees 25Mbps PIR for 1 sec in a day 5 dissconnects a day for 100Mbps

            So no not the same.

            No it’s not $56B it’s $70B thanks to the ex treasurer.

          • You left out the point about ‘up to’ when speeds are listed on ISP sites irrespective of type, ADSL2+, FTTN, FTTP, fixed wireless, HFC, 4G, 3G and satellite.

            But then you needed to ignore that, there are no speed guarantees on residential broadband NBN products.

          • alain,

            Lets go over this again. Every option provides a certain maximum speed. Because of the laws of physics, there is a dropoff in speed depending on how far you are from either the node or the exchange.

            In the case of FttN, you start getting dropoffs after a couple of hundred meters. In the case of FttP its something like 10 miles.

            So when you look at those “up to” speeds, FttP is a pretty reliable expectation, while FttN isnt.

          • In the case of FttN, you start getting dropoffs after a couple of hundred meters. In the case of FttP its something like 10 miles.

            So when you look at those “up to” speeds, FttP is a pretty reliable expectation, while FttN isnt.

            Destroyed.

          • GG,

            I don’t disagree with you on probabilities, but as you know it’s what happens after the actual physical infrastructure type connection in relation to a individual ISP’s link capacity that is more important.

            But irrespective ‘guarantee’ is the incorrect term to use, period.

          • Now you’re using semantics. But fair enough, guarantee probably isnt the best word. When one gets pretty close though, its good enough for most people. For all intents, FttP gives a speed people can believe, and hence becomes an effective guaratee.

            If you’re getting under 90 Mbps on FttP, theres a problem somewhere. Something that needs fixing, so its going to get fixed. Thats at 90% of the “up to” amount.

            If FttN gets 50% of its “up to” speed, its no different to ADSL. Its more than likely not a problem, but because you’re too far from the exchange.

            I had the no guarantees fun with ADSL2. 800m from exchange by street, 2.5kms by copper loop. So when everyone around me got 24 Mbps, I got 6 Mbps. I know the issues.

          • @ alain

            It’s not $56B

            Well you tell us how much it is… because you used to love rattling off $29.5B as the be all and end all figure, didn’t you?

            ROFL

            You’re welcome

          • GongGav
            It’s not semantics devoid is playing he is just now blaming ISP is the fault that FTTN can’t deliver a better service than a 1 sec in a day 25Mbps and 5 disconnects

        • @alternate – “they are in the latest NBN Co Corporate Plan 2016 on Page 39”

          Yes…numbers that are artificially created to be many times what all other FTTP rollouts cost. The only people who actually believe those numbers are the 3 monkeys of the Coalition…Hear no reality, See no reality, and Speak no reality. That Plan appears to take the actual cost and multiply it by 4 “just as a precaution”…

          • Why is it that he believes those numbers, but didnt believe numbers in CP’s of the past?

          • It’s not a matter of ‘believing’ the costing estimates because until we get to the end of a rollout no one knows if the costing estimates are correct.

            The point is the costing estimates are updated as the rollout progresses, the Labor NBN Co did it and the Coalition NBN Co does it, no doubt the costing estimates in CP 16 will be updated in the next NBN Corporate Plan, which may in fact be done by a Labor NBN Co.

            FYI here is the history of NBN CP plans.

            In December 2010 nbn released its first Corporate Plan which outlined its long-term business case and set rollout targets for the period from June 2011 to June 2013.

            The Corporate Plan covering 2012-2015 was released in August 2012.

            The Corporate Plan covering 2014-2017 was released in November 2014.

            The Corporate Plan 2016 was released in August 2015.

            When quoting estimates of all kinds of NBN categories all you can do is use the latest CP plan, the latest one is CP 16.

          • My problem is that when those CP’s were released in the past, any comment on the Labor era ones you belittled and ridiculed, while now you point to them in a totally different way.

            You do it with every aspect of NBN Co. Whatever was said under Labor’s watch you treat with suspicion, while under Liberals watch its gospel.

          • @ alain

            It’s not a matter of ‘believing’ the costing estimates because until we get to the end of a rollout no one knows if the costing estimates are correct.

            So you admit it may eclipse $56B after all???

            Yes you just did, didn’t you?

            So stop sobbing like a spoilt child whenever anyone suggests this FRAUDBAND/NODAFAIL™ archaic POS will be $56B.

            You’re welcome.

          • So you admit it may eclipse $56B after all???

            He’d have to, wouldn’t he Rizz? So far they’ve messed up with the remediation costs by…what….1000%? And they haven’t factored in the maintenance costs. They’ll be lucky to keep it in the low sixties…

        • “You are using out of date figures”
          When will you stop embarrassing yourself, Alain?

          Constantly trying to tell us that the cost of the original FTTP plan was $84b, when the CP16 specifies in no uncertain terms that that is the end cost of the MTM. When the CP16 specifies in no uncertain terms that the most recent cost of the original FTTP plan was that specified in SR13.

    • Reality you forgot the part about billions in dollars in copper maintenance and electricity costs to power nodes, as well as more billions of dollars in Node splits, replacing CMTS devices and upgrading to DOCSIS 3.1 for HFC. Not to mention after all of that, you still don’t get to use the full spectrum of the HFC service since Foxtel since broadcast using it..

      As usual you present half the story.

      Telstra never give anything away for nothing… they must be laughing all the way to the bank.

        • Revenue on the MTM is significantly less than the original NBN, and faster rollout has already been shown to be near nothing…it may in fact be slower to rollout as many of us predicted in 2013. All of the warnings that folks like Budde made back before the elections appear to have come through in spades. Cost blowout, time blowout, etc…
          Heck, even the 15Mbps average rate has been shown to be crazy.
          In the US, that rate wouldn’t even be considered to be broadband!

        • “Like revenue or faster rollout?”
          You mean the revenue coming in from the only portion of the MTM providing ROI (FTTP) and the rollout that got delayed by 133%?

          (Compare : a rollout that was providing even better than anticipated returns and a 12% delay in timeframe)

        • Also, faster rollout isn’t worth a damn when it’s such a bad thing being rolled out. It makes no sense to roll it (FTTN) out when you look at the timescale (still years to roll out) and useful life of the equipment. Even if it was faster (as you say, it’s “hitting a wall” at the moment), it’s still a dud and poor value for money (and time). When you’re still taking years to put something in the ground, make it good. There are no upgrades for FTTN, available or envisaged. Any improvement: replacement with FTTdp.

          Most of Australia is fairly well served until we take marginally longer to put something worthwhile in the ground. The reward is everything.

    • You see lasting value in the copper and HFC that is not there. You also ignore any benefit of brownfields FTTP such as minimal opex, minimal administration unlike the amazingly complex and costly operations centre built for the MTM and, of course, minimal upgrade expense unlike FTTN which needs another new NBN with a similar price tag and similar time to build to get any upgrade at all, because there is nothing available or on the horizon.

    • Labor Government have also recognised what the responsible and cost effective option is and will virtually continue with the infrastructure MtM mix as is if they win Government this year.

      That’s what a real “adult’s in charge” government would do, yes. They wouldn’t have a huge hissy fit like Tony and Malcolm did and change everything just for the sake of changing it at enormous expense and a 2.5 year delay…

    • “the copper and HFC infrastructure were handed over to the NBN Co for the same price the previous Labor government had negotiated to shut it down”
      You missed the almost $2b in subsequent costs? Within 6 months of the deal taking place? >$3.5b per year, not a bad ‘no cost’ deal for nbn.

  13. Key fact left out of this article : the NBN was setup, by _Labor_, _not_ to be a permanent government owned monopoly.

    The moment a commercial return was required is the moment commercial financial models need to be applied.

    That is the fundamental flaw in Labor’s FTTP model – they expected to make a commercial return on a non-commercially feasible technology deployment.

    That is also the critical flaw in the argument that the government had to step in because the industry wasn’t. The industry wasn’t because at the time, it was not commercially viable to – FTTP wasn’t, and _still_ isn’t commercially viable to be able to deploy on a scale that people with no understanding of the telecommunications industry think it is.

    When technology becomes cheap enough and customers are willing to pay enough to make a reasonable profit on it, commercial companies will trip over themselves to provide it. That’s the commercial reality and that is why FTTP NBN was going to fail.

    • Wow the DelCon’s are really out in force today!

      Permanently jumping the shark eh Mr shark!

    • “_not_ to be a permanent government owned monopoly”

      So? As if the LNP wouldn’t sell off NBN Co as soon as they can either?

      As long as NBN Co isn’t allowed to retail over their own network, selling it off as a regulated wholesaler doesn’t matter.

      You know, like what your mates in the LNP DIDN’T do when they privatised Telstra, selling it as a vertical monopoly able to price gouge the shit out of other providers wanting to resell on their network.

      “non-commercially feasible technology deployment.”

      We better tell all the FTTP operators around the world they are running a non-commercially feasible technology.

      • As long as NBN Co isn’t allowed to retail over their own network, selling it off as a regulated wholesaler doesn’t matter.

        Didn’t really work with the energy wholesalers though, did it?

        • A gripe I constantly have with “monopolies are bad” mantra. Wholesale monopolies have justifiable reasons for being, particularly when it comes to national infrastructure.

          • I have a few that think they are still bad. So I ask them – how OK would you be if the Tax Office was privatised?

            Theres generally a look of surprise at the suggestion. And hopefully a consideration of what I’m getting at. Not everything should be private, and in plenty of cases its a bad thing.

          • Agreed GG, imo monopolies are only bad when A/ they are vertically integrated non-gov corporations and B/ Abused.

    • ” the fundamental flaw in Labor’s FTTP model – they expected to make a commercial return on a non-commercially feasible technology deployment.”
      Given that the FTTP portion of MTM is providing higher than expected ROI, how was the FTTP rollout financially infeasible again?

      “FTTP wasn’t, and _still_ isn’t commercially viable to be able to deploy on a scale that people with no understanding of the telecommunications industry think it is.”
      And yet we’re steamrolling ahead with a ‘commercially viable’ infinitely inferior set of technologies, that are almost double the cost of the ‘commercially unviable’ rollout plan, with a necessary upgrade to the ‘unviable’ original rollout plan less than 6 years after completion of the ‘viable’ plan that will end up costing three times as much?

      You do realise that Telecom stated in multiple publications in the 90s that an upgrade to FTTP would be NECESSARY after the turn of the millennium? And then they got privatised and all of a sudden that plan was no longer viable. Seems to me the privatisation was the sole reason FTTP became unviable, no?

      “When technology becomes cheap enough and customers are willing to pay enough to make a reasonable profit on it, commercial companies will trip over themselves to provide it”
      And that is a demonstrable lie to anyone with any knowledge of Australias Telecommunications sector from mid-90s onwards.

    • Couple of things on top of R0nin and Rizz.

      Firstly, based on your opinion, we shouldnt have gone to ADSL either in 1999. That was capable of so much more than the needs of the day, so why was it built? People were on 56k dialup, there was no commercial viability to build something capable of 30x that speed.

      So why did Telstra build it?

      Likewise, there was no need to provide the 8 Mbps speeds HFC was capable of in the day either, so why did they?

      Overbuilding existing infrastructure is the very competition the Liberals want to flourish, and now that competition is an anti-FttP argument? Somethings not right there…

      Secondly, every person I know that has an understanding of the telecommunications industry (hint: family helped research and develop ADSL2 and VOIP), disagree with you.

      Partly for the reasons above, partly for future benefits, but there is never a bad reason to plan and build for the future. FttN has no future.

  14. With advisors like this and Maurice Newman (Global cooling advisor to LNP) is it no wonder Malcolm Turnbull became Australia’s worst Communications Minister ever. Add to that Vertigan (Assupmption 1:”Everyone who needs fibre has fibre”) and Ergas (AO) and you can see how Malcolm did not stand a chance.

    With this advice, he mismanaged his portfolio dramaticly. Of course if he knew what a mess he was promoting, and only did it to stop Abbott replacing him, it shows that he was willing to spend 20Bn of public money to retain power. Either way, MTM should be a career limiting decision.

  15. The pollies of all factions are loving conversations such as these as it buries the main intention of the original idea and allows them a plethora of hearsay, politspeak and contradiction from which to espouse and therefore qualify there own brand of party rhetoric. In the end, we as a people will not have the holy grail, that is, an optical fibre line into our homes and businesses. All we will have is an ongoing debate and a mishmash of competing services, plans and technologies that will continue to hurt our great country for decades to come. In other words, a big, steaming, stinky pile of both Labor and Liberal innuendo and bureaucratic crap to step in whenever the NBN is debated!

Comments are closed.