Pyne’s comments on fast Internet “just wrong”, says SAGE-AU

176

news IT professionals’ advocacy group SAGE-AU has criticised recent comments by Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Christopher Pyne that suggested Australians do not need fast Internet.

Speaking on the ABC’s Q&A program at the end of last month, Pyne replied to an audience member saying that Australians “simply didn’t need the speeds” that Labor’s fibre-to-the-premises model for the NBN would have delivered.

“Minster Pyne’s comments are based on a gross over-simplification of the issues involved, and as a result, are just wrong” said the group’s President Robert Hudson. “They’re even worse coming from a minister responsible for Innovation, Science and Industry – some of the areas in which faster Internet access are the most critical”

Conceding that not all Australians need Internet access with a download speed of more than 25Mbps, Hudson said: “[T]here are many Australians who already require download speeds faster than this.”

Upload speeds are also “critical” for many applications already in use by “everyday Australians”, he continued.

“[T]he upload speeds offered on the proposed FTTN services are barely any better than current ADSL services, which are already insufficient in this regard for many people’s needs,” said Hudson.

Pyne also stated that the Coalition Government’s NBN will deliver speeds that would allow Australians to “watch five full-length movies in the same household at the same time”.

“To equate Internet usage to only the streaming of movies and TV shows to TVs in a household is to completely disregard how the Internet has developed in recent years, and shows the Minister to be completely out of touch with the core aspects of his portfolio,” said Hudson. “The Internet is a business tool just as much (if not more so) than it is an instrument of leisure.”

The SAGE-AU President further expressed disappointment in how the NBN has been handled by both the Labor Party and the Coalition.

The “honorable goal” of “fast, largely equitable Internet access provided as a utility to the general population” has given way to the NBN becoming “a political football”, he said.

“Both the Labor and Liberal/National Coalition have used the NBN to score cheap political points against their opposition, and in doing so, have chopped and changed the structure of the NBN so harshly that if it will be a miracle if it actually survives and provides even 20% of the utility to the nation it should have been able to,” said Hudson.

“It is extremely disappointing to see that under the current Liberal/National government, the NBN looks to have been set up to fail, and to do so in a miserable and spectacular fashion, for the sole purpose of pointing the finger at the previous Labor government and blaming them for the mess,” he concluded.

Image credit: Screenshot of Q&A, believed to be OK to use under fair dealing

176 COMMENTS

  1. Good to see uploads mentioned for once. A bigger problem for those on satellite, is the dreaded data caps..

    • FTTP (or the easily upgradeable and architecturally compatible FTTdp Labor are going with) is in some senses like a sledgehammer breaking down walls. its giving families, general consumers, government and business an unencumbered two way link to each other (upload speeds being crucial as they are the bottleneck) – if we clear the way in this fashion all manner of high speed applications and innovations can materialise

    • Uploads are a critical piece of Internet connectivity. Between user-created content and interactive services, the one-eyed focus on downstream speeds needs to stop.

      That’s something that someone in a position like Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science should certainly recognise. It’s also something the media needs to start focusing on, even if it does run counter to their standard business models.

      • Decent upload speeds are key to being able to productively work from home for a big part of the workforce too.

        Currently only the largest corporations can afford to provide Citrix web desktops for remote use, small companies can’t.

        • Seems to be where the whole “As-a-service” thing is heading, an small business could benefit a lot from Daas. Shame they won’t be able to benefit on FttN unless they are actually on the node…

  2. So….pretty well no professional groups actually support the MtM NBN? Colour me surprised.

    Well, no one but the LPA Support Group (you know who you are) anyway…

      • That’d be Richard, Devoid (Reality aka Alain), Mathew (aka Speed Boi) and one or two other Liberal party stooges that drop by occasionally.

        • They sound like Australian Computer Society sidekicks which is also full of Liberal Party stooges.

          • I’m not sure any of them actually have technical backgrounds. I suspect Reality is a bored retiree (which would explain his love affair with the LPA), Richard is an accountant (and we all know which side they generally fall on) and god know’s what Mathew does (he says he could pay $20,000 easily for FttP himself if he wanted it, but I suspect he’s on NewStart as he usually demands 100-1000Mbps for free, for all).

          • Richard is an account? He doesn’t seem to understand the pricing of risk, but then again neither those did who wrote the SR, or could be just willful ignorance.

          • Richard is an account? He doesn’t seem to understand the pricing of risk, but then again neither those did who wrote the SR, or could be just willful ignorance.

            I’m sure he could have written the SR, just ask him.

          • @Tinman_au
            > god know’s what Mathew does (he says he could pay $20,000 easily for FttP himself if he wanted it, but I suspect he’s on NewStart as he usually demands 100-1000Mbps for free, for all)

            As usual WRONG! The last government benefit I claimed was while studying as a student.

            I haven’t demanded 1Gbps free for all. However I have suggested that if an argument can be made that fast internet (>100Mbps) does deliver significant benefits either socially (education, health, etc.) and economically then it is reasonable for the government to financially support the building of the network in the same way the government funds other infrastructure projects such as roads.

          • Even the LPA doesn’t agree with you Mat, not sure if any political party does…

        • You sure they not all the same troll user with multiple accounts? :)

          They all spout the same illogical rhetoric.

        • @Derek
          My point since Labor first announced speed tiers is that only the rich would receive the NBN benefits and that most would be denied the benefits. Labor planned that in 2026 less than 1% would be connected at 1Gbps currently 6 years after 1Gbps was announced and 3 years after NBNCo made 1Gbps plans available, the faster plan being sold by an RSP is 100Mbps.

          Since the Liberals announced MTM my point has been that with 79% on fibre currently connected at 25Mbps or slower that there will be little difference for the vast majority between the different plans.

          I fully appreciate what could be possible with 1Gbps plans.

          • Nice to see you still think Labor are still running things Mat ;o)

            The reality is the LPA have been in charge for the last 3 years, and probably the next three, and…guess what… NO CHANGE!!

            You are obviously very, very wrong if the LPA agree with Labor.

          • “79% on fibre currently connected at 25Mbps or slower”

            But since that is completely irrelevant and is as changeable as the weather, what’s your point?

          • “A point is not a point simply because you prefer not to read awkward facts”

            Seriously, I have no idea what that means…

          • Seriously you do, but seriously you prefer not to read what speed tiers residences are using on fixed line NBN because it is too in your face when you have a agenda trying to push the need for FTTP agenda.

            Any facts which are published by the NBN Co that do that are ignored.

            Simple.

          • “you prefer not to read what speed tiers residences are using on fixed line NBN because”…it is meaningless.
            Obviously I DID read what the speed tiers are, and as any statistician can tell you, it is quite meaningless. Unlike you, I do not ignore them, I just say it makes no difference…

          • As with all technology, the “premium” usually has a high price at the start and is taken up based on who can afford and who needs it.
            It is up to competition to drive prices down.
            Look at ADSL1, some started on low 256kbps whilst others 512, or the 1.5Mbps.
            Then there was different data allowances.
            As more people connected and retailers wanted more customers, they would have to lure customers from other retailers.
            The offers start poping up.
            Not to mention data allowances/bandwidth becomes cheaper the higher the bulk or decrease of running things.

            I doubt Labor would have been able to “deny” higher tier plans, its a matter of affordability and need by the individuals.
            That changes over time.

            Even with the “budget” MTM, the same will happen.

            The main issue here, is they should have deployed the FTTP once and for all.
            Instead of a 1/2 step measure (MTM), that will require a whole reconstruction process in the future when we (tax payers) will have to spend again on FTTP in some years time.

            Simple maths (give or take economical changes)
            FTTP = $x
            MTM, then FTTP (future) = $y + $x

            in the end, we are taking the more expensive path no matter what.

          • And the other thing the LibTroll’s always ignore is the original FTTP NBN was designed as much for busines as it was for residential use!

            MtM completely ignores business requirements, especially those businesses opposing inside the HFC footprint!

          • @Daniel
            > I doubt Labor would have been able to “deny” higher tier plans, its a matter of affordability and need by the individuals.

            Labor could have very easily said that access for everyone to high speed internet is essential, instead they decided that access to fast internet should be restricted to the rich.

            > That changes over time.

            Monopolies like NBNCo don’t face competition which means that there is little incentive for prices to fall. Telstra is a good comparison here.

            > The main issue here, is they should have deployed the FTTP once and for all.

            I disagree. The main issue should be what benefits is the NBN going to deliver. A network where in 2026 less than 1% are connected at 1Gbps is going to see us well behind on the global stage.

          • Well Mathew if we use you hypothetical claim of FTTN being faster than FTTP with no speed teir even though they are not doing it. In 10 years time who knows what speeds and prices it could have come too. They could have easily change prices to be a lot more value this driving up higher teir connection.

            But that won’t happen now as the current network can’t even come close. 25Mbps for 1 sec in a day and 5 disconnects a day is fine with the current network

          • “network where in 2026 less than 1% are connected at 1Gbps is going to see us well behind on the global stage.”

            There’s this amazing thing that can happen once you have built a network capable of 1 gigabit per second.

            Even if when you deploy it; only 1% of people use gigabit. If you have built a network capable of 1 gigabit theres this 1 simple trick that governments can pull that will absolutely amaze you mathew, seriously, your mind will be blown when you find out.

            That if they build it, get this, seriously, here it comes, get this, they can “Lower the price”. I know, sounds too simple right? Sounds completely impossible right?

            The MTM isn’t capable of 100 megabits for everyone getting a physical cable upgrade. It just isn’t, therefore it cannot ever have any price drop to make 1 gigabit affordable. There is no price they can drop to give people gigabit.

            Wireless on both networks obviously isn’t capable of 100 megabits for everyone, but I think we can all agree that there has to be *some* limit for the amount of money the government spends to get people online. Precisely where that “limit” lies is a question for the details, but as far as I am aware both major parties have settled on broadly speaking the same line. (At least they aren’t fighting that).

            So basically, the Labor plan may be flawed. But it can be fixed, trivially. The liberal plan *is* flawed, costs the same amount of money, AND can’t even be fixed without spending *even more large sums of money*.

  3. How long ago did Adobe launch Adobe Creative Cloud?
    What about MYOB Online Accounting?
    Has that anti-innovation/tech birdbrain heard of Microsoft Hololens yet?

    Oracle predict that within the next 4-5 years, almost 100% application development and testing will be carried out in the Cloud. All their own enterprise applications are now cloud-based.

    Good luck with developing next-generation Cloud, Bigdata, IoT, VR, applications Australia. But I guess innovation and great ideas will be developed in other countries and the development time window has almost gone.

    The future is now!
    https://www.us-ignite.org/apps/

    Once again the next-gen Internet ship sails right past the big brown land! Sad…. but it’s the…
    same as it ever was…
    same as it ever was…
    same as it ever was…
    same as it ever was…

    • Oracle predict that within the next 4-5 years, almost 100% application development and testing will be carried out in the Cloud. All their own enterprise applications are now cloud-based.

      Indeed, most of our business apps where I work are all cloud based already, and even many of the things I use at home are there (email, office, photo storage/editing, etc).

      And it’s only going to continue when more stuff comes online with the IoT.

      Pyne isn’t just short sighted, he can’t see past his nose…

      • Same with IBM Enterprise Cloud as well.

        Highly likely Pyne, and all the other low-brow fruitcakes, have not heard of Microsoft Office 365 yet.

        • Based on the reality that 79% on fibre have opted for 25Mbps or slower, either Microsoft Office 365:
          1. works perfectly fine on 25Mbps connections
          2. 80% haven’t found a need for it
          3. 80% cannot justify paying more for speeds sufficient to run Microsoft Office 365.

          If it is the cannot justify paying more, then with many government education departments and universities licensing Office 365 for students, Labor’s decision to implement speed tiers simply widens the gulf between rich students and those less well off.

          • Isn’t it about time you threw that old 2007 LNP troll script away Backwater Boy?

            What a load of bullshit!

          • Even if I was staying in Australia, which I am not, I would be opting out of this political abomination. Doesn’t meet my requirements

            Thanks to the contribution of the Liberal Party maggots, the project is the biggest tech project failure in world history.

            Incidently Microsoft Office 365 is a very inexpensive monthly subscription, and MS offers discounts, especially for students.

            Youve only referred to the 25Mbps download speed. In the Cloud transfers both ways, just like it does on your local hard drive. 0.88Mbps is insufficient.

            Like it not, you can scream from the rooftops, whinge & whine, all application software will soon be only available via the Cloud.

            Suck on it Backwater Boy

          • “Based on the reality that 79% on fibre have opted for 25Mbps”

            But since that is meaningless and can change as quickly as you say it, it really makes no difference, eh?

          • Yeah funny about that change eh Chas? the continuing trend is away from 100/40 not on to it.

          • “Yeah funny about that change eh Chas? the continuing trend is away from 100/40 not on to it”

            You see, that is the danger…there is always some moron who interprets it as a “trend”. If the sun is up for 2 hours in a row, would you consider it to be “always daylight”?
            What we know is that
            1. bandwidth demand ALWAYS increases, and at a massive rate.
            2. the names of the plans (12/1, 25/5, etc…) do not match what is actually delivered, so counting them is irrelevant.
            3. consumer demand can change in a second

            As has been pointed out, trying to invent some meaningful information from what “plans” are chosen is incredibly naive…

          • As has been pointed out, trying to invent some meaningful information from what “plans” are chosen is incredibly naive…

            Blatant denial is handy when you have an agenda to push, if the percentages were reversed and 80% were on 100/40 you would say that is a true representation of the need for FTTP and how accurate the stats were.

          • Snow Crash.

            Even if I was staying in Australia, which I am not, I would be opting out of this political abomination. Doesn’t meet my requirements

            National average is 18.2Mbps.

            Yeah the USA is the tops when it comes to internet speeds.

            Look at the top two blue speed tiers, you have to look hard to find them on the map, plenty of red areas below the average though.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/09/the-fastest-and-slowest-internet-speeds-in-america/

          • “National average is 18.2Mbps”

            Which is 3 times that of Australia…
            BTW, that was from over 2 years ago…

          • “Akamai Q3 2015 rankings has the USA average at 12.6 Mbps.”

            And the Q4 report has average for the US at 14.2Mbps…roughly twice as high as Australia. But you were thinking of peak speeds, not average speeds.

            US – 61.5Mbps average peak speed
            Australia – 39.3Mbps average peak speed
            Singapore – 135.7Mbps AVERAGE peak speed…
            Hong Kong 105.2
            South Korea 95.3
            Japan 82.9
            Indonesia 79.8
            Taiwan 78.8
            Thailand 63.7

            These are the average peak speeds of our local market competitors…it’s a shambles! No wonder we keep sliding…

            “You should have quit while you were ahead”

            Not at all…I am constantly looking for areas where I need more study. To me, it is the truth that matters, not a stupid tit for tat debate…
            If you find actual facts, please do post them

            BTW, we are around the level of Sri Lanka…they are at 34.8

          • If you are on the FTTN and with VDSL on copper with a high attenuation, you pay for a 100Mbps plan and you get less than that… say 15Mbps.
            You call support, they tell you they can’t do much about it.

            Do you still pay for the 100Mbps, or drop down to a plan like 25Mbps or 12Mbps?
            Of course one would not spend extra for something they will not get.

            But hey, my friend is on FTTP and he loves his 100Mbps plan with no issues.

          • > You see, that is the danger…there is always some moron who interprets it as a “trend”. If the sun is up for 2 hours in a row, would you consider it to be “always daylight”?

            Rather than insulting people, I suggest you do a little bit of research. Since the first services were connected to the NBN, the percentages on 100Mbps has been trending downwards.

            The vast majority of increase in speed & quotas has has come from RSPs increasing the value of plans, not people choosing to pay more. For example I’m paying less now in actual dollar terms for a 200GB at 11Mbs than 3GB at 512Kbps ($79.95). Labor based the NBN on the wholesale ARPU rapidly moving above $100/month.

          • Chas,

            But you were thinking of peak speeds, not average speeds.

            NO! I didn’t mention or was thinking of peak speeds at all, just average speeds which is fairer measure across the nation because it also inputs all speeds into the calculation, but you know that that’s why you shifted the goal posts.

            You want to skew the analysis because you want to ignore speeds which are lower than the average which in the case of the USA are the majority, you are great at denial of facts, and if that doesn’t work out you stack the figures to suit your bias to give you the outcome you want.

          • “Since the first services were connected to the NBN, the percentages on 100Mbps has been trending downwards”

            No Matthew, they have been a variable curve in different directions, and there is far too little data to describe ANY trend (your fixations notwithstanding)

          • “just average speeds which is fairer measure across the nation because it also inputs all speeds into the calculation”

            I see…so since FTTN has a mid-single digit average speed (not peak speed remember), how do you consider that an improvement? And do you now admit that it truly is a step backward?

            “You want to skew the analysis because you want to ignore speeds which are lower than the average which in the case of the USA are the majority”

            Huh? That is true everywhere…what the Hell are you babbling about?
            As of Q4, the US has 53% of all internet connections over 10Mbps, and 32% over 15Mbps…
            Australia is 20% over 10Mbps, and only 8.2% over 15Mbps
            South Korea has 63% over 15Mbps…

          • Chas,

            I see…so since FTTN has a mid-single digit average speed (not peak speed remember), how do you consider that an improvement?

            There you go moving the goal posts around again, I didn’t mention FTTN at all, average BB speeds measured at a nation level by Akamai and the Oookla Net Index are for all fixed line infrastructure, you bringing up FTTN only is just a pointless Chas diversion, a lot of nations have FTTN that feed into the average measurement, so?

            As of Q4, the US has 53% of all internet connections over 10Mbps, and 32% over 15Mbps…
            Australia is 20% over 10Mbps, and only 8.2% over 15Mbps
            South Korea has 63% over 15Mbps…

            I don’t know if you realise but Australia is still building their NBN network, so the majority of input to national average speeds will still be ADSL2+.

          • Chas,

            No Matthew, they have been a variable curve in different directions,

            lol, what does that mean, it doesn’t mean anything statistically does it Chas?

            and there is far too little data to describe ANY trend

            Interesting that your ‘trend denial’ is still applied even as the data base increases, latest data from the NBN Third Quarter results released on the 6th May has 100/40 dropping from 19% March 2015 to 15% March 2016.

            So how much data do you want before you Chas the self appointed master statistician on all things NBN decide there is a trend?

            If the 100/40 percentage increases at some point, even if it is only 1%, then there is trend, correct?

          • In January 2015 the FCC changed the legal definition of broadband.

            To qualify the connection speed must not be less than 25/3 Mbps

            This disqualifies ADSL, ADSL2+ and some wireless/mobile connections.

            U.S. telcos have lifted their game.

          • I have real and comprehensive statistics relating licensing and telemetry information received from Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, SalesForce and many other platforms. These are faithfully represented by tables and graphs in my business plan.

            Microsoft By The Numbers
            http://news.microsoft.com/bythenumbers/

        • “National average is 18.2Mbps.”

          Illegal! 18.2Mbps does not qualify as “broadband” as per the FCC’s legal definition. (Less than 25/3Mbps)

  4. Values – SAGE-AU
    As an organisation, we value our code of ethics. This set of principles has been designed to assist members in sound professional judgement, while upholding ethical ideas and obligations. SAGE-AU’s code of ethics is globally recognised, and has been adopted as the basis for similar codes of conduct by other like-minded organisations.

    These principles include: fair treatment, privacy, communication, system integrity, co-operation, honesty, education, social responsibility and workplace quality. Our ethics commit our members to maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the computer systems they manage, for the benefit of all of those involved with and affected by them.

    No single set of rules could apply to the enormous variety of situations and responsibilities that exist, but while IT professionals must always be guided by their own professional judgment, we hope that consideration of this code will help when difficulties arise.

    Richard – Who needs these LEFTOID MEDIAS.

  5. Both the Labor and Liberal/National Coalition have used the NBN to score cheap political points against their opposition

    I understand the need to look impartial by taking a crack at both primary “sides” of politics, however I’m not sure this is terribly accurate.

    The ALP envisioned the NBN and had the temerity to take on the behemoth that the legacy of LNP telecommunications policy through Telstra – a combined natural monopoly wholesaler who failed to invest for the future, with a competitive arm in retail that used its natural monopoly position to keep competitors at bay. The LNP through the entire process was opposed for the above points. Tony Abbott positioned Malcolm Turnbull to take up the mantel of destroying the NBN. Only begrudgingly was the LNP been forced to adopt something of an NBN view, but in tradition of not being able to accept the proposed model from the ALP they had to do it differently – and the “costs” oft cited by supporters of the MTM basketcase solution are fast coming undone as the key driver through blowouts, failure to deliver a technology platform for the nation (which the market failed to achieve over the course of the preceding decade).

    That entire context, taken into account, leads us to where? That both parties are equally culpable of effectively wrecking the future technological framework *AND* market framework for the telecommunications sector?

    False equivalence at play here that does nothing to help improve the situation.

    • To be fair Labor’s saving grace is they picked the best Tech to go with after various reviews and panels told them FttN wasn’t going to provide enough of a return soon enough for the small difference in cost to be worthwhile. (Ie they listened when the industry experts told them FttN was wrong and a waste).

      They proceeded to screw with the network design for political reasons (121 POI) rather than let the professionals decide independently, proceeded with a sub optimal prime contractor model for the rollout, proceeded to attempt to rub the coalitions nose in it at every opportunity, used some interesting metrics for political expediency, the whole MDU saga.

      (likely plenty of smaller issues as well).

      LPA rather than fixing anything have merely made things worse.

      • 121 POI was ACCC, not ALP. In fact many of the worst parts of the original NBN design were influenced by or flat out demanded by the ACCC.

    • > The ALP envisioned the NBN and had the temerity to take on the behemoth that the legacy of LNP telecommunications policy through Telstra

      And failed abysmally at both.
      * Labor responded to their FTTN failure with FTTP, but barely adjusted the performance which has resulting 79% on fibre connecting at 25Mbps or slower and zero RSPs offering plans faster than 100Mbps.
      * Labor were in a position to structurally separate Telstra into a retail and wholesale arm, but instead negotiated to pay Telstra for every customer transferred to the NBN and paid Telstra to lease infrastructure.
      * Labor established NBNCo as a national monopoly with more power than Telstra

      • “Labor, Labor, Labor”.

        They haven’t run things for three years, even the LPA doesn’t agree with you. Time to give it a rest mate.

      • “which has resulting 79% on fibre connecting at 25Mbps or slower”

        Cool…you’ve quoted that meaningless current stat 3 times so far.
        It can change at the drop of a hat, but you somehow think it means something…

        “Labor were in a position to structurally separate Telstra into a retail and wholesale arm”

        No, they weren’t actually…

        “Labor established NBNCo as a national monopoly with more power than Telstra”

        To be that, NBNCo would have needed a retail arm. Sorry, wrong again.

        • To be that, NBNCo would have needed a retail arm. Sorry, wrong again.

          Shooting from the hip again Chas, the defining of a monopoly re communications is all about infrastructure, the ACCC has legislative control on Telstra infrastructure, and decides wholesale pricing and access seeker conditions, the fact Telstra sell mobile phones etc at the retail level is irrelevant.

          The ACCC has similar control over NBN infrastructure and the fact that the NBN Co doesn’t sell mobile phones etc is irrelevant.

          • Telecomm (Telstra back then), was wholesaler and retailer and was a national monopoly. Though acting and providing for the nation under rule of the government.

            Then it was privatised and forced to allow share of it network infastructure to other retailers to create competition.

            Originally NBN Co, would be a national wholesaler (without the retail arm) and would be considered equal to a Utility wholesaler just like Ausgrid (Energy Australia, is now just a retail arm like just many other Retailers).

            If it NBN Co was just a wholesaler, it would just lease use of its network to Retailers. Generate self sustaining cash flow.

          • It’s amazing how convoluted your thinking is Reality, and all so you can just avoid a point…

        • “Shooting from the hip again Chas”

          No, unlike yourself I am actually reading what is being posted…

          “the ACCC has legislative control on Telstra infrastructure, and decides wholesale pricing and access seeker conditions”

          Legislative?? Really? Please quote the legislature…
          The ACCC has the same control on NBNCo, but Telstra has had a retail arm to take advantage of their insight and control of the infrastructure monopoly. NBNCo has no such arm and all of their actions are heavily regulated.

          • So one moment you say the NBN Co is not a monopoly.

            To be that, NBNCo would have needed a retail arm. Sorry, wrong again.

            Then you say it is.

            NBNCo has no such arm and all of their actions are heavily regulated.

            Have you decided yet?

          • “So one moment you say the NBN Co is not a monopoly”

            As I said, you must learn to read…
            Mathew called the NBNCo
            “a national monopoly with more power than Telstra”
            It does not have more power than Telstra…

            Class dismissed…

          • “a national monopoly with more power than Telstra”
            It does not have more power than Telstra…

            The retail side of Telstra is not a monopoly, last I heard you can get BB plans, mobile phones and plans, tablets etc from a multitude of retailers in Australia, as well as a choice of mobile provider from Optus and Vodafone and their numerous resellers.

            The wholesale fixed line BB, fixed wireless and satellite access is virtually in the hands of one organisation the NBN Company, increasing at rapid rate until completion.

          • “The retail side of Telstra is not a monopoly”

            Again, you are either unable to read, or unable to understand what you have read.
            Absolutely nobody has said that Telstra is currently a retail monopoly, and I assume you just said that to confuse things and obfuscate the point.

        • “Labor established NBNCo as a national monopoly with more power than Telstra”

          NBNCo only provides an Ethernet Bitstream service. It is not a broadband connection. If you plugged your modem into the bitstream, you would fry it’s innards.

          The equipment that the RSP needs to install is expensive to convert the bitstream into something meaningful to their customers. The cost of the equipment is way outside the consumers affordabiity. Additionally it is required that the RSP is certified and licensed to be able receive NBNCo’s Ethernet Bitstream which is also costly.

          More details here:
          http://www.nbnco.com.au/sell-nbn-services/products-services-pricing/nbn-co-ethernet-bitstream-service.html

    • I completely agreeagree, Joel. I wrote this a month back about the same behaviour from Internet Australia:

      I keep hearing this argument again and again, as though both parties are equally to blame. Sorry, but that’s simply not true – Labor decided to do something about the telecommunications sector because people and businesses had been complaining about it for over a decade, while Telstra had proven comprehensively disinterested in doing anything proactive (well, unless the government were prepared to give them billions in publicly funds as incentives). So it was obvious there was a problem, it was obvious they needed a solution and it was obvious the private sector wasn’t going to solve it on its own.

      You may recall that the private sector were asked to tender a plan to solve the telecommunications problem, where the industry were generally unable to tender a decent solution and Telstra thumbed their noses at the whole process – I think they submitted a three page F.U. and didn’t even meet the deadline, if I remember correctly. Rudd went to the election promising to solve it, and so he could show he had concrete plans he had a FTTN policy. Conroy and Rudd then put together an expert panel and asked them for advice. The expert panel came back and said FTTN would be unworkable – it would be difficult and expensive because Telstra owned the network, not the government. And it would be obsolete by the time it was finished. The recommendation was for a mostly FTTP build. Crazy as it seems, the Government took their advice.

      The most political thing the ALP did about the NBN was try to take credit for it. During their term of government they passed hundreds of pieces of legislation that were comprehensively ignored by the media. They were crucified by the media and the Opposition for things like the Pink Batts, a scheme to help less fortunate Australians have better insulation improving both their quality of life and reduce national energy costs, despite the fact that a) the accidents and poor work quality were outside their control and b) as a proportion of the total project the ratio of dodgy operators and safety concerns was actually extremely low – it’s only because the LNP could politicise it that there was an issue, but instead of highlighting the favourable safety record they focused on the statistical outliers.

      So you can probably forgive the ALP for banging on about a project that they started, that wouldn’t have been attempted if it hadn’t been for them, that the LNP were promising to destroy, that was one of the few things they could get the media to talk about in favourable terms (and which the media mostly chose to report negatively anyway – remember the hundreds of negative articles compared with the handful of favourable ones in the mainstream media?) and that the public were fully supportive of. If that’s using the issue as a political football I have to ask, do you expect a Government to engage in every project and initiative without ever promoting what they’re doing? How the hell can the public be expected to know what their Government is doing if they never talk about it?

      What the LNP did was utterly political – they took a project designed by experts and engineers and changed it based on political policy. They’ve tried to twist everything about it into political attacks. Not only did their claimed facts not stand up to initial scrutiny, they have failed to achieve any of the benefits they claimed to be able to deliver in the subsequent three years – it was all a deception for political (and corrupt, fraudulent purposes).

      So let’s be honest – the NBN has been politicised by one party – the LNP. It can’t be a political football if your argument is factual – the ALP are quite factually saying that FTTP was always the best choice (based on engineering, physics and economics) and also quite factually saying if you want any hope of FTTP you can’t vote for the LNP. The LNP are saying the MTM is prudent, which is simply not true – it is more expensive to build, more expensive to run, has lower profitability, takes about the same amount of time to build anyway, and is so much slower it will be obsolete before it is complete. So the rationale is political, sold to the public on falsehoods.

      It’s about time people started calling the LNP put for politicising the NBN and stopped trying to paint the ALP with the same brush, because such behaviour is utterly inaccurate and disingenuous. The ALP, from all its flaws, tried to do something visionary and brilliant – they should be thanked and celebrated for it, not dragged down into the mud by a politically motivated media and public.

      So take a long, hard look at yourselves, SAGE-AU – right now you’re part of the problem, not the solution. We wouldn’t be in this mess if it wasn’t for people and groups like this and the media muddying the waters like this – if they spelled it out, loud and clear – voting for the LNP will cripple telecommunications in this country for decades, and rack up tens of billions to the taxpayer’s tab while they’re doing it.

      Stop playing political games yourselves, SAGE-AU – you’re being £#@&ing hypocrites.

      • I don’t think anyone said both parties are equally to blame. SAGE-AU rightly stated that the original idea of the NBN was a good one.

        There’s no doubt that the LNP then set out to destroy the NBN (it was obvious before the 2013 election that this was what was going to happen, and they’ve (sadly) largely succeeded in this. Again, I don’t see SAGE-AU disagreeing with that.

        But that doesn’t mean that Labor have been pure as the driven snow through all of this. There is no doubt that they’ve played the political game since they became opposition in 2013. If they hadn’t, then they would have stood strong behind their “FTTP is the right idea” policy that they had before 2013, but they have not done this – they’ve wavered because they believe that there may be political capital in doing so. And where things HAVE gone well (OK, this is rare), they’ve not stood up and said “Yes, that part’s great, we support that” but have just rolled out the same “What the LNP is doing is wrong, they’re destroying the sandcastle that we built, waaaaaaahhhhh!” crap that typifies national politics lately.

        I agree entirely with your assessment that the vast majority of the issue with the NBN has come from the LNP’s mishandling of the project.

        ““It is extremely disappointing to see that under the current Liberal/National government, the NBN looks to have been set up to fail, and to do so in a miserable and spectacular fashion, for the sole purpose of pointing the finger at the previous Labor government and blaming them for the mess,” he concluded.”

        I think SAGE-AU’s statement is pretty accurate, and aligns with your stated position.

        • Wish I’d seen this a couple of days ago.

          “that doesn’t mean that Labor have been pure as the driven snow through all of this. There is no doubt that they’ve played the political game since they became opposition in 2013. If they hadn’t, then they would have stood strong behind their “FTTP is the right idea” policy that they had before 2013, but they have not done this – they’ve wavered because they believe that there may be political capital in doing so.”
          Look, I’m not ideologically Labor positive – I disagree with a lot of things Labor have done, and continue to do. I even disagree with their lack of commitment to full fibre NBN, but at least I understand why they’re in the position they are – your assertion that Labor is playing a political game because they’re not standing fast behind a FTTP position is a vast oversimplification and an erroneous conclusion. Were Labor to take a strong FTTP position, *that* could be labelled as playing politics, too.

          The reason Labor aren’t sticking to a FTTP position is because A) they don’t know what the state of the project is at this point, and B) what they do know is contracts have been signed and a great deal of work undertaken to lock in HFC and FTTN, so if they commit to universal fibre they will either face tens of billions in contract settlements, or face breaking an election promise weeks into their tenure. Forget about how it plays with the electorate – committing to full fibre at this point is fiscally and managerially incompetent.

          “And where things HAVE gone well (OK, this is rare), they’ve not stood up and said “Yes, that part’s great, we support that” but have just rolled out the same “What the LNP is doing is wrong, they’re destroying the sandcastle that we built, waaaaaaahhhhh!” crap that typifies national politics lately.”

          Can you please point out where LNP NBN policy is good or superior? I can think if one area that might make the cut, and that’s FTTB. But the way FTTB is being done everything from the MDU (main distribution unit) in is left up to the building owners, which leaves tenants in a situation where they may have terrible outcomes because in-building wiring might be poor or even faulty. Labor and the original NBN were holding off on this because they were exploring the option of legally requiring testing and upgrade work, or even having NBN teams that could pull fibre through the building.

          So is the LNP policy superior? Well, delivering the NBN to MDUs (Multi-Dwelling Units) sooner has benefits, but do those benefits outweigh the benefit of guaranteed service performance? It’s like a little mini NBN debate all on its own.

          Feel free to add any policy changes that have been demonstrably better, but I can’t think of any… And I know quite a lot about the project, at this point.

          So, I’m sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that Labor have been playing politics with the NBN – yes, they’re trying to gain political leverage out of it, but so should they – what the LNP have done is, literally, criminal. The only chance the NBN has, that the future of telecommunications has in this country, is if the LNP are thrown out of Government. I don’t care if Labor or the Greens are running the show – both are committed to infrastructure like the NBN underpinning future prosperity. What we can’t afford is another LNP Government.

          The one thing I will agree with is that Labor have been known to oversimplify certain facts in their campaigning, which is annoying, but the fact is this is a complex topic and it isn’t easily (or at all) reduced down to simple soundbites. So Labor can either be accurate and verbose, or slightly inaccurate but easier to understand for the majority of voters. The LNP have a massive headstart here because their factless disingenuous misinformation is easily dribbled out in simple, spittle-laden monosyllables – it doesn’t matter if you’re oversimplifying nonsense, it’s still just nonsense anyway. So Labor can either combat soundbites with essays, or create their own soundbites. Which will lack detail (and thus nuance and some accuracy), but at this point they’re not left with a lot of options. Because the media have done a disastrous job of covering the topic for ten years now and most of the public are too… unknowledgeable to comprehend the topic.

  6. “To equate Internet usage to only the streaming of movies and TV shows to TVs in a household is to completely disregard how the Internet has developed in recent years, and shows the Minister to be completely out of touch with the core aspects of his portfolio,” said Hudson.

    It’s exactly how the Internet has developed in recent years. Bandwidth growth driven almost exclusively by video.

    “The Internet is a business tool just as much (if not more so) than it is an instrument of leisure.”

    Universal internet is transformative; FTTH isn’t required. Deliver customer demanded speeds (ACCC’s NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report revealed actual RSP provisioned CVC is just 1.05mbps / customer, 83.43% of customer activating on 25mbps or less), faster and at lower cost makes sense. When tendered to the private sector international experience shown faster and cheaper (then pointed out for years).

    • @Richard.
      “Deliver customer demanded speeds” but this suggests a demand driven internet speed table, which is possible with FTTH in theory, FTTN cannot achieve this as its incapable of matching the current offerings of FTTH, making it a supply side scenario.

      With MTM all customer’s are potentially unable to achieve the demand that they want, so how can you statistics show true demand?
      And what about those who want to be net creators rather than net consumptors? The further differences between FTTH and FTTN again throw out the statistics.

      • > With MTM all customer’s are potentially unable to achieve the demand that they want, so how can you statistics show true demand?

        Labor made some predictions (less than 1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026) and the reality of their plan has resulted in 79% connected on fibre at 25Mbps or slower.

        With MTM for those who want faster speeds there is FoD.

        • “Labor made some predictions”

          Nope…

          “With MTM for those who want faster speeds there is FoD”

          If that were actually true, then there would have been more than 3 customers in a year. At the cost of $30,000 in many cases, it is a ridiculous program.

          • Yeah FTTP costs a lot, 2016 FTTP costing by Labor comes in at $29M for three small towns in rural West Tassie.

            At $4,400 FTTP CPP residents are happy for the Government to pay for it, if they don’t get it FTTN or HFC will do.

          • “2016 FTTP costing by Labor comes in at $29M for three small towns in rural West Tassie.”

            If that were true, then estimate for FoD would be in the hundreds of billions. Since they are converting FTTN to FTTP, you are suggesting that the cost is close to $8k per premise…obvious BS.
            The cost is an estimate from the Coalition…gee, how could they have been so wrong…again?

          • Since they are converting FTTN to FTTP,

            umm what , who is?

            The cost is an estimate from the Coalition…gee, how could they have been so wrong…again?

            What cost is a estimate from the Coalition?

          • “umm what , who is?”

            The $29 Million estimate is to convert the planned rollout back to the promised FTTP that Malcolm reneged on.

            That estimate is not Labor’s…

          • At $4,400 FTTP CPP residents are happy for the Government to pay for it, if they don’t get it FTTN or HFC will do.

            The LPA is going to put them on satellite.

            Satellite CPP = $7,900

            Seems Labors costs are a bargain ;o)

            lol

          • The Sky Muster satellite is already launched, they are not launching it just for three small towns in West Tassie.

            In reference to your satellite CPP quote of $7,900 from CP 16.

            Satellite CPP is based on effective capacity, not premises covered.

            Only 1/10 for the try because you got your name right, but I take it it really was only a tongue-in-cheek comment.

          • LOL

            I love your defence of why you think $7,900 is a better deal than $4,400.

            Classic :o)

      • Careful talking about Nielsen’s Law, he will just retort claiming that it isn’t a “law” and just observations. Just like Moore’s Law is a load of excrement, despite being incredibly accurate since it was stated ;-).

        • It’s a law until the observations don’t fit it. That’s how all science works.

          You can see how well the observations have followed it for over 3 decades now.

    • Backwards views like yours aren’t needed in a modern, progressive Australia. Other nations are moving ahead and don’t pay attention to people like yourself and they have enjoyed the prosperity it is providing. Australia misses out.

    • @Richard – “Universal internet is transformative; FTTH isn’t required”

      Despite the fact that the vast majority of homes on the planet are currently in plans to receive it? You just can’t get past those Coalition Shades Richard…there is more to the world than Malcolm’s press releases.

      “It’s exactly how the Internet has developed in recent years. Bandwidth growth driven almost exclusively by video”

      Are you kidding??? I take it you haven’t heard of the cloud yet, or IoT, or online backups, or Virtual Reality, or any one of a million other things. You probably have the most narrow focus and lack of perspective I have yet to observe, mate…

      • Richard is kind of right, but also wrong. In Intel’s keynote address at Computex earlier this week they said video accounts for around 80% of total Internet traffic. However, video data doesn’t mean people watching movies and TV. YouTube obviously accounts for a huge amount of that, which could be anything from independent films to amateur vlogs, to instructional videos and even music (huge amounts of music on YouTube with a single still image that would be classified as video but is really just audio). Then there’s the advertising – YouTube serves millions of hours of advertising daily, but video advertising is all over the Internet. RDP sessions also transmit compressed video which will look to traffic analysis like a video stream unless it’s encapsulated within a VPN tunnel. In short, there’s a phenomenal amount of data that is compressed video but is not serving up TV or movie content.

        So you can’t conflate raw traffic types with a specific form of content – it’s massively inaccurate and wrong-headed. It is an incorrect assumption based on a tremendous lack of knowledge, by politicians and by moronic spruikers of idiotic policy like Richard.

    • There are none so blind as they who do not want to see. lol

      • There are none so blind as they who do not want to see.

        In the land of the blind (MSM), the one eyed man is king

        Thank god we have Renai…

    • Universal internet is transformative

      To what degree Richard? Exactly how “transformative” do you consider it to be?

    • “It’s exactly how the Internet has developed in recent years. Bandwidth growth driven almost exclusively by video.”

      That completely ignores the issue of user-generated content and interactive near-realtime applications. Yes, streaming is important – but it’s not the sole use of the Internet, and many would (rightly) argue not the most important.

    • “Universal internet is transformative; FTTH isn’t required. Deliver customer demanded speeds (ACCC’s NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report revealed actual RSP provisioned CVC is just 1.05mbps / customer, 83.43% of customer activating on 25mbps or less), faster and at lower cost makes sense. When tendered to the private sector international experience shown faster and cheaper (then pointed out for years).”

      Of course people sign up for 25Mbps or less when that’s all that’s available to them.

      It’s also well known that over-subscription of backhaul bandwidth is normal, because not every customer is online at the same time trying to consume all of the bandwidth available to them.

      CVC bandwidth is also stupidly expensive – a system that some would claim was designed specifically to disincentivise the purchase of higher amounts of CVC bandwidth.

      Australia != other international markets. Telstra (your hallowed private sector) basically tried to blackmail the government into turning them back into a telecommunications monopoly before the ALP government pushed for a FTTP network – and that blackmail wasn’t to benefit the consumer, or the community, or the economy, but Telstra themselves, and screw everyone else.

      The private sector has failed to deliver equitable modern broadband access to Australia – there have been constraints on them that are at least partially to blame for this, but that doesn’t change the result. The NBN could and should have vastly improved the situation, but it has been hamstrung by political fighting and will now basically satisfy nobody but those who would see us slip further behind the rest of the world.

  7. Furthermore….

    Pyne must think professionals and enthusiasts like to waste hours in the day deploying assets to online hosting facilities. Just deploying a mere web application is a pain in the ass.

    Just a shortlist:
    What about the photographers and graphic designers who upload images to FlickR
    What about musicians, producers and composers who upload multiple tracks and 2+ hour mixes to Soundcloud and MixCloud (Here are a couple of my sets…. enjoy https://soundcloud.com/dj-meta-starostin/tracks)
    What about the independent radiographer who needs to exchange medical images between several others. Some of them are large files these days. Some are more then a gigabyte.
    What about film producers, like Weta Workshop, Weta Digital & Wingnut films who require high speed links to exchange large digital video including CG renders. (guess they will stay in Wellington New Zealand)

    • Talking about the musicians, have you ever tried using software such as VST Connect Pro on a crappy connection?

      I have, and I wouldn’t waste my time again. The tool is revolutionary with decent infrastructure links.

      • Yes!

        Cubase VST and Emagic Logic before they dropped Windows support.

        I also use VirtualDJ to broadcast 2 hour live mixes to dance clubs and music festivals in Second Life via SHOUTcast almost on a daily basis.
        https://www.shoutcast.com/

      • I remember seeing an article about Google fibre when 2 musicians in different towns where able to play live together for a performance.

        • This was long before Google Fiber (correct spelling) became a thing.

          A duet between T-Bone Burnett in Los Angeles, California, a Grammy Award winner, performing “The Wild Side of Life” with Chuck Mead in Chattanooga Tennessee, a founder of the band BR549, for an audience of 4,000 in Chattanooga October 13, 2012 using videoconference technology, to demonstrate EPB Chattanooga’s Gigabit capable broadband network.

          Check it out:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGeppaEX3Uc

          • This was long before Google Fiber (correct spelling) became a thing.

            Correct American spelling. “Real” English spells it as “fibre” (though as it’s used as a noun in this case, “Google Fiber” is perfectly acceptable) :)

          • Oh …. and incidently Optical Fiber is a noun.

            optical fibre
            noun
            noun: optical fiber

            a thin glass fibre through which light can be transmitted.

          • As I said, “real” english (UK) is “fibre”, US english is “fiber”.

            Dance around it like you want, thats just the way it is, there are plenty of online dictionaries to check if you doubt me.

          • ““Real” English spells it as “fibre” (though as it’s used as a noun in this case, “Google Fiber” is perfectly acceptable)”
            To be fair, it’s a business name. Businesses incorrectly spell things in their names all the time, you’d hardly be warranted having a go at Toys-R-Us :p So even if it wasn’t ‘acceptable’, it’s still the name of their product.

            Still that won’t stop me from punctuating Demons’ Souls correctly. I am nothing if not a hypocrite.

    • For a small number of businesses like this it is cheaper to build direct fibre links than cable an entire nation with fibre. In particular most businesses work within precincts and many already have fibre networks (e.g. Cinenet).

      Currently on fibre 16% (down 3% in 12 months) are connected 100Mbps and nobody is able to connect at faster speeds. If the demand for the speeds exist and NBNCo have made 1Gbps plans available wholesale why aren’t RSPs selling the speeds when companies such as Cinenet have installed fibre to meet this need?

      • So it’d be cheaper to stick with ADSL and let those that want/need fibre to pay for it themselves, right?

      • This argument is not applicable anymore…..
        neither is “sooner”……

        All you guys have left to argue is people don’t want fast and reliable internet?????

        ….this is just crazy!!!

        Alfred

        • There are two questions:
          1. Is 25/5Mbps sufficiently fast to enable access to the eHealth & eLearning benefits that Labor promised?
          2. Are people prepare to pay (using the current financial model) for speeds to deliver the eHealth & eLearning benefits that Labor promised?

          If 25/5Mbps is not sufficiently fast then 79% are missing out on the benefits that Labor promised.

          • You are still missing the point….why would you build a less capable and unreliable network for higher cost and less ROI???? Just does not make sense……..pathetic argument really. Narrow-minded and short sighted to say the least!

          • If 25/5Mbps is not sufficiently fast then 79% are missing out on the benefits that Labor promised.

            Labor may have promised them, but the LPA is delivering them ;o)

          • 1. Technically I would imagine yes (though I don’t know specifics, I can’t imagine eHealth requires more than 4k streaming – latency would be the key issue, not speed), however if non-FTTP portions of the MTM are unable to reliably service medical alarms, this crosses over to the likes of eHealth as well.

            2. Seems to me 65% of current nbn connections are.

  8. “Not telling the whole truth or saying something that is only partially true, is tantamount to lying.” lol

  9. Maybe the current demand is not there, but if the cost of deployment for FTTP is close (either way) to that of FTTN, surely the argument regarding current demand is moot? Future-proofing and reliability of FTTP makes it the logical choice.

    • Not close, it’s cheaper. As the blowout to $56bn has demonstrated.

      But that’s just a comparison of the construction cost – in terms of the project, it is $56bn cheaper, because the fibre NBN would have cost $0 to the tax payer and the budget, because it was an investment. The MTM can’t make money (profit, or positive ROI) so it’s no longer an investment, so becomes a direct cost. A $56bn direct cost. Plus the extra billions in annual operating expenditure that the fibre NBN didn’t have, like $1bn/yr copper maintenance, $0.5bn/yr electricity cost, HFC maintenence costs, national pit and pipe network maintenance… The MTM is far, far more expensive than FTTP would have been. A cost that, frankly, I don’t think Australia can afford.

      • What pro-MTM people never seem to do is accept there is an upgrade cost to get from MTM to FttP, which needs to be considered to compare apples to apples.

        If FttP costs $70b, and MTM costs $56b, whats the extra on top of that $56b to get to a final FttP outcome? If its more than $14b, then MTM is a straight up waste of time, and money, the scale of which we wont know for decades.

        As MTM is now a thing, it also means it will need to stay a thing just for grandfathering rules, and hence be an additional OPEX burden for the foreseeable future.

        All of which keep pointing to MTM being a waste of both money and time. But you wont get that from the luddites favoring MTM, who just look at the short term without ever considering the mid and long term situation.

        • “If FttP costs $70b, and MTM costs $56b, whats the extra on top of that $56b to get to a final FttP outcome? If its more than $14b, then MTM is a straight up waste of time, and money, the scale of which we wont know for decades.”

          Theory goes that if you can get a smaller return sooner that smaller return adds up in the interim and puts you ahead in the short term (ideally paying for itself before long term option is required).

          This is usually the path taken when assets already exist (and typically have paid themselves off already) as you then only recouping the upgrade cost and not the original asset. (because in that case why not build the new asset instead of buying an old one).

          In practice so far 0 MTM revenue has been reported (there might be some but they’re being ‘transparent’ and not releasing data) and its scaring even the treasury dept into believing the whole thing might end up as pure debt.

          • Yet another short term v mid to long term mentality. Get 50% of the revenue for twice as long to end up even. I doubt it’ll work out quite lilke that, but you never know.

            Financially FttN is a fail, simply because ISP’s either overbuild and bypass NBN completely, or they dont, and we get stuck with a crappy speed while the rest of the world laughs.

            And the Liberals refuse to accept that on political ideology grounds.

        • GongGav,

          If FttP costs $70b,

          Incorrect.

          and MTM costs $56b,

          Incorrect.

          whats the extra on top of that $56b to get to a final FttP outcome?

          It’s not $56B to add anything extra on top of.

          As your discussion is based on two incorrect figures, do you want to do it correctly and have another go?

          • Devoid you have still failed to show where it doesn’t mention $56B in the CP16 other than your desperate claim of wrong.

          • Whether the figures are correct or not, you are ignoring the premise entirely.

            If the cost of MTM -> FTTP is more than the outlay for FTTP in the first place, then the MTM is wasting money. The values themselves are irrelevant.

            NBN Co and Malcolm both have admitted that fibre is the end game, thus, because of that, it can be assumed that at some point in the future, that upgrade will have to happen, regardless of whether you personally believe it or not.

          • Yeah, not going to bother here alain. You just cant see the point can you?

            He can’t Gav, the second he does the whole basis for his position is shot down in flames.

          • “Incorrect.”
            Indeed, FTTP was priced at ~$46b. Of course, he’s talking about FTTP rolling out after this MTMess was initiated, in which case CP16 says ~$84b.

            “Incorrect”
            Indeeed. Most recent figure price MTM at $71.6b.

            “It’s not $56B to add anything extra on top of.”
            Please explain to me how ~$13b is significantly different to his $14b such that it renders his point meaningless.

            You damned troll.

  10. As ‘Snow Crash’ said below a previous article, Australians and Australian politicians live in their own world. It is all about what is happening overseas. That’s what it’s all about. Deloitte titled one of its recent reports ‘Dawn Of The Gigabit Internet Age.’ It does not matter whether it is needed, the fact is that it is coming. Whatever technologies can do gigabit plus, that is what you need when you’re still taking several years to do a build and completion is years into the future. HFC can likely do it with RF Over Glass, FTTN…um, needs full replacement with something else.

    With nbn™’s buyer/s under a Coaliton govt, anything is on the table, from no upgrade to full FTTP, but as time goes by the business case for networks with more longevity becomes easier and easier.

        • Where does it state the infrastructure is the issue, what speed tier is the FTTB user on relative to the FTTP user?

          • He signed up to the same plan with Optus, offering the same speed and unlimited data as his work connection.

            FTTB take 58 minutes
            FTTP takes 5 minutes

          • Typical ignorant questions from devoid, clearly reading comprehension is still something he can’t master!

          • This could be a technical fault, an issue with the customer’s modem or wiring, or the amount of data capacity that the retailer has bought in that area.”

            Unless the journo stays with the story and updates it to see if there is a solution, we will never know.

          • Wynne’s apartment is also on Brunswick Road, just three kilometres from the studio.

          • Typical ignorant questions from devoid, clearly reading comprehension is still something he can’t master!

            You’re assuming he actually read it :)

          • Well then devoid it leave “or the amount of data capacity that the retailer has bought in that area.” that out as a problem doesn’t it

          • The article was imperfect in terms of detail – it could and should have said if the user could achieve the same 100mbps in off peak periods. But the fact that it said his download speeds during peak times drop to 9mbps suggest that they are usually much higher. Thus this is less a technical issue with the building wiring and either a contention issue from within the building, or Optus’s capacity for that area. Considering those premises are quite close, you’d think that if Optus has a capacity issue it would affect the FTTP office, too, so if it doesn’t, it is a limitation of the FTTB in-building contention. Which is a design limitation (of the way FTTB is being provisioned – there is insufficient capacity within the fibre running to the building to support the number of simultaneous connections operating within it, especially at peak times).

          • My sources at nbn still swear to me that the FTTN issues won’t go away any time soon, simply because nbn installed 1GE sfp modules for all the nodes so it doesn’t matter how much the RSP’s provision at the poi, the node backhaul is the bottle neck!

  11. Just spotted a typo in the third paragraph of the article that cheered up my morning.

    “Minster Pyne’s comments are based on a gross over-simplification of the issues involved, and as a result, are just wrong” said the group’s President Robert Hudson.

Comments are closed.