Fact check: Joyce perpetuates false NBN myths on Q&A

176

news Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce appears to have perpetuated a number of common misconceptions about the National Broadband Network in his appearance this week on the ABC’s Q&A program, including its cost, demand for high-speed broadband and its time to be deployed.

On the ABC’s Q&A program on Monday night this week, an audience member who lives with their family on a small farm 20km out of Tamworth told the panel that the area was “the telecommunications equivalent of the Third World”, because they couldn’t get TV or mobile reception and had a “damaged” fixed copper line that was unusable.

“We’re forced to use satellite internet, which, on a bad day, means we can’t actually access Gmail accounts,” they stated. Delimiter recommends readers click here to watch the full program. The transcript is also available.

The audience member told the panel that they would like the Government to “commit properly to a fibre to the premises – comprehensive NBN” that they believed would benefit the whole country.

In response, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaboy Joyce — whose seat of New England includes Tamworth — told the questioner that he didn’t believe that areas such as the one she lived in would ever have “exactly the same services as the CBD of Sydney”.

“It would just be not the truth to say we are going to be able to deliver that service to every regional section of Australia,” he said.

“We have to try and always do things within our means to repay the debt that we have and that, unfortunately, is the raw rule of economics, trying to do as much as we can to make sure we run a tight ship.”

Joyce said the best way to test what the public wanted from the NBN was “to see what they buy”. The Nationals MP said it was correct that a FTTP version of the NBN could deliver gigabit speeds, and that that was “an incredible service”. However, he said the NBN company hadn’t actually sold any of those services.

“Overwhelmingly, it’s the 25-megabit service that’s got 52% of the sales for where the NBN is available,” Joyce said. “So, we have to make sure it meets the market, that’s how it works.”

Joyce added that returning to Labor’s FTTP version of the NBN would cost the Government an extra $30 billion and take six to eight years longer to deploy than the Coalition’s Multi-Technology Mix version of the NBN.

However, unfortunately a number of statements made by Joyce were incorrect and reflect popular myths about the NBN project.

Labor’s original FTTP version of the NBN was slated to be delivered by 2021, not 2024 as Pyne claimed. Shortly after taking office, the Coalition conducted a Strategic Review into the NBN (PDF) which found that a reworked vision of Labor’s approach could be delivered by 2023.

Since that time — as founding NBN chief executive Mike Quigley said it would — the NBN company has also developed methods of radically speeding up its rollout of FTTP infrastructure. This is a phenomenon also seen in New Zealand, where the company’s major wholesale telco Chorus is also deploying FTTP.

This phenomenon is known as a ‘ramp-up’ and explains why it took the NBN company several years to get up to speed in deploying its network under Labor; a vast amount of initial planning needed to be done before it could commence its rollout.

In comparison, the NBN company has made relatively little progress in deploying the rival technologies — Fibre to the Node and HFC cable — which the Coalition has imposed on the project.

In terms of the cost of rolling out FTTP, almost all of the NBN company’s projections over time have shown that all versions of the NBN — Labor’s and the Coalition’s — would not, in fact, cost the Government anything, because each version would actually make a return on the Government’s investment of up to seven percent.

This means that the NBN project as a whole would be profitable — ensuring the Government’s original investment in the project would be returned, with interest.

That projected return on investment figure has actually sunk under the Coalition, because of less revenues achieved using the Coalition’s Fibre to the Node and HFC cable technologies than Labor’s original fibre vision, as well as higher than expected costs associated with this legacy infrastructure.

Joyce’s figures on both cost and rollout time appear to have been drawn from a so-called ‘counterfactual’ produced by the NBN company in mid-2015 at the request of the Coalition Government. The document purports to show that returning the NBN to an all-FTTP model could be completed by 2026-2028 and would require $20 to $30 billion more than the Coalition’s version of the NBN. You can read it here (PDF format) on page 39.

However, the Government has repeatedly refused to release the underlying analysis which produced this document, and its few paragraphs of text are broadly regarded as being politically compromised.

Joyce’s comments on demand for high-speed broadband are also inaccurate.

Locally, the slow take-up of high-end NBN services has been linked to the company’s pricing structure, with figures such as Stephen Baxter — celebrated entrepreneur and co-founder of fibre telco PIPE Networks — stating their disbelief that the NBN company charged customers more for accessing higher speeds, rather than incentivising them to use the full capacity of the NBN network.

In short, many experts believe Australians would take up the higher NBN speeds in much greater numbers if the NBN company reworked its much-criticised wholesale pricing model.

Technology figures such as Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes — one of Australia’s most successful technology entrepreneurs — and others have stated in public that gigabit speeds are essential for the nation’s long-term development. In addition, internationally telcos such as AT&T, Google, Verizon and more are talking up the need for such speeds.

Joyce’s comments come just weeks after fellow Coalition MP Christopher Pyne made similar misleading comments on Q&A regarding the NBN.

Opinion/analysis to follow.

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

176 COMMENTS

  1. They are really hopeless lobbyists for Murdoch. Can he choose anyone as dud as this lot including the basket case IPA to defend his interests ?

    They’ve blown all the money on obsolete equipment and assets. They need to now flog it off of course in any hopeless means possible.

    In this case go on national tv and spruik copper attacking fibre internet and the economy which is their faulty economic and innovation plan.

    • Yes they are, nothing wrong with that, didn’t even cost me alot of money, if i want to buy an election win i will! Did cost a few people their soul, but hell not my problem. I don’t want all you plebs to have FTTP. Think of my profits please!! I don’t want any of you streaming the content you want, you are supposed to be buying it from me!! I really enjoy selling a frankly below average service for a large cost to the consumer.

      Copper 4evahhhhh

      • No, Rupert – copper’s still to fast. You should make sure the next upgrade is string and two jam tins. The electorate is too stupid to notice the difference. Distract them with another 70 channels of old 3:4 monochrome movies and call it art cinema.

        • Your string and two jam tins idea sounds intriguing. Where can I find out more information on what clearly is the future of comms?

        • “You should make sure the next upgrade is string and two jam tins”

          Don’t you know that the future is 100% wireless???

          Everyone in Australia will be issued a free paper cone to use as a megaphone…

    • One thing I never understood is why they purchased both HFC’s and Telstra’s twisted pair networks without doing due diligence. The reports I read were that the Optus HFC hadn’t been maintained and wouldn’t be fit for NBN’s purpose without a lot of remediation.

      Where else do you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a second hand asset and not check it out first?

    • Murdoch should be told in no uncertain terms to go suck d***. He gave up Aussie citizenship years ago so he could become an American and get hold of Fox. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to butt his objectional nose into our business.

  2. There is no myth.

    The NBN is now ADSL and HFC recycled and marketed as NBN. They have abused public money to make a purchase on obsolete unusable faulty assets and Telstra gladly took all the money and ran.

    The faulty copper falling over when it pleases and in need of constant repair and their hopeless attempt to buy new copper to remediate the trash state Telstra left it in all these years.

    Is no myth.

    Businesses who have waited 3 months for telephone line repairs is no myth.

    Complete despair being on telephone lines that is severely bad for productivity and the economy is no myth.

  3. I am lucky enough to be one of the last to be connected to FTTP at my residence. Gigabit speeds are NOT available to general users. No-one has bought it, because even Telstra doesn’t offer it! I am already on a “maximum” 100/40 Mbps speed rating with another provider.

    How can the government possibly justify “no one is buying faster speeds” if they are simply not available?

    “At the moment the fastest internet available we have with NBN is 100MBPS.” Roan, Telstra 24×7 Chat service, 11:52am 9 Jun 2016.

    • This.

      They keep using the argument of “no one is demanding it”, when either it’s not available, or if a plan *is* available, unless you’re lucky enough to have FTTP, you’re not going to get the speeds you’re paying for anyway.

      • Well we displayed our requirements in paying for the maximum speed tier available to us rural folk on their Fixed Wireless NBN @ 50/20Mb/s.
        Now 5 months down the track it’s gone from excellent to woeful as the number of subscribers & streamers increase to the point we’re back to ADSL1 speeds most evenings & weekends.

        Blarney’s claim about “seeing what they buy” is much more a reflection of the MTM’s dismal & erratic results now available as many subscribers such as us abandon those expensive, congested “up to” rarely available speeds & revert to a cheaper plan that reflects what’s actually being delivered.

        We’ve already applied to return to 25/5 at end of this month & may even follow our neighbour’s lead back to 12/1 if our tower’s present FW speed rot continues.

  4. Hmmmm, I might not be thinking clearly because I didn’t sleep well last night, but isn’t “false myths” a double negative – so, “not myths”? :)

    • I suddenly feel the hankering to go all Ted Bullpitt on the Liberal Party and its tryhard uppermiddleclass voters!

      They’re all new money anyway…. Build it once! People died for this country and we waste opportunity forever for a laugh!!

  5. I am a bit disappointed that you did not cover the most glaring lie from Barnaby: that only 48 people have taken up 100Mbit (he said Gbit but he meant Mbit) plans therefore nobody wants/needs such speeds:

    https://twitter.com/QandA/status/739796323059175424

    It would be good for you to include a breakdown of the numbers on the different speed tiers to show this for the bunkum it is.

    I know it really should be the ABC correcting this through their fact check, as Tony Jones let Barnaby get away with this, but I am disappointed it was not refuted by Windsor or Fitzgibbon either.

    • Oops. It seems I heard 100Mbit instead of ‘greater than 100Mbit’. (Even though Barnaby said Gbit)

      Of course there are only very few people testing these as plans faster than 100Mbit are not readily available from the main ISP’s.

      Shane’s point made above that “How can the government possibly justify “no one is buying faster speeds” if they are simply not available?” is spot on. That and the fact that the pricing model makes them unrealistic for the majority of consumers.

      I feel this is Barnaby playing his usual tricks, by mentioning 100 people hear it as the well known high speed offered primarily on fttp, coupled with the low number quoted for people on a virtually non existent product; Barnaby achieves his goal of making the unaware think few people are ordering plans in the 100’s.

      I still think it would be good to see a breakdown of the numbers on the different speed tiers along with the amount on fttp vs fttn/b printed more often. It would help to show how little progress has been made to the overall take up numbers with fttn since the MTM switch, the majority fixed on fttp, and how people will take up the higher speeds when available.

      We need clear facts printed to cut through the fud.

      • “I still think it would be good to see a breakdown of the numbers on the different speed tiers along with the amount on fttp vs fttn/b printed more often”

        At the end of the day, current speed bins are irrelevant…what matters is creating the infrastructure today that we can grow with over the next generation or two (or three or four).
        Since the entire rest of the planet (at least 600 Million homes) is expected to be connected to networks offering 1Gbps or higher by 2020, that should be our current target speed…the rest is just BS

    • @i NBNCo’s actual customer data (@31-mar-16) is summarised here:
      https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/communications/national-broadband-network-nbn/nbn-wholesale-market-indicators-report/initial-report

      The report shows 119,041 users (12.65%) @ 100/40mbps and unbelievably just 65 users at higher speeds. Joyce’s numbers imprecise but the gist of his inarticulate musings were accurate. The report also reveals average RSP provisioned TC-4 CVC is just 1.05mbps per customer.

      Customers are choosing lower speed, highly contended options across all technologies (83.43% <= 25/10). Average speed falling year on year and significantly underperforming forecast (taxpayers kiss that "investment" goodbye):
      https://www.dropbox.com/s/he6dtqmfci8fg1a/speed-actuals-v-forecast.pdf?dl=0

      • And yet still a greater ARPU on the almost all previous plan network, than the estimated at the time.

        Imagine if they had of gotten more inner city areas with high disposable incomes and professionals.

        • @w True Quigley’s first few years ARPU target were comically low. However his CP12-15p69 shows forecasted ARPU rising from FY16 ~$47 to FY39 ~$100. NBNCo’s latest quarter’s financial (FY16Q3) disclosed actual ARPU of $43 / mth (same as FY16Q2). Hmm, not good.

          Given customer AVC revenue is directly aligned with chosen speed, CVC strongly correlated, the dropbox shown actual v forecast underperformance should be worrying.

          Imagine if commercial serviceable areas had been left to the private sector, subsidies targeting at unviable ones (aka the model used in most developed economies; comparisons, say with BT, welcomed).

          • Why would a company roll out anything that would boost ARPU for a system that is not going to continue?

            As an example Foxtel could have used FttP for its network as everyone would have access allowing them an upgrade path to 4K using multicast.

            They can not do that now as the network is fragmented and not worth the investment.

            What if ISP’s actually allowed people to buy 1Gbps services that would help as well.

          • Nothing stopping Foxtel doing a Google USA here and rolling out its own high speed FTTP network.

          • Other than the fact they don’t want to spend money?

            Do you live in a universe where Foxtel acts in the best interest for humanity or something?

            Foxtel rolling out a FTTP network would give people access to high speed internet that could be then used to stream their competitors services.

          • @Richard – Comically low, or enough to ensure they could complete the Rollout and pay back the ROI. Anything higher would of course allowed them to pay it off faster.
            Which of course was the goal, pay for the infrastructure and the cost to rollout. Vs Make a profit.

            I am not against commercial services and using Subsidies etc. But that ship sailed. We still have time now to pull back the worst of the MTM (the FTTN component) and revert that to FTTP. Thus avoiding the cost of upgrading these in the future.

          • Nothing stopping Foxtel doing a Google USA here and rolling out its own high speed FTTP network.

            Well….yes, nothing but the fact that most of Foxtels profits go to propping up the Murdoch press in Australia, it’s why they hived off Foxtel with News Corpse in Australia, but kept their US cable interests separate from News Corpse.

          • @w not possible to repay anything, the first few years they were forecasting ARPU ~$20-$27 due to CSV credits.

            Quigley was very generous using taxpayers money. Fortunately his rollout was so disasterous the loss were contained.

            I’ll have more on ARPU another time:-)

            @tm Foxtel can be delivered over FTTN.

          • Lol Richard notice are very generous has are up to $29B and only have bearly started.

            Lol disasterous rollout contained is that the 25Mbps for by this year oh wait is that the 4.5M this year from the SR oh wait only 2.5m this year.

          • @tm Foxtel can be delivered over FTTN.

            Indeed it can, it’s only available in SD ;o)

            Quigley was very generous using taxpayers money. Fortunately his rollout was so disasterous [sic] the loss were [sic] contained.

            I’ll have more on ARPU another time:-)

            So you think a lower ARPU under Fttn is a good thing? Please explain.

      • “…just 65 users at higher speeds.” They must all be ISPs/RSPs who are doing internal testing. Because I have shiny new FTTP NBN connection, and even on business plans I am unable to purchase faster than 100/40Mbps at any cost. I rang Telstra’s business unit TODAY. They tell me speeds higher than 100Mbps are “only available overseas, not to Australian customers.” That’s the official line from the largest ISP and NBN provider in the country.

        These numbers are further hurt by RSPs not providing enough backhaul/overhead for peak times. I personally know many Optus customers who only pay for the minimum speed, because they only receive that service. When you pay the extra and you get no speed increase (especially at peak times) they flat out say, “speeds are indicative of maximums only and cannot be guaranteed.”

      • So Richard, what were the original forecasts for take-up of various speeds way back in 2012? I bet the current uptake is in excess of very conservative predictions under the ALP NBN corporate plan.
        And how do the current figures relate to the NBN predictions under the current Lib management regime? Oh who fucking knows because they haven’t made any forecasts have they.

        Face it Richard. The LNP Govt are re-structuring NBNCo to fail financially, thus justifying their inevitable, already made, decision to sell it off to private enterprise at a massive loss to the taxpayer. And rest assured they will try to blame the other political party for the mess.
        Never forget PM Abbott’s directive to the ex Minister for Comms, now PM, ‘Destroy the NBN’. And Turnbull’s masters are ensuring he continues to follow through on that edict.

        • Paul they have and it’s even higher than labor prediction and by 2020 instead
          12/1 28%
          25/. 33%
          50/20 8%
          100/40 30%

        • Paul Hahn,

          It doesn’t matter who forecast what by when, the current NBN reporting indicates what customers are purchasing, the in your face statistic shows that customers are moving away from 100/40 not onto it.

          • So.

            Still making a greater ARPU than expected. Which would mean the costs of the other elements, CVC for example, could have come down.

          • “the current NBN reporting indicates what customers are purchasing”

            Which is ridiculously unimportant…the number can change on an hourly basis. What is important is that we build out capabilities to quickly supply the demanded speed as and when it is requested. Considering that most of the world currently sees that as 1-10 Gigabit is far more relevant than the transitional plan uptake…

          • It doesn’t matter who forecast what by when, the current NBN reporting indicates what customers are purchasing, the in your face statistic shows that customers are moving away from 100/40 not onto it.

            And in your view, why is that?

            I’d think most people would take a higher plan if it was affordable, yeah?

          • If 100/40 was the same price as 12/1 at the same quota levels, I can’t see that happening anytime soon, ISP’s the world over charge more for higher speed tier plans.

          • @ Reality:
            A self fulfilling result of the MTM’s inability to deliver their promised “cheaper & faster” results. Merely expensive “Up To” fairytales instead.

          • Up to fairy tales as you put it applies to FTTP as well, it applies to all infrastructure types.

          • But troll Turnbull promised a min 25Mbps not a 25Mbps for 1 second in a day with 5 drop outs

          • Reality posts:

            “Up to fairy tales as you put it applies to FTTP as well, it applies to all infrastructure types.”

            Particularly to your endless futile efforts at justifying the MTM. lol.

          • “Reality 10/06/2016 at 12:49 pm
            Paul Hahn,
            It doesn’t matter who forecast what by when, the current NBN reporting indicates what customers are purchasing, the in your face statistic shows that customers are moving away from 100/40 not onto it.”

            Ah ain’t statistics grand. So where are the figures showing people moving away from the higher speeds? (Note that moving away suggests that subscribers are leaving initial high speed contracts and changing to lower speeds.)
            In fact the take up of higher speed tiers continues to exceed predictions.
            And by the way, given the poor performance characteristics of the MTM and FTTN in particular, it’s no surprise that high speed plan take up as a % of overall subscribers will increase. Simply put, most won’t be able to subscribe to the high speed plans.

          • @Reality If 100/40 was the same price as 12/1 at the same quota levels, I can’t see that happening anytime soon

            Why?

          • “the in your face statistic shows that customers are moving away from 100/40 not onto it”
            While a technology that can’t deliver those speeds is the technology of choice to continue to be rolled out. What a surprise!

      • The number of people using higher speed NBN than 100/40 MBbps is because it currently isn’t offered to the public. I’m planning on signing up for 250/100 Mbps when it becomes available, mainly because I seriously doubt being able to afford 1000/400 Mbps, unless the price is reduced.

        The other thing is that we cannot trust anything that Barnaby Joyce or any other LNP politician says about the optical fibre NBN because they are Murdoch’s lackeys.

  6. The Muppet got dropped on it’s head too many times when it was a baby

    I am currently on a 300/300Mbps FTTP/GPON broadband connection in San Francisco

    • I’m on 300/30 With Time Warner in New York on HFC…..If the NBN in Australia is just reselling/re-using the old HFC cable….why haven’t they updated and offering 300Mb/s seeing its not a technical issue holding them back from increasing from 100Mbs.

      • The biggest issue for HFC in Australia is outbound speeds. I was on the fastest available HFC, and saw around 110Mbit speed tests, but outbound never went above 4Mbit. Uploading high-def video to YouTube was a joke!

      • Dean

        The Telstra and Optus HFC footprint is tiny compared with the likes of Time Warner and Comcast in the U.S and only rolled out in cherry picked metro areas of Australian cities.

        I gather that you are connected to an HFC network updated to DOCSIS3.1. I doubt the NBN in Australia have even costed this upgrade as yet and I suspect some exchanges not on DOCSIS3.0 yet.

        Very soon there will be nothing left of the old telephone system as the FCC’s IP Transition is fully underway.

        Seeing that you mentioned Time Warner Cable, in 2013 it’s chief financial officer Irene Esteves once said “here is no demand for residential gigabit Internet”
        http://www.techspot.com/news/51780-time-warner-says-there-is-no-demand-for-residential-gigabit-internet.html

        Barnaby Joyce is a parrot!

        • We’d never know how far along we are with DOCSIS 3.1 as it’s all Top Secret government information.

          We no longer get the detailed quarterly estimates or progress updates as the lazy communications people at NBN are too taxed to be able to click the release button on that information. They don’t even want to communicate information with the public but do it via ISP’s, who will be under all kinds of NDA’s.

          I assume they could pretty much fire most or all of the communications people now and save us a few million dollars per year. Why do we need public communications when everything is secret and it’s a government run monopoly anyway? (apart from feel good propaganda video’s)

      • they haven’t offered higher speeds on HFC here because the cable network has been built in such a way that there are many, many more houses on each shared coax loop. this high contention ratio was chosen because it was the cheapest way possible to deliver cable TV to as many houses as possible. future high speed data applications were not really even given any thought.

        so we now have a HFC network nationally that is not fit for purpose, can barely handle statistically averaged traffic for some many households when web browsing, and falls over when people start to send video content upstream and downstream in a sustained fashion.

        • @SnowCrash, this AG report is a political beat up….basically it relates to the merger between TimeWarner and Charter.

          Personally I always get 300/30 on my service (or slightly above) though I do have friends who complain about connectivity uptime occasionally.

          • Your anecdotal experience doesn’t count for much when it comes to the big picture in New York City, New York State & United States. Time Warner Cable’s long standing poor history is undisputed.

            The ink has already well and truly dried on Charters acquisition of Time Warner Cable which was approved by the FCC. It’s going to take a lot more than just a name change to solve it’s inherited problems. Charter has also acquired Bright House Networks making them the 2nd largest cable company now collectively named “Spectrum”.

            Over a considerable period of time they have falsely advertised speed, subjected customers to slow-moving movies and websites, stutter & lag while playing online video games. They have also misled customers by giving them network equipment that is unable to reach promised speeds that defy the technology’s technical capabilities.

            The FCC’s Measuring Broadband Report found that 10% of customers got less than 80% of advertised speed during peak hours. 15% got between 80% & 90% and 75% got more than 95 of advertised speed. They failed to take steps to cater for the demands of their customers letting connections with key content providers become so congested that large volumes of Internet data where lost and discarded on a regular basis.

            When it comes to scope, New York City had already launched ConnectNYC Fiber Access and will soon be transformed into one of the many SmartCities across the U.S.
            http://www.nycedc.com/program/connectnyc-fiber-access

            New York State Governor Cuomo launched the NYS Broadband Program Office’s (BPO) mission in 2014
            http://nysbroadband.ny.gov/

            These initiatives are consistent with Americas National Broadband Plan which was unveiled by the FCC on March 17th 2010 when Julius Genachowski (Big Julius) was FCC Chairman which can be downloaded here:
            https://www.fcc.gov/general/national-broadband-plan

            Furthermore as a stimulus to growth under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 the Federal Government provided finance to EPB Chattanooga (a public energy utility) to R&D energy Smart Grid technology which is also part of the broadband plan. They chose gigabit fiber (FTTP) for data communication requirements which also transformed the city into a modern smartcity (The GigCity) and innovation hub. Genachowski envisaged that this model be rubber stamped across the United States in every State.

            Cable companies have a lot more to contend with than just government & politics. Their competition is rapidly deploying gigabit-enabled FTTP broadband next generation networks. Some of them are 10Gbps enabled.

            The high speed FTTP Juggernaut rises to to eat cable’s lunch and implementing the FCC’s IP Transition ruling.

            Already there are already developers designing next generation broadband applications to harness gigabit speeds. Many of these applications are listed on US Ignite’s website:
            https://www.us-ignite.org/

            Cable Internet (HFC) is knocking on deaths door as the technology has been surpassed. It is not capable of serving and delivering next generation Internet applications because if it’s limitations.

            The ITU-T has recently approved G.989 series of standards for 40Gbps capable passive optical network standard (NG-PON2)

            R.I.P HFC!

  7. Its a good Q And A to watch, the audience calls him on a couple of his points.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK0MLseudAU
    At 49:10 one of the Audience calls him out on the “What people are using now” comment re 25 mbps being the majority purchased/used.
    She points out that it’s for the future, not just for now.

    I also enjoyed the point at 48:00 when Barnaby says that Satellite is not the best but only for the remotest areas, and the audience basically laughs at him.

    Someone else mentions that having video capabilities would be great for remote diagnosis, and for school of the air.

    I must say, I have a lot of respect for those guys out there. If ever there was a time for a Rural party to come in and steal the guts from the Nats, its now.

  8. “Trying to do as much as we can to make sure we run a tight ship.” ……. Another myth that never gets ‘fact checked’.

  9. What I would give for just 40mbps… 300mbps seems like science fiction, and likely will remain so for decades. And to think, we were in the three year rollout prior to the last election. FFS.

  10. Well a product needs to actually be available first and at an affordable price if you want people to buy it. You can’t roll out FTTN and then say “See? People don’t need higher speeds” or “Half of the customers go for the 25/5 plan anyway.” They still can’t get it through their thick heads that those speeds are about what is possible on FTTN for most. You can only push copper so far and after that it just becomes pointless because of the cost.

  11. “Labor’s original FTTP version of the NBN was slated to be delivered by 2021, not 2024 as Pyne claimed. Shortly after taking office, the Coalition conducted a Strategic Review into the NBN (PDF) which found that a reworked vision of Labor’s approach could be delivered by 2023.”

    SR13p17 concludes Labor’s model S1 completion CY2024 (just as Payne reportedly claimed).

    “Since that time — as founding NBN chief executive Mike Quigley said it would — the NBN company has also developed methods of radically speeding up its rollout of FTTP infrastructure.”

    Quigley said many things, performance rarely matched the talk:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cpmjufh576l5ch/brownfields-actuals-v-forecast.pdf?dl=0

    “This phenomenon is known as a ‘ramp-up’ and explains why it took the NBN company several years to get up to speed in deploying its network under Labor; a vast amount of initial planning needed to be done before it could commence its rollout.”

    It is acknowledged a ‘ramp-up’ takes time (see CPs), however (evidenced above) it never occurred. They had 4.5 years, $6b sunk (unimaginable).

    “In comparison, the NBN company has made relatively little progress in deploying the rival technologies — Fibre to the Node and HFC cable…”

    Really? https://twitter.com/DCoopes/status/735372161725124608

    “In terms of the cost of rolling out FTTP, almost all of the NBN company’s projections over time have shown that all versions of the NBN — Labor’s and the Coalition’s — would not, in fact, cost the Government anything, because each version would actually make a return on the Government’s investment of up to seven percent.”

    SR13p17 shows IRR (not ROI) of (S1) n/a (ie negative) – (S7) 5.3%. SR13 S7 peak funding has since blown out from ~$41b (SR13) to $56b (CP16). Care to guess what happens to IRR when costs blowout whilst revenue remains the same (actuals showing ARPU underperforming forecasts, average speeds continue to decline).

    “This means that the NBN project as a whole would be profitable — ensuring the Government’s original investment in the project would be returned, with interest.”

    Simply untrue; read IRR.

    “In short, many experts believe Australians would take up the higher NBN speeds in much greater numbers if the NBN company reworked its much-criticised wholesale pricing model.”

    True but what’s the impact on revenue and IRR? If given away for free people all jump on the highest speed available, Joyce answer reflects NBNCo’s pricing model.

    “Technology figures such as Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes — one of Australia’s most successful technology entrepreneurs — and others have stated in public that gigabit speeds are essential for the nation’s long-term development.”

    Essential? To all households (well not rural obviously)? Fine, then accept the additional cost & time of deploying FTTH and make the case for the superior service.

    • You keep perpetuating your argument, and you have numbers to back yourself up; but ultimately, you are arguing for a system which shouldn’t be built for today’s demand, but rather tomorrow’s needs.

      “True but what’s the impact on revenue and IRR? If given away for free people all jump on the highest speed available, Joyce answer reflects NBNCo’s pricing model.”

      Who said anything about “free”? You’re making things up now.

      “Essential? To all households (well not rural obviously)? Fine, then accept the additional cost & time of deploying FTTH and make the case for the superior service.”

      Well yeah, most of us do accept the additional cost and time for delivering FTTH.

      When you buy a car, do you buy the cheapest crap-box you can find, and keep spending money to keep the thing running? Or do you spend a little more for a well-maintained reliable vehicle?

      • @rl upgrade networks matching customer foreseeable demanded speeds (see actuals), faster (avoid entering premises) and more cheaply (lower CPP). Iterative upgrades the easiest path to avoiding wasteful over-investment.

        I’m not making things up, simply taking the point to it’s logical conclusion.

        Whilst it appears many have given up on defending Quigley’s ludicrous CPs, “on time and budget” comprehensively destroyed after much repetition of actuals’ analysis. However some still don’t accept additional cost and time for FTTH; you’ll see:-)

        • Richard
          So far the fastest RFS for FTTN is 193 days the fastest rfs fttp 3MLT-10 was 166.

          So when will is be faster than FTTP Richard?

          • Ahh right richard the MTM gets the ramp up where FTTP would have.

            But again fttn still isn’t faster than FTTP when will it be

          • 4.5 years not enough time to ramp-up pulling fibre? How does the rest of the world do it? FTTN must be magic;-)

          • Lol dancing around Richard. Might like your claim that from the start of the last election all the success. When morrow admit during the senate due to the 26-28 time frame which you fell for btw would take time to switch back to FTTP. But that’s not the reason for the constant delays of the MTM has now.

            But again when will FTTN by faster than FTTP so it’s about a month behind the fastest FTTP. But again I won’t expect you to answer but dance around it.

            But yes our construction of fttn is Magic it’s the slowest rollout in the world. So far it can’t even do half the rollout speed of BT.

          • I didn’t fall for anything, called out the timetable. My post is still there.

            Actuals showing MTM delivering at a rate an order of magnitude greater than Quigley. But actuals never mattered (nor understood). Graphs of referenced data provided (you? Rofl).

            Anyway the article corrections exposed?

          • But then the actual a say other wise or are you saying numbers man that 166 days is more than 193 days

            Ohh you didn’t fall for it lol best joke ever numbers falling for numbers claiming they where labor FTTP rollout which they weren’t.
            “Peak funding from strategic review MTM ~$39bn blowing out to CP16 $46-56b, peak funding under previous management FTTP CP11-13 $40.9b then CP12-15 $44.1b blowing out to SR (S1) ~$73bn or redesigned (S2) ~$64bn, now CP16 $74-84b”
            So with that comment you didn’t fall for it right. What an embarrassment for you really.
            https://delimiter.com.au/2015/08/24/we-must-determine-how-the-15bn-nbn-cost-blow-out-occurred/

          • Actuals showing MTM delivering at a rate an order of magnitude greater than Quigley.

            Does it? Did they just continue with the Quigley designs and plans, or are you saying they totally reworked them and started of from scratch?

          • I am not aware Quigley designed the FTTN and FTTB rollout plans.

            Obviously, silly billy, or are you trying to actually make a factual claim now?

            Do you even know how the NBN has worked up till now?

          • @Richard
            Considering how long we have had copper for telecommunications (many decades). 5 to 7 years is nothing but short term… should we foot the bill in 10 years time to have a 2nd attempt at FTTP for all (most) australians?

          • What makes you think upgrading FTTN to FTTP in 10 yrs (your guess) is more expensive than rolling out FTTP now and overbuilding copper and HFC assets owned by the NBN Co.?

          • So devoid upgrading to FTTP is going to cost less the $8B difference that is between MTM and FTTP ?

          • @Reality
            To upgrade FTTN to FTTP, could go 2 ways.

            1. Redoing the whole infrastructure and run the right number of fibres to provide directly to the households in each area. (Which is pretty much going back to square one)

            2. Upgrading all equipment, including exchange-to-nodes and FTTN nodes to DWDM (these ain’t cheap) and then upgrading the links to customers to fibre. [the nodes would still expose said equipment to the elements and we will still have equipment powering expenses]

          • “What makes you think upgrading FTTN to FTTP in 10 yrs (your guess) is more expensive than rolling out FTTP now and overbuilding copper and HFC assets owned by the NBN Co.?”

            Because, even admitted by NBN Co, the most expensive portions of the FTTP build is the lead in to the home and labour costs.

            If you’re going from FTTN to FTTP, which portion is that again? Oh… the lead in to the home. What else do you still need? Pit/pipe remediation that now NBN Co has to pay for, and also the higher labour costs from inflation in 10-15-20 years time (whenever it eventually happens).

            If the radically redesigned FTTP rollout from the SR was $64Bn, and we are currently spending between $46Bn up to $56Bn on the MTM, if the upgrade is more than $8Bn to $18Bn (depending where we end up) it was a waste of money building the MTM in the first place.

          • Rizz,

            is going to cost less the $8B difference that is between MTM and FTTP ?

            There is not a $8B cost difference between MtM and FTTP.

          • What makes you think upgrading FTTN to FTTP in 10 yrs (your guess) is more expensive than rolling out FTTP now and overbuilding copper and HFC assets owned by the NBN Co.?

            According to Richard (and I agree with him, as does Morrow, Ziggy and MT) it’ll actually be closer to 5-7 years.

          • There is not a $8B cost difference between MtM and FTTP.

            So you think they are done on their many cost blowouts for MtM then Alain?

          • Reality,
            How long are you going to say “It’s not $8B” or “It’s not $56B”, etc. to continually evade the issue?

          • Lol the troll fails again
            “calculation method in SR13 is entirely different to the FTTP CPP calculation method in CP 16 ”
            CP16 $3700 p67
            LNDN
            $1500 senate estimates 19th nov 2013 p105
            $100 JCNBN 19th April 2013 p16
            $131 senate estimates 24th feb 2015 p166
            $229
            $120 senate estimates 24th Feb 2015 p158
            = $2080 annual results August 2015
            CC
            $1100 JCNBN 19th April 2013 p16
            $39 senate estimates 24th Feb 2015 p162
            $236 senate estimates 24th Feb 2015 p162
            $52 senate estimates 24th Feb 2015 p162
            $125
            = $1552 annual results August 2015.
            = $3632 for CPP for FTTP for CP16

            SR
            LNDN $1997 p61
            CC $2100 p61
            = $4100.

            So troll it has been pointed out in detail to you before, so you ignore it.

            So again prove me wrong troll but I won’t expect a reply

          • JK,

            FTTP CPP calculation method in CP 16 ”
            CP16 $3700 p67
            LNDN

            That’s not a LNDN figure, the FTTP Brownfields CPP from Page 67 of CP 16 is $3,700 + Infrastructure Lease of $700 = $4,400 CPP.

            SR
            LNDN $1997 p61
            CC $2100 p61
            = $4100.

            Funny, you claimed the figures were:

            does $4400 for FTTP in the CP16
            = the $4800 in the SR.

            here:

            https://delimiter.com.au/2016/06/09/fact-check-joyce-perpetuates-false-nbn-myths-qa/#li-comment-744168

            So which set of FTTP CP 16 vs FTTP SR 13 figures is it?

          • Lol the troll fail in spectacular fashion much like Richard forgetting to add the infrastructure lease

            First you an the $755 cost to the cp16 figure but don’t add it to the SR figures

            So $4100 + $755 lease = $4855

            So again does does $4400 for FTTP in the CP16 = the $4800 in the SR.

            Lol you are such a failure

            Again I won’t expect you to reply just to have your tail between your legs and sulk away

          • You’re going to argue price with someone that thinks paying $7,900 CPP is “better” than $4,400 CPP for Tassie JasonK?

            He is obviously fiscally incompetent.

          • “should we foot the bill in 10 years time to have a 2nd attempt at FTTP for all (most) australians?”
            According to Morrow, Turnbull and the criminally paid-for SR13, yes.

            Not only that, but 5-10 years after the network as completed in 2016. Of course the original FTTP rollout was to take over 10 years. So, from TODAY, we have 10 years MAXIMUM to rollout appropriate infrastructure for the country without the country falling into a ditch. 10 years to roll out a network that takes 11+ years to roll out.

            Thanks to the Liberals – and using their own conservative (and fraudulent) figures – this is now clearly impossible.

          • “I have, you never explain why it’s wrong because you know it is correct, so you ignore a explanation was ever provided.”
            The link you gave provides no actual information. How embarrassing for you, Alain.

        • “Iterative upgrades the easiest path to avoiding wasteful over-investment.”

          If you don’t have to pay billions to buy the damn networks (3 of them mind which over build each other and aren’t fit for current usage) in the first place!

          • Paid nothing for the assets beyond what Conroy obscenely committed to to retire them. Can’t turn back time.

          • Richard,
            “Paid nothing for the assets beyond what Conroy obscenely committed to to retire them. Can’t turn back time.”
            NBN under Conroy did not pay for any HFC asseths. Paid only for customer migration r to compensate T & O for future revenue losses; works out cost of ~2-3 years or service subscription to T & O . Also it meant that NBN brings revenue stream earlier. Otherwise T & O could have keep these customers.
            With the new deal under LNP THEY ARE BUYING the assets and paying for customer migration total , almost twice the previous amouun per customer plus cost of upgrading and ongoing maintainance (BTW upgrading to DOCSIS 3.1 is not child’s play, upgrading the nodes, new amplifiers and more of them, new/more power supplies, the list goes on…)

          • Lol Richard is Telstra pain for it or not or are you going to dance around again it’s starting to look pretty

          • Love the deliberate spelling mistakes and tortured grammar Rizz, so you don’t look like Rizz.

            LOL

          • “Paid nothing for the assets beyond what Conroy obscenely committed to to retire them”

            Obviously a ridiculous falsehood…we took on the massive liabilities of the network. Considering that Telstra was already spending over $1 Billion/year on this, it is not a minor amount…and then there is the cost of removing the copper when we are done with it (also a vast amount in the many billions of dollars)
            I find it sad that so many Coalition supporters cannot read a balance sheet and think of Capex as the only expense…

          • Chas,

            Obviously a ridiculous falsehood…we took on the massive liabilities of the network.

            Every infrastructure has liabilities, FTTP, Fixed wireless, satellite, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone mobile etc, there is nothing unique about FTTN or HFC liabilities.

            and then there is the cost of removing the copper when we are done with it (also a vast amount in the many billions of dollars)

            Why does the copper have to be removed, when the Labor NBN Co rolled out FTTP did they ask Telstra to remove the copper?

            I find it sad that so many Coalition supporters cannot read a balance sheet and think of Capex as the only expense…

            No there is more to infrastructure costing than just CAPEX, not sure why you say Coalition think CAPEX is the only expense.

          • Paid nothing for the assets beyond what Conroy obscenely committed to to retire them. Can’t turn back time.

            Not up front payment for the assets, but there are ongoing yearly costs that get paid to Telstra, as well as an additional $1.6b to extend the HFC footprint.

          • as well as an additional $1.6b to extend the HFC footprint.

            Where did you get this figure from?, and there are yearly costs for all infrastructure types, so….?

          • Where did you get this figure from?

            https://delimiter.com.au/2016/04/11/nbn-pays-telstra-1-6bn-extend-hfc-cable-network/

            and there are yearly costs for all infrastructure types, so….?

            Most companies would normally choose not to go with an extra 25% increase in costs, let alone 67%….

            >q>the leaked nbn co document mentioned earlier shows that the operational costs of FTTN network are 67% more than for FTTP, and the operational costs of HFC are 25% more. https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-nbn-really-cost-51562

            Seems odd, no?

          • “Every infrastructure has liabilities”

            And? Are you actually trying to compare the liabilities of the FTTP network (which has almost zero maintenance) to the 60 year old copper network which is already slated to be removed and has been costing Telstra over $1 Billion/year???

            “Why does the copper have to be removed, when the Labor NBN Co rolled out FTTP did they ask Telstra to remove the copper?”

            The price to leave it in place is much more expensive than removing it. They would continue to pay Councils, the folks who own the poles, and any health or public damage claims arising from the old copper. Removing it is billions…NOT removing it is many times that.

            “not sure why you say Coalition think CAPEX is the only expense”

            Because it is the only one they ever mention…Capex or the finance charge for Capex.

            Just as an FYI, the operational cost of HFC is about 12 times that of FTTP…

            http://tinyurl.com/zczrtm5

          • tinman_au,

            That HFC figure for Telstra is also for upgrade of the HFC, the NBN Co also state that FTTN may be used to extend HFC, it’s not a given any of that amount will used for HFC extension in existing HFC areas.

            re leaks, there is more to costs than just OPEX, concentrating on just OPEX is preferable when pushing a FTTP agenda because FTTP CAPEX is relatively high.

          • ” there is more to costs than just OPEX”

            Absolutely…the important number is the TCO. The TCO for MTM is FAR, FAR higher than FTTP.

          • re leaks, there is more to costs than just OPEX

            Interesting, you think it may be more, but you support it. Please explain your agenda.

          • <q<That HFC figure for Telstra is also for upgrade of the HFC, the NBN Co also state that FTTN may be used to extend HFC, it’s not a given any of that amount will used for HFC extension in existing HFC areas.

            So you now acknowledge and support the $1.6b payment to Telstra that you didn’t know about previously, and were asking about in an earlier post to me? Interesting…

          • “Where did you get this figure from?”
            An article that you posted a comment on. Short memory, eh? How embarrassing for you, Alain.

        • “upgrade networks matching customer foreseeable demanded speeds (see actuals), faster (avoid entering premises) and more cheaply (lower CPP). Iterative upgrades the easiest path to avoiding wasteful over-investment.”

          None of which occurred.
          First you actually can’t use the actuals to show customer demand. Because as you and your cronies (and in fact the FTTP side) like to point out, the CVC costs etc are artificially pushing prices higher and reducing take up on the 20% side. Further, the main targets for those higher cost higher speed plans, are professionals and singles. Where as most of the FTTP rollout has occurred in suburban areas. So whilst it can be considered, it must be taken with the knowledge that it is flawed.
          Second, Faster is simply not happening at the moment.
          Cheaply, Is also untrue, because you shouldn’t just be looking at the rollout, but rather the lifespan of the product. Which as you well know the copper is a higher OPEX over Fttp.
          Or a single major upgrade to standardise the platform, reduce opex and provide future upgrades at a lower cost, avoiding wasteful iterative upgrades and under investment.

          You are not taking it to it’s logical conclusion. You are purposefully ignoring information that doesn’t fit your narrative, to ensure that what you see looks good. This is not logic. Logic requires you to take into account ALL factors.

          Nothing you have provided has destroyed anything, comprehensively or otherwise. Your analysis is flawed, and always has been due to your inherent bias.

        • “upgrade networks matching customer foreseeable demanded speeds (see actuals)”
          The current MTMess was designed around an average user connection speed of 15Mbps. Even before completion, this has proven to be woefully inadequate.

          “faster (avoid entering premises)”
          1 year of a 10+ year rollout counts for absolutely zero.

          “more cheaply (lower CPP)”
          If CPP is lower explain how costs have blown out by $45b in the last 2.5 years.

          “Iterative upgrades the easiest path to avoiding wasteful over-investment.”
          $70b + $45b is cheaper than $45b + $0b. Please use your expert numbers man magic to explain this.

          “I’m not making things up, simply taking the point to it’s logical conclusion.”
          At the end of the day, ill logic is still logic, after all.

          ““on time and budget” comprehensively destroyed after much repetition of actuals’ analysis”
          Are you suggesting that you destroyed Quigleys timeframes with analysis concerning Morrows timeframes?

          “However some still don’t accept additional cost and time for FTTH”
          I would quite happily pay an extra -$25b for superior infrastructure.

    • Is that you Richard, again bagging the current network, which was of course promised @ $29.5B fully costed for all by 2016… MTM?

      No it isn’t is it? It never is…

      Oh that’s right, let’s remember who could have written this complete debacle known as MTM and why the EGO needs to continue the charade that MTM is anything but the complete fuck up it is..

      You’re welcome.

    • “the Coalition conducted a Strategic Review”
      Rofl. And they told the truth – yeah. I mean the likes of Henry Ergas and Kevin Morgan wouldn’t misrepresent the facts would they! Sorry but the ‘Strategic Review’ is a valueless politically motivated document with no credibility what-so-ever. Therefore any argument using that doc is equally valueless.

      “Quigley said many things, performance rarely matched the talk:”
      But of course Morrow hasn’t done that has he. I mean the cost of the MTM hasn’t almost doubled, targets and milestones haven’t been missed by massive amounts of time. And the current targets aren’t so low that a snail could jump over them. Oh no. You just want to ignore that.

      Seriously Richard, your argument is worthless.

      • @ph take your issue to Renai; SR quote from his article;-)

        Quigley performance a matter of public record.

        • Be nice if Morrow and MTM’s was too wouldn’t it but sadly its CiC or taken on notice!

          Well aside from the budget …. you know where treasury task forces (that’s normal right) have to be generated because they’re all shitting bricks there’s going to be a $9b hole in a budget not too far away.

          • Whilst I’d appreciate more, there’s more data published today than ever (sadly most ignore most of it). Quigley preferred estimates to actuals.

            SR and other reviews very instructive.

          • “there’s more data published today than ever”

            Just not true…there is certainly more REDACTED data published today.

            “Quigley preferred estimates to actuals”

            Obviously you haven’t actually read his reports…

            “SR and other reviews very instructive”

            I am not sure what “other reviews” you mean, but the SR is only instructive for farcical fantasy and classes in political satire…

        • “take your issue to Renai; SR quote from his article;-)”

          Your ;) is noted. You know as well as I do that the Strategic Review was a load of crap. Just as any based on the same are.

          And by the way, ‘Morrow performance a matter of public record. And that is a fail. He’s nothing more than a lackey puppet for the LP Govt and it’s shareholders.

          • Paul Hahn,

            You know as well as I do that the Strategic Review was a load of crap.

            Except when FTTN haters and FTTP supporters use the contents of the SR quite often to make their argument.

          • Troll what better than using the failed SR figures against the CP16 which it states we can use

            Btw does $4400 for FTTP in the CP16
            = the $4800 in the SR. Ahh but you have claimed it much lol

          • Of course you know the FTTP CPP calculation method in SR13 is entirely different to the FTTP CPP calculation method in CP 16 because it has been pointed out in detail to you before, so you ignore it.

            ….. and they have suddenly become ‘failed’ SR figures now eh Rizz?

            Chameleon to the end.

          • Troll you look so pretty with all that dancing around

            Btw does $4400 for FTTP in the CP16
            = the $4800 in the SR. Ahh but you have claimed it much lol

          • Btw does $4400 for FTTP in the CP16
            = the $4800 in the SR. Ahh but you have claimed it much lol

            You’re asking a guy that thinks spending $7,900 is better than $4,400 CPP???

          • “Except when FTTN haters and FTTP supporters use the contents of the SR quite often to make their argument”

            Intelligent technical folks use the SR as an example of the most extreme Coalition fantasy…in other words, something worse than worst case.

      • Richard used to use the CBA as his smoking gun… Until it was pointed out to him that the CBA authors (again from the same mates only club) had nonetheless admitted Quigley’s numbers were pretty sound.

        Richard them got all huffy, taking his designer, Smith signed bat and limited edition kookaburra cherry home and said CBA figures can’t be taken seriously (err, even though he had expected us to take his cherry-picked CBA figures seriously) because they were obtained from NBNCo…

        Since then, probably some 12 months ago, I haven’t seen him ever try to use the CBA figures again…lol

        So SR and bag Quigley again/still/perpetually it is…seems cult ideology, huge ego and far right partiality is insurmountable.

        Of course let’s not forget too, that upon the announcement of MTM, Richard proudly beat the chest and claimed the MTM plan was

        “as if he’d been commissioned to write it”

        So add that cult mentality, far right (completely baseless) I’m better/more experienced/better educated and wealthier than you… greedy/selfish me, me , me… get a job and a hair cut 1950’s out look and of course the HUGEST ego in the cosmos…

        And the reality of not only the stupidity of using copper after 2020 but the complete debacle which is MTM right now… can never even be considered let alone admitted to no matter how compelling and obvious it is to everyone else.

        *shrugs*

        • Three weeks out from the election, the election according to Labor where the NBN is a key issue and we still have no Labor election policy that will show us the ‘way back’ from the Coalition MtM.

          can never even be considered let alone admitted to no matter how compelling and obvious it is to everyone else.

          Well I don’t think it is, the FTTN haters would like it to be but for the majority of electors it’s been going on and on and on since 2007 and the NBN now more than it ever was is one big yawn.

          “yeah whatever, FTTP, FTTN blah, just finish it FFS!”

          • While I think it is pretty shit now that they haven’t released their policy, the Coalition haven’t announced their official policy for the election either too.

            Is their releasing their policy going to swing your vote? No. So, does it really matter?

          • I know what the Coalition policy is, they are rolling it out, are you hoping they drop FTTN cancel all the build contracts and restart FTTP in the next three weeks and post election?

            Do you really think the Coalition think they need to change anything in the current MtM model to help them win on July 2nd?

            Show you something hilarious, Labor is all over the place re the NBN, even this late in the campaign.

            Shadow regional comms minister flags return to Labor’s NBN ‘original vision’

            wow, Labor is rolling out FTTP (again), umm oops hang on.

            seemingly at odds with Labor’s Shadow Minister for Communications Jason Clare who has said, during the campaign, that there was no possibility of the party’s return to a full fibre-to-the-premises (FttP) NBN.

            So we get a quick soft shoe shuffle and…..

            I would like to announce it today but I’m going to leave that to our Shadow Communications Minister Jason Clare.”

            You are going to announce today that the NBN election policy will be released by the Shadow Communications Minister, so you are announcing who is going to announce the policy that hasn’t been announced yet, and that’s a announcement?

            Brilliant.

            http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/telecoms-and-nbn/73244-shadow-regional-comms-minister-flags-return-to-labor?s-nbn-?original-vision?.html

            LOL

          • All MtM build contracts go well beyond July, the feigned concern that you have no idea what the Coalition NBN Co has been doing for the last three years and they need a new ‘election policy’ before July 2nd is a good act, but the Labor apologist routine even for you would have to wearing thin at this late stage.

            Labor didn’t have a new election policy for 2013, the assumption was they would keeping plodding on with FTTP if they won the election.

            The problem was the electorate decided at the time they needed more to the NBN rollout than just plodding on with FTTP.

          • But troll you and Richard has claimed right after the last election the all the rollout is the success of the coalition so if labor gets in this year they will be done under labor as credit thank you

          • “we still have no Labor election policy that will show us the ‘way back’ from the Coalition MtM.”
            Where’s the Liberal policy at, btw?

            “I know what the Coalition policy is, they are rolling it out”
            https://delimiter.com.au/2016/06/06/nbn-statement-not-coalitions-final-nbn-policy/
            – And another article that you’ve commented on. Short memory! How embarrassing for you, Alain.

            “The problem was the electorate decided at the time they needed more to the NBN rollout than just plodding on with FTTP.”
            Joke’s on them, eh? So much less.

    • “SR13p17 shows”

      It amazes me that this is a document you reference, when even Turnbull (the guy that practically wrote it) states “The strategic review took six weeks. [The Corporate Plan 2016] has taken a year… I think the truth is, prior to this work being completed we didn’t really know how much it was going to cost. So much of the input was questionable.”

      http://www.smartcompany.com.au/growth/48169-a-big-risky-project-turnbull-says-nbn-cost-will-be-settled-soon/

    • “They had 4.5 years, $6b sunk (unimaginable).”
      Except it was 2.5 years after the project began that the Liberals came in and demolished it, and that unimaginable $6b has now turned into $70.6b. Note that $6b was within the expected Labor budget of ~$46b, and $70.6b does not fit in to the expected Liberal budget of $29.5b.

      “Really?”
      Yes, really. 10% of the target can indeed be considered “relatively little progress”.

      “Care to guess what happens to IRR when costs blowout whilst revenue remains the same ”
      Yup. Sure is a shame the Liberals fucked us, eh?

      “Fine, then accept the additional cost & time of deploying FTTH and make the case for the superior service.”
      It was made, it was voted for and it was living up to its promises. The Liberals being voted in on a bunch of lies and demonstrably made up figures and going about smashing everything into a fine paste is only indicative of the intelligence of the average Australian.

  12. So most users are on the lower speeds because … they’re cheaper. I mean, that’s a bit of a no-brainer isn’t it? If you charge more for higher speeds then people will rationalise it. It’s a creation of the NBNs making because as we’ve discussed repeatedly there is no need to have this pricing structure, it’s purely a sales and marketing decision. It’s far more accurate to say that people have chosen lower speeds because we have deliberately made the higher speeds more expensive. That’s a completely obvious and ultimately meaningless conclusion.

  13. In terms that Barnaby might relate to, Internet of Things for a farmer would be Internet of Cattle. For “paddock to plate” tracking, it’s not too far off that cattle will wear sensors that monitor their temperature, location and whatever else will help a farmer improve their efficiencies. 1000’s of cattle generating upload traffic to the cloud for data analysis. Not farmers kids doing media-rich homework or even leisurely family netflix. 25mbps download and what’s his position on upload needs for the future?
    But farmers are businesses and should pay their fair share for the connectivity they need right? (n)Ever the egalitarian, Barnaby.

    • Yeah, but School of the Air is actually very important, and Good internet supports that a lot more.

      With VR becoming more and more accessible, It honestly wouldn’t surprise me to see VR classrooms in the not too distant future.

  14. Joyce said the best way to test what the public wanted from the NBN was “to see what they buy”.

    So, we’re spending billions of dollars for 100+ year infrastructure based on what people are buying now?

    I guess that’s why Malcolm wants Australia to be innovative, because the LNP sure don’t know how to be.

  15. Customers may not purchase the highest speed tier at the moment but what are they going to do in 10 years time when they do want and need it? (apart from watching politicians blame each for the predicament)

    • They won’t even be able to do that because they’ll be stuck watching the buffer notification instead.

      • If you ask reality, they will all have to use the technology choice program and everyone pays 10s of thousands of dollars. ;-)

    • $150 for AVC going nowhere, add $17.50 / Mbps CVC. Enjoy (maybe Albo can give another interview;-)

      • Customers are waiting. Until it retails for a reasonable price they can fuck off!

    • Yet gigabit speeds are not on offer – for residential or business customers – at any price. I asked Telstra – they just said “not in Australia.”

      Richard, regardless of wholesale pricing, if it’s not even offered at retail by the largest ISPs, no wonder no one has bought it.

  16. When the backhaul can’t cope with what you’re paying for they always trot out the “Oh, it’s speeds *up to* the one you’re paying for” been that way since ADSL. I’m paying for 25Mbps here, best I’ve ever got is Mbps “because you’re so far from the exchange, you’re lucky to get that. We only have to provide 1.5Mbps service minimum”.
    Could be worse. My parents get satellite (1.3Mbps last time I checked) bills in the hundreds every time Windows does an update session, then their antivirus does an update, etc. 500megabytes download in their base plan, charged per megabyte for everything over. Why satellite? Well, there’s no other option where they live (100meters from their local exchange but it isn’t ADSL enabled even now in 2016, while towns of similar sizes in other states get it and dialup won’t work at anything better than 14kbps with constant dropouts).
    Hell, Telstra even ripped up the only payphone in town with the excuse that people have mobiles – yet there’s NO mobile signal in town, so they’re forever getting lost tourists knocking on the door asking to borrow their landline. Would they use 25Mbps? Hell yes, provided it’s priced at an affordable level. 100Mbps? Again, depends on price AND what sort of download quota. At the moment, I pay LESS for unlimited downloads + phone on ADSL2+ than their 500MB per month on satellite. Do rural subscribers get a raw deal? You better believe it. Do the Nationals give a damn? Not bloody likely – farmers don’t donate as much as coal mines.

    • Nice link. I can trust these figures.
      A lot of FTTP progress has been achieved. There is still hope for a complete remedy of the MTM clusterfuck.
      Fibre all the way, take your time, do it once, do it right, do it for the future.

      • I wish, I had the chance to meet Michael Danby (Labour rep for Melbourne Ports) the other day. His leaflet mentions a worthwhile NBN, but when I asked him what his vision was, he said he was worried if NBN had already bought the Optus Copper Network.. What? When asked further he dodged me and said he had to keep handing out leaflets.. Dodgy Danby.

        So I went to Owen Guest to get his opinion, and he said Fibre to the Distribution point was a legit solution. Which tbh I’m fine with in all seriousness. So the Liberal MTM solution may have legs in St Kilda, but Labour hasn’t got a snowballs chance with their Rep

  17. Barnaby and Malcolm are idiots I have purchased the highest speed connection on the NBN and never get near that speed because of fibre to node infrastructure the decaying copper network brought by the coalition is a dud and when a technician came to look at my lines at the node they went to powder in his hands he replaced a short section but told me the entire system was failing in this way. The fibre cable run right past my front door and the idiots in power won’t let me access it meaning I pay top money for an inferior service .Malcolm Turdball is reducing Australia to a third world technology infrastructure with no regard that putting fibre in would be cost nuetrall because of returns on tale up . A 3rd world health education and technology is what the coalition is supplying us with while throwing money at the rich and big business VOTE THE BARSTARDS OUT!!!

  18. Citing today’s usage of the NBN as a reason for copper would be like the builders of the Harbour Bridge building a single lane only each way. They had vision. They helped build a nation. What are the coalition doing?

Comments are closed.