80 COMMENTS

    • Does your former boss have a policy on what social benefits (e.g. eHealth & eLearning) the NBN should be delivering to ordinary Australians and what the minimum speeds required for this are?

      Is he part of the 1% who will simply have their internet connection paid for by work and so doesn’t really care.

      • You really can’t help yourself can you Mathew?

        Here’s a question … why do you think Ludlum’s calling for a “multi-party inquiry into the most cost-effective and future-proof architecture for the NBN​”?

        Would it be because then Australia can see the “social benefits (e.g. eHealth & eLearning) the NBN should be delivering to ordinary Australians and what the minimum speeds required for this are?” … as you said?

        Is this what you call a Matsplain (kind of like a Malsplain really)?

        And you’ve also ignored the years of evidence beforehand that was given to us pre-Coalition clusterf*ck … all in one sentence. I can’t call it verbal gymnastics though, because selective ignorance doesn’t require the skill that the former does.

        • > Here’s a question … why do you think Ludlum’s calling for a “multi-party inquiry into the most cost-effective and future-proof architecture for the NBN​”?

          The interesting thing is there is tension between ‘cost-effective’ and ‘future-proof’. The most future proof architecture would be direct fibre links as this simply requires changing the transceivers to upgrade network capacity and be closer to the current direct access to copper that ISPs have to provide ADSL with all of the advantages that delivers.

          However for all the simplicity and advantages of direct fibre it is more expensive than a GPON network so would likely fail the cost-effectiveness test.

          > And you’ve also ignored the years of evidence beforehand that was given to us pre-Coalition clusterf*ck … all in one sentence.

          What pre 2013 evidence are you referring to? I see zero evidence that Labor was building a network that could deliver on their promsies.

          • “However for all the simplicity and advantages of direct fibre it is more expensive than a GPON network so would likely fail the cost-effectiveness test.”

            So your response is to provide the most expensive network, which isn’t even what the original NBN proposed, then call it “failing the cost-effectiveness test”. Loading the response again Mathew.

            “I see zero evidence that Labor was building a network that could deliver on their promsies.”

            Of course you saw “zero” evidence. You only ever saw what you wanted to see, which was very different than what was presented to you. That’s why I used the words “selective ignorance”.

          • > Of course you saw “zero” evidence. You only ever saw what you wanted to see, which was very different than what was presented to you.

            According to Quigley, Labor have failed to fulfil their promises to the 79% currently connected at 25Mbps on FTTP. WIll Ludlam hold Labor accountable for this? Does he see it as an issue?

            Low-income users denied NBN benefits
            “With the quality of high definition that you’ve got, being able to come across this sort of a network, you could easily have a quick hook-up and actually work out, ‘OK, do I need to take him to hospital, or could we keep him at home?’,” Mr Smith said.
            But when The Australian approached Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley to describe the level of service users could expect at lesser network speeds, they said high-definition video conferencing was not possible on the NBN’s most basic package.
            “You certainly can’t do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream — it’s impossible,” Mr Quigley said.

          • “According to Quigley, Labor have failed to fulfil their promises to the 79% currently connected at 25Mbps on FTTP. WIll Ludlam hold Labor accountable for this? Does he see it as an issue?”

            And your response is …. another loaded response. About Labor no less. Anywhere but the current people responsible right?

            Anyone can produce selective evidence Mathew and ask a question. For example, the Coalition promised to have everyone connected at 25 MBits by 2016. See what I mean?

            But that would be focusing on a blame mentality. Not about moving forward for a better outcome for Australians. When you make it all about pointing fingers, then how does that actually help anyone beyond the political ambitions of either of the major parties? It doesn’t, in fact, it plays right into their political playbook. They both know how to handle people like yourself Mathew. Step outside that conversation for once, and look at a solution, not at who caused the problem.

            That’s what really matters, not the problem, but what is getting done about it. The Coalition never had an adequate long term solution for Australia. That’s not a finger point by the way, it’s tied into their mentality (slowly evolving change), which didn’t work for telecommunications in the Howard years since telecommunications was privatised.

            Others (not just Labor) have different ideas than the arthritic snails pace of the MTM (see again what I did there?). Still evolution, but only slightly more radical.

            Ludlam has stepped outside the usual blame game and would like to frame it as solving a problem. Bring that sort of thinking on please. Isn’t this the reason why people are disenfranchised from politicians these days? They’ve had enough of the blame game … let’s get on with solutions to problems. Malcolm’s “solution” has not turned out to be any solution at all. It’s time to look elsewhere.

          • Well said Murdoch :o)

            Mathew likes to ignore the fact that under the previous plan, anyone that would need the speed would be able to get it, while the current plan means only those close to a node can get it.

          • > Mathew likes to ignore the fact that under the previous plan, anyone that would need the speed would be able to get it, while the current plan means only those close to a node can get it.

            Under Labor, only those people who can *afford* the plan with the appropriate speed tier can afford it. Most students and those with serious medical issues tend not to have much spare cash.

            When you consider that Labor’s plan is less than 1% to have 1Gbps in 2026 then it is very likely this same group of people can easily afford FoD.

          • > And your response is …. another loaded response.

            I’m asking for thoughts on what acceptable levels of service on the NBN preferably with examples of the scenarios that require these scenarios.

            I’ll agree it is a loaded question because it forces you to face the hard reality that Labor didn’t plan to deliver on their promises of the NBN enabling eHealth & eLearning and won’t deliver with the policy they are taking to the 2016 election.

            > Anyone can produce selective evidence Mathew and ask a question.

            Quoting Quigley just made it harder for you to refute.

            > Step outside that conversation for once, and look at a solution, not at who caused the problem.

            Can you define the problem for me? I see it as 100Mbps is the minimum speed required to deliver the benefits of the NBN as promised by Labor. If this is not a problem then please explain how Labor’s promises about the NBN enabling eHealth & eLearning will be fulfilled for the 79% connecting at 25Mbps or slower.

            When you provide this explanation consider that:
            * Stating that 25Mbps is adequate for eHealth & eLearning means that FTTN, FTTB & HFC are adequate.
            * Stating that 25Mbps is inadequate means that Labor’s FTTP has failed to provide an acceptable level of service to 79% of those connecting.

          • “I’m asking for thoughts on what acceptable levels of service on the NBN preferably with examples of the scenarios that require these scenarios.”

            Forest for the trees Mathew.

            “I’ll agree it is a loaded question because it forces you to face the hard reality that Labor didn’t plan to deliver on their promises of the NBN enabling eHealth & eLearning and won’t deliver with the policy they are taking to the 2016 election.”

            That wasn’t their plan Mathew. That was the possibility that they could open up with the standard of technology given to Australia, through 3 platforms … FTTH, wireless and satellite. While the wireless and satellite has persisted (despite Malcolm’s rubbishing it but still using it anyway), the FTTH part is now a dog’s breakfast. That dog’s breakfast neuters any attempt to standardise applications that might be deployed over the platform, because it’s not one platform any more, thanks to the varying lengths of last mile copper that still exist over the network. You could get some or even most of the way there with FTTdp, but that’s not happening at any predictable scale either.

            By the way, I still see you playing the blame game.

            “Quoting Quigley just made it harder for you to refute.”

            I don’t have to refute you, just illustrate how your blame game thinking is really quite narrow and doesn’t solve any problem at all.

            “Can you define the problem for me? “

            Sure I can. The lack of any sort of ubiquitous definitive telecommunications across Australia. We were close with Labor’s plan, with 3 technologies appropriate for their demographics. With the Coalition’s, there’s nothing ubiquitous about it.

            “I see it as 100Mbps is the minimum speed required to deliver the benefits of the NBN as promised by Labor. “

            The promise, Mathew, was fast affordable broadband for Australia. They never promised what you say they did. Best re-examine history if you want to continue the blame game instead of trying to revise it.

            “When you provide this explanation consider that:”

            Considered, and as usual, you’ve tried to load the question. I’m not arguing speeds with you, I’m stating opportunities lost by not providing a simpler 3 technology architecture. For the same reasons I’ve given above. But we’ve been here before, you and I … over at Whirlpool. You still haven’t learned a damn thing have you?

          • Under Labor, only those people who can *afford* the plan with the appropriate speed tier can afford it.

            And much like when the GST/ETS came in, the government could compensate those people.

            You think Malcolm will compensate them by paying for their FoD? ;o)

          • NBN enabling eHealth & eLearning and won’t deliver with the policy they are taking to the 2016 election.

            And the LPA MtM NBN addresses this how?

          • > “I’m not arguing speeds with you, I’m stating opportunities lost by not providing a simpler 3 technology architecture.”

            So in summary, You are avoiding the issue because Labor’s NBN isn’t delivering fast speeds to most people.

            Your argument is that FTTP is all that matters. It doesn’t matter that:
            – 79% of people on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower
            – Only 16% (down 3% in 2015) are connected at 100Mbps have access to Labor’s promised benefits
            – Zero RSPs are offering 1Gbps plans six years are Labor promised those plans

            Labor’s decision to implement speed tiers means they completely failed completely to deliver the benefits justified as the reason for building the NBN to the 79% connected at 25Mbps or slower.

            You want me to believe that at some future point in time a change will occur and suddenly everyone will suddenly have access to the speeds required for Labor’s promises to be fulfilled, but you don’t accept that the lack of access to fast speeds is an issue.

          • “So in summary, You are avoiding the issue because Labor’s NBN isn’t delivering fast speeds to most people.”

            Your “issue” isn’t about delivering fast speeds Mathew, it’s about blaming Labor. If it wasn’t about political partisanship, you’d be criticising the Coalition doubly about their lack of effort in that area.

            “Your argument is that FTTP is all that matters. “

            No, not my argument at all. You’re just attempting to frame that as my argument to fit your narrative. Read my previous post again, oddly enough, the most relevant part is the bit you quoted in your own post above … about opportunities lost.

            “It doesn’t matter that:”

            Although that was not my point, I’ll answer this … no … it doesn’t matter about any of the figures that you have listed. Why? Are those figures going to be relevant in 5 years? 10 years? 20? Nope. That’s why it doesn’t matter.

            “Labor’s decision to implement speed tiers means they completely failed completely to deliver the benefits justified as the reason for building the NBN to the 79% connected at 25Mbps or slower.”

            Ahhh … this old chestnut. Your favourite. And all you’re doing is pushing your narrative. Not willing to engage on the benefits of a simpler 3 platform solution are you? I wonder why? Don’t worry, I know the answer, the question was rhetorical *chuckles*

            “You want me to believe that at some future point in time a change will occur and suddenly everyone will suddenly have access to the speeds required “

            There’ll be nothing “sudden” about it unfortunately. But once the standard of connectivity settle into a simpler model, it’s easier to develop applications for. If that scenario occurs, I expect an explosion of services that require interactivity, both upload and download heavy, to be created. You’ve seen a glimpse of this with Netflix (which is primarily only a download application). Well … you ain’t seen nothing yet, if fibre penetration is allowed on a grander scale.

            “… for Labor’s promises to be fulfilled,”

            They weren’t Labor’s promises Mathew. I already stated this. Simply repeating your rhetoric doesn’t lend any more credibility the second time than it did the first.

            “but you don’t accept that the lack of access to fast speeds is an issue.”

            I just love how you try to put words in my mouth. Never gets old for hilarity, but does absolutely nothing for clarity Mathew.

            Lack of access to fast speeds IS an issue. But with a simpler technology mix that can be counted on … which is by taking as much of the copper out of the network as possible. Remove the lack of access problem from the technology stack by removing copper, and make it a financial decision (by keeping speed tiers). Sure, you’re replacing a physical issue with a financial one … but here’s the thing … over time, the higher end connections start filtering down to the lower end of the spectrum. Organically, everyone will get access to the higher end tiers which eventually become mid-range, then lower level tiers. And still the network can scale after that.

            The near ubiquity of fibre, coupled with a simpler mix of technologies makes the barrier to entry for application performance much lower, as developers only need to cater for 3 scenarios, rather than analogue copper’s unreliable performance. Then you’ll see both commercial and government solutions take off. Everybody wins with that scenario.

          • > Your “issue” isn’t about delivering fast speeds Mathew, it’s about blaming Labor.

            I’m pointing out that Labor NBN Plan is fundamentally flawed and will not deliver the benefits that you think it will. I don’t need to waste my breath criticising FTTN when I did that back in 2007 and plenty of others are criticising MTM.

            > Although that was not my point, I’ll answer this … no … it doesn’t matter about any of the figures that you have listed. Why? Are those figures going to be relevant in 5 years? 10 years? 20? Nope. That’s why it doesn’t matter.

            The NBNCo Corporate Plans contained predictions for 15 years. Ever since I pointed out what Labor were promising, you’ve been telling me that it will never come to pass that utopia awaits. 6 years down the track we are seeing that those predictions were at best optimistic. 79% connected at 25Mbps is worse than Labor predicted, yet you expect me to believe that some pivotal event will occur which will change this.

            Admit that Labor’s plan will not deliver fast internet to the majority and we can talk about the necessary changes, but first you have to admit that it hasn’t and without radical change it won’t.

            > Lack of access to fast speeds IS an issue. But with a simpler technology mix that can be counted on

            WRONG SO VERY WRONG. 6 years of Labor ineptitude have shown that FTTP without the correct financial model won’t help.

            > The near ubiquity of fibre, coupled with a simpler mix of technologies makes the barrier to entry for application performance much lower, as developers only need to cater for 3 scenarios

            WRONG SO VERY WRONG. Developers know that 79% are connecting at 25Mbps or slower and that there is considerable congestion on the NBN at peak times.

            Your ideal is worthy, but it is time to admit after 6 years that Labor are not going to deliver on their promises. That Labor’s failure to deliver on those promises enabled FTTN & HFC. Compare these two statements:
            1. Cheaper, faster and the same speeds as 80% of the populations with those wanting faster speeds having FoD as an option
            2. Cheaper, faster and only 3% the speed of FTTP

            See why the Australian public has not rejected the MTM and only a few fibre fanbois are still complaining about the loss of something they were never going to be able to afford? Selfish fibre fanbois like yourself could have called Labor out for not planning to deliver on their promises and MTM might never have happened. You failed to do this and the consequences are clear.

          • “I’m pointing out that Labor NBN Plan is fundamentally flawed and will not deliver the benefits that you think it will. I don’t need to waste my breath criticising FTTN when I did that back in 2007 and plenty of others are criticising MTM.”

            LOL … but it hasn’t stopped you from criticising a fundamentally better plan that was FTTH. Oh your hypocrisy Mathew is hilarious. Look everyone … Labor’s bad … mmmkay? No need to talk about the Coalition … just remember … Labor is baaaaaaad! Their solution is bad because …. it just is … because Labor.

            “Ever since I pointed out what Labor were promising, you’ve been telling me that it will never come to pass that utopia awaits”

            I have never said that buddy. Full fibre utopia doesn’t exist in this world, it’s far too expensive.

            “6 years down the track we are seeing that those predictions were at best optimistic.”

            They were pretty conservative when the rollout no longer remotely resembles anything like the entity that the predictions were built upon. Pity it hadn’t continued, because we would have found out just how much humble pie you would have had to eat.

            “but first you have to admit that it hasn’t and without radical change it won’t.”

            What are you talking about? The old one or the new one? The old one would have delivered. The new one makes the best of a terrible situation. It’s not even close to ideal, but returning to the old one only mires it for another election term while people are increasingly disadvantaged. I’m not excited by it, and keen to know exactly what the path is going to be for the FTTN/HFC part. Because that has not been detailed beyond a vague idea though I don’t intend to base my voting intentions on that. At this point in time, I’m still not voting Labor or Coalition.

            “WRONG SO VERY WRONG”

            What? Because you say so? That’s what’s wrong Mathew, so very wrong.

            “Developers know that 79% are connecting at 25Mbps or slower and that there is considerable congestion on the NBN at peak times.”

            What are you talking about? We don’t’ have near ubiquity of fibre to test this. So your idea that it is wrong is simply incorrect. It’s a situation that won’t come to pass for quite some time, thanks to the Coalition.

            “Your ideal is worthy, but it is time to admit after 6 years that Labor are not going to deliver on their promises”

            OK … I’ll say it a third time …. Labor promised fast affordable broadband. Up until the last election, that was on track to be delivered. We’re not going to know this time around until they both win the election and modify the direction of the MTM. So you pressing me for an “admission” is simply your own ability to try to prove yourself correct. You have been far off base about the NBN (and my attitude) for years Mathew.

            “See why the Australian public has not rejected the MTM “

            Oh dear. What have you been reading Mathew? When even the Australian/News Ltd is now talking about the Australian public’s dissatisfaction … only those that refuse to look are left. I guess you’re one of those.

            “Selfish fibre fanbois like yourself”

            I can safely say I am selfish. I am selfish for all of Australia getting better broadband. I do not apologise for that.

            “called Labor out for not planning to deliver on their promises”

            Faster and more affordable broadband for Australians Mathew. That was the promise. NBNCo has delivered on Labor’s promise. How can I state that? Because the Coalition never wanted broadband to be an issue in the first place. They opposed it until they realised it lost them an election. Without the original Labor policy, the only broadband we would have had is at the expense of Telstra profits. They’ve already delivered by actioning their plan, and the Coalition hasn’t been able to roll it back.

            You can thank them at any time Mathew (although I’d guess you’d chew your own arm off before you’d do that).

          • Pity it hadn’t continued, because we would have found out just how much humble pie you would have had to eat.

            Funny you should say this Murdoch. I actually mentioned on a few occasions before the last election that they can never be proven right, because if FttP went forward the numbers for higher speeds tiers would eventually rise even more and if FttP was halted we would end up with a situation where it cannot be tested. Looks like we are seeing that happening now. The mental midget obviously had to move the goal posts to suit his retarded narrative, one that believes the best solution to getting more people on 1gbps connections is not rolling out a FttP network.

          • @Murdoch
            > Faster and more affordable broadband for Australians Mathew. That was the promise. NBNCo has delivered on Labor’s promise. How can I state that?

            By that standard ADSL2+, 4G, FTTN, FTTB & HFC are delivering faster and more affordable broadband too. To justify FTTP you have to define a property the other technologies cannot provide (hint: really fast speeds).

            As for cheaper, Labor’s plan has failed to deliver on that even with the Liberal’s cut CVC pricing ahead of schedule.
            * Internode Naked ADSL: 1TB plan is $69.99. NBN 12/1Mbps is $89.95

            > Without the original Labor policy, the only broadband we would have had is at the expense of Telstra profits. They’ve already delivered by actioning their plan

            I guess you haven’t been keeping abreast of the marketplace. Telstra is the dominant NBN reseller (50%) and conned Labor into paying it $800/customer for everyone transferred to the NBN from a network that was to be switched off. The number of RSPs is shrinking (Optus, TPG and ???).

            @Hubert
            > if FttP went forward the numbers for higher speeds tiers would eventually rise even more and if FttP was halted we would end up with a situation where it cannot be tested.

            I don’t dispute that eventually RSPs will start offering faster plans enabling people to connect at faster speeds, but after 6 years average speeds on fibre are still trending downward (100Mbps dropped from 19% to 16% last year) and the fastest plan available from an RSP is 100Mbps.

            > I can safely say I am selfish. I am selfish for all of Australia getting better broadband. I do not apologise for that.

            FTTN is better broadband. FTTP could deliver amazing world class broadband, but the last 9 years have demonstrated that Labor are only capable of mediocre broadband.

            As you well know I care about the 79% on fibre that receiving mediocre performance that isn’t capable of delivering the eHealth & eLearning benefits that Labor promised.

          • “By that standard ADSL2+, 4G, FTTN, FTTB & HFC are delivering faster and more affordable broadband too.”

            You’re right. But that’s what was promised. Don’t state Labor promised anything else. You can refrain from building any more strawman from promises that didn’t exist.

            “To justify FTTP you have to define a property the other technologies cannot provide (hint: really fast speeds).”

            I don’t’ have to justify FTTP. The RFP where nobody could deliver already did that. The expert panel concluded that it wasn’t economical to justify anything less. The report is there, read it sometime. By the way … you need to re-evaluate your hint. It wasn’t about really fast speeds. Another strawman for you.

            “As for cheaper, Labor’s plan has failed to deliver on that”

            To echo Hubert, your comment is invalid. Labor’s plan was never able to be completed. You cannot state that it failed or succeeded.

            “I guess you haven’t been keeping abreast of the marketplace. “

            Sure I have.

            “Telstra is the dominant NBN reseller (50%) and conned Labor into paying it $800/customer for everyone transferred to the NBN from a network that was to be switched off. The number of RSPs is shrinking (Optus, TPG and ???).”

            And that is supposed to mean … what exactly? You can’t compare what Telstra is making now with a situation that hasn’t existed Mathew. Nice strawman … again.

          • “Every indication is that Labor was plan was failing to achieve targets on almost every metric:”

            Never completed … not able to judge, Mathew. The words ” every indication” means absolutely nothing,, and even less so when it’s unrue. They would have had to have failed every metric. They didn’t. Best find yourself some accuracy in your talking points.

          • So in summary, You are avoiding the issue because the LPA’s NBN isn’t delivering fast speeds to most people.

            Your argument is that FTTP is all that matters. It doesn’t matter that:
            – 79% of people on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower
            – Only 16% (down 3% in 2015) are connected at 100Mbps have access to Labor’s promised benefits
            – Zero RSPs are offering 1Gbps plans six years are [sic] the LPA promised those plans

            the LPA’s decision to implement speed tiers means they completely failed completely to deliver the benefits justified as the reason for building the NBN to the 79% connected at 25Mbps or slower.

            You want me to believe that at some future point in time a change will occur and suddenly everyone will suddenly have access to the speeds required for the LPA’s promises to be fulfilled, but you don’t accept that the lack of access to fast speeds is an issue.

            Fixed that for you Mat ;o)

  1. Infrastructure Australia is a name even an ignorant Joe would believe.

    It’ll be funny to watch Madbull, Jonesie, News Corp and all the others create a counterargument.

    Since Turnbull likes to use ‘I didn’t know’ as his escape plan, IA will make him feel very uncomfortable.

    Maybe he’ll send the federal police after them like he did with Senator Conroy. Malc seems to wait till he believes a person will be out of his way before he stabs them in the back.

    IA, wait a while, royal commission.

    • IA’s CEO is an engineer and seems nonpartisan, but the Chairman is an ex-Victorian Liberal. I’d have a lot more confidence in them if the Chair was also nonpartisan.

    • Hi Marion. Do u have any opinion on Fttp or are u going to thread hijack again and Tell me about employment opportunities; Viagra; or a chance to rescue u from the Siberian tundra? ….. Go

  2. LOL, reading the title i was salivating hoping i would see another article like the enough is enough article from yesterday. But i think you captured it nicely with just 1 word. Kudos.

  3. Synchronous FTTP? Seems to be possible pretty much everywhere else in the world deploying full fibre infrastructure… And at much cheaper retail prices than we could ever dream of seeing here. There are lots of reasons Australian telecommunications is different to the rest of the world, but asynchronous performance (significantly reduced upload bandwidth) is not one of them – that’s simply a question of switching equipment, and it doesn’t matter how low your population density is if you have universal fibre. Obviously the cost of data capacity is restricted here because of the rent seeking charges applied by our limited number of international undersea cable operators, but that also has zero impact on uplink performance provided by the network.

    If we’re going to do a review, let’s do it properly and ask some important questions.

    • P2P rather than GPON; at least offers layer-2 competition.

      Simpler to squeal FTTP than break this inefficient GBE.

      At least theyve stopped pretending cost or rollout time matters.

      • At least if FTTP GPON is constructed it can be upgraded relatively easily. It’s inefficient, sure (hence my comment), but a lot less so than the infrastructure sabotage instituted by the LNP.

        • GPON offers no layer-2 competition; ensuring our grossly inefficient GBE monopoly status. Telstra pre-local loop unbundling (highest long term consumer cost built in).

          Upgrade to P2P is neither easy nor inexpensive. FTTN costs can at least be recovered.

          • I’m not sure I can agree that FTTN costs will be recovered

            Of course they won’t…the LPA forming a committee to try and work out a way to get funding is an admission of that…

      • “P2P rather than GPON; at least offers layer-2 competition. ”

        If you mean point-to-point (PTP) Ethernet (PMSL) …..
        To provide full capacity for each user, an individual connection runs from home back to the connection point. This costs even more upfront due to extra ducting and optical fiber.

        There’s not much competition between telcos going on in America though. Isn’t that right Richard?

        • I know what I mean; also layer-2 competition, not the light to bits pieces.

          Additional optical fibre (more cores, same cable run) costs tiny compared to others eg labor. Ducting (pillar / exchange) already exists. Can be reused after area switchover.

      • P2P rather than GPON; at least offers layer-2 competition.

        You’d prefer the more costly system Richard? Why the change of heart?

        • No change of heart. MTM is the obvious winner, interactive upgrades over time.

          If you’re going with fibre further into the network P2P vastly superior to GPON from an infrastructure competition (best for consumers long term) perspective.

          I’d also add NBNCo would be smart to stop their network at the boundary.

      • Richard, you’ve had some pretty stupid ideas in the past but rolling out a national P2P fibre network really takes the cake.

        You think the problems NBN had getting the original GPON design installed in the Telstra pits were bad, going to an AON design would mean been building new pits and pipes to fit in the staggering number of fibres needed to ensure everyone got their own pair!

        • All that aside, I find it hilarious that after raging on here for so long about the “expensive gold plated white elephant” he actually harbours dreams of using an even more expensive fibre technology rather than FttP.

          One could say it’s classic :-)

        • Above “cost and time” no longer matters. Both out before fibre even an option.

          Secondly all but 2m guaranteed FTTN and HFC, copper depreciated pillar to exchange. Changes significantly the duct options. Post pillar returns pre-skinny fibre model, stops at boundary.

          Sure Quigley’s transit, GPON model will be exposed for the in efficient waste it is with infrastructure competition but finally people would get a business grade option (except GPON users);-)

      • Hey muppet, do you realise that NG-PON2 ocan deliver dedicated wavelengths to end users as well as coexist with GPON?

        What does that mean? The benfits of P2P with the cost structure of xPON.

  4. “FTTP”.

    Nailed it Renai!

    We dont need a another inquiry, the ALP expert panel has already done the job of selecting the best technology for this countries long term needs. What we need is a Royal Commission into the Liberal destruction of the NBN and some jail time for the perpetrators!

Comments are closed.