Government role in NBN needs “re-evaluation”, says US think tank

140

news The Technology Policy Institute, a US-based think tank, has published a paper on the NBN concluding that, while the network was set up to increase competition in the broadband sector, as well as boost quality and lower prices, it has evolved into a “intrusive policy subject to political pressures”.

The paper, titled The End of Australia’s National Broadband Network?, takes a look at the National Broadband Network, its history and aims, its changes since inception, and finally attempts to predict what my lie ahead for the ambitious scheme in the face of growing use of mobile technology.

Had the Federal Government spent the planned $40.7 billion rolling out a fibre-optic network to replace Australia’s existing copper infrastructure, it would have represented the “largest public sector investment in broadband infrastructure in the world as a share of GDP and the largest infrastructure project ever in Australia”, the paper says in its introduction.

However, while the NBN was meant to connect 93% of Australian households and businesses to a wholesale fibre to the premises (FTTP), it was downgraded to fibre to the node (FTTN) as a result of “escalating costs and political change”.

Six years after the NBN’s first trial in Tasmania, the “overall outcome has not been positive”, the authors, Lucia Gamboa Sorensen and Andrew Medina, suggest.

Coverage and adoption rates have “slowed” for fixed broadband and mobile broadband growth has remained “relatively constant” despite increased investment.

NBN customers still experience “low quality services”, due to low speeds, high prices compared with other countries and a slowing rate of price decrease for Internet services.

Further, fixed retail market concentration “has not changed significantly” since the NBN began operating and has “slightly increased” in the mobile market.

Finally, the research undertaken for the report suggests that faster mobile connection speeds are “changing consumer patters to perceive mobile as a substitute for fixed broadband”, the authors say.

While an ambitious undertaking, “the Australian case reveals how state owned broadband might not be the best answer to meet full coverage and competition objectives”, they suggest, adding:

“The NBN is an example of an intrusive policy subject to political pressures that has resulted in inefficiencies that distort consumer patterns and investment decisions without changing the competitive landscape.”

“In further attempts to bring down the cost and adopt a more deliverable strategy, the current administration is considering a gradual sell-off of the NBN network.”

A final chapter spells out the threat to the NBN from the increasing use of mobile tech to access the Internet.

While fixed data traffic is expected to grow by 180% by 2019, mobile data traffic is predicted to increase “nearly five-fold” by 2020.

“Perhaps the NBN should consider whether its deployment strategy can properly accommodate mobile data demand by prioritizing resources in towers and antennas and radio frequency spectrum allocation,” the report says.

The authors conclude by saying that “NBN has not only failed to achieve its targets but
stagnated fixed broadband adoption”. Further, it has “not changed Australia’s competitive
landscape in the mobile broadband market”.

They suggest that the government’s role in a sector “characterized by its dynamism” needs to be “revaluated” [sic].

The full report in pdf format can be found here.

Image credit: NBN company

140 COMMENTS

  1. Reading this “report”, I can’t tell if this was written for the NBN management or Telstra Mobile.

    My belief is that this team of researchers has limited knowledge of the social and political landscape in Australia and how that’s translated into investment (or it’s lack of it) into Communications Technology since the sale of Telstra by the Howard Government.

    whilst its a “good effort” I’d only rate it as a B-, it misses the underlying story and relies too much on newspaper articles.

    • “US Think Tank”, well there’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

      Typically anything that comes out of the USA is totally irrelevant to Australia. Just look at how many US “experts” have predicted the housing bubble bursting every 6 months for the last 5 years.

    • I’ve made 64,000usd so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about my friend HTt and I’ve made such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out aboutt it.
      Here’s what I’ve been doing…d…

      CLICK HERE =====>> http://tiny.tw/3pdF

  2. I’ve only glanced at it, but the report should be set aside or ignored until we understand a few things:
    – who commissioned it
    – who paid for it
    – what are the affiliations between the authors and their employers with interested parties
    – why a US policy institute would be weighing in
    – where is a peer review

    These kind of policy institutes both here and in the US have a long history of political or commercial connections or bipartisan agendas.

    • I agree.
      From this article I have little confidence in the report.
      One of the greatest problems is they do not understand the terms by which the project was started.

      “The NBN is an example of an intrusive policy subject to political pressures that has resulted in inefficiencies that distort consumer patterns and investment decisions without changing the competitive landscape.”
      It has changed the competitive landscape and returned the wholesaler to the people so the company can be run with the best interests of the population rather than profits.

      “In further attempts to bring down the cost and adopt a more deliverable strategy, the current administration is considering a gradual sell-off of the NBN network.”
      Selling part of the company was intended from the beginning.

      The TPP will possibly be ratified by congress in the next year so a report like this is to try and garner support for legal action against the Australian government from American interests.
      On first blush it seems to be from self interested parties with an agenda.

  3. Quick read, but a number of points stick out. These are backgroud, so wouldn’t necessarily be explained within the paper.

    1. USA is a capitalist adversarial democracy with not very much difference between base values. Australia is a socialist adversarial democracy with a huge and ill-defined base-value gap between its major parties. This paper seems not to recognise this fundamental difference.

    2. US has major problems with things like communications, thinly papered over by (Federal) interventions to provide a standardised interface between private-sector competitors. Australia does not have these problems.

    3. Australia usually picks up tech advances in comms much earlier and more universally than the US. This is most evident in the field of mobile (cellular) telephony. This is partially explained by the extent of US private sector competition in the (small) matter of basic infrastructure like telephone numbering systems.

    4. (IMHO), the fundamental problem with our NBN is the underlying gap between Socialist and Capitalist governmental philosophies. This is exacerbated by ridiculously short electoral terms, and the (world-wide) drift to increasingly belligerent inter-party animosity, leading to institutionalised incompetence in both parties.

    In short, my personal belief is that we won’t get a proper NBN until we have a political and philosophical revolution at the ballot box. We need this to be founded in our schools, emulating the US practice of saluting the Flag and singing the National Anthem in ALL school classrooms EVERY DAY, coupled with theoretical and practical political education IN SCHOOLS.

    • ” We need this to be founded in our schools, emulating the US practice of saluting the Flag and singing the National Anthem in ALL school classrooms EVERY DAY, coupled with theoretical and practical political education IN SCHOOLS.”

      No.

      This leads to the right wing flag waving we have going on at the moment, where instead of thinking, people blindly follow the “For Australia” cry. This is not a good thing.

      Most of the issues you mention are due to the adversarial nature of our political system, coupled with a lack of media representing multiple view points.

      • “No. This leads to the right wing flag waving…”

        I rest my case. Seriously, if it’s “going on at the moment” and we don’t currently have political education in our schools, which planet are you on?

        • *facepalm*

          It is the lack of general education, not the specific.

          You are suggesting that because we don’t have saluting and national anthems we aren’t capable of doing anything. And yet history proves you wrong.

          The current issues come from a lack of political strength in general. Factionalism and political donations, coupled with Sensationalist media, has resulted in politicians pandering to the sensationalism in public, whilst pandering to the donors in private.

          So Media beat up, plus politicians using said beat up to feather there own political nests, has resulted in those who should have been reasoned down, becoming the dominant speech. When Truth, Science, and Integrity give way to “what sells, what sells, and I’m up for sale” we end up with the environment we have now.

          • Stop waving the left wing flag. What history? The AUS designed and built cars we could have exported? The ships we used to make? The ships we used to crew? The aircraft we used to make? The computer parts we could have made?

            You seem to think that teaching kids to critically evaluate political claims is irrelevant rubbish. And you seem to think that this lack of “specific” education is not germane to your second and third paragraphs.

            Well, you have the society you find useful and attractive, since they all think like you.

            Except they mostly voted for the wrong Prime Minister.

  4. Perhaps the NBN should consider whether its deployment strategy can properly accommodate mobile data demand by prioritizing resources in towers and antennas and radio frequency spectrum allocation,” the report says.

    So prioritize resources from the NBN fixed line rollout to helping out Telstra, Optus and Vodafone with their mobile data capacity and coverage.

    Sounds good. 😀

    • So prioritize resources from the NBN fixed line rollout to helping out Telstra, Optus and Vodafone with their mobile data capacity and coverage.

      A friend of mine in Sydney moved recently and had to get Telstra Mobile Data for a bit while they sorted out the ADSL (Telstra told his provider Exetel they couldn’t access the place due to it being on a RIM, but when the tech came onsite he said that was BS as he connects directly to the exchange 1Km away…but I digress).

      He was paying $30 for 3Gb (he blew half of that just watching one video on YouTube).

      Are you a Telstra shareholder Reality? Is that why you’re pushing for the most expensive model (to the end user)?

  5. “In 2009 Australia allocated AUD 40.7 billion (approximately USD 33 billion) to a National Broadband Network (NBN) to replace its existing copper infrastructure. This amount would have represented the largest public sector investment in broadband infrastructure in the world as a share of GDP and the largest infrastructure project ever in Australia(1).”
    Debate on international alternatives and their comparative performance shutdown here.

    “(1) The initial peak equity requirement was estimated at AUD 27.5bn and debt funding estimated at AUD 13.4bn for a total funding requirement of AUD 40.7bn.”
    At the time the Conroyities refused to use the peak funding figure (always the lower capex). Fought for many years against this delusion (to abuse), today of course the fiberartzi insists on using the upper-range peak funding number.

    “The weight of the evidence suggests that the outcome has not been good.”
    Certainly is, then the publishing of any actuals shouted down.

    “Australians experience low quality services due to low speeds that can be associated with a slow fiber-to-the- node (FTTN)/FTTP rollout, higher prices relative to other countries and a slowing rate of price decrease for internet services in the past eight years. Fixed retail market concentration has not changed significantly since the NBN began operation and has slightly increased in the mobile market. Finally, it appears that faster mobile connection speeds are changing consumer patterns as consumers perceive mobile as a substitute for fixed broadband.”
    Rollout underperformance graphed, shouted down. Highlighting AVC and CVC charges distorting the market also shouted down. Actuals showing AVC speeds underperforming forecasts again shouted down, CVC impact on contention with calculated actuals provisioned CVC squealed at. (See a pattern?)

    “Despite the increasing estimates of total expenditures over the life of the project, actual expenditures had been less than expected due to slow network rollout.”
    Pointed out since actuals reviewed, today fanboys’ still claiming Quigley remained on budget.

    “The ACCC introduced rules in October 2014 requiring the NBN to report the number of services in operation on its network and the amount of capacity purchased by retail service providers. Data gathering is crucial for monitoring the rate and level of take-up of different NBN access services and the resulting market shares by retail service providers.17 Before the ruling the ACCC had no tools to monitor the effects of the NBN on competition. This data, however, is not public.”
    Summary data has been public since Q1 this year, published by ACCC. First link couldn’t attract Renai’s interest, second made available last week (link posted again by me). Waiting on the delims analysis before supplying my own (rofl).

    “The NBN aimed to connect 13 million premises to fiber by 2021. As Figure 2 shows, by June 2016 it had connected 2.9 million, 3.6 million less than the 2011 Corporate Plan expectations for that year.”
    Graphs of performance supplied by myself, dismissed as “deceitful”. Unsurprisingly the report’s graphs (using the same data) show the same underperformance.

    “While the evidence is limited, these numbers suggest that for many Australians mobile broadband is becoming a substitute for fixed broadband.”
    Available evidence undermining NBNCo revenue pointed out for several years, fanboys abused.

    “An analysis of the overall quality and availability of broadband in December 2013 by the Australian Department of Communications found that 28 percent of premises had access to download speeds between 25 Mbps and 110 Mbps while 65 percent had access to download speeds of less than 24 Mbps over the copper network. Six percent of premises (about 0.7 million) had no access to a fixed broadband service.”
    And linked to at the time.

    “Fixed broadband comparisons before and after NBN suggest that prices have increased relative to other countries.”
    Surprise! A govt monopoly would increase prices;-)

    “Speed comparisons to other countries suggests that Australia is in the lower performing end.”
    More on this with latest ACCC data analysis. Fiberartzi continue to maintain higher speeds demanded, when consumer preference is increasingly favouring under 25mpbs.

    “Speed changes within Australia and compared to other countries suggests that the NBN is performing under its 25Mbps minimum speed target and performing worse than its OECD counterparts.”
    Welcome contention; CVC pricing was who’s idea?

    “Government’s role and its continuous attempt to ‘catch up’ in a sector characterized by its dynamism should be revaluated. This case study illustrates how large scale public infrastructure projects in the telecommunications sector take decades to roll out, are subject to political pressures and result in little or no value to consumers.”
    Wonder where has this been pointed out? (rofl)

    Great report. Will Alex even read it before posting his retort (most above haven’t, wrong “vibe”);-)

      • Of course he didn’t read it, the question was rhetorical. Imagine if I’d asked him to comprehend it;-)

        Posting bile; with their shallow understanding it’s all they have (watch).

        • @ Richard,

          I’m guessing the hypocrisy of you posting bile to another and then sobbing bile, has yet again gone over your own head…

          And you claim to be intelligent…*sigh* …or is it that you believe such rules don’t apply to “Richard”…

          I note yet again also, you use bile to avoid my questions? How typical.

          How about you grow some and address them.

          Apology accepted.

          • Hey Rizz remember when I said they would get even more unhinged and shrill by the end of 2016 ;-)

          • You know what they say about talking to yourself too often.

            Where is Snow Crash when you need him, keeps getting caught in traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge, and dashing about creating ‘Aussie start ups’ along the West Coast.

            lol

          • @alain

            you do realise that your ranting about Snow Crash’s comment on startups doesnt help you dont you?

            Nice to take his comment a) out of context, then b) misquote it, just to make some bizarre point.

            His comment was about Aussies heading startups, much different to what you imply.

            Seek help. You need it.

          • @ HC…

            Hey Rizz remember when I said they would get even more unhinged and shrill by the end of 2016 ;-)

            Indeed, wisely prophesied HC… then right on cue look at the king of unhinged’s, childishly, moronic and “completely unhinged” post, directly beneath your’s, to prove you 100% correct…

            Amazingly delicious.. :)

          • Oh dear having conversations with one of your many sock puppets self again, who is unhinged?

          • Looking for tips…

            Delimiter is not loading correctly and hasn’t been for sometime, I’m currently posting in a tiny “leave reply box” and I have no edit function available (obviously)…

            Ideas?

            Thanks…

          • “Where is Snow Crash when you need him, keeps getting caught in traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge, and dashing about creating ‘Aussie start ups’ along the West Coast”

            I have better things to do with my time than posting comments on irrelevant POLYTICKS blogs and sparing with fucking nut job trolls like you.

            I have applications to develop, servers to install and maintain and a business to run and a 2 year multi-million dollar project to complete and laughing all the way to the bank.

            My U.S. startup was founded in 2005. Its now 2016. You’re at least 11 years behind Backwater Boy

            “Delimiter. Just Australia. Just Technology” LMAO

            See you troll.

            YOU’RE DEAD!

          • @Rizz,

            Not followed/read etc., all msgs here btw, so I hope your issues aren’t a funny troll post, .. else you got me… lol XD

            Anyhoo, get an icypole, break the stick in half,(after finishing it.. hehe) & that’s the width of LEAVE A REPLY box on my Galaxy Note 10.1 2012 edition tablet on Firefox, in landscape mode, with desktop mode enabled.

            Vertical height is a bit smaller.

            I get a red EDIT link with 4 minutes counting down once I post.

            Maybe you’re looking elsewhere than below the post; Link-blindness? (I’ve been there)

            Not sure how it was maybe before,(only been posting a few weeks, I’d guess, it is now) or if it differs for subscribers.

            Missing Edit link might be related to a css/javascript issue with your browser, or maybe a filtering proxy,(ala Privoxy on desktops) or a miss-behaving adblock extension etc..

            Wishing you, best of luck, in getting your issues fixed :)

            Later, RIPP.

          • @Rizz,

            ^You’re Welcome^ .. LOL ;)

            – Hadz too :D

            I was just gonna type “yw” ..then a penny dropped.

            Later, RIPP :)

          • So Richard
            No evidence to back him self up with made up copper length that NBN claiming now a minimum as an up to with any other claim than ” I said it so it must be true”.

            Much like your other charades of misleading figures that you claim to post and then when pulled claim to can’t read past the first page of a document

        • “Debate on international alternatives and their comparative performance shutdown here.”

          Whinge. No reference provided.

          “Certainly is, then the publishing of any actuals shouted down.”

          Whine. No reference provided.

          “Rollout underperformance graphed, shouted down. Highlighting AVC and CVC charges distorting the market also shouted down. Actuals showing AVC speeds underperforming forecasts again shouted down, CVC impact on contention with calculated actuals provisioned CVC squealed at.”

          4 x whinges in one. No references provided.

          “(See a pattern?)”

          I’m starting to.

          “Pointed out since actuals reviewed, today fanboys’ still claiming Quigley remained on budget.”

          No actuals references provided by you. From the man himself:

          “I visited a very senior public servant in Canberra to provide him with an update on the NBN. He was an intelligent and informed individual but one who had no direct day to day involvement in the NBN.”

          “After we had exchanged pleasantries he said. “Mike, can you tell me why the NBN project is so over budget?”. My response was “Why do you think the NBN is overbudget?”. I then got out all the data and showed him how the project was progressing.”

          “It was running about 9 months behind the original schedule because of the time it took to complete a highly complex deal with Telstra. But the Capital Costs, the Operating Costs, and the Peak Funding were virtually unchanged from the original projections. ”

          https://11217-presscdn-0-50-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MNSI_Telsoc_Text_Final.pdf

          Believe Quigley over Richard? No contest. Unless of course you’re Bill Morrow, or one of NBNCo’s finance team that can back up your argument. Otherwise, it’s just a credibility contest, and in that case, Quigley wins every time.

          “Summary data has been public since Q1 this year, published by ACCC. First link couldn’t attract Renai’s interest, second made available last week (link posted again by me). Waiting on the delims analysis before supplying my own (rofl)”

          What’s stopping you Richard? A person doesn’t need others to post something before contributing analysis. You’d only ask that if you wish to rebut something that someone else says with your own figures. Which isn’t analysis at all.

          “Graphs of performance supplied by myself, dismissed as “deceitful”. Unsurprisingly the report’s graphs (using the same data) show the same underperformance.”

          Add another whinge to the list. No references provided.

          “Available evidence undermining NBNCo revenue pointed out for several years, fanboys abused.”

          Chalk up another whine. No references provided.

          “And linked to at the time.”

          Meaning? Is this a lead to another whine? No references provided.

          “Surprise! A govt monopoly would increase prices;-)”

          There’s a bit of a difference between “would” and “suggest” Richard. I do wonder if you actually read and understand the words before jumping to conclusions.

          “More on this with latest ACCC data analysis. Fiberartzi continue to maintain higher speeds demanded, when consumer preference is increasingly favouring under 25mpbs.”

          Every connection over 25 Mbps on the existing fibre NBN makes that statement increasingly false Richard.

          “Welcome contention; CVC pricing was who’s idea?”

          The more pertinent question would be, why hasn’t the Coaltion/Morrow changed that?

          “Wonder where has this been pointed out? (rofl)”

          Attempted sardonic self-aggrandisement again? Ugh. Still no reference provided.

          “Great report. Will Alex even read it before posting his retort (most above haven’t, wrong “vibe”);-)”

          I hope you don’t consider your wall of text analysis. Besides repeating the article, you aren’t offering much Richard. Substance please, at least references.

          I saw the name … and once again … I knew what was coming. *sigh*

          • @m requires references when only yesterday, a conversation she was part of, the publication of actuals was shouted down including the most vile abuse of the past month. Memory of goldfish.

            Analysis won’t be forthcoming from others, calling it out exposes their shallowness. Not long now (AR likely in the next week, also expect nothing from the squealers).

            I saw the name … and once again … I knew what was coming. *sigh*

          • “@m requires references when only yesterday, a conversation she was part of”

            Unlike others Richard, I don’t read every comment with breathless anticipation. Conversations can’t flow for the average reader without references. You might want to remember that if you are hoping to gain credibility. Yes, that means you might have to repeat yourself, but at least it keeps the discussion at the time relevant. Without references, only those that follow your posts with more attention than they deserve can follow what appears to be thought bubbles.

            “Analysis won’t be forthcoming from others, calling it out exposes their shallowness.”

            Of course you can call it out. But claiming your own analysis without actually posting it without reservation suffers from the same lack of credibility. There might be analysis, there might not. As such, calling out others while exhibiting the same behaviour puts you in the same camp you are currently attempting to attack.

            “I saw the name … and once again … I knew what was coming. *sigh*”

            It’s true … when your arguments are as predictable as they are … then so are mine … unless you choose to change yours with a little more substance.

            P.S. I do find it interesting that you chose not to address the point about Quigley … the only point you really had any information on (which unfortunately was a Coalition sound bite if there’s no references attached). Then again, it’s not really relevant to this article … but you bring up irrelevant topics like that all the time I’ve noticed.

          • You can’t remember your post in direct reference to the ACCC link yesterday?

            Analysis ACCC’s first report (to abuse), second upcoming (expecting the same). Chance for others to make a, any contribution. Unsurprisingly only bile.

            Coalition sound bite;-) if you can’t remember yesterday, 2013 must be a complete mystery:
            https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/16802985/nbn-to-stay-within-budget/

            Continued the mantra until he was shown the door. Destroyed in review mths later, obvious to anyone reading the actuals as they became available (publishing them shouted down by many of the same posters here). Costs & peak funding weren’t the same as forecasts (CPP almost doubled, delays massive). In regard to fanboys still maintaining such delusional on-budget position, read a couple of posts down.

            Clearly directly relevant to this article, then you can’t see it. Perhaps you (unlike others) should read the report then post.

          • “You can’t remember your post in direct reference to the ACCC link yesterday?”

            You missed my point Richard. You are demonstrating how NOT to build a cohesive argument if you are expecting people to chase posts from other articles all the time. You have a credibility problem … that is part of it. Even a first year at Uni knows this.

            “Analysis ACCC’s first report (to abuse), second upcoming (expecting the same). Chance for others to make a, any contribution. Unsurprisingly only bile.”

            Still proceeding with the whinge I see.

            “Coalition sound bite;-)”

            It was, and still is.

            “Destroyed in review mths late”

            You mean the strategic review I guess (with no link, it’s all you can mean). The one which added the costs of upgrading a FTTN network to FTTH and proceeded to tell us that it was the total cost? Pull the other one.

            “as they became available (publishing them shouted down by many of the same posters here”

            Whinge whinge whinge … it’s all you ever do.

            “In regard to fanboys still maintaining such delusional on-budget position, read a couple of posts down.”

            You vs Quigley. I’m going with Quigley Richard. He is more authoritative than you are I’m afraid.

            “Perhaps you (unlike others) should read the report then post.”

            Perhaps you should understand the report then post. Rather than attempting to make it fit your narrative. And by undertanding … checking the references of the report, including the time they were released, and the context of the figures.

            Illuminating, but not in the way you hope.

          • You’ve gotta shake your head in disbelief at the hypocrisy of Richard.

            One who is so full of his own trumped (pun intended) up self-importance/massive E G O , that he will sob like a whiny little bitch about others commenting towards him using bile, whist he himself is the purveyor of and in fact the originator of “bile”.

            For example, he says…

            @m requires references when only yesterday, a conversation she was part of, the publication of actuals was shouted down including the most vile abuse of the past month. Memory of goldfish.

            Amazing hypocrisy/narcissism/stupidity…

          • You vs Quigley. I’m going with Quigley Richard. He is more authoritative than you are I’m afraid.

            Oh dear Murdoch, you said something positive about Quigley. I feel another jealous rage is imminent from RR.

          • @m first year uni student apt, they know nothing. Typically seduced by appeal to authority.

            Costs exploding (CPP almost double of forecast), rollout performance under 20%, revenue underperforming, contractor model imploding…

            All pointed out at the time!

            Provide one actual showing Quigley was on-time or on-budget or likely to be.

          • Richard looks like you have trouble with your numbers again or that I didn’t know $3200 was almost double $2540

          • “@m first year uni student apt, they know nothing. Typically seduced by appeal to authority.”

            That’s not the point of why I mentioned it … but if you’d like to throw bias around … knock yourself out.

            “Costs exploding (CPP almost double of forecast), rollout performance under 20%, revenue underperforming, contractor model imploding…”

            No reference provided. Another whine.

            “Provide one actual showing Quigley was on-time or on-budget or likely to be.”

            I can produce the historical reporting by NBNCo before September 2013 with regards to finances, they’re all in the Corporate Plans at the time. That’s the on budget part.

            The on time part you just made up yourself. Quigley has never denied that there were delays. Just as there are under the post September 2013 MTM. You planning on going to town on that anytime soon? I mean, if you want to be consistent, wouldn’t that also be on your radar? That would be more constructive that attempting to reframe history over and over.

          • @jk show Quigley actuals of $3200. I’ve got $7,400 (Tasmania Pre-release) – $4,100 (Tasmania First Release). The forecast CPP figure was more like $2136 (you’re ignoring non-dropped premises passed).

            @m so not a single figure, dozens posted by myself from the very reports you claim to show otherwise (they don’t; like this article’s report not even read). Also Quigley line with on-time (“or likely to be”) for completion quote in the very link supplied above. The shallowness of their understanding is extraordinary:
            “I can produce the historical reporting by NBNCo before September 2013 with regards to finances, they’re all in the Corporate Plans at the time.”
            Classic;-) Historical reporting with regards to finances you might try their Annual Reports. But do go on…

            That I’ve not been critical of MTM part you just made up.

          • “@m so not a single figure,”

            What you fail to understand Richard, is that I understand your strategy all too well. As long as you continue to focus on your points of blame, then I’m sure you’ve got a retort for all of them. But where’s the analysis in that? I choose not to play your game Richard, but instead focus on your strategy, which is flawed … no matter how many points you choose to throw out there.

            “like this article’s report not even read”

            How did you come to that conclusion?

            “Quigley line with on-time (“or likely to be”) for completion”

            See, this is what happens when we dig into your vapid comments. The real truth comes out. Quigley was talking about the completion of the whole NBN, which hasn’t been able to eventuate since September 2013. Your accusations are false, because the unfolding project he is referring to has not existed since then.

            “Historical reporting with regards to finances you might try their Annual Reports”

            Or Corporate Plans, but that all depends on what you want to talk about Richard, and the context. Neither of which you supply in anything but the most vague terms. You give data, but no context. Not constructive.

            “But do go on”

            You’re doing that nicely. Rhetoric with no references. Why do you think I answer in kind Richard? If you want credibility, it’s there for you to exhibit. If you’ve stated that you have analysis, then provide it within the context of what you’re discussing right now. Previous discussions may have different contexts, and nobody is going to go trawling back to attempt to discover context on older discussions which may end up being wrong, or misinterpreted (by you or others).

            Please be more than a first year Uni undergrad by treating discussions seperately within their own terms. Otherwise, you just present as a rather large mess … which is what is occurring to you right now.

          • @jk right, those numbers show Completed per Premises Cost (CPPC) not Cost per Premises (CPP). Anything to show your $3200 actual? Double $2136 is how much?

            We agree our GBE’s comparative underperformance is terrible. I’ve pointed it out for years. Sadly discussing international comparisons shutdown by Renai (BT a ripper, but several others in Europe and North America; perhaps since his departure we can continue). However reality is we’re not in any of those markets; our costs has exploded (Quigley’s CPP doubled), rollout a crawl (significant improvement with MTM) and revenue underperforming.

            The policy folly continues. Tens of billions will be written off before any chance of profitability as analysis of latest ACCC actuals will show (customer demanded speeds continues to decline, actuals v forecasts trending in opposite directions). Give such analysis a go yourself, data here:
            https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/communications/national-broadband-network-nbn/nbn-wholesale-market-indicators-report/reports

          • Richard
            $3200 is from Quigley figures minus the $700 that you have a habit of forgetting.n or are you doing a Turnbull as only counting half the cost of his own CPP version as Murdoch has stated no reference for yours either.

            Btw the way still waiting on your link to show that NBN is doing only a max 1km length of copper. As since you claimed “since mine are “incorrect” (not)? (chuckles).”. Since the SOE you claim has no mention of copper length still doesn’t prove you are correct.

          • @m so still not a single figure to support your position. And there never will be.

            Quigley and I was using the same context, you ignored my original post (quoted it again). His project didn’t have to continue to expose the fallacy of his forecasts. 4.5 years, historical data is today known from his reign.

            CPs = forecasts, ARs = actuals. Again basic stuff! The two can be compared to evaluate performance. BTW what “context” do you need for data like the following:
            https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cpmjufh576l5ch/brownfields-actuals-v-forecast.pdf?dl=0https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ve709twvdkoeuj/greenfields-actuals-v-forecast.pdf?dl=0

            Credibility in the eyes of fanboys is important to you? Thanks fine, simple to get the inane +1. But I’ll release my (completed) analysis when I like, in the interim I’ll continue exposing the fiberartzi’s shallowness. Best of luck completing first year Uni.

          • “@m so still not a single figure to support your position. And there never will be.”

            Y’know the problem with people who speak in absolutes? They’re never realistic.

            “Quigley and I was using the same context”

            Please, tell me … right now … what context you are assuming. Write it down for me.

            “His project didn’t have to continue to expose the fallacy of his forecast.”

            Depends on the forecast though doesn’t it. And a failed forecast (or forecasts) does not make a failed project.

            “CPs = forecasts, ARs = actuals. Again basic stuff! The two can be compared to evaluate performance”

            Sure they can. But performance of what? The whole project? A small part of the project? The initial stages of the project?

            “BTW what “context” do you need for data like the following:”

            That’s not context Richard. That’s data. On it’s own, it has no context.

            “Credibility in the eyes of fanboys is important to you? ”

            No, just credibility straight up. The thought bubbles that you support (even with your own data) do not show any greater depth of understanding than the narrative you attempt to craft for yourself. Your extremism is not realistic to how projects unfold. You’re hyperbolic Kermit arms are only directed one way, which is rather revealing as to your motives. If you think people can’t see that, you are deluding yourself.

            “But I’ll release my (completed) analysis when I like”

            That is your perogative. But until you do, it doesn’t exist, except in your fantasies.

            “n the interim I’ll continue exposing the fiberartzi’s shallowness”

            With shallowness of your own? It only exposes you Richard.

            “Best of luck completing first year Uni.”

            Oh, you mean me? Ha ha. If only I was that young again.

          • @jk I get you can make up any number you like. Quigley was very fond of it. Where’s the published actual showing less than Quigley’s CP13-16 (working draft) numbers.

            The $700 conflation issue addressed long ago. Perhaps you’ve since learnt how to use a spreadsheet? Is the 8mbps fibre interconnect max capacity from 7330 still a real drag? 2-3 new power stations still required for FTTN? Did Quigley really donated all of his salary to charity?…

            Actually copper lengths (NBNCo & BT) is correct, SoE mandates 25mbps min. Practically ~1km copper length using deployed DSLAM. Unsurprising this is a challenge for you, why you’re not likely to ever been involved with a network’s construction.

          • @m

            “Y’know the problem with people who speak in absolutes? They’re never realistic.”
            Numbers are.

            “Depends on the forecast though doesn’t it. And a failed forecast (or forecasts) does not make a failed project.”
            No. Failing to meet every forecast a failed project makes.

            “Sure they can. But performance of what?”
            Performance to meet forecasts.

            “That’s not context Richard. That’s data. On it’s own, it has no context.”
            Exactly.

            “The thought bubbles that you support (even with your own data) do not show any greater depth of understanding than the narrative you attempt to craft for yourself.”
            Your thought bubbles do not show any greater depth of understanding than the narrative you attempt to craft for yourself. Indeed actuals opposes your narrative, and why you refuse to post any.

            “But until you do, it doesn’t exist, except in your fantasies.”
            Nothing exists until it’s posted?

            “If only I was that young again.”
            I didn’t claim you were young.

          • It’s a shame your name isn’t Simon, instead of Richard…

            As it stands “Richard says”, as your foundation of everything, just doesn’t cut the mustard…

            You’re welcome

          • “Numbers are.”

            I am amazed that you believe that numbers cannot be manipulated.

            “No. Failing to meet every forecast a failed project makes.”

            Not a project that didn’t finish though Richard.

            “Performance to meet forecasts.”

            Forecasts by definition have never been foregone conclusions.

            “Exactly.”

            So once again .. context please.

            ” Indeed actuals opposes your narrative, and why you refuse to post any.”

            Really? You know how I think apparently? A little presumptive there Richard.

            “Nothing exists until it’s posted?”

            Simply claiming you’ve done analysis doesn’t mean you’ve done analysis Richard.

            “I didn’t claim you were young.”

            Never said you did. But that was when I went to Uni.

          • @Rizz

            “Simon Says” is funny :D

            We all must do & think what Sim..Richard does.

            Richard currently thinks this atleast, otherwise people must be uneducated little piggy squeelers.

            He says this a lot to people. Especially when he knows his arguments & numbers have been weak in his recent postings.

            But I’d really love being able to reply to Richard as;

            “Simple Simon” ..hehe :P

            Later, RIPP ;)

          • Still no counter argument containing facts, what to do to fill the space, nonsensical ranting verbal diarrhea.

          • “As it stands “Richard says”, as your foundation of everything, just doesn’t cut the mustard…”

            The fallacy of Richard’s posts, right there Rizz.

            “Because Richard says” is not an authoritative argument.

          • Lol Richard
            “I get you can make up any number you like.”
            Just rolling your rule of thumb.

            Yes Richard at least I admitted to my mistake when you pointed it out. Unlike you kept up your charade over several articles. Then your excuse is you didn’t “read Quigley article” correctly lol. That’s a poor excuse for a self confessed numbers man to make, failed to read numbers correctly.

            The SOE mandates “at least” 25Mbps not “min” 25Mbps or can you point to another ISP around the world offering a min 25Mbps service. Or that a 1 sec in a day 25Mbps is the new definition of min

            Again you have provide no link to your claim other than NBN SOE mad steels a min (which it isn’t) then it must be only doing 1Km waffle lol.
            West Wallsend Industrial park with one shared node, up to 1.3km runs. So no not a max of 1Km is it.

          • “I am amazed that you believe that numbers cannot be manipulated.”
            Examples using premises passed forecast v actuals.

            “Not a project that didn’t finish though Richard.”
            Projects are evaluated before completion all the time.

            “Forecasts by definition have never been foregone conclusions.”
            Why we measure against actuals.

            “Simply claiming you’ve done analysis doesn’t mean you’ve done analysis Richard.”
            No, but having done analysis means I’ve done the analysis.

            ““Because Richard says” is not an authoritative argument.”
            Never used it. You just made that up.

            “Forget the counter argument … Murdoch hasn’t provided an argument containing facts, that is … references. The only link he’s posted is:”
            Well, nothing! He did point in the direction of some discussion over at whirlpool about something, sometime. Numbers are what they are.

            @reality it’s all they have.

            @jk complete tosh. My excuse was nothing of the sort, numbers not even actuals (Quigley said). “at least” & “min” the same. Again you have provided no link to your claims, period.

          • Lol Richard
            https://delimiter.com.au/2016/05/30/mike-quigley-join-nbn-election-debate/#comment-741107

            “You’re right, P1 keeps tripping me up:”
            “The average cost per premises for FTTP Brownfields in the new Corporate Plan, August 2015 is $3,700iv, or $4,400 including $700 lease costs, which is slightly higher than NBN Co’s internal costings in 2013 of $3,900.”

            At least
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/at%20least
            So at least 25Mbps for 1 second in a day
            Minimum
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minimum
            Or a min 25Mbps for 1 second in a day
            So which is the NBN supplying. If it’s the second option then I should get a speed from NBN no less than 25Mbps isn’t that correct.

            Well I gave you an industrial park to look up that has a 1.3km run. But apparently that’s no good enough for you are you turning into devoid and want the page no. too.

            So again where is it stated by NBN that it is only rolling out 1km copper lengths.

          • “Examples using premises passed forecast v actuals.”

            Ummm … was that a question? Grammar please.

            “Projects are evaluated before completion all the time.”

            Sure they are. Based on milestones. However a project changed renders any forecasts irrelevant. Thanks to the Coalition’s MTM.

            “Why we measure against actuals.”

            But measuring actuals against forecasts made before the scope changed is disingenuous. If you were to be more specific, like … hmm … provide references rather than the catchall term “actuals” which could mean any data you have in the recesses of your mind at the time … then perhaps a better examination could take place. You don’t though. It’s part of your problem in making a cohesive argument Richard.

            “No, but having done analysis means I’ve done the analysis.”

            Then I’m sure you can show it. You simply have more credibility to lose by keeping it unpublished. Of course, if you do publish it, you would have to expect examination and possibly criticism. That’s the price you pay for credibility though.

            “Murdoch hasn’t provided an argument containing facts,”

            I don’t need to. I’m asking for yours. Until I see yours there’s no way I can present a counter argument, if indeed one is even required.

            “Numbers are what they are.

            Quite rubbery, depending on the terms of reference. That would give … context!

            “it’s all they have”

            I’m kind of wondering, beyond your own confected graphs that get rolled out matador style every so often by you, if there’s anything else there.

            So far, you’ve:

            1. Claimed analysis, but refused to show it.
            2. Refused to link to your sources, which are a cornerstone of credibility.
            3. Resorted to ad hominen attacks.

            I don’t need to provide a counter argument. I’m asking for your context, your narrative, your terms of reference, something which any analysis includes, usually right at the start. Then I’ll ask for your sources that you base your conclusions on. Examine their credentials, their thought process. Then examine your conclusions. Only then could I consider myself readily able to respond, whether affirmative, negative, or inconclusive.

            I’d love to see your analysis Richard. I’ve never seen you provide anything cohesive beyond raw data. Until I do, your credibility remains where it should be.

            I don’t have to claim credibility for myself. I’m not attempting to make an argument … I’m just trying to understand yours beyond “I’m Richard … please believe me.”

          • @jk right, not talking actuals. Your two options the same. Google something…

            @m No data available before change of management (perhaps Quigley’s 4.5 years, closer to 5, didn’t exist). Actuals have a specific meaning, you made up the “recesses of your mind”. Credibility to lose with fanboys by keeping it unpublished (technically published, link the same as last time), I’ll take my chances. I love their analysis btw, wonderfully insightful (like yours; crickets).

            Your counter argument is nothing. I’m kind of wondering, beyond your own confected nothingness that gets rolled out matador style every so often by you, if there’s anything at all there.

            So far, you’ve:
            1. Undertaken no analysis
            2. Refused to link to any sources, which are a cornerstone of credibility.
            3. Resorted to ad hominen attacks.
            4. Cant even remember a discussion you were part of yesterday.

            You don’t need to do anything, neither do I. Strangely you believe we do. I’d love to see your analysis Murdoch. I’ve never seen you provide anything cohesive. Until I do, your credibility remains where it should be.

          • “@m No data available before change of management (perhaps Quigley’s 4.5 years, closer to 5, didn’t exist)”

            Which data are you referring to?

            “Actuals have a specific meaning”

            Yes they do. But what “Actuals” are you referring to? You can’t be referring to every piece of data released can you?

            “Credibility to lose with fanboys ”

            Not just with “fanboys”, anyone that’s not you Richard.

            “I love their analysis btw, wonderfully insightful (like yours; crickets).”

            I never claimed analysis, or counter arguments. Just the terms of yours.

            “Your counter argument is nothing”

            Exactly .. I’m not making one yet, if indeed one is needed. I said that in my previous post.

            “1. Undertaken no analysis”

            True. How does that make your argument more credible though?

            “2. Refused to link to any sources, which are a cornerstone of credibility.”

            If I’m not claiming analysis, why do I need to link to sources?

            “3. Resorted to ad hominen attacks.”

            Kindly point out where I have done this.

            “4. Cant even remember a discussion you were part of yesterday.”

            Unlike yourself Richard, I tend to go with cohesive, self contained discussions. Not sweeping epics that involve me looking up points yesterday, weeks or in some cases even months ago. I have enough data rolling around in my head in my regular job. It’s why I ask for links from you. Then I can give them due attention.

            “You don’t need to do anything, neither do I. Strangely you believe we do”

            I didn’t think there was anything strange about someone claiming to do analysis, and someone else (me) asking to see it.

            “I’ve never seen you provide anything cohesive”

            I would have thought my points were clear. What didn’t you understand?

            “Until I do, your credibility remains where it should be.”

            I’m not looking for any credibility for myself. Just wanting to educate myself on your argument. Unfortunately, you’ve been less than forthcoming about that.

          • Lol Richard
            Comprehending fail
            Funny thing Richard I did Google hence the 2 links.

            Let’s look at the first one.
            “not less than a specified amount, level, etc.
            So “at least 25Mbps once a year”
            So really it just need to get there far a second can be more but just needs to be 25Mbps to make it count.

            Let second one “the lowest degree or amount of variation”
            So no less than 25Mbps. So it’s go to keep delivering no less than 25Mbps other wise it’s not delivering a min 25Mbps now is it.

            But then you now though in a pearl not talking actuals lol. So in that sense NBN is not actual rolling out a max 1km length of copper. So thank you for proving your self wrong.

            And from your non reply about your charade as from your own statement you must no have read Quigley article past the first page as it explains it in more detail later on.

          • @ min, at least the same. ~1km (practically 1.1km) take it to WP.

            @m providing more nothing, tomorrow he’ll forget everything.

            Bored, I’m out. Google “speed-actuals-v-forecast.pdf” to keep yourselves entertained.

          • “@m providing more nothing, tomorrow he’ll forget everything.”

            I do wonder about your comprehension Richard, considering I’ve explained why I haven’t provided anything.

            “Bored, I’m out.”

            I guess we’ll leave it at nothing from you then as well. A shame, I would have read your source material. Unlike some others Richard, I do also give credit where it’s due, but you aren’t giving me the opportunity to see whether it is actually due or not.

            “Google “speed-actuals-v-forecast.pdf” to keep yourselves entertained.”

            It’s really that hard to supply direct links? I Googled it anyway, and got 850 000 results. The first three are Delimiter discussions. The most relevant link is the sole graph you’ve already provided.

            Nothing else though. You’re just repeating yourself Richard, you’re right, it is a good time for you to bow out.

          • @m can’t use google? If she could she’d see 8 results, all posts by myself with the link to the pdf (claim it was already provided here again incorrect):
            https://www.dropbox.com/s/he6dtqmfci8fg1a/speed-actuals-v-forecast.pdf?dl=0

            Unsurprisingly the link also shows the analysis was published hours before Murdoch claimed it was a fantasy.

            As for her ad hominen indignations she played it in her very first post:
            “I saw the name … and once again … I knew what was coming. *sigh*”

            Good to get it out early, gives greater freedom in responses. We know what to expect in the future; another zero contributor to add to the pack of stalking fanboys squealing at every post contrary to their fiberartzi position. Dismissing any dissenting link as not credible.

            @jk still trying to claim at least 25 is not the same as min 25. Upset that he misquotes my ~1km as 1km, when I continue with the original.

          • Murdoch,

            Forget the counter argument

            Classic cop out, fill the void with verbiage then when challenged fill the void with more verbiage, standard Murdoch strategy.

            You can’t be challenged if you don’t actually say anything factual with figures pertinent to the subject matter.

          • “@m can’t use google?”

            Sure I can. And did. And told you what I got. But I have no intention of playing hunting games for what you might mean Richard. That’s why I ask for direct links. That way there’s no guessing.

            BTW, I’m glad you’re in for gender equality.

            “Unsurprisingly the link also shows the analysis was published hours before Murdoch claimed it was a fantasy.”

            I didn’t see that link at all. Thank you for (eventually) providing it however. Could have saved us a lot of time, but I guess you had nothing better to do. I certainly did.

            ““I saw the name … and once again … I knew what was coming. *sigh*””

            You might need to research exactly what an ad hominem attack is Richard. Because that’s not one.

            “another zero contributor to add to the pack of stalking fanboys squealing at every post contrary to their fiberartzi position.”

            I’m looking to examine your position Richard. If you give me zero (now at least one link that I can look at), then yes, I can’t really contribute. Makes the discussion pointless, you’re right. See how much more constructive it could have been if you’d have linked earlier?

            “Dismissing any dissenting link as not credible.”

            Any dissenting link? You mean the link to one graph as of yesterday? Which was your own construct? I believe that speaks for itself.

            Incidentally, that new link you provided, you haven’t given me any context again. Just raw data. What’s the premise(s) you are operating from here? What are you trying to prove? I need that too., remember? Raw data without context is meaningless.

          • Hey Ricahrd,

            Thought you said you were bowing out?

            Yet here you are again… ROFL at the vanity and lies.

            Obviously if you were to bow out it would be disgracefully…

            But at least the faithful lap dog is sniffing around looking out for you…lol. Lucky you.

            You’re welcome.

          • “Classic cop out, fill the void with verbiage then when challenged fill the void with more verbiage, standard Murdoch strategy.”

            If you mean my verbiage is a lengthy request asking Richard for clarification .. then yes, you’re absolutely right. That’s not a cop out though Reality.

            By the way, you really need to check the source of that verbiage. If Richard (or anyone) really wants to put as many points in their responses as he does, then in order to adequately answer, you’d have to expect some length. Add the guessing games that Richard likes to play, and you get even more length. So before you blame my lengthy responses, perhaps ask Richard to be a little more concise and singular with his.

            “You can’t be challenged if you don’t actually say anything factual with figures pertinent to the subject matter.”

            That’s where you’re coming from? You want to challenge me to something? Challenging doesn’t have to go two ways Reality, you don’t seem to understand that. I challenge Richard from a point that I would really like to understand where he draws his conclusions from. There’s nothing wrong, or even overly adversarial about that.

          • Yet here you are again… ROFL at the vanity and lies.

            You owe me a dollar Rizz ;-)

          • Just to prove the point still more verbiage on top of the verbiage , no counter argument containing facts at all, like Rizz and his sock puppets stay out of the deep end, you add zero to the discussion.

          • “Just to prove the point still more verbiage on top of the verbiage ”

            So you have nothing to add to my reasoned response Reality? This isn’t a conversation or discussion then, and as such, it’s pointless to engage you from now on (at least in this thread) if you’re only going to repeat your previous posts.

          • @m context for the analysis (not raw data) in the Google search results (8) posts you dismissed. Must be the analysis was a fantasy (correction?).

            Your post the very definition of ad hom.

            Further insights continuing in the Cox article. Fanboys making their typical contribution. Looking forward to yours;-)

          • “@m context for the analysis (not raw data) in the Google search results (8) posts you dismissed.”

            So … your analysis is in various posts all around the site? That’s not analysis Richard. And as stated before, I have no intention of chasing your posts all around this site just to glean your point. Not concise at all, which unfortunately only locks your argument in a box that nobody but yourself can understand.

            “Your post the very definition of ad hom.”

            It is? How is what I posted an attack on your character in any way? You have repeatedly demonstrated that anti-Quigley, anti-Labor position. There’s quite a history there. Stating what has already been demonstrated is not an attack at all.

            “Further insights continuing in the Cox article.”

            Vague to say the least. That’s kind of what I was referring to when I answered Reality before.

            “Looking forward to yours”

            Good to see. I have been contributing already though. What you really want me to contribute, as you’ve stated, is some counter argument for you to dissect so you can justify yours over whatever I might come up with. That’s not my intention, and something that you and Reality don’t really appear to understand.

            You’re asking me to pick a side (based on your parameters no less). I’m refusing to be that polarised, and just examining your point of view.

          • @ alain.

            “Just to prove the point still more verbiage on top of the verbiage , no counter argument containing facts at all, like Rizz and his sock puppets stay out of the deep end, you add zero to the discussion.”

            The jury is out as to whether you are…

            1. A pointless troll out for cheap thrills
            2. A political shill
            3. A moron
            4. All of the above.

            But seriously for one who comes here to pointlessly refer to anyone but me, as me, argue over one word in a multi paged doc to suit the narrative, childishly argue over everything else… whilst forever refusing to address my questions relating to your completely contradictory NBN positions, dependent upon the brand of government we have for “you” to say we add zero to the discussion, is laughable hypocrisy at it’s worst…

            So please make “laughable hypocrite number 4” and alter all of the above to 5.

            Thank you.

            For the record, Richard’s cherry-picked, hodge-podge “analysis” to excuse the complete failure MTM (which he said he could have been commissioned to write) is receiving the treatment it deserves…

            I have asked him (and ironically you) on numerous occasions, to justify with more that “they’ve been revised’… just how the cheaper/faster (yes that was the trade of for complete inferiority) MTM can go from ready to roll, fully costed $29.5B to all Aussies by 2016 to the complete blown out by many $b’s not due to 2020 if that can be believed now?

            Especially considering MTM was lauded for the reuse of copper/HFC (so no major roll outs required), the supposed faster and cheaper roll out of FTTN and factoring (something you and Richard “never do”) that MTM was “not a start up”. They had almost everything they needed already supplied by MQ & Co…

            Until such time as any response, let alone a rational response (no not another link to Richard’s cherry-picked/partial comparison of past and present NBN’s) is received to answer my question above (and you answer your contradictions too) you pair of clowns will be treated as the clowns you have been, are, and will undoubtedly continue to be.

            Ooh, so now please make “laughable hypocrite number 4”, clown number 5 and alter all of the above to 6.

            Thank you

            You’re welcome

          • Murdoch,

            Nope still no factual counter with figures to support a counter argument as to why Richard has got it wrong.

            Reason, I don’t have to a clue how to do that so some more rambling verbal diarrhea, with juvenile interjections from the Rizz sock puppet team.

          • Try again alain…

            “I have asked him (Richard) and ironically you, on numerous occasions, to justify, with more than “they’ve been revised’… just how the cheaper/faster (yes that was the trade of for complete inferiority) MTM can go from ready to roll, fully costed $29.5B to all Aussies by 2016 to the complete blown out by many $b’s not due to 2020 if that can be believed now?

            Especially considering MTM was lauded for the reuse of copper/HFC (so no major roll outs required), the supposed faster and cheaper roll out of FTTN and factoring (something you and Richard “never do”) that MTM was “not a start up”. They had almost everything they needed already supplied by MQ & Co…

            Until such time as any response, let alone a rational response (no not another link to Richard’s cherry-picked/partial comparison of past and present NBN’s) is received to answer my question above (and you answer your contradictions too) you pair of clowns will be treated as the clowns you have been, are, and will undoubtedly continue to be.”

            You’re welcome

          • Rhetoric with no references.

            Sums both the R’s up very concisely and accurately Murdoch, well done!

        • Ahh Richard
          I give example on how they are different yet you fail to show how they are the same. It not that hard.

          But then your riding argument that SOE min 25Mbps are not actuals. For your actual claim 1Km max copper length. Yet you still have failed to show were NBN is rolling out 1Km max length other than “I said it so it must be true”.( Lol giggle.)

          Now what now 1.1km is now max 1km your getting worst with your numbers. Yet I supplied an area where it’s 1.3Km is that a max 1km too? Or is it an at least or min now you keep changing its getting harder to follow you.

          Why would I take it up with WP you you browbeat someone else claiming otherwise “what are the max cable lengths, since mine are “incorrect” (not)? (chuckles).”. Your the one to make that claim supply the infomation, the link, a statement. Claiming not actuals speeds being delivered for your claim of copper length is a pie in the sky statement. Otherwise can you ask the fairies in your head for the reference if it helps.

    • BTW…

      I note your “need” to again mention me… when I wasn’t even involved.

      How delicious… I must have dented that huge ego well and truly… lol

      You’re welcome

    • “At the time the Conroyities refused to use the peak funding figure (always the lower capex). Fought for many years against this delusion (to abuse), today of course the fiberartzi insists on using the upper-range peak funding number.”
      Numbers man not so good with numbers. How embarrassing for you.

      “Rollout underperformance graphed, shouted down. Highlighting AVC and CVC charges distorting the market also shouted down. Actuals showing AVC speeds underperforming forecasts again shouted down, CVC impact on contention with calculated actuals provisioned CVC squealed at. (See a pattern?)”
      Yes I do see a pattern; you invent a lot of arguments in your head, typically ill thought out and then don’t understand the problems with your posts despite being educated on nearly every one of them for over 4 years.

      Of course, you’re then the first to squeal about it.

      “today fanboys’ still claiming Quigley remained on budget.”
      A 4% blowout is considered within reasonable limits in all fields of construction. The >100% blowout subsequent to 2013 not so much.

      “Waiting on the delims analysis before supplying my own (rofl).”
      Delimiter hasn’t provided analysis for months. Announced by Renai in an article devoted entirely to it. How embarrassing for you.

      “Graphs of performance supplied by myself, dismissed as “deceitful”. Unsurprisingly the report’s graphs (using the same data) show the same underperformance.”
      By your figures, 2.9 million served in 1.5 years and 3.6 ‘missed’ in the 3 years after the rollout was halted by the opposition. Certainly seems to me like those numbers could have been easily reached, even without any ramp up.

      “fanboys abused.”
      As they should be. I’m surprised you referred to yourself in that way.

      “Surprise! A govt monopoly would increase prices;-)”
      Prices have indeed gone up by ~$10-$20 across the board in the last 2 years.

      “when consumer preference is increasingly favouring under 25mpbs.”
      It was estimated 50% would ‘favour’ under 25mbps, however that is nwo only at 35% with the remaining portion favouring 25mbps of higher. How embarrassing for you.

  6. ***snowflake trigger warning***

    Another opinion:
    “…However, often commentary on the NBN has fallen victim to the echo chamber within that tight community and been hermetically sealed within a bubble of political naivety.

    Too often that has led to unacceptably biased reporting and, in some cases, nakedly theological arguments about broadband speeds that are inappropriate within a discourse about public policy and spending.

    Every fibre builder I spoke to off-record about Labor’s NBN build was able to show — with very simple calculations — that the FTTP business model would fail and that taxpayers would be left with the bill. (And that was assuming that everyone would use the NBN for net access).”
    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/why-australia-needs-an-nbn-education-20160802-gqj2it.html

    Read the rest. Is Fairfax still on the approved fiberartzi reading list?;-)

    • Yes Richard in the same article
      “Every dollar spent on any either variety of NBN might be taken away from the budget for building them a new hospital, aged and mental health care services, or drug and alcohol counselling (and regional Australia has a growing ice addiction problem).”

      Except it didn’t

      • It did, funded through debt: Govt debt = future taxation brought forward (principal plus interest)

        • So will the unnecessary stepping stone of MTM.
          It has cost so much more, even after avoiding the greater expense part of the work (finishing the fibre run to the premises). [future cost pending to complete the job]

          IMO FTTP would have been fine, if they deployed it in the first place AND if they deployed it where it is most in demand. (hence more customer density to start funding it).

          Our government in general has failed us.
          Labor picked the right technology in the end.
          Liberals downgraded it in an attempt to make it cheaper/worse.
          Both and the NBN failed at planning the whole thing.

          When I finally get NBN, ill go for the 100/40 (those are my needs)… hopefully I will get near that bandwidth (Guess its better than 10Mbps ADSL2+).
          1GBps, I doubt I will see that any time soon with MTM.

          • @d stepping stone to what? Hasn’t cost more; CPP HFC 1/3 to FTTN/B 1/2, faster to deliver. Quigley’s number a fantasy.

            True our government in general has failed us.

            Your 100/40 peak will have around 3mbps of provisioned CVC which you’ll pay top dollar for (few remaining net taxpayers much more). Enjoy it.

          • LOL…

            Richard’s complete (disproved.failed) cultist, ideologically blinded, rubbish argument right here..

            “Quigley’s number a fantasy”

            In other words the MTM debacle (that he could have written…ROFL) will be faster and cheaper, because no matter how much it costs and how long it takes…. err, umm, “Quigley’s number was a fantasy” anyway…

            ROFL.

            Unparalleled stupidity and bias from one who claims to be so intellectually superior and unbiased.

            You’re welcome

          • No figures to mount a counter argument I see Alex, so what to do, you just do what you have always done in 99% of responses, spit out abuse, apparently that compensates for ‘I am way out my depth as usual and need to stay in the toddlers pool’.

          • @Richard
            Yes a stepping stone, unless we plan to stick with this MTM forever.
            Fibre will be needed eventually, unless some breakthrough of a new technological form of transmission that is better than fibre.
            With the rate of our government, I doubt we will be aiming for the latest, hence Fibre is still on the table.
            We have been evolving to needing faster communication of all forms.
            Dial-up -> ADSL -> ADSL2+ -> HFC -> FTTx -> FTTP -> …

            Unfortunately, again due to bad planning in general.
            CVC shouldn’t have been that expensive, and standards should be set to a maximum / expected allowed contention ratio for residential purposes.

            One can only hope the ACCC will lead to bringing that in.

            Yes I hope to get a decent speed on my bandwidth choice.
            I have a large household, and we often struggle with the 10Mbps :P

    • Wow, what a self serving article that is. Hand picking individuals to make a point, without actually making a point.

      Telstra knew in 20005 (apparently) that they needed to reduce their copper loops, and even with just a 1.1km target (in cherry picked areas) they wanted regulatory concessions, and waited until Labor was in power before they asked. Sounds to me like they didnt want to bother Uncle Johnny…

      Then, in their self interests, the get the geography wrong. Bomaderry wasnt one of the first areas to get NBN, most of it has only just gotten it. They’re thinking of Kiama, about 30 minutes up the road. Nice geography there, makes the rest of their errors so reliable…

      So, the pensioners themselves. I’m assuming a couple of things here, but its in the interests of showing the minimum, not maximum position they would be in. TPG’s current plan they would be on (ADSL2, 50 Gb/month) runs at $30/month. NBN 12 Mbps with 50 Gb runs at $50/month.

      On paper, that seems like they’re paying $20 more, yes? Well… no, they arent. What that article fails to account for, and pretty much every ‘fibre builder’ speaking off record seems to as well, is that the retirees will also have a landline, which (if their bills are anything like mine) would cost them another $25/month.

      So they are paying $55 for internet and phone right now. Or, they could be paying $50 for the basic TPG 12 Mbps plan.

      And before you go off about 12 Mbps being slower, it wouldnt. NBN doesnt slow down as you get further from the exchange. Not until you’re talking about 10 miles or so. And Bomaderry is at LEAST one mile from the exchange in Nowra, far enough they wouldnt be seeing anywhere near the peak speed ADSL2 promises.

      Educated guess would average their speed around 6 Mbps. Assumption, based on my own experience of a 2.5 km copper loop. But at that distance, that would mean that *shock horror* the most basic NBN plan available would be TWICE the speed!!! For $5 a month less!!!

      A speed that wouldnt chew through their bandwidth in minutes, and serve their needs.

      But I bet nobody ever sat down and explained it that way to them, did they?

      *edit* I didnt see the comment about mobile usage. Doesnt really change that the impact on them isnt as dramatic as the article tries to make it.

  7. “Read the rest.”

    Maybe you should pop over to Whirlpool where a lively discussion is going on with the author since last night about it. Provides a bit more insight into that article … unfortunately, it’s not the sort of insight that extremists like you would entertain Richard.

    I guess that’s not on the approved copperartzi reading list though, right? ;-)

  8. The TPI is funded by big tech and big content/copyright (https://techpolicyinstitute.org/supporters/).

    It’s unashamedly pro private enterprise and anti public investment. That it returned a report that matched it’s sponsor’s beliefs is, shall I say, unsurprising.

    If Daniel stopped simply engaging in churnalism (reprinting press statements verbatim like this, not even a pretence of source and fact checking) and engaged in some actual journalism I wouldn’t have to do this basic backgrounding for him. Renai, for all his faults (he’s a genuine admirer of Ayn Rand and other libertarian loons…) did a damn site more in the way of analysis and basic fact checking.

    • This. Most definitely. (The free market private enterprise think tank bit.)

      “Today’s digital economy may be new, but the economic principles underlying it are not. First principles still matter in both developed and emerging economies. Thus, government should intervene in these dynamic markets only when markets fail”
      https://techpolicyinstitute.org/mission-statement/

  9. “While fixed data traffic is expected to grow by 180% by 2019, mobile data traffic is predicted to increase “nearly five-fold” by 2020.”

    By making this statement the report’s authors have demolished their own claim about an alleged diminishing need for fixed broadband! Here are the numbers.

    According to the ABS last year, fixed traffic made up 92% of all broadband data (in part because mobile devices roam to Wi-Fi for fast, high-reliability, low cost bulk data such as app updates.)

    If we use their projections to multiply 2015’s fixed data (92%) by 2.8, and 2015’s mobile data (8%) by 5, then:
    – fixed data in 2019 will total 257% of last year’s total broadband data volume;
    – mobile data in 2019 will total 40% of last year’s data volume.
    Consequently, mobile data in 2019 will still only comprise 40/(257+40) = 13.5% of broadband data.

    So this report, which seems to have tried to disparage a universal fixed broadband rollout, has ultimately proven that fixed broadband will still be required for 86.5% of data in 2019!

    Conclusion: Build the NBN and do it with optical fibre.

      • @Reality,

        I only skimmed said article link,(rushed for time) but on a quick skim, does it NOT, instead, re-inforce that the Coalition with new nbn teams’ mtm clusterfuck, is going to be even more of a failure in future, as mobile broadband continues to improve.

        Mobile broadband can’t compete with a proper 93% FTTP national deployment, that was originally envisioned.

        Mobile broadband, CAN, however, compete with FTTN deployment, under this mtm sham, where people are too far from the node,(long lines) have crap old copper, or flooding of the nodes/pits etc. happens regularly; A high number of which, will likely exist in this mtm fiasco.

        These issues above causing excessive slowness, instability of connection and/or totally dropped connections.

        Put simply…. Coalition nbnTM FAIL.

        Later, RIPP :)

      • The ‘massive disruption’ to the business model from wireless BB assertion has nothing to do with what fixed line NBN model is used.

        • @Reality,

          “…wireless BB assertion has nothing to do with what fixed line NBN model is used.”

          Fixed line model used, is everything to do with it.

          Wireless is a complementary technology when FTTP is, or were, to be in play.

          Wireless can be seen as a potential replacement technology when FTTN is the technology installed however.

          Wireless therefore is the potential big disrupter for crap FTTN.

          Later, RIPP.

          • @Selective-Reading,(Reality),

            Maybe no mention of FTTP,(FTTN vs FTTP) due to the fact they were talking about wireless being a competative threat to the Coalitions clusterfuck of going with FTTN in the 2013+ redesign of the nbn network.

            They even mention the initial threat TPG imposed on the Coalitions modified nbn, when mdu’s were all to be FTTB, as opposed to FTTH. Where Coalition then backflpped on their free-market mantras & rushed in legislation to protect their new nbn mess when TPG started to install FTTB in mdu’s, ahead of nbnTM.

            BTW., do you yet have a date for when all Australians, THIS YEAR,(2016) will have internet connections capable of a MINIMUM 25Mb/s?

            (Subsequent years a minimum of 50Mb/s.)

            All this is still going to only be $29 Billion all up, no budget blowouts either,(eg. $46-$56 Billion) correct?

            Ps. Buy a vowel, GET A CLUE!

            Later, RIPP :)

      • alain…

        You the boy who used to claim regularly, that completely wireless/mobile homes would make “FTTP unviable”, but has never mentioned it since the MTM debacle was introduced, is now suggesting what?

        With the endless procession of flip-flopping contradictions….well?

        Tell us today’s thoughts… which of course may/probably will flip-flop by tomorrow, but amuse us all as usual, “for now” anyway.

        GO

        You’re welcome

  10. It is one of choose your dead in the water rent an opinion authors wisely.

    But then again would you employ these miss by long mile informants as your cancer oncologist?

    Polite expression their numbers do not make any form of rational sense.

    Theodor Seuss Geisel, a renowned US WW2 ace propaganda writer would award them an F minus for this trash.

    As for the authors they flush themselves down the sewer of no return on page two thus :- “The views in this paper are the authors’ only and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors’ fellowship sponsor TPI, its staff, or its board”. lmao

    Ho hum, time to apply a quick google/bing author(s) one is an under grad political science student the other has Bachelor of Arts from Harvard U. Note well, this is a non business related/technical/science/mathematics based degree.

    Any op ed opinion supplied by the two authors or known adherents of the “Peter Principal” on technical science/business appraisal of any system.

    First rule of thumb, apply Occam’s Razor. Then since it will always fail both the smell test and/or any ability to logically rationally/scientifically asses the subject. The results should be flushed down the toilet as totally irrelevant and offers zero contribution to the debate.(ref Skeptical Science Debunking Handbook)

    link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html

    Now for the student, her principal degree is a variant of the evil political science/propaganda. Sadly as we all know this forms the major backbone of modern journalism of Internet Murdoch Media trash in/even bigger smellier amplified Murdoch Media Internet trash out. Simultaneously one should note that modern journalists with degrees all fail to ask and answer six simple basic journalism questions that should always be answered..

    Now, back in the US, the concept of any free market business small or large on equal footing and running shared network assets is a total and absolute alien concept. To them this is the very evil concept of the much hated and totally reviled word in the US called “Communism”. Any legislation that equalizes and levels the playing field is very evil indeed. The standard US saying since 1949 “If you practice communism, you deserved to be nuked”, period.

    Now time to google/bing/duck duck go the Washington DC double speak “BS in BS out” rent an opinion “Think Tank” the student works for “Technology Policy Institute”. One of the many that infects Washington DC funded to kill all types of logical people benefits, beter pensions, health care, socialism, any form of business regulation (tobacco, financial, corporate over sight, climate carbon pollution fossil fuel reduction and so forth). In addition, all equal playing field legislation is a total and absolute no no, to be nuked on sight period.

    As it is written by non technical experts playing well outside chosen core subject field. The authors credibility and talent drops rapidly towards absolute zero. The papers current score is minus 273.

    Thus we have four strike outs and zero home runs for all nine innings.

    As for the poor LNP denialati who think this trash is the new nirvana. The men/women in white coats at your nearest State/Federal Oz mental health facilities are willing to stamp your denial of all forms of reality entry ticket. This allows for free entry at the nearest class 3 permanent prevention of self harm lock up for life lunatic asylum.

    Question, why did the much smarter Nikita Khrushchev in the USSR send his dissidents to the state mental institutions and not the standard jail.

    Answer, your average uninformed self opinionated local bigot considers mental health is a contagion to be avoided like the 1917 Influenza epidemic carriers. lol

  11. Great article, Daniel!

    Reversing Labor’s nationalisation of Australia’s telecom infrastructure is indeed a complex undertaking and will take time.

    • Oh Tosher please, your obvious multiple trolling for a response is lame and pitiful…

      So by all means, if it makes you fell all warm and excited, please consider this a legitimate response to your troll.

      You’re welcome, I like to give… to the less fortunate.

  12. The reality is people in Australia. You got screwed. You are getting a comparatively slow as shit NBN for almost the same price of a fast one. Slow and unreliable, with terrible upload times.

    What.. most people are choosing the slower 25mbs plan? Of COURSE they are, as they realise the upper plans promise nothing more than the possibility of higher speed, for much greater price.

    Australia. You are rooted. Your shit in the ground is worth less and less, Africa is becoming the green bowl of the world, no manufacturing, your services industry comprises selling off university places to foreign students who then leave and go home…

    Without fast internet, you will never be the clever country, and it will now be far too expensive to put in a proper system.

    Screwed. Totally screwed. The next Greece or Spain

    Sent from my 200mbs $75 a month unlimited plan here in Germany.

    • The Country of Dunces is about to to lose it’s AAA credit rating within the next 2 years.

      Frankly, there has never been a better time

Comments are closed.