XG.FAST won’t obviate need for copper replacement, says Internet Australia


news Following NBN Co’s announcement that it is to commence trials of XG.FAST – a new technology said to deliver fibre-equivalent broadband speeds over copper – Internet Australia has said, even if the claims hold true, the network may still need updating to fibre in the future.

While welcoming efforts by NBN to trial new technologies, the group’s CEO Laurie Patton maintained that, before being deployed, any new technology must be guaranteed to deliver solutions that can provide speed and reliability – both upload and download – comparable with fibre, “now and in the future, and with a comparable ROI”.

“Otherwise, we will still be building an inferior broadband service that won’t be fit-for-purpose in the long run,” Patton said. “Our concern with the (multi-technology mix) MTM model has always been that it will not last the distance and will have to be replaced at great cost by a future government.”

Even if it is proven to work, XG.FAST will not eliminate the need to replace the copper wires in the FTTN network in 10–15 years’ time, he said.

Further, XG.FAST is expected to work over only “very short distances”, according to the CEO, and will require fibre to be run to the edge of the premises or driveway – an architecture known as fibre to the distribution point (FTTdp).

Internet Australia said that that NBN should abandon fibre to the node (FTTN) and return to building a “21st Century broadband network capable of delivering the bidirectional gigabit-per-second speeds that are now possible and will increasingly be demanded over the decades-long lifetime of this critical infrastructure”.

In its announcement yesterday, NBN Co said it will conduct lab trials of XG.FAST in “coming weeks”, adding that the technology has already delivered test speeds in Europe in excess of 5Gbps over a pair of copper lines.

The operator said that the promising technology has attained speeds of 5.6Gbps over 35 metres of copper in laboratory trials by BT. Deutsche Telekom (DT) also tested the tech, reaching 8Gbps over 50 metres of copper.

NBN said that XG.FAST, if proven a commercially viable technology, could eventually offer a “much faster and cost effective” way to deliver multi-gigabit speeds without having to use fibre to the premises (FTTP).


  1. We really need to put the copper debate to rest once and for all. Copper has served its purpose, but fibre is the future.

    • @Renai,

      If your goal was to get a sounding chamber of name calling monkeys, mission accomplished mate. Might want to consider moderating your comments sections though, it’s pretty toxic in here.

      • Whilst I agree, it does indeed get a little heated in here at times, since Renai’s departure…

        I’m guessing the oxymoron/hypocrisy of you objecting to name calling and then name calling your self (chamber of name calling monkeys) has eluded you?

        Just sayin’

  2. Finally they show their hand. Fibre, fibre, fibre…

    Copper techs capable of 5gbps (8 in DE) with P2P option (not shared) isn’t good enough for the squealers.

    Meanwhile silent re 1.09mbps CVC per customer. What a bunch of clowns, it’s taken a several years but 2016 your emporer stands naked before you fanboys.

    Technically illiterate, financially innumerate, economically shallow.

    • Except this isn’t even the system they are building. If they were building FTTdp I wouldn’t mind a little bit of copper to the street for the next decade; maybe two at a pinch.

      But they aren’t. So all your excitement over this copper tech is unfounded because they are building the WRONG system with FTTN which cannot effectively utilise this technology to achieve the speeds they claim (in perfect lab conditions too, mind you).

      • Not excited, exposing yet more squealing.

        Build FTTdp despite little to no demand of those speeds? Use a tech that isn’t yet commerical? Happy with the WRONG solution then;-)

        Silly talking two decades out as all solutions will be replaced in that time. Design for near term requirements, deploy quickly, capturing majority of available revenue, using profits to upgrade as required.

        Fanboys still squealing gigabit fibre with only a handful of NBNCo customers signed up for (84% choosing 25mbps or less), average ~33mbps AVC (continues to fall yoy) and 1.09mbps CVC!

        • Lol fishyboy it great to see that fttn can’t even deliver better speed to half the connection “NBN’s VDSL2 DSLAM: FttN layer-1 attainable speeds see 33 percent of premises able to attain 80-100Mbps down and 56 percent attain 30-40Mbps up.”

          Since you are suppose to be a numbers man (but not very good at it). How much will it cost to upgrade at least half the fttn to deliver when it can’t deliver demand. While hfc with 900 premises on one cable.

        • Most people are going with 25Mbps because on FTTN THEY CAN’T GET ANY FASTER.

          Even if they can, most ISPs aren’t offering the 50Mbps plan, so it’s either a small fortune for 100Mbps they simply can’t achieve, or 25Mbps because that makes logical financial sense—why pay for something you can’t get?

          You suggest that looking two decades out is silly? The pace of which this government makes decisions and implements action is glacial. I’d be surprised if anything changes within the next 20 years.

          Also, they aren’t deploying quickly at all (the Node I’m supposed to be connected to has been delayed by 5 months). Build it once. Build it once.

          • @rl your forecast demanded speeds destroyed by actuals, a couple of years too late. ACCC data show similar speeds chosen by FTTP customers (~79% 25mbps or less).

            Layer-1 speed data below shows many speed options available for most FTTN & FTTB customers. They’re choosing low speeds tiers.

            RSPs aren’t offering what they don’t see demand for at a price point they can deliver (see 1.09mbps CVC).

            Agree the govt completely unsuitable to deliver telco services (indeed most services). Waste and incompetency assured. However the pace of Morrow’s FTTN is far greater than The Quigley’s FTTP, half the CPP, capturing majority of revenue with speeds matching demand and plenty of upgrade options for the future (fibre already provisioned).

            All fibre the end-game they squealed;-)

          • So when labor expecting 20% on 100Mbps by 2026 and the coalition. Expecting 30% on 100Mbps by 2030.

            But then considering fttp customers are only 5% of labor target but half the coalition target. Or that fttn customers are only 7% on while 15% on fttp for 100Mbps. So now we will be back to the adsl days of demand is what can be delivered to you lol.

          • @Richard not faster, and not cheaper.

            Government isn’t suited to deploy this level of infrastructure, but at the same time telcos can’t be trusted to do so.

            I’m also seriously pissed off that I was due for the NBN months ago (the Node has been on my street for over 8 months) and my ADSL connection battles to get 2.5Mbps because my line length is over 4kms.

            But why roll out something which needs to be upgraded immediately? The “just get it working” model doesn’t work on a national scale. Not to mention a huge expenditure.

          • @rl many Australians are unhappy with the current situation; overwhelmingly created by Conroy’s NBN policy announcement and the killing of all private sector telco investment. He should have re-engaged the sector back in 2009 once Trujillo was sent packing. Hundreds of thousands now without access to fixed line internet and the numbers continue to grow waiting on NBNCo.

            Tens of billions of taxpayer money “invested” will be written off. Loses continue to grow.

            Actuals show all technologies capable of delivering the demanded speeds now and well into the future; CVC growth the limiting factor not layer-1 speeds. More last mile fibre wont help the situation (just more delays and money), plenty of options longer-term

          • @Richard I agree that the CVC is retarded. And the project really should have been run privately, despite my aversion to big companies only chasing the dollar and screwing the little guy (which, they do), but now they’re rolling out a system which should’ve been built almost a decade ago, and the telcos should’ve done themselves.

            Why are we building a system which the telco’s could’ve done? And since we are doing it, why are we not doing it BETTER than what the telcos could do?

            Politics. Not technology; politics. Abbott is a far-right dinosaur and has screwed us all. My rage towards him is strong, and by extension, all Liberals at this stage.

          • Lol Richard this is why we don’t take you seriously but of bold face lies with out a thing to back it up with.

            “overwhelmingly created by Conroy’s NBN policy announcement and the killing of all private sector telco investment. He should have re-engaged the sector back in 2009 once Trujillo was sent packing.”

            So which is it Conroy killing off investmen or Trujillo not wanting to invest in the first place can’t have it both ways lol.

          • Most people are going with 25Mbps because on FTTN THEY CAN’T GET ANY FASTER.


          • @rl right private sector telcos (in Oz Telstra) the only parties with the capabilities to deliver such a upgrade. This was pointed out at the time.

            The govt is building this monstrosity because it’s their policy. A revision to an even grander monstrosity. I’m disappointed with all of them.

            International comparisons continue to highlight the enormous waste of taxpayers money. HFC CPP now 1600 + 700 = $2300 is without parallel. 7330 FTTN cabinet (~$70k) costing $190k to place in the field. 6k employee bill costing more than 1.5x total revenue (8th year). 60+ person media team!

            A complete policy folly from inception, incompetently delivered.

          • @Richard I have noticed since Morrow took over, the expenditure in media/marketing has increased significantly (rebrand… why?).

            They waste more money and time claiming about how they are “fixing” the NBN (which, they really are just making it an absolute clusterfuck) when they could have continued to roll out fibre, fix the business models, fine switch more rural to wireless etc, run the show a whole lot better than it was.

            But they haven’t done any of that. They had a huge opportunity to improve the rollout, whilst reducing expenditure, and show they can do it properly; but they have just made it worse. Pissed off a large number of Australians, and will piss them off for decades to come.

            Rather, they invest in things like a rebrand and media team to throw shit at Labor and claim how well they are doing, whilst ignoring legitimate questions from customers (like why the fuck has my Node been delayed for 5 months?).

          • Lol Richard that you for pointing out the real reason of destroyed invest and why Telstra “gifted” the can and hfc as its not worth investing lol.

          • @rl I wrote at the time of the LNP elevation to govt they should’ve walked away. However they bought into the folly.

            Rebranding a minor (but unnecessary) cost, media costs increasing as ramp-up finally takes off (but also unnecessary for a monopoly). It’s a political project; much waste.

            Sure they could’ve continued rolling out FTTH but the cost would’ve been much higher and the time required much longer; end user speeds indifferent (see CVC). FTTH is expensive, labour intensive and time consuming.

          • @Richard FTTH is expensive up front; but the ongoing costs are significantly lower. It’s like purchasing a used car with high milage; sure it seems cheap on the surface, until all the maintenance costs begin to rise up.

            CVC is a farce, and was probably Labor’s biggest mistake with a long lingering smell. That was one thing the Libs could’ve easily fixed, but alas, they didn’t.

          • @Richard “Layer-1 speed data below shows many speed options available for most FTTN & FTTB customers. They’re choosing low speeds tiers.”

            But are they aware of the tiers? Do they have any idea about their modems to look at the ‘Attainable Rate’ in the modem statistics? It would be magical to find that most people do.

          • @mh they’re not interested, as predicted. They want an internet connection, and are happy to spend a certain amount. Few here understand internet data connections (see contention)!

            None of this changes reality; demand is for low speed tiers (opposite to the squealers predictions, majority revenue captured by all techs at significantly lower CPP).

          • So Richard not good with numbers again didn’t know 66% choosing the min speed nbn is required to deliver to wholesalers or higher is demand for low speeds.

            Yes Richard and all you want

          • @R Just so I know you’re not assuming the choices of hundreds of thousands of mums and dads, the implication is that there must be some data on the reasoning behind their choices? In light of the obfuscation of speed tiers by the big RSPs to avoid paying for more CVC? Any data on how much *demand* and for what? (Not just the oft-quoted take-up figures, which are worthless because they ignore ability to pay, *settling for* a particular tier for *various* reasons rather than *choosing*, etc.) Surveys done? Anything? We would love to see something worthwhile.

            Don’t worry, I know about how and how much they contend the bejesus out of people’s plans that are still paid handsomely for (not actually a freebie, in case some needed reminding).

          • @mh we don’t need studies; we’ve an operating marketplace with 3m premises and 1m users using their own money to chose a product that suits them from available offerings.

            Days of forecasts are past; actuals now available showing exactly what a few of us pointed out whilst the squealers fell for Quigley et al tosh.

          • @r You summarise a complex array of decision making down to that? It has very little worth in this context. What you post has little worth, then. No one asked for forecasts, I asked for data on desired services which you need to back up that claim of yours. It’s still pending. Yes, the result is the same, actuals are actuals, the almighty actuals, don’t worry about justice. Many people are settling for what is available. That much is plainly obvious. Both major parties are guilty.

            What purpose is there in this discussion apart from talking up the positives of nbn’s (short-term) financial results if you don’t back up big claims with big data? None.

          • @cs nice article, I make CPPs:
            FTTN 1600 + 700 = $2,300
            FTTP 2500 + 1200 + 700 = $4,400
            FTTP(skinny) 2050 + 1200 + 700 = $3,950
            FTTdp(skinny) 2050 + 300 + 700 = $3,050

            Conroy’s $700 largesse stands out:-(

            Another tech to add to the mix; more expensive and slower to deploy than FTTN but useful beyond 1km and fw & some sat areas.

        • Fanboys still squealing gigabit fibre with only a handful of NBNCo customers signed up for (84% choosing 25mbps or less), average ~33mbps AVC (continues to fall yoy) and 1.09mbps CVC!

          The reason for people not taking the higher speed plans is due to the ridiculous pricing structures of the NBN. If ISP’s brought enough CVC’s they would not need to throttle bandwidth.

          Private business was, has and is being asked to invest in the NBN – apparently there were no keen investors.

          On what planet does FFTP better value than fttn, not help FTTP case? Currently fibre is as cheap as copper.

          The cost benefit analysis of both FTTP and FTTN showed a positive return.

          Correct the return to the government from wholesale pricing is minimal, but te overall benefit to Australia is 6-7%.

          Have you actually read the Commission into Communications report (2007)?
          Because if you did you would know that Labor followed their recommendations. They determined that the entire copper network needed replacing, with much of it over 50 years old and most of it not even being water proof. I just loved the way I would lose my internet when it rained and had to deal wit dial-up speeds on ADSL2+.
          Have you factored in the ongoing costs of copper, maintenance and continuous power supply?


          • @n pricing designed to recover costs. CVC cost only part of the RSP equation.

            Private sector invested billions before Conroy. No takers to his incompetent expression of interest; but he should have re-engaged rather than believe his inflated opinion of his capabilities.

            Fiber is a cheap as copper as material (small cost component), its disadvantage is the copper is already deployed (large cost component).

            The CBA showed comparatively poor return for both MTM and FTTP policies. Today’s actuals show cost used well below actuals, revenue well above. Try refining their models with the known values.

            The actual reuse of the copper networks today disproves their advice. Actuals trumps forecast.

          • So Richard “No takers to his incompetent expression of interest”.
            Lol not the best policy claimed by you any more.

            But wait for it apparently billions being invested somewhere but then it somehow disappears for the tender. And then reengaged after the sector didn’t want too priceless lol.

    • serious question, what sort of equipment/build investment (scale and type,not dollar figure) do you reckon would be required to redress that CVC inadequacy and by chance do you have a ballpark figure you think would be more appropriate ?
      I’m not versed on the technical details and am legitimately picking your brain :)

      • @tm provisioning CVC capacity is cheap and near unlimited; both end-points at the same physical location (PoI). It’s a pricing decision (policy) to recover costs.

        If NBNCo customers started demanding increased speeds they’d be looking at addition uplink (several hundred per node , fibre already provisioned) and potentially additional transit (expensive where leased form third-parties).

        However RSPs aren’t going to purchase CVC greater than their networks’ capacity (backhaul & IXP, international capacity). This represents huge dollars; regulated FAD domestic transmission capacity service gives an indication:

        RSP build their offerings to a price point receptive to consumers and why 25mbps or less is their most popular choice.

        As to speeds I answered the question long ago; today universal 12mbps with low contention. Changing end user behaviour (aka video) requires sustained speeds, peak speeds less relevant. RSPs have a big challenge educating users re contention with most laymen focusing on high peak numbers (like those squawking gigabit).

      • Doubt it, Richard is on a crusade to tank the dollar to increase his export business…it’s how “capital” works these days…

        • @tm clearly demonstrating you’ve little idea how capital works as well.

          Alex referes to archive articles without understanding them. It was once popular for him to refer to Telstra’s CAN only seconds to mid-night prediction.

          The issue for most fanboys is those forward looking predictions are today historical. We know copper’s time hasn’t passed as the interest in newer standards like g.fast and docsis shows. Telcos, like Chunghwa, have abandoned their FTTH deployment to leverage the advantages of reusing infrastructure. You were fooled (simple), bought into the tosh (pointed out at the time). Then easy to fool those with little knowledge and experience (they mock both).

          • @ Richard…

            It is now abundantly clear that sadly, you are too blinded and overcome by your cultist hatred of everything that is outside of the cult (disproved cult to be exact) that you deserve our pity, not our scorn.

            If you were indeed the ”open minded, intelligent, well educated gent you claim” and not just a far right, ideological, Rand-esque nutter, you would…

            1. Factor start up costs and timeframes re: NBNCo (now enjoyed by NBN™) into your partial Richard says analysis. But you do not.

            2. Agree that incumbents who own copper will of course, continue as long as they can (pun intended) to wring every last drop of blood from their superseded copper stone. But you do not.

            BTW – ask Eastman/Kodak how being complacent and sticking to their guns went for them in the film business, sans a contingency to adapt to progress?

            3. You wouldn’t contradict yourself by saying things such as, “technology moves rapidly” – whilst continuing to promote 1800’s copper daily. But you do.

            4. You also would not be needing to contradict yourself in relation to speed levels, to claim FTTP will not be needed as speeds will suffice…whilst uttering, how much faster g.fast, DOCSIS 3.1 add ons, will make MTM. But you do.

            5. You’d recognise that your “reuse tag” falls well short, because it’s not as simple as reuse… as there are massive amounts of replacement and remediation costs, maintenance costs (especially to the 5 mins to Telstra’s midnight CAN – thanks for the reminder) node power costs and the cost of additions (g.fast etc to get those speeds we, err, don’t need). But you do not.



            6. You’d factor a “small detail relating to costs, benefits and time frames”… as it is universally recognised by everyone (except it seems you) … that fibre is the end goal. But you do not.

            7. You wouldn’t laud cheaper [sic] to reuse MTM and find it’ll be worth half of what it cost because, well, it’s largely made-up of already obsolete copper… But you do.
            8. Admit that fixed line investment was not flourishing pre-NBN, as all players were happy with the copper owner/access, status quo of profits rolling in, at our expense (monetarily and technology wise) via the CAN and as a consequence, no one intended (sans costly tax payer hand outs) to invest, either pre or during the initial NBN process…But you do not.

            You yourself even linked to the ACCC in 2006 (iirc) saying they were perplexed at Telstra dropping FTTN negotiations (that was also one of my links too, you’re welcome) and ergo refusing to invest, but yet you nonetheless, keep claiming such investment was abundant?
            Newsflash: A company whacking a couple of DSLAMS into a Telstra exchange and using Telstra’s network, is not network investment.

            9. You’d also agree that the previous FTTP plan largely (if not wholly) negated Telstra’s complete stranglehold over our nations comms, which was a good thing (remember the ADSL2+ shambles – you should do I mentioned it again just today in reply to you). This would allow for thriving retail competition. It was actually suggested more competition would result, especially for our rural friends who have only ever, and would have only ever, had Telstra and no other choice, had if not been for the NBN. But you do not.

            10. And finally you would address (instead of diverting, blaming others or just running from) the disgraceful blow outs in cost and time, of the promised MTM – 25Mbps for all Aussies by 2016… But you do not.

            So I reiterate, the most pitiful part in all of this is, if you are indeed an educated and knowledgeable man, you surely can see all of this, but refuse to acknowledge it, because of an immovable ideological position which will not allow you to…

            In saying that, having been so easily duped and brainwashed into actually believing such cultist beliefs to be infallible and never questioning them, it therefore largely negates and refutes any possibility of you actually being intelligent and knowledgeable, doesn’t it, Dick?

            A. Yes, it does.

            You’re welcome.

  3. Yeah they seemed to failed to have consulted with Telstra yet what wires are actually functional. What do you think happens when they patch the wires ? They are replacing dead ones with barely working ones. They will work out right at the end they will need another $20 billion for a complete new run of copper so $90 billion.

  4. The squealing copper fanboy knuckle draggers already in disarray on various forums today. Spin. Spin. Spin.

    Quick to talk down FttP speeds when the argument suits them and quick to defend their beloved copper. Yes, how magical that it can do 8gbps over 50 metres of copper. Their assumption being that GimpCo will dump FttN and roll-out fibre closer to the premise just to make it work. A clear admission from coalition clowns and GimpCo that FttN is not adequate and fibre was needed after all? (Yes) Well, we all knew that (yet another to add to the “I told you so list”) And let’s not forget there was a plan in place that not only matched and allowed even faster speeds but alleviated the need to do endless incremental upgrades wasting TIME and MONEY.

    As always they fail at logic and foresight. No surprises.

    119 days to go squealers ;-)

    • this is it,we know G.Fast and VDSL can do nice things at relatively short distances, we know great things can be achieved with FTTdp if that route is taken but its all about what can be achieved at a few hundred metres at this stage. we are rolling with nodes so we need to talk on those terms for the meantime.

    • You just need to recognise where Richard is coming from Hubert.

      He “exports” “stuff” (as he has told us multiple times re his taxpayer subsidised trips abroad).

      He’d like nothing better than to see the Aussie dollar tank to help his company be more “competitive” abroad.

      His comments become a lot more logical once you realise where he is coming from, drive the dollar down so he can make more “bucks”!

      • His comments become a lot more logical once you realise where he is coming from

        Indeed Tinman. I think we all know EXACTLY where he is coming from ;-)

        However I think his ultimate failing here on Delimiter is far too apparent simply because he is unable to hide his jealously of Quigley and now Budde… Considering the clusterfuck MTM that he endorsed and all the sheer stupidity of the coalition clowns and GimpCo he fell for so easily I’m surprised RR was even able to recognise my facetious comment below was a work of fiction (calm your stinky furry tits knuckle draggers, it’s actually not real, didn’t mean to get your hopes up). Obviously hit a raw nerve with that one, the poor dears, they need a flea bath too :-(

        116 days to go squealers ;-)

      • Tinman_au,

        One person in Australia can ‘drive the dollar down’ , really?
        After a long absence that’s the best you can come up with?

        I think you need to take a longer break.


  5. Despite their squealing of wrong copper sizes, “rotting” copper, 2-3 new power stations required etc NBNCo node Layer-1 speed data is arriving and performance is solid:

    Data shows FTTN has issues with bottom 7% of connections failing to meet SoE (requires 100% @ 25+mbps), FTTB well exceeding SoE.
    FTTN: 93% above 28mbps , 64% above 54mbps (policy 90% 50mbps ASAP)
    FTTB: 100% above 28mbps, 98% over 54mbps.

    Clearly a problem with 1% of FTTN connections. Cause / remedy / cost will be interesting.

    The data should be unsurprising to most given the technologies deployments internationally. BT had passed 25m premises in the time NBNCo took to pass 1m, and for a small fraction of the taxpayer commitment. At Quigley’s departure all MDUs (FTTB) were left indefinitely on service level zero (unable to order a service). The fixed line upgrade would today be complete if not for Conroy et al. What could’ve been:-(

    • so fishy boy what what you call the current rollout out of fttn in the last 3 years connected less than 1m when BT did 6m in that same time frame

      “The fixed line upgrade would today be complete if not for Conroy et al.”. More hot air we see from fishyboy. But if your claim was true then how was it the best policy “claimed by you” the fttn tender was not taken up. Much contradiction by our gullible one.

      And that 7% (lol 1%) what get anything as the Sie has been changed to wholesale. But apparently copper speeds improve lol.

      • so fishy boy what what you call the current rollout out of fttn in the last 3 years connected less than 1m when BT did 6m in that same time frame


        It’s not the same timeframe, NBN FTTN was only released September last year.

        Have another go with some more BS.

          • Lol troll it’s our own goal as you have stated that fttp has started on 2010 I want just following your logic once again or are you going to argue against your own logic.

          • Wrong answer again troll try again when did fttp start rolling out?

            Btw when are you going to ask Rizz out your obviously in love with him you see him everywhere

          • … and true to form the Rizz sock puppet did.

            This comment alone show you scored Jason.

            Jason: 1

            Reality: 0

            Please continue Alain, try some facts…

    • It will be fun fishing out the 7% of copper that isn’t up to scratch at the moment. But I guess it will be good practice for the future as more of the network fails. Hey… they could run the fibre for the same cost as replacing the copper. But no, this is the anything but fibre brigade where serial upgrades to future tech at a far greater cost is the only solution because Labor were the ones that suggest the only economic one.

      • Careful Rizz that sock puppet effort looks like your other sock puppet Jason K, at least try and make it look different.


        • Seriously seek help. Is it like “Being John Malcovich”? You’ve crawled up your own arse so far everyone now looks like Rizz?

  6. Hay guys I’ve just developed a new technology called Xtra.GGG.Fasterer. Achieves 10 gigglybits over 5 meters it does. Rollout is simples. Install smaller nodes in homes. All legit, part of M in MTM, technology agnostical (important), uses existing beloved copper in homes for nostalgia reasons (also important). Much cheeperer. Ticks all boxes. GO GIMPCO YAY!!!

    • it cost too much. copper needs to be min 25 meters in home to reduce cost in ther 1st few seconds of use.

      • But dxm you simply are not thinking patchworky enough. GimpCo would have that covered. They purchased a bunch of copper, they can just install this extra copper in homes to extend lengths to 25 meters. Automagical cost reductions GimpCo style! YAY!!!

  7. So FOD quotes have involved running the fibre back to the nearest FAN bypassing the node. This means XG-fast will require running fibre past all the nodes again.

    XG-fast is an upgrade path for FTTN how?

    • @mr FAN to node fibre already deployed multiples of 12 core (4 node, 8 upgrade).

      G.fast can be deployed in a number of configurations including line cards.

  8. What we need is to start providing FttDP (front fence/driveway) with G.Fast to get 500Mb/500Mb as the basic NBN overall service (with price and timing equivalent to FttNode) and stop providing FttNode and Hybrid Fibre Coax (a complete waste of $Billions). We can then gracefully upgrade to FttDP with XG.Fast and FttPremises in many years time as needed by easy to organise upgrades across the front lawn with the use of certified private Techos/Installers and without needing NBNCo to do a special install itself. The FttDP G.Fast customer terminals would have the same 4 Ethernet ports plus 2 VoIP ports as the FttPremises customer terminals have now so we would then have a uniform customer experience and a uniform network to allow the development of many future services across the network in future years.

  9. The big hurdle with G.Fast will be in gaining regulatory approval. Over the years there’s been many attempts at squeezing high bandwidth down low bandwidth pipes. The unfortunate fact is that the radio spectrum is already heavily used, and any unshielded system will leak which will cause both incoming and outgoing interference.

    The Coax TV systems work because they are well shielded (although they require high maintenance to ensure the shielding does not degrade). And likewise Optical fiber works because it doesn’t use radio signals.

    Because of the very real interference problems, VSDL and derivatives are strictly limited in the range of frequencies and the power levels allowed. This why VSDL is limited to such a short distance. Beyond a certain distance, the outside interference (and cross-talk between pairs) quickly reduces the signal-to-noise ration to unworkable levels. And this limit can change day-to-day and hour-to hour.

    But sadly there are still companies who try to defy the laws of physics. Our most recent example was Broad-Band-over-Power-Lines (PBL). Knowledgeable RF Engineers said that it couldn’t possibly work, in spite of this it was given hysterical promotion, a number of trials were authorised, but then as expected it caused massive radio interference and was shut down.

    The hysteria for G.Fast is following the same script as BPL. G.Fast attempts to jam high-frequency signals down un-shielded and poorly balanced Telephone lines. Admittedly telephone cables are better balanced than power lines, but to offset that the G.Fast proposal attempts to use a much wider band of frequencies and higher power levels.

    And it gets worse. To cure RF leakage from outside, the G.Fast proposal pushes out a common-mode signal which is intended to cancel any differential imbalance. This certainly would work, but it will also greatly increase any outgoing interference. It like trying to fix a leak in a hose by increasing the water pressure.

    My prediction is that G.Fast will follow the same path as BPL. It will have hysterical support from the promoters, it will be given a limited and closely monitored trial approval, there will be a howl of protest form the Radio users, and in consequence the trial approval will be withdrawn.

    Bottom line: If VSDL cannot be extended further (in either distance or bandwidth), then neither can G.Fast, as it makes no effort to cure the original problem – poor shielding and imbalance in the pairs.

    Or put more simply, the Laws of physics cannot be bypassed, and there is only one Radio Spectrum.

    • @j Calix has announced they already have commerical (not trial) g.fast customers on their equipment. It’s live.

      • The ACMA has proven to be very responsive to complaints of interference to licensed services. Especially if it is to Emergency Services. eg Fire, Police, Aircraft, etc.

        If (when) G.FAST causes significant radio inference it WILL be shut down.

        • @j the only response anyone gets from the acma is when commercial spectrum is affected. I’ve experienced the comedy first-hand.

          Sound to me like another wrong size copper, 2-3 new power stations type claim emerging…

          • So how was it that the various BPL trials were shut down?

            I’ve done some checking and apparently G.Fast does not yet have regulatory approval in Australia.
            If there are unapproved trials happening, they will be shut down double-quick if there are interference complaints.

            While there are proposed ITU standards for G.Fast, those standards cannot be ratified until extensive testing has taken place. And in turn these must be further ratified in each country due to the different radio bands used locally.

            I’m amused by your comment that “the only response anyone gets from the ACMA is when commercial spectrum is affected”. So what happens when G.Fast DOES interfere with AM/FM radio or TV? Your comment clearly argues that the ACMA will take action.

            Regarding interference to Emergency Services, anyone in the industry will tell you that this always triggers a prompt and decisive action from the ACMA, as well as from State and Commonwealth Police and AirServices.

          • @jk jumps in, posting yet another uninformed musings. Doesn’t even know what’s being discussed; closest he gets to emi is the fcc notices in the latest iPad sale (yes j they mean something).

            Hubert the Brisy line is left making up stories to appear relevant. Where’s Alex (Rizz ) and Tinman? I see back above, the team of stupid together for the finale.

            Budde’s still putting up a fight over on his blog; still can’t acknowledge the cost and time advantages of fibre alternatives accepted by the whole industry he claims to analyse.

            Nice to be right.

            @j what regulatory approval are you talking about specifically? Unapproved trials means what?

            EMI testing has local variations, however really two major (EU, US) standards to adhere to. Local spectrum differences are easily accommodated in g.fast.

            ACMA will take action if commerical spectrum is affected, but more likely the telcos (they’ll discover it first, big pockets). Strangely you believe we don’t perform our own emi tests to avoid exactly this situation (why acma rarely addresses anyone).

            Anyone in what industry? ;-)

          • Been away and as usual due to Richard still hurting over the last/yet another factual beating I gave him.. he must use my name…


            How’s you motto of, Richard is right because Richard and Richard’s dodgy numbers say so, working out for you?

            All the while, still can’t address even the basics can you Dick?

            Let’s start, well I say start but I have asked umpteen times (umpteen = lots beany boy) with $29.5B @ 25Mbps for all Aussies by 2016, you keep deflecting and/or running from…


            Then tell us again in hindsight why the iron wires needed replacing whilst also telling us (and it seems with a straight face) why copper needs to stay … ROFL

            You’re welcome

          • After my post on the risks of Radio Interference from G.Fast, Richard came back with a list of questions which seem rather strange coming from someone who claims expertise in the field.

            Whatever, the questions are worth exploring in some detail:

            > what regulatory approval are you talking about specifically?

            It would take a couple of pages to explain the long winded ITU approval process, but in the G.Fast case a small group of manufactures have proposed a specification. Next it must be approved by the various bodies in the ITU (other manufacturers, user groups, aviation, broadcasting, regulatory, military, etc), then it must go to the individual States to be modified to suit local conditions, and then finally ratified (or ultimately rejected). Following all that, equipment prototypes must be built and tested for compliance, then actually manufactured in quantity.

            And needless to say, the Approval Process for equipment used by Telecommunications Companies is vastly more demanding than the process for domestic and consumer grade equipment.

            > Unapproved trials means what?

            One of the ways that the conflicting claims of opposing groups can be resolved is to negotiate with the local regulatory authority to hold a trial under agreed conditions. However if a company brazenly went ahead and installed equipment without prior approval, and that equipment caused serious interference, then that company would almost certainly be prosecuted. At the very least the unauthorized trial would be immediately shut down.

            > EMI testing has local variations, however really two major (EU, US) standards to adhere to. Local spectrum differences are easily accommodated in g.fast.

            Yes, it would be possible to disable interfering frequency bands, however this needs to be negotiated in detail with the local authorities. Will the supplier agree to notch out the local Broadcast bands (AM, extended AM, FM, Digital FM, Ethnic FM, TV), Emergency Services, Shortwave, Business Radio, Aircraft, Amateur Radio, etc? The point here is that each notch will seriously impact the available bandwidth, and consequently these details have been fiercely and bitterly debated in the past. And of course, there are many other issues to be negotiated and agreed upon.

            > …. but more likely the telcos (they’ll discover it first, big pockets). Strangely you believe we don’t perform our own emi tests to avoid exactly this situation ……

            Yes, the Telco’s most definitely must do their own testing (as must any manufacturer) however, this does not allow them to bypass the approval process.

            But then, how do you explain the recent farce of the BPL trials? We were repeatedly assured that BPL “couldn’t possibly cause any interference”, but in fact the interference was so bad that the trials had to be abruptly terminated.

            > Anyone in what industry?

            Any RF Design Engineer who has successfully guided products through the approval process, any EMC Engineer working in a Testing and Approval Laboratory, or any ACMA Regulatory staff tasked with tracking down and eliminating Radio Interference.

            But the really serious question is why do you even ask these questions if (as you claim) you have engineering experience in this area?

            There are of course two possibilities: Either you have no direct experience, or you are simply a paid troll who’s job it is to deflect, confuse, and frustrate those who have concerns for Australia future.

            And lastly, for those who have a genuine interest in EMC Compliance, a good beginner’s reference is “EMC for Product Designers” by Tim Williams.

          • @j I have no knowledge of the bpl trials; compete waste of time to anyone with telco knowledge. Why do you think they’re relevant?

            “ITU approval” is not “regulatory approval”. No “local regulatory authority” grants trial approval. “disabling frequency bands” doesn’t require any detailed (or otherwise) negotiation with “local authorities”. Our own testing (via accredited testing centre) IS the approvals process (has been for some time).

            The third possibility is you don’t have experience of the emc process (here; eu or fcc) nor the acma. I’ve completed the process for a number of hardware products I manufacturered; including dealing with the acma over a non-compliant product that was installed by another party after I rejected its distribution (story for another time).

            We could compare contacts at the acma if required;-)

        • I am more informed than you fishyboy comparing a costing if fttp-mtm-fttp as labor original fttp. But that shows your narrative if it doesn’t fit it doesn’t count.

          But then since the average copper from pillar to node it 350m. How is g.fast going to work fishy boy.

          • Wow Richard fail there what disused here you claim 5 I asked you didn’t answer lol

            You won’t to comment on the first part fishyboy lol. How line and sinker and you claim you are smart lol.

            But let’s go back to that discussion no mention of how g.fast is going to work past 350m of copper when it’s not designed for lol. Oh wait your claim of copper speeds improve over all lengths there why do we need nodes then lol.

            Yep not informed there lol. But please keep making a fool of your self fishyboy lol

    • G.Fast was standardised by the ITU in 2014 and is becoming commercial in the world in 2016/2017 (started commercially in Taiwan in Sept 2015). If G.Fast causes any interference problems in Australia then we can use G.Fast on existing underground copper lead-ins (causes no interference problems) where it is too expensive to put in an underground fibre lead-in because the lead-in duct is in poor condition or the copper lead-in is directly buried in the ground, for example. Installing a fibre lead-in in a good lead-in duct is no problem. It’s installing new underground lead-in ducts (individual mini civil engineering project for each one) which is the biggest cost burden for the NBN, regardless if the duct is filled with copper or fibre. The fibre down the street is not a cost problem because of the standardized mass production techniques which can be used with “skinny fibre” and so on. Where aerial lead-ins are used then we could use new fibre lead-ins (close to the same cost as a new aerial copper lead-in).

      We could have a small FttDP fibre splitter/G.Fast terminal device in the lead-in pit outside the front fence and provide for each house, based on least cost, as follows:
      * a G.Fast copper lead-in on an existing copper underground lead-in or
      * a new fibre lead-in in a good existing lead-in duct or
      * a new fibre lead-in in a new duct where the existing copper lead-in and duct are unusable and aerial lead-ins are not allowed or
      * a new fibre aerial lead-in where aerial lead-ins are allowed.

      Thus we could have a least cost and quick to install NBN of at least 500Mb/500Mb for everyone which is easily upgradable across the front lawn from there as needed in later years to fibre, XG.Fast, etc with the use of NBNCo certified local Techos/Installers (no need for NBNco itself to do special expensive truck rolls for these upgrades).

      • Firstly to Richard,

        I’m retired now, but spent much of my life in the ACMA (as OIC for various districts) then later as an RF Design Engineer, and later again as OIC of a large EMC Test Facility. Even worked for the Military and NASA before retiring. All I can say about your regulatory experience is that you are taking utter crap. There have been many Trials of controversial equipment over the years, BPL being only the most recent. Likewise the negotiations for the conditions for the trials were intense and involved many players. I know, I was there. Ongoing today are negotiations for the conditions for “white-space” radio in unused TV spectrum, as are the exact licensing conditions for Adaptive and Cognitive radio.

        Richard thinks he is the center of the regulatory universe, but it is clear from his posts that he is completely unaware of much that is occurring. He even admits that he knew nothing of BPL, and yet that was the regulatory hot potato of its day. To many of us it foreshadowed future attempts to circumvent interference remediation by technical snake oil. It didn’t succeed though.

        And to Kevin,

        > G.Fast was standardised by the ITU in 2014

        see http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2014/70.aspx
        In 1914 the Physical layer specification was finalised, but that is a long way short of final approval.

        An European agreement has been reached for FM radio interference remediation, but not for other services. My advice is that until this is resolved it cannot gain Australian approval. The various local industry groups have not even been approached as yet.

        > If G.Fast causes any interference problems in Australia then we can use G.Fast on existing underground copper lead-ins.

        So folks, there you have it. The promoters ARE expecting that there will be interference problems. What they are describing is the gradual raising of the background noise level across our suburbs. And because it will be wide-band noise it will be difficult to pin-point the exact source. Things will just mysteriously stop working, and of course those responsible will just shrug and say, “but nobody has complained”.

        One thing is clear. We do seem to have touched a nerve with this G.Fast interference issue.
        They really don’t want any discussion on the subject do they?
        I expect that we will be hearing a lot more now that they’ve let the cat out of the bag.

        • John,

          One thing is clear. We do seem to have touched a nerve with this G.Fast interference issue.

          Not a issue (assuming it is a issue) that cannot be resolved, BT G.fast trials in the UK are well advanced, and they cannot be far away from commercial release, I am not aware of any interference issues impeding the trials.

          • Yes alain, let’s fix it so we can have better than ADSL speeds, even though you swore blind better that ADSL speeds weren’t and wouldn’t be needed…


            You’re welcome

          • > I am not aware of any interference issues impeding the trials

            Of course not. You are not aware of so many things…

            However the RSGB has a log of complaints with OFCOM, even though OFCOM has made it as difficult as possible for people to register complaints.

            A study by the RSGB showed that less than 1% of those affected have lodged complaints.

            The main difficulty is that VSDL/G.Fast interference is wide-band noise, so even technical people have a hard time understanding why their equipment has stopped working.

            Likewise there is a log of complaints from people who’s VSDL/G.Fast modems lock up when people use radio transmitters in the vicinity.

            And in Australia we have reports of the ignition static from the Postie’s motor-bike locking up VSDL modems. Likewise countless reports of other interference to VSDL, eg solar inverters. And it is certain that G.Fast (being much wider band) will suffer the same problems or worse.

            Here’s a technical report on how to recognise VSDL radio interference

          • And in Australia we have reports of the ignition static from the Postie’s motor-bike locking up VSDL modems.

            Is there something unique about the Australia Post postie bike?

            I’m convinced, halt the FTTN rollout immediately or change the postie bike.


        • All I can say about your regulatory experience is that you are talking utter crap.

          He does that a lot. He also likes citing himself as an authority (amongst other things). He is, I suspect, one of the best trolls on the internet!

          • He did admit his insightful (whoops my faux pas, I actually meant deceitful ;) comments get extra hits here at Delimiter, so…

      • @j what “utter cramp”? EMC testing and RCM compliance is exactly as described (test report to appropriate standards (self-identified), maintain compliance folder, attach sticker). What do you believe the process to be? Name the local authority NBNCo applied to for approval for its trials? (Rofl)

        I didn’t admit I knew nothin of bpl, just I never followed any trials. The technology is of little interest, it never had a future.

        Who’s proposing raising background RF? Compliance requires we’re below certain levels. That’s all.

        That you worked for the acma doesn’t surprise; indeed this experience reflects the “quality” of service they routinely provide.

        • Another example of crap responses to authoritative replies when caught out on a limb. Snivelling, deflecting, deliberate misinterpretation and cheap pot shots.

          • @mh and yet I’m right. The process is exactly as I described (done it). Looking forward to the imagined EMC process;-)

          • It cannot be those things I said *and* right at the same time. Logic stands in the way.

          • Martin H,

            Another example of crap responses……

            Not that you pointed them out, but abuse will fill the void eh?

          • What you call abuse is actually only pointing out responses that fail to stand up to scrutiny and fail to address what was said. How “Richard” responded was an instance of faltering. If anything, meet John’s posts head-on, at the same level, or cop it sweet and leave.

          • @ Smitten MTM lover, alain… ROFLMFAO

            We are MTM haters?

            It’s like accusing someone of being a cancer hater…of course we are haters to both the despicable MTM stupidity and such an insidious disease…

            Which part of…

            MTM = complete inferiority (with FTTP the admitted end goal anyway), obsolescence, those who roll it out even referred to it as FRAUDBAND, increased OPEX, costly add ons needed to exceed what we have with ADSL, costly remediation required, many tens of billions blown on the promised $29.5B, 4 years blown on the promise of to all by 2016, no cheaper/no faster, the whole shebang is a fuck-up beyond compare…. is to even stomach, let alone love?

            As such I’m proud to be an MTM hater, because looking at the above facts, anyone whose an MTM lover is either…

            A. a complete moron
            B. a poor sorry political lackey
            C. all of the above

            I’d ask you which you are, but no need.

            You’re welcome

          • We are MTM haters?

            It’s like accusing someone of being a cancer hater…of course we are haters to both the despicable MTM stupidity and such an insidious disease…

            As such I’m proud to be an MTM hater

            Nailed it.

          • @”Reality” “In your humble unbiased opinion as a MtM hater you mean.”


            This is my MTM NBN FTTN taken a minute ago while my flatmate is in her bedroom streaming online TV. I won Node Lotto. This is clearly a zero bias zone. I showed you mine, so you show me yours.

  10. I’m curious as to how many times a technology needs to be proven before more tests become redundant.

  11. Woo hoo, they can do 5Gbit/s over a dual strand copper cable.

    If only fibre couldn’t already do 40Gbit/s…. per channel, with up to 200 channels per strand… over hundreds of kms… without need for retransmission…

    If we’re going to actually compare apples to apples, in a lab environment, on test equipment, Corning smashed out 1,050,000Gbit/s back in 2012 over 54kms. So copper can go fuck itself.

  12. Delimiter never fails to twist a great advance and more proof their stance was wrong into some kind of crap that we still need fibre. FTTdp is brilliant, with XG.FAST it means there is no real difference in the short term between the offerings over fibre of the offering over FTTdp. If the copper fails then you will be able to EASILY pull out the copper and put in the fibre lead in. This is a choice the Consumer can make at that time. It’s a great answer too allow this upgrade to actually happen with out too much cost. FTTP is over twice the price! The government would need to double their investment. When Optus just announce 200gb for $80 over 4g I question whether it will all be DOA anyway! This is only the start. Efficiency of the transmission is increasing every year. There is no reason next year the same plan can’t be 400gb for $80 or even unlimited. Most people don’t hit above the 200Gb mark even if they are using Netflix. (if they don’t use 4k).

    • No Chris, you have the cart before the horse (apt for MTM eh?) as do a few others here…

      Most here at Delimiter were, and even 3 years after it’s cessation, are still, amazed at the incessant baseless attacks that were/are made in relation to FTTP, by those who for all intents and purposes do so simply because of their political dogma/obsequiousness.

      They instead promote the lesser, blown out from $29.5B to as much as $70B depending upon whose figures you believe within Coalition or NBN ranks, which was promised to all by 2016 – now 2020 … but they support it, come what may…

      So much for cheaper/faster eh?

      The learned men also said we we will only need 15Mbps in the mid 2020’s (iirc), so why all the hullabaloo now about such speeds, they previously derided? Apparently only FTTP speeds are no good? Everything else faster than snail paced copper, is great

      But apart from these actuals, which FTTdp are you referring to?

      The FTTdp, NBN are bandying about as a possible answer (3 years on and now they may have a nanswer…LOL) or the FTTdp the government only a few months back explicitly said no to?


      Or perhaps the government has again changed their mind and are (in essence) now admitting that their FTTN plan was and is, the retrograde debacle we all said it would be and are err, umm, now saying yes to FTTdp after all?


      • Chris even though you replied to the wrong post the article you linked was back in March while Rizz linked an article in May

          • Copy/paste from above…

            “… which FTTdp are you referring to?

            The FTTdp, NBN are bandying about as a possible answer (3 years on and now they may have an answer…LOL) or the FTTdp the government only a few months back explicitly said no to?”

            Yes Chris we know NBN are talking FTTdp (as I said) but the Coalition AFAIK are still not, which was the conundrum.

            I hope they do (it’s not as good as FTTP but…) it’s a clear admission that FTTN is not good enough, as we have said all along…

            But Chris, when people say things like “… Rudd magical napkin” let me copy/paste from above, yet again…

            “Most here at Delimiter were, and even 3 years after it’s cessation, are still, amazed at the incessant baseless attacks that were/are made in relation to FTTP, by those who for all intents and purposes do so simply because of their political dogma/obsequiousness.”

            Not that that’s you, of course.

          • Rizz, Let me reply to your using your sites comments to back up your comments. wow research!

            Did you read the link? NBN are investigating FTTdp Not talking about it. The Coalition have actually stated the MTM is NBN’s responsibility They come up with the best mix of technology. Shorten was attempting to paint the coalition into a corner. Just stupid politics.

            Here is another irrational argument you continue to make. People who don’t think FTTP is the best solution don’t think it’s the best Technology. ZERO people think this. We believe it’s too expensive. As the link I had shows irrefutably. It’s the last few meters onto someones properties that is the most expensive. FTTdp is a better solution and if it is close to the cost of FTTN it is a better option because it lays fibre in the street without needing to go into everyone’s house (the most expensive part). Then if the tennant is in love with fibre and think 5Gbps isn’t fast enough they can pay the extra few thousand dollars for the last few meters. Sound like a win win to me.

            As for the political statement. I think ALL our major parties are failing us in the important things so I don’t agree with either of them so it would be stupid for me to simply only agreeing because of my political choice.

            Your argument follows with ZERO research and only makes stupid assumption in an attempt to validate your opinion with excuses. The reality is I’m giving you facts. Show me how you come to the conclusion that digging up every person’s front yard and installing fibre will be cheaper or fast than running fibre to the curb and piggybacking on the existing copper. I’m only interested in this question don’t bullshit and insult actually use your brain and attempt to counter my argument.

          • Wow indeed Chris and thank you, after two attempts you finally answered my simple question.

            So you say the Coalition have changed their minds? In line with advice from NBN (wow maybe the reserve NBN team do know something after all)… that FTTdp is a goer?

            I didn’t think it was a difficult question TBH, but al least unlike others here you did answer, e v e n t u a l l y.

            So thank you again… now are progressing (something normally not associated with others here who say things like “Rudd’s napkin” and then wish to be taken seriously)…

            But I digress…

            So if your info is indeed legit, it seems that NBN do have some sense after all and even the government who have said no FTTdp for you … can finally grasp the benefits of a half decent topology and not have to admit the others actually got it right with the best topology… cool.

            It’s a win/win, sort of…

            But if indeed so, the fact that they are upgrading from FTTN, is a clear admission that they got it wrong, otherwise, they’d stick to the cheaper/faster (ahem) FRAUDBAND plan, wouldn’t they?

            I’d of course prefer FTTP, but that’s been well and truly fucked up by a political period of oppose everything… so with a bit of Fred Hollow’s magic, maybe the blind will see the folly of FTTN and introduce FTTdp.

            However, having witnessed their debacle of inferiority, mixed with multi $b blow outs and timeframes some 4 years behind, I won’t hold my breath.

            But hey things can’t get any worse… can they?

            Thanks again for the info.

          • I’d of course prefer FTTP, but that’s been well and truly fucked up by a political period of oppose everything…

            Go easy on Labor 2010-2013, they did their best and failed.

          • Go easy on Labor 2010-2013, they did their best and failed.

            So you’re saying the NBN has failed? ;o)

            I see what you mean about his contradictions now Rizz!

          • Indeed TM…

            HFC failed… HFC is great…

            FTTP will fail like HFC did…

            ADSL speeds are good enough… wow g.fast, DOCSIS 3.1…

            The endless list of alain idiocy, goes on and on…

            It’s delicious to see him squirm when he blurts out, for example… the CP16 revised the $29.5B so it’s all ok and then have his own comment from years ago in relation to building a house and when not finished extend and extend, thrown back at him… ROFL

            He simply whimpers off with (unusually) absolutely SFA to say and then pops up at the next article repeating the same BS, to earn his cheque…

            I wonder with him having been so discredited why he’s still on the shill pay roll at all ;)

      • First, this article from a real news team show FTTdp is something that is happening and is in planning to replace FTTN. http://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-could-flip-300000-premises-from-fttn-to-fttdp-417081 Secondly MTM is about allowing NBN to come up with the best solution. They have priced every option and found FTTN is substantial cheaper. look into their last report to find the information.
        FTTP Brownfields $4,411
        FTTP Greenfields $2,608
        FTTN $2,257
        Fixed Wireless $3,559
        http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/nbn-financial-results-FY2016.pdf (page14)
        So to make an assumption that Rudd magical napkin was better at understanding the realities of cost of implementation than the people who are implementing it is totally irrational and points to your “political dogma/obsequiousness”.

        What they are saying is the price of FTTdp looks like (nothing concrete as yet) being cheaper than FTTN! which is a MASSIVE thing. It means fibre to the curb so if the copper is removed it only needs to be replaced from the curb! Speed is not really an issue past 12Mbps for most people at the moment. Over 100Mbps for anyone will be fine but 5Gbps will mean you can run a Data centre at home! As I have stated many times. Look at the converted need. The history of internet shows the progression though the digitisation of every element of our life. Video was that last element. Even at 4k bandwidth required is only 15 Mbps so even on 100mbps you could watch over 6 streams! 4k is approximately the maximum video an eye can register at 20/20 vision!

        Reality is “faster is always better” is only true while it has an effect. Most of the technology we are talk about with the NBN exceeds this. And just like demand for ever improving PCs has stopped (other than for gamers) The same will be true of Internet speeds. The restriction at the moment is cost NOT speed. With Optus bring out their new Wireless Home offering, 200gb for $80 I can see a time very soon when fixed line is as irrelevant to internet as it currently is for phone calls.

        • Even at 4k bandwidth required is only 15 Mbps so even on 100mbps you could watch over 6 streams!

          If only it were as simple as you make it out to be. Clearly you have no understanding of video compression.

          4k is approximately the maximum video an eye can register at 20/20 vision!


          • Actually I understand compression what is it about compression you require explaining? I actually do work with streaming systems so know a little more about it than most. What is your issue with the example I give you? Overhead. It’s actually not relevant in this example. Or do you irrationally want uncompressed 4:2:2 RAW directly to your front door? Which gives you zero benefit. I guess you need uncompressed 4k@120fps right? (24Gbps). It’s simply juvenile to expect the government to pay for your irrational demands when they are looking at cutting social welfare programs!

            Actually TRUE. Here, read things, get smarter… http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing

          • Actually I understand compression

            Clearly you don’t. You can compress video to any bitrate you like, that doesn’t mean it is optimal. See Youtube.

            Actually TRUE. Here, read things, get smarter…

            You presented a link but I doubt you read or understood any of it. Red are known for their high resolution cameras (actually beyond 4k) and it talks about applications none of which have anything to do with your original simplistic false statement. Regardless Red have always bandied 4k as minimum not a maximum for optimal results (They were at one point planning the release of a 28k camera)

            It’s simply juvenile

            What is juvenile is presenting logical fallacies in your arguments. Which is what you have done here and multiple times in response to others as well. As such I have no interest in conversing with you any longer.

          • @Chris,

            ”It’s simply juvenile to expect the government to pay for your irrational demands? 

            The motive is becoming clearer Chris…

            Let ma ask, why is it ok in your eye (yes eye) for a government to rollout MTM – FTTN or FTTdp with add ons, at some $54B… but not toll out FTTP, at sub (previous costing) $50 or even $60B or $70B?

            Why is the cut off point of what’s acceptable to those like you, always smack bang where the Coalition’s costings are? Now it’s ok to spend as much as $54B, but 3 years ago anything over $30B was wastage, white elephant. Curious

            Why do the arguments over acceptable costs keep altering and rising with every MTM revision but the cost of FTTP is considered juvenile?

            Your motive is again all but clinched, I’m afraid Chris

          • Why is the cut off point of what’s acceptable to those like you, always smack bang where the Coalition’s costings are?

            It certainly is curious Rizz. Just like all the other curiosities in the disastrous coalition clown GimpCo saga.

            Then billions spent on delivering a future proof FttP solution is obscene, it should be spent on flood recovery in Queensland.

            Now billions wasted on a substandard solution needing upgrades even before it is finished, also requiring even more wasted time and money to reach the FttP end goal is perfectly acceptable.

            I guess it is much like the speed we need arguments the coalition clowns and GimpCo like to use. It always just happens to be what the copper is capable of. They move the goal post all over the place. If they weren’t such politically motivated hypocrites we’d never see GimpCo announce stuff like this. At least not until they delivered their 25mbps to everyone first.

            115 days to go squealers ;-)

          • Indeed, HC, the contradictory stupidity to align with the politics, of the rabid MTM supporter is delicious.

            So let’s add the politics, just for shits and giggles, shall we?

            Think about it, they supported the Coalition’s FTTN based MTM “only (lol)” because it was “cheaper and faster to roll out (not because of politics)”…and opposed Labor’s FTTP, well, because it’s “slower and dearer” and well, we don’t need faster than FTTN speeds, so they are a waste of resources (not because of politics).

            But now they support FTTdp, XG. fast, HFC with DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades, which again they don’t support because of any political obedience, it’s just that they now err, support, umm, not so fast, not so cheap and they want those faster speeds, after all…

            If only the Libs did FTTP eh… we’d all be friends.

            Funny thing is, although I obviously prefer FTTP, as FTTP isn’t an option in Brownfields with the current government, Coalition, I would certainly prefer FTTdp as an alternative to FTTN.

            So look here, my preferences (unlike theirs) actually don’t happen to always magically align with a political party.

            How about that?

          • I don’t think the NBN should exist. It’s a complete waste of time and money. And will be useless by the time it’s fully commissioned. To say think FTTP would be cheaper is just stupid there is no other word for it, Maybe complete and under denial. I just support this stupid project being done as cheaply as possible so we waste less tax dollars that could have gone to hospitals or education!

            To Hubert Cumberdale, Wow!

            Compression can be fully lossless but it’s not all that beneficial outside the editing room. Peoples comprehension is limited and this is where a lot of the compression algorithms sit. To say I don’t know because, well actually you don’t give a reason you just say it because you have ZERO proof, any link you have to prove your point? I go over the entire linked article and it even has a pretty picture for you to see the intersection of view-able limitation it’s really easy to understand EVEN for you. Yes you can input more into your ocular nerve (something I didn’t know until I read it) but it would require much large fields of view. you would need to be around 64 inchs from a 80 inch screen with “optimal eyesight” to see 8k! doesn’t sound all that feasible to me!

            As for RED’s and may other companies want to go bigger. YES of course! They NEED to! As a director you want as many options as you can get. If you can take a 24k video you can then use digital zoom to get a perfectly framed video in post production. It’s Great! but you would throw most of the footage in the digital bin. will we see 8k? YEP! in theatres and in the home. but it will be very limited in the actual 8k continent as there will be very little benefit and it will just simply take up resources for no real benefit. VR is where it will be at and yes it will stream better than 4k but it will most likely be using Virtual spaces which means much higher compression as it can be sent as a formula not as the end video result. We are about to hit our hard limit and most people will be satisfied with what they have in the coming few years. I wish we could find a place to put a bet on because I would be a rich man with you guys being so hell bent on an infrastructure project that will be useless before it’s even complete.

          • @Chris Those applications require a constant tens to hundreds of Mbps *per subscriber* and there are hundreds of thousands to millions of subscribers across suburban areas. You need to propose an alternative to fixed lines that fulfils that. The list of options even in fixed lines is very short.

        • It’s funny how the cpp cost for fttn is half of fttp but peak funding is $8B less than the last estimate of if they had continued rolling out fttp.

          • Yep it is definitely funny. What’s funnier is you seems believe the costing from then is the accurate one. ;-)

          • So the up to ( lol Alain ) $54B vs the SR s2 for fttp when there cpp is $500 more than the current cpp for fttp. But then your claiming it is now?

          • Yes Jason, how silly…

            Of course we shouldn’t believe Quigley’s figures that didn’t fluctuate greatly and were even ratified in the CBA by people who opposed Quigley…

            We should believe the post FTTP NBN figures, which are as follows…




            $46B- $54B

            If I missed one of the MTM hat draws please just add it along side the other “stabs in the dark”

            Regardless with such pinpoint accuracy, from such impartial sources I for one am convinced of their economic credentials…

            Did I hear someone also mention 2020?


          • Jason K ( No1 Rizz sock puppet),

            It’s funny how…..

            ‘It’s funny’ how Labor calculated funding for their 2016 NBN policy to be $57B to be finished by 2022.

            This was for a rollout that only added two million more to FTTP from the Coalition NBN MtM, but still used a substantial portion of the lower CPP and faster to deploy FTTN, FTTB and HFC.

            So how do you rollout expensive CPP FTTP to 93% of residences in Australia for much less than $57B by 2021?

          • Lol the simple answer to your question devoid was to never switch to the mtm in the first place lol

          • “So how do you rollout expensive CPP FTTP to 93% of residences in Australia for much less than $57B by 2021?”

            When the CPP in every other rollout overseas is a small fraction of the one quoted. (Funny, that.)

          • What rollouts are you referring to, and that $57B is a 2016 Labor estimate, are you saying they go it wrong because?

          • The 25mbps – $29.5B to all by 2016 roll out of course…

            Tell us all how shitty it is, although we already know?

            You’re welcome

    • “FTTdp is brilliant, with XG.FAST”

      Yes, it is, but the NBN isn’t using FTTdp, and has made it clear they have no intention to start any major FTTdp rollouts.

      So… Why do copper fanboys keep harping on about XG.Fast when it can’t be used with FTTN?

      • @r0 writes “XG.Fast when it can’t be used with FTTN?”. It can, another classic;-)

        • Right, you’re correct, it can be used for a tiny subset of the FTTN userbase, as the copper loops are otherwise too long.

          I forgot how pedantic you lot are.

          I shouldn’t have bothered coming back, you bicker and nitpick tiny points, instead of actually discussing the meat of peoples comments.

          I will just keep enjoying my Gigabit fibre here in Japan.

        • You should jump on to the NBN blog and set them straight!

          To be absolutely clear, in order to deploy XG.FAST we would need to drive our fibre deeper into the network and move to a Fibre-to-the-Distribution-Point (FTTdP) network architecture with XG.FAST using only the last 30-100 metres or so of copper into a premises.

          They seem to think they need FttDP to get it working…go get `em tiger!

          • @tm writes “FttDP can’t be used with FTTN?”. It can (NBNCO talks it will), another classic;-)

          • I never said it couldn’t, just pointed out that companies aren’t using it over FttN. I can’t find anyone anywhere trying to use xg.fast over FttN, the closest is BT using FttC, everyone else is looking to use it over FttDP.

            I’d be interested in any link/info where you know of anyone anywhere using it over FttN?

          • “I can’t find anyone anywhere trying to use xg.fast over FttN, the closest is BT using FttC” LOL FTTC = fibre to the cabinet. Same but different. It’s quite irrelevant any way they are looking at FTTdp with XG-Fast instead of FTTN because it might give them cost savings and increase the fibre foot print allowing a cheaper cost for people if the copper that is 20 meters long needs replacing. all the copper links would be gone which will mean a much more reliable system as it is those connections that are the issue NOT copper it’s self

          • Interesting… FTTdp is still something that is happening. with existing technology. Existing Technology would pave the way for the exact same outcome. the reality is the less copper terminations the better. and the closer the fibre to the premise the better as long as it doesn’t drastically effect the cost like a FTTP would.

          • FTTdp is still something that is happening

            It certainly is, and they will be deploying it to (at least) 300k. nbn™ are talking about it more and more as well, so if the expanded trial can show cost savings due to the economy of scale, things should get pretty interesting.

  13. The real issue isn’t whether FTTN or FTTP is faster. It’s about reliability. I’ve seen fibre run last 20+years out in the field (mine sites) and although they are privately run links, they have not missed a beat since being installed back in the 90’s.

    My home line, which was deployed in the lat 90’s has been absolutely disgusting having techs nearly every other looking at it as i’m getting disconnected from joins from the dodgy low cost, cheapest tender winner contractor of the day getting the job.

    I personally think the government should purely set targets. X connected by X month. Let the NBN decide what technology/when to deploy it rather than having a shadow/now prime minister dictating what should be installed and what percentages.

    The reason it’s so fragmented is that the issue has been politicised, and Liberals don’t want Labour to have a good idea, because it’ll seem like they are weak. Rather than working together, setting aside the absolute circus, and making a better future for Australia, they’d rather sell now, have a small face win, and literally sell off the next generation’s future for their gain now… Oh wait, they are all baby boomers, of course that’s all they are going to do. Selfish bastards.

  14. No Bob. It’s cost NOT about a political “we won’t ’cause they did”.

    “I personally think the government should purely set targets. X connected by X month. Let the NBN decide what technology/when to deploy it rather than having a shadow/now prime minister dictating what should be installed and what percentages.” Actually the Liberal party have been very much hands off. Especially now that Malcolm is leader. NBN have been left to actually do the job they have been employed too. This includes looking into emerging technology to see if it makes the process cheaper or faster while delivering the stated goals. FTTdp with XG-Fast seems to be something that could achieve that goal.

    • @ Chris

      “No Bob. It’s cost NOT about a political “we won’t ’cause they did”

      Err yes it, cleary is…

      If it was about cost (and only cost – shh never mention the B in CBA, it’s a CA) when MTM started to blow out by some $25B, it should have been scrapped immediately.

      The fact it has blown out so disgracefully in time and cost (with fewer B’s) is quite telling.

      Why would MT put together a review panel of people, only openly opposed to FTTP, to do an impartial CBA, when they had bagged FTTP and lauded their own MYM… wanna clue? And then forge ahead with FTTN/MTM before they made their inevitable impartial (lol) conclusion.

      This was how the opposition operated in the Abbott days, opposing for the sake of opposing and if you can’t see that, well your motives are clear too, IMO.

      TA even admitted they opposed and should have supported a “boat people” solution put forward by Gillard, that was a good idea, because it was politically expedient to do so…

      After bagging the FTTP NBN, Conroy, Quigley et al incessantly, deserved or not (normally not) there was absolutely no way TA or MT could ever adopt FTTP and not have the stench of hypocrisy…

      • The Labor NBN FTTP rollout had to cut 50% from its original targets at the end in 2013, it was therefore not hard to convince the electors that the faster and more cost effective MtM model was the way to go, especially when Labor were paying Telstra and Optus to shutdown their copper and HFC infrastructures for broadband so they could overbuild it with expensive brownfields FTTP.

        Without a total shutdown of existing fixed line BB infrastructure the FTTP rollout couldn’t be justified.

        The MtM strategy was endorsed twice, election 2013 and again in 2016 as the preferred NBN model.

        The Labor NBN FTTP to 93% by 2021 was a fantasy.

        • Lol except the faster and more cost effective model has missed its own original target by 75%. Not to mention almost doubling in price lol. Never new a most cost effective is to cost more than the original lol.

        • @ alain,

          Rooly, they did…?



          Oh ok then…

          But what about the $29.5B cheaper/faster for all by 2016 which is actually rolling out (rather than you pitiful diversions)..

          Tell us about that…


          You’re welcome.

          • The reality is the FTTP was NEVER going to be built in time and inside the budget it was talking about. To use that as justification is stupid the Costing PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that it would cost more. Produce SOMETHING that is evidence to the contrary! The Fact is the only politics was the time and cost needed to below Labor’s bullshit becuase idiots believed their outlandish claims. The Liberals never wanted to build the NBN at all but people like those from Delimiter and other “I Want” groups forced them to build the white elephant. Before it is built the wireless networks will be faster and cheaper. It’s just the reality of technology. Given upgrades in Wireless technology is far easier and cheaper it will beat the fixed line in the next few years for cost and speed. Optus already offer 200Gb@12/1 for $80 Which until last month was what I was paying for a fixed line service! We will be fully wireless by 2020. Will before any FTTP would have been built. It was more likely to be finished by 2030 when wireless will be well over the Gbps limit. (this last two sentences are my belief the rest I can prove)

          • @ Chris

            The reality is the FTTP was NEVER going to be built in time and inside the budget it was talking about

            Says who, you?

            “I want”

            ” could have gone to hospitals and education”

            “white elephant”

            You forgot roads, Rolls Royce solution and the napkin (oh no you already said napkin, that’s right)..

            And not one (obvious anyway) mention of the current roll out… MTM debacle, blown out from $29.5B to (UP TO) $70B – for all by 2016 now 2020 for a completely inferior network.

            As such Chris, your status via fact check is – just another poor sorry politically faithful, here on a desperate, fact less crusade.

            As such, you’ve now earned …

            You’re welcome

          • @Chris “Optus already offer 200Gb@12/1 for $80” The speed and price are like going back 10 years on ADSL2+ and the speed will be woefully variable depending on the house. To say that this kind of plan could replace fixed lines ignores today’s demand, let alone that of 2020.

            I would like to see some alternative to NBN, but that will not cut the mustard for any kind of user in the suburbs. Number of users and capacity per user is everything.

          • “You forgot roads, Rolls Royce solution and the napkin (oh no you already said napkin, that’s right)..”

            Hee hee

            “white elephant”

            @Chris A company like Telstra would find a (sort of) high-speed last-mile network lucrative and attractive to buy into. Neither terrestrial nor cable TV can fit in any 4k channels. The only option is online. With people buying 4k TVs everywhere, the market is waiting to be served.

            If networks like that were unattractive, so actually a white elephant, there would be few telcos operating in the world. A nationwide last-mile network with nothing more to spend a white elephant? Turn your brain on and look around. Tony Abbott was surely a fool in saying it. Debunked years ago.

          • @ CS: ” the liberals never wanted to build the NBN at all but people like those from Delimiter and other I want groups forced them”
            What a bunch of pushovers those Libs are…..they need to grow a pair and stop pandering to everyone on this site……. Shut us down I say before the Libs are forced to start manufacturing analysis graphs and sock puppets against their will….. Poor Malcolm will nothing go his way?
            Classic planet upto ;-)

          • +1 sURLy. The Libs were never forced to do anything. They demonstrated that they don’t have the courage to apply their policy agenda (aligns with “Richard”‘s idea of how the govt “should” have forced the private sector to implement a network upgrade as per UK). What good are the Libs? I wanted those men in suits to have b@lls and do what they think is Right for the country.

    • Lol so Chris the cpp of CP16 being less than the cpp in the SR for either S1 or s2. Is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it would cost more lol.

      But let’s look at your sides view before fttp would cost $90B. Fttn would cost $29B.

      The SR comes in and states fttp would cost $64-$71B that’s a $19-$26B saving compared the new mtm at $41B or a $12B cost increase.

      Then the CP16 coming in a claims its $46-$56B another $5B-$15B cost increase. While showing the cost of fttp to be less than what was claimed in the SR. On top of that it shown a counter factual (lol Richard) which is $74B-$84B y26-y28. Except that counter factual (lol Richard) includes the blowout costs from switching to the mtm then going back to fttp. Now we know we have had a 2 year delay of switching to the mtm which then puts the fttp y24-y26. Which puts another 2 year delay of switching back to fttp y22-y24. So that puts it 1-3 years behind original y21 target still better than the 4 years behind we have now.

      Do you really understand how mobile internet works. The spectrum from the tower gets divided up between how many users. The more people in the tower the slower it becomes.

      But in saying that it’s good that Optus is shown an initiative as the 4 year void of the nbn delay and the new nbn targeting already well serviced areas and not underserved areas.

  15. @all correction above: “ACCC data show similar speeds chosen by FTTP customers (~79% 25mbps or less).”

    ACCC data @ 30JUN16 actually shows customers on 25mbps or less:
    FTTN 88.98%
    FTTP 81.37%

    And FTTP’s low speed customers’ preference is growing: 76% FY14, 78% FY15.

    Graphed (they still wont understand):

    Fiberartzi should ignore all available data and continue musing about their fantasy customer speed profiles (1m users known), the need for gigabit when 1.09mbps CVC provisioned and demand for higher uploads (when few taking the option).

    Maybe they’d like to review the FTTP rollout performance and explain to the hundreds of thousands left today without any fixed line internet option the merits of Conroy’s GBE :

      • Tell us about how the plateau works Rizz, and why it completely invalidates Richards points?

        • Because devoid the plateau the Richard has kindly remove showed that the mtm stopped all contracts of fttp not long after the coalition came in. So that there wasn’t a ramp up until fttn finally stated 2 years behind its start date

        • @ alain,

          Why don’t you validate Dick’s fruitful analysis, instead…

          Because as we have said many times, his incessant cherry-picking added to his narcissistic rationale of, this is right because I say, is at best laughable…

          In fact the only thing more laughable is your incessant lap dog antics and even more so, your delicious contradictions…

          Shall I post more of them now?

          You’re welcome.

        • @r don’t pay the feeble minded much attention. JK’s talking about my graph showing actual v forecast just before the EFY. I had the last few weeks continuing at the same premises passed (made sense, number cumulative and never falls). The idea was to highlight progress re targets. Doesn’t make as much sense now 12mths til next target.

          Below he simply makes stuff up. We know he can’t use a spreadsheet.

          • @”Richard” FYI: $17.50/Mbps cancels out everything you have posted and you don’t see it. Talk about feeble minded.

          • Yes Richard I can use a spreed sheet but at least I don’t need to make things up on a constant basis.

            Can’t even back up your claim of Conroy killing investment just a pie I the sky lie. Or that $B was being invested lol nothing to back up that one either. Or the spect threat was used to access the ducts and pits not to stop Telstra upgrading the hfc lol can’t even produce a citation for any of those. Just lies you keep saying buy saying it long enough you might start to believe them.

            Come on Richard repost your previous graph but we both know you don’t have the balls you little girl.

            By the way is the CP16 fttp cost labor original rollout I need another laugh again lol. Hook line and sinker.

          • The cost of CVC as it is now drops a bomb on the project. It distorts everything. It calls into question the viability of paying for it all so we can then get (financially mythical) upgrades as well as the viability of retail customers desiring and deciding to pay. If you don’t acknowledge that, it’s headed for disaster. You make it as attractive for people to pay as you can, otherwise it’s stuffed.

    • How can you continue to reach dishonest conclusions about take-up figures after this has repeatedly been called out? When you’re a paid shill, that’s how.

  16. Customers on 25mbps or less… lol…thanks Mathew…

    NHow much are your cherries BTW?

Comments are closed.