Furthermore if NBN Co. were to consider purchasing the copper there is no way to know whether Raoul is even close to the mark. In fact this seems to indicate the value of the Telstra copper network exceeds the value of the current deal in itself. This is before things like ducting are taken into account.
Do you know what NPV is?
To quickly sum up it valuates future cashflows with a discount rate in today's dollars. As widely reported in the media that $9 Billion NPV equates to much higher than $9 Billion.
It's spin doctoring the $9 Billion NPV as per below article.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2
It is an investment that will refund itself with a modest profit. So basically what you have to compare here is times frame, do you want a project that will pay for itself quicker but deliver a substandard outcomes or vice versa?
The NBN is not investment grade yet. It has not yet turned a profit and no such thing as guaranteed future profits.
Considering that South Korea/Japan and many other countries are investing in FTTP and are benefiting from it right now
The largest digital economy companies have been founded in the USA. What benefits has FTTP bought to Japan/Korea?
Some things any valuation will have to consider, firstly we do not know almost anything about the Coalition policy.
Yep. All we can do is try to piece together a plan from what they've said to date ...
- they agree with satellite/wireless to the 7%. This is likely to be too far advanced for them to stop anyway.
- they agree with FTTP in greenfield sites, though not with the way it's being done.
- they will honour contracts to roll out FTTP in brownfields sites. If Tassie is still on target to complete in 2015 that might be too for advanced for them to stop.
- they favour FTTN for the remaining brownfields sites but we don't know who would build it ...
- Telstra: they say they favour structural separation so getting Telstra to build FTTN would not fit. I wouldn't rule it out as a last resort though.
- Network Co: they talked about this a while back but seem to have gone quiet on it recently. Perhaps Telstra has told them where they can stick the idea.
- NBNCo: the NBNCo will not be profitable when they cancel the NBN roll out. They could sell its assets, but who'd buy and at what price? imo the most cost-effective thing they could do with the NBNCo is have it complete the roll out.
What is the value of scrapping the copper. Scrap copper actually is quite valuable, in fact Telstra is even considering ripping some parts up for sale.
It's probably more cost-effective for Telstra to recover and sell the copper from the exchange to the pillar than the copper from the pillar to the customer. FTTN would be to Telstra's advantage in this respect.
Furthermore if NBN Co. were to consider purchasing the copper ...
afaik no one's suggested the NBNCo would buy the copper. Thodey said they would lease it. However, once FTTN is rolled out, Telstra's copper is isolated from the rest of Telstra's network. That makes it vulnerable to an NBN 'upgrade' from FTTN to FTTP. This could complicate the negotiations for FTTN.
This is before we consider that to use FTTN copper lines will have to be moved to these new pillars which we have no idea how much is would cost.
Telstra reckoned in their NBN mkI 'submission' that $5bn would cover FTTN in the five capital cities and the government's $4.7bn would extend that to 80-90% of premises.
They are now moving on to a FTTN model that was rejected many years ago.
The separation legislation had not been passed back then.
Considering the amount already invested in the NBN I fail to see how a FTTN model can benefit this country more than a FTTP model.
We won't know how much that will be at the time they want to stop it until we see the new corporate plan. We also won't know how much FTTP will be rolled out. There will be a point at which it is too late for a switch to FTTN. I doubt we will have reached that point by the time of the next election.
If the government did a benefits analysis for the NBN then we'd be able to see which benefits would not be delivered by FTTN.
So basically what you have to compare here is times frame, do you want a project that will pay for itself quicker but deliver a substandard outcomes or vice versa?
Do you think the Coalition would consider continuing the NBN FTTP roll out as planned? I think they've said too much to be able to back track. I'd love to see a comparison but I don't expect it to happen. I expect them to stop the FTTP roll out.
Do you know what NPV is?
Yes. I explained it to you several months ago.
As widely reported in the media that $9 Billion NPV equates to much higher than $9 Billion.
No, funnily enough $9Billion NPV equates to a current value of exactly $9Billion.
The largest digital economy companies have been founded in the USA. What benefits has FTTP bought to Japan/Korea?
The largest digital companies are the outliers that can only develop in very large capital markets. Since Japan & S Korea are still rolling out their FTTP, the benefits will quickly become apparent to all (except those who demonstrate again the old proverb that there are none so blind as those that will not see).
We don't need FaceBook, Google, etc, based in Australia to get all the benefits of a world-class FTTP network, though you seem to be channelling Malcolm Turnbull with your comment. He was wrong, too.
Yes. I explained it to you several months ago.
Was explaining to Timbel. No need to explain it to me.
No, funnily enough $9Billion NPV equates to a current value of exactly $9Billion.
Yes it equates to $9 Billion right now but what does it equate in Future Dollars.
Did you read the article?
Since Japan & S Korea are still rolling out their FTTP, the benefits will quickly become apparent to all (except those who demonstrate again the old proverb that there are none so blind as those that will not see).
I thought a large % of their populations already had it. By your admission they have not seen the benefits yet so it's unclear on whether there any benefits.
Do you think the Coalition would consider continuing the NBN FTTP roll out as planned? I think they've said too much to be able to back track.
Why, LNP in Qld just threw away a key election promise by dropping the rego price freeze, although trying to sneak it past by increasing the CTP component rather than the registration fees themselves.
I think it's the best case scenario if the Noalition get into power, that they backflip on the FTTP rollout (I'm sure they'll find some way to claim it's too late and by stopping it it'll cost more than finishing it), declare it finished as quickly as possible and sell it off.
It's certainly not my preferred option though.
they agree with satellite/wireless to the 7%.
Well they don't do they CMOTDibbler in fact they have stated quite openly that its a complete waste of money eg
There is enough capacity on private satellites already in orbit or scheduled for launch for the NBN to deliver broadband to the 200,000 or so premises in remote Australia without building its own.
Further
Malcolm Turnbull has slammed the government's NBN satellite plan, calling it extravagant and unnecessary.
So I guess here is that Malcolm will be selling of the two NBN Satellites to some private companies and stepping out of that space entirely!
Which of course means
a) Higher prices
b) Less Bandwidth and data caps!
c) A return to the same expensive Broadband backwater that we saw provided under the Coalition to those who live in outer metroplitan and regional Australia.
Was explaining to Timbel. No need to explain it to me.
I explained it to you. 'You' is plural, and since you had been bifurcating between real and nominal usage in your references to costs as it suited the line you were running, I was just being my usual helpful self.
Yes it equates to $9 Billion right now but what does it equate in Future Dollars.
Your reference was specifically to $9Billion NPV � which is $9Billion right now for comparison.
Did you read the article?
Yes. Did you? Your level of understanding may still have some way to go, in view of your constant repetition of some (inaccurate) coalition slogans.
Yes. Did you? Your level of understanding may still have some way to go, in view of your constant repetition of some (inaccurate) coalition slogans.
Not too sure what you are talking about. The article was about the Telstra deal not the Coalition.
Your reference was specifically to $9Billion NPV � which is $9Billion right now for comparison.
Yes it is $9 Billion NPV. But as said NPV masks the future dollars handed out.
since you had been bifurcating between real and nominal usage in your references to costs as it suited the line you were running, I was just being my usual helpful self.
No need to lecture on real, nominal, sharpe, beta, black scholes or any of that unless you can show if I got the math wrong anywhere.
I know real and nominal can be manipulated and pollies do it all the time. In this instance the $9 Billion NPV has been disturbingly used to understate Telstra deal.
The NBN is not investment grade yet. It has not yet turned a profit and no such thing as guaranteed future profits.
Until you can provide proof in any documentation that even hints that the future viability of the nature of the NBN as being an investment you are merely speculating without basis.
Do you know what NPV is?
To quickly sum up it valuates future cashflows with a discount rate in today's dollars. As widely reported in the media that $9 Billion NPV equates to much higher than $9 Billion.
Yes I am familiar with the NPV concept. I am also familiar with the real cost concept. The fact is Raoul that even if Telstra only valued their network at $9billion that is still $9bn they are missing out on. In the current model they cannot tag this cost onto the current agreement, the best they could do is get a migration payment. These payments at best work out to be 2-3bn of the total cost. So you can remove that portion but you would incur a much higher amount by purchasing the copper outright.
The largest digital economy companies have been founded in the USA. What benefits has FTTP bought to Japan/Korea?
I see you like to take your argument straight from the Coalition, tell me is any argument you made actually original? May I ask you what kind of privately gunded network these big companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter all use? They all use high capacity fibre. Furthermore just because South Korea may not have as many big name companies in it does not in anyway dissuade the notion that the yare benefiting from the technology. The Swedish FTTH CBA showed that the benefits far outweigh the cost. This is even after the fact that a CBA is far from the best tool to judge these matters, you keep claiming that everyone is economically and financially illiterate and yet you idolize three people who continually make easily refutable statements abou accounting and economic practices!
It's probably more cost-effective for Telstra to recover and sell the copper from the exchange to the pillar than the copper from the pillar to the customer. FTTN would be to Telstra's advantage in this respect.
Big assumption here without any basis in evidence. That copper will be more valuable yes because it is of a higher grade but will the customer side be so worthless as to leave it?
afaik no one's suggested the NBNCo would buy the copper. Thodey said they would lease it. However, once FTTN is rolled out, Telstra's copper is isolated from the rest of Telstra's network. That makes it vulnerable to an NBN 'upgrade' from FTTN to FTTP. This could complicate the negotiations for FTTN.
�The copper network belongs to Telstra so you would have to reach an agreement to either buy it or have access to it, but I think it would be in Telstra�s interests to do that,� Mr Turnbull told The Australian Financial Review.
http://www.afr.com/p/technol
Not the only article that has said it, with so many off the cuff comments its hard to say exactly which ones he means.
Do you know what NPV is?
If this was the case then why would Telstra would want to cut a deal with the Coalition if it was getting better deal now ?
The largest digital economy companies have been founded in the USA. What benefits has FTTP bought to Japan/Korea?
This is talking two different things raourules.
If this was the case then why would Telstra would want to cut a deal with the Coalition if it was getting better deal now ?
Suspect that Telstra, along with a lot of others, have a fair idea s to how the next election will go. Thus they, Telstra, need to hedge their bets.
Re the NBN, it will be interesting to see how the June report covers the alleged blowout in in-house staffing, over-expenditure, and the real slippage in the actual physical roll-out for each area. I'm sure that this info is also eagerly awaited by the Coalition.
No, funnily enough $9Billion NPV equates to a current value of exactly $9Billion.
that is true but NPV doesnt think only about today, it thinks whether $9 billion in current dollars invested one way over x periods is worth more than doing nothing.
ie if they invest money of $9 billion now but it shows an NPV of less than $9 billion at the end of the investment then you dont invest in it
thats all NPV is for.
It is a good measure of investment value (but in a Government project where returns are not the only measure it is possibly not a valid option)
no such thing as guaranteed future profits.
It may not be investment grade yet but once built, it's profits are guaranteed. You ignore the basic principle of supply and demand in economics. NBN will be the only supplier of fixed connections. Demand will be through the roof unless the population decides to stop using the internet for good. The ABS points to exponential growth.
The Swedish FTTH CBA showed that the benefits far outweigh the cost. This is even after the fact that a CBA is far from the best tool to judge these matters, you keep claiming that everyone is economically and financially illiterate and yet you idolize three people who continually make easily refutable statements abou accounting and economic practices!
Yep you won't see Raoul quoting that one nor the Coalition as it destroys their baseless arguments entirely, nor the 3 year study into the impact of Broadband Speed on GDP conducted across 33 OECD countries that turned Malcolm Turnbull's speech at the World Broadband Conference into nothing more than a comedy sketch!
Further with respect to the very many misleading comments we see from the Coalition about their "Alternative" Broadband Policy its interesting to note Mike Quigley's comments eg!
Frankly, I think I have a responsibility, if statements are made about the company which I think are factually wrong, I will be happy to go on the public record and correct them.
Likewise if there were factually incorrect statements about what certain technologies can do [in an alternative policy] then I would go on the record to correct that.
I have a responsibility to do that because what you want people to do is make informed choices [at an election].�
Guess Mike like a lot of other people in the Telecommunications Industry is thoroughly fed up with the tripe trotted out by the Noalition and their expensive redundant polluting noodle network to nowhere that they are trying to foister on the Australian public.
See:-
http://afr.com/p/national/qui
Turnbull's response!
�I don�t think there is any doubt NBN�s approach is highly political. They have become partisans,� Turnbull said.
Embarressing isn't it Malcolm, the world's leading luminaries heaping praise on Labor's NBN project and all you've got in response is -its highly political!
So funnnnny!~
Big assumption here without any basis in evidence.
It seems logical that the more copper there is in a duct the more cost-effective it is to recover it for scrap.
... will the customer side be so worthless as to leave it?
That's not what I wrote.
Not the only article that has said it, ...
Fair enough. It makes more sense for the company that owns the copper to build FTTN. That's not the way Thodey was talking though.
... with so many off the cuff comments its hard to say exactly which ones he means.
This is the problem with trying to figure out what they plan to do. They're going to have to have a much clearer plan before the next election if they're to avoid a repeat of the debacle at the last election.
The Swedish FTTH CBA showed that the benefits far outweigh the cost.
Is that the same Sweden that has a higher population density than AU? Was able to do next day service for ADSL connections?
The largest digital economy companies have been founded in the USA. What benefits has FTTP bought to Japan/Korea?
They were able to complete Diablo 3 in 6 hrs.
It makes more sense for the company that owns the copper to build FTTN.
Telstra has wanted to build a FTTN network in AU for some time. This means that it is both commercialy viable and in Telstra's best interests.
This is the problem with trying to figure out what they plan to do. They're going to have to have a much clearer plan before the next election if they're to avoid a repeat of the debacle at the last election.
The NBN will only be a part player in the next election. There are a huge range of other issues currently and new (or old) ones to be trotted out before the next election.
Anyone want to lay bets that Asylum seekers is NOT bought up before the next election? Or that Julia will not be promoting how She got our troops home from Afganistan?
Libs will be talking about the accounting in the last budget (eg paying school bonus pre EOY so it is not counted in budget, investments not in budget, + others)
The whole NBN discussion is now well past the tech/financial issues into political pig headedness.
Labour will never admit that FTTN may have a place to implement NBN at specific sites years ahead of their current schedule.
Libs will not accept FTTP should be the ultimate goal.
The final form the NBN will take will always be dependent on the outcome of the next 2-3 elections. (or 4 if the rollout slows further due to issues/budget/GFC/..)
Remember that with either party, we have the creation of 'New Telstra' when NBN Co is sold. (probably with the same taste as New Coke...)
Telstra has wanted to build a FTTN network in AU for some time. This means that it is both commercialy viable and in Telstra's best interests.
Yes that was capital cities and to lock out competition
Yes that was capital cities and to lock out competition
Exactly, even John Howard wouldn't let them have their way as it would have locked everybody out of the pstn and returned competitors to reselling massively over price Telstra wholesale products for 15 years!
Is that the same Sweden that has a higher population density than AU? Was able to do next day service for ADSL connections?
This will lead to lower per capita cost for them yes. I am not saying it wont. But the nature of our country also makes strong telecommunications infrastructure so valuable.
the rate it's going looking from a tech prospective, Fibre optics has been on the chopping blocks for deployment since the late 70's (well atleast been talked about) fast forward to the 1990's FTTN was the in thing (then, now it the plans to push iit which is atlest10-15 years out of date cramps ftth deployment..) reality today (not that I want to see it) fttn for the masses with xdsl for a 10 year deployment with a min of a 20 year usable service line, with ftth somewhere within a minor upgrade period wthin a 30 year deployment area...
though reality anyone banking on FTTN for the short term will everntually face replacement to FTTH IMO the loner they leave it the more it will cost in deployment cost's...
fttn wouldn't benefit me in the interim nor will it benefit my neighbors in this regard..
fttn can't support 100mb this is already a known fact...
within 10 years we will talking within 1gb/10gb speed and beyond as a throughput connection..
to be honest service 10gb in homes I would say will be in the realm of fibre networking..
once you start looking at the real world total you might see things differently, looking at the sat and wireless components reality that 3 amd 4 % is going to be alot of people and investing in these mediums is going to be a fools errand for the simple fact it will be over subscribed and to be be honest it has been no-end short term solution... when it shoudn't be..
reality ftth should on mass delivery to 100% of the populations as this will keep growing. working the percentages over the 10-30 years it will only increase the have's and the have not's of the continent tie to look to the future..
the libs are cooking the books as a stall tactic raoul about time you woke up to the fact.. that the libs are spreading dogma as a delay tactic for FTTH..
everntually face replacement to FTTH IMO the loner they leave it the more it will cost in deployment cost's...
Thorough analysis needs to be done on this.
to be honest service 10gb in homes I would say will be in the realm of fibre networking..
Your opinion. Personally I feel no difference if on 10MB-100MB
the libs are cooking the books as a stall tactic raoul about time you woke up to the fact.. that the libs are spreading dogma as a delay tactic for FTTH..
The Coalition are not building FTTH.
The Coalition are not building FTTH.
No like the past Coalition governments they will do FA because they are hopeless and its got me stuffed why anyone would support the clueless idiots.
Telstra has wanted to build a FTTN network in AU for some time. This means that it is both commercialy viable and in Telstra's best interests.
Back then (2004/05) Telstra wanted to build it on their terms. They wont be able to do that now, given that Conroy has shown they can be taken to task, and they can be separated. If Telstra buiold the FTTN now (heaven forbid!) it will be under much different circumstances and arguably not as lucrative as their original plan. The really sad thing is that the Libs seem to want to build infrastructure based on a plan from 7-8 years ago, that wont even start build for probably another 3 years. Theres some forward thinking for you!
Labour will never admit that FTTN may have a place to implement NBN at specific sites years ahead of their current schedule. Probably becuase their expert panel already found it was a wasted investement as it would have to be scrapped to do FTTH. Nothing incongruent there.
Libs will not accept FTTP should be the ultimate goal. Turnbull has mentioned it, and said that should be be procvided for. What he wont admit though will be the cost of scrapping the investment in FTTN and how much the FTTH build will cost.
Remember that with either party, we have the creation of 'New Telstra' when NBN Co is sold. (probably with the same taste as New Coke...) Nope. NBN Co is very different to a vertically integrated Telstra monopoly.
Thorough analysis needs to be done on this.
It is widely accepted that FTTH is the future. The rest of the world is moving to it, even over there in France.
Your opinion. Personally I feel no difference if on 10MB-100MB
You obvioulsy dont have kids or a family wanting to use the connection all at once.
The Coalition are not building FTTH. They are in greenfields straight away, and plan to go to FTTH in the future.
Where the upgrade is effected by a FTTN deployment it should be done in a manner which facilitates a future upgrade to FTTH if and when that is felt to be justified by bandwidth demand.[19]
Greenfield sites should be fitted with FTTH as the incremental cost is not dramatically higher than copper or HFC.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.co
So where is Turnbulls thorough analysis that led him to that decision being the best one? Especially when you consider this misleading statement from the same speech.
First it would involve a much lower expenditure of taxpayers� money as it would avoid the cost of a full FTTH rollout. This is outright a lie. He isnt avoiding the cost of FTTH. He is delaying it. He is hiding the cost away to a time after the election. If he is serious about not misleading voters, he would tell us what the upgrade cost from FTTN to FTTH will be before the election so people can consider that when they vote. Where is his thorough analysis that this is the right decision? You cant do a CBA after you have made your choice. That makes it irrelevant and worthless (not that Turnbull will let it say anything other than what he wants it to say anyway).
Out of curiousity, can you please link to the CBA for OPEL Raoul?
Thorough analysis needs to be done on this.
There we go again � calls for Analysis.
Where is the calls for Analysis the FTTN ?
This is the Coalition Thread after all ?
DO I HEAR BIRDS CHIRPING AS SILENCE AS AN ANSWER?
DO I HEAR BIRDS CHIRPING AS SILENCE AS AN ANSWER?
Well considering a Pidgeon was shown to be faster then Telstra Broadband for sending files between rural NSW towns, I think "Birds Chirping" might be right on the money :P
The rest of the world is moving to it, even over there in France.
Forget developed countries like France. Even countries like India are in the process of moving to FTTH. That certainly means we will be one of the few to be left behind if the coalition wins the next election.
http://internetinindia.com/m
Forget developed countries like France
Its worth mentioning given thats where Raoul lives. I know the larger picture is that many more countries are rolling out fibre.
Your opinion. Personally I feel no difference if on 10MB-100MB
Clearly, rr's web browsing experience dictates the needs of the whole Australian public for 30+ years.
The Coalition's "policy" is like building a Harbour Bridge with only two lanes. That's enough to replace current (1920s) ferry traffic across Sydney Harbour, right?
If they are literally unable to comprehend the future past one election cycle, it would explain why they seem to think the NBN equity injections should be on the budget (the asset "never" pays itself off). It would also explain why they think 12Mbps ought to be enough for anybody (faster speeds will "never" be needed). It would also explain why they ignore the cost of a future upgrade to FTTH (the FTTH ugprade would take place "never").
While one can never be certain of what future needs will be, it is illogical to assume that they will be the same as now. Of course, if you can't see past the next election, "future needs" just means "3 years from now needs", so FTTN should be good enough forever then.
The Coalition's "policy" is like building a Harbour Bridge with only two lanes.
Or worse... considering the low upload bandwidth of proposed FTTN solutions, Coalition's plan is more like building a Harbour Bridge with a single lane for cars in one direction and a narrow bicycle lane in the other direction.
While a ubiquitous connection with a downstream bandwidth of 20-30 Mbps may be satisfactory for most consumer-grade services in short to medium term, the upstream bandwidth of "up to" 2-3 Mbps would make the network pretty much unusable for business purposes or even consumer services like HD video conferencing, offsite backup, cloud computing... Unless Coalition's FTTN is designed in such a way to allow for ~20 Mbps upstream (which is highly unlikely considering the costs that would involve), most people would not get much benefit of such an upgrade.
It truly would be a waste of money for most of current ADSL2+ users if billions are spent without enabling the revolutionary new uses of the network. Just increasing the speed of browsing and viewing Youtube videos is not what it all should be about.
Unless Coalition's FTTN is designed in such a way to allow for ~20 Mbps upstream (which is highly unlikely considering the costs that would involve), most people would not get much benefit of such an upgrade.
It truly would be a waste of money for most of current ADSL2+ users if billions are spent without enabling the revolutionary new uses of the network.
I have to agree with this. What most FTTN supporters fail to mention is upload speeds. With a big move towards cloud computing we are going to be uploading a lot lot more. And the current upload speeds of ADSL are unacceptable. I find that most thign that i want to do at home are restricted by my upload of 1mbps. Video chat. uploading files to google docs, remote management, ftp server....
We really need a minimum of 10mbps upload.
Another point why the oppositions plan for mixed internet wont work(FTTN,HCF,Wireless, Satellite,FTTH) is think of it this way. There is no consistency. So if say im a business and wanted to launch a new service like iptv or another that requires high bandwidth, I will look at Australia and say, no point only a few people have high speed broadband and are on an infrastructure that cant easily be upgraded. not worth investing in a business there. But with Labor's NBN, there is a guarantee of service which is future proof. A lot more favorable for new services and businesses.
It truly would be a waste of money for most of current ADSL2+ users if billions are spent without enabling the revolutionary new uses of the network. Just increasing the speed of browsing and viewing Youtube videos is not what it all should be about.
Yes, the trouble is they still think of the Internet as a mass medium � MainStream Media content providers selling to passive viewers/consumers. They think selling data is the only way to make the most money, rather than distributing user-generated content � if not to the public then even just to their family friends colleagues and non-human devices.
What most FTTN supporters fail to mention is upload speeds.
Turnbull has mentioned this in a media release ...
... their FTTN/VDSL rollout would deliver 80 mbps download and 20 mbps upload in 2012.
http://www.malcolmtur
I don't know if he's right or wrong but that's what he's saying and that's what people will hear.
We really need a minimum of 10mbps upload.
see above ... malcolm's got it covered :)
Seriously, is he right or wrong?
So if say im a business and wanted to launch a new service like iptv or another that requires high bandwidth ...
I'm bewildered by ipTV on the NBN. Multicast ipTV requires an 'ethernet bitstream' AVC which (to me) pushes it towards being delivered by ISPs rather than content RSPs (eg. Foxtel, your business). Unicast ipTV doesn't seem (to me) to fit with the CVC product, as mentioned by Bevan Slattery way back in the NBN pricing thread. This isn't the thread to discuss it but any help in understanding ipTV on the NBN very welcome over here ... whrl.pl/RcePDm
I don't know if he's right or wrong but that's what he's saying and that's what people will hear.
80/20 is what an ISP is claiming their "up to" speed is. Real-world speeds are likely to vary widely, from almost the quoted speeds (if you live next door to the node) down to "ADSL2+ speeds" or worse.
If nodes are spaced just slightly further apart than what that ISP is doing (in profitable areas, of course), the speed drops dramatically, in both directions.
Clearly, rr's web browsing experience dictates the needs of the whole Australian public for 30+ years.
It seems that rr has been listening to the claque of coalition catechists who tell each other and anyone who will listen that email and google access is all they want, and it damn well should be good enough for everybody for the next ~50 years.
A quick look at the rate of tech progress and development over the last twenty years will show anybody who wants to know that there is only one FTTP answer to our future needs, starting with the planned completion date of NBN in about another decade.
It would also explain why they think 12Mbps ought to be enough for anybody (faster speeds will "never" be needed).
12Mbps??? Sheer extravagance! Let them eat dialup, it's good enough for them.
80/20 is what an ISP is claiming their "up to" speed is. Real-world speeds are likely to vary widely, from almost the quoted speeds (if you live next door to the node) down to "ADSL2+ speeds" or worse.
Thanks. Not even Telstra was claiming those speeds back in the NBN mkI days.
That's going to be a tricky message to counter. Conroy says up to 100/40. Turnbull says up to 80/20. Most people won't know the difference.
the 80/20 also isn't future-expandable.
the 80/20 also isn't future-expandable.
How far apart are the nodes for that sort of speed. From memory Turnbull had talked 1000m spacing in the past
That's going to be a tricky message to counter. Conroy says up to 100/40. Turnbull says up to 80/20. Most people won't know the difference.
When you look into it though, its Turnbull being deceptive again. He has loudly proclaimed there is no demand for high speeds, no apps that use it today, blah, blah and hence FTTN will be suitable. The interesting thing is the model he is citing from Britain, where up to 76mbps will be provided over FTTN has come to that speed due to a recent upgrade to double the speed from 38mbps.
Currently, those FTTC connections run at up to 38Mbps, and that's being doubled up to 76Mbps in terms of downloads. Upload speeds are to be boosted to up to 19Mbps.
Those on the Infinity 1 package will find their upload speeds (and upload only) super-charge fivefold, with an increase to 9.5Mbps as a theoretical maximum (previously, it was up to 1.9Mbps).
Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/20
Makes a bit of a mockery of his claim there is no demand or need for high speed internet.
So the bigger question, given that the need for speed has been highlighted, why is Turnbull still planning to build infrastructure that will be running at its maximum, with little scope for upgrade, when he could be building FTTH that is much more future proof, and speeds like 100mbps are at the bottom end of its capability.
He needs to explain how much the upgrade is going to cost and what timeframe FTTN is going to be valid, because on the face of it, it wont be long. (Hint BT is talking upgrading to FTTH in 12 months)
When you look into it though, its Turnbull being deceptive again.
It's all talk. What speed is he actually planning to deliver? What's he actually going to offer at the election? Who knows.
Makes a bit of a mockery of his claim there is no demand or need for high speed internet.
I suspect he'll stick to that line but claim FTTN at 80/20 will be able to provide it when it's needed. Will the electorate buy it?
The interesting thing is the model he is citing from Britain, where up to 76mbps will be provided over FTTN has come to that speed due to a recent upgrade to double the speed from 38mbps.
Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/20
Interesting comment at the bottom of that article. Wonder if we will have to deal with similar issues with a FTTN considering it will also use 100 yr old copper
Well that is wonderful news! But many will not benefit. As a BT Business customer on the highest tariff, I am still only receiving 1-2mbs and massive packet loss. BT Wholesale have confirmed there to be a fault between my home and the local cabinet but refuse to repair it. After 4 years of replacing equipment at my expense to satisfy their engineers, that is their official response. And my bill, well it remains the same. Disgusting!
Makes a bit of a mockery of his claim there is no demand or need for high speed internet.
Especially when you see what's being advertised! eg
http://store.virginmedia.com
Speed does matter
The faster your broadband, the more you can do online. Pretty obvious, really, isn�t it?
With Virgin Broadband, everyday browsing is a pleasure rather than a chore. And when it comes to the really exciting stuff, like streaming HD video or downloading, you can enjoy it without having to stop and wait while your connection catches up. Not only that, with our up to 60Mb and up to 100Mb superfast broadband, you can have several people sharing the same connection without slowing each other down.
Fibre optic is the fastest
The mega speeds of up to 100Mb that you can get with Virgin Broadband are thanks to fibre optic cable. It�s made from strands of glass as thin as hair, which carry information by light. This is much, much faster than the copper telephone wire used by other providers. And, unlike broadband down your phone line, fibre optic broadband doesn't get slower the further away your house is from the telephone exchange.
Mmmmmm I guess Malcolm and the Coalition didn't want to refer to this at all and further embarressingly for the Liberal Coalition!
You could say bye bye to buffering
Fibre optic broadband gives you low lag times and consistent speeds. So you could stream films, videos and TV shows even at peak times without seeing that pesky buffering symbol.
Is it just me or does anyone else notice that Tony Abbott has a "buffering" issue when he's plugged in and online? when discussing the Liberal NBN Alternative and other matters?
Further unlink the Liberal Coalition's Alternative Virgin in England state and I quote
[And it's future proof']
However speedy the web gets in the future, fibre optic cable is going to be able to handle it. We've led the way with fibre optic broadband in the UK and we're determined to keep offering incredibly fast broadband to as many people as possible. And it�s only going to get faster.
(Hint BT is talking upgrading to FTTH in 12 months)
Its no wonder when their competitors are already out there in the market place then again its no wonder that Malcolm has stopped referencing the New Zealand FTTN network given that they have already made the move at I might add great expense to FTTH having realised that FTTN is a redundant technology!
Will the electorate buy it?
Could do, but then all Labor has do is say Fibre is the same stuff thats in the ground delivering large amounts of data across the world. (not only that but Fibre is good for you).
Will the electorate buy it?
The electorate will buy what the media feeds them. Puts Turnbull in the box seat.
How far apart are the nodes for that sort of speed. From memory Turnbull had talked 1000m spacing in the past
To get 80/20 on FTTN my guess is your going to be looking at something like 200 meters at least.
That would require about another 200,000 node cabinets batteries etc to your standard FTTN role out that generally provides for a line length of 1.5km which as New Zealand found out only provided at best a 10Mbps average.
Even BT in England on their FTTC (Fibre to the Cabinet) deployment with a line length of 300 meters is only averaging 30Mbps, afaik their FTTN network averages around 8.7Mbps (slightly better than ADSL)
Of course the cost of going FTTC is substantially much higher than FTTN and would simply ruin Malcolm's mantra of "Cheaper" however you still would have to upgrade to FTTH anyway whilst keeping all the existing problems associated with redundant copper.
Could do, but then all Labor has do is say Fibre is the same stuff thats in the ground delivering large amounts of data across the world. (not only that but Fibre is good for you).
I'm not sure Malcolm and Tony appreciate just how good fibre running from the top of the network to the bottom would be for them and I might add in relieving the inherent congestion that's blocking up the system.
Well considering a Pidgeon was shown to be faster then Telstra Broadband for sending files between rural NSW towns, I think "Birds Chirping" might be right on the money :P
I liked this comment
"..I've given up on pigeons as the person who supplied them failed to tell me that they only fly in one direction..."
Just saw this tweet from Turnbull.
@TurnbullMalcolm: Another excellent article on the economics of fibre to the premises by Robert Kenny. #nbn http://t.co/K8hL2fOF
Links to this article
Argues:
- that bandwidth growth is soon going to slow (despite all trends)
- Wireless is viable and offers plenty of bandwidth at all times (yes, contention is dismissed as a problem)
- FTTN is "far cheaper" (but no evidence or even numbers to back up)
Concluding paragraph below. As a bit of fun try replacing you favourite technology for NBN. The basic argument is that because it hasn't been done before we shouldn't do it now.
The NBN is an expensive project involving a substantial restructuring of the telecoms industry. It is also an experiment, in that no other government in the world has intervened on this scale. None of these features of NBN prove that it is a bad idea. However, it suggests there is a high burden of proof on those advocating this path, and conversely says that it may be rash to dismiss criticisms as myths.
Frankly if this is the quality of argument against the NBN then there is no argument against it.
I suspect he'll stick to that line but claim FTTN at 80/20 will be able to provide it when it's needed. Will the electorate buy it?
Unfortunately, the real question is 'How far will the media go to sell it". The media is the distributor for most messages. The electorate rarely buys � typically election messages are totally ignored or rammed down your throat shockjock style.
Malcolm Turnbull � "The NBN is an expensive project involving a substantial restructuring of the telecoms industry. It is also an experiment, in that no other government in the world has intervened on this scale.
Mate, Malcolm's got a mouth on him I have to admit, and continues to mislead entirely the Australian public on the tripe he's trotting out!
Especially when you look at what France is mandating with respect to their Optical Fibre FTTH rollout and I quote!
France launching more strategic FTTH plan
These efforts are paying off now that France is pushing toward low-density population areas, the report said. In such instances, the government plans to encourage FTTH rollouts, continuing its mandate that any provider with a network in place has to lease that infrastructure to other vendors. This prevents duplicate roll outs and ensures that optical cabling reaches as many consumers as possible. The government will then step in and provide funding to any regions that cannot afford investments in FTTH. Under these conditions, the country plans to have 70 percent of the country connected through FTTH by 2015 and 100 percent by 2025.
http://www.perle.com/article
So 70 percent by 2015 and 100 percent by 2025.
Frankly given our Geographical size and population we can't compete with their 100 percent figure by 2025 � although I would suggest that moving the 93 percent figure upwards as population centre's in Regional Australia grow will facilitate the extension assuming that Labor get's another term at the end of which � it will be effectively to late to stop entirely.
Frankly if this is the quality of argument against the NBN then there is no argument against it.
Or simply that Malcolm hasn't done his homework or as I suspect is being, as usual! completely misleading.
Its all a bit sad really seeing Malcolm being reduced to this in supporting Tony Abbott's redundant expensive backward communications policy that many in the Liberal Party themselves don't believe in.
Especially when you see what's being advertised! eg
Mmmmmm I guess Malcolm and the Coalition didn't want to refer to this at all and further embarressingly for the Liberal Coalition!
This is further enbarassement for the NBN in that no other country is hijacking telecommunications policy like the NBN. France, NZ, England are trying to encourage investment via the private sector.
Mr Turnbull no doubt will examine various models and the highly respected Economic Intelligence Unit has been quite critical in it's assessment of the NBN specifically on govt investment.
This is further enbarassement for the NBN
You really just don't get the whole "no private co is going to build in Aussie so the government has too" do you.
You are dreaming if you think private co's are going too.
This is further enbarassement
They are policies set forth by their respective governments, the only difference is that those countries are the same product that your trying to introduce to this forum � PPP.
Public-Private Partnership.
The only highjacking here isn't the Goverment.....
Mr Turnbull no doubt will examine various models and the highly respected Economic Intelligence Unit has been quite critical in it's assessment of the NBN specifically on govt investment.
Raoul you are basically sounding like a liberal mouthpiece here. You seem intent on not adequately investigating the NBN as all of your points stem from Turnbull. If you wish to be a spokesperson for the liberal party stop dressing up your claims as fact, they are as close to fact as the Liberal party has been.
Let us remember who you are reciting are economically illiterate that do not comprehend basic accounting standards with there leader making grossly overblown statements.
The "report" from the Economic Intelligence Unit ignores crucial pieces of evidence including the disaster of a telecommunications policy to date. If they were truly economic professionals they would recognise where market failure has occured and recognise why government intervention is required. The report while it does contain some good points is insufficient as it only provides a cursory glance comparing us with other countries.
This is further enbarassement for the NBN in that no other country is hijacking telecommunications policy like the NBN. France, NZ, England are trying to encourage investment via the private sector
This is nonsense and shows how little you actually consider your statements. The fact is Raoul there has been no evidence to suggest the current free market approach to telecommunications has been successful. With Australia lagging behind and cherry picking being ripe. Sure if we wish to encourage inequality the free market will provide to profitable areas.
Do you remember what happened the last time competitive markets tried to provide broadband service on a large scale. Let me let you know it was called the 'cable wars' and it failed horribly, neither carriers services are priced well because of overbuild. Telecommunications is a natural monopoly as it is in efficient to overbuild area. As such only one fibre wholesaler is best, with one wholesaler economies of scale can be reached and prices can be lowered. If say Telstra as a free company was subsidized to do this the taxpayer would not be paid back and Australia would still need to repay the source of its finances. Furthermore private companies will demand a commercial rate of return which likely mean we will see South Brisbane prices. This shows exactly why private enterprise is not up to the task.
I also note RaoulRoules new quip. It is another way of demonstrating that he actually agrees with the Liberal party, I cannot say I respect a person who cannot critically analyse a political party, there is a difference between broad support and delusional fanaticism.
This is further enbarassement for the NBN in that no other country is hijacking telecommunications policy like the NBN.
Telecom/Telstra has had the opportunity since the late 1980s early 1990s when Beasley pushed through the OTC/PMG-Telecom monopoly merger, and has failed to come up with a plan.
No private enterprise organisation in Australia has ventured near that aim. Well, Telstra did once and even Howard wouldn't swallow what they proposed.
RR, in Australia, history just isn't on your side. Because of our size and population spread, Govts have always had to make the first, second, third and just about every other damned move because it is all too much for private enterprise.
The last massive infra-structure project was the Snowy Mountains Scheme done by Govt under a QANGO arrangement and the NBN is the same as will be the next big one following the NBN. And its my bet that that will have the same bunch of doom merchants as has every other one that preceded it.
I also note RaoulRoules new quip.
I have always been wary of those who state they can do something "cheaper" without giving the specifics and on going costings and known consequences.
I have always thought that there was a fine line between "cheaper" and "shoddy".
Let us remember who you are reciting are economically illiterate that do not comprehend basic accounting standards with there leader making grossly overblown statements.
It's questionable on why it's off budget. Professor Judith Sloan questioned why it's off budget. Accounting Standards are different worldwide and off budget accounting is more thorough in the USA in relation to disclosure on MDA statement.
Off Budget Accounting is a grey area and it's often done to attempt to camouflage the financial performance of an entity.
Myself have worked for a govt financial regulator and know regulators are trying to push companies away from off budget accounting due to it being a murky area with ambiguity. If the govt wants NBN it can be put on the balance sheet and expect Turnbull to make it ONBS.
I also note RaoulRoules new quip. It is another way of demonstrating that he actually agrees with the Liberal party, I cannot say I respect a person who cannot critically analyse a political party, there is a difference between broad support and delusional fanaticism.
Not sure what your talking about, it's good to do things faster and cheaper as well as efficiently.
Opportunity cost doing things faster to save on capital. I work for a DOW 30 company that and had a stellar year and CFO demands faster and efficient work.
Off Budget Accounting is a grey area and it's often done to attempt to camouflage the financial performance of an entity.
BS.
There is no attempt to camouflage the performance of financials.
it's good to do things faster and cheaper as well as efficiently.
And FTTN is not that.
10 years vs 5 years build.
FTTN requires more regulatory challenges and No competition.
Thats why countries are moving towards FTTP.
1. You sound like either someone with Mouth piece by Liberals.
2. Or Someone who has interests with FTTN Rollouts.
3. Another company that lost the tender process.
The NBN will cost likely three times to build as much as the Coalition's faster and cheaper broadband.
Great, so I'll expect a 60% price cut from Telstra and TPG after the Coalition builds their FTTN.
Or is Abbot going spend it all on those new hospitals and roads he said he could build with all the savings.
Is he going to run them for free?
Or is he going to issue shares for us all so we can share in the profits?
To get good dividends for us, he'll need to put tolls on them and charge top prices for the hospital beds. They'll be Rolls-Royce beds for sure.
Coalition's faster
There we go lying, faster than what? Fibre? So tell me raoul what is faster than fibre? I am sure the whole worldwide broadband industry would be flabbergasted to know you have some secret information that they are not privy too about some fantastic new technology that is currently available that is faster than FTTP.
Again cheaper? You and the opposition claim cheaper yet there has been no costings done on their fraudband plan so any claim to be cheaper is an outright lie. At most you can claim it may be cheaper, but until it is fully costed any claim of cheaper is just so much flatulence.
Great, so I'll expect a 60% price cut from Telstra and TPG after the Coalition builds their FTTN.
Sustainable pricing is based on the economics particularly build costs.
We can not change the rules of economics. The NBN wants to make a return and to recoup somethings gotta give with a high build cost.
Again cheaper? You and the opposition claim cheaper yet there has been no costings done on their fraudband plan so any claim to be cheaper is an outright lie. At most you can claim it may be cheaper, but until it is fully costed any claim of cheaper is just so much flatulence.
As said the rules of Economics can not be changed for the NBN.
But can we afford not to build???
And how about the rule of seeing past your own nose/short term political gain and understanding what is actually happening in the area you are looking at???
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405038,00.asp
By 2016, global Internet traffic is expected to reach a staggering 1.3 zettabytes annually, according to a new report from Cisco. To put that into perspective, it's the equivalent of 38 million DVDs per hour. The network equipment maker predicts that monthly Internet traffic in 2016 will be four times the level seen in 2011.
and...
All those Internet users, with all their Internet-connected devices, are also going to need faster broadband, and want to watch more online video. The average broadband speed is expected to increase fourfold, from 9 megabits per second (Mbps) in 2011 to 34 Mbps in 2016, Cisco predicted. And, 1.2 million minutes of video, or the equivalent of more than two years worth, will be consumed every second.
But then again, what would a nobody like Cisco know!!??
Right raoul?
As said the rules of Economics can not be changed for the NBN.
But your statements sure can.
Whats the faster technology?
Stop eating from abbotts hand, the guy is a joke for a polly and hes just proving that day and day again with his antics.
As for the NBN costing three times this must be taken seriously.
I believe where Abbott lied was about how it would cost three times as much to subscribe to an NBN plan than it currently costs to subscribe to an ADSL plan. Are you still maintaining that he wasn't lying when he said that?
Whats the faster technology?
It's a faster and cheaper rollout.
Stop eating from abbotts hand, the guy is a joke for a polly and hes just proving that day and day again with his antics.
FYI the Coalition have mentioned a CBA is to be done to validate any of your fears.
The NBN will cost likely three times to build as much as the Coalition's faster and cheaper broadband.
The Coalition's NBN wil cost likely three times to build as much as the NBN Co's faster and cheaper broadband.
As said the rules of Economics can not be changed for the Coalition.
In absolute terms what constitutes lying is fraud, giving false statements.
LOL...so not only do you give us a definition of lying...
The NBN will cost likely three times to build as much as the Coalition's faster and cheaper broadband.
...but you also give us an example!
Oh dear raoul, don't you know you're not suppose to lie?
I believe where Abbott lied was about how it would cost three times as much to subscribe to an NBN plan than it currently costs to subscribe to an ADSL plan. Are you still maintaining that he wasn't lying when he said that?
Have seen no evidence of lying. If you refer to the corporate plan ARPU will rise for the NBN.
The network has to be paid back and as mentioned the rules of Econonics can not change.
Sustainable pricing is based on the economics particularly build costs.
We can not change the rules of economics.
So they're going to KEEP MY SAVINGS???
That's not fair!
People voting for FTTN instead of FTTH want their $X,XXX back.
It's a faster and cheaper rollout.
Says who? A politician? Come on you know better than that. Without a detailed fully costed plan any claims for a faster and cheaper role out are so much hot air. Seeing as labor are committed to the current NBN design there is no harm in the Opposition releasing their fully detailed and costed plan with roll out schedules and everything. What's that I hear? They don't actually have one? Who'ed a thunk it?
FYI the Coalition have mentioned a CBA is to be done to validate any of your fears.
Yes and they have also said that they will ignore it if it does not say what they want. So what's the point of a CBA again?
You are so willing to just take Abbott an companies mouthings without any criticism at all it just beggars belief.
People voting for FTTN instead of FTTH want their $X,XXX back.
Unfortunately, according to the economics of the Coalition, not only will you get a lower level of broadband, but X = 0 :)
FYI the Coalition have mentioned a CBA is to be done to validate any of your fears.
LOL.
Oh dear raoul, don't you know you're not suppose to lie?
FTTN being the Coalition' s faster and cheaper broadband has been touted to cost 25-30% of NBN capex.
FTTN being the Coalition' s faster and cheaper broadband has been touted to cost 25-30% of NBN capex.
Where did you get that info from?
You also ignore the upgrade costs to FTTP.
FYI the Coalition have mentioned a CBA is to be done to validate any of your fears.
But you yourself said
In reality it's impossible to cost these projects.
Forecasts past one year is hardly accurate
Contradictory much?
It's a faster and cheaper rollout.
Another example of a faster cheaper rollout would be to send free ADSL2+ modems to everybody still using an ADSL1 modem.
It won't speed them up by much, and some won't see any improvement at all, but it's faster to rollout and cheaper.
You also ignore the upgrade costs to FTTP.
And ROI and transfer of costs to "on-budget" and reduction in value of Govt asset and cancellation costs and so on..
I told Turnbull it would be a lot easier to vote lib if they kept the NBN as FTTH.
Did you also ask him if he would not flog it off to Telstra?
Did you also ask him if he would not flog it off to Telstra?
http://www.businessspectator
do we really need to create another privatised monopoly?
What we must avoid is a cycle of telecommunications monopolies. Why? Because that is why the NBN was created to enshrine innovation, deliver a better network, create competition and lower data prices.
To further to failer Coalitions numbers abit � Numbers announced today:
4.3% with unemployment at 5% and inflation at 1.6%
do we really need to create another privatised monopoly?
We have 2 choices here.
1. Privatised monopoly (re:Telstra) which has already proven to be anti-competitive and led to nothing more that inflated prices. Abject failure.
2. Government monopoly that is "predicted" to inflate prices.
Bear in mind that the NBN has only a mandated 7% ROI whereas Telstra has already indicated their preferred ROI is around 25-27%
We dont have enough Govt control in this country IMHO.
The so called free-market forces have created nothing but monopolies and duopolies.
Telstra
Woolworths/ Coles
Toll/ Linfox
Do the math.
You forgot the great way private banks have worked as well no control there!
You forgot the great way private banks have worked as well no control there!
Yes, but there are 4 of them so according to the private sector.... that's plenty.
I am all for reigning in the banks AND fuel companies. The fuel companies (i believe) are guilty of price signalling as they have a system where they post their prices for all (mostly competitors) to see.
And dont get me started on those pointless fuel saver dockets... what a scam that is!
But lets not derail the thread.
To have people complain about a govt monopoly as BAD and a private sector monopoly as GOOD is just madness. Pure madness.
Yes, but there are 4 of them so according to the private sector.... that's plenty.
Well technically speaking the are a lot of building societies, credit unions etc which for all intents and purposes offer the same service, but the big banks still have a firm grip on people's minds.
We now have a regime where its easy to give the bank the flick and move to a a credit union etc, but those reforms are still not widely known.
Anyhow getting back to the topic. What's pretty clear is that 3 or 4 so-called competitors doesn't always add up to competition. Real markets function where there are a dozen or more competitors.
Edit: Incidentally this is still my contention in the backhaul market. And I think the ACCC just doesn't get it there.
And Australia is rife with monopolies or near monopolies. Not just Coles and Woolies. With so many market failures around its surprising the term isn't in more common use.
WerTicus writes... 'I told Turnbull it would be a lot easier to vote lib if they kept the NBN as FTTH.'
Did you also ask him if he would not flog it off to Telstra?
Don't stress poor old Malcolm. Based on their position, we know the coalition have not worked out any detail about their national network policy. At least we must assume they haven't, because they are still waffling, without any detail whatever, about providing 'very superfast broadband' that will be here 'quicker and cheaper than NBN'.
No, I don't know what all that means either. The worrying thing is that the coalition continues to sound equally in the dark.
about providing 'very superfast broadband'
very superfast?
Hmm, can't wait for Malcom to offer really super dooper amazingly extra super fast broadband :)
The worrying thing is that the coalition continues to sound equally in the dark.
Yep, I got this from Senator Conroy today; http://www.minister.dbcde.gov
Turnbull has no broadband policy excuses
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, called for the Coalition to come clean on their broadband plans for the fifth consecutive month.
Policy questions for Mr Turnbull...
TECHNOLOGY
Does Mr Turnbull stand by his August 2010 statement that he can do everything he needs with a 3.5 Mbps download?
Does he stand by his objective to deliver 12 Mbps download as stated in August 2011?
Does he stand by his claim that residential customers need no more than 25 Mbps as stated in May 2012?
Does Mr Turnbull expect this seven fold increase over two years in download speeds to continue in the future, or simply stop?
What upload capacity will Mr Turnbull guarantee?
What percentage of households will be served by which technology � FTTH, FTTN, HFC, wireless and satellite?
How many FTTN nodes does he plan to build? Will he guarantee that all homes will be within 400 metres of a node to support speeds of "up to" 80 Mbps?
Now Mr Turnbull acknowledges that Australia's existing copper network will not fully support his proposed FTTN, how many premises will he be connecting using FTTP?
POLICY
Will he guarantee the structural separation of Telstra? Has it been agreed by shadow cabinet?
Will Telstra be required to divest the HFC assets? Who will be making the investment to make it open access?
Has Mr Turnbull told the National Party that he is going to deliver wireless to regional Australia? Has he told the National Party that he does not support their policy that fibre to the home should be built to at least 50% of premises in regional Australia?
Will he guarantee his new NBN will start within 12 months, despite his promise of a Productivity Committee review and tender for a private sector network provider?
COSTS
How much will his policy cost to the budget?
What price will be charged in country areas without the cross subsidy? Will he guarantee that metro and regional users will pay the same price?
NBN Co is committed to a 7% rate of return. What rate of return will his proposed "Network Co" require to build new broadband infrastructure?
Is Mr Turnbull really going to pay to renationalise the deteriorating copper network?
When will his plan be submitted to shadow cabinet for funding approval?
Wondering when will TurnBull answer these questions?
very superfast?
Yep, that's what the coalition was quoted as saying.
Hmm, can't wait for Malcolm to offer really super dooper amazingly extra super fast broadband :)
We just need to have faith that the coalition offering will provide exactly that.
Just as soon as they work it out themselves, of course.
Wondering when will TurnBull answer these questions?
I guess it's a bit like the comment I made to ungulate above.
When it comes to coalition national broadband policy, we just need to have faith � because so far there ain't nuttin' else to go on.
Wondering when will TurnBull answer these questions?
I want to know is when the media is going to ask the questions?
Wondering when will TurnBull answer these questions?
Darn, I was hoping that Conroy would go in harder, especially over the "faster" promise, asking questions about how Turnbull is going to get all the negotiations done in under 2 years and how he could implement it all without being able to pass legislation through the Senate..
I want to know is when the media is going to ask the questions?
Yes, so do I, don't expect to read about it in the limited news rags though.
When it comes to coalition national broadband policy, we just need to have faith � because so far there ain't nuttin' else to go on.
there's nothing else because the market should provide everything. You just have to give it all the freedom it needs to do its thing. If it doesn't seem to work well, you're not giving it enough freedom. You have to give it more.
If it doesn't seem to work well, you're not giving it enough freedom. You have to give it more.
Freedom = $$$$ right? ;-)
. You have to give it more.
More subsidies, grants, more dead money.. That should do it..
Anything they ask for.
And what about what we want. Afterall, it is our tax paying dollars that will fund the private sector's LNP's FTTN rollout.
And, considering the private sector had over a decade of freedom to improve their tech and provide the public with faster internet while LNP was in GOV, and they didn't do anything except try and turn big profits and screw the public using their services, I don't believe they deserve any more time to do anything.
The FTTH NBN is what is being done because the private sector failed to do anything � so they reap what they sow.
Is this by Renai the reply from Hockey the one people been waiting for?
No.
If you look at the bottom of the article, you'll see this:
Delimiter will respond to Hockey�s comments in a separate article on Friday morning. Image credit: Office of Joe Hockey.
That feeds straight into Abbott's 'it's all about entertainment' line.
In line with the Coalitions mixed messages though, his off-sider is saying this.
I have absolutely no issue with the use of fast broadband for gaming, video-on-demand or the delivery of hundreds of channels of television (Cisco in June 2011 forecast that video in its various forms will account for 91 per cent of all consumer use of bandwidth in 2015) http://twitdoc.com/upload/joe
The big question that should therfore follow to Hockey, is how is the FTTN and HFC technology the Libs want to include in their plan going to handle the substantial increase in data that is coming. It will be getting close to capacity before its even built, given the amount of time a CBA, negotiations etc are going to take.
The challenge for the Coalition should be to find fault with the NBNCo's corporate plan to show we cannot afford the NBN. They have been claiming we cant afford it since the NBN announcement. It hasnt been a challenge for them.
A good day for the NBN.
Delimiter, ABC and later today the IBM report..
http://www-07.ibm.co
A good day for the NBN.
Except, that Coalition are reporting mainly news from Abbott (via Media Mouth Piece � Latika Bourke)
https://twitter.com/Turnbull
I should add that our alternative approach of FTTN is consistent with most telcos in comparable markets.
What about the fact that Telstra has to be paid, and they said they'd overbuild your FTTN with cherry picked FTTP? We've been down that path ffs.
https://twitter.com/Turnbull
if we are a few years behind US why has Verizon stopped its FTTP rollout and AT&T is continuing w it's FTTN?
If Verizon and AT&T could close down competing physical networks would they build it? Yes.
Borrowed from delimiter... This must be what the Coalition is doing their number crunching with.
https://secure.flickr.com/ph
Except, that Coalition are reporting mainly news from Abbott (via Media Mouth Piece � Latika Bourke)
Evidently Latika has fallen under the spell of the speedos.
Whatever I may think about Joe Hockey's opinions (they're wrong), I admire him for actually responding directly to a Delimiter article.
What it means is the Liberal staffers are actually sitting up, paying attention and getting worried about the ass-kicking they're getting in well informed sections of the press
Joe himself? meh.. He just puts his name to it.
He just puts his name to it.
That's what I was thinking when I read his response. He couldn't possibly know that much about the subject.
Mals tweets
Malcolm Turnbull ?@TurnbullMalcolm
@zackster @abctech @joehockey AT&T FTTN cost a third or less of Verizon FTTP but has very similar ARPU. So ROI much better.
Retweeted by ABC Tech & Games
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
Malcolm Turnbull ?@TurnbullMalcolm
@ABCtech @joehockey I should add that our alternative approach of FTTN is consistent with most telcos in comparable markets.
Retweeted by ABC Tech & Games
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
Malcolm Turnbull ?@TurnbullMalcolm
@ABCtech @joehockey if we are a few years behind US why has Verizon stopped its FTTP rollout and AT&T is continuing w it's FTTN?
Retweeted by ABC Tech & Games
Expand
Reply Retw
Some tweets from me:
@djo1475
@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech @JoeHockey #HP s new 200 million $ Aurora DC designed for Biz to leverage #NBN, LNP put that invetment @ risk!!
?@djo1475
@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech @JoeHockey LNP should be ahsamed, supposed to be pro-Biz but FTTN is 90's solution, Biz needs FTTH for growth #NBN
@djo1475
@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech @JoeHockey LNP policy put @ risk 100's of millions of $$ of investment by HP in Australia's digital economy #NBN
I'm not sure im supposed to share this but what the heck, was just given this today at the launch of our new DC � it backs up my tweets above: http://db.tt/VWSAYpIi
Speech Writers..
Must be the same bunch of people who wrote the questions to be asked by Sen. Mary Jo Fisher at the Senate Estimates Committee...
was just given this today at the launch of our new DC
And here I was thinking the timing of Aurora posters going up all around our Canberra office was coincidental :P
That's what I was thinking when I read his response. He couldn't possibly know that much about the subject.
One thing that amuses me is his complaints about the "fanatical" supporters of the NBN. He obviously hasnt stopped and thought why the NBN is popular, and questioned where the same level of support for the Libs outdated FTTN "solution" is. They have been peddling it for a while now. We should be overrun with FTTN fanatics if it such a great alternative.
So you make 3 from WP in that office. ;-)
I'm fairly certain d jOS isn't in our Canberra office and we've also never met.
I may not have been paying attention, but who's the third WP'ian?
I'm fairly certain d jOS isn't in our Canberra office and we've also never met.
Correct but there are two others in your office here on WP, Grundy and one other whose name escapes me. :-)
I am in QLD now but was working in that office for a couple of years.
Because as the internet was eventually the death of printed news/media (it is at least seriously damaged) providing massive bandwidth will eventually be the death of video media as we know it.
That will be a difficult argument given the government has already legislated the privatisation of the NBNCo.
Yes of course, that particular little bit of BS will be trotted out, but there is a difference between privatising NBNco in a fire sale fashion, and privatising it at least 5 years after the whole network has been completed and its aims of ubiquity, economies of scale etc have been acheived.
A privatised NBNCO could be like FANOC from the G9 days. iirc that wasn't seen as a bad thing back then.
There's at least 3 major things wrong in that statement.
Yes, though exactly the same attitude can be found with some Labor, Green or any other flavour of politics voters, so that may not show much beyond the fact that too many people just don't think about the issues at all.
Its very common amongst rural National voters. They say that m,um and dad voted that way, so I am voting that way too. Funny how they remember how previous generations voted, but not previous recommendations made by the party they are voting for. They are happy to forget the Nat proposed basically the same thing as the NBN, and Barnaby even claimed Labour stole their policy. Instead they regurgitate Turnbulls propaganda now.
That will be a difficult argument given the government has already legislated the privatisation of the NBNCo.
If I remember correctly, that's not quiet how it works.
and Barnaby even claimed Labour stole their policy. Instead they regurgitate Turnbulls propaganda now.
If that was the case, perhaps it was foolish of thinking that Barnaby should leave the partnership with LNP and be a separate party (like the greens).
If that was the case, perhaps it was foolish of thinking that Barnaby should leave the partnership with LNP and be a separate party (like the greens).
I dont think he would get preselection in his own party ;)
his own party
Do Barney Rubble's own party, have their meeting in Telephone Boxes?
Do Barney Rubble's own party, have their meeting in Telephone Boxes?
They don't have Telephone boxes, they have carrier pigeons.
They don't have Telephone boxes, they have carrier pigeons.
Yeah, but Barney would mix up his Pigeons with some Magpies.
They say that mum and dad voted that way, so I am voting that way too.
Ahem � I'm certainly no expert on this, in fact it's not exactly top-of-mind stuff, but the (admittedly not many) people I hear saying 'I've always voted for the X party' seem be in about the same proportion as the national vote recorded by the respective groups.
They are happy to forget the Nat proposed basically the same thing as the NBN, and Barnaby even claimed Labour stole their policy.
Now you're talking. It looks like a classic case of circumstances alter attitudes, or at least alter the political platitudes.
Instead they regurgitate Turnbulls propaganda now.
Yes. When I hear it happening, the words 'get a life' come to mind. It's obvious that Tony Abbott is way out of his depth on NBN policy, but Malcolm Turnbull continues to present as claiming that he has all the answers, when it is pitifully apparent that he doesn't even understand the questions.
http://technologyspectator.c
In a later clarification to respected Australian IT site Delimiter Hockey insisted that there had been a �deliberate distortion of my use of the word capacity� and argued that he had not been arguing that 4G could match FTTH in terms of bandwidth capacity but had actually been arguing that 4G had greater capacity to compete in the market against fixed-broadband in the residential market.
However, it was definitely not a smart idea for Hockey to be espousing LTE as a suitable next-generation residential broadband service � because that is the exact opposite direction to where LTE is currently headed in the global market.
The mobile broadband revolution has indeed created massive new revenue streams for mobile operators but it has also cost them, and continues to cost them, a huge amount of money to supply those services by deploying ever more extensive 3G/4G networks to meet the booming demand from subscribers for mobile broadband.
...etc :)
Nice article there.
http://technologyspectator.
Nice article there.
Very nice, which makes a meal of the coalition claims to understand our comms needs now and ensure that future needs are met.
If anybody wants dessert with that meal, it's worth going to the two Delimiter stories mentioned. In the original story, Hockey appeared to have little idea about the subject, and in the second 'clarification' article he confirmed it completely.
If anybody wants dessert with that meal, it's worth going to the two Delimiter stories mentioned. In the original story, Hockey appeared to have little idea about the subject, and in the second 'clarification' article he confirmed it completely.
And if you want a midnight snack with that,
He was using Verizon in USA as an example, Verizon uses both LTE and GPON network.
Something just doesn't add up.
Something just doesn't add up.
deja vu all over again.
He was also quoting South Korea approvingly as an example of the system we should be rolling out, saying their new 'FTTN' network was the way to go.
Which is interesting � because SK are mostly doing FTTP. It took a while before somebody got this through to him.
Which is interesting � because SK are mostly doing FTTP. It took a while before somebody got this through to him.
Maybe a FUD webpage needs to be created. Simply show statements by LNP and the truth after each one..
Call the webpage nbnfud .com...
Maybe a FUD webpage needs to be created. Simply show statements by LNP and the truth after each one...
A new thread has just been created on WP: 'Fighting the NBN FUD'. As you probably know, there was a similar thread running for some time before that, but a couple of the posters started getting stroppy so the mods had to shut it down at that point.
And it's not just the coalition, of course. There are some other sources of purest FUD that deserve their day in the sun. Sunlight in these cases can be very cleansing . . .
He was using Verizon in USA as an example
At this point, I wouldn't doubt that he was just making it up...
I am originally from the US, and have seen a huge number of Verizon installs. Not a single install that I've witnessed has ever taken more than 1 hour (which is the time that they quote you when you call for the appointment).
I think he is either flat-out lying, or severely mistaken...that "half day with 2 people" scenario is probably a worst case, and he was quoting it as an average.
Just reading about the leaked Xbox 720 stuff.
Microsoft want pretty much everything in the cloud by 2015.
How is 4g and HFC going to cope with everyone in the street/ suburb watching TV, playing games (including single player) and generally doing everything entertainment related on the Internet.
I am sure Sony and Nintendo have the same sort of ideas. Then mix in your smart TVs and other gadgets.
Then you have things like the glasses that will probably appear in 2014 that will require an Internet connection to get augmented reality. Google is working on the same sort of things.
Will it be a case of "Sorry family, movie night is cancelled, everyone else got in before us"
We are in a really exciting tech time and it is frustrating to think that we will be left behind.
Microsoft want pretty much everything in the cloud by 2015.
Pitty the next election will happen before 2015
I think 2015 is going to be a big year when it comes to the internet.
The National Party have a secret pact within their members � no one is allowed to connect to the NBN and maintain their membership.
The Liberal Party will sanction any large business who plugs into the NBN, or is seen to be supporting it. No business group is allowed to publicly promote the NBN, otherwise the Business Council will have them sanctioned.
Now THAT is the Coalitions position.
The bloody coalition are going to ruin this country with their telco mismanagement. We need to move forward not play political games which will hold the country back.
More Telstra monopoly is not the answer.
One thing I'd like to know is,
When are all the big stake holders in the NBN � the ISPs, the IT industry and so on going to start making a real noise about this issue.
Any (sensible) thoughts?
There has to be quite a few large businesses who will have a very large stake in the NBN by late next year.
When are all the big stake holders in the NBN � the ISPs, the IT industry and so on going to start making a real noise about this issue.
Wondering that myself, but what media outlet will give them a hearing..?
Wondering that myself, but what media outlet will give them a hearing..?
Well for one thing, I'm sure that once things get rolling the RSPs themselves (I don't know if this term is really going to catch on or if we'll still call them ISPs) will be promoting the NBN in their ordinary advertising. So by implication people will start to feel its the "next big thing.. must have"..
But will they also be brave enough to put on their advertisings links to their websites where people can read about how the NBN is under threat?
But I've yet to see why it can't be accelerated.
I expect the reason would be the logistics of getting sufficient additional skilled labour at a reasonable rate. The corporate plan looks to have an initial ramp up period then a constant rollout rate for the 5(-7?) years.
Well for one thing, I'm sure that once things get rolling the RSPs themselves (I don't know if this term is really going to catch on or if we'll still call them ISPs) will be promoting the NBN in their ordinary advertising. So by implication people will start to feel its the "next big thing.. must have"..
I imagine that the current situation is only RSP's.
Their own business plans must cover
1) The NBN
2) ??? An unknown Coalition result
the Coalition keep saying people will pay more with the NBN
But they will control the NBN in 2013 if the prices go up it will be the Coalition who does it
the Coalition keep saying people will pay more with the NBN
This belongs in the FUD section � the Liberal Party have been caught out time and again lying to the Australian Public on this issue which doesn't reflect what the industry is currently providing and will provide into the future.
But they will control the NBN in 2013 if the prices go up it will be the Coalition who does it
Unfortunately the Liberal Government have a track record in not being able to control the industry and this was amply reflected during their last term in office and further demonstrated by their current leaders complete lack of understanding or interest in it eg
a) he didn't even bother to turn up for the policy launch during the last election
b) simply doesn't understand the technology nor the issues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4nuELIPh3E
And Tony Abbott's latest commitment to Demolish the NBN! April 12 2012
We do not intend to continue with what we think is unnecessary and to expensive
And we certainly don't guarantee to keep in Public Ownership something where competition I think is generally better at delivering an affordable service
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrG_5N9ikfE
For comment see
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
What is being stated here by the Liberal Coalition is in effect that Outer Metropolitan and Regional and Remote Australia are going to be consigned to the same Broadband Backwater that they have had to become so used too for so long eg dial up, ADSL, and slow congested Mobile wireless (where you can get it of course)
Further that the current cost structures provided by NBN Co for those in Regional Australia will have to go up enormously! �
As the new owners claw back their "investment costs" and look to maximise thier ROI on the purchase of NBN equipment � eg the ""Rolls Royce"" Satellite service that is currently on the board � not to mention the multi billion dollar LTE-TDD Fixed Wireless network both which were designed specifically to serve 7 percent of the population.
But they will control the NBN in 2013 if the prices go up it will be the Coalition who does it
They will simply say its labors fault... That's their policy. Fear and misinformation.
I just wonder if the coalition will built a trail site to show FTTN works or built it blindly like NZ and get caught out.
More Telstra monopoly is not the answer.
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
That is owned by the people
Great in fact thanks for asking :)
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
I'm quite happy as it has a legislated rate of return. Not even Telecom/Telstra had that in the pre-deregulated days. I can remember the prices charged for STD calls back in the mid-80's, and a dollar bought a hell of a lot more lollies than it does now.
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
Totally fine.
- A NBN monopoly is restricted to a return of 7%
- A NBN monopoly seperates wholesale from retail
- We only have one set of power, rail, water, roads and sewer infrastructure
We should only have one set of telco infrastructure and let the RSP's compete in the retail section.
Industry has proven a failure in delivering decent telco infrastructure, it's time for the government to step in.
How to handle the NBN long term? If it is making good money and customers are happy why change things and sell it? People are happy with Aust post remaining in government hands, why not the same with wholesale telco?
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
It doesnt have a Retail arm to compete with it's own wholesale customers like T$ BigPond so great!
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
How do you feel about the way telstra has handled the monopoly of wholesale and retail?
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
Monopolies can theoretically be very efficient, when they have the right goals. As long as the Government of the time directs NBN Co properly, there is nothing to be concerned about.
However, with the Coalition at the wheel...science help us...
I imagine that the current situation is only RSP's.
Their own business plans must cover
1) The NBN
2) ??? An unknown Coalition result
And if you're an RSP then the NBN looks like plain sailing. But the Coalition? More upheaval and potentially ending up in a situation where the ISPs go back to effectively reselling Telstra xDSL ports. I'm sure some of them are privately not happy.
How do you feel about more NBN Co monopoly????
If not sold off it will end up as anothyer featherbeded union shop where the customer comes last. Cost will be no object as it can all be passed on to the users.
I think the Coalition will roll out FTTN instead of FTTP in brownfield sites within the 93%.
I don' think so! This will mean that they have to install a Node in the centres of a 500 metre household/business radius for everyone who currently doesn't or won't have FTTP on a given date. Otherwise the benefits of FTTN just wont be applicable.
And that, mate, will be a massive operation.
Not to mention a free and eternal source of vehicle batteries for the less well off in our Community. I suppose even accidental or unintentional Welfare is still Welfare ;-)
This will mean that they have to install a Node in the centres of a 500 metre household/business radius for everyone who currently doesn't or won't have FTTP on a given date.
And the DSLMS cut off? What of them.? Or is Telstra going to be the lone Wolf again?
And that, mate, will be a massive operation.
Indeed, and they all need to be powered, they'll need council approval, will require a new-deal to be done with Telstra.
I don't see it ending well for them, but then again has it ever for the coalition when it comes to Broadband?
Since the 'NBN MK2a' will pay for itself, it's time for the coalition to just leave it alone and let it be rolled out; We get a future proof network, and the whole country gets the NBN. No further need for each successive government to have to worry about it then.
Let RSPs compete for customers without having to worry about an ageing Copper access network.
This is what I hope at least, I desperately don't want FTTN.
And that, mate, will be a massive operation.
Bigger than rolling out FTTP?
It's either FTTN or FTTP in these areas. Do you believe the Coalition will roll out FTTP? I don't.
install a Node in the centres of a 500 metre household/business
Considering the Coalition seems to be avoiding what they mean by high speed broadband I bet they will shove nodes in at a spacing so everyone can get minimum 1500k connections (assuming perfect copper of course) then call it job done.
They will totally ignore that 1500k is not high speed anything and will completely ignore anyone getting below that because their copper is so corroded.
They will just point to some sheet of paper and say "according to this you are getting 1500K so you must be wrong".
Considering the Coalition seems to be avoiding what they mean by high speed broadband I bet they will shove nodes in at a spacing so everyone can get minimum 1500k connections (assuming perfect copper of course) then call it job done.
I think the Liberals neither have the intention nor the will nor the capability to get anywhere near building a FTTN network.
You mean like the GFC cash hand outs, the school kids cash hand outs and carbon tax compensation?
All of which serve a good and reasonable purpose (as well as being deliberately populist).. What good does a baby bonus serve? Whilst at the same time slashing funding for universities? I know.. it gets us a population boom and an immigration boom at the same time .. clever!
Sounds like you are describing the current Labor government with it's many policies dictated to it by the Greens, even when it was breaking electoral promises like the carbon tax.
The carbon pricing scheme is hardly populist is it?
Compare that to the "feel good but do nothing" measure Tony's concocted as a climate policy.
Except that if the carbon tax doesn't cause pain then it won't be effective.
Simplistic rubbish mathew, and I'd have thought better from someone who seems to take pride with numbers.
What actually happens is the following.
a) Some pain is actually felt by wealthier households.
b) A lot more pain is "felt" by the corporate sector. In short some companies will get less of the profit share. Which isn't a bad thing because over the past 2 decades the profit share has grown considerably.
And before you even say it, no, the extra costs do not automatically get all passed down to households. Some do. But a lot doesn't. If you really want to BS about it, then first go and read what the Treasury modelling has to say about it. I'm just keeping it simple here so others can see you're bullshitting.
Oh and to the moderators, if you're wondering how this got off topic, I think megalfar started it.. but with provocation from everyone's favorite troll, bushiebruce :)
Considering the Coalition seems to be avoiding what they mean by high speed broadband I bet they will shove nodes in at a spacing so everyone can get minimum 1500k connections (assuming perfect copper of course) then call it job done.
That would not be inconsistent in any way with all the statements the coalition spokespeople have made to date about the detail of their national network policy.
That would comprise the fall of the first boot. Anyone wondering what might comprise the fall of a second boot might like to ponder that, with NBN off the table for anything that isn't locked in when the coalition take power, the field will be wide open for Telstra to roll out its own FTTP system to any cherrypicked non-NBN locations.
This would provide the worst of all worlds. Most of the non-NBN area would not get FTTP, and the high value bits that got Telstra fibre would be condemned for ever to the high cost/lousy service monopolist paradigm we've seen for many years.
That would not be inconsistent in any way with all the statements the coalition spokespeople have made to date about the detail of their national network policy.
Yep even Conroy is starting to sink the boot into the tripe being trotted out as an alternative to the NBN by the Coaltion!
See
news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has accused his Opposition shadow Malcolm Turnbull of being �evasive� with respect to the Coalition�s telecommunications policy, stating the Liberal MP had �no excuses� for failing to come clean on the policy after five straight months of questions on it.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
Malcolm knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, has been repudiated by the science time and again, � is on arse kicking second to none with respect to his diatribe on what he purports to the Australian public is "cheaper" !
Whilst Senator Conroy travels around the world picking up awards for being one of the leading """""Lights""""" in FTTH deployments!
Whilst Malcolm struggles with his party and his leaders position which is reflective of what you would have seen last century � not to mention that it is is now being consigned to the scrap heap of redundant technologies that are no longer relevant to the 21st century- nor I might add economically viable!
So sad to see Malcolm consigned to being a mouthpiece for a man who by his own admission doesn't understand what Peak Speed is nor I might add is well past his own Peak!
Malcolm knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, has been repudiated by the science time and again, � is on arse kicking second to none with respect to his diatribe on what he purports to the Australian public is "cheaper" !
Now, now, if we are going to quote Mr Turnbull, we should get it right. The coalition solution, whatever it may be, has been frequently iterated as "cheaper AND faster".
So sad to see Malcolm consigned to being a mouthpiece for a man who by his own admission doesn't understand what Peak Speed is
Sadness is not what I get when I hear somebody, who is clearly intelligent enough to understand the issues if he wanted to, rabbiting on with some absolute rubbish that is technically wrong and nationally counterproductive. And all his own work, apparently.
Considering the Coalition seems to be avoiding what they mean by high speed broadband I bet they will shove nodes in at a spacing so everyone can get minimum 1500k connections (assuming perfect copper of course) then call it job done.
That's what I have now on a Telstra ADSL1 Exchange and I am not on NBN 1Y3. The prognosis does not look good.
So we put up with another 18 months of campaigning, and if LNP win, put up with 3 years of incompetent Govt then are told that what we have is the best we will ever get. Despite "the best" already being on offer right now.
Especially seeing the potential threat here in New England, the State Independent, has just signed up with the Nationals federally. And had the gall to accuse Windsor of trashing the Independent "brand" by supporting Labor! Go figure.
http://www.skyscrapercity.co
This link is about another piece of projected national infrastructure: a rail link from Victoria to Queensland.
I've posted it to show a contrast by the Opposition with it's NBN policy.
It's interesting that there is no mention of the mantra words "market forces", "competition", or "free enterprise" in what they want to do. They seem quite happy to spend tax-payer money on a government monopoly, so long as it's not the NBN.
It's a very shameful thing that the Opposition objects to the NBN project which isn't costing tax-payer money at all.
Anthony Albanese should jump up and down and say he has a half-baked idea to build a railway that is "cheaper and faster" than the one being touted by the Opposition.
http://www.skyscrapercity.c
This link is about another piece of projected national infrastructure: a rail link from Victoria to Queensland.
That sounds like a worthwhile project to me. It's not cheap but has some great benefits to offer. Gets a lot of trucks off the roads and helps boost the economy's of the inland areas.
Now wouldn't it be handy if these places had improved telco services to go hand in hand with this new industry ;)
It's either FTTN or FTTP in these areas.
or HFC.
Turnbull has already said he will be seeking to have the HFC upgraded and possibly making it open access wholesale only. Turnbull is all about pushing the line he can do just as good for much cheaper, and have it available faster. As such he has given no indication he will overbuild the HFC footprint with FTTN. That would take time and money, both of which he doesnt want to waste. He has pushed "HFC provides the solution elsewhere in the world" line for too long to say, oh, we will build FTTN there too just in case it doesnt.
Simplistic rubbish mathew, and I'd have thought better from someone who seems to take pride with numbers.
a) Some pain is actually felt by wealthier households.
I wouldn't exactly call it pain, our family isnt eligible for any compensation as combined we make too much money but I did the sums and it's about $3 a week extra or $152 a year � frankly i'm not even going to notice it and Im in favor of a price on carbon anyway. At least the system implemented here is actually going to have the intended impact unlike the joke they have in europe!
Especially seeing the potential threat here in New England, the State Independent, has just signed up with the Nationals federally. And had the gall to accuse Windsor of trashing the Independent "brand" by supporting Labor! Go figure.
That electorate will be interesting to watch.
From what I have seen, Tony Windsor is one of the most pragmatic politicians ever, and he has served his region well by ensuring it participated in both the Fibre and Wireless trials and rollouts.
It's amazing that he has admitted to not knowing how to use a computer, but he has obviously paid attention to the experts and politically got his nose to the trough first.
His electorate will obviously judge the network and thus his decision making with first hand experience and not pure opinion.
Will they judge him as a visionary or a spendthrift?
I'll for sure be paying close attention to his results.
or HFC.
We've discussed this before. I still disagree with you, and Turnbull.
Turnbull has already said he will be seeking to have the HFC upgraded and possibly making it open access wholesale only.
Turnbull has already said lots of stuff. I don't believe he will be able to do this.
The Senate has nothing to do with competition, it's ACCC.
The Senate is there to pass laws. That's why it took a while to get the NBN up and running.. Remember Abbott blocking legislation up until he lost control of the Senate in July 2011?
Payback is a bitch! :)
Methinks raol doesn't sound happy with the prospect of the Liberals getting into power and flogging off NBNco..
Or is it he isn't happy with anyone pointing this inevitable conclusion out?
Or is he really convinced that FTTN is great? Poor sod.
Or is he suffering cognitive dissonance and just can't digest the fact that the Liberals not only won't be able to legislate over anything related to the NBN but that fact is also a harsh reminder of the fact that their "promises" to scrap taxes will also run aground in the Senate..
Who knows...
Who cares!
C'mon, CMOT, you have been commenting on the coalition NBN position with some frequency � so what do you know that the coalition are planning to do?
I'm just saying what I think they're going to do from what they've been saying. I don't "know" anything. I'm just expressing an opinion.
What are your reasons that FTTN could happen, given the political and other realities of the situation?
Thodey didn't seem bothered about renegotiating the deal with the NBNCo if the NBNCo switched to FTTN. With the legislation that's been passed and the deal that's already in place it's feasible. That's not to say it's what the Coalition will do. Just that I think it's where they're heading.
I can give you one reason FTTN may happen. That's because the Liberals get hoisted on their own rhetoric.
That's one reason I don't think they'll continue with FTTP.
Thodey didn't seem bothered about renegotiating the deal with the NBNCo if the NBNCo switched to FTTN.
Telstra's opinion is largely irrelevant. What matters is political and practical reality.
- Who are you going to do the redesign? NBNco? For reasons I've already discussed this is going to lead to resistance. Most likely the Liberals will be face with the delays involved in reappointing a new CEO and senior staff. Indeed the Liberals might just do this anyhow out of a need to exercise political control. If that doesn't take at least six months then I'm a garden gnome.
- Even if Telstra are creaming their jeans over the thought of going FTTN, are they going to pull out a pen and sign the day after the election? Not bloody likely. The process is complex for a reason and again I'll bet you a hundred bucks it takes more than a year and most likely quite a bit longer.
- What regulatory framework are you going to use? The current one is a poor fit. New legislation will not get through the Senate. Can you say delays? Yes you can.
- What about the rest of the industry? Forgot about that one too eh? How about if they Liberals do the most stupid thing possible and try to wholesale HFC? Need I go into that?
So, CMOT, given that if the Liberals were naive and inept enough (and they aren't naive) to do this, why would they? Given that going into the 2016 election they will have been seen to do nothing, whereas Labor will promise to restart the NBN.
It isn't going to happen!
Telstra's opinion is largely irrelevant.
Telstra's opinion is extremely relevant to any FTTN proposal.
Who are you going to do the redesign? NBNco?
If Telstra is prepared to renegotiate the deal for the NBNCo to switch to FTTN then it's possible they'll include their FTTN network design and/or a contract to help design the network.
Even if Telstra are creaming their jeans over the thought of going FTTN, are they going to pull out a pen and sign the day after the election?
Nope. I've said what I think about renegotiating the deal.
What regulatory framework are you going to use?
Same as now but with a different product set. It's still NBNCo and it's still a national FTTx, satellite and wireless network. All that's happened is that FTTN has been added to the technology mix. They can sell data/voice wholesale bundles on FTTN (see the G9 SAU).
What about the rest of the industry? Forgot about that one too eh?
Nope. I've already said the industry will go ape-spit if the Coalition let Telstra build the NBN. It's a horrible possibility but given the Coalition now supports separation of Telstra it hopefully won't happen.
So, CMOT, given that if the Liberals were naive and inept enough (and they aren't naive) to do this, why would they?
What's the alternative? Murdoch (ours) thinks they'll do nothing. Arkansas thinks they'll let Telstra build it. I think they'll switch the NBNCo to FTTN. You?
they'll include their FTTN network design and/or a contract to help design the network.
By using their previous designs from previous proposals, they won't be designing one from scratch.
I think they'll switch the NBNCo to FTTN. You?
FTTN cannot be done unless you take ownership of the Copper network, what can you not understand?
Dated March 21st, 2012.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/woul
"The copper network belongs to Telstra, so you would have to reach an agreement to either buy it or have access to it, but I think that it would be in Telstra's interests to do that," he is quoted as saying.
Buying Telstra's copper network back has always been the nuclear option � the one thing that the government was trying to avoid. It is the telco equivalent � if there is such a thing � of Barack Obama's recent refusal to rule out military options when asked how he would deal with the Iranian nuclear program.
Not only would Turnbull's nuclear option be extraordinarily expensive, but it would also nullify the value of the entire Telstra privatisation, and, in real terms, be a concession that Australia's entire telco privatisation exercise has been nothing more than 15 years of sad, unrecoverable farce. That said, privatisation was originally engineered by Turnbull's own party, which adds an extra dose of irony.
You could even go so far as to say that the entire point of the NBN was to avoid such a purchase, which would bury anywhere up to $20 billion of taxpayer capital in an ageing, decaying infrastructure that would, if it were purchased by the government, become a disaster in asset management.
You could also say that leasing the copper network is equivalent to launching a missile.
I think they'll switch the NBNCo to FTTN
I hope the designers will include enough fibre to each FTTN node to support
FTTP on demand.
http://www.btplc.com
Telstra's opinion is extremely relevant to any FTTN proposal.
Its irrelevant to what the Liberals will actually do.
If Telstra is prepared to renegotiate the deal for the NBNCo to switch to FTTN then it's possible they'll include their FTTN network design and/or a contract to help design the network.
I see, so the Liberals are going to hand it all over to Telstra. You're forgetting the gaping hole in your argument. Whatever way you squirm the political and practical reality is that it will take too much time and deliver the Liberals with nothing to show for themselves going into another election against a far superior policy from Labor.
Nope. I've already said the industry will go ape-spit if the Coalition let Telstra build the NBN. It's a horrible possibility but given the Coalition now supports separation of Telstra it hopefully won't happen.
Then you're making my argument. The Liberals stand to gain nothing from being involved in FTTN. They will sell off NBNco at the first opportunity.
What's the alternative? Murdoch (ours) thinks they'll do nothing. Arkansas thinks they'll let Telstra build it. I think they'll switch the NBNCo to FTTN. You?
Me? I've been here long enough to think it through and realise that the Liberals really are in deep shit if they were really serious about implementing something that sounded like Malcom Turnbull's noises. The reality is his noises have nothing to do with what will happen under the Liberals. Its a smokescreen and a bookmark.
And I tell you something else. He knows it is. About the only thing Turnbull is being sincere about is his belief that it should be in private hands.
Its always a weak argument to say so and so has this opinion.. so and so has that opinion... yeah.. so?
It seems your entire function is to generate a form of U � as in uncertainty. Here you are every single day nit picking, gain saying. Not really taking it all in. If you're not to be regarded as a concern troll then you should actually stand for something and argue it.
As it stands you've totally failed to consider the question, what actually happens when they get into power? As it is you seem to be overly trusting of Turnbull and seem to want to believe that his Party has a thread of honesty or decency.
Now, let me ask you again..
Given the fact that if the Liberals tried to implement FTTN, it would be political poison. Do you really think they'll actually try? Why? And don't tell me its because you read Turnbull's tea leaves!
I hope the designers will include enough fibre to each FTTN node to support
Which would contravene the "cheaper and faster"...
What's the alternative? Murdoch (ours) thinks they'll do nothing. Arkansas thinks they'll let Telstra build it. I think they'll switch the NBNCo to FTTN. You?
Not quite CMOT. I think the Coalition wants to create the scenario where they think they'll be able to finally create "competition", and I use that term very loosely, in the infrastructure space, simply so they don't have to create an NBN. They want business to do it for them. They hint at this when they talk about still seperating Telstra (therefore attempting to equalise wholesale competition in the market)
They already tried this (competition and it's regulation in a wholesale market) over a decade, and it didn't work. Thiis is essentially why I consider the Coalition's plan to be a waste of time. If they couldn't get anything done over aa decade, then they cannot be trusted to do anything subbstantial in a lesser timeframe without subsidising business to a taxpayer funded money drip. That they should be ideologically opposed to this (by their dogma of "business in competition fixes everything") as evidenced by their entire argument against the NBN from day dot, in my view, is disingenuity on a national scale.
In my opinion, they aren't really sold on even fixing the problem (in the telco market) at all. It was a long way for me to go about it, but essentially I'm agreeing with Ung. It's all just a smokescreen for the Coalition to get into power. Until then, they will appear to promise something, but once in, will find any excuse to do, as a party, as little as possible and expect business to fix it all for them so they can say "working as intended" while deflecting blame for their inaction anywhere but themselves.
1) Labor has done all the hard work by structurally separating Telstra which Mr Turnbull supports.
Telstra is being separated by shifting its retail division to the NBN. Halt the NBN and you halt the separation.
2) National scale planning � Don' t think so as NBN was able to roll out to Tassie mainland relatively quickly before/after election.
One small state is not "national scale", and the rollout is far from finished.
Legislation is done dusted.
Legislation for the current NBN.
Well Mr Thodey said the Coalition plan has merits � faster payments.
How is that important to anyone other than Telstra?
2) Mr Turnbull supports FTTH to new estates not too sure what you are talking about and for there to be competition for private operators in greenfields.
Private operators can install FTTH in greenfields if they want to.
If you mean actual competing infrastructure...
The NBN FTTH is oppressive
Haha.
and has no competition
This is half wrong and half misleading.
Retail competition will be as strong as ever.
Infrastructure competition is counterproductive, unless you don't care about actual consumer outcomes and consider competition to be the end itself and not just a means.
and needs stricter laws.
If the Coalition wants stricter laws, then they need to pass legislation, which is rather difficult with a hostile senate.
Of course, stricter laws are oppressive...
By using their previous designs from previous proposals, they won't be designing one from scratch.
I don't see why Telstra's design from the NBN mkI RFP wouldn't be a good starting point for an NBNCo FTTN design. Why start from scratch when you have something you can use?
FTTN cannot be done unless you take ownership of the Copper network, what can you not understand?
From your quote ...
"The copper network belongs to Telstra, so you would have to reach an agreement to either buy it or have access to it, but I think that it would be in Telstra's interests to do that," he is quoted as saying. (my bold)
I understand there are two ways of doing it. Thodey's comments a couple of months back indicate he sees the NBNCo leasing the copper if they switch to FTTN.
You could also say that leasing the copper network is equivalent to launching a missile.
In what way? It's just more Telstra infrastructure for the NBNCo to lease.
Hopefully we'll never find out who's right.
Something we do agree on ;)
Nope. Once upon a time he said wireless would be good enough. Just because he said it doesn't mean I believe it.
Didnt say you did. When he was saying wireless was the answer, that was his current "policy" and that was what we discussed and expected from him. He now says HFC,FTTN,FTTH, wireless and Sat, under various owners and funding models is the go. I havent seen any update on that. Have you? If not, thats what we have to expect from him, believe it or not.
From a politician? You certainly have told us that has to happen in the past. You were even holding onto Tony Smiths "broadband policy" long after he was gone, simply because that was the last announced policy from the Libs. Why has that changed?
Why start from scratch when you have something you can use?
Because if Coalition have NEW REQUIREMENTS � A NEW DESIGN IS REQUIRED.
i.e. a Tender process like NBNMK1 did.
From your quote
Yes, and it would be greater than $11 billion provided currently by Telstra/NBNCo Agreement, because it's for existing copper network + maintenance + USO Agreements.
Its irrelevant to what the Liberals will actually do.
If the Liberals want to roll out FTTN then Telstra's opinion is relevant to their chances of doing it.
I see, so the Liberals are going to hand it all over to Telstra.
That's not what I wrote. What I wrote was that Telstra might help the NBNCo design an FTTN network as part of the renegotiated deal. That is not handing anything over to Telstra.
Me?
Yep. What do you think the Coalition will do if they win the next election?
It seems your entire function is to generate a form of U � as in uncertainty.
There is only uncertainty about the Coalition's plans. I'm not generating it. I'm offering my opinion on where they're heading. I may be right. I may be wrong. It's just an opinion.
As it stands you've totally failed to consider the question, what actually happens when they get into power?
That's exactly the question I am considering and offering my opinion, as are others. I don't believe they will continue the FTTP roll out. I don't want to believe they will get Telstra to build it. That leaves keeping the NBNCo and switching it to FTTN. That's just my opinion. Others disagree.
Given the fact that if the Liberals tried to implement FTTN, it would be political poison.
I don't accept that as a given. If they take that policy to the election and win then I don't see how it can be "political poison".
Do you really think they'll actually try?
Yes.
Why?
For the reasons I've given. What's the alternative?
... you should actually stand for something and argue it.
What I think is irrelevant in terms of what will actually happen. Unless anyone here is involved in Coalition policy development then that's true for all of us. Everyone is just offering their opinion on what the Coalition will do. I'm happy to 'argue' for my opinion.
The coalition will destroy NBN and instead provide 'faster and cheaper very superfast broadband' for the whole of Australia. Can anyone contemplating that doubt for an instant that such an outcome will require Transcendental Meditation of the highest order? Combined with an impressive array of self-levitators to convince themselves that their inane inarticulations can be elevated to the point where they will all disappear up their own fundamental meditations?
Hmm.. I've gone into a trance :)
Hmm.. I've gone into a trance :)
Oh no, surely not! That would mean that you would be in the condition necessary to accept the coalition NBN position . . .
Oh no, surely not! That would mean that you would be in the condition necessary to accept the coalition NBN position . . .
No, that would require having my brains replaced with a potato!
No, that would require having my brains replaced with a potato!
And not a full potato!
An assumption that Turnbull seems to be making is that copper is just sitting there ready to go, and yet I am having great difficulty getting just the phone line connected in a new premises. Apparently, despite the area being dirt just 12 months ago, the ducts Telstra has since installed contain only five spare lines and all of them are faulty.
When/if the line finally does get connected, there is, of course, no guarantee that it will actually provide ADSL.
Under a hypothetical FTTN rollout, the local cabinet (which seems to be happily providing ADSL for my neighbour, who got the last good line) would likely just be stuffed full of VDSL line cards. What guarantees are there that problems with the copper would be fixed? None, of course.
Had the area made the cutoff for NBN greenfield rollouts, I would already have a broadband connection. Instead, I need to wait for Telstra to feel like installing more copper. The USO seems to give them enough freedom to dick around for pretty much as long as they like.
Turnbull would like to ignore anyone in my situation, since his proposed solutions are only "cheaper and faster" if you ignore most of the problems and limitations, and just aim to provide most people with some level of service.
The value of guaranteed connections with consistent performance must be lost on him.
I think the answer to any CBA Turnbull does will be FTTN. I don't think he can allow it to be FTTP after all the Coalition has said. Abbott simply wouldn't accept it.
The big question though....is whether or not Abbott's acceptance is relevant?
It won't be if he's not leader at the next election.
The big question for the LNP is whether or not they want him as leader AFTER the election.
Turnbull would like to ignore anyone in my situation, since his proposed solutions are only "cheaper and faster" if you ignore most of the problems and limitations, and just aim to provide most people with some level of service.
It's sounding more and more as though the coalition policy for providing 'faster and cheaper' and 'very superfast' national broadband access in fact means anything (slightly) faster than dialup.
So the next twenty years are starting to sound just like the last twenty years, except that the demand will be even further ahead of capability.
http://www.itnews.com.au/New
By June 30, NZ communications minister Amy Adams said the Government expected to pass 70,000 premises with fibre connections under the Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) initiative. However, only 1012 households have taken up active connections to date.
The figures, revealed by Adams in Parliament this week, compare poorly to an 11.5 percent uptake rate in Australia's equivalent NBN at the end of last year, when 2095 premises received active fibre connections compared to 18,234 premises passed.
The UFB project, conceived more than three years ago, aimed to reach 75 percent of residences in the country, or 1.2 million premises by 2019, equating to at least 190,000 home connections per year.
Read the last paragraph, especially.
The Coalition Supporters And the Coalition need to concede themselves to the sin bin � and let the NBN continue.
the Coalition
plus its their cousins from the National party in NZ whose policy it is.
I'm moderate to the core and I strongly believe that pragmatism rules supreme.
If LNP supported the NBN 100% in its current form (thus, negating the issue completely), I would then take into account other policies before committing my vote to either party.
Quick summary of that article about New Zealand:
New Zealand's conservative government (National Party) is rolling out an FTTH network called the "UFB" (Ultra Fast Broadband) and New Zealand liberal opposition (New Zealand Labour Party) is using the EXACT same language as Australia's conservative (Liberal-National Party coalition) opposition is towards Australia's liberal (Labor Party) government.
So Australia has their progressive political party pushing a progressive project (the NBN) and a conservative party opposing the progressive project.
Whereas New Zealand has their conservative party pushing a progressive project (the UFB) and a progressive party opposing the progressive project.
For those who do strongly support either party, what say you on this matter?
Where does pushing a party line stop and common sense take over?
Specifically, if you could vote in both NZ and AUS elections, do you:
- Vote for your same-sided party in both countries, thus voting for opposing policies, causing yourself 100% hypocrisy on the NBN/UFB matter?
or - Vote for whichever party in each country is supporting the NBN/UFB, thus voting for opposing parties in each country, but 100% supporting better infrastructure?
or - Vote for whichever party in each country is opposing the NBN/UFB, thus, again, voting for opposing parties in each country, but 100% opposing better infrastructure?
EDIT: Added more questions to the end and clarified.
Yes but the FTTP portion of the project was only recently, the FTTN side of it has been since the start.
Vote for whichever party in each country is supporting the NBN/UFB, thus voting for opposing parties in each country, but 100% supporting better infrastructure?
This one. Remember it was the Nationals in Oz that first proposed the NBN.
This one. Remember it was the Nationals in Oz that first proposed the NBN.
Yes, but they have total allegiance with the Liberals.
http://www.itnews.com.au/Ne
Read the last paragraph, especially.
The Coalition Supporters And the Coalition need to concede themselves to the sin bin � and let the NBN continue.
Interesting takeup figures in that those opting for FTTH is so low being likely hardcore broadband users.
Moving up speed tiers from 20MBps to 100MBps is not noticeable for the average user.
NZ seems to be happy with FTTN and the advocates for FTTH is such a small crowd or < 1% as shown by NZ figures.
Looks like Mr Turnbull will plough along with FTTN as NZ does not want FTTH or need it as they are happy with FTTN.
Vote for your same-sided party in both countries, thus voting for opposing policies, causing yourself 100% hypocrisy?
It is ridiculous to call this hypocrisy. Many people decide their vote on more than one policy. There are many more important things in life than the NBN/UFB.
If the NBN position of the Australian parties was reversed it would not affect my vote.
Looks like Mr Turnbull will plough along with FTTN as NZ does not want FTTH or need it as they are happy with FTTN.
Actually thats incorrect.
And for your information raoulrules , it actually means the NBN is progressing faster/further than New Zealand NBN, even after the change to FTTP.
What NZ wants or needs is upto them, not you or Turnbull.
The same goes for us, and any other country.
Moving up speed tiers from 20MBps to 100MBps is not noticeable for the average user.
Considering the average user cannot get anywhere near 20MB's now your argument is void.
Interesting takeup figures in that those opting for FTTH is so low being likely hardcore broadband users.
There's a good reason for that, Kiwi's get raped blind on net pricing and data quotas!!!
Just go to their BB choice site and a 50GB ADSL2+ plan starts at a whopping $100NZD per Month!!!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/71121999/NZ_BB_plans.PNG
100GB Naked ADSL2+ Plans are only $60AUD per month here in Aus!
There's a good reason for that, Kiwi's get raped blind on net pricing and data quotas!!!
Yup, that is explained in the article I posted, but of course he just types whatever that makes Coalition Policy look good.
Yep.
And the Liberals were *so* close to having my vote.
Instead they stick to that crap /sigh.
well this is something "We will not cancel the NBN: Turnbull " � SMH
I've made it clear that I am Pro-NBN, however, in the interest of continuously considering my own position, I'm going to analyse this objectively and appreciate any comments on it:
Until we get more information directly from Mr Turnbull (aka an updated broadband policy closer to the 2013 election), Mr Turnbull's comments appear to favour a network built by direct funding injected from the private sector. Under this funding plan, whether NBN Co or a private company(ies) builds the network, the funding would still be injected from the private sector in some way, shape or form.
Mr Turnbull appears to intend to implement FTTH in greenfields, FTTN in brownfields, and a mix of fixed wireless and satellite where is it not cost-effective to implement fixed cables.
The current policy shows that the government-contributed portion of capital for the project is sourced through funds borrowed from the private sector by the issuing of government bonds and then NBN Co will source their own private funding in a couple of years for the remainder.
The result, as we know, will be FTTH in both greenfields and brownfields and a mix of fixed wireless and satellite where is it not cost-effective to implement fixed cables.
With either policy, the private sector is already entirely funding the whole project.
The key differences that I see are:
- From a funding SOURCE point of view:
- There is no ultimate difference between the policies for the source of funding as it's all privately funded anyway.
- From a funding REPAYMENT point of view:
- Under the Coalition's plan, the private company(ies) who injected funds would be demanding a quick return on those funds and probably at a normal commercial rate of return. That return would then be used for whatever that company(ies) wanted to use it for (increased R&D for their own products, shareholder dividends, staff bonuses, etc).
- Under the current policy, the funds borrowed from the government would be repaid with a 7% rate of return, out of which, the government would repay the funds borrowed from the private sector at the bond rate (4% ?) and the government would pocket the difference as additional revenue which can be invested in other government-funded areas (infrastructure, healthcare, etc)
- In order to support the repayment of any rate of return (government bond or commercial), the cost is passed onto end-user
- Repayment of either a faster or higher rate of return on commercial funding will mean that the cost to the end-user is higher, unless subsidised by the government (which is a whole new kettle of tax-funded fish).
- Repayment of a slower and lower rate of return on government bonds will mean that the cost to the end-user is lower
- From a technological point of view regarding the footprints for Fibre in Greenfields areas and Fixed Wireless and Satellite:
- There is no significant difference between the policies in the footprint for fibre in greenfields
- There is no significant difference between the policies in the footprint for fixed wireless or satellite
- From a technological point of view regarding the footprints for Fibre in Brownfields areas:
- Under the Coalition's plan, brownfields areas will get FTTN, resulting in slower data transfer rates and less bandwidth when compared to FTTH. In addition, FTTN, by virtue of its reliance on copper has a market lifespan of probably a decade at absolute max. (That comparison of technologies is undisputed).
- Under the current policy, brownfields areas will get FTTH, resulting in faster data transfer rates and more bandwidth when compared to FTTH. In addition, FTTH, by virtue of Fibre Optic technology, has a market lifespan of probably several decades. (Again, that comparison of technologies is undisputed).
My conclusion on this still seems to be that the current policy is the best way forward, however, I'm very keen to hear purely-logical-only comments that can substantiate the Coalition's alternative.
Paul Budde made some very key comments throughout the article, one of which was at the end:
Mr Budde said while the Opposition now appeared accepting of the NBN, it must guarantee it will not further delay its implementation.
There's no debate that the NBN was a major factor in the Coalition being unsuccessful in forming government for the last two elections.
If the Coalition is successful in forming government at the 2013 election (and there's certainly no guarantee that they will), considering the weight that the NBN held in the last two elections, should they then delay or otherwise make a mess of the NBN rollout during their 2013-2016 term, I strongly believe they will get their hats handed to them at the 2016 election.
If you hire a builder to build a driveway you can instruct them to do what you want!
Thats not a good analogy, hire = lease, meaning you don't own it.
Also, It just means that NBN will be redone in FTTN mode.
He hasn't said anything about keeping the existing format.
The amount of errors that you make in your posts shows no wonder.
That article is misleading and should be corrected on all facts by the author (Lia Timson)
Well I think Turnbull may have just won my vote. A roll out that is more cost effective in terms of high density areas ( could mean that Docklands gets done sooner). Makes sense to a humble litlle Docklandite. :-)
Makes sense to a humble litlle docklandite
Did you read the article? How can you do a CBA if your already wanting a FTTN ?
Infact, it goes worse as you read it further:
He told IT Pro "a range of architectures" would include fibre-to-the-premises for homes and businesses in greenfield areas; fibre-to-the-node where possible and HFC. HFC, or hybrid fibre coaxial, is used for networks that employ both fibre optic and copper cables, usually to deliver cable television. Fibre optics are used for the backbone up to nodes, then copper cables from the nodes to the premises.
And the Liberals were *so* close to having my vote.
You have two options;
1) FTTH with Labor that has questionable assumptions in it's corporate plan and yes voters will pay through nose to pay back the capital that is needed. The 7% return is a con to mask the immense amount of capital that has to be paid back and frankly have not seen a credible financial analyst back the nbn lately.
2) Faster and Cheaper broadband via the Coalition.
Rules of economics do not change the fees will be determined on how much capital is deployed.
FTTH with Labor that has questionable assumptions in it's corporate plan
If you have a problem with the current "questionable assumptions" why don't you appear to have a problem with the Coalitions solution, which is ALL ASSUMPTIONS?
Rules of economics do not change the fees will be determined on how much capital is deployed.
And how well do the rules of economics work in Australia's favour if you factor in an additional upgrade to FTTH from FTTN?
You have two options;
1) A policy from Labor which has been outlined and fully-detailed.
2) An unknown policy from Abbott delivering "fast" internet
Faster and Cheaper broadband via the Coalition
-.- People like you make me worry for humanity
Faster in its rollout not its speeds. Stop spreading LNP FUD and get an educated opinion. You are echoing Abbott's words now.
You have two options
Labor = Con artists
Coalition = God.
Great, thanks for relaying those options for us.
FACT! Faster and Cheaper via Coalition plan is not going to happen.
You have two options;
Those aren't my options, but arguing with the resident NBN forums Liberal cheerleader is pointless ;)
Would it be correct to paraphrase and say that because you would vote for your preferred party, regardless of that party's position on the NBN, the NBN then must hold no sway in your vote?
Yep. I've been around far too long to not know what the bar stewards on the other side are like. They haven't changed. There's no way I could bring myself to vote for them.
Would it then be correct to conclude that, because the NBN holds no sway in your vote, the NBN is, therefore, of no significance to you?
It's of significance but there are other things of more significance that will determine my vote. Mostly that I know what the bar stewards on the other side are like :) The NBN's important but not so important I can't take a step back and have a critical look at it.
I'm interested in the NBN, that's why I have opinions about it. I'm not a techie but there are some people here who are kind enough to try to educate me (patience of saints). I'm in favour of the NBN but I don't like everything about it and I don't accept everything the NBNCo does is unquestionably good. I'm prepared to consider the Coalition's alternative (whatever it is), not because I like it but because we could get it.
Poll: Do you want the NBN?
Just get on with it 78%
Yes, but in a different form/funding model/technology 13%
No, we don't need it. 9%
Says it all..
"We will not cancel the NBN: Turnbull "
So this is what they mean by honouring contracts ...
"The Coalition's aim is not to cancel contracts but rather, renegotiate existing contracts where possible to accommodate different architectures and lower the capital cost of the network and hence, the end cost to consumers," Mr Turnbull said. (my bold)
They'll stop the FTTP roll out and switch to FTTN as soon as they can.
... if the NBN is halted while a CBA is performed than it may add 6 months+ to the delay.
It's possible they could do the CBA at the same time as they are 'honouring the contracts'.
... either they have lied about a CBA or they have lied in caring about the results of one.
Politicians lying? Surely not :)
What are the chances they'll do a CBA that will come up with the NBN as it stands as the solution? Abbott can't allow it to happen.
They'll stop the FTTP roll out and switch to FTTN as soon as they can
And you honestly believe that will be quicker and faster? I dont for a minute..
And what percent fttn coverage are we talking about here?
They'll stop the FTTP roll out and switch to FTTN as soon as they can.
Yeah and Tony abbott said today they will repeal Carbon Pricing on day 1 of his office, so between that and NBN Policy, how can he do that straight off the bat � even in the first week of office?
Surely people really believe this rubbish?
and frankly have not seen a credible financial analyst back the nbn lately.
As the NBN is wholly owned by an entity that isn't answerable to normal stock market protocols thus open for scrutiny of every and any analyst, it is no wonder you have stated the above.
However, it is open to extremely close scrutiny by organisations with much more credibility (especially since 2007-09) than your (very) average analyst; various Parliamentary Committees, ANAO as well as Govts worldwide and just about every large IT entity.
The 7% return is a con to mask the immense amount of capital that has to be paid back
Not at all, there are many Commonwealth backed organisations that are or have repaid the Commonwealth for funds supplied to them. And the amounts have always been "immense" because that's what Govts are there for. To supply the wherewithal that private enterprise cannot or will not.
Do you hold the same opinion for the "immense" backing that the Commonwealth offered to the Snowy Mountains Scheme? or the former Commonwealth Serum Laboratories?
Under this funding plan, whether NBN Co or a private company(ies) builds the network, the funding would still be injected from the private sector in some way, shape or form.
This is not clear. At the last election the Coalition was prepared to put up ~$6bn, some as direct grants and some as investment. Turnbull talked about government funding at the Press Club last year. I think a Coalition government would supply some funding but not $27.5bn.
Mr Turnbull appears to intend to implement FTTH in greenfields, FTTN in brownfields, and a mix of fixed wireless and satellite where is it not cost-effective to implement fixed cables.
There is some confusion around his plans for HFC. Mr Creosote and I certainly have different views on what he might try to do. I'll go with your interpretation.
With either policy, the private sector is already entirely funding the whole project.
Sort of, but the private sector will not lend to the NBNCo at the same rate as they lend to the government. It's probably better financially for the government to fund the whole thing. Not politically though.
There is no ultimate difference between the policies for the source of funding as it's all privately funded anyway.
If the government borrows the money then the government has to pay it back. If the NBNCo borrows the money then the NBNCo has to pay it back. If the NBNCo goes pear-shaped the private sector could lose the money they've lent to the NBNCo. They won't lose the money they've lent to the government though. The way the NBNCo has arranged the funding that's not going to happen, but it's a consideration in the interest rate charged.
The biggest difference, which you seem to have omitted, is the amount of funding required.
From a funding REPAYMENT point of view:
I think the Coalition will get the NBNCo to build their NBN. In that case the funding repayment methods will be much the same. We'll have to wait to find out if I'm right.
From a technological point of view regarding the footprints for Fibre in Greenfields areas and Fixed Wireless and Satellite:
That seems to be the case. I suspect the 7% might be a bit bigger though. Turnbull hasn't said as much. I just don't believe they'll roll out FTTx to 93%. Again, we'll have to wait to see if I'm right.
From a technological point of view regarding the footprints for Fibre in Brownfields areas:
Turnbull would dispute your allegedly undisputed statements. I'm sure he'll find people to back him up.
Paul Budde made some very key comments throughout the article, one of which was at the end:
Paul Budde also said ...
We have now 40 ISPs with NBN products on the market for as low as $25 a month.
That's a neat trick given the cheapest AVC is $26.40 a month. Something is not right with these prices.
There's no debate that the NBN was a major factor in the Coalition being unsuccessful in forming government for the last two elections.
It's debatable whether it was the NBN or not having a policy or a real shadow minister that did it. We'll never know what would have happened if they'd gone into the last election with the FTTN policy Turnbull seems to be talking about now.
If the Coalition is successful in forming government at the 2013 election (and there's certainly no guarantee that they will) ... etc
The Abbott factor eh? People can say it mid-term but can they actually bring themselves to do it in the polling booth? I bloody hope not or it will be the sort of landslide that will take two or more elections to claw back.
Labor that has questionable assumptions in it's corporate plan
The Corporate Plan hasn't been released yet...next week.
The 7% return is a con
A crazy leap of illogical assumptions...
Faster and Cheaper broadband via the Coalition
Coalition is far more expensive...it will need to be replaced in the next few years and the maintenance of the copper is already outrageously high.
That's a neat trick given the cheapest AVC is $26.40 a month. Something is not right with these prices.
think you need your head checked, perhaps read the entire quote:
"We have now 40 ISPs with NBN products on the market for as low as $25 a month. How are consumers worst off? The average is more like $29 for a basic NBN [connected] product. That is very comparable with ADSL packages that are around now."
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét