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."
The cost of funds for the federal govt. is heading lower as the yield on 10-year bonds is currently less than 3% the lowest in five decades. Clearly the private sector does not have access to the same level of cheap funds therefore the ROI for any private investor will be in excess of 7%.
Not to mention that private enterprise does not take into consideration the benefits accruing to the national levels productivity. Rather the 'market' only has regard for private shareholder returns. As such, an increase in national productivity and the future placement of the countries long term interests does not count. Only the annual returns to private interests.
Message sent to Malcolm Turnbull ....
"Reference �. http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/
How disgraceful. What a sham.
Your claim that the LNP will not cancel the NBN is disingenuous and deceitful. You know, I know, and many, many others with an interest in this topic know that the LNP intentions for broadband in this country are so far removed from the intent and conditions of the current NBN that you cannot, with any shred of honesty, compare the two.
As such your continued references to the NBN, and attempts to equate the current NBN to the LNP intentions is nothing more than a sham designed with the sole intention of deceit.
You have well and truly lost your credibility, not only as a potential minister responsible for telecommunications in this country but also as a politician and an honest person. You are not fit to be a representative of the people of this country as you have shown yet again that you are prepared to deceive and lie to suit your own and your party�s purposes.
Shame on you Malcolm Turnbull. SHAME."
(With a few edits to take into account typo's, and clarification that I missed in the original because I was so bloody angry!)
His contact details are .... http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/contact/
and email .... malcolm.turnbull.mp@aph.gov.au
Imo that is naive ...
If ISPs have "products on the market for as low as $25 a month" then those NBN-based products cost $25pm. The cheapest AVC alone costs $26.40 a month. How? The RSP is losing money on each service just on the AVC. Seriously?
A "loss leader" for what?
bundling
That's a different product.
internal cross subsidies
To what end?
Why should RSP's not engage in these pricing strategies ??
They are quite welcome to do so, if they think it makes economic sense.
You are assuming a direct correlation between cost to the RSP for the AVC and the service/price which a specific class of consumer is paying.
Yep. I don't believe an RSP will sell an NBN-based product for less than they have to pay for the AVC.
If ISPs have then those NBN-based products cost $25pm. The cheapest AVC alone costs $26.40 a month. How? The RSP is losing money on each service just on the AVC. Seriously?
Did you read the rest of my post before you made that comment? I did explain why I thought equating AVC charges to RSP's retail pricing was misleading and superficial.
A "loss leader" for what?
Signing on subscribers, future movement up the product offering ladder, etc etc. Surely I don't have to explain the principles of 'loss leading' to you?
That's a different product.
Yep. But in terms of the overall revenue to the RSP it doesn't matter.
To what end?
Are you serious ??
They are quite welcome to do so, if they think it makes economic sense.
Precisely. And no doubt such concepts and ideas have been taken into consideration, costed, with financial projections etc etc made. Your point?
I don't believe an RSP will sell an NBN-based product for less than they have to pay for the AVC.
So you don't agree that an RSP would seek to consider the principles of loss leading, bundling, internal cross subsidies, etc.
Then considering that you have not offered any real refutation of my points, again I say to you that I consider that your original assertion that How is any ISP offering a service "for as low as $25 a month" when the cheapest AVC is $26.40 a month? Someone certainly needs their "head checked". is naive .
The RSP is losing money on each service just on the AVC. Seriously?
NOW your making assumptions based on thin-air?
While I have not seen any plans from $25 pm it is possible that an ISP would suppose that the meager offerings for such low prices would drive people to profitable plan with other users subsidizing the less valuable customers in the mean time.
EDIT: Skymesh offer $19.95 plans with their 'discount'.
1 You can receive a $10 discount off your Monthly Fee by bundling your existing eligible landline telephone service with your broadband service. Your line rental and call costs will appear on your monthly SkyMesh Tax Invoice.
Seems silly considering they would be referring to copper telephony.
Also GST does not work how you suggest CMOT. It is not applied on a business perse it is applied on the end customer, so it still costs the company $24 pm from NBN Co. They then have to add GST.
The GST (Goods and Services Tax) is a broad sales tax of 10% on most goods and services transactions in Australia. It is a value added tax, not a sales tax, in that it is refunded to all parties in the chain of production other than the final consumer.
Message sent to Malcolm Turnbull ....
With reference to this post, I have also posted a comment to The Age site .... http://www.theage.com.au/it-p
and urged Renai to take him to task.
Perhaps if posters are prepared to 'fight the FUD' they might do the same.
I notice that the comment I sent to the smh article has been moderated out of existence there. I guess it didn't fit with the political climate.
I fear for the future of the human race when so many people believe what a politician tells them rather than balancing the facts for themselves.
If you hire a builder to build a driveway you can instruct them to do what you want!
You sure can. You can have started out with reinforced concrete, and end up with dirt if you want.
One will serve it's purpose better, and last longer.
Now here's the kicker, would you choose dirt over concrete if the dirt was going to cost you money, and the concrete was going to make you money?
In case you missed it, dirt is FTTN and concrete is FTTH.
It's obvious Turnbull now knows the NBN is a vote winner, and by stealth, he's trying to win those votes. He's just renaming his poor cousin of a "plan" the NBN and hoping we'll fall for it. From what I've seen lately, we probably will.
edit � I'm right. Look at the comments -
- Good, this was my last remaining reason to vote for Labor. Liberals here I come!
- Well done Malcolm. You are the only conservative with any sense. Not like your leader who opposes everything. It's about time you rolled him
- its about time! The Liberals would be in government now if they hadn't opposed the NBN last election, and we wouldn't be facing Juliar's carbon tax either.
- WOW � sensible language from one of the sensible Liberals. In view of Abbotts vandalism threats about the NBN � egged on by Bolt, Akerman , Jones & the rest of the chorus line � perhaps its time that the Liberals dump the unpopular Abbott for a competent leader
- Great news. I agree with the other comments, if the Liberals hadn't opposed the NBN last election, they would have won easily.
How did we get so stupid?
I feel that we badly need an NBN of a MINIMUM of 100mb: It already bugs me that is all that is on offer when the system could do 1000mb or more easily.
It's not quite that simple.
The routers to support a 1g average cost sooo much that it is uneconomic at this stage.
You have two options;
God, this situation makes me furious. This is not a discussion.
Stooges are destroying whirlpool
lrules...
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.
Do you have examples of 'credible analysts' not backing the NBN?
No, you don't count. Your calculations have been shown time and again to be flawed.
Rules of economics state that the Sydney harbour bridge was an enormous white elephant that shouldn't have been built.
Same with the Pyramids of Giza.
Both white elephants.
What were the economics for PMG's copper rollout? Enormous, I'd imagine. Uneconomic, I'd imagine. A white elephant, I wouldn't be surprised to find out.
Infrastructure has this funny way of, through lasting a long time, paying itself off in the long run. Often in totally unexpected ways.
It's obvious Turnbull now knows the NBN is a vote winner, and by stealth, he's trying to win those votes. He's just renaming his poor cousin of a "plan" the NBN and hoping we'll fall for it. From what I've seen lately, we probably will.
And what's the bet anything he says will turn out to be a non-core promise or some other weasel words.
Congratulations to Turnbull for being successful in pulling the wool over your eyes. Do you realise the NBN he's talking about is vastly different and inferior to the NBN that is being rolled out currently by the NBNCo ?
I am assuming that they are having a change of heart here. He has not released details and, of course, I will look at what their actual plan is closer to the election. I am hoping the plan is a faster and more sensible roll out of FTTH, and not the original proposal with a silk sheet draped over the top. If that is what it is, it is the duty of the IT community to lobby and also inform the public.
I might write to their minister for clarification. Also will write to Conroy about the NBNs roll out and if they plan to improve it. See what response I get.
My view is that they are rolling out to commercially uneconomic areas first, and this will delay the overall roll out and it affects the economics. If this was your project, would you be rolling out to these areas first? I think if I managed the project, I would roll out to commercially viable areas first and use the extra income to fund a faster roll out. In the end there would only be a small delay to rural areas, but a much faster roll out for everyone.
Flame me if you want, but this is my opinion and it seems common sense to me.
It's not quite that simple.
The routers to support a 1g average cost sooo much that it is uneconomic at this stage.
The extra cost could be paid for by more subscribers and a better targeted roll out plan.
Did you read the rest of my post before you made that comment? I did explain why I thought equating AVC charges to RSP's retail pricing was misleading and superficial.
Yes. afaik I addressed each point.
Signing on subscribers, future movement up the product offering ladder, etc etc. Surely I don't have to explain the principles of 'loss leading' to you?
Signing people up to a loss making product in the hope they switch to another product seems a high risk strategy. The RSP loses money every month the subscriber stays on the original product. The loss is open ended.
A more likely loss leader imo would be to offer the product at a discount (loss) for six months to entice subscribers onto a two year contract. The loss is limited and can be recouped over the last 18 months of the contract.
Are you serious ??
Yes. I think subscribers will buy one NBN based product from an RSP, be that a single service or a bundle. Selling that product at a loss seems odd. It's not like selling bread or milk at a loss in a supermarket where the shopper might buy more products whilst they're there.
So you don't agree that an RSP would seek to consider the principles of loss leading, bundling, internal cross subsidies, etc.
Loss leading on an open ended basis like this ... no.
Bundling ... of course.
Internal cross subsidies ... to what end? Why does the RSP want the loss making customers?
I consider that your original assertion ... is naive .
Fair enough. I find the idea of RSPs wanting loss making customers unlikely. We disagree.
NOW your making assumptions based on thin-air?
If the RSP buys an AVC for $26.40pm and uses it to sell a product at $25pm the loss is arithmetic not assumption.
The Poll has remained unchanged , there is still 79% wanting the NBN to continue as is.
Thats a Mandate..
While I have not seen any plans from $25 pm it is possible that an ISP would suppose that the meager offerings for such low prices would drive people to profitable plan with other users subsidizing the less valuable customers in the mean time.
If the RSP can sell the other products at high enough prices to cover the loss, why not drop the loss making products and keep the money? What's in this subsidy for the RSP?
Seems silly considering they would be referring to copper telephony.
If that's what they're doing it's not sustainable as the copper will be decommissioned. If/when that bundle appears on the NBN it will be a product that costs more than the AVC required to deliver it.
Also GST does not work how you suggest CMOT. It is not applied on a business perse it is applied on the end customer, so it still costs the company $24 pm from NBN Co. They then have to add GST.
Businesses pay GST to other businesses. However, the government gets the GST one way or another so let's take it out of the equation ...
Of the $25pm roughly $2.25 is GST that will be paid to the government. So, the product is sold for ~$22.75pm. The AVC costs $24pm. It's still a loss.
I'd be interested to see the arithmetic/logic you use to make an NBN-based product sold for $25pm including GST anything other than a loss.
Actually, no...that was the rumour that the Libs generated. Quigley has been steadfast in his assertion that the decisions on rollout have all been engineering based and not political.
Happy to be corrected. If all the taken considerations are engineering based then there is no case (barring gross incompetence, and what are the chances of that </rhetoric>) that an altered roll out could be done meaningfully cheaper and faster. At least not without a significant change to the end product.
poll up slightly
Poll: Do you want the NBN?
Yes, just get on with it.
80%
Yes, but in a different form/funding model/technology
12%
No, we don't need it.
8%
Total votes: 5918.
At least not without a significant change to the end product.
The business model will be destroyed..
A question � will we now see a softening of the FUD from the unOz etc, as now their Liberal masters have changed their minds?
Or do we have to continue fighting this ridiculous position?
The places that already have NBN like Armidale are not going to be adversely affected by any changes the Liberals make, are they?
will we now see a softening of the FUD from the unOz
No..
Liberal masters have changed their minds?
Nothings changed.. position is the same as it was before..
The places that already have NBN like Armidale are not going to be adversely affected by any changes the Liberals make, are they?
It is still my opinion, (supported by Quigley's comments about the value of an incomplete NBN) that prices will rise for those who are connected to FTTH if the network roll out is halted. Due to the missing effect of cross subsidies.
Pretty sad lot the commenters...
The catch is that Malcolm's FTTN for brownfields won't work for anyone in my area unless ALL of the copper is replaced to each property boundary (and from boundary to the house in many cases).
If you need to do that, FTTH is cheaper, faster, other LNP buzzwords.
The problem here is Malcolm's misleading rhetoric � he has no intention of provisioning FTTN to Outer Metropolitan nor Regional Australia � and the reason is pretty simple the average distance between properties making for a much more expensive rollout eg more FTTN cabinets etc.
If you need to do that, FTTH is cheaper, faster
We all know that � Malcolm knows that the problem is that the general public arn't aware of that � though I have no doubt that when we go to the polls Mike Quigley, Google, Vince Cerf, and several others will be brought in to comment on Malcolm's noodle network which is essentially FTTN to about 40 something percent a bit more ADSL2+ rolled out, privatised Wireless and NBN Co's Satellites sold off.
assumes that he can get the relevant legislation through of course to build his FTTN edit sorry Telstra's FTTN network :-(
What is the solution for people in this situation from the Libs?
Do they just slip through the cracks...and live with overpriced 3G and/or under-performing ADSL/FTTN forever (even if a "node" is outside their gate)?
People will decide that at the next election I guess
Follow on questions: Exactly how long does he [Malcolm Turnbull] expect FTTN to last, and when will it have to be upgraded? What percentage of the population does he expect to recieve FTTN / Wireless / Satellite?
All your questions are relevant, and it would be very useful to have the answers. Unfortunately, given the coalition's record to date of pushing political rhetoric over actual detail, it is not possible to be sure of anything.
When appointed comms shadow minister, he was given the brief to 'destroy NBN', though he has softened his public comments lately as it becomes clear that NBN is wanted by most people, and is now saying he will 'fulfil the objective' of NBN. This could be taken to mean anything, or almost nothing; he is after all a very experienced wordslinger.
There's little to suggest that the coalition even have a detailed internal plan for what they will do, let alone a public one. After two years, all we know is that they will not remove any FTTP NBN installations that are contracted when they take office, and they will patchwork the rest of the country with a mix of existing systems and a supposedly cheap FTTN rollout.
The respective lead times involved mean that the opposition melange will be no quicker overall than FTTP would have been, with the exception of the HFC areas which would have nothing to look forward to, because nothing is what they will get.
I really hope people aren't stupid enough to vote in these muppets at the next election.
Just look at what is happening in NSW now. Barry oh fail/
Unfortunately, given the coalition's record to date of pushing political rhetoric over actual detail, it is not possible to be sure of anything.
Yep, I meant to make a comment about that.
I fully expect that MT is not going to provide any such details, until much closer to the election. And even then the details will be as limited as he feels he can get away with. It is my opinion that he is deliberately taking this stance in order to lull voters.
As Ungulate has argued, I don't see how MT could do other than his coalition ideology will allow.
Even were he to answer some of the necessary questions I don't see how any plan he proposes could work out better than the NBN plan we already have. We're going to see a lot of dissembling, some sketchy details shortly before the election (so as to limit thorough debate of merits) and, should the coalition win, we'll end up with half an NBN. It will be more expensive when all costs are considered (both user and taxpayer), on top of that we'll lose most of the indirect benefits. They'll privatise it, probably in parts, and they'll blame the associated fallout on the previous government when it all blows up (no doubt there will be an 'I told you so'). Like a kid with a hammer and a desire to prove something is broken...
Pretty sad lot the commenters...
It's pretty much impossible to get a comment past their censors that isn't anti-NBN.
As Ungulate has argued, I don't see how MT could do other than his coalition ideology will allow.
Any combination of hardline ideology and good ol' political bastardry is a bad mix at the best of times, but when the subject is national FTTP infrastructure it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. One thing we surely must not do is just ignore it.
Like a kid with a hammer and a desire to prove something is broken...
Be fair; it seems the coalition have not forgotten that Labor cancelled their half-baked OpEl project, and are determined to return the compliment!
It's pretty much impossible to get a comment past their censors that isn't anti-NBN.
Which should be illegal for comments in regards to media publications.
I totally understand censorship is required, but if they keep deleting comments just based on a political idealology that should be banned.
Irrespective if it's a liberal or labor pro comment.
Message sent to Malcolm Turnbull ....
My vote took the Poll to 80% ;-P My email to Mal
"Dear Mr Turnbull
After all the ballyhoo and bluster of the past several years about how the Liberal National Party Coalition would provide a Communications backbone superior to the currently rolling out NBN Fibre to the Home/Premises with neither solid costings nor logical hardware plan; it was hoped that your public statement of Friday 29Jun12 would allay the fears of a majority of Australians polled http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/
However, what was printed was the same message that you have consistently given, it was a tremendous disappointment. Given your background and various pronouncements you made whilst a Member and Minister of the Howard Government, it had been thought that you would wholeheartedly support FTTH. Alas, we all know that the Leader of the Opposition appointed you as Shadow Minister for Communications because you were a threat to his position and what better way to wedge you than drop you in the deep end whereby you have to support a course of action that goes against your grain. With Bosses like that .... (fill in your own list of phrases)
However, there is hope. Much greater politicians than yourself have taken contrary courses of action and gone on to be Statesmen rather than just another politician. You could follow the example set by the late Winston Churchill, who wasn't against to crossing the floor if he felt his principles were at stake. Now that, is the mark of a Statesman, something Australia is in pretty short supply of at the minute.
Think of it, you would almost be guaranteed a Ministry; Labor would be returned in 2013; Mr Abbott would be "defrocked" (sorry about the pun); the NBN in its current form would be rolled out and you could take most of the credit.
Have a think about that.
Cheers
Denis
PS. Lets face it, you are much more intellectually suited to the current Treasury benches than amongst the bunch of Neanderthals where you currently reside and you do look miserable there.
This may sound bad, but EVERYONE uses internet, paying through taxes or out of your own pocket is much of a muchness.
In other words its a "Public Service" one that operates for the general good of the Public. Its radical but it just may work. Well, it used to work in the past!
Edited � grammar nazi ;-)
Check out the second dot point.
Nor do we support broadband services being delivered by a government-owned monopoly at a cost to the taxpayer of $50 billion, especially when it has not even been subject to a cost-benefit analysis.
Then why don't Labor get the same firm of Perth Accountants to bang out a CBA, everyone knows that they pitch the report for the client.
Hell, if they were good enough for the LNP, they will be tremendous for Labor ;-)
Problem solved, next?
any company at all will, for one very simple reason...
Which private sector company other than Telstra can build FTTN?
subsidies, lots of them.
Even with subsidies Telstra FTTN wasn't affordable. The alleged policy doesn't stack up.
U T C writes...
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/
Pretty sad lot the commenters...
Is it just me or have the comments disappeared from the article? Is this standard after a period of time? I've never noticed before.
I only ever saw 27 comments anyway.
Comments have gone. 6800 votes and still 80% want the NBN. Awesome.
Of interest, hopefully this is the appropriate forum.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
Note the date � Written by Renai LeMay on Friday, June 29, 2012 9:15
British telco BT has revealed plans to modify its 80Mbps national fibre to the node rollout so that customers will be able to choose to have fibre fully extended to their premises, delivering a large speed upgrade to 330Mbps in the process and shifting its rollout model closer to Australia�s own National Broadband Network.
and
Lastly, it would appear to show that deploying FTTN is somewhat of a short-sighted policy for a national telco to take. BT isn�t even most of the way through its existing FTTN rollout, and yet it is already planning to start extending fibre all the way to the UK�s premises in some areas, due to demand.
British telco BT has revealed plans to modify its 80Mbps national fibre to the node rollout so that customers will be able to choose to have fibre fully extended to their premises...
Hopefully Malcolm Turnbull will incorporate a similar system into his NBN plan
Hopefully Malcolm Turnbull will incorporate a similar system into his NBN plan
Hopefully +1
Reality, probably -1.
Start pulling all that extra fibre to the nodes then you are dealing a death blow to the "significantly cheaper" FTTN proposal. You'll be installing a box that has the xDSL capacity for all the properties, which won't then be supplying all the properties along with all the extra fibre tails, along with any changes to the last mile copper...Sounds way more expensive to build AND to operate.
Hopefully Malcolm Turnbull will incorporate a similar system into his NBN plan
Hopefully Malcolm will see the light and tell himself, then his Boss that "the Kiwis tried and failed, now the Brits are trying it and failing; perhaps we should finally see the light and let this one slip through as planned. We have an election to win."
Start pulling all that extra fibre to the nodes ....
Not to mention emergency car batteries for all the lads within walking distance of the Nodes ;-)
Sorry if this has been posted!
http://www.engadget.com/2012
I assumed this wasn't done with wireless or copper...the article doesn't say fibre but can't image it was anything else. I think it put to bed the argument that the nbn is going to be superceeded by wireless in the future.
One of the artful dodges in the coalition's thought bubbles to date is that they will halt everything and call for an enquiry. On the well known principle used by all parties � never establish an enquiry unless you can control the outcome � the eventual report will recommend, boom-tish, just what the coalition have been saying.
Then they will have to set about designing and implementing that, which will take them nicely up to the next election. So it will probably take about that long before the new patchwork corporate plan is produced.
They can't just "halt" it � it's like stopping a high speed train. You'll have thousands of workers in the field with work lined up for months ahead, contracts that would need to be canceled that guarantee months or years of work, and a ton of ongoing planning and organization. They would have to delay, costing millions of dollars and souring almost every single contractor that they would need in the future to build their FTTN.
What's much more likely is that Turnbull will honour all existing work and contracts (which have already been paid for), but talk to NBN Co and others about changing the direction from full fibre to the patchwork of FTTN/HFC he's cooked up. He'd also have to look at the state of the network of copper/coax and see if it's up to scratch, then negotiate with Telstra/Optus over wholesaling those pipes and the last mile.
Why not use the concept of FTTH and put it out to tender with private enterprise. A consortium of companies might be interested.
It was but none of the responses were acceptable To the Rudd gov.
Not to mention the fact that all the NBN construction is being done by companies that won NBN construction tenders!
It was but none of the responses where acceptable To the Rudd gov.
Ah ok. I was living in England during Krudd's term in office. I'm back home now.
FTTH is the ultimate solution but is very expensive you can get 100Mbs now on cable. ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs, NBN basic plan provides 12Mbs up to a max of 100Mbs. It provides no benifit to existing technologies and is very expensive.
Telstra started rolling out Fibre for pay TV but were effectively stopped by ACCC insisting on opening up Telstra fibre to the competition at low return on investment returns meaning Telstra stopped its roll out. Most companies require headline returns of around 20% ACC wants 7% which is about the interest payments leaving zero profit and significant risk.
Also remember that money spent now on NBN has an opportunity cost either you borrow it or can not use it for something else.
The NBN is an expensive white elephant where the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs,
What strange world do you live in that you can get that?
and how many people live within 1km of an exchange?
The NBN is an expensive white elephant where the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
hahahahahah
ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs
How many can actually get this? Not very many!
It provides no benifit to existing technologies and is very expensive.
So lets not look ahead then.
The NBN is an expensive white elephant where the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
Straight out of the Libs hand book. sigh
. ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs,
Bunkum..I am but 3 blocks from exchange , about 600mtrs.. and i get 13mbs max. and .4mbs upload..
the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
I havent yet seen the Plan details or the costings or the intended coverage.. Cyberspace?
The NBN is an expensive white elephant where the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
Such as?
Fibre is the best solution for now and the future. It's all well and good to say that there are cheaper solutions but unless you actually suggest one, then it's just a pipe dream and empty words.
The copper is old. The physical size of this continent make fibre the best solution.
FTTH is the ultimate solution but is very expensive you can get 100Mbs now on cable.
Here's the caveats to that though Bob.
1. You need to live in a cable served area. That means a few capital cities only.
2. And within that area, that's only if you live in a house. If you live in an apartment block, townhouse complex, gated community, hell, even a duplex unit setup, you won't get cable. So it's getting pretty marginal for everyone that wants those speeds.
3. Cable is a shared medium. To be fair, so is the FTTH solution, but the most you'll get is a 32 node split on 2.49 Gbps fibre. Telstra uses DOCSIS 3. I'm not sure about the splitting on this (because there's no maximum specified in the doco, but if you look at the specs on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
... you'll see a maximum downstream throughput of just over 343 Mbps (almost 445 if it's EuroDOCSIS) per run. So if you get, say 5 users on a DOCSIS run versus 5 users on a current FTTH run, then FTTH wins. 10 users per run, FTTH wins. DOCSIS only wins if (a) it's not throttled on a per user basis, and (b) if there's less than 4 connections per run.
DISCLAIMER: Keep in mind that the above example is all theoretical. I have very little knowledge on Telstra's DOCSIS implementation, so I'm happy to be corrected by those more knowledgable than myself.
Most companies require headline returns of around 20% ACC wants 7% which is about the interest payments leaving zero profit and significant risk.
Which is what is being asked of the NBN. And here's the best part, if the return goes above 7%, NBNCo must lower prices.
Also remember that money spent now on NBN has an opportunity cost either you borrow it or can not use it for something else.
If the money you spend now provides a return, and enough of a return to actually pay for the whole thing in the first place, then what's the problem. You'll still have the same amount of money to spend on those dollar vacuums like roads, hospitals etc (which are necessary by the way, I'm not saying they aren't needed).
The NBN is an expensive white elephant where the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
Faster initial rollout, sure. Cheaper initial rollout, yep. However, when you include a further upgrade to fibre down the track (and at the moment, looking at the international community we'd be expecting to roll out FTTH in the medium term) then your faster argument holds up, your cheaper argument crashes and burns rather spectacularly.
Faster initial rollout, sure. Cheaper initial rollout, yep
The jury is still out on that one because we dont know what the intended coverage target is for FTTN. Will Telstra be given it on a platter? or will some other competitive rollout be staged? What is the intended minimum speeds , and not just downloads, how about uploads .How is the Satellite and Wireless portion going to be funded with out cross subsidisation.. What will be the costs of annual tax budgets to subsidise that portion.. Will there be any RIO at all?? How will competition be maintained if Telstra is back in the prime seat? What will be the end user costs? Will they actually get cheaper BB.. (Sth Brisbane?)
What about legislation, and compensation.. all those huge unknowns..wow..
Especially now the Greens have openly backed the NBN.
Cheaper? Faster? , not in my book. And the NBN is to be stopped in in tracks for what exactly? No one knows..
FTTH is the ultimate solution but is very expensive
$36 billion / 10 years = $3.6 billion
$36 billion / 50 year project life = $720,000 per year.
Plus GDP growth during those years.
Telstra started rolling out Fibre for pay TV but were effectively stopped by ACCC insisting on opening up Telstra fibre to the competition at low return on investment returns meaning Telstra stopped its roll out.
No they were not, it was stopped by Councils because people were complaining about cables.
Most companies require headline returns of around 20% ACC wants 7% which is about the interest payments leaving zero profit and significant risk.
Actually that is incorrect, Original 2007 FTTN deal Telstra wanted 39%, and it was still regarded as high risk, not by ACCC, but by Telstra � so in the end Telstra never wanted to rollout FTTN due to high risk assessment that they themselves said so.
The NBN is an expensive white elephant where the same benifits could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
No you cannot and can you stop fudding the waters by spreading misinformation.
Whoever you are, you not only telling fibbers (did your mum tell you what happens when you tell lies?) but your also posting incorrect information.
FTTH is the ultimate solution but is very expensive you can get 100Mbs now on cable. ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs, NBN basic plan provides 12Mbs up to a max of 100Mbs. It provides no benifit to existing technologies and is very expensive.
There are far more factors at play.
Here's one reason FTTN and indeed, most ADSL will eventually fall over:
Direct buried cables.
They're everywhere. They are copper cables, usually the last portion of the copper, that were deemed too expensive to lay conduits for.
They're also, unlike the main cables which are often pressurised, completely reliant on their insulation. Most of them are in the older suburbs. Most of the older suburbs are going to fail at some point and require expensive replacement.
Given the enormous growth Australia had during the 50's and 60's, this affects a huge portion of the Australian copper network, making FTTN a laughable prospect. FTTN aims to replace the good condition main cables, and keep the poor condition last leg. It's simply not going to work. In fact, the added electrolysis of higher speed VDSL is likely to cause them to fail even faster.
So, is it a white elephant or a routine replacement?
In many, many cases, it's a much needed replacement.
Malcolm will find this out if he ever achieves office.
The jury is still out on that one
Yeah I know, but I thought I'd give Bob the benefit of the doubt in this case. I didn't want my post to become another book. ;-)
It's the total funding which peaks at $40.9bn in FY2021
But thats not the peak debt funding.. thats the total cost to build,
Peak debt is $26b in year six.. Thats what they pay the interest on...
NBN basic plan provides 12Mbs up to a max of 100Mbs. It provides no benifit to existing technologies and is very expensive.
Yep so expensive I'll be paying less for more data and 12x the speed down / 70x up.
But you're right I mean even Allan Jones says it will be superseded by a laser beam network that demonstrated terabit speeds, oh wait fibre is a laser beam network.
Peak debt is $26b in year six..
Where are you getting this number? How can peak debt be lower than government equity?
Exhibit 10.3 shows the NBNCo moving into profit (positive free cash flow) after FY2021. At that point there is $27.5bn of government funding and $13.385bn of commercial debt. That is what they 'pay interest' on.
I was under the impression that the long-term bond rate of 4% was the interest rate
That's correct.
Allow me to expand on my original comment:
~4% is the private investor's return on their money invested in government through the issuing of government bonds.
~4% is therefore the government's interest rate on the money loaned to them by private investors through the issuing of government bonds.
7% is the government's return on their money invested in NBN Co.
7% is therefore NBN Co's interest rate on the money loaned to them by the government.
The government pockets the difference between the bond rate and the rate at which they loan money to NBN Co = ~3%
That 3% profit which the government will have made can then either be saved on the budget or can be spent on whatever governments normally spend money � Roads, Health, etc
ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs, NBN basic plan provides 12Mbs up to a max of 100Mbs. It provides no benifit to existing technologies and is very expensive.
A dune-buggy or dirt bike can do over 50 or 6 kmh on a mud track.
If you ride bicycle on a smooth asphalt highway you'll only get 20 kmh � max 100 kmh speed limit.
So paved roads are "no benifit" to dirt tracks and are very expensive.
Yeah, right ...
That 3% profit which the government will have made can then either be saved on the budget or can be spent on whatever governments normally spend money � Roads, Health, etc
Is this 3% given to the government every year or only starts at 2021?
Why doesnt the government start nbn funded programs with these 3%?
Is this 3% given to the government every year or only starts at 2021?
That's a good question and would depend on when the repayments to government started. I believe it is 3% overall.
Why doesnt the government start nbn funded programs with these 3%?
I suppose they could, however, they wouldn't need to as NBN Co will be self-funded towards the end of the rollout.
Yes because though the line met minimum voice requirements speed had dropped from 8-10 Mbs to 3-4 Mbs on good days. As a result Telstra would not replace the multicore line. With Vivid I could get 8-10Mbs so a mix of technologies worked, not fibre.
Change the rules and have minimum speed requirement and the line would have been repaired or replaced with fibre depending on econnomics.
I am not against fibre but in many locations pay tv coaxial cable capable of 100Mbs is being replaced by fibre yet there are still many more black spots with minimal connection that have nothing instead of 4G wireless towers.
The econnomic benifit is greatest going from sub 5Mbs to over 5Mbs which is basicly HD streaming or multi viewing on SD streaming. Going from 12Mbs upwards has minimal impact apart from IT business. In any case NBN will not provide speed greater than 12Mbs to over 800,000 Australians.
With NBN we delay the jump to 12Mbs and it costs lots more so I am not a fan of NBN. Neither am I a fan of unspecified something else that is the existing coalition policy.
Change the rules and have minimum speed requirement and the line would have been repaired or replaced with fibre depending on econnomics.
And this is the problem Bob, you can either build a single fibe optic network to every door, efficiently. Or you can go about doing bit by bit band aid measures.
And the elephant in the room as far as copper goes is once you set a minimum speed requirement you will inevitably end up in situations where you're going door to door replacing copper.
Now, its all very well to just have a "replace with fibre as necessary" policy. The problem here is that the efficiencies gained by NBNco come from actually working out on a large scale how to run fibre to thousands of homes at a time, and thus being able to efficiently allocate resources, both hardware and labour.
Just going down a single street at a time as the copper dies would cause it to cost seriously more over time.
The econnomic benifit is greatest going from sub 5Mbs to over 5Mbs which is basicly HD streaming or multi viewing on SD streaming. Going from 12Mbs upwards has minimal impact apart from IT business.
Yes, but next year? And the year after that?
You see what I find really fascinating is the extent to which people are willing to resort to "x Mbps is good enough for now" because in the first case they were trying to solve a problem that actually doesn't exist. And that's what Turnbull is trying to hoodwink people about.
So you start with the idea that "its too expensive" or "it'll compete with road funding" and suddenly you get lots of people debating whether or not 5Mbps or 12.. or whatever is good enough. When the reality is that this is just a red herring.
There's no need to do with anything less than a fully fibre network because the reality is it can be built at a price where it can pay for itself with reasonable retail prices. That's the bottom line.
With NBN we delay the jump to 12Mbs and it costs lots more
With the NBN we don't need to do a 2 step process and end up spending more overall. If the end game is fibre, why waste money rolling out other stuff that is going to end up as industrial waste?
Change the rules and have minimum speed requirement and the line would have been repaired or replaced with fibre depending on econnomics
You can't just "replace a copper line with fibre"...
You have to replace a whole area with it. Each module of fibre connections is
~3000 premises, so that is the number of premises in each area that are being replaced to keep it efficient.
in many locations pay tv coaxial cable capable of 100Mbs is being replaced by fibre yet there are still many more black spots with minimal connection that have nothing instead of 4G wireless towers
None of the areas with HFC will be fixed wireless, they will all be fibre. And while it downloads at 100Mbs (peak, without congestion), it only uploads at 1 Mbps instead of 40 Mbps.
The econnomic benifit is greatest going from sub 5Mbs to over 5Mbs which is basicly HD streaming or multi viewing on SD streaming
In low quality, yes...
In any case NBN will not provide speed greater than 12Mbs to over 800,000 Australians
True, but many of those 800,000 are only at � (0.5)Mbps or less now...
texmex writes... 'One of the artful dodges in the coalition's thought bubbles to date is that they will halt everything and call for an enquiry.'
They can't just "halt" it � it's like stopping a high speed train.
Sorry, I didn't express that well and should have made it clearer.
Turnbull will honour all existing work and contracts
That's what I think and should have said.
talk to NBN Co and others about changing the direction from full fibre to the patchwork of FTTN/HFC he's cooked up. He'd also have to look at the state of the network of copper/coax and see if it's up to scratch
On his stated policy, Turnbull will look at the copper only to see how much of it he can get away with leaving exactly as it is and never mind the FTTN bit. And if he plonks his FTTN on the existing CAN, which of course he will, he will claim that he has fulfilled his mandate and never mind the rotten QOS over the degraded last kilometre.
So paved roads are "no benifit" to dirt tracks and are very expensive
NBN minimum requirement is 12Mbs and over 800 000 Australians are not getting fibre.
NBN rips up coaxial and replaces it with fibre and replaces copper lines with ADSL speeds of 20Mbs with fibre before it provides minimum 12Mbs to all areas.
So for your analogy we are ripping up 2 lane highway to replace it with a 4 lane motorway before we replace the dirt track with a paved road.
So for your analogy we are ripping up 2 lane highway to replace it with a 4 lane motorway before we replace the dirt track with a paved road.
You are aware that the wireless component of the NBN is due for completion ~2015 right? We're still looking at a number of years at that point in time before fibre is complete.
The last 7% (wireless and satellite components) will be long done before the fibre will be.
before we replace the dirt track with a paved road.
Which dirt track is that Bob?
The people who are getting the NBN wireless and satellite components are getting their rollout by 2015, well ahead of the rest of us.
Besides the road thing is a silly analogy.. unless you really want to go to 1000 lanes! :)
Is this 3% given to the government every year or only starts at 2021?
As I understand it the 7% dividend (interest) to the government starts when the NBNCo turns a profit, ie. FY2022 in the old corporate plan. That money can then be used to finance the interest on whatever bonds the government has sold to raise the equity stake ($27.5bn) and cover the interest on the bonds up to FY2021.
The 2010 corporate plan showed the NBNCo paid for itself. The numbers in the new corporate plan will be different to reflect the changes to the project. I expect the end result to be much the same though. The Coalition's objections to the NBN (and so much else) are purely ideological/political. The project itself is sound.
NBN minimum requirement is 12Mbs and over 800 000 Australians are not getting fibre.
And under the coalition NBN position, a hell of a lot more people are not getting fibre.
NBN rips up coaxial and replaces it with fibre and replaces copper lines with ADSL speeds of 20Mbs with fibre before it provides minimum 12Mbs to all areas.
'NBN rips up obsolescent HFC and replaces it with upscalable FTTP, and replaces copper lines with ADSL speeds of UP TO a very rare 20Mbs before it provides a minimum 12Mbs to all areas, most of which had little or no reliable broadband access previously.'
<fixed>
True, but many of those 800,000 are only at � (0.5)Mbps or less now...
That is why I dislike this version of NBN that is as of now rolling out fibre in locations with pay TV coaxial/HFC that can get 100Mbs while many people are still on 0.5Mbs instead of rolling out fixed wireless and fibre to locations without HFC.
Most companies require headline returns of around 20% ACC wants 7%
actually i think its nbnco that has been mandated to have that 7%, not the ACC(C?), nor by them, the government mandated it (it syncs approximately with the bond rate)
... leaving zero profit and significant risk.
i dont understand this � the risk in a project is either there or it isnt, the roi you want only mitigates that risk to the extent that by returning more profit over a shorter timeframe means more profit before/if it goes belly up.
the major risk with the nbn is that the takeup of plans wont be enough to sustain the 7% roi � that risk is actually significantly higher for a corporation wanting your typical 20% roi as they have to charge a lot more for their service making it unaffordable to a lot more people (ie theyre limiting their user base)
with the nbn, takeup isnt as much of an issue with the telstra cutovers, and the lower roi means they can offer their services at a lower price, meaning more customers can access it.
a lower roi just means that its going to take longer to pay off
the same benifits
compared over the lifespan of 50+ years would you like to rethink that answer? fttp can easily offer 1gbit now, adsl2+ is 25mbit, vdsl2 is approx 300mbit (if were lenient with node distance, although it tends to want more than one pair)
could be achieved faster and cheaper using a different more flexible model.
faster? can you prove this? or even show it to be remotely viable?
same goes for cheaper. a cheaper installation doesnt equate to cheaper running costs. the installation costs are a one off, running costs are forever.
if nbnco is changed to install fttn then theyll be paying telstra line rental on top of what theyre already paying for duct and exchange leases (it can only get more expensive, not less).
the upgrade pressures after a decade of fttn / hfc will be just as much as they are now, labour costs will have gone up so any major upgrade undertaking would cost a lot more than it would to install it now, then you also need to add in the costs for the upgrade.
so before you can even think about saying that its going to be faster and cheaper, you need to clarify what youre installing, its lifespan, and its upgrade costs. when youve got those then you can come back with some rough numbers to discuss.
----
btw, in case you dont realise, telstra are using customer cutovers to the nbn as its separation strategy. if nbnco do fttn and telstra remains the owner of the copper and customers remain on it then separation will not have legally happened.
that entire legal framework will need to be redone, from scratch, if fttn is put on the table (why do you think its not an option).
id hate to be the one telling people that telstra would sell the copper cheaply to separate without a fight, within 12 months of the coalition forming government, whod actually, deep down, believe it to be true?
'NBN rips up obsolescent HFC and replaces it with upscalable FTTP
Yes it spends good money to rip up a system capable of 100Mbs while lots of people struggle with dial up. That is one of the reasons I dislike NBN that was advertised as bringing broadband as a basic service to everyone. It takes too long and costs too much to provide the basic service under this role out model.
I do agree with the model of a single owner of all the infrustructure with a mandate to provide minimum 12Mbs to everyone at a reasonable price. Faster services should be provided on a comercial basis which was happening before the advent of NBN but hampered by the infrastructure ownership situation and ACC rules on fair access to compeditors for proposed fibre roll out. This caused the private fibre roll out in Australia to be still borne apart from selected business who paid for it.
I can get cable or 4G wireless or ADSL that is not reliable so NBN is not that a big a deal to the service I can get. When it comes by I will loose the option for cable and have to choose between wireless and NBN as the cable/HFC will be ripped up by NBN.
The coalition model has problems as well in that they have not provided any detail.
Change the rules and have minimum speed requirement and the line would have been repaired or replaced with fibre depending on econnomics.
But where are these new rules coming from?
I am not against fibre but in many locations pay tv coaxial cable capable of 100Mbs is being replaced by fibre yet there are still many more black spots with minimal connection that have nothing instead of 4G wireless towers.
As someone else said, its costs a lot more to do bits are pieces where the blackspots are. The blackspots are dotted all over the country just as the HFC is dotted around the cities and even dotted around suburbs, not complete coverage. This rollout process is better (and necessary economically) and is similar to what Abbott is proposing and will do.
With NBN we delay the jump to 12Mbs
Delay it? How would they have otherwise gotten those speeds? Don't suggest 4G because it doesn't provide a whole lot of downloads for a reasonable let alone comparable price.
it costs lots more so I am not a fan of NBN
Are you worried about costs to the end consumer or costs to the government because costs to the government are negative (in other words they make money).
NBN minimum requirement is 12Mbs and over 800 000 Australians are not getting fibre.
And? Also, they're referring to peak speeds. Everyone in the coverage area is capable of getting those speeds on wireless or satellite.
NBN rips up coaxial and replaces it with fibre and replaces copper lines with ADSL speeds of 20Mbs with fibre before it provides minimum 12Mbs to all areas.
Don't understand this.... :/
They are providing 100 Mbps speeds on the Fibre from day 1 and 1 Gbps end of this year (or sometime next year). In these areas the copper will be decommissioned 18 months after the rollout is complete. Telstra will rip it out when they feel like it. In the areas getting wireless and satellite, you'll still have the copper until an undisclosed time which will be negotiated later. For areas with satellite, I believe this is forever. For wireless a date will be decided after the end of the rollout. If people want it, they'll keep it forever.
So for your analogy we are ripping up 2 lane highway to replace it with a 4 lane motorway before we replace the dirt track with a paved road.
Also don't really get what you're trying to say here. The way I see it the highways would be the links from the various POIs connecting across Australia eventually to even bigger highways from various countries. With ADSL, you start out with really nice paved road however as you move further from the exchange, the road gets worse and worse, eventually becoming a dirt track which would remain the same underneath the FTTN proposal (have to keep it on-topic :P) though with better roads, all paved of course. With FTTP, you get really nice wide paved roads to every house allowing for a lot more traffic to get through. With wireless you get decent road allowing decent traffic flow though not as smooth as the paved ones (latency) and even bumpy ones with satellite yet still allowing decent traffic flow. Thats how I see the analogy anyway.
That is why I dislike this version of NBN that is as of now rolling out fibre in locations with pay TV coaxial/HFC that can get 100Mbs while many people are still on 0.5Mbs instead of rolling out fixed wireless and fibre to locations without HFC.
You need to understand that for economic reasons this is not possible. There is no uniform blackhole area and no complete HFC coverage. Also, everyone I know with HFC gets 20 Mbps (including myself) not 100 Mbps (not saying no one can but not everyone on HFC can get the magical 100 Mbps speeds).
When it comes by I will loose the option for cable and have to choose between wireless and NBN as the cable/HFC will be ripped up by NBN.
Why would you want cable when the NBN is providing superior services for the same cost?
The issue that everyone seems to forget is the symmetrical nature of internet in the future (if thats the right term). Not only will downloads need to be high, but uploads as well. Existing infrastructure cannot provide that. I currently get 20/0.5. On the NBN, Optus will be offering the same service but with 25% faster downloads and 10x as fast uploads which is considered necessary in the future.
Yes it spends good money to rip up a system capable of 100Mbs while lots of people struggle with dial up
NBN isn't spending money on ripping up HFC...
It takes too long and costs too much to provide the basic service under this role out model
It could be faster if they spent a lot more money (like the Coalition proposed). They could spend several billion $ on repairing and integrating the current infrastructure so that a handful of people could use it sooner for a couple of years. But it is already outdated and in 3 years it will be painfully so.
Faster services should be provided on a comercial basis which was happening before the advent of NBN but hampered by the infrastructure ownership situation and ACC rules on fair access to compeditors for proposed fibre roll out
Huh? You mean the telstra proposal where they would be the only retailer and wholesaler in Australia and that they would only do so for limited areas?
Why is that in any way a good idea???
When it comes by I will loose the option for cable and have to choose between wireless and NBN as the cable/HFC will be ripped up by NBN
You said this before...who told you this? The cable will be decommissioned by Optus and Foxtel because it's too expensive to maintain long term, and because it is nowhere near as good as the fibre (which is less expensive).
That is why I dislike this version of NBN that is as of now rolling out fibre in locations with pay TV coaxial/HFC that can get 100Mbs while many people are still on 0.5Mbs instead of rolling out fixed wireless and fibre to locations without HFC
I don't know which areas you mean, but in most areas the 100mbs cable is only available to a small group in that area...the rest have very poor connections.
btw, in case you dont realise, telstra are using customer cutovers to the nbn as its separation strategy. if nbnco do fttn and telstra remains the owner of the copper and customers remain on it then separation will not have legally happened.
that entire legal framework will need to be redone, from scratch, if fttn is put on the table (why do you think its not an option).
All the more reason to dislke the existing system as those on the fringes will have fixed wireless by NBN and copper by Telstra what a nitemare. It then sticks those people in limbo land where NBN does not maintain the copper so has no incentive to replace it with fibre in the long run.
One of the problems with NBN is the fixed model, I would prefer to see a more inovative and flexible system. With fibre technology fibre can be run as part of power cables and this should be the primary delivery mode for new installations and all areas with existing above ground power. in WA Western power ran a trial and did install some areas with fibre in the power cable which although marginally less expensive than power alone was much cheaper than seperate power and phone connection. Unfortunately it was stopped as it was not core business.
The sad part about all this is that we have gone so far we are effectively stuck with the NBN as it stands as it can not be altered without great cost and slowing things down.
That is why I dislike this version of NBN that is as of now rolling out fibre in locations with pay TV coaxial/HFC that can get 100Mbs while many people are still on 0.5Mbs instead of rolling out fixed wireless and fibre to locations without HFC.
Isn't that the weakest argument you can dredge up though?
Its like saying ok its a good thing but wouldn't it be nice if you only rolled it out to the most "needy" places first, right?
Again, the problem here is you can't just pick and choose streets.
And lets not forget that in supposedly HFC served suburbs there are streets with HFC, and streets without. And where there is a HFC cable, only about a third of the houses are actually connected to it.
Nice idea.. but it goes nowhere in the real world. The most you could argue is you wish it could be sped up.
All the more reason to .
Oh god, what a lot of waffle, Bob..
One of the problems with NBN is the fixed model, I would prefer to see a more inovative and flexible system.
Like?
With fibre technology fibre can be run as part of power cables and this should be the primary delivery mode for new installations and all areas with existing above ground power.
Um.. so?
The sad part about all this is that we have gone so far we are effectively stuck with the NBN as it stands as it can not be altered without great cost and slowing things down.
What we have is an economically sound and technically first class design.
You know, usually when people write their stuff they actually give you a bit of an argument. A few hooks. Some obvious assumptions. With this I'm left wondering what Bob is really thinking!
....ADSL2 within 1 km gives 24Mbs...
I live 1.4km from an ADSL1 exchange that will never be upgraded and isn't on the Telstra TopHat Program and the best I can ever hope for is a maximum of 1500 kbps.
The NBN is an expensive white elephant....
You know, that was said of the Overland Telegraph in the 1870s. And of the Telephone some years later. And of Electricity a little later. And of Aircraft. Of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Snowy Mountains Scheme, and so on. It has always been the politically conservative people, who have not been able envisage what an incoming technology can do or its potential.
Your point being?
The sad part
Bob, what is actually your problem with the NBN?
Let me run this past you..
Where are we going to be in 20 years from now? What infrastructure will serve our communication needs? If you said fibre then you're getting somewhere.
Now, the question is, how do we get from where we are now, to where we need to be. Yep?
Ok, what follows then is that at some point we need to build a fibre network. Yep? Or are you going to tell me we can "make do" or "patch up" forever? No, I didn't think so.
Ok, how are we going to end up with a fibre network? Answer. The key element is to build it cost effectively. I'm sure you agree with that.
Now, what are the advantages of NBNco? Here's the basic list
- Economy of scale � you only need understand the technical design better to fully appreciate the benefits of connecting 3,000 houses at a time. The optimisations are quite large. Add to that the sheer buying power of NBNco.
- Low cost of capital � its being built with the government's credit rating
- Low risk � again the only way you're going to get this is if its under the wing of the government.
Now, you can come up with alternatives to NBNco, but any that you might come up with that doesn't essentially feature NBNco or something similar, will fail for one of those 3 reasons. Either it will cost more to build, suffer higher cost of capital or suffer from higher risk � which amounts to higher cost of capital.
Have a think about it eh?
Now, given all the above, what's your objection to doing something right and doing it right now?
Oh, cost? Well as I said before, that cost is going to have to be born at some point, now, or in the not too distant future. Someone will have to pay for it. Now you can do it now, with NBNco at the helm and it can be done cost effectively and the cost of using the network comes out at more or less what you're paying now. Or, can follow a number of other paths where other moneys have been spent, and wasted. And in the end someone has to pay for all that waste.
The NBN is not spending of tax money. It pays for itself. And since it does, all of the squirming and writhing about how to do it on the cheap make no sense. They're actually false economy. What you then end up with is more overall cost over time, and between the Liberals and Telstra it'll cost more either to the tax payer or the end user.
The areas like Armidale have been given NBN fibre... We had no HFC, no other fibre...
Seems we did alright.
One of the problems with NBN is the fixed model
No thats the good thing, if you go to a mixed model, then there would be different plans for each of the technologies, and from there you get complaints about the haves and have nots.
Different Wholesale Agreements, Different Terms and Conditions, Different Retail plans and so on, it's just not economical nor practical to use the mix technologies.
That's why the current situation sucks.
even Allan Jones says it will be superseded by a laser beam network ....
Just make sure you're not sending from your Brighton le Sands residence as QF1 hurtles down Kingsford Smith Runway 18R bound for London ;-)
the upgrade pressures after a decade of fttn / hfc will be just as much as they are now, labour costs will have gone up so any major upgrade undertaking would cost a lot more than it would to install it now, then you also need to add in the costs for the upgrade.
Another factor to consider is that during a Recession/Depression (that's what's happening around the rest of the planet) Business is hungry for ...well "business", so they are prepared to trim costs to win that business.
During normal times, Business tends to pad out the costs. And during boom times, the skies the limit.
So if you are a Govt and doing major capital works or infra-structure, if you can organise it, do it during an economic downturn, its cheaper.
When it comes by I will loose the option for cable and have to choose between wireless and NBN as the cable/HFC will be ripped up by NBN.
But you're forgetting that on the one piece of fibre you can get:
1. internet
2. phone
3. TV
and have bandwidth left for future services.
HFC in Australia is not the same as in other countries. It's not. The cable operators are happy to let it die off.
Yes it spends good money to rip up a system capable of 100Mbs
Yes, for the 28% odd of the population that might be good for you and them, but what about the rest of the 72% of the population ?
btw, 93% for Fibre vs 28% for HFC? � that's 65% difference.
Fibre can hold 100mbps, 1gbps, 10gbps, and faster and you want to keep the 'old' system � because it's, old?
while lots of people struggle with dial up.
The dial-up is on decline.
http://www.abs.gov.au/aussta
In December 2007 � 707,000.
In December 2011 � 473,000.
I can get cable or 4G wireless or ADSL that is not reliable so NBN is not that a big a deal to the service I can get.
Good for you, but what about 99.9% of us ?
The coalition model has problems as well in that they have not provided any detail.
They have, mixed technologies, using HFC/Wireless/FTTN = meaning, Telstra or Optus or just Telstra.
The dial-up is on decline.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausst
In December 2007 � 707,000.
In December 2011 � 473,000.
And I suspect many of those are machines :)
The sharp jerk to the coalition line is again evident at the Technology Spectator:
http://technologys
In a story supposedly about Julia Gillard saying that only Labor would ensure that the NBN would be completed, the reporter includes hardly anything she said, mocks it by calling it 'easy political points', and spends most of the article running with the coalition's line and presenting the untruth that it has 'dropped' its plan to kill off the NBN 'sometime ago'.
It certainly isn't a news report, but it is heavily slanted to what the coalition want people to think without any counterpoint or rebuttal from a differing voice.
While he is right, of course he wouldn't, as long as it wasn't the Liberal's 'NBN'.
I do not bother with online voluntary polls.
raoulrules � Hypothetically, should the federal opposition change their policy stance at some point and choose to support the National Broadband Network in its current form, I'm curious as to what your position on the policy would be.
As you may have previously read or be aware, I am a politically-neutral very-swinging-voter commenter interested in this conversation only for the purpose of discussing ongoing developments with the federal opposition's policy on the National Broadband Network as well as the position of those individuals that present themselves to be extremely partisan towards either side � a concept which I find to be fascinating.
Given that I'm pre-disposed to neither be in favour of or opposed to your own political persuasion, you'll hopefully understand the need for me to ask this question and will hopefully respond with a suitable comment in turn.
Thanks.
I do not bother with online voluntary polls.
Where do you get forced to do polls?
Whilst its true that the audience may have been largely from an IT background, that doesnt preclude people supporting the Coalitions "policy". If tech people truly though that Turnbulls cheaper patchwork solution were better, they would have voted for it. Overwhelmingly though they didnt.
It speaks volume about how far off base the Coalition continue to be with Comms policy. They couldnt muster up a good one in the 12years they spent in power previously, and they continue to not get it. Turnbulls "plan" is effectively the same one they had in 2005, with a little bit of spit polish on it.
raoulrules � Hypothetically, should the federal opposition change their policy stance at some point and choose to support the National Broadband Network in its current form, I'm curious as to what your position on the policy would be.
If full taxpayer backed FTTH is Coalition policy would not support it.
I liked FTTN or NBN MK1 but the risk profile of FTTH is quite high.
I would like to see a published sensitivity analysis on FTTH done externally. It would take a while to do but when risking a fully geared project with $60-70 Billion in peak borrowing then due diligence is required.
Govts often make mistakes just take a look at the ABS making errors on unemployment.
Other past Labor leaders such as Keating would be sceptical about NBN.
Cheers
I liked FTTN or NBN MK1 but the risk profile of FTTH is quite high.
I still dont' understand why with all the information around that people still think FTTn is the better option?
Especially as it's going to pay itself off.
Is there something I'm not seeing?
From what I have researched, FTTn would have been brilliant if started in 2001..
Help me out here as I would love to understand what I'm missing.
Where do you get forced to do polls?
Stratified Random Sampling (SRS) is the best way to get the opinions of the general population.
That Age poll linked to the Turnbull article is a geared to a tech type audience.
Stratified Random Sampling (SRS) is the best way to get the opinions of the general population.
That Age poll linked to the Turnbull article is a geared to a tech type audience.
I'm just going to take this opportunity to state that, unlike most things, I agree with you on this.
Other past Labor leaders such as Keating would be sceptical about NBN.
Um, Keating proposed a FTTH solution back around 1992-1995:
A new Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development is to set up an expert group to review proposals for private funding of fiber optic customer access networks. The move follows a pre-election promise by Prime Minister Paul Keating.
I liked FTTN or NBN MK1 but the risk profile of FTTH is quite high.
There is always RISK.
However, the RISK is Telstra controlling FTTN is much greater than FTTH.
The last Telstra plan was 5 cities, that's not including the other major cities that were recently classed as cities.
Um, Keating proposed a FTTH solution back around 1992-1995:
Imagine where we woul be now technologically if we had rolled out a FTTH by the 21 century?
The problem though is its really only been the last few years since fibre technology has become cheap. 10+ years ago it would have cost losts more in real costs. It probably would have been profitable to at least roll it out in high density areas back then if it was built ready to expand in other years down the track.
Fast forward to 2012 and it's to late to start cherry picking specific areas might as well do it once and do the lot.
Thanks for your succinct response.
I do appreciate it, and I would hope that others do too.
If full taxpayer backed FTTH is Coalition policy would not support it.
I can totally understand why many people would have qualms and concerns if the FTTH NBN (or any major project with a similar scope and degree of the NBN, for that matter) was entirely underpinned by taxpayer funding!
After having done a lot of reading through documentation, as I'm sure you have also done, my understanding is that the current FTTH NBN policy from government, around which the (as far as we're concerned) current (though hopefully not current for too much longer) NBN Co Corporate Plan from 2010 is built, shows values which represent government-assisted funding, obtained through the issuing of government bonds, as not exceeding about 2/3rds of the overall capital expenditure of the project, with the remaining 1/3rd coming directly from the private sector.
If I have understood correctly, the entire source of funding for the NBN project is then ultimately from private sources, initially through government bonds purchased by private investors and then directly from the private sector, as is to be arranged by NBN Co.
Is my understanding incorrect?
As my own position on any matter is always under review, it is important that I understand the facts, so I'm keen for any facts which oppose my understanding of a matter so that I can research further to continue to assess my position on that matter.
I would like to see a published sensitivity analysis on FTTH done externally. It would take a while to do but when risking a fully geared project with $60-70 Billion in peak borrowing then due diligence is required.
I assume you're talking about the project with reference to it being a positively-geared investment (as opposed to a negatively-geared investment)?
I'm sure an external or independent summary analysis of funding and projected repayments wouldn't go astray, however, on the face of it, my reading also gave me the impression and understanding that these details were part of the 2010 Corporate Plan.
Whilst that isn't an external or independent 3rd-party assessment, it does provide what seems to be a fairly reasonable summary of funding and repayments, which one would assume was underpinned by well-researched financial modelling.
Is your issue more that the financial analysis was not independent? or with the lack of financial modelling details provided in the summary which exists in the 2010 Corporate Plan?
Thanks.
...
Imagine where we woul be now technologically if we had rolled out a FTTH by the 21 century?
Something like South Korea I guess ;)
Keating proposed a FTTH solution back around 1992-199
There was also National's FTTH Policy as well.
Stratified Random Sampling (SRS) is the best way to get the opinions of the general population.
No one is forced to participate.That is just a sampling method.
That Age poll linked to the Turnbull article is a geared to a tech type audience.
Which is a stratum to be sampled as per above. Nothing forcing anyone to take the survey. Nor is the survey limited only to tech types.
The simple fact remains that anyone who supports the Coalition "plan" over the NBN, regardless of their occupation, could have voted for it. The overwhelming response was in support of the NBN.
Um, Keating proposed a FTTH solution back around 1992-1995:
The Nationals proposed one in 2005 as well. Barnaby even claimed that Labour stole their policy when they announced the current NBN.
Turnbull seems happy to ignore the Nats when coming up with his "plan".
The Greens Christine Milne made the comment that Turnbull is now for the NBN and has done a back flip when interviewed on the weekend. WTF
And Fairfax expect us to pay for this "reporting" do they? They didn't ask any tough questions, and a bunch of idiots who can't read between the lines all seem to think they're now on-board the NBN train.
I can't say I'm surprised with Christine Milne, she along with Hansen-Young are two of the biggest bubble-heads in the senate, too stupid to know what's what.
The Greens Christine Milne made the comment
A political misstep on her part, she really should leave the NBN related stuff to Ludlam, one of the few elected representatives who would know how to turn on a PC.
If I have understood correctly, the entire source of funding for the NBN project is then ultimately from private sources, initially through government bonds purchased by private investors and then directly from the private sector, as is to be arranged by NBN Co.
Ultimately from private sources but through totally different mechanisms with different levels of risk for the lenders and the taxpayer.
One part of the NBNCo's funding is from government equity and the rest is from commercial debt. If the NBN project goes pear-shaped the commercial debt will be paid back before the government gets any of its equity back, if it gets it back. Whether the government gets its full $27.5bn back or not it will still have to pay back the full $27.5bn in bonds.
There is a risk to the lenders that money lent directly to the NBNCo could be lost. I think it's unlikely given the ratio of debt to equity, but it's possible. That will be reflected in the interest rate charged.
There is virtually no risk the Australian government will renege on its debt. The purchasers of government bonds will be repaid on time and in full. If the government loses some or all of its $27.5bn equity stake in the NBNCo then the bonds will be repaid from general revenue.
The Coalition plan seems to be for the private sector to put up the equity stake too. It won't be $27.5bn but there will still be a risk it will be lost. I don't know if the private sector will do it, particularly if the Coalition sticks to the competition line and it has to be done in competition with existing infrastructure. This is something the Coalition is going to have to explain, hopefully before the election.
Happy to be corrected on any of that.
Whilst that isn't an external or independent 3rd-party assessment, it does provide what seems to be a fairly reasonable summary of funding and repayments, which one would assume was underpinned by well-researched financial modelling.
The Coalition's claims of inevitable cost overruns are unexplained an hence lack credibility. The Optus and Telstra deals pretty much guarantee the take up numbers. I think the key area of disagreement is the assumption about increases in ARPU contained in the modelling.
If the ARPU modelling is out then the revenue forecasts are out and the corporate plan is out. The government and the NBNCo will tell you the ARPU modelling is fine. The Coalition will tell you it's not. We won't know for certain until we get there.
The Greens Christine Milne made the comment that Turnbull is now for the NBN and has done a back flip when interviewed on the weekend. WTF
Don't think she has done herself any favours there, if she chooses to read into the opaque mists of coalition policy something that has never been there, is not there now and on present indications will never be there.
Unless she was trying to set up a trap for the coalition to fall into, but that may seem to be too subtle from that source.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
As per my previous comment FUD Numbers:
That means that over 20 years, Telstra will pay the NBN about $90 billion in "lease" payments. Using the 10 per cent discount rate used for the NPV of payments to Telstra, that produces an equivalent NPV of $38 billion.
Which means the following:
1. Double the original estimate of the NBN.
2. All estimates of the Coalition have been incorrect also.
3. Implementation Study is incorrect, the Corporate plan is incorrect (including New one).
4. The Other study � Can't remember it's name.
The whole NPV value is incorrect value.
So for that $90 billion dollar value to be correct, would mean all the above would be incorrect.
So for that $90 billion dollar value to be correct, would mean all the above would be incorrect.
Hey maybe that's right on the money.
Have any NBN related forecasts correct?
Have any NBN related forecasts correct?
Well I know one that was way out.
It was the one about how many people would take up the slow speeds.
"Telstra, Bullshit, Billions"
NBN and Telstra have negotiated a deal to 'lease' their pits. I gather this dollar amount won't be on the 2010 corporate plan.
Does anyone know what this amount is?
Does anyone know how long for? Is it for 20years or is it forever?
Is it capped at 10Billion or is it capped at 47Billion?
Does anyone know the details and whether this is what they are referring to?
Suffice to say that this negotiated amount will have to come off corportate profits so therefore payback on NBN might be longer or profits lower...
Here is what Malcolm Turnbull has to say. Make sure you post your opinion below the video and dislike the vid.
NBN and Telstra have negotiated a deal to 'lease' their pits. I gather this dollar amount won't be on the 2010 corporate plan.
The Telstra deal was included in the 2010 corporate plan.
Cheers.
So they are talking waffle then?
Or are they saying the cumulative total to Telstra?
The article is a little confusing and I'm unsure of the truth to any of it...
So they are talking waffle then?
Nope. I'm not an expert but ... The deals ($9bn + $2bn) are always referred to as post-tax NPV. They're just saying what that amounts to when you spread it over 30 years.
The 2010 corporate plan (exhibit 1.7) has payments of $13.7bn to Telstra up to 2020.
It's just different ways of expressing the same numbers.
Or are they saying the cumulative total to Telstra?
Pretty much.
Have a look at NPV on wikipedia. It makes my eyes itch but I get the general idea.
So 750 million at 30 years is 22.5Billion yeah? (at today's coin)
So in tomorrows coin it's about 38Billion?
They are getting:
22.5B (non adjusted)
2B
9B
Yeah?
Have any NBN related forecasts correct?
Why point the finger at NBN in regards to my post? Not even tong and check reply, yours is full of vile/misinformation.
It's just different ways of expressing the same numbers.
The wrong way of expressing numbers, spreading misinformation.
Published on: April 20, 2012
http://www.malcolmturnbu
Well a lot quicker because you don�t have, I don�t want to you know become too specific about it but I�ll just describe it. This is all pretty common sense stuff Paul, this is not rocket science. The big cost and the big time delay in a fibre-to-the-premises rollout is getting the fibre into every premise, into every house or business. Just to give you an example
PAUL MURRAY:
So you�re saying you�re going to be able to do it for a third of the cost, which would be $12 billion as against $36 billion now?
Paul, I can�t say that because they have pre-committed lots of money and we don�t know how much. And there�s other money in the backbone of the network
Malcom is not guaranteeing much money for a rollout at all.
So cost of the network + time of of building the network = less value to the tax payers.
Here is what Malcolm Turnbull has to say
That was painful to watch.
It's hard to believe that in a pre-recorded setting, he managed to do such a sad and unprofessional job.
What'd he do? Book a room for 5 mins, plonk his vaunted iPad on the desk and shoot it in one take?
The wrong way of expressing numbers, spreading misinformation.
Out of curiousity do you believe NPV is flawed.
Out of curiousity do you believe NPV is flawed.
Out of curiousity, why do you only consider the NPV of certain outgoings?
Out of curiousity, why do you only consider the NPV of certain outgoings?
The discount rate masks the actual outgoings.
myne writes...
shoot it in one take?
Two, actually, if you read his tweets!
Perhaps had to stop and edit out his maniacal laughter?
Perhaps had to stop and edit out his maniacal laughter?
When asked how many takes, Mr Turnbull replied:
"two. first one didnt work as sound was no good. Once that was fixed just one take. No script"
first one didnt work as sound was no good
The sound track of Benny Hill playing in the background was not loud enough!
Out of curiousity do you believe NPV is flawed.
Because if you look through alot of the submissions, reports, articles, they talk about WACC model, not the NPV.
Here is what Malcolm Turnbull has to say. Make sure you post your opinion below the video and dislike the vid.
That was about as funny as being repeatedly kicked in the nuts.
I'm also delighted that my taxpayer dollars are paying MT's parliamentary salary so he can spend his time creating such high quality....ummmm....whatever that was....
Here's a video idea for you Malcolm...
How about we film you getting repeatedly kicked in the nuts until you come up with a goddamned broadband policy?
Here's a video idea for you Malcolm...
How about we film you getting repeatedly kicked in the nuts until you come up with a goddamned broadband policy?
For something even more painful, he could repeatedly watch this video summary of Tony Abbott's position on the NBN (and everything else) ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-q0ALVzPg
Anyone that is familar with NPV knows that this headline $11 Billion Telstra deal masks the real amount paid out.
It seems that you have chosen to learn nothing about forward accounting, and you have forgotten nothing from the handful of incorrect assertions you have been consistently making in the face of frequent, relevant and accurate rebuttals from people who do know what they are talking about.
It's true that you continue to faithfully represent the coalition position on everything, while failing to admit the painfully obvious shortcomings and false premises on which that continues to be based.
Conroy assertion that Telstra will seek compensation is not believable.
Oh, fcs. Telstra is a public company, and their entire record on issues like this is that they will seek advantage in cash and/or kind for everything they do.
It seems that you have chosen to learn nothing about forward accounting, and you have forgotten nothing from the handful of incorrect assertions you have been consistently making in the face of frequent, relevant and accurate rebuttals from people who do know what they are talking about.
You have not articulated anything and have waffled on without saying anything. Fill in any detailed gaps that I have missed.
I will not bother replying to Megaflar as NPV and WACC are unrelated finance concepts.
It's true that you continue to faithfully represent the coalition position on everything, while failing to admit the painfully obvious shortcomings and false premises on which that continues to be based.
Fully support a CBA for due diligence. Coalition is taking the right steps and it's faster and cheaper broadband seems to be have well received in the media.
Coalition is taking the right steps and it's faster and cheaper broadband seems to be have well received in the media.
Complete hogwash.
There is fantasy in that.
I will not bother replying to Megaflar as NPV and WACC are unrelated finance concepts.
So now your not even going to continue the argument that you started? Fine play your little "games".
Fully support a CBA for due diligence. Coalition is taking the right steps and it's faster and cheaper broadband seems to be have well received in the media.
Only by partisan hacks in the media like yourself on Whirlpool.
I will not bother replying to Megaflar as NPV and WACC are unrelated finance concepts.
Why would you bother as you never address anything put to you anyway and just go on spouting more BS.
You have not articulated anything and have waffled on without saying anything.
Nothing there to reply to, it seems. You don't appear to understand some basic concepts, so there's not much point in adding anything.
Coalition is taking the right steps and it's faster and cheaper broadband seems to be have well received in the media.
And there's nothing to comment on there either. Perhaps I could very amiably and politely suggest you may like to learn a bit more about these things before you post again.
Fully support a CBA for due diligence. Coalition is taking the right steps and it's faster and cheaper broadband seems to be have well received in the media.
Actually it's been well documented that a CBA wouldn't be of use to a project of this size and type.
'Faster and Cheaper' would have been obtainable if it was initiated from the get go.
But alas, it wasn't because it was decided that it wasn't going to serve the nation into the future.
To implement a FTTn now would mean re-negotiation of contracts; Looking at what areas need what and when; What each area has got; Delays from council cause they aren't happy with the decision that is then made (afterall, they could have otherwise had FTTh). And then they have to convice the electorate that because they no-longer will have a monopoly, they can use billions of taxpayers dollars with no return.
But you know all this, you've been here a while..
But you know all this, you've been here a while..
He's not here to argue any points, he's here solely to push ani-NBN FUD in support of his political leanings. There is nothing genuine about his posts at all.
The discount rate masks the actual outgoings.
Which of course, is not the answer to the question asked.... as usual.
The Coalition is talking about faster and cheaper broadband. It's likely they will retain the NBN name but will fix it as Hockey said with faster and cheaper broadband.
They are also saying that they are going to repeal the carbon tax, and pay polluters to invest in tech. with tax payers money...
when is a tax not a tax not a tax...
And they are going to make it 'faster and cheaper' BUT SLOWER AND LESS UPGRADEABLE AND LESS ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE AND LESS ABLE TO MOVE HOUSE AS THE HOUSE YOU MAY WANT TO MOVE INTO MAY HAVE SLOWER BROADBAND OR HAVE HFC OR 'UNFIXED' WIRELESS PRONE TO ATTENUATION.
(I get a feeling you are going to see alot of capitals in the next half hour..)
Turnbull is there to neutralise the NBN....
And Turnbull also advocated Opel
And Turnbull also advocated NBN 1.0 (after labor ditched it because more information had come out THAT IT WOULDN'T SUFFICE INTO THE FUTURE!)
And Turnbull also advocated doing a CBA on a project of such size that a CBA would be a waste of money and delay the roll out even further.
Next post..
(I get a feeling you are going to see alot of capitals in the next half hour..)
Nope. No need for them, the facts speak for themselves, as always.
And they are going to make it 'faster and cheaper'
And, still in lower case, all pigs are cleared for takeoff on runway 32.
The Coalition are going to use fibre with FTTN but have said they will do it cheaper, do it faster! As Hockey has said in the press.
Yes, they are going to install 'Active' nodes down everyones street where the Fibre then terminates. WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED AT EXPENCE once the time comes to upgrade to FTTh which other countries such as the UK are doing already, LET ALONE IN TEN YEARS TIME.
This is why a CBA is needed to determine and quantify risks/costs.
Would like to see detailed risk analysis of FTTH and pathways of FTTN to FTTH.
A CBA between these two technologies can be done via any simple google search. I spent a week looking into it 8+ hours a day and am yet to find one person who said it was worth while to install FTTn when an upgrade to FTTh will be warranted in such a short time.
If I can find this in 1 week, what do you think a team of Techies that are experts in their field would know and understand would be a prudent and smart route to take?
next post...
Coalition is taking the right steps and it's faster and cheaper broadband seems to be have well received in the media.
im yet to see any costings, or installation timeframes, so how is it faster and cheaper? just because mr turnbull claims it is?
rather interesting that the media dont even bother to ask basic questions like that and just believe a politician isnt it.
Fully support a CBA for due diligence.
due dilligence would be allowing the PC to do its thing, as the coalition had promised, not them just going with FTTN as they are now claiming.
what if the PC works out that FTTP is actually cheaper in the long run? will the coalition apologise to us for throwing away all that money?
No no no it's not simple math. From past experience it will take at least two months to financial model cashflow at a professional level with a few variables and get it peer reviewed along with a sensitivity analysis. It's a very complex excercise.
I would give it a shot of FTTH vs FTTH if I had the inputs and assumptions. Quick back of the envelope that would stand out is time value of money of capital expenditure.
That's right, and for every second that we stop, ponder, discuss, evaluate, contemplate, reconsider, something that they already decided against WE LOOSE MORE TIME AND LESS PEOPLE GET INTERNET THAT IN THE FUTURE WILL HAVE TO BE FTTH UNLESS SOME FANCY AMAZING DEVELOPMENT IN WIRELESS COMES TO FRUITION AND IS CHEAP ENOUGH TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO THE COUNTRY EN MASSE AT LIGHTNING SPEED!
CAP CAP CAP CAP
FYI a CBA is backed by others in that article and even by respected Economists such as Professor Ergas.
�It�s hard to do a traditional cost-benefit analysis [on the NBN] because there are all sorts of external benefits being claimed,� he said.
�You can do cost-benefit analysis but how would you prove you were right? And if you used a different methodology would you get a different result?
The same reasons why ACCC never went for one.
Actually Glasssnowy said Investment Banker, not Merchant Banker.
Exactly my point.
I would like to see full costings for the Coalition's NBN alternative, including CBA and business plan.
Where can I find this information? It seems to be curiously absent from Tony Abbott's website.
I would like to see full costings for the Coalition's NBN alternative, including CBA and business plan.
Where can I find this information? It seems to be curiously absent from Tony Abbott's website.
Thats because you can't cost hot air and hand waving. "cheaper and faster" does not a plan make.
Thats because you can't cost hot air and hand waving. "cheaper and faster" does not a plan make.
Oh I don't know about that. Some people fall for it...
As for the NBN costing three times this must be taken seriously. The NBN will cost likely three times to build as much as the Coalition's faster and cheaper broadband.
But that's ideology for you.
and you think the government and the NBNCo haven't factored this in.
It's of no concern to the NBNCo. They have their own stuff to deal with.
There are no 'special' bonds to fund the NBN so I guess the interest on that $27.5bn will be paid the same as the interest on the other bonds. That brings some of the cost of the NBN 'on budget'. That's not such a big issue with the bond rate below 4% but maybe an issue if it goes back up to ~5.5%. That's of interest to some people. It will come up in the news eventually.
If anything the attitude is based on peurile partisanship not worth the whitespace.
Dunno. The simple statement about the bond interest being 'on budget' was not necessarily wrong though.
Only that it will be neutral not a negative.
How can interest on bonds be neutral?
How can interest on bonds be neutral?
Well if you haven't made profit (after interest), it be zero right?
It appears Mr Turnbull will go for FTTH in new estates and FTTN in existing states.
Possibly. I've tried putting what he says together to come up with a potential plan but I can't. Look at the Coalition web site, listen to Hockey and it all falls apart. I have no idea what the Coalition plans to do.
Leaving that aside, I don't think FTTH vs FTTN is the biggest issue. From their web site it appears the Coalition is still intent on letting the private sector build where they will, subsiding them where they won't and trying to cobble that together into a national solution. That was, is and always will be a mess.
If the Coalition commit to the NBNCo then they might have a credible policy. Without that it's a nonsense.
The NBN must be in the black if not then revenue will not cover interest expense which will be a disastrous scenario.
With the Optus and Telstra deals I think the NBNCo can generate enough revenue to cover the interest on $13.4bn of debt. Just a guess though.
Well if you haven't made profit (after interest), it be zero right?
The 10 year bond rate is a bit over 3%. The government has to pay that interest when it's due. It has to be accounted for one way or another. It's not neutral.
Yes you are correct. We are not sure what they will do but they appear to be
edging towards a FTTN.
It appears Mr Turnbull will go for FTTH in new estates and FTTN in existing states.
If you put FTTH in new estates, your going to have the same troubles as NBNCo, unless you REALLY PUT SPECIFICS IN GUIDELINES AND REGULATION.
Too many problems involved in a mixture of technologies.
It appears Mr Turnbull will go for FTTH in new estates and FTTN in existing states.
It appears you're actually willing to believe that his weasel words have any predictive power as to what happens when the Liberals get their hands on power...
The 10 year bond rate is a bit over 3%. The government has to pay that interest when it's due. It has to be accounted for one way or another. It's not neutral.
My understanding is the government simply rolls them over and keeps it as debt.
I would like to see full costings for the Coalition's NBN alternative, including CBA and business plan.
Where can I find this information? It seems to be curiously absent from Tony Abbott's website.
Its probably where the costings for his promised $4 billion spending on roads is.
The call for a CBA on the NBN is very selective. They dont present costings for any other infrastructure projects. They dont make such a song and dance about them either. Its nothing more than politicking.
It appears Mr Turnbull will go for FTTH in new estates and FTTN in existing states outside the HFC footprint, and upgraded, open access HFC in the HFC footprint.
http://bit.ly/qMQOHl
That just needed correcting ;)
As someone said earlier in this thread, it's quite an achievement to be contradictory in a single statement but you do it so well raoulrules.
You'll never change his/her mind. You just have to make sure others don't fall believe the same lies.
FYI a CBA is backed by others in that article and even by respected Economists such as Professor Ergas.
And admitted by them that it would only be a rough guide. It could never be accurate.
Did they include ADSL when they thought about laying the copper?
Even worse, the coalition won't back the NBN with a positive CBA. You tell me what the point is? Stop the waste R.R. Time and money.
It appears Mr Turnbull will go for FTTH in new estates and FTTN in existing states
This is the big problem Raoul, There isn't anyone out there who can say for certain that what the coalition tries to do will be cheaper, because no one knows.
But you know this already.
The main argument For the FTTh roll out is that is easily more adapable to future needs.
Where as, FTTn and HFC aren't. And you know this too.
By having a monopoly you are ensuring a strong revenue stream to pay off the debts incurred (and all this at a low 7% ROI in comparisson to the Telstra 21% ROI that they were demanding)
I don't even know what a merchant banker is and I can understand this.
I hope you aren't being a contrarian for the sake of it or have some perverted need for conflict. As many people here have got better things to do than to argue a case for a 'possible' policy that no-one can know for sure what it will cost in detail because the coalition haven't even released what they are thinking of doing and where let alone anything for certain.
In the words of someone else, 'We can vote for fiction or we can vote for fact'
Fact is that FTTn will have to be upgraded after it is implemented
Fact is that HFC won't suffice for many people because of upload restrictions
Fact is that FTTh once installed is easily upgraded into the future
Fact is that under FTTn alot of copper will need to be upgraded.
Fact is that under FTTh you can move anywhere in the 93% zone and have comparable speeds
Fact is that under FTTn, you can't do this.
Which one sounds like the best option for the Future?
There isn't anyone out there who can say for certain that what the coalition tries to do will be cheaper, because no one knows
To be fair, considering their plan uses existing infrastructure and technology that is being replaced already with FTTH, the chance of their plan being cheaper in the short term is highly likely. The problem with their costings is when you have a long term outlook as any economist should, then repair costs for the aging copper are factored in, the cost for running the nodes is factored in and most importantly, the cost of replacing it eventually with FTTH. Those things are likely to make it more costly than the current NBN.
To be fair
That still depends on how many Nodes they intend to install 500mtrs, 800mtrs? The closer they are the greater the cost., What % of population will fttn reach ? 60% 90%. Whats speeds are they aiming for.? How will they promote ubiquity and competition and so on and so on.. Its impossible to say with any certainty that it will be "cheaper and faster" with sooo many variables and unknowns..
That still depends on how many Nodes they intend to install 500mtrs, 800mtrs?
Knowing the liberals, as far as possible to reduce costs and so it can be sold off to Telstra easily.
the chance of their plan being cheaper in the short term is highly likely.
No it isn't. Their money is all spent. No return on it. NBN money is all invested. 6-8% return.
To be fair
It is good to be fair.
I didn't know what a conservative was until I entered the NBN debate. Learning more about politics than I ever thought I wanted to know and I sure as hell have been educated in relation to what I once believed to be true!
I don't think anyone wants a Socialist run monopoly that causes people to be lazy to the point that Australia was in the 80s and then us having to sell the abode to pay back out debtors. But in the same foot print I can see how the capitalist mantra only works if you are the strong few who can keep the masses (the rest of us) at bay.
Either Or is hardly desireable.
And thus why I am happy with fair comments.
The truth it seems, lies somewhere in the middle :-)
{Back on topic} ...
No it isn't. Their money is all spent. No return on it. NBN money is all invested. 6-8% return.
No it isn't. They invest as they need it. Thats Turnbullshit's excuse for not revealing his finances: they supposedly don't know how much the NBN has invested.
I wish all the money was spent for the coming years of the project because that wouldn't allow his NOBN to be built nor the NBN to be stopped.
My understanding is the government simply rolls them over and keeps it as debt.
We're talking about the interest not the bonds themselves. The government has to make regular interest payments, probably every 6 months, on the bonds. That money has to come from somewhere. It could be paid for from general revenue, in which case it's 'on budget'. It could be paid for by selling more bonds and effectively raising the 'investment' in the NBNCo. There may be other ways.
This should not be a problem with the bond rate where it is, but it is non-trivial and it has to be accounted for one way or another. I think we can be fairly sure the Coalition will press the government to explain what is happening, especially with the proposed surpluses being marginal in the next few years.
and even by respected Economists such as Professor Ergas.
Whacked out and funny things said by raolrules, Volume 2 :)
We all know Ergas's ideological position. Aint he the guy who predicted the NBN will cost over $200 retail? And raol shows no embarrassment for citing Ergas back then. This is humour with a twist of sadism :)
We're talking about the interest not the bonds themselves. The government has to make regular interest payments, probably every 6 months, on the bonds. That money has to come from somewhere. It could be paid for from general revenue, in which case it's 'on budget'. It could be paid for by selling more bonds and effectively raising the 'investment' in the NBNCo. There may be other ways.
And you don't know. But I'd say that if the intention is to keep it off budget, the bonds will be rolled over, including interest.
This should not be a problem with the bond rate where it is, but it is non-trivial and it has to be accounted for one way or another.
I'm sure it is being accounted for.
I think we can be fairly sure the Coalition will press the government to explain what is happening
They might to the right audiences, but primarily the Liberals will focus on simple, but willfully dishonest messages for the average punter. The main reason they don't go into this is that a) its complex and b) they don't want to reveal that they know they're lying by basing their narrative on the idea that the NBN is pure spending.
I wish all the money was spent for the coming years of the project because that wouldn't allow his NOBN to be built nor the NBN to be stopped.
Are you aware if they decide to pay everything upfront the finances of the project will be obliterated.
It will be dangerous to prepay builders and assume they will meet deadlines in 2020!
and upgraded, open access HFC in the HFC footprint.
http://bit.ly/qMQOHl
Yes, and we all know what that means. More dissembling. Turnbull hoping that no one will point out that there will be more wasted billions on the upgrading.
And you don't know. But I'd say that if the intention is to keep it off budget, the bonds will be rolled over, including interest.
OK, so they sell more bonds to cover the interest. Fair enough. By the time they start getting dividends from the NBNCo they could have $35-40bn of bonds (depending on rate) to finance the $27.5bn equity stake in the NBNCo. Can they still keep that 'off budget'?
serious question
It will be dangerous to prepay builders and assume they will meet deadlines in 2020!
Its dangerous to lock yourself into a policy that involves bending over and taking it from Telstra, which is what Turnbull seems to be doing. He's not saying "ok, we'll give it long hard thought". No, he's wanting everyone to believe he's going to be using copper. That's about the dumbest negotiating position aint it?
Please, Telstra, may I have some copper? I've given myself no alternative!
OK, so they sell more bonds to cover the interest. Fair enough. By the time they start getting dividends from the NBNCo they could have $35-40bn of bonds (depending on rate) to finance the $27.5bn equity stake in the NBNCo. Can they still keep that 'off budget'?
You borrow $26B continually over a 10 year time frame. To that borrowing applies a 5% interest rate. How much have you borrowed. Its a problem in maths. Even before I go and ferret out the formula I'll tell you the number you get is around a third of the interest you'd expect if you borrowed all the amount in the first year.
So, you're looking at oweing ~$31B
And the answer, to the last question is, yes.
The NBN will cost likely three times to build as much as the Coalition's faster and cheaper broadband.
Bollocks. The Coalition's broadband would be slower and more expensive because it relies on maintaining the copper & HFC networks.
It would also need upgrading within a few years, at massive expense.
How much have you borrowed.
Using the funding pattern in the 2010 corporate plan and remembering the interest is cumulative, by my calculation ...
- at 5% the interest to FY2022 is ~$14.5bn
- at 4% the interest to FY2022 is ~$11.1bn
- at 3% the interest to FY2022 is ~$8bn
Add whichever of those you choose to the $27.5bn and that's how much you've borrowed.
And the answer, to the last question is, yes.
As long as it's above the bond rate then it's ok. What happens if the 7% return on the $27.5bn is less than the interest on the accumulated bonds?
raoulrules writes...
The NBN will cost likely three times to build as much as the Coalition's faster and cheaper broadband.
Bollocks. The Coalition's broadband would be slower and more expensive because it relies on maintaining the copper & HFC networks.
It would also need upgrading within a few years, at massive expense.
And here we see how little RR knows or wants to know. Nothing is faster than Fibre to the Premises so saying the Coalition can provide faster broadband just puts the lie to their claims. If they can't even understand that simple fact then you also have to question their understanding of everything else.
It's also funny how RR and those of his ilk unquestionably swallow the Coalition garbage while at the same time jumping up and down about how the NBN under Labor has no CBA, how the books are being fudged, how certain electorates are being given preferential treatment or any number of other bits of made up and fictional rubbish.
So all I can assume is they think because the Coalition is the Coalition everything they do is perfect and does not need any scrutiny at all.
If the Coalition says it will be cheaper and faster it must be true because the Coalition said so. Pathetic.
... saying the Coalition can provide faster broadband just puts the lie to their claims. If they can't even understand that simple fact then you also have to question their understanding of everything else.
I think the coalition is saying they will provide broadband faster not faster broadband.
If the Coalition says it will be cheaper and faster it must be true because the Coalition said so.
That could well be enough to win them the election. Are people still listening or have they made up their minds? Hopefully the former, but I suspect the latter.
Pathetic.
Tragic.
Please stay on topic!
How is all this talk of bonds and interest funding the NBN on topic in this thread? Looks like RR has managed to bring another thread off the rails.
Looks like RR has managed to bring another thread off the rails
Its a tactic to close threads..and it works..
How is all this talk of bonds and interest funding the NBN on topic in this thread?
The Coalition says the NBN should be 'on budget'. The way the government deals with the funding and the interest impacts that. That is the context in which this brief discussion should be viewed. As such, it is on topic.
Its a tactic to close threads..
Well I'm amazed everyone still to this day is arguing the exact same topics that people have been arguing with him for years now.
Hundreds of people have tried, you ain't gonna have any success in changing a hardliners mind.
In case anyone hasn't seen this yet, Crikey has apparently obtained some leaked documentation from Coalition sources, detailing some talking points on policies.
http://www.crikey.com.au/201
The "Communications and Broadband" section starts on Doc page 47/PDF page 48 by detailing all of Labor's apparent failures.
Coalition "policy details" start on Doc page 50/PDF page 51
Here it is in black and white:
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had previously tasked opposition communications spokesman �Malcolm Turnbull to �entirely demolish the government� on the NBN, a key reason Labor came into power in 2010. However, Mr Turnbull has since adjusted his plan for taking on the NBN and promised a faster and cheaper rollout that delivers slower speeds than Labor�s network.
(Source).
A slower network that would be outdated by the time it's finished. Complete waste of time and money.
Stay classy, Liberals!
Coalition "policy details" start on Doc page 50/PDF page 51
We will:
? Conduct a fully transparent cost-benefit analysis to assess the quickest and most cost-effective means of upgrading fixed line broadband in all areas of Australia where services are currently sub-standard or unavailable.
? Deliver superfast broadband using whichever technology is appropriate and cost-effective, and making use of existing network infrastructure wherever possible. This will ensure fast broadband is delivered sooner and more affordably. We will also ensure competition is encouraged wherever possible to encourage innovation and put downward pressure on broadband and telephony prices.
? Provide transparent subsidies to ensure high quality services are available at comparable prices to services in the cities in rural and regional areas where the market alone would not deliver this outcome.
? Maintain strong support for independent, innovative and efficient national broadcasters that provide value for money.
? Ensure Australia Post achieves world-class performance levels in postal services and regains a firm financial footing.
Thats it??
The Coalition says the NBN should be 'on budget'. The way the government deals with the funding and the interest impacts that. That is the context in which this brief discussion should be viewed. As such, it is on topic.
Its not about what any thing the Coalition have said. Its been about the NBN from the start.
e.g.
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.
If full taxpayer backed FTTH is Coalition policy would not support it.
I liked FTTN or NBN MK1 but the risk profile of FTTH is quite high.
I would like to see a published sensitivity analysis on FTTH done externally. It would take a while to do but when risking a fully geared project with $60-70 Billion in peak borrowing then due diligence is required.
Govts often make mistakes just take a look at the ABS making errors on unemployment.
Other past Labor leaders such as Keating would be sceptical about NBN.
The definition of positively geared can be looked at various ways in the NBN context. The govt is making a $27 Billion + equity injection that is debt funded incurring interest off the balance sheet.
The interest off balance sheet is not recognised by NBN due to Accounting Rules though in the context of Economists they would look at this interest cost.
If the NBN recognised the interest off balance sheet then it would be negatively geared past 2030 but since it's an equity injection NBN it is positively geared just after 2020.
My concern was the financial analysis not done before NBN was established.
Conroy should have requested detailed modelling during 2009 on;
1) FTTN
2) FTTH
3) FTTN to FTTH
I do not buy the argument that FTTN was bad due to Telstra requiring compensation as that's contradicted with the $40+ Billion Telstra wil receive from the govt.
The Corporate Plan was a novelty as the govt promised Windsor the NBN, no point in having a Corporate Plan that shoes a bad outcome. No risk analysis is also a concern.
etc,etc,etc.
It is clearly not based on Coalition concerns about accounting. Its clearly about perceived problems funding the NBN.
You are quoting significantly more words than you have written.
Consider whether you need to quote at all � unless you are quoting to respond to a specific statement, it's usually easier to just mention who you're responding to.
Otherwise, trim the quoted passages down as much as you can. You are quoting significantly more words than you have written.
Consider whether you need to quote at all � unless you are quoting to respond to a specific statement, it's usually easier to just mention who you're responding to.
Otherwise, trim the quoted passages down as much as you can. You are quoting significantly more words than you have written.
Consider whether you need to quote at all � unless you are quoting to respond to a specific statement, it's usually easier to just mention who you're responding to.
Otherwise, trim the quoted passages down as much as you can.
This will ensure fast broadband is delivered sooner and more affordably.
Complete bollocks. The Liberals think that if someone has ADSL2+ they have 'fast broadband.'
They don't address the fact that most people get less than <10 Mbps (I only get 3 Mbps on a good day!) which is totally inadequate.
Its dangerous to lock yourself into a policy that involves bending over and taking it from Telstra, which is what Turnbull seems to be doing. He's not saying "ok, we'll give it long hard thought". No, he's wanting everyone to believe he's going to be using copper. That's about the dumbest negotiating position aint it?
Mr Turnbull appears to be going for an option that will minimise taxpayer funds exposure. Mr Turnbull has been on the record that even private industry has made mistakes and appears to be going for an option that encourages private sector involvement.
As for the Telstra deal Mr Thodey has said the Coalition plan has merits. The value of
a Market based asset is based on DCF valuation and it appears the current Telstra deal is a good deal for Telstra that Mr Turnbull will honour.
Mr Turnbull appears to be going for an option that will minimise taxpayer funds exposure.
What's the point of this if the taxpayers who's funds are less exposed can't even use the broadband network (which their "less-exposed funds" would have funded under his plan) to a world class standard?
Edit:
It's like Vodafone giving their mobile customers 2GB of data on the lower plans.
The customers could have got 10GB allowances, but it makes no difference if they can't even use the data!
On a world-class mobile network like Telstra's, however, they give you a much more modest amount of data that you can actually use!
Mr Turnbull appears to be going for an option that will minimise taxpayer funds exposure.
No he's not, because the NBN is not being financed out of taxpayer funds.
Mr Turnbull appears to be going for an option that will minimise taxpayer funds exposure.
Nope..
Provide transparent subsidies to ensure high quality services are available at comparable prices to services in the cities in rural and regional areas
How much will that amount to over 20-30years?
The satellites will no longer be cross subsidised either..
All his spending will go "on-budget" at taxpayers expense with no sign of RIO. or asset growth..and no upgrade path.
This is going to be one massive mistake.
Mr Turnbull appears
Your still using this word "appears".
The word "appear" itself doesn't give a whole lot of credibility.
You realize what your typing raoulrules?
Mr Turnbull appears to be going for an option that will minimise taxpayer funds exposure
Oh dear sadly once again you are just so wrong, how is giving billions to Telstra good use of taxpayers funds?
Mr Turnbull appears to be going for an option
Ok, it's Thursday afternoon � right in the thick of "low blood sugar hour", so here we go...
Every day that the Coalition wastes without releasing a broadband policy, is another day that brings me closer to favouring Labor's broadband policy in the next election.
Now I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones.
I'm able to think for myself and vote purely on the combination of policies with no party allegiance whatsoever.
At this time, however, in order to win my favour in regards to their Broadband policy, the Coalition is going to have to pull out all stops and come out with something absolutely bloody amazing, both technologically and financially.
I will not settle for a half-baked solution.
/rant.
They don't address the fact that most people get less than <10 Mbps
They also ignore the fact that many in the suburbs can't even get ADSL1 due to RIMS and/or distance from exchange.
They also seem to think that 12Mb/sec is enough for a household so if you have a typical family with say 4 occupants that means just 3Mb/sec each.
Personally I want to be able if I choose to get a very fast connection, not just be limited to some arbitrary speed because Malcom tells me "Us Libs just know it is fast enough for you, trust me !!". Also i do not want to be restricted because I live in suburb X which Malcolm says needs low speed broadband but next door in suburb Y I could get a lot faster because somebody "Malcom ?" says yes suburb Y can have the "Full Monte".
IMHO the NBN needs to be ubiquitous as regards speed, connectivity and availablility in all Metro areas. Only speed needs to be less say in very remote areas where it is ridiuculously expensive to put in very high speed links..
Using the funding pattern in the 2010 corporate plan
Well then tell us the funding pattern and I'll pull out the calculator.
What happens if the 7% return on the $27.5bn is less than the interest on the accumulated bonds?
Then you have to charge more, obviously. How likely is this? Not very.
Put it this way, I feel a lot less threatened by the prospect of NBNco getting it wrong at the margins and me having to pay $59.95 for my internet, rather than $49.95, than I do about the almost certain prospect that if the Liberals get their hands on power, then (and every single scenario points this way) I end up paying $89.95.
As for the Telstra deal Mr Thodey has said the Coalition plan has merits. The value of
a Market based asset is based on DCF valuation and it appears the current Telstra deal is a good deal for Telstra that Mr Turnbull will honour.
Turnbull has not said he will honour Labours deal with Telstra. Turnbull will have to make his own deal.
No he's not, because the NBN is not being financed out of taxpayer funds.
?? Its funded by debt and some govt equity.
It makes no difference whether the borrowing entity is
- the NBN with a govt guarantee
- the Federal Govt
its still govt borrowings and add to the national debt.
And RaoulRules is right about the 7% return. There numerous threads about this. The return may well be negative.
We will:
Conduct a fully transparent cost-benefit analysis to assess the quickest and most cost-effective means of upgrading fixed line broadband in all areas of Australia where services are currently sub-standard or unavailable
This bit is a problem.
How do they determine sub-standard. I am on ADSL2 at the moment is that sub standard, how many drop outs per day is considered sub-standard.
I can see this as a get of jail free card. They splash a few billion around and then say the country is no longer sub-standard shame most people won't see a difference though.
its still govt borrowings and add to the national debt.
Would you rather that we put the NBN rollout on hold and wait until all of our national debt has been repaid and then wait again to save up enough to build the NBN on cash reserves alone?
By the time that happens and in comparison to what the rest of the world will have, by not upgrading out internet infrastructure, our internet speeds at the time will be like what 9800 baud is like today!
That's not a bad thing. I don't know why people consistently deny it's happening.
It is actually. Its far better to use NBNco's future revenue stream to pay back debt, than it is to commit to ordinary equity funding. Because the latter does compete with other needed spending.
I'm not denying the NBN has had some equity investment. But the evidence I have is a bit second hand. It just makes sense for there to be some of this at the very beginning � especially for the trial phase.
However in future a sensible government would simply accept NBNco's ability to generate a return beyond the bond rate and thus overall its better not to inject equity in the form of interest.
Your speculations to the contrary are just that. .pure speculation.
1. They're going for a patchwork of privatisation, which of course will ask for a commercial return.
Are they? I think that's uncertain and I'm not even sure about that :)
2. The ubiquity of connectivity is lost on a national scale, therefore any innovation for applications for faster speeds is stifled due to a geographically disproportion of people who can actually use them.
There is a digital divide or two with the NBN (FTTH � wireless � satellite). Adding FTTN to the mix still delivers ubiquity but with another step in the divide. I think this is a tricky area.
3. It won't be classified as an investment because the Coalition want it on the books (if they're being honest in their current criticism of the NBN).
roflmao ... "honest" ... oh dear ... I've spilt my coffee ... you do know how to tell 'em :)
4. There will be a further delay in telecommunications infrastructure reform for Australia (I would imagine in years, I had a chuckle at your 3-6 months).
If it's the private sector patchwork it's difficulty know when (or even if) all areas will be covered. If they keep the NBNCo then the delay depends on Telstra's attitude.
How much will all of that cost Australia economically? You fancy yourself as an economics pundit, so please explain.
This is where a benefits analysis of the NBN would be handy. Let the Coalition explain which benefits won't be delivered by their policy.
and I'm not even sure about that :)
I'm pretty certain that attributing to Turnbull's words a prediction of what the Liberals will actually do, is about as flawed as taking out the sweepstakes at the Cup.
I'm also pretty certain is that the Liberals will not try to implement some big fancy re-engineering of the network. It is however in their DNA to want to privatise.
I am not absolutely certain what path that will take, but I'll bet you a thousand bucks it will happen.
CMOT, you're all too precious with your "uncertainty".
If you really believe the Libs can be trusted at anything, say it, and give us your evidence.
Let the Coalition explain which benefits won't be delivered by their policy.
Which is easy for you to say, because you know it won't happen.
if you really want FTTH then vote Labor.
Spot On.
This from Senator Conroy, explains the 'alternative'. http://www.minister.dbcde.gov
"The Coalition's position on broadband is one of total confusion.
"The Coalition can't be trusted when it comes to the NBN or delivering fast broadband to all Australians.
"Only under Labor will all Australians get the National Broadband Network. Only under Labor will all Australians get the benefits of fast, reliable, and affordable broadband.
"The choice for the Australian people is simple: support Labor and you'll get the NBN; support the Coalition and you won't."
if you really want FTTH then vote Labor
Thank you raol. That went into my bookmarks. It will be quoted many times.
and expect the Coalition to transition to FTTN 3-6 months after an election.
rotflmao!
raol, your utter obsequiousness to the Liberal cause knows no depths. And now it comes out as self parody.
Any sensible person, who actually believes the Liberals have any intention of a "brand new network design" knows this process will take several years before anything actually happens on the ground, and that's IF the Senate is cooperative.
but i would like to know why you are not applying the same level of scrutiny to the Trolls above.. ?
Turnbull has said he'll do a CBA and that he will deliver broadband faster and cheaper. Some people believe him. Some people don't. I don't know what he's talking about so I can't form an opinion. Ask me when he has a policy.
Other than that, I choose to ignore some of the wilder posts on both sides of the argument.
Turnbull has said he'll do a CBA and that he will deliver broadband faster and cheaper. Some people believe him. Some people don't.
Do you?
Why?
Ask me when he has a policy.
How close to the election will it be before you give up?
I think the coalition is saying they will provide broadband faster not faster broadband.
In achieving that objective we will ensure costs to taxpayers are minimised; competition is enabled and encouraged (not just in retail services but facilities as well); and under-served areas are addressed as soon as possible. Faster broadband faster.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.co
Are they? I think that's uncertain and I'm not even sure about that :)
CMOT, I go with what we've been given. What other name would you call Turnbull's "solution" at this stage?
There is a digital divide or two with the NBN (FTTH � wireless � satellite). Adding FTTN to the mix still delivers ubiquity but with another step in the divide. I think this is a tricky area.
Except it's not just FTTN is it? It's HFC, it's FTTN, it's existing FTTH infrastructure, it's wireless (and not necessarily just one wireless solution), it's satellite (and not necessarily just one of those either). That's ubiquity? Compared to the current which offers 12/1 ubiquity?
roflmao ... "honest" ... oh dear ... I've spilt my coffee ... you do know how to tell 'em :)
Why thank you ;-)
This is where a benefits analysis of the NBN would be handy. Let the Coalition explain which benefits won't be delivered by their policy.
ROFL, do you honestly think the Coalition will actually explain what WON'T be delivered? Since when will a politician focus on ANYTHING that they themselves won't deliver?
Are they? I think that's uncertain and I'm not even sure about that :)
http://www.malcolmturnbul
Commitment to free markets and competition are engrained in Liberal Party DNA, but we also believe competition is a means to ensuring affordability, particularly at entry levels. Seems pretty definite to me. Have you seen something that has stated change to the "Liberal Party DNA"?
There is a digital divide or two with the NBN (FTTH � wireless � satellite). Adding FTTN to the mix still delivers ubiquity but with another step in the divide. I think this is a tricky area.
Turnbulls inclusion of HFC adds a further substantial divide. There will be far less ubiquity under Turnbulls plan. 93% under the NBN, patchwork equality under the Libs. Chalk and cheese.
If it's the private sector patchwork it's difficulty know when (or even if) all areas will be covered. If they keep the NBNCo then the delay depends on Telstra's attitude. Turnbull has it covered! ASAP to 48 months is the timeframe, no doubt enforced by a wave of his magic wand!
Network Co would be required to ensure, as far as is practicable, that Australians within the designated areas have access to a rapid upgrade in broadband services to at least 12 mbps as soon as possible � ideally within twelve months � and should have access to 24 mbps within forty eight months. Obviously given the capability of the various technologies available many Australians would have access to much higher speeds much sooner
It is actually. Its far better to use NBNco's future revenue stream to pay back debt, than it is to commit to ordinary equity funding. Because the latter does compete with other needed spending.
The $27.5bn is coming from general government borrowing. It could be spent on other things. The government has chosen to invest it in the NBNCo. That's their decision to make.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary equity funding".
I'm not denying the NBN has had some equity investment. But the evidence I have is a bit second hand. It just makes sense for there to be some of this at the very beginning � especially for the trial phase.
The government's $27.5bn is all equity investment.
The Government will enter into an equity agreement with NBN Co for the rollout
period with equity funding based on the expected $27.5 billion funding requirement advised by NBN Co.
http://www.dbcde.gov.au
However in future a sensible government would simply accept NBNco's ability to generate a return beyond the bond rate and thus overall its better not to inject equity in the form of interest.
I don't know what that means. Equity doesn't earn interest. It buys a share in the company, in this case 100%, and a share of future profits.
The interest being discussed is the interest payable on the bonds.
Do you?
On the CBA ... no.
On the faster (delivered more quickly) and cheaper ... I can't know until he says how he's going to do it.
How close to the election will it be before you give up?
It doesn't matter to me. Broadband policy will not influence my vote. If he comes up with a policy then I'll discuss it. If not then pfft.
If Turnbull wants to influence other people's votes though he will have to come up with a detailed policy before the election. Unless he has a very short memory he knows what happens if they don't.
The $27.5bn is coming from general government borrowing. It could be spent on other things.
Thats the Peak Govt borrowings, and yes it could be spent on other things, but then it wouldnt be an investment in the business sense..
The government has chosen to invest it in the NBNCo.
The key word here is "invest" like you would by placing money in a bank collecting interest.The Govt is expecting to get 7% rio on their investment, but not only that, they gain a fully paid for Equity Asset worth more than $40billion .
The interest being discussed is the interest payable on the bonds.
Which will be paid for eventually in full from their revenue stream from sales.
Its a win win situation..Why anyone would want to destroy it , astounds me..
The $27.5bn is coming from general government borrowing.
It might come from general borrowing but it can only go to something that has a suitable return.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary equity funding".
I mean ordinary in the sense that the source is tax revenue.
On the faster (delivered more quickly) and cheaper ... I can't know until he says how he's going to do it.
Well here's a clue. There's no physical way he can. Unless you want to play weasel words like Turnbull is doing.
CMOT, I go with what we've been given. What other name would you call Turnbull's "solution" at this stage?
A garbled mess of sound bites?
I know where Turnbull started but I thought he was edging toward a coherent (though unpopular here) solution. Hockey and the Liberal web site soon put a stop to that sort of thinking. I honestly don't now know what any of them are thinking.
Except it's not just FTTN is it? It's HFC, ... etc
If Turnbull thinks he can use HFC to deliver any part of an NBN without overbuilding it with FTTN then he's crazy. I haven't changed my opinion on that.
That's ubiquity? Compared to the current which offers 12/1 ubiquity?
If everyone can get at least 12/1 then it's ubiquity. If he sticks with the NBNCo then he can do it. If he goes for the private sector jumble you've described then someone will fall through the cracks.
ROFL, do you honestly think the Coalition will actually explain what WON'T be delivered?
Nope. But I believe Labor would.
Is Turnbull the shadow minister who is going through a process to develop an alternative broadband policy or is he just blowing smoke so the others can plan to do sod all in the background? If he comes up with a policy will the others support him or will they knife him in the back?
On the faster (delivered more quickly) and cheaper ... I can't know until he says how he's going to do it.
The beauty of being in Opposition is that you can say lots of different things, or nothing at all, because you don't actually have to do any of it. Once you've got the keys to the government office, all that changes...
It does seem clear that when it comes to the Coalition proposal they're heading to the "fast/cheap" corner of the Project Management Triangle, thereby sacrificing "good".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
What we, the nation, have to decide is whether the "cheap" is cheap enough and the "good" is good enough, but as you say, so far there's not enough actual policy detail to make that decision.
Seems pretty definite to me. Have you seen something that has stated change to the "Liberal Party DNA"?
Nope, but keeping the NBNCo with less government funding and earlier/more private funding (debt/equity) and then privatising it asap probably fits. He's already said he will allow competing infrastructure.
Turnbulls inclusion of HFC adds a further substantial divide.
His inclusion of HFC lacks any credibility imo.
Whatever the Coalition comes up with it will be "chalk and cheese". That's a decision people will have to make.
ASAP to 48 months is the timeframe, no doubt enforced by a wave of his magic wand!
For everyone not in the HFC or satellite/wireless footprints? It would need to be a very powerful wand.
What happens to get people from 12Mbps to 24Mbps?
Lib's manual, stright from the devil cave, paragraph 9 deals with NBN.
Cheers
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét