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
Yep, so?
You're comparing a hundred year old business providing dilapidated technology, relying on crumbling infrastructure and giving poor service to NBNco.
How silly.
??
There is no guarantee that the NBN will make a positive return on equity. The general claim here is the NBN MUST have a positive return because its government owned. That is clearly false.
I have better things to do with my time arguing with the chattering classes, I'm going.
A garbled mess of sound bites?
Exactly.
I know where Turnbull started but I thought he was edging toward a coherent (though unpopular here) solution.
You've been had. Turnbull is saying a lot, but not promising a thing. Unless you can get him to define "NBN objective" for you that is.
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.
Can he though? Not "up to", but 12/1 peak speed, just like the NBN? Under a mess of differing technologies provided by business .... I'm not holding my breath.
1. They're going for a patchwork of privatisation, which of course will ask for a commercial return.
If the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
Have said this a few times, the greatest challange for the NBN is to recoup it's capital .
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.
What is your definition of ubiquity?
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).
Who cares. Capital spent is money out and these Paper tricks of off balance sheet investment is a way to disguise the financing .
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).
People will have choice to decide at the 2016 election.
How much will all of that cost Australia economically? You fancy yourself as an economics pundit, so please explain.
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
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.
Is that related to core/non-core promises? We still haven't heard whether Tony Abbott regards the coalition comms 'policy' as core or non-core. And of course none of it is in writing . . .
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".
That doesn't matter at all. The only thing is to sound good, and if they keep repeating 'faster and cheaper' with such frequency, the punters might be silly enough to think that actually means they'll get faster and cheaper broadband.
so far there's not enough actual policy detail to make that decision.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
And where there's no bloody smoke except for some cunningly repeated catch phrases, there's no policy.
There is no guarantee that the NBN will make a positive return on equity.
There's no guarantee that the Liberals won't actually backflip and embrace the NBN as it stands.. but I won't hold my breath about it :)
The general claim here is the NBN MUST have a positive return because its government owned. That is clearly false.
What universe are you from anyhow? Its not because its government owned, its because of what it is, what it does, and the extreme unlikelihood that people will abandon the internet and go back to scratching on cave walls..
Mind you, with the general level of intelligence I see on display in some of the Tony cheer squad I've got to seriously wonder if Devo wasn't right after all...
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".
Yep, every time I hear Turnbull go "faster/cheaper" I'm reminded of when NASA was going "faster/better/cheaper" and managed to crater a couple of mars missions and turned a space shuttle into expensive fireworks :P
What is your definition of ubiquity?
Ubiquity � from Dictionary.com
u�biq�ui�ty? ?[yoo-bik-wi-tee] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state or capacity of being everywhere, especially at the same time;
Any dictionary will give you the definition.
In the broadband context it means services being available to everyone, all the time.
That doesn't matter at all. The only thing is to sound good, and if they keep repeating 'faster and cheaper' with such frequency, the punters might be silly enough to think that actually means they'll get faster and cheaper broadband.
The beauty of these particular weasel words is the double-meaning of "faster".. its amazing how easy it is to capture weak minds..
"these are not the droids you are looking for..."
Lib's manual, stright from the devil cave, paragraph 9 deals with NBN.
Wow.. every single idiotic point, half truth and nit pick, repeated here almost word for word, by the usual suspects...
You gotta wonder.
This thread needs some more questions :P
Having lunch with Malcolm Turbull..
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
of the coalition plan, yes i agree whole-heartedly with you, after all, until we know exactly how much the coalition alternative is going to cost we dont actually know which version is the better one, do we.
The general claim here is the NBN MUST have a positive return because its government owned. That is clearly false.
That is true, and if people blindly believe that the NBN will make money that is a mistake too.
The government should be held accountable and made sure that they are clear on all figures and quotes. And hopefully the Media and Opposition (and WP) keep on there case to ensure this happens.
However, the title of the Thread is 'Coalition NBN Position' and as it stands, they really don't have a position. Only to scale back what otherwise (appears to be) good policy.
In saying that, if the NBN does blow out (and this won't happen if the hounds are nipping at the heals of Labor), the end user will have to pay extra for their broadband access as the RSP will have to pay extra. But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a $10 rise in monthly fee's will still be better off than what the coalition (and only the Liberal part of the coalition I might add) are suggesting.
But in saying all that, it is extremely hard to loose money on a monopoly, (Even NSW trains aren't a monopoly as they compete directly with cars)
If the Coalition Plan costs .......
Indubitably. Very grave. Most serious indeed. (Nods head sagely)
Sell the asset. Problem solved.
f the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
Not at all Raoul the cost benefit of Fibre provides at least a $200 billion return to the Australian Taxpayer whilst only costing a fraction more than what the Coalition intend to spend on their redundant technology that everyone else ditched last century or is currently in the process of doing that eg Malcolm Turnbull's mates over in New Zealand who having pissed their hard earned away on FTTN only to discover that it doesn't deliver!
So sad!
Ubiquity � from Dictionary.com
noun
1.
Any dictionary will give you the definition.
In the broadband context it means services being available to everyone, all the time.
LOL. I love a fact in it's most primative form... :-)
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
Already done and dusted Raoul as as a matter of fact Malcolm Turnbull has had to depart exit stage left rather quickly when authorative modelling and cost benefit analysis done over 3 years across 33 OECD countries has refuted everything he has stated making a complete mockery of the Coalitions position!
Eg World Broadband Conference and Malcolm's speech about Economics only to be gazumped publicly with the release of the following
New study quantifies the impact of broadband speed on GDP
Doubling the broadband speed for an economy increases GDP by 0.3 per cent.
Which for Australia with its 1.3 Trillion dollar economy cuts out at what 390 million � but wait Raoul there's more:-
Ericsson and Arthur D. Little concluded that for every 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration GDP increases by 1 percent.
http://www.adlittle.com/pres
So given that Labor intend to provision Fibre to 93 percent whilst Liberals will only provision redundant FTTN to at best 40 percent we are left with another 5 billion per year differance between the Liberal Coalition and Labor or in simple terms
Labor's NBN pays for itself- based on GDP Growth in several years alone!
How good is that Raoul!
You've been had. Turnbull is saying a lot, but not promising a thing. Unless you can get him to define "NBN objective" for you that is.
I knew it was only my interpretation but, yeah, I thought he was moving toward a policy.
Can he though? Not "up to", but 12/1 peak speed, just like the NBN?
The G9, Telstra and Terria think/thought FTTN could deliver 12/1. If that's the only change he makes, ie. he keeps the NBNCo to build it, then I think he can.
Under a mess of differing technologies provided by business
If he throws it open to various private sector companies to build whatever they can then I'm not so sure.
I think Telstra is the only private sector company that can build the FTTN network the Coalition seems to favour. Their 'submission' to the NBN mkI RFP proposed at least 12Mbps to 80-90% with the government's $4.7bn.
Would any other private sector company build anything anywhere? Dunno.
If the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
Oh very nice Raoul. You supply an example with variables that could be anything but with conclusions that suit you. How's about you actually place the approximate percentages in there and do the math. Do you think I came down in the last shower?
I notice as well that your little $15 billion scenario wouldn't include a further upgrade to FTTH after a FTTN rollout. Factor that in as well while you're at it and see what numbers come up then.
Have said this a few times, the greatest challange for the NBN is to recoup it's capital .
So tell me, what capital do you think a Coalition deployed NBN will recoup for taxpayers? Don't worry, I already know the answer, none. It will recoup the shareholders of the various wholesalers quite nicely though.
What is your definition of ubiquity?
That would be 100% of Australians getting a minimum speed. Wonder what that will be under the patchwork.
Who cares. Capital spent is money out and these Paper tricks of off balance sheet investment is a way to disguise the financing .
Oh really. You don't care about our taxpayer dollars being recouped from a modest return, instead of being thrown at a deployment with no return to taxpayers at all (but I'm sure there'll be a nice commercial one for wholesaler shareholders though). Don't be disingenuous. If the argument was the other way around, you'd be howling about it.
People will have choice to decide at the 2016 election.
No doubt. You included. Which is why I'm asking you about it.
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
That's all you're going to say? You have no economic opinion on any of those points? Simple answer is, you can't justify any of those economically Raoul.
OK, here's an easier one for you ....
If the NBN is expected to make a 7% return, but the Coalition's solution will expect a commercial return (in line with business), and the NBN currently can achieve parity pricing with existing ADSL plans, what do you think is going to happen with pricing for the Coalition's solution? It's a loaded question, but very relevent.
Personally I'm worried that we (as taxpayers) are simply going to be feeding business with a guaranteed cash drip, forever, with little more than existing technology to show for it. How does that help average Australians? Especially those outside capital cities in areas that even at this present time are deemed unprofitable?
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
Yet again you harp on about a CBA and yet you have said this in the past...
In reality it's impossible to cost these projects.
Forecasts past one year is hardly accurate
Your arguments are inconsistent and contradictory and based purely on ideology...
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.
Perhaps it's your strategy to keep this thread alive so that more people can see the insane and illogical position of the Coalition's NBN policy? If so, then good going.
If the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
Have said this a few times, the greatest challange for the NBN is to recoup it's capital .
The Coalition "plan" will have a negative "X" return because it will be an on-Budget capital expense to the taxpayer.....and it will be an ongoing cost in subsidies/maintenance of the copper/higher power use � for at least a few years � until the govt of the day realises that they need to drop $45 billion or more on a fibre network.
Unfortunately, when this happens � you'll probably be waxing lyrical about the extraordinary "vision" and "fiscal responsibility" shown by the Libs � despite the complete waste of money / time / effort � even if the true "cost" (social and economic) of having a backwater network for several years is exposed as disastrous.
NBN's "Y" return will � at worst � pay for itself over it's lifetime. It will have a long lifetime. Copper has served some of us well. It does not/can not serve us all. It will not serve us well in the future. It is a dead-end technologically. It must be replaced. Surely you must agree with this � even if you don't like the cost of Labor's plan?
Your "challange" (sic) applies equally to what the Coalition calls their version of the NBN.
I'm sure it is being accounted for.
It sure is, the Commonwealth Treasury has been "doing" Govt Bonds for more than 60 years that I know of.
Are you aware if they decide to pay everything upfront the finances of the project will be obliterated.
Are you aware that you can commit funds?
Raoul mate, don't be so literal.
It will be dangerous to prepay builders and assume they will meet deadlines in 2020!
One could apply the same philosophy to political parties, especially conservative ones.
its still govt borrowings and add to the national debt.
The Commonwealth Govt has been borrowing for longer than you have been living. All done under the imprimatur of Parliament, whichever Party is sitting on the Treasury benches.
It is nothing new and it is certainly nothing to get hot and bothered about.
Would you rather that we put the NBN rollout on hold .......
No, I reckon they don't think. Most of those who are concerned about Commonwealth Govt Bonds have no idea of that market or how it works (and has done so for decades.)
By way of example, telco Comindico sold for $26M after spending $370M buying assets.
Umm mate we ARE dealing with National Govts here, not some penny dreadful provincial mob.
Please, get a sense of perspective.
privately a few fund managers would question the spreadsheet modelling it's based on
They wouldn't be the same "fund managers" who, to use an American expression, went rooting for the triple A rated bonds that collapsed so spectacularly that left them, to use the Australian expression, rooted and their clients down in multiples of 10s of %s, would they?
The major problem the market has with the NBN is that it is Govt run. And they don't like that because all the big players cant get their snouts in the trough for fees and consultancies for organising the bikkies. The big banks would love a slice of the $bns flowing through to the NBNCo but due to it being financed by a National Govt under their own fund raising regimes, they don't get too much of a sniff. And aren't they bitching and whinging.
And the ordinary plonkers are falling for the reasons being spruiked, poor gullible souls.
If it's not "taxpayer funds" then what is it?
Its Govt money. Don't get that confused with moneys flowing into consolidated revenue from tax collections, excise and the like, that's "taxpayers money". They are two separate sources and are kept rigidly apart.
I'm not going to hand out a lesson on Govt Finances, we are all too old and ugly for that. If you want to bring yourself up to speed, do it yourself but don't listen to the pollies.
Also please don't use kitchen table economics when trying to get your head around the "vagaries" of National Finance. We have politicians who try that one on to bamboozled the peasants, when they want to discredit the Govt in power.
If the bond rate goes back up to 5% then it happens.
You really don't know anything about Govt finances, do you?
The Coalition may or may not ask for a breakdown.
the government has to account for the interest
The same organisation runs Govt Bonds for whomever is in power. They keep tabs on all Commonwealth transactions and have done so since Federation. Okay, pre-computer will take a little longer to access. But these figures are readily available for those who require them. Its no big deal, even if either side sqawks a lot.
And to head off your next Q, No! you don't have to know ;-)
You're comparing a hundred year old business providing dilapidated technology, relying on crumbling infrastructure and giving poor service to NBNco.
He is also comparing State with Commonwealth and they are world's apart. However, a goodly proportion of those who are anti-NBN are of that mindset.
The Coalition will likely release their detailed policy close to the election but political parties rarely inherit policies even if their are any merits.
Ummm sorry to burst your bubble, but the details of the Coalition BB Policy has already been leaked.
Damage is done.
Lib's manual, stright from the devil cave, paragraph 9 deals with NBN.
Cheers
Full of lies...what else do you expect?
If the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
Currently, "Y" is looking like 7%, and "X" is looking like -100%.
Consider the following hypothetical. What's worse: a 10% chance to lose 10 billion, or a 100% chance to lose 5 billion?
Have said this a few times, the greatest challange for the NBN is to recoup it's capital .
The Coalition has not indicated that they intend to make back any of the money they blow on...whatever it is that they will do, or appear to do.
Who cares. Capital spent is money out and these Paper tricks of off balance sheet investment is a way to disguise the financing .
Drop it. The NBN accounting has been independently validated. Just drop it. You're wasting everyone's time.
People will have choice to decide at the 2016 election.
Good god, you want us to wait even longer? What happened to 3-6 months?
Oh wait, this happened:
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.
To put it another way, We will outsource our policy to the Privatisation Productivity Commission
This is coming from the same party that accused Julia of outsourcing her policy on the heavily overblown topic of refugees.
Apparently, it is completely unacceptable for Labor to try and do studies to determine the best refugee policy, but it's completely unacceptable to not do one for the considerably more straightforward NBN.
The Coalition might be able to start the CBA in 3-6 months. I will agree � it will probably be done by 2016. Then they might start thinking about paying someone to build something. We may even have a few homes connected by 2019!
By the way:
where services are currently sub-standard or unavailable
Oh crap. They could easily declare all residents covered by all ADSL2+ enabled exchanges as already having competitive broadband. It seems incredibly unlikely that the could perform such a fine-grained study that they could factor in only the blackspots in existing coverage areas.
There goes any chance of an upgrade for 90% of the population.
Shall we take a look at the rest of your preferred "policy"?
Deliver superfast broadband using whichever technology is appropriate and cost-effective, and making use of existing network infrastructure wherever possible.
Hey, that's NBNCo's idea! Just a hundred times more vague.
This will ensure fast broadband is delivered sooner and more affordably.
Huh. The first point pretty much ruled that out, didn't it?
We will also ensure competition is encouraged wherever possible to encourage innovation and put downward pressure on broadband and telephony prices.
Here comes the ideological idiocy. Sometimes, I wonder if Tony's mouth is even capable of forming the words "natural monopoly".
encourage innovation
Sorry, no. That isn't how broadband infrastructure works.
Most of the innovation takes place in research labs funded by equipment vendors. Companies that roll out a network tend to focus on coming up with the best network design based on off-the-shelf components.
Any competition in the Australian market will be dwarfed by even a single high-density city in Asia or Europe, where such competition might actually make sense.
Where we will see innovation is perhaps at the ISP level...which is heavily encouraged under the NBN!
Application innovation should take place as well, as long as ubiquitous high speeds are available...which is once again best provided by the NBN.
and put downward pressure on broadband and telephony prices.
No amount of downward pressure is going to compensate for the huge amounts of wasted capital and wasted operating expenses. That's pretty much how natural monopolies are defined.
I guess studying basic economics isn't important for a federal political party.
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.
Well well well well well.
Here they directly admit that the market will fail.
Their solution? Pay subsidies! Right out of the budget! Surpluses be damned. Uniform wholesale pricing be damned. Uniform wholesale access be damned.
Most people will get some kind of service at a somewhat similar price! Victory!
At least it will be transparent, right?
This again shows how the Coalition prefers ideological purity over actual practical outcomes.
We plan to separate Telstra by-
Wait, no, they didn't say that. Whoops, I guess that's not happening either. Clearly they like monopolies � as long as they are in private hands that are allowed to milk them for high returns.
That's pretty much it. Their whole policy. There are no numbers. There are no promises other than a CBA, but that's not a core promise. Nor is there a mention of when they will do a CBA.
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
Read their document.
Did they mention detailed modelling?
Sorry, but there simply isn't a political party that will do what you want to do. Considering all your requirements, it probably isn't physically possible.
Full of lies...what else do you expect?
Same techniques being used on every page. From the lies it tells about the NBN you can deduce the lies being told about every other policy area.
He is also comparing State with Commonwealth and they are world's apart. However, a goodly proportion of those who are anti-NBN are of that mindset.
Oh look, there are a dozen broken things about the analogy (comparing NBNco to the NSW railways).
Funny thing is now that its O'Farrell's turn to be made to look stupid and ineffective by the NSW transport bureaucracy :)
Not really. People need to take Finance 101.
You changed the assumptions. Obviously if the returns 2% it won't cover the 3.6% interest payments.
Tell me, in the case of a 2% return, what is the taxpayer liability? What happens with a 12% return?
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed.
I am confused previously you have stated that you implicitly trust the Coalition to deliver the best outcome. Now you are claiming that a CBA should be produced. Raoul you are far from consistent in your argumentation.
f the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
1. You underwrite a FTTN cost by $2bn at the best estimater available thus far.
2. You overestimate the FTTH build cost bu $9 billion. It is true that the NBN may cost more than $36bn however you have not provided evience at to why $45 billion is even close to accurate.
Furthermore your simplistic analysis as ever ignores the upgrade cost to FTTH, what you consistently ignore is that FTTN will not provide for our telecommunications needs for decades to come, it is infinitely cheaper to upgrade a FTTH network to provide faster speeds than it is to upgrade a FTTN network.
Your simplistic analysis also forgets the operating expenditure of a copper based networks in comparison to fibre including such things as maintenance and electricity consumption.
Frankly Raoul, you have no logical evidence why FTTN will be a strong long term investment for Australia or why the short term cost savings will outweigh the long term inefficiencies from having to double up and waste parts of a FTTN network turned into a FTTH network.
What is your definition of ubiquity?
u�biq�ui�tous/yo?o?bikw?t?s/
Adjective:
Present, appearing, or found everywhere: "his ubiquitous influence".
Oh very nice Raoul. You supply an example with variables that could be anything but with conclusions that suit you. How's about you actually place the approximate percentages in there and do the math. Do you think I came down in the last shower?
His simplistic analysis ignores some very important points.
1. OPEX, to arrive at a ROI you have to take into account your OPEX, if a FTTH network has lower OPEX than a noodle network than the benefits from a CAPEX reduction would be eroded as the high OPEX would necessitate higher prices.
2. Upgrades costs, you have detailed this sufficiently.
3. He ignores the fact that unless we stick with a FTTN network for a substantial period after completion there will not be time to repay the CAPEX fully before a FTTH build is necessary. With a FTTH network you have the benefit of being able to upgrade the network very easily to keep up with demand allowing the time allowed for repayment to likely go even further than 2034. Granted extending the time of repayments past this date brings other issues that are solvable.
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.
I dont see how he can keep NBN Co after all his rantings about it being a bad govt monopoly. The public wont understand the intricisies of subtle changes to the funding models etc. They will still see it as Labours baby, which Turnbull has long said was bad. I think he will have to create another entity, that will do effectively the same thing, but be his creation. From the announcements he has made he is hoping that will be the infrastructure portion of a separated Telstra. That allows him to tick a few boxes in the publics eyes i.e. separating Telstra and avoiding any form of govt owned company in comms.
His inclusion of HFC lacks any credibility imo. Again, he has talked it up for so long, it has to happen. Have you seen any indication he is backing away from HFC as he has with wireless? If he is going to make that about face, it needs to happen very soon, otherwise people wont get his new message (whatever that is) before the election. There is more than enough indication from what I have seen that heavy reliance will be placed on HFC in the existing footprint.
For everyone not in the HFC or satellite/wireless footprints? It would need to be a very powerful wand. Yep, which has been my point all along. I cant see how any negotiations will be finailsed in that timeframe, let alone any sort of building happening. You need to chop 6 months out of that for a start for a worthless CBA to be done to give Turnbull policy direction. That puts a fair hole in the first 12 months already.
What happens to get people from 12Mbps to 24Mbps? Who knows??? Thats the whole problem with FTTN. It still relies on copper, and isnt an easy upgrade. Its wasted money. When you consider by 2015, the estimated average speed requirements as supposed to be in the vicinity of 39mbps, Turnbull still has us placed firmly behind the eight ball, even if his plan runs to schedule. it also needs to be kept in mind that if that speed prediction comes to fruitition, and the growth continues, it will only be a short few years after that that FTTN will be reaching its speed capacity, and an upgrade will be needed again to FTTH. We are talking within 8-10 years. Why bother with FTTN for that time period? Do it right the first time.
If the Coalition Plan costs $15 Billion with a X% return whereas NBN costs $45 Billion with a Y% return, the difference in capital of $30 Billion is a serious matter. The X% return pales to insignificance to $30 Billion.
Have said this a few times, the greatest challange for the NBN is to recoup it's capital .
Have said this a few times, you arent matching like with like. You need to match the NBN with the cost of getting the Libs plan up to FTTH as well. No point saying FTTN is better because its cheaper, because that simply misses the point. Its cheaper because it isnt as good as FTTH. The consensus in the IT world is that FTTH is where everyone is heading anyway.
There is a saying Raoul, that the poor man pays twice, and you "solution" is going to end up in the taxpayer doing exactly that. Building FTTN is a wasted investment because the investment has to be scrapped to then go to FTTH. GIven the forecasts for speed requirements (39mbps will be the average requirment by 2015), the life of FTTN will be very short (<10years). Give little time to recoup the money spent on it, let alone build revenue to then upgrade to FTTH.
Have said this a few times, the greatest challange for the NBN is to recoup it's capital . The greatest challenge for Turnbull will be to explain how FTTH is not a waste of money. Cheaper simply isnt better.
People will have choice to decide at the 2016 election. Will be too late then. We will be even further behind the eight ball. You simply cant build infrastructure overnight. If Turnbull dithers, as he will � it will take his first term just to get the negotiations done, many people will still be underserved by then. The opportnity costs of further waiting will then be substantial.
Detailed modelling and a CBA is needed. I dont know who is going to do that. Turnbull certainly isnt with his CBA. He will simply get the answers he wants.
There's no guarantee that the Liberals won't actually backflip and embrace the NBN as it stands.. but I won't hold my breath about it :)
I would pretty much guarantee that wont happen. They have banged on about how bad it is for too long to suddenly embrace it as it is. It will be a privately owned patchwork of owners and technologies. Thats the Liberal way after all.
Wow.. 5 pages of thread goes quickly... time to catch up...
Well Australia is a democacy and if you really want FTTH then vote Labor. You will not get FTTH under the Coalition and expect the Coalition to transition to FTTN 3-6 months after an election.
Thanks for the tip.
Much closer to election time, I'll do as I always do and consider the broadband and other policies of both parties and remember your advice.
I think the 'best' we can hope for from the Coalition is that they keep the NBNCo but switch from FTTP to FTTN in brownfield areas.
Keeping NBN Co in charge of things would be a very, very good start.
If mandated to build FTTN, NBN Co can design an FTTN network with a proper (albeit, significantly more expensive) upgrade path for FTTH in the future.
Is that baked enough for you?
I posted this in another thread, but it is also relevant here.
Baked enough for me would be a service which has all of the following characteristics � no exceptions:
- Speed
- Download speed right now of greater than 80mbps and, in less than 5 years, greater than 500mbps
- The upload speed is no less than 1/3rd the download speed, eg; for 90mbps down, no less than 30mbps up
- Latency to other premesis on the same infrastructure (within Australia) of less than 10ms
- Reliability
- All legal caveats aside, a realistic uptime greater than 95-99%
- Budget
- Ongoing cost of less than or equal to $100 per month for a greater than or equal to 500GB standalone internet service
- Ongoing cost of less than or equal to $150 per month for a greater than or equal to 500GB internet service when bundled with a home phone service, all calls included.
There is a saying Raoul, that the poor man pays twice,
Only rich people can afford cheap shoes.
The sadistic part of me hopes they try FTTN in a few places and they find out the hard way that the last part of the copper is the worst part of the copper in huge portions of the nation. Then again, they'll probably just drop their performance targets to suit the reality.
The OPEX will rise markedly though as insane levels of cross talk on stupidly corroded direct buried cable cause dropouts on dropouts on dropouts.
Frankly, good chunks of the nation are never going to get 24mb on copper. Ever.
If he throws it open to various private sector companies to build whatever they can then I'm not so sure.
Thats definitely his intention � Its in the Libs DNA! :)
I think Telstra is the only private sector company that can build the FTTN network the Coalition seems to favour. Their 'submission' to the NBN mkI RFP proposed at least 12Mbps to 80-90% with the government's $4.7bn.
Taking, that a step further, for Telstra to be able to do that, they will have to separate their copper and HFC into "Network Co" (Turnbulls term from his Press Club speech). They will also have to upgrade HFC to meet Turnbulls requirements (again from his press club speech). Given that they will have to make investment into HFC, AND make it wholesale only, open access, why would they then want to overbuild themselves with FTTN in that footprint. They would be wanting to recoup their investment in HFC and compete and offer services on the faster platform of HFC. It could probably be argued that the HFC upgrade will be cheaper than FTTN in those areas as well, especially when you consider they would have to upgrade many customers copper connections that will never use them (they will use the faster HFC), and hence provide no revenue from their copper to cover the FTTN upgrade cost for them.
Hey, that's NBNCo's idea! Just a hundred times more vague.
Don't try to talk sence here Mike, it doesn't seem to get anywhere.
What you need to do is talk in soothing tones and just waffle garbage to him,
just like Tom Sellek in 3 Men and a baby.
Then he'll go all quiet and go nigh nighs...
But on a serious note, I hope everyone is writing to their MP's.
Or do a huge email mail out to them (I compiled the Labor address but not the liberal ones)
And more so if you are in a National's area, as it seems alot of them support the NBN but have been pushed to support the party line...
OPEX
CAPEX
And here I was thinking that the former was a coalition policy and the latter was a guitar utensil... :-p
Thanks google.
If mandated to build FTTN, NBN Co can design an FTTN network with a proper (albeit, significantly more expensive) upgrade path for FTTH in the future.
Point of order, there is no upgrade path from FTTN to FTTH. The vast majority of an FTTN is building new cabinets, plus power, plus battery backup, plus airconditioning, plus DSLAMs, plus works, plus rewiring. One for every few hundred premises.
And about 5 or 10 years later, it's all outdated and all of it will need to be thrown away. FTTN is a massive waste.
Watch this.
There is no upgrade path from FTTN to FTTH. The only thing FTTN will do is have a bit more fibre in the ground, but not really to the places where it needs to go. And backhaul might have to improve. But there is just as much stress on backhaul with HFC and ADSL as FTTN would do, so there's no real incentive with FTTN to do much there either.
Watch this.
Thanks, watched the whole set many moons ago.
There is no upgrade path from FTTN to FTTH.
Agreed, there is no path to utilise FTTN tech for FTTH.
Again, I reference my comment of "significantly more expensive".
This would mean the network is built with Fibre passing houses, for use in the future, but not actually doing the lead-in connections, and an overbuild of FTTN for activation in the short term.
Clearly, running Fibre past each house but not connecting and then overbuilding with nodes for FTTN for short term use would be an absolute colossal waste of funds when they could just complete the FTTH build to begin with.
sert Q
Clearly, running Fibre past each house but not connecting and then overbuilding with nodes for FTTN for short term use would be an absolute colossal waste of funds when they could just complete the FTTH build to begin with.
True , Yes , but that doesnt address Political Ideology..
from what ive seen here, Politics is worse than drug abuse, it sends people into an absolute blind stupor..
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
Well I want it and i won't vote for a man who has no forward vision for this county.
If my vote counts for anything
+1 No way I will vote for an Abbott Govt until they get their NBN support in place. I am not going sit here (probably half the country in similar situation) with a crap almost non existent broadband service just so Brisbane can get a new road for which no doubt there will not be a business case done other than how many votes is it worth. FTTN and work at home broadband may very well reduce the need for new roads that just move the jam a few kms down the road if they are lucky.
Forward vision indeed is what this country needs if we are to suceed in the 21st century.
Actually I envisage a future where masses of people working on mainly computer screen type tasks being together in one building will be seen as a 20th and early 21st century phenomenon and we will move to a very distributed place of work environment. Villages of the future !!
http://delimiter.com.au/201
Mmmh , strange , nothing reported in the Mainstream Media..?
+1 No way I will vote for an Abbott Govt until they get their NBN support in place.
Forward vision indeed is what this country needs if we are to suceed in the 21st century.
+1
This is also a major factor in my current voting preference.
I dont see how he can keep NBN Co after all his rantings about it being a bad govt monopoly.
Fair enough. I don't see how he can do anything else, other than get Telstra to do it which doesn't bear thinking about. Confusion reigns. We'll have to wait and see.
Again, he has talked it up for so long, it has to happen. Have you seen any indication he is backing away from HFC as he has with wireless?
I don't know if he sees HFC as the only solution in those areas or as competition to FTTN. I don't care what he has or hasn't said, if he thinks it can be the only solution then he's crazy.
He's said a lot of things over the last couple of years. afaik he hasn't explicitly backed away from any of it. He's just changed the way he talks about some things. I thought he was moving toward a credible policy. I was wrong.
Baked enough for me would be a service which has all of the following characteristics � no exceptions
I'll take that as a "no" then :)
I don't think the Coalition is going to meet your speed requirements outside greenfield sites and anywhere that already has the NBN by the time they get control. That could make for a tricky decision come election time.
http://delimiter.com.au/201
As i understand it, once the NBNco is stopped in its current form, the business case is destroyed and all monies expended to date will switch to On-Budget expenditure?
So that expenditure will have to also be taken into account before NBNmkwhatever, can proceed and also taken into account with expenditure transferred to other infrastructure projects?
If so, its going to be one dogs breakfast.
all monies expended to date will switch to On-Budget expenditure
I'd love to see the Coalition try to explain probably about 5+ billion dollars away...
Perhaps someone can by the Coalition a large rug and a broom?
I'd love to see the Coalition try to explain
It's pretty simple.
"See, look how expensive the NBN was, imagine if we had allowed Labor to continue building it, it would of been way worse".
The mainstream media will cheer and praise the Liberal economic management and economic conservatism and the majority will be none the wiser, whilst the few thousand people who read the tech sites will be super annoyed for a while but have will no influence on anyone.
I don't think the Coalition is going to meet your speed requirements outside greenfield sites and anywhere that already has the NBN by the time they get control. That could make for a tricky decision come election time.
This is going to become a bigger issue for Turnbull as the election times draws nearer I think. I just went for a walk through the NBN CO truck, and discussed fixed wireless (amongst other things) with the very knowledgeable girl there. She said NBN Co have a definite speed upgrade map for fixed wireless, and they it should be going to 25mbps in the next 12 months (which will come close to the election no doubt) and then to 40mbps. She also said they would be able to offer better services over satellite once they had theirs in the air.
The implication of this for Turnbull will mean that the base speed that the NBN will offer will likely move somewhere closer to 25mbps. We have already seen some RSPs sell that as their base line plan speed.
Turnbull promising 12mbps wont cut it. To match it, FTTN, that can offer at best 50-60mbps, will be effectively running at half capacity, before its even built! In contrast, the NBN offers 100mbps out of the box, and can easily be upgraded to 1gbps.
The major problem the market has with the NBN is that it is Govt run. And they don't like that because all the big players cant get their snouts in the trough
+This
As i understand it, once the NBNco is stopped in its current form, the business case is destroyed and all monies expended to date will switch to On-Budget expenditure?
Yep they already have a $70 billion dollar black hole and this will add at least another 20 billion to that!
And the funny thing here is it will take the Wribble Opposition probably another 3 years to draft redraft discuss and amend several times their relevant legislation to enable them to return us back to a privatised Telstra.
Notwithstanding being held to ransom by Telstra to roll out redundant 10Mbps FTTN to those in the inner metropolitan footprint!
So rather than another 3 million households getting connected to Fibre Optic Broadband what we will have essentially is nothing happening at all over the life of the next Parliament.
Oh and if people think that "Greenfield Estates" will have to be fibred up � think again as its far cheaper to provide "Wireless"
As for Rural and Remote area's well that Rolls Royce Satellite service will get sold off and guess what will happen to your costs and data caps? �
yep its back to the expensive privatised plans you had previously with limited data caps, and those on LTE-TDD Fixed wireless � well the first thing that will go out the back door is the 64 percent network utilisation limit and I'm sure they will then extend the range from its current 11Km to 16Km to pick up additional customers to pack into each sector together with lowering the data caps and increasing the price.
After all you can't expect under a Liberal National Party Privatised model to have Metropolitan users subsidise your internet use can you! its just not the Liberal Conservative way!
PS Don't � whatever you do throw away those dial up modems guys � they are obviously going to be around for a long time yet under the Coalition.
PS Don't � whatever you do throw away those dial up modems guys they are obviously going to be around for a long time yet under the Coalition.
And I thought one of my custom ringtones was purely for nostalgic purposes... :'(
Col in Ballina NC NSW writes...
DenisPC9 writes...
The major problem the market has with the NBN is that it is Govt run. And they don't like that because all the big players cant get their snouts in the trough
+This
Well they did have their chance to get their snouts in and they all sat on their hands apart from a bit of cherry picking here and there !!! I (and very many others) spent well over 10 years complaining , cajoling etc to my local Lib MP and the Howard Govt Comms ministers and nada !!!!
And I thought one of my custom ringtones was purely for nostalgic purposes... :
Morse Code ... � ... SMS on Mobile Wireless �
I'm sure a few in Regional Australia will be tapping out ... --- ... SOS Save our Souls on their still functional HF Radio ccts with respect to the Coalition's policy!
I'm sure a few in Regional Australia will be tapping out ... --- ... SOS Save our Souls on their still functional HF Radio ccts with respect to the Coalition's policy!
Maybe Whirlpoolians should start up a company that sells ham radios... could be quite profitable...
I'm sure a few in Regional Australia will be tapping out ... --- ... SOS Save our Souls on their still functional HF Radio ccts with respect to the Coalition's policy!
Give it time. Turnbull will no doubt include HF radio in his "policy" shortly too ;)
Maybe Whirlpoolians should start up a company that sells ham radios... could be quite profitable...
Already there mate just type Remote Australia HF Network into Google!
Obviously these will form part of the the new cheaper and cost effective communications infrastructure that Malcolm and Tony are bunging on about!
Give it time. Turnbull will no doubt include HF radio in his "policy" shortly too ;)
Sorry didn't see this before I post my previous � obviously on the same wavelength here ! Cheers
Already there mate
*Puts calendar reminder for August next year to somehow buy a stake in that company*
Well I want it and i won't vote for a man who has no forward vision for this county.
If my vote counts for anything
What the hell is wrong with the Liberal party, they cannot keep their story straight.
What the hell is wrong with the Liberal party, they cannot keep their story straight.
The only consistent point seems to be "Labor is wrong". They seem willing to say whatever is necessary to make this point.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Impossible to know without knowing how many are required and what type..
MT say they will have GPON and VDSL cards.. One estimate said that to power up all these Nodes will require building another power station.
the new cheaper and cost effective communications infrastructure that Malcolm and Tony are bunging on about!
Tin cans and string !!!
Tin cans and string !!!
Harry, this is a tech forum, so we need to get all our facts right:
Tin cans and string are a totally unneccessary and costly pipedream that is only going to be used by people wanting to use more naughty language.
There's nothing wrong with good old smoke signals, which the coalition will promote as very highspeed broadband after they supply a set of bellows for every smokin' blaze.
There's nothing wrong with good old smoke signals, which the coalition will promote as very highspeed broadband after they supply a set of bellows for every smokin' blaze.
Hang on there tex, the Carbon Tax would first have to be repealed before a national smoke (and mirrors?) network can be implemented.
There's nothing wrong with good old smoke signals
Or carrier pigeons....for the USB sticks that Malcolm was taking the piss out of in his "hilarious" video.
As discussed earlier in this thread, the Libs National Bird Network plan makes a return.
good old smoke signals
Texmex, this is a tech forum, so we need to get all our facts right:
Smoke signals are a totally unneccessary and is only going to be used by people wanting to waste more time talking to their neighbouring tribe.
Smoke signals are a costly waste of time in training people to use when they could otherwise be using daylight hours hunting for food for our tribe.
There's nothing wrong with housetop fire beacons, which the coalition will promote as very highspeed broadband after they supply a some oil and lanterns to every house.
There's nothing wrong with housetop fire beacons
the signal travels at the speed of light too
Bloody tech heads � all these selfserving boys-toys suggestions.
Carrier pigeons were good enough for our forebears, and they can still do exactly the same sterling job they performed for the relief of Mafeking.
And just think of all those environmental benefits.
I mean, those birds are delicious . . .
And just think of all those environmental benefits.
You know what?!?
I've had enough of this techno-babble.
I'll walk.
I've had enough of this techno-babble.
Aw, Frood, so you won't be listening to any more coalition dreamtime stories about how they can overcome the laws of radiophysics with a snap of the fingers?
I'll walk.
I know the feeling well. I usually get it most strongly just after seeing another coalition thought bubble about the wonders of Tony-tech.
dreamtime stories
I'll make sure these are passed down to my great x10 grandchildren as lessons of how Australia's opposition envisaged national communications in the early 21st century.
thought bubble
As in cartoon thought bubbles?
Cartoon thought bubbles require the development of written/spoken word as well as advanced drawing/writing implements...
Let's not forget opposable thumbs in order to flick the pages and make the cartoon animate...
I don't remember yesterday either...
It was a blur of FUD Fighting... Fik it's addictive..
I mean, those birds are delicious . . .
And we'll have the Coalition-supplied "light-speed" beacon kits to cook 'em with.
Although the folks in rural areas will probably have to wait several years for the horse and cart to deliver the oil lamps � which won't burn as brightly, won't burn as long, and won't work in wet weather....but at least they'll be "comparable" to the city lamps.
they can overcome the laws of radiophysics with a snap of the fingers?
But they don't even have to snap their fingers � the laws of physics get broken every year � just ask Alan Jones or Sophie Mirabella!
Why are you lot wanting to waste perfectly good fire on communications when we can reuse our perfectly good hundred year old drums for communications!
We'll just send the young fellas up the mountain everyday and they can manage our comms for us using our perfectly good hundred year old drums!
we can reuse our perfectly good hundred year old drums for communications!
^--- this guy...
"...straight to the pool room.. "
And we'll have the Coalition-supplied "light-speed" beacon kits to cook 'em with.
Couple of minor tech points here, osc.
The coalition envisage that their alternative comms medium will be faster than NBN, which is so backward that it only operates around the speed of light.
Their system hasn't quite been invented yet, but we are assured it will be turning up real soon now.
at least they'll be "comparable" to the city lamps.
Again, it's important to get the words right.
The coalition solution will 'fulfil the objective' of providing a NLN (national lamp network). It won't be national, it won't all be lamps and it won't be a network, but, hey, words can mean whatever you want them to mean.
we'll have the Coalition-supplied "light-speed" beacon kits to cook 'em with.
Will it be subject to a CBA
The coalition envisage that their alternative comms medium will be faster than NBN, which is so backward that it only operates around the speed of light.
I think what they mean is 'delievered faster'.
As in, you'll get it before you get ftth.
It's a play on words, which evidently, is working.
fttn ends up being a stop gap measure, move up from last mile is a fiction saying that is is fact which the libs can;t keep their traps shut, reality that the average node might have a 2-5 mile radius limit before looking at adsl/vdsl anything..
reality 0.64mm or higher will be the the only option if you wantedto provide 24/1-24-24/4 under 1 mile from the node, signal degredation is to great working on the promize of 0.35-0.45mm the signal loss would that great you wouldn't see much of a speed increase of 8/1 from a current 4/1 or less connection speed..
current cat-3 in lead-ins and and 1st point connections should suffice for 24/1 connection speeds in regards to full rate adsl, there isn't that much of a benefit of changing from cat-3 to cat-5e or cat-6 for adsl/vdsl signal..
looking at the average home network now and into the future fttn is a very short use parameter is slowly but surely well past being a usable solution in todays market and to start deploying it now and having to replace it within 10 years it will likely be cheaper to goto ftth now instead fttn upgrade then junk fttn to implement ftth..
I think what they mean is 'delievered faster'.
As in, you'll get it before you get ftth.
i seriously doubt this , and what % of population 20, 40, 60?
wont even come within whisker of 93%
I think what they mean is 'delivered faster'.
No, I was referring to the various coalition thought bubbles which posit that NBN is a waste of time and money because it is about to be superseded by some marvellous but as-yet not quite discovered technology which will be stunning, etc, etc.
As in, you'll get it before you get ftth.
When we see the NBN rollout now at full speed, and consider that following a coalition win next year their FTTN proposal will be totally unplanned and uncosted, it's clear that the coalition plan will be no quicker and may well finish up taking longer than the planned NBN build.
It's a play on words, which evidently, is working.
It may be, but not around here.
No, I was referring to the various coalition thought bubbles which posit that NBN is a waste of time and money because it is about to be superseded by some marvellous but as-yet not quite discovered technology which will be stunning, etc, etc.
Haven't had that one in a while (but i'm sure it's still out there)
When we see the NBN rollout now at full speed, and consider that following a coalition win next year their FTTN proposal will be totally unplanned and uncosted, it's clear that the coalition plan will be no quicker and may well finish up taking longer than the planned NBN build.
What we have to do is ensure they don't get there. I've been predicting a tie for a year or so (meaning 3 more years of deadlocks) but at least we will get fibre.
It may be, but not around here.
It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the electorate as a whole thinks.
I think the majority of the FUD is busted around these parts, but there is always more questions to be answered.
That said, I'm glad that the roll out is hitting full steam. I just hope the people around here keep getting the word out and that Labor has a few ACE's up their sleaves that will beat NLP's Full House.
Haven't had that one in a while (but i'm sure it's still out there)
Like you I hadn't heard it very recently, but then I was told that they are still rolling that mirage out at closed meetings of the party supporters. Like the rest of the population, they wouldn't really know whether there's anything in it or not.
It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the electorate as a whole thinks.
Yes, and of course what the coalition think the electorate will swallow. They have been getting away with their 'faster and cheaper' anodyne so far, but as the NBN rollout progresses it will become harder to maintain the pretense.
No, I was referring to the various coalition thought bubbles which posit that NBN is a waste of time and money because it is about to be superseded by some marvellous but as-yet not quite discovered technology which will be stunning, etc, etc.
I like it how they keep coming out with this. Just because they are rolling out 2.4GPON with 10GPON released doesn't mean NBN FTTH is obsolete. There are massive gains yet to be had the cable is sound it would be only the end points that would need upgrading.
I still laugh at Allen Jones claiming NBN would be made obsolete by this new "Laser Beam" network technology that was tested.
That's right! My Datson 180b isn't obsolete. There are massive gains to be had with Datsuns. All I need to do is change the engine, motor, carpet, seats, speedo, dashboard, doors, windows, wheels, driveline. And hey presto. It's like new.......
All I need to do is change the engine, motor, carpet, seats, speedo, dashboard, doors, windows, wheels, driveline.
But most important the 35 year old wiring is old, corroded and brittle. The engine will still work as will the transmission. The bit that will fail is the wiring.
the network isn't the vehicle, it's the roads. nbn is a sealed all weather road replacing dirt tracks. vehicles are analogous to applications . eg web browsing is like a motorbike. file downloads like a truck, live audiovideo like an express train. you might change vehicles from day to day, but the road stays the same for half a century and must support all vehicle typs from day one.
Since we're on the tops of analogies, here's another one, for those of you who are familiar with Sydney:
The copper network is like dirt roads � They served us well during older times and got us where we needed to go, albeit slowly, and were quite prone to damage by environmental weathering effects.
Fibre to the Node is like the M2 � A critical step up from using Victoria Road to access Sydney's CBD. M2 Traffic flows smoothly during off-peak times, however is heavily congested during peak hours. The M2 also requires upgrades every few years to keep up with traffic demands.
Fibre to the Home is like the Sydney Harbour Bridge � Opened in 1932, the bridge is a critical link for access to Sydney's CBD. Traffic flows smoothly on the bridge, even during peak hours. Whilst the two lanes for old tram tracks have since been converted into road lanes, the bridge itself has not changed size since it opened 80 years ago. The bridge is regarded as a shining mark of true foresight in Sydney's history. Also, early planning for the bridge in 1916 was approved by a progressive NSW Legislative Assembly and blocked by a generally-conservative NSW Legislative Council.
The copper network is like dirt roads
Can't support heavy vehicles ever. Pedestrians and donkeys can use it most of the time, but still prone to bad weather and interference from wild animals leaping out suddenly from the bush. Throughput is slower if the track is longer because if you try to put too many donkeys on the track at once, they arrive in the wrong order at the other end and get mixed up. So you can only send on at a time and wait for the donkey to arrive at the destination before you send the next.
FTTN is like have a Fast Rail to the corner shop. This is a great improvement. Fast, Reliable, holds lots of stuff. But you still have a dirt track from your house to the corner. Needs a train station at the corner and and a donkey stable. Shorter mud track means your donkey can make more trips quicker. Still need to patch up some potholes. Still need to split large orders into small packages that fit on the donkey. Works ok until you order a new lounge suite and it arrives at the station, then the donkey sinks into the mud while trying to carry it to your house. Higher donkey mortality rate as they still get stuck in the mud or savaged by wild tigers.
FTTH is like paving the road all the way between the shop, warehouse and your house. You and your retailer choose whether a truck, car, bike or foot is best.
Upgrading from FTTN to FTTH leaves lots of redundant train/truck stations, donkey stables.
That's right! My Datsun 180B isn't obsolete.
No, but it's obsolescent, just like the coalition's 'broadband' proposal.
Spending money on your (hopefully hypothetical) 180B would be a complete waste, because neither the design nor the structure are capable of being upgraded to meet your needs for the next fifty years.
Far better to put the same money over the same timespan into buying a new purpose-built vehicle that will be very efficient now and can be easily and cheaply upgraded with new ECUs to keep up with all future needs.
Reading this post here whrl.pl/RdfcYR
Committed to a FTTN infrastructure, NOT FTTH. Wants to provide speeds 'at around 50-80mbs and FTTN will provide this
Its pretty safe to assume that no copper will be upgraded until it completely dies and you can't get a dial tone, so with that in mind how close will the Nodes have to be?
Upgrading from FTTN to FTTH leaves lots of redundant train/truck stations, donkey stables.
That post was a pretty damn good analogy jwbam. Props to you sir.
Several Coalition voters seem to be telling me that oppositions don't need policies, all they need to do is "critique the government".
Does anyone here agree with this?
I have been thinking of what sort of mental gymnastics could produce this:
a) The Coalition is the best party
b) The Coalition currently doesn't have many (if any) detailed policies
c) To believe (a), policies must not be important
d) Therefore, policies are not important for an opposition
If this is what a Typical Coalition Voter (TCV) is thinking, then the Coalition's NBN position is simply irrelevant to them.
The TCVs must also be believing that Tony's "criticism" of the NBN (you will pay three times more! etc.) is valid.
If all they do is update their own internal position to match whatever their preferred party's position is...then democracy is simply failing.
The Coalition's real position may therefore be:
1) Let the TCVs blindly listen to Tony's wild attacks
2) Let the swinging voters believe that Turnbull won't cancel the NBN
3) Do whatever they want when they get in power
4) Blame the end result on Labor and/or claim the NBN was a non-core promise
Is anyone else bothered by this?
Is anyone else bothered by this?
I certainly am. Because you've just described as succintly as possible the breakdown of Australia's political system. These days it appears to be a team sport picked for you by your elders when you were younger. It's also evidence of lazy thinking when people go to vote.
Unfortunately, I can only do as much as a swinging voter like me can do, put my vote where I think it counts. It's just a pity that a lot of people these days (mostly my Generation X and younger, if I believe my Gen Y sisters and my Gen Z niece) see voting as an interruption to their weekend, rather than a essential piece of democracy that's worth fighting for.
Several Coalition voters seem to be telling me that oppositions don't need policies, all they need to do is "critique the government".
Does anyone here agree with this?
I dont agreee with it. I have always held, in anything � not just politics, that if you are going to criticise something you should be able, valid reasons for your criticism, to provide alternatives that improve the thing, or offer a better alternative.
Sadly politics these days is more about the negatives than the positives. The Libs have run a platform of just saying no. There are no alternatives put forward, or valid reasoning given in most cases. Its more about getting the senational headlines than doing something positive and garnering praise for that.
Is anyone else bothered by this?
Yep. You see it a lot out here in the country. Scary stuff � no thought process involved. People vote for the Nats, because their parents voted for the Nats, and their parents etc. They are also under the misapprehension that the Nats look after their interests, when its increasingly the case that the Nats simply toe the Liberal party line. This is no more evident than in the complete disappearance of the recommendation of fibre replacing copper in regional and rural Australia. The Nats are doing their constituents a major injustice.
If the Nats continued to support fibre as it did before, it would make it very difficult for the Libs to argue that fibre is not needed, as they are doing now.
Several Coalition voters seem to be telling me that oppositions don't need policies, all they need to do is "critique the government".
Does anyone here agree with this?
Definitely do NOT agree, I want to vote FOR things not AGAINST. Very easy to criticise any actions whether by Govts, Business or Individuals, at least they are trying to get something done about a particular situation and may not be doing a good job but they are TRYING. Alternative is "Laissez Faire" and I thought that went out amongst conservative parties worldwide years ago.
btw my missus who is a very strong "Lib on principle" voter is having serious doubts about voting for an Abbott led coalition, I have never known her be in this frame of mind before. She wants Turnbull back , mainly because he seems more of a politician , a negotiater , a compromiser and willing to discuss issues
Definitely do NOT agree, I want to vote FOR things not AGAINST.
Yes please, what a breath of fresh air that would be.
Of course, Mr No only wants you to vote against things because he isn't offering anything to actually vote for.
If all they do is update their own internal position to match whatever their preferred party's position is...then democracy is simply failing.
All you have to do is suffer through the "Bolt Report" to know that is exactly how a lot of people operate. Getting a lot of silver spooners in to look down their noses at world as it is, blame all the bad bits on the failings of the current government, but ultimately never offer any alternatives. For this reason alone the NBN is doomed in it's current form. Not because it is actually a good idea, but because it is a Labor idea, good or not don't come in to it.
Does anyone here agree with this?
There's an old saying along the lines of 'oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them'. I think in this case the people you're speaking with are right. This government is losing the next election despite people's dislike of Abbott and his lack of coherent and/or workable policies. It seems people detest Gillard more than they dislike Abbott.
a) The Coalition is the best party
Or the Coalition is the least worst option.
b) The Coalition currently doesn't have many (if any) detailed policies
What opposition does this far out from an election?
c) To believe (a), policies must not be important
Or the government's policies are important and wrong.
d) Therefore, policies are not important for an opposition
Or the government's policies are important for an opposition. Did people vote for Fair Work in 2007 or against Work Choices?
If this is what a Typical Coalition Voter (TCV) is thinking, then the Coalition's NBN position is simply irrelevant to them.
I think NBN policy will be irrelevant to a lot of people at the next election. There are other, bigger issues.
The TCVs must also be believing that Tony's "criticism" of the NBN (you will pay three times more! etc.) is valid.
Not necessarily. They just don't think the NBN matters in the overall scheme of things.
The Coalition's real position may therefore be: ...
Irrelevant.
There's an old saying along the lines of 'oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them'.
All this stuff you been saying never actually is true, it's what you MAY want to hear however.
They somehow think that one party is worse than the other, when in reality they are the same.
Just as example what's happening in QLD and NSW big bad state governments automatically killing everything and rising prices, then put the blame on previous governments.
Then archive absolutely NOTHING.
Quiet frankly your attitude is just 'wrong' on the NBN, it's something that people see every day and use.
CMOTDibbler writes...
There's an old saying along the lines of 'oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them'.
All this stuff you been saying never actually is true, it's what you MAY want to hear however.
The old refrain that 'oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them' is certainly true of the Abbott ascendancy.
http://www.abc.
The adage is "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them". Abbott extrapolates this to mean an opposition is better off attacking the government to feed into people's perceptions that the government is losing its way, rather than spend too much time building an alternative vision if the adage holds that oppositions don't win elections.
http://www.daily
THE conventional wisdom in politics � if that is not a kind of oxymoron � holds that oppositions don�t win elections so much as governments lose them.
http://inside.org.au/
There are many, many examples of this saying being used. Perhaps you should check before saying something isn't true.
Quiet frankly your attitude is just 'wrong' on the NBN, it's something that people see every day and use.
Attitude? My opinion is that the NBN won't determine a lot of people's votes. How else can support for the NBN be at 80% when support for the Coalition is at 58%?
So you been reading what newspapers what you to 'hear'?
My opinion is that the NBN won't determine a lot of people's votes. How else can support for the NBN be at 80% when support for the Coalition is at 58%?
You say this, but the polling stands on 58% and growing.
What you should be saying is that Coalition don't care about polls and thus it's why it's going to destroy the NBN, and that's why they get people like yourself saying "NBN won't determine alot of people's view".
Heres another thing to consider, QLD State Goverment is banning camera's in Parliament till August:
How far are people willing to go for the opposite side and say "The Government's always going to loose the elections"? When it should be stupid decisions like this.
My opinion is that the NBN won't determine a lot of people's votes. How else can support for the NBN be at 80% when support for the Coalition is at 58%?
CMOT, that says a lot about your mindset.
Actually the NBN is starting to affect people's votes but at the moment its so on the margins that you won't be able to identify it in the polls.
You get a lot of "oh I like the NBN but I hate labor" comments, but then the same people can't actually produce a reasonable argument about why they don't like labor. Its just a "brand" thing.
The other thing is the Liberal's tactic is to take those people affected by the herd-mentality "Labor is bad, m'kay" thing and trying to reassure them that they won't get screwed under the Liberals over broadband. Again, if they (the Liberals) weren't so worried about it, they'd have simply forgotten the whole area, like they did in previous Parliaments.
I'm sorry for being a bit critical of you, but you do seem to be captive to the thought that somehow sometime the Libs will come up with a policy. You so badly want to believe that. And failing that you do an awful lot of spreading of doubt and uncertainty here. Just endless nitpicks and "im not sure.. " and so on.
Btw, the trend currently is about 55/45 for national polls and trending up for Labor. its not a good place to be in, but there's still a good 2 or 3 percent that is just plain "soft" in the classic sense of people telling pollsters something that reflects their current mood. And a lot of that is the carbon pricing scheme. And a lot of that will fall out.
Now, how does the NBN affect things? As a single issue cause it's not likely to switch more than 0.5% of voters, but even that is a big thing in a close election where the incumbent can feasibly win on 49/51 (Howard did it on the GST election I might add)
But the NBN is more dangerous to the Liberals than just the "gee whiz I want some too" factor. What it does is unglue them from the narrative that "everything Labor is bad".. and you know, when such narratives snap, they do so pretty suddenly.
Don't forget Rudd was enjoying 56-57 in the polls just as the beat up over the pink bats occurred. He lost 4 points in 2 months.
That post was a pretty damn good analogy
As with all analogies, it is only as good as it matches the actual situation for the purposes of the explanation being made
An analogy is used to explain specific properties of a real object, and the analogy must also have the same or similar properties. As the analogy is not completely the same, it will inevitably lead to false conclusions if it is used to explain OTHER properties.
Looking back at my earlier post, FTTN signals in copper don't travel slow like donkeys. In fact they travel at the same speed as light in optic fibre. But it is true they need to be sent slowly to avoid mixing up the signals over long distances. But unlike a donkey, which can be timestamped and sorted at the other end, you can't timestamp an electronic signal. All pulses look alike. It's like a donkey that can't carry anything, but can only convey information by being made to walk head first or tail first and may randomly turn around before it reaches the destination. But "refining" the analogy like that to make it closer to the real system also destroys the simplicity of donkey (and sounds ridiculous) and makes it no easier to understand the limits of real signalling technology.
People keep using car analogies for the NBN, but a car is not a network. A road system is a better one because like NBN they are:
- very expensive to create
- last half a century
- need huge planning
- benefits increase with ubiquity, connectedness, coverage and ease of access
But they keep using cars because
- the intended audience has never personally built or finance a road, but has bought a car or two.
- the real intention of the speaker is to infer that NBN's benefits are non-essential and self-indulgent luxuries. Hence comparisons between Kias, Toyotas with Rolls, Ferrari etc.
and inappropriate because cars don't last decades, and each one is only used and chosen by its owner or driver for the purpose at hand.
As with all analogies, it is only as good as it matches the actual situation for the purposes of the explanation being made
An analogy is used to explain specific properties of a real object, and the analogy must also have the same or similar properties. As the analogy is not completely the same, it will inevitably lead to false conclusions if it is used to explain OTHER properties.
+100
Hence the futility of making them in the first place. Analogies should only be used to explain a concept, one which may in it's original form be difficult to grasp. It should never be used to support an argument. The reason being that if you pick a flaw in the analogy (which is easy to do because it doesn't relate 100% to the original concept) then the argument is shot down in flames at worst, seriously weakened at best.
Hence the weakness of discussions about roads, Ferraris (especially red ones), etc.
Seriously. The concept of the NBN and the underlying technology is not hard to understand or explain. It doesn't NEED analogies. Use them at your risk.
But the NBN is more dangerous to the Liberals than just the "gee whiz I want some too" factor. What it does is unglue them from the narrative that "everything Labor is bad".. and you know, when such narratives snap, they do so pretty suddenly.
Mr Turnbull has said they will keep the NBN and fix it. Voters do not just vote on broadband but other issues and the NBN is a minor issue.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
That's precisely the sort of idiotic thing we need from Campbell to help Federal Labor :)
I know this is off-topic but why should this help Federal Labor?
Federal Labor has a permanent ban on private video cameras in Federal Parliament (as did the Howard Gov before them).
Clause 4(a)
Television filming in the Chambers is the exclusive responsibility of
parliamentary staff.
The rules for the cameras operated by the Federal parliamentary staff also specifically forbid covering disturbances in the gallery, the same rule that the private camera operators in the Queensland parliament are being suspended for violating.
A state Government temporarily suspending something that is permanently banned at the Federal level hardly seems to be a good reason to support a particular party at the Federal level.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
Considering that one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why they lost the last election was the NBN, then I would take a guess that it IS one of the main issues Raoul.
Mr Turnbull has said they will keep the NBN and fix it. Voters do not just vote on broadband but other issues and the NBN is a minor issue
No they did not say they will keep the NBN and fix it, they said they will change it.
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro
"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.
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.
Considering that one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why they lost the last election was the NBN, then I would take a guess that it IS one of the main issues Raoul.
With politics a slip up in any policy area be it industrial relations, job cuts can affect perception of other policies.
I admit they made a poor presentation at the last election on their broadband policy but that can be any policy.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to make sure they have no slip ups. Mr Turnbull being an ex Investment Banker has accomplished presentation skills and would not expect any slip ups.
Mr Turnbull has said they will keep the NBN and fix it.
When in reality they will 'stuff it'.
Voters do not just vote on broadband but other issues and the NBN is a minor issue.
Oh. OK Another major subject just introduced. 'Scuse me while adjust the goal posts.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues. (My bold)
Which is a very telling commentary on Turnbull's (and the LNP's) attitude to the NBN, is it not. An issue to be just 'neutralised'?
Yep. The LNP Turnbull and Abbott couldn't give a shit about the NBN. It's just an issue to be neutralised in order for them gain power.
Out of 'raoulrule's own mouth.
(Sarcasm on.) So yeah. Vote for the Liberal Party if you want a good broadband policy.
Edit: Damn 'rr'. How does it feel to have just negated every argument you have ever put forward against the NBN and for the Coalition alternative. Ouch!. It must really hurt.
I admit they made a poor presentation at the last election on their broadband policy
And if anything it's got worse since then, starting with the instruction from Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull to destroy NBN.
Mr Turnbull being an ex Investment Banker has accomplished presentation skills
Certainly. But a silk purse (or a silk's purse) will never be produced from a sow's ear.
I admit they made a poor presentation at the last election on their broadband policy but that can be any policy.
+1 After years of Helen Coonan's ineptitude, they managed to plumb new depths. Tony Smith.
Only the Liberals .....
CMOT, that says a lot about your mindset.
In what way? There must be a lot of people who say they support the NBN but also say they intend to vote Coalition. That's not mindset, it's arithmetic.
I'm sorry for being a bit critical of you, but you do seem to be captive to the thought that somehow sometime the Libs will come up with a policy.
He's said a lot of things over the last couple of years. afaik he hasn't explicitly backed away from any of it. He's just changed the way he talks about some things. I thought he was moving toward a credible policy. I was wrong.
whrl.pl/Rde5kt
Btw, the trend currently is about 55/45 for national polls and trending up for Labor.
The latest Newspoll is 55/45. The latest Nielson poll is 58/42.
http://au.acnielsen.com/news/200512.shtml
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.
whrl.pl/RdeFdr
It's hard to know what will happen when both leaders have been so unpopular for so long. People might not want to vote for Abbott but will they vote for Gillard?
Now, how does the NBN affect things?
I think NBN policy will be irrelevant to a lot of people at the next election. There are other, bigger issues.
whrl.pl/Rdfgh3
Yep. The LNP Turnbull and Abbott couldn't give a shit about the NBN. It's just an issue to be neutralised in order for them gain power.
So falling behind world broadband standards is just "collateral damage".
So falling behind world broadband standards is just "collateral damage".
Ummm Yeah. Apparently.
Helen Coonan's ineptitude, they managed to plumb new depths. Tony Smith.
Only the Liberals .....
Not only, but also; http://www.theage.com.au/arti
Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, June 2003
How would you rank Australia's technological stature on the world stage as a supplier and consumer of technology?
Australia is prominent as a supplier of advanced ICT applications, mostly in specialised fields and where ICT is transforming more traditional industry sectors, and Australians are internationally recognised as early adaptors and sophisticated users of technology.
But it's not broken.
It will be, just as soon as the coalition get their hands on it.
That's assuming they persist with their present 'policy' of course, to the extent that it is possible to discern anything definite there other than stopping future contracts and replacing them with what can only be technically described as a bloody mess.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to make sure they have no slip ups
Too late, he already has. His originally blatant, but lately more subtle peddling of his "promise we'll do it different even if we can't define what different is" is more than what I'd call a "slip up".
Mr Turnbull being an ex Investment Banker has accomplished presentation skills and would not expect any slip ups.
Then he needs some serious work to fool even the mildly conversant in broadband.
Too late, he already has. His originally blatant, but lately more subtle peddling of his "promise we'll do it different even if we can't define what different is" is more than what I'd call a "slip up".
That's your opinion. The NBN is hardly talked about in the press and that's what the aim is as they have other more important issues to interrogate.
If I read the opinion polls Labor has a primary vote of 28% (Nielson/Fairfax) indicating the Coalition is winning political debate with Mr Turnbull taking NBN off the radar. Not sure what conroy is up to as he seems to be unable to articulate what is happening in NBN Land be it rollout progress or corporate plan.
If I read the opinion polls Labor has a primary vote of 28% (Nielson/Fairfax) indicating the Coalition is winning political debate with Mr Turnbull taking NBN off the radar. Not sure what conroy is up to as he seems to be unable to articulate what is happening in NBN Land be it rollout progress or corporate plan.
Polls are independent of whether or not the politician is misleading Raoul. MT, Mr Abbott and Joe Hockey have been identified any number of times, by multiple reports as misleading, in some cases, plainer language is used, they're called out for lying.
Do you concur?
If not, please explain to me exactly what the Coalition's broadband policy is. "Cheaper and faster" doesn't cut it without detail. If you can show me this, I can and will seriously assess it against the current plan. I'm not even expecting the same detail as the current one. But "faster, cheaper, we'll do it different, prudent management" isn't detail, it's waffle. How do you lend these guys credibility for simple waffle when the alternative is so clearly mapped out with the detail we have today is beyond my understanding.
Your team's got it wrong Raoul. Just because the current government team doesn't have it exactly right in some quarters does not add credibility to the garbage policy to the alternative. I fear that Australians are going to be rather uncomfortable in examining their conscience (hopefully before the election) when they start figuring out what it is exactly that the Coalition stands for. "No" to everything isn't a policy.
Sing with me Raoul ....
"Desperado ....... Why don't you come to your senses ...."
Mr Turnbull has said they will keep the NBN and fix it.
There is nothing to fix. What the Libs will do to it is a word starting with F though ;)
Trunbull is being very deceptive in saying he will keep the NBN. His version of the NBN will be nothing like the one Labour is proposing, and hence cant be equated to the NBN.
That's your opinion. The NBN is hardly talked about in the press and that's what the aim is as they have other more important issues to interrogate.
If I read the opinion polls Labor has a primary vote of 28% (Nielson/Fairfax) indicating the Coalition is winning political debate with Mr Turnbull taking NBN off the radar. Not sure what conroy is up to as he seems to be unable to articulate what is happening in NBN Land be it rollout progress or corporate plan.
See, this is where you seem to have a disconnect again. The NBN is in the media regularly. The problem is, its predominantly only ever reported negatively in the mainstream media. Abbotts mistruths, for example, get big headlines. The corrections of these mistruths appear in small industry publications like Delimiter or Computerworld. Hardly balanced. NBN Co and the govt have put out lots of excellent information. Where is it reported in the mainstream media?
EDIT: Its also worth considering the importance that the Libs themselves place on the NBN as an issue, before claiming its a non-issue.
The so-called �speaking notes� document published by Crikey last week (full PDF here) contains an extensive three to four page section on the NBN, marking it a major policy area alongside other areas such as border protection, the �carbon tax� and more. http://delimiter.com.au/2012/
There is nothing to fix. What the Libs will do to it is a word starting with F though
Now be fair, the coalition will 'fix' it all right.
Just like some people 'fix' a dog or cat.
Turnbull is being very deceptive in saying he will keep the NBN.
In fact even more deceptive than that, because his very clever phrase is actually 'We will fulfil the objective of NBN.' Which could mean two tin cans and a piece of string � after all, nothing in that set of words is inconsistent with such an outcome.
In fact even more deceptive than that, because his very clever phrase is actually 'We will fulfil the objective of NBN.' Which could mean two tin cans and a piece of string � after all, nothing in that set of words is inconsistent with such an outcome.
Exactly so. One must sift the words of a politician to see if there's any way it can mean something other than how you are supposed to take it.
'We will fulfil the objective of NBN': What does that even mean? The existing objective? His objective? Abbott's objective? What does "objective" mean in this context? The "objective" could be to destroy all NBNCo fibre with firecrackers, for all we know.
Over time I've not seen anything MT has said about the NBN that is unambiguous in meaning, or doesn't have one comment that cancels out another statement. In short, once one filters out the vague, unclear, qualified, ambiguous statements one is left with nothing that supports the firm idea that the current NBN will be rolled out if Malcolm has anything to say about it, and he says it in such a soothing and reassuring way that many people don't even notice.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
you dont neutralise issues that have no bearing, its a waste of peoples time and money. it can also backfire.
With politics a slip up in any policy area be it industrial relations, job cuts can affect perception of other policies.
yes, and slipping up while attempting to neutralise a coalition "non issue" is even worse
Mr Turnbull' s job is to make sure they have no slip ups.
not doing a very good job
Mr Turnbull being an ex Investment Banker has accomplished presentation skills and would not expect any slip ups.
youre typical voter wont appreciate an "investment banker" telling them how to invest their money, were still a bit pissed off about the gfc
The NBN is hardly talked about in the press
pity, its always nice to have educated voters, and not have one party attempting to brush the topic under the carpet. not exactly democratic is it. (note that politicians in general do this sort of thing with any topic they think will make them look bad, its not just a coalition thing)
In fact even more deceptive than that, because his very clever phrase is actually 'We will fulfil the objective of NBN.' Which could mean two tin cans and a piece of string � after all, nothing in that set of words is inconsistent with such an outcome.
And fortunately Turnbull is revealing himself for what he is. A politician. No more, no less.
As 'raoulrules' himself posted ....
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
Turnbull has no empathy or specific knowledge of telecommunications other than being an investor/venture capitalist who made a good decision which paid off. Does he 'know the technology or the opportunites'? Other than an as an investment. No!
And anything else Turnbull says should be viewed through the prism and filter of 'a politician'.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
Ohh Raoul, really. Please you can do better than that. This is just parroting Lib soundbites. Think for yourself man.
... the main issues.
The NBN was one of the main stumbling blocks that the Independents judged both Leaders on when deciding who they would support. The NBN and his response was primarily responsible for Abbott not lodging in the Lodge!
... the main issues
At approx $36bn, this is a minor issue?
Please, jest if you must but don't insult our intelligence nor denigrate yours.
The NBN was one of the main stumbling blocks that the Independents judged both Leaders on when deciding who they would support. The NBN and his response was primarily responsible for Abbott not lodging in the Lodge!
We can never know what the independents private intentions are, they could say one thing in front of cameras as a decoy.
At approx $36bn, this is a minor issue?
A few on this forum say $36 Billion is nothing.
I see other issues being more critical in next years election. On here WP it's important but on main street there are other issues.
I see other issues being more critical in next years election. On here WP it's important but on main street there are other issues.
And no doubt you're happy about Abbott and his merry men lying their tits off about those other issues too :P
NBN is a minor issue.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
I thought his job was to come up with a better plan than Labor's, so the Libs can do a better job when we put them in power?
Your saying his job is just to make us forget about the nation's broadband requirements and concentrate on issues that the Libs think will win the election for them? He's just an election-winning tool?
And a MINOR one at that!
That's sad for poor Malcolm.
Mr Turnbull being an ex Investment Banker has accomplished presentation skills .....
He and they sure do, unfortunately that's not all they have. Along with an almost complete lack of moral or social conscience and all the empathy of a Dung Beetle. But that's about where their good points end.
What leads me to that conclusion. The GFC that hit the world in 2007 and is still unfolding.
What was it that Keating said about Turnbull, something along the lines of "He's intelligent but has no judgement"
NBN is a minor issue.
It does make me wonder that for such a minor issue, why do you continually harp on about a CBA for the NBN?
We can never know what the independents private intentions are, they could say one thing in front of cameras as a decoy.
Ha, got you on the run haven't I ;-)
A few on this forum say $36 Billion is nothing.
Not good enough, the Q was in response to your post. NOT a general comment about what others (may) have said.
You've been rumbled as being disingenuous.
I thought his job was to come up with a better plan than Labor's, so the Libs can do a better job when we put them in power?
Really?
Your saying his job is just to make us forget about the nation's broadband requirements and concentrate on issues that the Libs think will win the election for them? He's just an election-winning tool?
I think that's his job. Let the electorate focus on the carbon tax and the boats.
Really?
See what I mean? endless nit pick. Keep gainsaying in the hope it will all go away.
Oh and btw, jwbam has a point. The opposition of this country does have a duty to come up with sensible alternate policy.
You evidently don't think its worth getting into the substance.. Just nit pic.. nit pic.. word games..
I see other issues being more critical in next years election. On here WP it's important but on main street there are other issues.
Stopping the boats is clearly far more important...why else would Abbott talk about it every week?
Speaking of Malcolm Turnbull ....
Why Is Malcolm Turnbull Spending So Much On Global Roaming?
http://www.lifehacker.com.a
.... for the six-month period
* $18346.52: Malcolm Turnbull (Lib)
He must be with a private corporation, like ohhh say Telstra?
Lol
Ha, got you on the run haven't I ;-)
So if the Coalition fully adopted FTTH do you believe their primary vote will skyrocket?
It does make me wonder that for such a minor issue, why do you continually harp on about a CBA for the NBN?
As a voting policy NBN is a non issue.
As a financial risk NBN is quite serious and more diligence is required such as a sensitivity analysis and CBA.
As a financial risk NBN is quite serious and more diligence is required such as a sensitivity analysis and CBA.
I'm still waiting on a response from you Raoul for this .....
If the NBN is expected to make a 7% return, but the Coalition's solution will expect a commercial return (in line with business), and the NBN currently can achieve parity pricing with existing ADSL plans, what do you think is going to happen with pricing for the Coalition's solution? It's a loaded question, but very relevent.
As a voting policy NBN is a non issue.
Wow... you must spend your entire life doorknocking to know what's important for every person in Australia!
The NBN is ABSOLUTEY a voting policy issue!
I recall that it had a major impact on last two federal elections.
For myself, it is definitely one of the major voting decision points.
look's like turnbull is treading the cherry picking the ftth>fttn debate...
My opinion for fttn>adsl/vdsl option to be usable they would have migrate the last 1-5 miles onto 0.64mm or better between the node and entry pits, due to the fact there is to much signal loss between anything on a lower grade trunk connection..
even usinng fttn>hfc you face the same hurdles not to mention pushing telecomms back to the partyline days..
generally fois/ftth seems to be a better option for the longer term, looking at the libs plan for BB they are pushing a stop gap measure at best and at worst they are regurgitating a policy that has truly been a dead deployable option from over 20+ years ago that has yet to be updated since the original paper was published since the early to mid 1990's where and when fttn was a usable solution fastforward 2012 near on 20 years since that original report was actually created...
if you look at the whole BB solution in regards to each medium on tabled report from 20 years ago, wireless broadbands and interim sat becomes a usable white elephant, plan of 12/1 is nice and all though reality see 8/1 being a serviced medium as they haven't bothered to add growth to each market since the original report was made, the reality is the cost to wireless and sat vs it's benefits may be a short sighted study to begin with..
200,000 was a rough coverage estimate tabled 20 years ago, realistically until you add 10%-20% P/A growth you don't have a realistic user base to base the figures on as that would be the average growth rate of the target medium..
sadly the devil is in the migration from older to newer
technolgies and in this case what ever benefit the newer tech holds will end up being lost for the simple fact of over subscription combined with migration will always be the burdon on a wireless and sat network..
my opinion the average home within 10years will have a min of 10 or more devices connected to a home network whether it be wired and/or wireless in origin, a min of 4-6 person house can see as many 50+ devices in use if not more..
looking at fttn>anything I would fttn is dead as backhaul medium as we a min of 1gb or 10gb now not within 10 years...
max you would see in context of fttn>adsl/vdsl/hfc 24-48/1-3 (adsl/vdsl/ndsl) within 1km, anything above this average will be no better than 4-12/1-2 pending on signal degredation from node to pit.. unless they plan to drop pvc piping between node on a pits then copper could still be used, laying copper in bare earth will just continue poor connection rates..
given the rising cost of maintaining copper in general I think and know that fibre may be a better solution as backhaul making copper a dead end solution..
See what I mean?
No.
I don't believe the Coalition has a broadband policy. I suspect Turnbull is just trying to neutralise the NBN as an election issue. The words will work now but I don't think they'll work when we get closer to an election.
whrl.pl/RcVM5D
What are the Liberal parties objectives? I think they just want to neutralise the NBN as an election issue. In that case I think Turnbull's doing a good job.
whrl.pl/RcWkZ1
I've been quite consistent on this.
As a voting policy NBN is a non issue.
Really? Last time i checked one of the biggest reasons we have a hung parliament was because NBN was one of the main voting issues that made people vote Labor.
Of course now that the project is rolling out and there's an actual threat to the project being changed/cancelled its become a "non-issue"? One would think that if a "plan" at the time would make such a difference an on-going physical project would garner more attention!
the libs want to push nbnmk1 ala nbn mk 3 and it is still their agenda when more people know that fttn is dead I think they might realize the the libs outdated cherry pick isn't going to work the way they want it too..
I'm still waiting on a response from you Raoul for this .....
I do not factor in current pricing at all of the NBN. Pricing and viability will be based on cash outflows and timing of inflows.
If NBN will have cash outflows of ~ $55-60 (inc Telstra payments) Billion in the next 10 years and inflows are $20 Billion then the debt off hidden away off balance will be quite quite high. This is one main reasons why it's off balance and we won' t know it's true financial position. As said previously a few times the 7% is a smokescreen to hoodwink that prices will be lower, the alarming challenge is to recoup cash outflows.
If the Coalition intends to have outflows of $25 Billion and inflows of $20 Billion then pricing will be lower even if return expectations are higher.
The main variable is cash outflows not X% return.
the libs want to push nbnmk1 ala nbn mk 3 and it is still their agenda when more people know that fttn is dead I think they might realize the the libs outdated cherry pick isn't going to work the way they want it too..
A common person will not know what the difference between fttn and ftth.
Mr Turnbull has said they will retain the NBN and roll it out in a cost effective manner. conroy can hammer this out but will non tech dudes understand or give 2c on the difference between fttn and ftth.
This is one main reasons why it's off balance and we won' t know it's true financial position.
Not sure what you mean by 'off balance'.
Do you mean the balance sheet?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: it is definitely on the balance sheet. http://www.malcolmturnbull.
com.au/media/transcripts/tra nscript-2gb-radio-28-feb-2012/
As a financial risk NBN is quite serious and more diligence is required such as a sensitivity analysis and CBA.
And yet you write this...
In reality it's impossible to cost these projects.
Forecasts past one year is hardly accurate
It seems the only thing you're "serious" about is the politics behind it and not the actual "financial risk"
It seems the only thing you're "serious" about is the politics behind it and not the actual "financial risk"
Yep and he's stated many times that a coalition govt, will change it to a fttn a few months after getting into office (so a CBA will be useless anyway) .. He's just trolling wish everyone would ignore him or the mods do something.
I do not factor in current pricing at all of the NBN. Pricing and viability will be based on cash outflows and timing of inflows.
And you purport to know about what voters will vote for.
Here's the thing Raoul. All those lufferly inflows and outflows? The average voter doesn't give a rat's backside about them. What they do give a damn about is how much it costs for them. All the financial gymnastics in the world can't change that.
Do you mean the balance sheet?
The $27.5 billion govt equity injection that is treated like an interest free loan by the nbn. Fully expect Mr Turnbull to order an audit of all finances once he takes over to quantify true financial status of project.
As a voting policy NBN is a non issue.
Self delusion is indicative of defeat and denial...
He's just trolling wish everyone would ignore him or the mods do something.
Oh I don't know.
By posting, he's keeping this thread alive so hopefully more people realise the inanity of the Coaltion's NBN position.
raoulrules comes across as contradictory, but he's providing an important community service by showing us how insane his position, and by definition, the Coalition's arguments are :)
A common person will not know what the difference between fttn and ftth.
I think that's Turnbull's plan. I think he wants to get to the 'floating' voters with something like ... FTTN will do the job of the NBN, cost less to build than the NBN, be quicker to roll out than the NBN and be cheaper to use than the NBN. How many will know the difference?
I don't think he's trying to convince Green or Labor voters who are staunch supporters of the NBN. I think he's trying to convince the 42% of people who say they will vote Coalition but support the NBN. He just has to do enough for the NBN not to change their voting intention.
By posting,
The same arguments with the same few people vs what seems like hundreds of people has been going on in this forum for years I'm not surprised some people are tired of it.
There are some arguments that seem to of been going on since 2007.
The $27.5 billion govt equity injection
If you check NBNCo's annual reports, you'll find that the equity injections are included in the financial accounts. (see note 15 on page 69 of the 2011 Annual Report.)
As a voting policy NBN is a non issue.
Nonsense. Since in Australia only a few percent points one way or another decides the elections an issues doesn't have to be a major one to be a decisive one � here:
NBN contributed to 2010 Coalition election loss: report
( http://technologyspectator.co
A common person will not know what the difference between fttn and ftth.
Great thing there are people like us around to patiently explain the difference between dirt roads and sealed bitumen roads then, hey?
but will non tech dudes understand or give 2c on the difference between fttn and ftth.
Sure will, after we explain said difference between road types and they realise how rorted they will be under the Coalition's current policy.
I do not factor in current pricing at all of the NBN. Pricing and viability will be based on cash outflows and timing of inflows.
We saw your assumptions with respect to your copywrited Excel spreadsheet on NBN costs Raoul most of which were shot down in flames with the release of the very conservative business case!
So you providing nothing but assumptions here with your $60 billion spend whilst the complete reverse will be true given the increase in ARPU and revenue that the NBN will create under their model effectively paying back every cent used to build it and then provide the Government with a cash cow to boot.
As for the 7 percent return well pure logic dictates that our prices are going to be lower than if Private Industry were to undertake the task given that they want a 27 percent return!
And we only have to look at the Privatised Model across the Tasman that the Conservatives over there having pissed their hard earned down the gurgler on redundant FTTN (our Liberals preferred model) and found that it simply doesn't deliver are now having to dig deep and rebuild a new FTTH network and the funny thing here Raoul!
They are paying up to 4 times at the top end per MB downloaded compared to our current NBN per Mb download prices!
So you see Raoul � Reality � meets your Misleading Unqualified Unsubstantiated Assumption and guess what the two are that far apart they are completely divorced.
Our costs are much much much lower than NZ and the funnier thing here Raol -
Malcolm bunging on about the initial take up rate of 18 percent (noting of course that everyone will be swapped over when the copper is turned off) and yet what do we find in NZ compared to here � a less than 2 percent take up rate.
And Malcolm waffles on about infrastructure competition!
Its killing them in NZ and he's got the hide to complain about the costs and take up rate here!
Oh and you wont see him mention the fact that the Kiwi's have dumped their redundant FTTN model into the deep six of the Tasman having found that it doesn't deliver either � as he and Tony plan to attempt to foister onto an increasingly more technical adept Australia that bit of expensive redundant kit that seen its best days last century!
If you check NBNCo's annual reports, you'll find that the equity injections are included in the financial accounts. (see note 15 on page 69 of the 2011 Annual Report.)
The source (debt off balance sheet) is not and this would be a major concern for Mr Turnbull. Govt raises debt and makes equity injections?
The bonds raised will have interest repayments thus Mr Turnbull will raise this questions of how much debt is off balance sheet.
the Kiwi's have dumped their redundant FTTN model into the deep six of the Tasman having found that it doesn't deliver either -
Actually, a public awareness of this situation would be good at this point of time..
Not sure how.. the News Ltd mob wont touch it..
Sure will, after we explain said difference between road types and they realise how rorted they will be under the Coalition's current policy.
And lets not forget Mike Quigley happy to enter the political debate at the next election to shoot down entirely any tripe and FUD the opposition provide on the subject matter.
In fact I'm expecting people like Vince Cerf (founding father of the Internet), some of Googles best and brightest, some guns from IBM and Intel, Cisco etc all to have some input in the destruction of the Liberals FTTN alternative which belongs back in the last century �
Coupled of course with the many instances of Malcolm and Tony misleading statements and those being addressed in a factual non partisan way to ensure Australians understand entirely the tripe the Coalition intend to trott out to those who haven't already been connected to NBN Co Fibre
Might help to mention the price differential between the Privatised NZ model highlighting of course what a return to a monopoly model will mean yet again to the Australian public.
Oh and those cost benefits that Malcolm keeps waffling about I guess outtakes of the 3 year study into the impact of doubling the network speed (included analysis of Australia) has in terms of GDP which was released after Malcolm's speech at the World Broadband Conference which made a complete mockery of what he was attempting to say and for good measure the Swedish Study which also includes the social and community benefits that FTTH brings �
All of which simply makes the Coalition's argument for a Cost benefit analysis to be undertaken simply another exercise to employ redundant bean counters to provide us with information that we already know!
A common person will not know what the difference between fttn and ftth.
Maybe not now. But as roll-out and take-up of the NBN increases, more people will know the difference. Not just the people on it, but family members, friends and work colleagues of people on it will hear stories, ask questions and see for themselves. This is a snowball effect especially as the pace of connections increases.
The other big issue for the coalition will be after they win. They can use all the arguments they want to get into power, but once people realise they've been dudded, it doesn't take them long to turn. Look at how quickly people turned on Rudd and Labor � exactly the same thing can happen to the Libs. If you peddle FUD, eventually you're going to get caught out. And when you do, heaven help you.
A common person will not know what the difference between fttn and ftth.
Really?
FTTH � Fibre to the premises.
FTTN � Fibre to the Node.
The Government has been using FTTH in it's media and presses.
So raoulrules now has been reduced his discussion on what will the voters know the difference...
Kinda revolting? Kinda sad?
So raoulrules now has been reduced his discussion on what will the voters know the difference...
I'll get the metalcrafter to make some new goalposts in preparation...
does that make it right?
Dunno. I can't know if he believes what he's saying. If he doesn't believe what he's saying then it's wrong. If he believes what he's saying then that's how democracy works. The Coalition set out their policies, Labor set out their policies and the electorate chooses.
If he believes what he's saying then that's how democracy works. The Coalition set out their policies, Labor set out their policies and the electorate chooses.
That's not as easy as you say it is.
Both major parties do not generally like each other polices, mainly on political grounds (i.e. Toe the Party Line).
However, the public has given the approval of this project with the majority of 56% in recent polls, and even greater number would like to see 50mbps or higher at 85%.
So in reality, what your writing, is complete nonsense in the sense that each party may have it's own policies, but the public and has for some time chosen the NBN.
So in reality, what your writing, is complete nonsense in the sense that each party may have it's own policies, but the public and has for some time chosen the NBN.
That'll be why the latest Nielson poll shows a 58-42 2pp lead for the Coalition.
That'll be why the latest Nielson poll shows a 58-42 2pp lead for the Coalition.
The polls are irractic atm (as shown by Newspoll at 56-44 this week), but the support for the NBN has been maintained.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
http://de
So when you stop plucking numbers from out of thin air, come back and talk :)
I can't know if he believes what he's saying.
This is true CMOT its very difficult to judge the veracity of one's belief's!
If he doesn't believe what he's saying then it's wrong.
And this is the point here isn't it CMOT!
How many times has his assertions been refuted by organisations such as the International Telecommunications Union, Vince Cerf founder of the Internet, Cisco, IBM, the global collective of the who's who of Telecommunications, Treasury, Academic Institutions, Luminaries of Industry, even the Liberal Opposition in Tasmania have refuted his opt-out model and Campbell Newman in Queensland has changed his stance entirely.
Then there was the FUD campaign that was shot to pieces with respect to the Federal Opposition stating that Fixed Wireless was less than what those who were getting Privatised 4G in the city!
That Wireless could replace FTTH!
That his redundant version of FTTN is cheaper even the Kiwis have ditched that model into the deep six of the Tasman and gone FTTH.
His complete failure to grasp reality with respect to Telstra eg
�Yesterday�s announcement of ACCC approval for Telstra�s Structural Separation Undertaking (SSU) does not, contrary to the claims of Julia Gillard and Stephen Conroy, effect a structural separation of Telstra,� he wrote.
His now discredited view that Australian's don't want or need 100Mbps internet
His now discredited view that NBN pricing will be more expensive than what is currently available.
His now discredited view that infrastructure competition is the best way to go � hasn't worked in America and certainly isn't working in NZ where their take up rate is less than 2 percent on their FTTH network not to mention being 4 times more expensive.
Etc Etc Etc etc etc etc etc ad naseum ad infinitum.
So the question you have to ask yourself here is how many times can you be wrong?
Either the Oppositions Communications spokesperson simply doesn't have the wherewithall to understand the debate and should be replaced given his abject failure on the subject matter.
Or that he is locked into a position by his own parties politics � which is to provide unsubstantiated, hysterical, prejudicial, and entirely inaccurate fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) with respect to the NBN
A simpler way of putting it would simply to say that he is purposefully lying!
This is the essence of what everyone should understand with respect to the Coalition's Non Policy in Communications.
Cheers
Great thing there are people like us around to patiently explain the difference between dirt roads and sealed bitumen roads then, hey?
Sure will, after we explain said difference between road types and they realise how rorted they will be under the Coalition's current policy.
Thanks for pointing me towards this analogy. I was having a terrible time getting my point across to the wife (using too many technical terms that I don't really have a grip on myself). She had that glazed look in the eyes...
Told her that FTTH is a sealed highway. Multilane and with safe dividers down the middle. You can drive your cars up and down as fast as you like with no problem (Autobahn)... and every house has it's own off ramp. And in the future, as cars get faster, there is no problem as the highway can cope.
FTTN is a dirt road. In most cases it is single lane, ridiculously windy, and has lots of potholes. If you are lucky enough to live in certain areas the council (private companies) may come in and fill the pot holes, grade the road surface, and even make it double lanes in places... but it is still unsafe to drive much faster. This type of road can never be sealed.
The wife was much happier with that.
Somebody really needs to turn similar analogies into an ad / youtube thingy.
That'll be why the latest Nielson poll shows a 58-42 2pp lead for the Coalition.
The polling, whilst it has been pretty consistent for a while, is not always so reliable 12 months out from an election. A lot can happen at that time, and the focus which is almost solely on the government will shift a lot more onto to coalition in the 6 weeks before the election. There are some serious policy issues that need to be addressed by the coalition given their statements to date about the NBN, the mining tax and the carbon pricing scheme that, if the media does its job properly, could come out with some uncomfortable answers.
The other minor factor is that the 4 main states now have Liberal governments. There is always a small amount of bleed in dissatisfaction from state to federal issues, it takes the gloss of the brand so to speak.
raoulrules writes...
A common person will not know what the difference between fttn and ftth.
I think that's Turnbull's plan.
Agreed. But then, 'mudding the waters' and avoiding an informed debate on bases of which the electorate can make an informed decision seems to be Opposition's tactics (witness repeated rejection of advice offered by scientists, economists or other experts) on the whole range of policies.
Trying to keep 'the masses in the dark' and ill-informed is a mark of autocratic regimes not democratic ones...
That'll be why the latest Nielson poll shows a 58-42 2pp lead for the Coalition.
Mainly because of shock jocks and yellow journalism.
I can't recall a single instance where the opposition have the upper hand in a current debate because the facts are on their side. Can anyone?
But then, 'mudding the waters' and avoiding an informed debate on bases of which the electorate can make an informed decision seems to be Opposition's tactics (witness repeated rejection of advice offered by scientists, economists or other experts) on the whole range of policies.
I don't think that's fair. All political parties fudge, obfuscate, prevaricate and outright lie. All of them, Liberal, Labor, Green. Nobody can claim the political moral high ground.
I can't recall a single instance where the opposition have the upper hand in a current debate because the facts are on their side. Can anyone?
Exactly.
To anyone that supports the Liberal's current message (whatever that is), can you please point toward FACTUAL information, not conjecture, FACTUAL information, that the Coalition's plan is the best way forward for the NBN, even economically.
Not technically, we all know that Labor's plan is technically superior in every way, but economically. "Faster and cheaper" makes for an interesting sound bite, but there's no economic credibility behind it, especially if you factor in long term benefits (which Raoul continue's to dodge by ignoring my calls for him to factor in an additional upgrade from FTTN to FTTH).
which Raoul continue's to dodge by ignoring my calls for him to factor in an additional upgrade from FTTN to FTTH
Why would Raoul bother to factor in the FTTN->FTTH "upgrade" (read: do-over) cost?
It would completely blow the 'cheaper' bit of the 'faster and cheaper' soundbite out of the water and make FTTN economically unfeasible versus just going straight to FTTH.
which Raoul continue's to dodge
Start throwing wrenches instead of dodgeballs.
It would completely blow the 'cheaper' bit of the 'faster and cheaper' soundbite out of the water and make FTTN economically unfeasible versus just going straight to FTTH.
I agree. It's the dirty little open secret that's never acknowledged by the Coalition because they can't use their beloved sound bite any more.
Start throwing wrenches instead of dodgeballs.
No. Then I'd just join the rest of you in here. I prefer a little less brute force. It's more civil that way.
I prefer a little less brute force. It's more civil that way.
There wont be anything civil about FTTN.
Please bring me by bone to gnaw on and my club to thrash around.
On second thoughts, don't bother.
I'm still longing to be a multi-cell organism.
if fttn comes to pass i see amin of 60 years on it with nothing better than a 4-8/1 connection and copper replacement every 3-6 years..
biggest issue with hfc length of coverage of node and upload speed and is a shared service
The polling, whilst it has been pretty consistent for a while, is not always so reliable 12 months out from an election. etc
Yeah, I agree. I'd normally look at Abbott's personal rating and think people will change their mind when it comes to doing the deed in the polling booth. With Gillard I'm not so sure. I know rusted-on Labor voters who can't stand her. It might not be a landslide but the Coalition doesn't need to shift a lot of votes from last time to win this time. The NBN is in the same amount of trouble from a narrow win as it is from a landslide.
There are some serious policy issues that need to be addressed by the coalition given their statements to date about the NBN, the mining tax and the carbon pricing scheme that, if the media does its job properly, could come out with some uncomfortable answers.
Haha ... I'll let Mr Creosote tell you about the media :)
Whilst I agree with what you're saying. I don't think the NBN will be his biggest problem area.
The other minor factor is that the 4 main states now have Liberal governments.
We've taken a four year break in Victoria. We don't seem to have a government or an opposition.
It would completely blow the 'cheaper' bit of the 'faster and cheaper' soundbite out of the water and make FTTN economically unfeasible versus just going straight to FTTH.
This may or may not be the case. Where's the evidence?
I don't think that's fair. All political parties fudge, obfuscate, prevaricate and outright lie.
True. But it's not necessarily an existence of something but, rather, the extend of it which is the real problem � since I started following political discourse in Australia some 30 years ago, I've never witnessed such a reliance on 3-letter slogans and dumbing down of a debate by refusal of an expert advice in almost all, not just on the NBN, policy areas...
It is important to understand the Coalition's NBN strategy.
The Coalition knows the next election is in the bag already.
The Coalition knows the NBN is popular.
Therefore the strategy is simply to say they support "very fast broadband" and to make it *appear* as if they support some *sort of NBN* (~65% FTTN) and hope that most voters wont understand the difference (93% FTTP).
That's really all they have to do.
And Turnbull is doing exactly that with his "faster cheaper" & "we wont destroy the NBN" mantra. Saying it over and over again, hoping that the (uneducated) masses believe it � assisted by the main stream media (News, 2GB etc).
The Coalition knows the next election is in the bag already.
More fool them for thinking this, not that I agree with your statement.
The more alarming aspect of the Coalition's broadband plans is the *disconnect* between what Turnbull is saying and what Hockey and Abbott are saying.
Abbott has recently restated he doesn't believe we need the NBN.
Hockey has recently restated support for wireless instead of the NBN.
At the end of the day the latter two, once in government, will control the purse strings. And once the election is won, then all bets are off.
Turnbull is effectively being undermined by his own colleagues.
This may or may not be the case. Where's the evidence?
Ground Zero:
Mark Newton of Internode:
University of Adelaide Professor Emeritus of Communications, Reg Coutts as part of the 2009 NBN Implementation Study:
- Essentially to go down the FTTN road would mean something in the order of, greater than 50 per cent of the capital being put into digital cabinets in the suburbs," he said. "They then become an obstacle to the final solution� fibre-to-the-premise. Fibre-to-the-node was not a stepping stone to fibre-to-the-premise. In fact, if anything it would put it backwards.
- http://www.computerworld.com
.au/article/346022/nbn_about _ubiquity_just_uptake_speeds/
Turnbull is effectively being undermined by his own colleagues.
Yep. He must know this though. Do you think he will take a policy to the election that he knows Abbott/Hockey/et al won't implement? The general public perception of him seems to be better than that. It'd be a laugh if he quit.
It is important to understand the Coalition's NBN strategy.
The Coalition knows the next election is in the bag already.
The Coalition knows the NBN is popular.
Of course, it's shrewd politics. Just like Campbell Newman's comments about solar feed-in tariffs before the elections and his actions afterwards. You never admit to scrapping or not implementing something that may be popular but against your ideology, you hedge and do it afterwards.
Do you think he will take a policy to the election that he knows Abbott/Hockey/et al won't implement?
If I were in their shoes, I would just continue with the rather vague, but *sounds good* sound bites:
"very fast broadband"
"faster cheaper"
"infrastructure competition"
blah, blah etc
and
"subject to CBA"
"subject to budget constraints"
and not make any firm policy commitments at all.
Based on Abbott's and Hockey's comments I am disinclined to believe much of what Turnbull is saying (not that he is saying anything specific anyway � other than an obligation to honour existing NBN contracts).
Abbott has recently restated he doesn't believe we need the NBN.
Hockey has recently restated support for wireless instead of the NBN.
The problem is, the Opposition leader is saying one thing, the Shadow Minister for Comms is appearing as if he is publically saying the opposite and the Shadow Treasurer is caught somewhere in the middle with a personal opinion that relies on the laws of physics not existing.
If I was a hard-line Coalition voter (which I'm not because I'm moderate to the core) and was also passionate about technology (which I am), I would be seriously torn between wanting the Coalition in government and also wanting better broadband services for my family.
I'm sure there are many people who, because of their die-hard allegiance to the conservative football team, are in this state of a constant mental tug-of-war.
I have no sympathy for their inner struggle. It's their own fault for not being objective.
There you go again!
From my perspective, I think the Coalition will easily win the next election. I expect Labor will regain some ground, but nowhere near enough to win.
And that's all I will say on the matter.
(not interested in discussing politics in a broadband forum)
If I am wrong then no-one will be as pleased as me to see the NBN continue under Labor.
Ground Zero:
You're going to have to help me out with that one. Which bit is supposed to prove the point?
Mark Newton of Internode:
The capex will undoubtedly be higher. Will the overall project cost be higher over (say) 30 years? Quite possibly, but where's the evidence.
University of Adelaide Professor Emeritus of Communications, Reg Coutts as part of the 2009 NBN Implementation Study:
No mention there of different funding and revenue patterns that might make up some/all the difference. Also, the comments came before the Telstra legislation and deal.
I think a bigger issue is one Mark Newton raised, ie. once FTTN is in there will be no incentive for the network owner to upgrade it. It doesn't matter how much it costs if they don't do it.
My point is, if this argument keeps getting thrown up without the financial modelling (like the NBNCo corporate plan) to back it up it will become a case of 'he said, she said'. Conroy will say the NBN is the way to go. Turnbull will say his policy (whatever it turns out to be) is the way to go. Neither will be able to prove anything without the numbers.
The problem is, the Opposition leader is saying one thing, the Shadow Minister for Comms is appearing as if he is publically saying the opposite
Right.
As I said above -
- "I am disinclined to believe much of what Turnbull is saying"
- "At the end of the day the latter two, once in government, will control the purse strings. And once the election is won, then all bets are off."
Abbott seems to be talking about government spending for road infrastructure, not broadband.
I expect the Coalition wants Telstra to build FTTN as its consistent with private investment.
If I were in their shoes, I would just continue with the rather vague, but *sounds good* sound bites:
That's what got them into trouble at the last election though. Mind you, the polls in August 2009 were ...
On a two-party preferred basis, support for the ALP is 58% (down 2.5%), while support for the L-NP is 42% (up 2.5%). If a Federal Election were held now the Rudd Government would retain Government according to the latest face-to-face Morgan Poll conducted on the weekends of August 8/9 & 15/16, 2009.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4409/
Pretty much the opposite of where we are now and the Coalition nearly won that one.
For me it's a question of Turnbull's integrity. Does he have any? Does he care? If he has and he does then he can't take a policy he knows to be a sham to the election.
Neither will be able to prove anything without the numbers.
This is true.
To do this, both would have to had started construction at the same time, built to completion and then operated their version of an NBN side-by-side.
Yes, a ridiculous, and now impossible, proposition given that the current NBN is already well underway.
Neither will be able to prove that their policy is better without 20-20 hindsight and end-game figures.
The current NBN is, however, a lot further towards being able to provide hard evidence to support its case and is getting closer every single day.
Also, each time an NBN Co Coporate Plan is released (now handed to government by the end of May each year), the numbers and estimates are more and more accurate the closer to the end of the rollout the project gets.
And with every single day that the current NBN progresses and every single metre of fibre that is rolled out to premises, FTTN technology becomes more and more obsolete... FTTN = "I'm Melting! Melting! Oh, What A World, What A World!"
That's what got them into trouble at the last election though.
Sure, but I think you will agree that *this time* the result will be a lay down misere � hence no need to be too specific, when vague *sounds good* sound bites will win the day.
Does he care?
Will he even be Comms minister post election ?
Will he even be Comms minister post election ?
I'm hoping not.
I'd rather him as leader of the Coalition (regardless of who wins the election).
This may or may not be the case. Where's the evidence?
evidence? surely you would have to ask the coalition for actual costs and timeframes for their "policy" wouldnt you?
the current nbn has a timeframe, it has install costs, it has running costs. until such time that the coalition provide numbers for their version i dont see why it requires evidence to negate them being used as a comparison.
even if we give them the point that theirs will be 'faster' and 'cheaper' to install, i dont see anything about their running costs, or costs to the customers.
is comparing a projects installation costs and timeframes a valid way to compare projects?
does it show which is actually cheaper over their lifespans? after all, even if fttns installation costs are one third the price of ftth, its lifespan is one tenth, or less. should we ignore the fact that fttn will need to be upgraded at some point when ftth wont?
seems a bit economical with the truth.
This may or may not be the case. Where's the evidence?
CMOT, Can we ask you serious question?
Why haven't you researched this topic? And Secondly have the goals to ask where the evidence is?
1. It's been noticed in this forum plenty of times.
2. It's logical to skip FTTN and go FTTH as a cost effective rollout.
3. Would you put Neighborhoods through hell of upgrading networks twice in someone's lifetime?
4. The benefit of FTTN is very little vs the cost it.
Mr Turnbull' s job is to simply neutralise the NBN so that Mr Abbott can concentrate on the main issues.
rr, I can hardly believe I am saying this, but you've hit the nail on the head.
That is exactly what Tony wants him to do. He doesn't have a detailed broadband policy and he doesn't want one. He just wants this scary broad brand thing to go away so he can talk about the boats and the carbon tax.
However, this shouldn't be his job...
To do this, both would have to had started construction at the same time, built to completion and then operated their version of an NBN side-by-side.
Nope. Both would have to do something like the NBNCo's corporate plan. For the NBNCo that will be their corporate plan at the time of the election. For the Coalition that would be from when they take over and would have to include the cost of transition.
We have (or will have) the evidence from the NBNCo. We have no evidence that I have seen to prove the Coalition's alternative is cheaper, as they claim, or more expensive, as people here claim, over the life of the project (say 30 years). I consider both to be just conflicting opinions.
It is up to the Coalition to demonstrate their policy is faster and cheaper than the NBN. I'm sure Conroy will make lots of noise if they don't. Hopefully there will be another Press Club debate where Turnbull can be skewered if he doesn't have the answers. If Conroy doesn't get him Ludlam will.
edit:
evidence? surely you would have to ask the coalition for actual costs and timeframes for their "policy" wouldnt you?
Yep. See above.
is comparing a projects installation costs and timeframes a valid way to compare projects?
Nope.
does it show which is actually cheaper over their lifespans?
That's what it needs to show to be any sort of valid comparison. The Coalition claim they will do a CBA which will show this. Will they do it? Will we get to see it? Who knows.
Sure, but I think you will agree that *this time* the result will be a lay down misere � hence no need to be too specific, when vague *sounds good* sound bites will win the day.
I think that depends on whether people take a long, hard look at the Coalition before voting them in. There's a fair chance enough people are so sick of Gillard and this government that they won't bother. I don't want to agree but I might have to.
Will he even be Comms minister post election ?
Where else will they put him? Who would they shift to make way? The only way I can see for him to go is down.
I think that depends on whether people take a long, hard look at the Coalition before voting them in. There's a fair chance enough people are so sick of Gillard and this government that they won't bother
I wouldn't sweat it CMOT the FUD campaign and lies provided by the Opposition over the term of the Parliament will all come home to roost at the next election and obviously they are going to get an absolute pasting with respect to Australia's favourite piece of infrastructure that now is a reality even given the Opposition's best attempts to demolish it!
Further they are going are going to take huge hits with articles like this making a complete mockery of their position and ability to govern.
Coalition's NBN criticisms 'absurd' says Phil Ruthven
Leading futurist and social commentator, Phil Ruthven, has branded as "absurd" any suggestions that the NBN is a huge and wasteful expense.
"The fact is that the existing sunk cost of all telecommunications in Australia is currently $70 billion, much of it antiquated," Ruthven � chairman and founder of IBISWorld � says in the July issue of the IBISWorld newsletter.
"At some $36�$37 billion over seven years, or $5 billion per annum average, the NBN investment amounts to just depreciation allowance spending on that $70 billion � hardly excessive or over the top," he argues.
Nor is he concerned about any wastage during the project. "In the process, the ancient copper wire gets replaced by new age telecommunications.
Of course Australians could vote to keep their redundant non functional copper that simply doesn't deliver!
Then again I have my doubts on that entirely and certainly the impact to Regional and Remote Australia who will be left like ;;;;;;;s swinging in the wind to use the vernacular hoeing the road back to the past and facing huge cost increases is something yet to be discussed in the public debate.
I don't want to agree but I might have to.
Thought so
Where else will they put him?
He will go where Abbott tells him to go.
(or else ...... the backbench)
That is exactly what Tony wants him to do. He doesn't have a detailed broadband policy and he doesn't want one. He just wants this scary broad brand thing to go away so he can talk about the boats and the carbon tax.
Pretty much.
In the meantime expect more rather vague, but *sounds good* sound bites
"very fast broadband"
"faster cheaper"
"infrastructure competition"
blah, blah etc
Where else will they put him? Who would they shift to make way? The only way I can see for him to go is down.
Thats the problem with the Coalitions position at this time. You have multiple influential people saying contradicting things.
Malcolm Turnbull � FTTN
Joe Hockey � 4G
Tony Abbott � Nothing/FTTN/4G depends when you catch him.
Any policy needs party support, or at least the support of these people, so discerning the true policy is almost impossible.
Thats the problem with the Coalitions position at this time. You have multiple influential people saying contradicting things.
Opposition parties do not release detailed policies a year out from an election.
Opposition parties do not release detailed policies a year out from an election.
Perhaps but the inconsistency is puzzling. Also look at their asylum seeker policy and Carbon policy, if it is convenient for them they will release a policy.
Perhaps but the inconsistency is puzzling.
The wider general public would not know what FTTH/FTTN/HFC is.
Reading the online press the Coalition are pinpointing more effort on other areas.
As for what you said on asylum seekers they are veering towards Howard policy, carbon policy it's abolish it and da. These two are main issues not broadband.
Opposition parties do not release detailed policies a year out from an election.
Given they haven't had a clue since their last debacle eg selling Telstra off we're not waiting with baited breath for the details from someone who doesn't know what peak speed is nor his protege a bloke who can't spot a fake email!
Cheers
The wider general public would not know what FTTH/FTTN/HFC is.
Perhaps not. But as the roll out progresses, word of mouth spreads etc, it will become more widely known.
It's also worth noting that the LP devoted 3-4 pages to the issue in their 'Speaking Notes'. They obviously recognise the potential for it to become a real problem for them.
And as you have acknowledged, the LP are only trying to diffuse the issue.
Hang on .... isn't that what you are trying to do .... downplay it's importance?
Ohhhh dear.
The $27.5 billion govt equity injection that is treated like an interest free loan by the nbn.
Commonwealth Treasury does NOT hand out interest free moneys. Interest may be deferred but Shylock always gets his pound of flesh.
Stop trolling mate.
You've been flushed out so many times that your continued posts are getting embarrassing.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét