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.
We can never know what the independents private intentions are, they could say one thing in front of cameras as a decoy.
Well, we could make an informed guess about them, and it might include doing things that will enhance and prolong their lucrative positions.
A few on this forum say $36 Billion is nothing.
If you are going to quote people in relation to the coalition NBN position, you should quote what they actually said and not what you have just rewritten.
They have in fact noted that the cost of NBN will be fully repaid from operating charges, and it is therefore wrong to portray it as 'a $36B cost to government.' This has been explained countless times.
You've been flushed out so many times that your continued posts are getting embarrassing.
Ah, but he plays the part so well :)
Turnbull is effectively being undermined by his own colleagues.
That's standard a Political ploy. Menzies used to regularly post serious leadership threats OS as Ambassadors. Bill Hayden was promised DFAt then the GG if he stood aside for Bob Hawke back in the early 1980s.
He is a threat to Abbott, so Abbott has wedged him with the Comms Shadow Px, knowing full well that what Malcolm has to spruik goes against both World's Best Practice and Malcolm's own thoughts and experiences.
fttn was a practical solution back in 1990-95 as an upgrade path, though now in 2012 the reality is fttn is to late to be of any use the reality is we need 1-25gb as a starting point now, as great as the current competing techs are today, reality is that fttn and copper based tech is all but dead..
the longer we keep it in operation we end up paying more to keep it in service, going the fttn route now is a pointless execise for te simple fact we need higher speed now not in 30 years (near end indicator) and another 60-100 years (far end indecator) of service life with line replacements ever 3-5 years..
reality is that fttn has be outdated for atleast 10-15 years, so to start a demarcation of deployment of fttn now is a pure waste of money for the simple fact within the next 10 year you would need to rip it out install ftth causing a double cost in deployment..
fttn turns into a quick fix methodology to repair an ailing network that should been started to be converted from the late 1970's onwards..
looking where I live at present fttn may improve my speed though not to the point point of it being a usable connection medium, adsl/vdsl/docsis 3 wouldn't improve uploads anytime soon making these methods of connection kind of redundant, looking at 3g/4g-wimax, wimax (700mhz) will be seen as an over subscribed medium making what ever benefits early adopters see being a moot point, sat in general is a last ditch effort though I know they currently base a 200,000 user base from a report when opel was still running in the early-mid 1990's which doesn't take into account of a 10-20% growth within this medium over the last 20 or years, making which every bird they stick in sky a moot point as you have the cost of migration to the newer service to contend with..
looking at the outset the virgin techs out being deployed within wireless and sat domain, it becomes a viability cost vs usable cost to the consumer, which by the looks of it is going to be a white elephant for usable deployment..
when you start to look at our home networks and what you may run on them the option of wireless or sat in general will end a limited use option as a backhaul medium...
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.
Think Labor and 1993, they and everyone else knew it was theirs to lose.
He is a threat to Abbott, so Abbott has wedged him with the Comms Shadow Px, knowing full well that what Malcolm has to spruik goes against both World's Best Practice and Malcolm's own thoughts and experiences.
Have you considered the possibility that Turnbull does know better (about FTTN etc) and is artfully dissembling?
Have you considered that the one thing Turnbull might be sincere about is his belief in the market?
Put the two together. Turnbull would be very happy to flog off NBNco and all the talk about "suitable alternate technologies" is high class deception.
fttn was a practical solution back in 1990-95 as an upgrade path, though now in 2012 the reality is fttn is to late to be of any use the reality is we need 1-25gb as a starting point now, as great as the current competing techs are today, reality is that fttn and copper based tech is all but dead..
+1
Put the two together. Turnbull would be very happy to flog off NBNco and all the talk about "suitable alternate technologies" is high class deception.
Possibly but being both an ex lawyer and merchant banker, he knows that path is pretty well closed. There are too many documents and $ involved. Not to mention the almighty furore that would be raised both locally and overseas concerning the abrogation of parliamentary norms, legal precedences, contract law and probably lots more than I cannot even imagine.
Don't forget that there is tremendous interest from both Govts and corporates overseas as to what we are doing.
All politicians know that they can spruik a certain amount of crap as its for local consumption only, everyone recognises that. But once it gets past a certain point, global opinion starts to count. And that can play ducks and drakes with your economy and currency.
problem is ungalate that the libs in general need realize that thier rose coloured glasses fttn option is to old to deploy now making a bare necessity that ftth is deployed now given the speed requirmetn we need today not in 30-50 years time..
their imagination vs the reality what we need now is so dumbfounded it will take anything they deploy is going to be dead in the water within 10 years...
the fttn option only had a shelf life of 20-25 years before it had to be replaced with something better, reality dictates so by 2015-2020 ftth would be the common option making fttn obsolete to start deploying as the cost to goto ftth at a later stage only ends costing us more in the long run..
by the the end of 2015 they would be need to look at migration to ftth at some point as fttn just doesn't have the guts past 1.5km vs the reality of 2-5 mile node area coverage..
making the option of fttn a nighmare to deploy...
How is this for the coalition position:
"We will remove the carbon tax"
Yes, and use taxpayers money to pay big business. A TAXpayer funded scheme...
But hang on, how are you going to fund it?
Didn't about a million people just get tax cuts paid from said tax?
Are you going to make them give all that money back?
Surely nothing can happen until the fiscal year after the next election?
That would make it July 2014.
But isn't the ETS that has bipartisan support supposed to come into effect July 2015, just 1 year later?
Hmmmmm.....
Are you sure you are going to repeal the carbon tax Tony?
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3532634.htm
Back on thread:
"We will keep the parts of the NBN rolled out but re-negotiate contracts to make it cheaper and rolled out faster"
But hang on...
How long is it going to take to re-negotiate any contracts?
But Tasmaina and Rural Australia are already set to receive between 12-100mbps internet speeds by 2015. Do you think local councils will just except lower speeds when they could easily have faster speeds for the same price?
Surely, 6-12months after a (August?) 2013 election most of these contracts will already have been initiated?
Do you think councils signed up in the next 12 months equally would just stand aside and say 'well we were going to get 100/40mbps, ok, we'll settle for 'upto' 80'?
How long is it going to take to investigate, cost, trial, and implement these 'nodes' that you are so sure are 'adequate'?
Surely you can't just say 'a node will go there'? Surely investigation into their location is going to take time?
So if you cant really cancel the current round of contracts, and any new ones released in the next 12 months before the election, you can't cancel any of the roll out until 2016 (2015+1 year), or at the very earliest 2015?
Isn't 2015 about halfway through the roll out of the NBN?
You can't do anything to 2015 Tony!
hmmmmm.
You can't do anything to 2015 Tony!
If he is, in fact, elected in 2013, early 2015 is also, coincidently, the first chance he'll get (for a number of reasons) to actually use his long time threat of calling a double-dissolution.
That would mean calling an election halfway through a term of parliament that he would have won... Is he really willing to risk the last half a term?
Add that to the potential for inaction on promises...
Are you sure you are going to repeal the carbon tax Tony?
The common (and on topic) link is the Senate. Tony can't pull a DD election until 2015 for a bunch of procedural and constitutional reasons.
By then the carbon pricing scheme will be irreversible. Nor can the mining tax be rescinded without the Senate.
And the NBN is in a similar situation. Tony can't legislate.
So what he's left with is very slow and ugly (and politically costly) process if he dared to "redesign" the NBN under the badge of NBNco.
And even what I suggest, which is they will simply direct NBNco to in one way or another grant ownership/control to Telstra. Even that is fraught with difficulty and can't happen in less than a year or two.
You know, its entirely possible that laziness/ineptitude will win the day. Tony might go totally feral (if its possible to go even further feral than he is) and wage war through the shock jocks at Greens/Labor Senators. But if he does chances are there will be a bunch of things that get neglected.
Add that to the potential for inaction on promises...
Agreed. Its politically bad judgement. By 2015, especially if NBNco can continue with its build, if the Libs then can't backflip, Labor will be in an even stronger position with a policy even more people clearly understand is right.
Of course, here's the fun part. Several percent of the gap in the polls currently represents former Labor voters who nevertheless are staunch climate deniers (trust me, I have a few in my family too � all from QLD strangely). These people are led by the emotional response that goes "it can't be us.. it cant be!".
Its a big demographic to capture so cleanly as Tony has. Problem is, these people are so feral that if Tony were to back peddle, they's actually turn against him. Or to put it succinctly, Tony has jumped the climate denial shark.
Now, imagine after an election, promising to "axe the tax", the Senate blocks him.
Its gonna be fun.. in a schadenfreude kind of way..
Thing that worries me is that Tony DOESN'T actually have a plan.
From what I've seen since the 2010 election, he is treating Labor like the bully that took his toy and the Australian people like the stupid and thick big brother who will smack the bully and give it back to Tony, regardless of if Tony stabbed him with a fork first.
I haven't seen anything from the man that warrants an actual attitude of "I can lead Australia better" just "I deserve to be PM" or "Labor doesn't deserve to be running the country". It's almost as if he believes it's his God given right to be PM.
If this is the case.....dear sweet scientologist alien gods he could royally flap up the state of telecommunications in this country worse than it is now. Can you imagine what would happen if he sold off a 30% FTTH network to Telstra (et al)?? He certainly wouldn't give any money to build the FTTN- he doesn't think Australia needs any better broadband. I doubt he knows what it is at home. His kids probably deal with it.
Seriously, this guy at the head of the government could do some serious damage, simply because he believes he's right! Cancel the NBN "But it's more expensive than to let it fini..." DON'T CARE CANCEL IT! Rollback the Carbon Tax "But it'll leave a budget blackhole and it'll be off the books next yea...." DON'T CARE BLAME LABOR! Repeal the mining tax "But it'll leave a budget blackhole AND annoy the miners even mor...." DON'T CARE GET RID OF IT!
I've not seen any rational debate on these things. Or asylum seekers. And the NBN FUD just proves to me he's not interested in what is best for the long term prosperity of the country. He's interested in what buys votes to get him in power. Now, yes, that could be said of any politician at one time or another. But if he's got no policy, why oh WHY is he arrogant enough to think that's ok, we'll vote for him anyway?
Oh, that's right, because alot will...../epic all-time facepalm
Seriously, this guy at the head of the government could do some serious damage
...as opposed to the current government ?
I haven't seen anything from the man that warrants an actual attitude of "I can lead Australia better" just "I deserve to be PM" or "Labor doesn't deserve to be running the country". It's almost as if he believes it's his God given right to be PM.
That about sums up most Liberals attitude dude. A lot of them seem to have the "born to rule" mentality.
But if he's got no policy, why oh WHY is he arrogant enough to think that's ok, we'll vote for him anyway?
Oh, that's right, because alot will...../epic all-time facepalm
Yep unfortunately a large chunk of the AU population just slavishly believe all the bad things about the ALP and none of the good things.
Not surprising really when the "free, open and unbiased" media as got such a hardon for destroying Labor, no matter what.
...as opposed to the current government ?
Yep.
Oh, and care to mention are the Labor ones?
and don't reel out the hoary old BER, etc.
#2713
...as opposed to the current government ?
Seems we still Labor haters on these threads, when NBN isn't built by the government � just like alot of their polices are not rolled out by themselves, it is the same deal when/if a Coalition Goverment comes in.
Infact it will be alot worse because the Coalition Goverment are wanting the private sector to fully take over the Broadband policy, which will effectively give control to the Private sector allowing lots of delays and stricter contracts on their side.
Which will result in = no rollout in their first 4 years of Goverment.
Labor made the right choice in making the NBN a GBE Business.
Oh, and care to mention are the Labor ones?
and don't reel out the hoary old BER, etc.
Your political leanings are obviously left of centre and mine right of centre. Doesn't make you more right than me. If you think that the current government is perfect then you will vote for them, I wont.
If you can let me know which mistakes I think the government have made that you don't want me to reel out it would be appreciated.
only coalition haters allowed ?
You said as opposed to current government.
Currrent = Labor Minority + Greens + Independents.
If you think that the current government is perfect then you will vote for them, I wont.
I don't think the current government is perfect.
I don't think the Greens are perfect.
I don't think the Independents are perfect.
I don't think the National Party is perfect.
I certainly don't think the Labor Party is perfect.
I certainly don't think the Liberal Party is perfect.
I do think that the Labor Party's current policy on broadband is the most superior and forward-thinking policy of any of the parties listed above, and I especially think that it is more superior and forward-thinking than the current Liberal/National Coalition policy on broadband.
As such, the tick in the "Broadband Policy" checkbox on my mental voting preference sheet currently sits in Labor's column.
If either Labor's or the Coalition's policies on broadband changes, then I'll definitely be re-assessing my position.
I don't favour either the left or right side of politics so I have complete freedom of thought and a clear conscience on these matters ;)
Also, any comments about any other policies are off-topic.
Your political leanings are obviously left of centre and mine right of centre. Doesn't make you more right than me. If you think that the current government is perfect then you will vote for them, I wont.
If you can let me know which mistakes I think the government have made that you don't want me to reel out it would be appreciated.
Being a traditional NLP voter I have to say this:
The BER and Pink Batts were rolled out by Rudd. Rudd made sure everything went across his desk and that he had the final say. This is why he was ousted.
Because HE made bad decisions and wouldn't listen to his party.
The Labor party is lead by Julia Gillard with alot more support from the party as a whole.
The Carbon Tax will be an ETS by 2015. Labor or Liberal. So this one is null and void.
Boat people: If you watched QandA on Monday night you will see both sides to a well debated argument (Without Tony Abbot).
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3537320.htm
Broadband: Liberals don't have a plan, they are just shouting Faster, Cheaper.
But still aren't in touch with realities.
Why, being a Liberal voter, would I vote for a party who from 1996 to 2007 had the cash to invest in a national broadband network, But didn't? Even though it was brought to the attention of the nation before then?
I have a question for all of those people out there supporting the Coalition's .... errr .... "solution".
If you are intending to vote for the Coalition, ask yourself, what exactly are you voting for? At the moment the Coalition are saying "different", "CBA", "NBN objective". Fine for them to say, but what exactly are the Coalition GOING TO DO? I can understand somebody voting against Labor's plan because they don't agree with it, but if you're choosing to vote for the Coalition, then apply the same damn intelligence you are using on Labor against the Coalition's rhetoric.
Pro-NBN supporters have been called in the course of the NBN project, zealots, rabid, fanatical, the faithful, stooges, shills and so on (and before the pro-Libs in here start mouthing off, I am aware that you have been called the same), but if you, as a voter for the Coalition, are going to label them as such, then to avoid placing yourself on the other extreme, apply your grey matter and honestly appraise the Coalition's plan (if you can label it as a plan, I simply cannot personally at this stage).
Then you may realise that the same labels being thrown at pro-NBN people can be equally applied to yourself. At the moment, as a Coalition supporter, you are voting for one of two ideas .... a flat "No", or "Not this way". There's nothing wrong with that, but if you cannot follow that thinking up with an alternative, then all your vote for the Coalition is, is a free pass for them to do whatever they want. In my opinion, that's not holding politicians to account consistently, and you are aiding and abetting the erosion of your own democracy. Take charge and frickin' defend it, otherwise you're just the plaything that each political party wants.
Take off your ideaological blinkers, apply your intellect, and actually examine what your team is committing to. At the moment, all you've got is faith, nothing else. When it comes to politicians, that's just as bad as Labor supporters blindly supporting their team.
Excuse the rant guys, I guess what I'm trying to say (in relation to the Coalition's plan, as it is on topic for this thread) is if you're actually going to support it, think, and define to yourself, exactly what you're supporting. Forget about what you're NOT supporting (Labor's plan), but what are you SUPPORTING by voting for the Coalition next election?
Why, being a Liberal voter, would I vote for a party who from 1996 to 2007 had the cash to invest in a national broadband network, But didn't? Even though it was brought to the attention of the nation before then?
Exactly, 100%.
If you are intending to vote for the Coalition, ask yourself, what exactly are you voting for?
+1
...only coalition haters allowed ?
No, although I do hate Tony Abbott, that snake has brought australian politics down below the gutter to the sewer with his constant barrage of lies and complicit mates in "big media"!
If Malcolm was able to remove TA from the leadership and made a clear commitment that he would continue the NBN as is (no weasel phrases allowed!), I would vote Liberal again but unless both of those things happen I'll stick with Labor � The NBN is too important to this countries future to screw up with half a$$ed obsolete solutions!
Yep unfortunately a large chunk of the AU population just slavishly believe all the bad things about the ALP and none of the good things.
A large chunk of the AU population believe the Howard government left a budget surplus when they actually left a structural deficit. The effects of the GFC were made worse by the actions of the Howard government. Amazingly, the Coalition are thought to be the better economic managers. Why?
Fortunately with broadband Abbott, Hockey and the Liberal party web site are making very clear what they think. They are going to do what they did last time they were in power. Nothing.
It's clear Turnbull is being hung out to dry by his party. He was starting to put together what could have been a credible (though unpopular here) policy to take to the next election. All that has been undone by his alleged colleagues. If he had any integrity he'd quit.
Why, being a Liberal voter, would I vote for a party who from 1996 to 2007 had the cash to invest in a national broadband network, But didn't? Even though it was brought to the attention of the nation before then?
In that case, I'd have to ask why you're a Liberal voter. The Liberal party believes that government cannot provide goods and services as efficiently as the private sector, accordingly it doesn't believe in spending on things like this. The Liberal party believes in cutting taxes so people have more money in their pockets so they can spend that money directly on the things they want, so if they want fibre to the home they can pay the private sector to do it for them. This is why the Liberal party was and still is opposed to Medicare. As a Liberal voter, you simply cannot complain about them being opposed to a big government project like the NBN, it's in fundamental conflict with founding Liberal party ideology. You can't criticise the Liberal party for at least trying to be true to its basic philosophy in the same way as you can't blame the Greens for sticking to their opposition to offshore processing of refugees.
In that case, I'd have to ask why you're a Liberal voter.
I'm not. That's just the point. I was. This being past tense.
Although I do understand (most of) the things that come with capitalism, I also understand the mentality behind socialism.
They are the opposite ends of the same spectrum.
The truth, it seems lies somewhere in the middle.
You can be far right or be far left, and that is about as helpfull as being far fat and far skinny.
For most of us, we understand that a little balance goes along way.
But alas, this is off topic...
Tony Abbott:
We think there are much better ways of getting better broadband. Precise details will depend on what we find should there be a change of govt but we know that markets work better than govt monopolies and that a mix of technologies makes more sense than digging up every street for fibre to places that don't need it, want it or can afford to pay much, much more for it
Abbott's live chat blog thingy.
http://www.adelaideno
Not much FUD. Just plain BS and a lot of it.
Edit: And it's worth following the live chat, if only to read the 'Dorothy Dixer's' being posted.
If you are intending to vote for the Coalition, ask yourself, what exactly are you voting for?
A recent survey (April iirc) showed 42% of people who intend to vote for the Coalition support the NBN, as opposed to 40% who are against the NBN. People who are intending to vote for the Coalition are not doing it because of their broadband policy. A narrow majority are intending to do it despite their broadband policy. You have to keep broadband policy in perspective.
Take off your ideaological blinkers, apply your intellect, and actually examine what your team is committing to.
It's not my team but ... trying to discern Coalition policy from what is being said by them and others and then discussing that just leads to a lot of abuse. This thread is about the Coalition's approach to an/the NBN. This is where we should do what you say (and I agree with you) but that requires everyone to take off their blinkers, apply their intellect and examine what's being said.
Forget about what you're NOT supporting (Labor's plan), but what are you SUPPORTING by voting for the Coalition next election?
Discussing the Coalition's plan (or lack of it) is not the same as supporting it. Nor is it the same as not supporting Labor's plan. It's a bloody discussion forum fcs.
A narrow majority are intending to do it despite their broadband policy. You have to keep broadband policy in perspective.
I have CMOT, by specifically addressing their broadband policy as per the title of this thread. My post could be equally applied to other policies of each party, but the title of this thread is the Coalition NBN position. Comparing other polices in my post was not my intention. I took that into account before I posted.
trying to discern Coalition policy from what is being said by them and others and then discussing that just leads to a lot of abuse. This thread is about the Coalition's approach to an/the NBN. This is where we should do what you say (and I agree with you) but that requires everyone to take off their blinkers, apply their intellect and examine what's being said.
That's right. There's a little too much abuse from those for the NBN in here at this time, and while I might have the same issue with your style that Ungulate does (nitpicking) I am refusing to get into a sharpshooting match here. Nailing people via thinly veiled abuse for using what could be perceived as incorrect wording (on both sides) is not constructive, I hope everyone in here remembers that. If you're going to question someone's wording, question .... don't attack.
Discussing the Coalition's plan (or lack of it) is not the same as supporting it. Nor is it the same as not supporting Labor's plan.
I never said it was CMOT. However given the title of this thread is specifically about the Coalition's NBN position, you should understand that I was speaking specifically to those people who support the Coalition's NBN "plan" in here. If that's you, then yes, I'm talking to you. If that's not you, then the post wasn't meant for you. However the post does belong in this thread.
Tony Abbott:
we know that markets work better than govt monopolies and that a mix of technologies makes more sense than digging up every street for fibre to places that don't need it, want it or can afford to pay much, much more for it
Vote Liberal to stop fibre and stick with mid-20th century technology.
Another contract signed!
Another roadblock standing in the way of the Coalition stopping the NBN juggernaut!
http://www.nbnco.com.au/news
I have CMOT ...
I can understand somebody voting against Labor's plan because they don't agree with it, but if you're choosing to vote for the Coalition, then apply the same damn intelligence you are using on Labor against the Coalition's rhetoric.
I don't think so. People who are intending to vote for the Coalition are not necessarily against Labor's NBN plan. They have "used the same damn intelligence" and decided that overall the Coalition is the better option. In 42% of cases that's despite Labor's plan.
However given the title of this thread is specifically about the Coalition's NBN position, you should understand that I was speaking specifically to those people who support the Coalition's NBN "plan" in here.
I think this bit ...
If you are intending to vote for the Coalition, ask yourself, what exactly are you voting for?
... might have led me to think otherwise. Voting for the Coalition is not the same as supporting their plan or opposing Labor's. If we're just discussing the Coalition's 'plan' then a posters voting intention should be irrelevant.
I'm not sure what triggered your rant. If you want to know what people like about the Coalition's 'plan' then ask them. If you want to know why people think the Coalition's approach is better than Labor's then ask them. Just don't (not you) abuse them when they answer. Oh ... and consider there might be things to like and dislike in both plans. Disliking one aspect of either plan does not indicate overall support for either plan.
I don't think so. People who are intending to vote for the Coalition are not necessarily against Labor's NBN plan. They have "used the same damn intelligence" and decided that overall the Coalition is the better option. In 42% of cases that's despite Labor's plan.
On the contrary, they haven't "used the same damn intelligence". If they had, they'd have realised that there is no concete Coalition plan, and, as I previously stated, their basing their vote on faith that the Coalition will do "something". Even before Labor won the election when the NBN was first conceived, they had more than that to go on. What is the Coalition's vision for broadband in this country? "No"? "Not this way"?
Voting for the Coalition is not the same as supporting their plan or opposing Labor's. If we're just discussing the Coalition's 'plan' then a posters voting intention should be irrelevant.
With all due respect CMOT, that's rubbish. A reader of this thread who intends to vote Coalition at this time based on their current broadband plan, and my challenge to them to examine this plan using the same critical depth of Labor's current NBN, is VERY relevent for this thread.
I'm not sure what triggered your rant.
That the Coalition don't have a concrete NBN strategy, and the only things you can quote them on are so clouded in ambiguity that they could have easily said they'll put in polished execrement as broadband next election and still fulfilled their "promise".
If you want to know what people like about the Coalition's 'plan' then ask them.
I'm not asking about what they like. There's nothing to like, or dislike, at this point, because there is no concrete plan for the Coalition. I'm challenging them (Coalition voters) that if they agree with the Coalition's "policy" and outlook on the current NBN (whatever that is) at this point in time, and plan to vote for the Coalition, then they also need to apply the same criticism to what the Coalition will actually implement. Because if they do so honestly, at this point in time, they'll come up short. At that point, they may want to reevalutate what it is they are actually voting for, whether that's Labor, or another party. This is what I'm illustrating.
the Coalition's "policy" and outlook on the current NBN (whatever that is)
Well im no Noob, but im blowed if i know what it is.. Joe Public would have even less a clue..
That the Coalition don't have a concrete NBN strategy
And this is the truth as far as the electorate is concerned.
I might add that behind closed doors they do have a strategy for NBN, but like poker, their aim is to 'win', so they are keeping their cards close to their chest.
It's very easy for them to chant, Cheaper and Faster but I agree with you that the electorate can't judge this to make a quantified decision, because they haven't released any data.
I can shout, "I can build my house cheaper and faster" but that doesn't reflect any sence of the truth or reality. I might be able to, I might not. But how can anyone truely agree without seeing my plan to achieve this.
So CMOT and other's that may be Liberal leaning, it's time to take your argument to your representatives.
If you really want to engage in a proper debate on NBN ALP vs NBN LNP, might I suggest that you write to your constituents and get them to release details so that we can compare truths to the matter instead of having dribble on this forum.
The point so far is that the LNP have an ideal, they don't have a plan, and until such time as they do, this debate is well and truely futile and wasting all of our times..
The point so far is that the LNP have an ideal, they don't have a plan, and until such time as they do, this debate is well and truely futile and wasting all of our times..
It's like this, do you go out with the chick that has said yes I will put out for you or do you pick the other one that says I might put out for you but in reality the best you may get a kiss.
Well im no Noob, but im blowed if i know what it is.. Joe Public would have even less a clue..
Precisely. If you're voting for the Coalition based on broadband, and applying some intelligence to your own outlook, at the moment, you're vote is doing exactly squat for Australia. Because your not voting for something. A vote against Labor's plan doesn't automatically mean a vote for the Coalition's. While we do have two dominant parties in Australia, they aren't the only parties out there.
If there's a statement in all of this, then my statement to current Coalition voters in here is, vote intelligently.
The most recent example I can think of (and not meaning this to be a personal attack) is Raoul's blind support of a Coalition strategy, and continuing determination to refuse to see anything good about Labor's. Hardly thoughtful, and quite polarising, which is exactly what the parties want.
It's like this, do you go out with the chick that has said yes I will put out for you or do you pick the other one that says I might put out for you but in reality the best you may get a kiss.
I'd go for the one that is better for the long haul.... :-)
Raoul's blind support of a Coalition strategy, and continuing determination to refuse to see anything good about Labor's
Including the huge blind spot concerning the appaling state our telco sector mired itself into during those glorious halcyon Howard years. Oh but the market will solve it...Not if it's more profitable to ignore it :)
That's the big issue with the non existent coalition plan.The NBN as it stands makes it profitable for a RSP to access everyone in Australia. The Noalition semi-policy fails to address this hurdle for the private sector in a way that is in line with conservative political thinking.
Oh but the market will solve it...Not if it's more profitable to ignore it :)
And this is the very reason why many 'well off' people drive old cars.
And companies use their server down to the last computer chip.
It isn't profitable to buy a new one until it has used every last iota of whatever it has to give.
I'm all for getting the maximum use out of something, but surely people are starting to see that copper has had it's heyday..
In saying that it actually comes down to management.
Capitalists and Socialist methods are a direct result of their management.
It has little to do with the ideal behind them.
Both Capitalists and Socialist can create something, or botch something.
It's directly tied to the captain of the ship, the crew, and the ship itself.
Thankfully Quigley seems to be a good captain. Let's hope that the crew are up to the challenge of the high seas...
NBN Co selects ViaSat to supply ground equipment for satellite network
http://www.nbnco.com.au/news
At least the remote areas of Aus will get an upgrade to their services no matter what the Coalition does. ;-)
At least the remote areas of Aus will get an upgrade to their services no matter what the Coalition does. ;-)
Yep. Even if nothing else eventuates with regards to the current plans for the NBN, I still think its a great initiative that has and will provide benefits to those worst off with regards to broadband in Australia. Not even Abbott can claim otherwise, despite his poison.
Thing that worries me is that Tony DOESN'T actually have a plan.
He does actually, It called getting into the Lodge.
Apart from that, the Policy/Plan vacuum makes deep space look like Mercury (the metal), thick and dense.
Yep. Even if nothing else eventuates with regards to the current plans for the NBN, I still think its a great initiative that has and will provide benefits to those worst off with regards to broadband in Australia. Not even Abbott can claim otherwise, despite his poison.
Lets assume the Liberals cannot interfere with it or water it down. What then?
Most probably the satellite service will be hived off and the price will go up.
Another contract signed!
Singapore Telecommunications-owned Optus has defended its deal with the NBN Co ...
However, from the same article
... but economist Henry Ergas has written to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) arguing that it should take a second look at the deal on the basis that the regulator has understated the competitive detriment associated with the deal.
The economist argues that if Optus were to remain a rival of the NBN, the government-owned network would be forced to compete harder, offering better value to users and taxpayers.
�Preserving competition results is a benefit to all consumers and taxpayers,� he said, according to The Australian.
Arrrggghh, lets hope commonsense prevails in the ACCC and writes back to Mr Ergas informing him that in their opinion the University system has a monopoly on Tertiary Education and that there should be some competition there.
Most probably the satellite service will be hived off and the price will go up.
What ever happens and whoever is in, if the NBN is split up and is open to competition too early, the monopoly is broken, and it's then going to cost the Australian Taxpayer directly.
ts assume the Liberals cannot interfere with it or water it down. What then?
I honestly don't know what will happen. But if we're talking hypotheticals, then we can talk consequences ....
If the NBN doesn't proceed as planned and the worst case scenario comes to pass, that is, the satellite and wireless is hived off, some of the consequences could be:
1. The prices increase for broadband in those areas and the Coalition government wears the voter backlash against them. Private enterprise cleans up.
2. The broadband prices increase, but the Coalition government subsidies those prices to retain a reasonable "what the market will bear". That last concept may still be more expensive though. If I could venture an arbitrary opinion, this would be my choice as the likeliest scenario. Private enterprise still cleans up.
3. In keeping with the Coalition's vague promise that wholesale infrastructure should have competition, they'll float NBNCo (if they can) on the market to allow public shareholders to .... once again .... clean up at taxpayers expense. The may be a promise to allow market competition to overbuild in this area, once again, keeping with the Coalition's promise of "competition".
4. NBNCo remains government owned, as a provider of last resort, wholesale competition is allowed, other companies build where profitable (and charge premium prices), and NBNCo enters a government drip feed for at least the short to medium term if we're "lucky", long term if we're "unlucky". Private enterprise gets to cherry pick, and NBNCo becomes the "example of Labor's waste" the Coalition always made it out to be.
5. NBNCo doesn't get sold, enters government care, is slowly starved of funds, and is forced to push up prices in order to maintain it's infrastructure. No subsidies are granted, broadband becomes too expensive for those people so they go without, NBNCo eventually folds.
I'm sure others will offer other scenarios here, but this is what I can think of off the top of my head. Let me make it clear that I don't consider ANY of these options acceptable, or even unacceptable. I consider them ABYSMAL.
On the contrary, they haven't "used the same damn intelligence".
42% of people who intend to vote for the Coalition have "used the same damn intelligence" and decided they like the NBN. However, overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. There are things that are more important to them than broadband. They are going to vote for the Coalition despite their broadband policy (or lack thereof).
... as I previously stated, their basing their vote on faith that the Coalition will do "something".
This is where we disagree. They don't have faith the Coalition will do anything on broadband. They are prepared to accept what they get because overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. It's not about broadband.
With all due respect CMOT, that's rubbish. A reader of this thread who intends to vote Coalition at this time based on their current broadband plan, ...
What does the voting intention have to do with it? If someone prefers the Coaltion 'plan' to Labor's NBN then their voting intention is irrelevant. The discussion you want should happen but it should not be linked to voting intention.
... and my challenge to them to examine this plan using the same critical depth of Labor's current NBN, is VERY relevent for this thread.
But that's a question to anyone who supports the Coalition 'plan' or does not support the NBN. It's not just about people who intend to vote for the Coalition. My questioning the NBN policy and/or considering the Coalition 'plan' does not make me a bloody Liberal.
The same applies here as applies in the other threads in this forum:
- if you express an opinion then give your reasoning
- if you make a claim then back it up with evidence
- if you dispute someone else's opinion then give your reasoning
- if you dispute someone else's claim then back it up with evidence
- accept other's right to their opinions, whether you agree with them or not
- above all, cut the abuse
That the Coalition don't have a concrete NBN strategy ... etc
Right. I thought Turnbull had come a long way from where he started and was starting to put together something that could be a credible (though unpopular here) plan to take to the election. I was wrong. It's now clear to me from what Abbott and Hockey have said and from what's written on the Liberal web site that they haven't budged a smegging inch from 2010.
I'm challenging them (Coalition voters) that if they agree with the Coalition's "policy" and outlook on the current NBN (whatever that is) at this point in time, and plan to vote for the Coalition, then they also need to apply the same criticism to what the Coalition will actually implement.
The challenge applies to everyone.
At least the remote areas of Aus will get an upgrade to their services no matter what the Coalition does. ;-)
Whilst Labor hold office this is entirely true!
However under the Coalition, given the fact that Malcolm Turnbull has stated and I quote!@
Turnbull: New satellites unnecessary for NBN
There is already enough broadband capacity provided by existing satellites, according to Shadow Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
http://www.arnnet.com.au/art
Of course this is refuted entirely here!
Optus chief executive Paul O'Sullivan has defended NBN Co's decision to construct and launch its own satellites, saying his company would not be able to provide the same quality of broadband service on its existing commercial satellites.
The satellites which NBN Co is building are specifically built to carry broadband traffic, while Optus's satellites are designed to carry television and video services, O'Sullivan explained.
In any event the fact is that the Coalition have a 70 billion dollar black hole and they are going to have to add to that to the tune of at least another $20 billion for their redundant FTTN idea just to get it off the ground and then a whole lot more to get Telstra to come and play ball!
So these Satellites will either be sold off to other international telco's who are all lining up to get on board with 3rd Generation Ka band Satellite � or you might see someone like NewSat here in Australia.
http://www.itwire.com/it-ind
Offer to step in and take them off their hands!
Of course they would want to see a much better return than 7 percent so those in Regional Australia could expect to see substantial cost increases and dramatic cuts to the forcast 100G per month data allocation on the basic plans!
Cheers
What ever happens and whoever is in, if the NBN is split up and is open to competition too early, the monopoly is broken, and it's then going to cost the Australian Taxpayer directly.
I don't agree with the present government over selling it off 5 years after its built.
However, that's 15 years off and I suspect by then it will be politically hard to do so.
42% of people who intend to vote for the Coalition have "used the same damn intelligence" and decided they like the NBN. However, overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. There are things that are more important to them than broadband. They are going to vote for the Coalition despite their broadband policy (or lack thereof).
Obviously they are people would vote for the Coalition regardless.
They are prepared to accept what they get because overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. It's not about broadband.
Better in Goverment ? On what grounds? Abbott and Front bench are new to Goverment, yes, they (some) have been in howards government, but most are new to their jobs.
Between lying and Hockneynomics ($70 billion black hole/$11 billion black hole and bad budgeting on NBN Costs, along with Turnbull doing the same).
Between an evil we know and evil we don't (see QLD/NSW State Governments), next few years is going to be very rough ride.
This is where we disagree. They don't have faith the Coalition will do anything on broadband. They are prepared to accept what they get because overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. It's not about broadband.
This is where I disagree CMOT. Yes, there's certainly a lot of people who don't know and don't care.
But there's still people who do know and do care, but still want to vote Liberal, and that's pretty clear from reading WP.
What is important that these people aren't being led into a false sense of security and that its pointed out to them that voting Liberal will almost certainly ruin the NBN.
(Can almost hear your responding with .. well.. we dont know.. do we.. blah blah blah)
In any event the fact is that the Coalition have a 70 billion dollar black hole and they are going to have to add to that to the tune of at least another $20 billion for their redundant FTTN idea just to get it off the ground and then a whole lot more to get Telstra to come and play ball!
Which is exactly why they won't do it.
I truly believe that the Coalition, if they get into government, is likely to do one of 2 things:
1- Realise that FTTN is RIDICULOUS with the NBN 1/3 done. Stop the NBN anyway. Sell it off and claim Labor waste.
2- Pursue FTTN for a few years, renegotiating contracts, doing CBA etc. All the while the NBN is halted. Realise at the end it's not going to work. Sell off NBNCo. and claim Labor waste.
They don't CARE about broadband via government. Turnbull does. The Liberals don't. They're not going to do squat, just like for the 10 years of Howard. They'll "let the market sort it out" and we all pay through the eye teeth and up the wazoo for it.
This is where we disagree. They don't have faith the Coalition will do anything on broadband. They are prepared to accept what they get because overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. It's not about broadband.
However there are a growing number of Coalition voters (my nephew being but just one of those) who intend to vote Labor at the next election because he wants to ensure that he does get optical Fibre and not redundant FTTN.
Frankly he couldn't give two hoots about emotive boats and other tripe � as long as the budget looks good, his business can continue to grow and prosper, and he can access to a decent communications system.
And note he would agree entirely with your comments here! Hence his decision to vote Labor.
It's now clear to me from what Abbott and Hockey have said and from what's written on the Liberal web site that they haven't budged a smegging inch from 2010.
Nor do I believe the implications of the Coalition's plans are well understood by the majority of those in Regional Australia as yet!
And these once articulated based on the last 3 year public track record of the Liberal Party � will no doubt influence the outcome at the next election yet again as it did at the last one!
Only even more so this time around as we have another 3 years of young Australians eligible to vote who do understand the debate and the passing of those older Australians whose functional use of Telecommunications was the phone next to the bed and of course the next 12 months where many those who are wondering what its all about will actually get to see it in use and the functional application it will have on their lives both today and into the future.
Not that Labor are going to win it but rather I suspect we will return to the status quo eg split house with more Independents taking seats in Parliament with of course the Greens retaining control of the Senate.
This is where we disagree. They don't have faith the Coalition will do anything on broadband. They are prepared to accept what they get because overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. It's not about broadband.
That's not what the poll was asking. It was asking whether they believed the NBN should be built. 42% of what the poll called Coalition voters said yes (we have no information about this other than the poll identifying them as Coalition voters, not whether they'd vote Coalition no matter what). That DOESN'T mean those people believe the Coalition will, won't or might do something about broadband. It means they agree with the NBN and normally vote Coalition.
This is the problem. Do these people believe the NBN will "continue" under the Coalition, therefore they agree with it? Do they believe the NBN won't GET built unless it's under the Coalition? Or do, as you say, they believe that broadband isn't important in the overall scheme of things and will accept what they will get voting Coalition anyway? This last one makes no sense though, because the poll asked: Do you agree with the NBN being built? They obviously care about broadband or they would've just stated no or I don't know. That's where your logic falls down.
MANY Coalition voters are being mislead by the Coalition stating they'll "achieve the NBN objective" When asked about the NBN, therefore, they may believe, by answering "yes I think it should be built" on a poll, that if they vote Coalition it WILL be built anyway. Which it won't.
Wanna get more nit-picky about it?
There are things that are more important to them than broadband.
Exactly. But that discussion (the things more important to them) is not for this thread is it? As I said CMOT, I took that into account before I even posted.
They are prepared to accept what they get because overall they think the Coalition is the better option for government. It's not about broadband.
Once again then, not for this thread. CMOT, if you want to get into the ins and outs as to why people will vote over MANY policies versus the one policy that is relevent in this area of Whirlpool, I suggest you take it there. If I started that up in here, then the discussion starts to veer off topic. I am deliberately trying to avoid that.
What does the voting intention have to do with it? If someone prefers the Coaltion 'plan' to Labor's NBN then their voting intention is irrelevant.
If a Coalition voter is voting for the Coalition purely on their "alternative" to Labor's current policy, then I'm advising them to apply their critical thinking. That's entirely relevent to a thread entitled "Coalition NBN Position".
My questioning the NBN policy and/or considering the Coalition 'plan' does not make me a bloody Liberal.
And where did I call you a Liberal CMOT? Where did I even frickin' suggest it? Was I even ANSWERING you when I made the original post of mine? Not in the slightest. My post was never directed at any specific person in here. It was directed at people who are choosing to vote Coalition on broadband matters, and attempting to make them realise that "No" or "Not this way", isn't a policy. You've already stated so yourself in your other posts. In which case, what I posted has absolutely nothing to do with you. You are one of those people who is not blinded by the Coalition's rhetoric.
Right. I thought Turnbull had come a long way from where he started and was starting to put together something that could be a credible (though unpopular here) plan to take to the election. I was wrong. It's now clear to me from what Abbott and Hockey have said and from what's written on the Liberal web site that they haven't budged a smegging inch from 2010.
Exactly. You're already at the point I was illustrating. Which is why my post was not for someone like you at all.
The challenge applies to everyone.
In a thread entitled "Coalition NBN position", in order to keep it as on topic as possible, I am directing it that way specifically. If you'd like to talk more broadly, find or create another thread about critical thinking on both policies, or political critical thinking in another Whirlpool forum.
If Malcolm was able to remove TA from the leadership and made a clear commitment that he would continue the NBN as is (no weasel phrases allowed!), I would vote Liberal again
I'm not sure why though. It would be a relief to see Abbott go. At least then the Liberal Party can rebuild and maybe in a few years come back with some alternate policy that's worth a look in. And I'm not just talking broadband there.
My problem with the Liberal Party is that overwhelmingly they stand for a world view that is simply broken.
That doesn't mean that some Liberal governments haven't done some good works. Even Howard managed to bring about some gun reform for instance (but in his later years he focused more and more populism over good policy)
But history tells, the party that actually brings about the major reforms has been Labor. This is what we mean about the difference between "progressive" and "conservative". I'm not a Labor vs Liberal person, but I am a progressive. I'd even vote for a Liberal with a "progressive" platform over Labor, but so far in the dozen or so elections I've had a vote, I've not yet seen that.
The conservatives have a track record of being disinterested in infrastructure. For instance it was Whitlam that saw reticulated sewage being brough into major cities and major road projects such as the F3.
The conservatives have a track record of seeing certain things such as university education as "being for the elite". Howard starved the universities of funding.
The conservatives have opposed virtually every major reform, such as universal health care.
Now, and I could go on but I know this is OT, the question remains, even besides broadband, when you look at the records of the two major parties, and you look what each has achieved objectively, its a bit one sided.
So, even if Turnbull was Liberal leader, I'd still be faced with the fact that under Labor I get more good governance, more care and attention to education and infrastructure, and credible economic management.. versus what? What's the fantastic reforms the Libs offer? Aside from notional support for the NDIS, we hear nothing. Just a few tidbits here and there and promises to do things they can't afford to do and have admitted as much.
And before I'm done here let me point out yet again. The real danger for the NBN is not the attacks on the NBN itself � it will do well on its merits. Its the entirely wrong ideas that people have about Labor in general. Indeed the attacks on the NBN are coming from the same sources, using the same propaganda techniques as the attacks on Labor in general. Its enough to make you wonder, if you've come here wondering why if the NBN is so good, why does the media attack it so much, to start wondering if you've been misled over other things Labor.
This is where I disagree CMOT
Where?
Yes, there's certainly a lot of people who don't know and don't care.
Not there.
But there's still people who do know and do care, but still want to vote Liberal, ...
Not there.
and that's pretty clear from reading WP.
I haven't thought about that.
What is important that these people aren't being led into a false sense of security and that its pointed out to them that voting Liberal will almost certainly ruin the NBN.
Not there.
(Can almost hear your responding with .. well.. we dont know.. do we.. blah blah blah)
If you want the government's NBN then don't vote for the Coalition. That is blindingly obvious.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.
Its the entirely wrong ideas that people have about Labor in general. Indeed the attacks on the NBN are coming from the same sources, using the same propaganda techniques as the attacks on Labor in general. Its enough to make you wonder, if you've come here wondering why if the NBN is so good, why does the media attack it so much, to start wondering if you've been misled over other things Labor.
This is the most difficult part.
Mention the NBN at a party, you get a lively debate....right up until someone says "Labor waste" or "pink batts." Then it devolves into a political showdown and the NBN gets pushed aside. People don't seem to want to find the info or know the truth for themselves. They're happy for the pollies to tell us "the truth" and accept it. And herein lies the problem. They're being told fallacy by the Coalition on the NBN. And on a number of other policies, but that's OT.
It's all rolled into the "I hate Labor/Liberal" ball. You can't separate it easily for many people. This WILL be the downfall of the NBN if the Australian people aren't very careful. It would be, in my eyes, the worst backwards step we've taken in decades. Would it crush us? No. But we'd be ludicrously behind in internet connectivity and innovation for the next 20 years. And seeing as the internet is THE global powerhouse for growth, where does that leave us?
1- Realise that FTTN is RIDICULOUS with the NBN 1/3 done. Stop the NBN anyway. Sell it off and claim Labor waste.
Who would buy it? If it was in one area they might get a buyer but it's all over the place. imo there is only one company that would buy it and I'm not sure about them.
2- Pursue FTTN for a few years, renegotiating contracts, doing CBA etc. All the while the NBN is halted. Realise at the end it's not going to work. Sell off NBNCo. and claim Labor waste.
Is this keeping the NBNCo but switching from FTTP to FTTN? Why won't this work?
3- Let the private sector build what they will, where they will and use grants and/or subsidies to fill the gaps. Realise the private sector other than Telstra won't build anything anywhere, also realise that if Telstra builds it no bugger will be able to afford to use it, sit on their collective arse and do nothing.
That's not what the poll was asking.
This week�s poll questioned respondents on their voting intentions in the next Federal Election, as well as their approval ratings on the various leaders and the NBN. (my bold)
http://delimiter.com.a
It means they agree with the NBN and normally vote Coalition.
Nope. These are people who support the NBN but intend to vote Coalition at the next election anyway.
The questions ...
Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward?
... and ...
Q. From what you�ve heard, do you favour or oppose the planned national broadband network (NBN)?
http://essentialvisi
Or are you suggesting the polling company has used voting figures from some source other than the first question?
This is the problem. Do these people believe ... etc
I can't see anything in the survey that indicates what these people believe will happen. The fact is, according to this survey 42% of people who would vote Coalition support the NBN.
MANY Coalition voters are being mislead by the Coalition ... etc
Quite likely. If they listen to Turnbull they might think they'll get something that's ok. If they listen to Abbot or Hockey or read Liberal party literature they'll know different. Who can tell what they think.
Wanna get more nit-picky about it?
If you question one of my posts I'm probably going to respond. Discussions work like that. If that's "nit-picky" then don't read and/or reply to my posts. If you think my posts break the forum rules then use the herring facility.
So these Satellites will either be sold off to other international telco's who are all lining up to get on board with 3rd Generation Ka band Satellite � or you might see someone like NewSat here in Australia.
Hmmm. I suspect I was a bit superficial in my original post. Thanks for the info.
These are people who support the NBN but intend to vote Coalition at the next election anyway
You can have the most popular schemes developed by another party (like Solar Schemes for example) and still get it changed or even worse � axed.
The companies involved will eventually/may have financial issues because they were expecting long term contracts with the Goverment.
Marriage Equality is another issue that faces Coalition Party, they they refusing to support.
(Toe the Party Line).
If a Coalition voter is voting for the Coalition purely on their "alternative" to Labor's current policy, then I'm advising them to apply their critical thinking. That's entirely relevent to a thread entitled "Coalition NBN Position".
What about Coalition voters who are voting for the Coalition for other reasons but might be swayed by the broadband policies? imo anyone interested in broadband policy who is intending to vote Coalition for whatever reason should "apply their critical thinking".
I agree with everything you say about the discussion being necessary and about people thinking about the consequences of their voting intention. I just think you're narrowing the audience too much.
And where did I call you a Liberal CMOT?
Sorry. I missed out my usual "not you". Apologies.
In a thread entitled "Coalition NBN position", in order to keep it as on topic as possible, I am directing it that way specifically.
Only people who intend to vote Coalition solely based on their broadband policy? Can the prospective participants please stand up. Anyone?
Mention the NBN at a party, you get a lively debate....right up until someone says "Labor waste" or "pink batts." Then it devolves into a political showdown and the NBN gets pushed aside. People don't seem to want to find the info or know the truth for themselves.
I get a slightly different conversation.
Mention NBN, especially if someone already has it, and suddenly the pillock of the group comes out with "Oh isn't it really expensive? And don't you have to get your ENTIRE house re-wired?"
The NBN connected person explains "No, I save $29 a month, and get better and faster."
Then "Nope, just plugged in my router � done."
I generally turn to the pillock and ask "Where do you get your moronic information from, some sort of toilet wall?"
What about Coalition voters who are voting for the Coalition for other reasons but might be swayed by the broadband policies?
Then if they are following this thread, I hope it has opened their eyes somewhat to both the good things about the existing policy currently being executed, and the absolute waffle (there's no other word for it IMO) being spouted by the Coalition at this moment.
I just think you're narrowing the audience too much
Considering this is an NBN forum, on Whirlpool, about the Coalition, I'd say the audience is already narrowed. But one thing you cannot narrow, is the limit of people's narrowmindedness. Something that I was hoping to address.
Sorry. I missed out my usual "not you". Apologies.
Thank you. It was never my intention to engage in that sort of crap, particularly with you CMOT.
Only people who intend to vote Coalition solely based on their broadband policy? Can the prospective participants please stand up. Anyone?
Heh heh, I wonder if anyone will truly identify themselves? If I was voting that way, you'd hear nothing but chirping crickets from me.
Marriage Equality is another issue that faces Coalition Party, they they refusing to support.
(Toe the Party Line).
And this is relevant to the coalition NBN position just how?
Just being my usual helpful self trying to get the thread back on topic . . .
;-)
And this is relevant to the coalition NBN position just how?
As I said, it's about Toeing the party Line...
Mention NBN, especially if someone already has it, and suddenly the pillock of the group comes out with "Oh isn't it really expensive? And don't you have to get your ENTIRE house re-wired?"
Was going to put LOL to that, but it's more sad than funny.
It's also very true, and the only thing to add is that not everybody who responds like that is a pillock. There are some quite sensible but non-technical people who could say those things because they have seen reports of the coalition saying them, and they have no way of knowing that the comments are rubbish.
"Where do you get your moronic information from, some sort of toilet wall?"
Some toilet, some wall!
Frankly he couldn't give two hoots about emotive boats and other tripe � as long as the budget looks good, his business can continue to grow and prosper, and he can access to a decent communications system.
Yep, I agree � I am not a refugee, so don't care, let 'em come or whatever.
I am not looking to have a gay marriage, so don't care, either way is fine by me.
I WANT NBN � and THAT is going to affect my vote....
Once I have NBN, then I will switch to something else to care about. Too bad for anyone else who misses out; or you can move to Armidale.
:-)
This week�s poll questioned respondents on their voting intentions in the next Federal Election, as well as their approval ratings on the various leaders and the NBN.
Nope. These are people who support the NBN but intend to vote Coalition at the next election anyway.
How so?
Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward?
... and ...
Q. From what you�ve heard, do you favour or oppose the planned national broadband network (NBN)?
So they are likely to vote Coalition and then are asked a second question, do you favour or oppose the NBN. It's not related. Some may not even KNOW the Coalition oppose it, although I admit that's unlikely. Point is, the 2 questions are exclusive, not inclusive. You're trying to connect them when there IS not connection inherently.
If the question had run:
Taking into account your voting preference as you reported AND from what you've heard of the 2 party's stance on the NBN, do you favour or oppose the NBN? Would it change your voting preference?
Then I'd agree with you. But as the poll stood, we have NO way of knowing how many of those who said "I'm a Coalition voter" also understand that when the say "I favour the NBN" they are, in fact, producing a contradiction in terms, because the Coalition DON'T favour it.
This is why the poll can only be taken, from BOTH anti and pro NBN stances, as a basic indication, not gospel. It does not ask specific enough questions.
the unmovable elephant (fttn) in rose coloured glasses is what i see in the contention of the last mile (imagination of the libs) the reality is you may may have 2-5 mile radius window of coverage of the existing node in line length making the last mile the butt of the joke of the telecomms industry..
fantansy vs reality is a funny thing fttn fact as it is stands is a short minded goal that should of be implemented back in the the 1990's by 2010 gearing up to replace fttn with ftth by 2015 the wider area should beed replaced with fibre, due to. current delays by 2020 i see the majority will still be on adsl/vdsl.
at the libs policy dictates cherry picked ftth estates with the remaining network pigeon holed to fttn, though that reality will see fttn deployed over 1-5 mile radius of the node itself in line length, making it a poor choice for deployment of use..
I concede that FTTN might be a quicker deployment option from the out set though reality is in terms of actual speed it can provide is very narrow, reality today we need a min of 1gb backbone with the option 10gb and beyond in within the 10-35 years..
We're becoming a digital society so it is pointless to delay deploying fibre much longer otherwise we will be left behind..
It shouldn't matter which dipstick party is in power at the time overhauling the comms network with fibre is a good thing.. not a bad thing..
Considering this is an NBN forum, on Whirlpool, about the Coalition, I'd say the audience is already narrowed. But one thing you cannot narrow, is the limit of people's narrowmindedness. Something that I was hoping to address.
Fair enough.
Taking the numbers from that survey (yeah I know) you're looking at the 40% who intend to vote Coalition and who oppose the NBN. Of those, you're just looking at the ones who are only voting Coalition because of broadband policy. About 0% imo.
The ones I'd like topics in this thread to address are those who support the NBN but intend to vote Coalition anyway. They are all viable targets imo.
They can get to understand the NBN more from other threads. This thread can show them what, if anything, the Coalition is offering. It might just change their minds.
Still, your topic, I'll leave it with you.
If the NBN doesn't proceed as planned and the worst case scenario comes to pass, that is, the satellite and wireless is hived off, some of the consequences could be:
I see the Coalition retaining the sat/wireless parts of the NBN due to the main cost being equipment not Labour.
It's the ftth component that will be altered as Mr Turnbull/Coalition mentioned they will fix the rollout with cost effective architectures.
not everybody who responds like that is a pillock. There are some quite sensible but non-technical people who could say those things because they have seen reports of the coalition saying them, and they have no way of knowing that the comments are rubbish.
Yes, I've found that. If I challenging what they read in the paper, they come back with � "but why would they report that if it weren't true?" "Surely they would know, have checked up, spoken to experts, got their facts straight?" "There is no news of any NBN progress anywhere!". "And where did you get YOUR info, from the INTERNET???"
In a contest of credibility between Labor and the Coalition, Labor hasn't got a chance with some readers.
I generally turn to the pillock and ask "Where do you get your moronic information from, some sort of toilet wall?"
Gold! Spoken like a true FUD fighter..
It's the ftth component that will be altered as Mr Turnbull/Coalition mentioned they will fix the rollout with cost effective architectures.
That makes no sense unless they give details.
What architecture is being used now? The FSA, FSAM architecture is widely accepted, internationally, as an efficient and redundant architecture. Could it be changed and done cheaper? Probably, but then you'd either lose efficiency or redundancy. Or both.
Or do you mean architecture in terms of FTTH VS FTTN? The point of the NBN is to be ubiquitous. Much of its' value gets lost if you say "oh, well, there's only 2000 people there in 700 houses, they can have FTTN because most of them are within 2km of their exchange" as those people are now relegated to slower speeds by default AND they have to wait x time to receive full FTTH from the government in the further before they can catch up (and you're KIDDING yourself if you think the private market will "upgrade them" without everyone paying every cent for the upgrade). Now spread this out over the width and breadth of the land and not ONLY do you destroy the whole point of EVERYONE having this fast, reliable access, but you also destroy:
- The funding and pricing strategy behind the NBN
- The upgradability of any portion of the NBN
- The RETAIL pricing and offerings of the NBN
- The support structure of the NBN
- Any chance to fully homogenise Australians' access to cheap, fast, reliable broadband WHEREVER THEY CHOSE TO LIVE
- The NBN in general
You get what some people have called the NOBN.
So yes, we MIGHT save $2 or $3 Billion doing FTTN in some areas. And, ironically, those areas are ALREADY likely to be the most under-served in broadband as it stands, as they are the least profitable areas and the ones to gain the MOST from the NBN.
So bravo Coalition, you've saved Australians "HUGE" amounts of waste- what amounts to....well, nothing in the budget, because it's borrowed money that's paid back, so in essence, you've not saved anything- by yet AGAIN underserving those Australians MOST disadvantaged in broadband.
Yes, that's a MUCH better architecture.....
It's the ftth component that will be altered as Mr Turnbull/Coalition mentioned they will fix the rollout with cost effective architectures.
We already know that FTTN is actually wasted money.
You can't accept that. Reason, you're here purely to plug the Liberal Party.
I bet if Turnbull backflipped and admitted that FTTN has no future, you'd backflip one microsecond later!
:D (guffaw, chuckle, flop)
I generally turn to the pillock and ask "Where do you get your moronic information from, some sort of toilet wall?"
More specifically, the toilet wall that is frequented by Andrew Bolt
(duck)
I'm not sure why though. It would be a relief to see Abbott go.
I just hate Abbott to be honest, personally I'd like to see bob Carr take the reigns of the labor party too as that man knows how to lead, with him in charge I reckon he could sort thru the current bs goin on behind the scenes in the party!
- The funding and pricing strategy behind the NBN
Let's take a look at the Sats. $2 Billion with 106,000 customers (Corp plan) at a cost of $20,000 + per customer finance costs + operational/support costs.
Now without a cross subsidy these customers will paying through the nose since a sat has limited life expectancy of ~ 15 years once fuel runs out. A lot of the equipment would have to reconfigured/changed in 15 years. There is no chance these customers will pay $20,000 + $Y ISP subscriber fees over 15 years due to the independents.
I expect Mr Turnbull to fully outsource a stress test of the NBN' s viability. On the face of it with real pricing falling in ISP charges it's a highly risky venture.
- The upgradability of any portion of the NBN
Are sats uogradeble since once you launch into space that's it.
- The RETAIL pricing and offerings of the
NBN
The pain of tomorrow is not reflected in today's prices. Mr Turnbull has mentioned the capital that is spent in the tens of billions means higher prices.
- The support structure of the NBN
It's still does not have a track record.
- Any chance to fully homogenise Australians' access to cheap, fast, reliable broadband WHEREVER THEY CHOSE TO LIVE
Question cheap. ARPU is expected to rise 6% in nominal terms. So if dudes do not take up higher plans the project will be under question.
I expect Mr Turnbull to fully outsource a stress test of the NBN' s viability. On the face of it with real pricing falling in ISP charges it's a highly risky venture.
Lets hope they do a better job then the costing of their 2010 election promises, how far were they out?
A Treasury examination of the Coalition's 2010 costings found errors including double counting and questionable assumptions amounting to $11 billion.
http://www.theage.com.au/nat
ional/lib-policy-costings-ex posed-by-ruling-20111130-1o773.html
So remind me, why is the Coalition so unquestionably superior with proper accounting standard especially when their claims of 'off budget' accounting have been rubbished.
On-budget and off-budget
The use of the terms on-budget and off-budget can be misleading and should be avoided. The budget covers the general government sector. The term off-budget is sometimes used to refer to entities that do not form part of the general government sector (for example, Australia Post and the Reserve Bank). However, that does not mean that such entities do not affect the budget. On the contrary, the budget accounts for the inter-relationships between these entities and government, and these inter-relationships are reflected in the general government sector financial statements. For example, the government�s equity in Australia Post is included in the general government sector balance sheet, and Reserve Bank dividends are included in the general government sector operating statement. To sum, the terms off-budget and on-budget are not used in any technical discussion of financial statements and should be avoided.
The point of the NBN is to be ubiquitous.
Why is FTTN to 93% (if that's what the Coalition offers) less ubiquitous than FTTP to 93%?
"oh, well, there's only 2000 people there in 700 houses, they can have FTTN because most of them are within 2km of their exchange"
Distance from the exchange is irrelevant in an FTTN network. The distance that matters with FTTN is distance from the node to the customer premises.
So yes, we MIGHT save $2 or $3 Billion doing FTTN in some areas.
Citigroup estimated Turnbull's 'plan' would cost $16.7bn. That's less than half the cost of the NBN. That saves a bit more than $2 or $3 billion.
http://www.zdnet.co
Yes, that's a MUCH better architecture.....
It's not technically better. It may be more cost-effective.
Why is FTTN to 93% (if that's what the Coalition offers) less ubiquitous than FTTP to 93%?
The variable nature of copper based services, also I have not seen a claim of 93% from the Coalition. Nothing official has been released, so anything is assumptions.
It's not technically better. It may be more cost-effective.
Big maybe. Cost effective is very dubious, it is cheaper in the short term is the only fact.
It's not technically better. It may be more cost-effective.
As a stepping stone from Copper � FTTN � FTTP it is neither.
Why is FTTN to 93% (if that's what the Coalition offers) less ubiquitous than FTTP to 93%?
The coalition is yet to say to exactly how many people an you know this.
And their initial indications were something like 60% of the population (but you are welcome to refute this as I have been scaled back to dial up speeds and therefore can't look up a link as google doesn't want to play ball).
Distance from the exchange is irrelevant in an FTTN network. The distance that matters with FTTN is distance from the node to the customer premises.
Again from my understanding (you are welcome to refute, or someone else is welcome to post a link) that FTTn brings the DSLAM from the exchange to closer to the home (As in, more DSLAMS spread around closer to peoples homes than otherwise would be in an exchange). I think seven_tech pointed this out..
(And with higher electricty running costs I might add)
Citigroup estimated Turnbull's 'plan' would cost $16.7bn. That's less than half the cost of the NBN. That saves a bit more than $2 or $3 billion.
Yes, but it only saves until the first upgrade. And again, you know this.
So how many billions to ditch all the DSLAMS (and parts of the fibre and HFC) and UG from FTTn to FTTh in 10-15 years time? $16billion in today's dollars?
16+16 = $32. And all this with little income to pay it back.
But alas, I theorise as I don't have access to the data...
It's not technically better. It may be more cost-effective.
'May' yes 'May'. Cool. Show us the maths and we'll look into it. But at this stage there isn't a consotorium on the planet who is saying that it is cheaper to roll out FTTn and then switch to FTTh other than the Federal Opposition (exclusing a few biased opinion pieces)
Why is FTTN to 93% (if that's what the Coalition offers) less ubiquitous than FTTP to 93%?
FTTN is not ubiquitous broadband, because of the copper. As someone has already said. My copper is shocking. I had to reset my modem 6 times in 2 days. Tell me, how will FTTN fix this? Oh, that's right, it won't. So instead of MAYBE getting 80Mbps on FTTN, I'll be relegated to 40, if I'm lucky. As will hundreds of thousands of others. Simply because of the copper.
Distance from the exchange is irrelevant in an FTTN network. The distance that matters with FTTN is distance from the node to the customer premises.
Wrong. Distance to the exchange changes the number of nodes put in. If I am 3.5km from the exchange, to get ANY significant change in speed, I'd need a node within 1.5 km. In my neighbourhood, relatively dense, that might require anything from 3 to 10 nodes (we have NO idea of the contention ratios likely on a Coalition FTTN, another problem with ubiquity). THAT means, COST! So yes, distance from the exchange IS very important to the Coalition. If they want any hope of being more "cost-effective."
Citigroup estimated Turnbull's 'plan' would cost $16.7bn. That's less than half the cost of the NBN. That saves a bit more than $2 or $3 billion.
Don't patronise me. I'm fully aware of that. Notice:
1- That's TWICE what the Coalition put it at. And yet we should just believe them that they CAN be more "cost-effective"
2- Citigroup are market analysts. Not telecommunications experts. They have ESTIMATED it. It could be less. It could also be much, MUCH more
3- Contracts. There's at LEAST $2 Billion worth of contract cancellation fees. AND all current contracts will be transferred to the budget if they chose to change NBNCo.'s mandate as a GBE, which, to build FTTN, being a NON-wholesale architecture, it would have to be.
So yes, that's close to $19 Billion JUST with contract cancellations and assuming that Citigroup have factored in everything. Which they haven't. Because their analysis assumes no NBN rollout at all. Look it up. That would add a layer of complexity that, while decreasing the rollout of FTTN (as FTTP is already there) is likely to INCREASE the amount of FTTP they rollout to finish areas, lest they leave half a region with FTTP and half of one with FTTN. One of the biggest barriers to the Coalition plan- would you, as a voter, sit by happily and get charged MORE for FTTN services, while 10km away, for no other reason than a change in policy, your friend got FTTP cheaper??
It's not technically better. It may be more cost-effective.
Sorry, you can't separate the 2. Unless you believe FTTN will NOT....EVER need upgrading? It is more "cost-effective" only in the fact that, in the short term it is CHEAPER. Being cheaper is not inherently more cost effective. If I want a car that works I can buy a new car and save with low servicing costs for years. Or, I can keep my old bomb and spend thousands every year or so just to keep it going. Which one is more cost effective?
And stop bloody jumping around. You go from loving the Coalition plan to hating it. I know you use your "critical eye" on policy, but you have to choose a side. This is not a fence debate. You either agree with it or not. There IS no in between- neither in policy or plans.
I used to love explaining this definition as most people didn't understand it before I did:
What is the definition of a bargin?
The definition of a bargin is something of 'equal' value, but at a lower purchasing price.
So it's either, the retailer taking a hit as he's selling it to you at a discount,
Or it's you getting the proper price for you as the seller was trying to rip you off.
but you have to choose a side
Well considering there has been little change in the NLP's stance, I can't see why anyone needs to change their viewpoint once they see the facts.
..And that the NLP have yet to release a costed plan..
Let's take a look at the Sats. .... blah blah blah .... over 15 years due to the independents.
Where on earth do you dig up this babble? Seriously, it's the type of read that reminds me of a 4th yr high school student writing an essay about a subject they know nothing about but did a search on Google just before they wrote.
It's absolute rubbish.
And it does nothing to support your contention that you expect Mr Turnbull to do anything. He is only running flack to diffuse the NBN as an election issue. Don't you remember?
On the face of it with real pricing falling in ISP charges it's a highly risky venture.
Yeah, and my Granny will be on the next front cover of Playboy. Anything Turnbull promises will be to diffuse the issue of the NBN. Once in govt then who knows. Even Abbott on his blog Q&A wouldn't commit, stating that it would have to wait until they got into power and see what was what. So don't try and spin any 'expectations'. Because you and the LP (by their own mouth) can't.
The pain of tomorrow is not reflected in today's prices. Mr Turnbull has mentioned the capital that is spent in the tens of billions means higher prices.
And we know that Turnbull is telling the truth. Right? I mean he's not trying to diffuse an issue or anything is he?
ARPU is expected to rise 6% in nominal terms.
?????????? When, how long, .... ???? You really do come up with garbage. Just trying to diffuse the issue? Obfuscate?
So if dudes do not take up higher plans the project will be under question.
Yeah dude. Must me you jiving at! I can dig it. Yawn.
Meanwhile, in the realm of serious discussion and considered opinion ....
Why is FTTN to 93% (if that's what the Coalition offers) less ubiquitous than FTTP to 93%?
Absolute complete rubbish CMOT got a link that provides where the Coalition of the Noodle network of last centuries technology aka FTTN is going to be rolled out to 93 percent of the Australian Population!@
Just complete unmitigated unsubstantiated misinformed rubbish IMO
LINK PLEASE!
Distance from the exchange is irrelevant in an FTTN network. The distance that matters with FTTN is distance from the node to the customer premises
This is true and in New Zealand this was pitched at about 1.5Km which provided around an average throughput of 10Mbps on the Network!
To increase that you have to increase substantially the number of nodes to shorten the distance.
And without doubt to provide 100Mbps to 93 percent of the Australian population with FTTN is so far off in fairy land its not funny � the cost of which I'm sure you could actually rollout FTTH to about 97.something percent of the population at a rough guess!
And you then wouldn't have the expense of then having to upgrade the redundant FTTN to FTTH as New Zealand have discovered to their detriment!
Your statements are nothing short of a massive misrepresentation of the facts so much that its simply unbelievable but then I should remember that most of what the Conservatives have to say with respect to the NBN is both misleading and factually incorrect!
Abbott, Hockey mislead again on NBN funding
http://delimiter.com.
Happy to supply endless other examples for you � you only have to ask!
Citigroup estimated Turnbull's 'plan' would cost $16.7bn. That's less than half the cost of the NBN. That saves a bit more than $2 or $3 billion.
http://www.zdnet.c
That's not even part of the cost as you well know how much will it cost the Liberal Government to get Telstra to provision its infrastructure under the same structural seperation arrangements that Labor has managed to provision its legislation by threatening to go in direct competition to their network.
Comon CMOT pick a figure $11 billion and I would say your dreaming mate pissing in the wind entirely more likely close to $20 billion to even get them to play ball!
And then what?
They use that money to roll out their own FTTH network to undercut the opposition.
What a complete travesty and joke this is!
FTTN is certainly not technically better than FTTH and from a National Perspective it will cost the Australian Taxpayer substantially more than FTTN not to mention the cost of having to underwrite the capital expense of Private Telco's investment in FTTH and then the poor punter ending up paying through the nose in additional costs like his counterparts in New Zealand are having to do!
But you simply continue to ignore those issues entirely don't you!@
Yeah dude. Must me you jiving at! I can dig it. Yawn.
Meanwhile, in the realm of serious discussion and considered opinion ....
lol. Was waiting to see who would be the first to bite at 'dudes'.
I will admit that you have to lay off the little man, at the very least, he is an entertaining opponent. I would never have thought of satellitte otherwise
Although I know the point is moot as we don't have any numbers....
And so does he..
I will admit that you have to lay off the little man, at the very least, he is an entertaining opponent.
Its a somber reminder of what happens to you when you drink the Liberal Kool Aid, but honestly.. do I share some of those genes?!?
Let's take a look at the Sats. $2 Billion with 106,000 customers (Corp plan) at a cost of $20,000 + per customer finance costs + operational/support costs.
Now without a cross subsidy these customers will paying through the nose since a sat has limited life expectancy of ~ 15 years once fuel runs out. A lot of the equipment would have to reconfigured/changed in 15 years. There is no chance these customers will pay $20,000 + $Y ISP subscriber fees over 15 years due to the independents.
Well done. You completely missed the point of the NBN. Being that the FIBRE SUBSIDISES THE SATELLITE AND WIRELESS. Come back again when you get some knowledge.
I expect Mr Turnbull to fully outsource a stress test of the NBN' s viability. On the face of it with real pricing falling in ISP charges it's a highly risky venture.
That's a heap of absolute steaming nothing. Turnbull has ALREADY said he'll do a CBA. Yet he's ALSO said they wouldn't accept a CBA done by Labor....biased much???
Are sats uogradeble since once you launch into space that's it.
You choose the SMALLEST part of the NBN. 93% of people use the FIBRE.....3% use the satellites.....and yes, actually, with software upgrades and built in firmware updates, satellites are upgradable actually. That's why some are STILL up there 25 years after they're launched.
The pain of tomorrow is not reflected in today's prices. Mr Turnbull has mentioned the capital that is spent in the tens of billions means higher prices.
Read the Corporate Plan. Those "tens of billions" are covered by USER PAYS. There's no "magic" about it that lovely Turnbull can try and hide behind. Next question.
It's still does not have a track record.
No, because of delays from the COALITION BLOCKING IT'S BUILDING!!!
Question cheap. ARPU is expected to rise 6% in nominal terms. So if dudes do not take up higher plans the project will be under question.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
I want 50mbps. I'd STILL save $10 a month over now. Next question.
Why is FTTN to 93% (if that's what the Coalition offers) less ubiquitous than FTTP to 93%?
Haven't you learnt anything since 2007, and thousands of posts, CMOT?
Within the 93% served by fibre, every one of those addresses will receive the same standard of service. And that will remain so as GPON is replaced by XGPON and so on.
If the same people got FTTN, their level of service would depend on the luck of the draw as to the copper. And every one of them would be dead ended technologically.
Seriously CMOT, this forum restrains me from saying what I really think. You've been on here long enough not to spout crap. (bites tounge).
Are sats uogradeble since once you launch into space that's it.
Is Turnbull going to rely upon the exact same sats?
Or do you think Turnbull is right in saying we already have enough capacity there and shouldn't launch the new sats.
What an utterly indefensible position you've landed in raol.
What an utterly indefensible position you've landed in raol.
That's unusual, I mean who could not defend a Coalition policy when ironically there is not one.
That's unusual, I mean who could not defend a Coalition policy when ironically there is not one.
Yep, but you'd think that raol would at least leap to the defense of Turnbull because Turnbull did indeed say we don't need new satellites.
Poor sod must be terribly conflicted.
Let's take a look at the Sats.
And I love the way that raol ignores one key point.
If the satellite component is costing several times more per customer to deliver than the average fibre customer, it is indeed fortunate that for every satellite customer you have to subsidise, there's 20 on a fibre connection.
That's the whole point of cross subsidisation. It works well when the group you're cross subsidising is relatively very small.
Of course, raol will never to do the math on that.
aarq and cmot, there is a real big asssumption of the gov the average line from node will be the max 2.4km/1mi from the node (dreamstate) reality the node can have an average of 2-5mi/4.8-12 km radius in line length..
looking at the situation from the node perspective even installing fttn doesn't guarantee you or anyone will see the likes of 24-48/1-4, reality given the density and conditions copper in the ground I doubt it would guarantee a 12/1 connection on adsl or even vdsl..
off a 3km node 21/1 is possible as long as the copper grade is kept above 0.64mm, running on lines within the 0.45-0.25mm signal loss is to great to be effective at any speed...
even with fttn deployment on the cards you still have to make regular replacements to the copper to maintain the signal integrety for adsl/vdsl failure to do that makes any copper based service unusable...
by the time they finish cherry picking ftth and fttn sites the need ftth will be greater than ever and double dipping doesn't fix the install times..
the case is this: ftth or bust as you only breed failure leaving the copper in use, you could spend 17.5 bn in deploying a dead tech solution under fttn options and face a 150bn crunch over 30-50 years to deploy ftth..
sadly the speed is required now not in 30-50 years time..
either way either option is going to cost money though the longer it is left the more we pay for it..
Is Turnbull going to rely upon the exact same sats?
If Mr Turnbull were to honour the sats would be a good idea to delay purchase until fixed line revenue is subtantial enough to cross subsidise should he want a cross subsidy.
These sat customers will lose money thus the cross subsidy delaying should be considered.
These sat customers will lose money thus the cross subsidy delaying should be considered.
All the while those farmers that breed cattle for people to eat can't access the internet to look up an ailment for their kids.
Kudos for you
By the way this is how insurance works.
Everyone puts in for the one person who actually claims.
It's the stuff of all developed nations...
If Mr Turnbull were to honour the sats would be a good idea to delay purchase until fixed line revenue is subtantial enough to cross subsidise should he want a cross subsidy.
Brilliant. You're affecting MORE delays for regional and rural users to get better broadband.
What a wonderful, thoughtful person you are. Remind me not to vote for you if you ever get into a position like "Mr Turnbull"
By the way this is how insurance works.
Everyone puts in for the one person who actually claims.
Shhhhhh!!! Don't say that! They'll be onto us, and try to change the insurance scheme next to the bad drivers paying the most.....oh wait, never mind....
All the while those farmers that breed cattle for people to eat can't access the internet to look up an ailment for their kids.
They can access it via the ABG or leased sats.
Fully expect Mr Turnbull to review the terms/timing of sats.
They can access it via the ABG or leased sats.
Bzzzzz! Wrong answer. ABG is being phased out....because of the NBN. THAT's why the sats were first!
Fully expect Mr Turnbull to review the terms/timing of sats.
Actually, he's said he won't. He's said he's likely to let them through, because there's too much planning, time and money gone into it:
"Mr Turnbull said the Coalition would �look at the options� on whether to change the contracts or even sell off the satellites but conceded there were limits on what he could do. �They are putting contracts in place and it may be that we will have to live with it,� he said. He acknowledged that a Coalition government might have to honour the contracts signed with Loral and keep the satellites."
AFR 9th Feb, 2012
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-co
the only issue with cross substidy is that in itself breeds a money pit, reality is you're not catering to alot more than is stated in a report 20+ years ago...
on a 200,000 use apply a 10-20%P/A growth rate in subscriber over the last 20+years making a base line of reality that you're short sighted coverage goals isn't actually being met.. not mention migration cost's to everyone...
i think a financial study needs to made on sat projections maintaining and deploying the medium vs doing a 100$ ftth rollout fo the next 50-60 years..
The variable nature of copper based services, ...
Ubiquity is coverage. FTTN could provide ubiquitous 12/1 coverage.
Where it falls down, as you point out, is in the consistency of performance. That's the argument that should be used to promote FTTP over FTTN. FTTP wins hands down.
Someone says "Turnbull says FTTN can do 80Mbps. That's fast enough for me. I don't need 100Mbps." You can counter with "Yes, but it's not consistent. Your friend a few streets away might get 80Mbps but you might only get 12Mbps. How are you going to feel about that? With FTTP you will both be able to get 100Mbps." What do they say next? There's no comeback.
My point is to avoid dubious arguments and go for the indisputable ones.
... also I have not seen a claim of 93% from the Coalition. Nothing official has been released, so anything is assumptions.
That's not down to FTTN though. Using ubiquity as an argument for FTTP over FTTN (the context) doesn't work. The consistency argument is a killer imo.
Big maybe. Cost effective is very dubious, it is cheaper in the short term is the only fact.
Yep. The 'short term' point is another I think should be used. Along the lines of ... "Everyone knows the copper is old and expensive to maintain and will have to be replaced quite soon. The speed some people (but possibly not you) might get now with FTTN might not be enough in the future. There's no step up from FTTN other than to replace it with FTTP. We will need FTTP. Why not do it now?"
These sat customers will lose money thus the cross subsidy delaying should be considered.
Because pausing construction on satellites halfway through is always a great idea right?
Fully expect Mr Turnbull to review the terms/timing of sats.
You fully expect Malcolm Turnbull to do a great deal of thing, maybe you are superimposing your own borked views onto an idealized politician.
FTTN could provide ubiquitous 12/1 coverage.
Same as ADSL? Whats the point? I want 100/50 asap. And i will pay for it..Take my money..
Ubiquity is coverage. FTTN could provide ubiquitous 12/1 coverage.
TWO PROBLEMS:
1. SOME PEOPLE can get MORE THAN 12/1.
2. TO GET ubiquitous 12/1 Coverage, NODES NEED to be placed <500m or less.
i think a financial study needs to made on sat projections maintaining and deploying the medium vs doing a 100$ ftth rollout fo the next 50-60 years..
Wouldn't disagree with that. I'd say 80-90% of those 200 000 have a copper line. So why can't they have a fibre line? Same as those on wireless.
But this is digressing from the topic.
That's not down to FTTN though. Using ubiquity as an argument for FTTP over FTTN (the context) doesn't work. The consistency argument is a killer imo.
Come on CMOT. Ubiquity is a synonym of availability AND consistency in this argument. If 100Mbps is (ALMOST) ubiquitous with FTTH, it is NOT ubiquitous with FTTN. THAT is the argument. Not whether or not you can get 12/1. 12/1 was promised by OPEL in 2005. We're past 12/1 now. No one sees that as a viable goal now. I don't even GET 12/1 and I don't see it as a viable goal. I'd rather wait a few years and get 100/40, then 250/100, then 500/250 thanks.
Also, the ubiquity of VERY HIGH speed is what makes the NBN worthwhile. Not the ubiquity of "some high speed."
They can access it via the ABG or leased sats.
Fully expect Mr Turnbull to review the terms/timing of sats.
Who are you and why are you posting on WP?
The idea of the NBN is to position it in such a way that those in rural parts of the country (that until now have likely had dial up) can get decent speeds without mortgaging the farm. I am happy for this. And plenty of others are too.
Do you want to know why?
Because we too get cheaper internet prices because the overall return is less than that of a private company and they don't have to invest in the sharemarket to try and dollar/cost mitigate some of their losses.
I can understand if you don't fully support socialism and I'm sure very few people here do, but can't you possibly for one iota stop and think that you aren't the be all and end all in the world and that sometimes you have to lend a helping hand to someone else?
Do you have parents/grandparents/siblings/cousins/nieces/nephews?
Surely you can't think that Adam Smith is still right and it should be 'every man for himself'?
It's going to be so small it isn't worth farting over and because everyone in the country is paying a dollar, it really won't effect anything.
And because it is paid back, it then in turn MAKES THE GOVERNMENT MONEY.
Do you wonder why governments are so addicted to things like speeding fines?
Because they sold companies like Telecom that brought money into the coffers and therefore have to look for other streams of revenue.
Do you get some sort of perverted kick out of conflict that you can't seem to concede?
Again, for the second time in the last hour or so; We can't really judge what the coalition will do until they release figures and until NBN does same.
All the rest is conjecture and assumption and is totally pointless and futile.
The coalition is yet to say to exactly how many people an you know this.
And their initial indications were something like 60% of the population (but you are welcome to refute this ...
I don't have any idea what the Coalition is offering.
The NBN is offering ubiquitous 12/1. That can be done with FTTN. Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN.
Yes, but it only saves until the first upgrade. And again, you know this.
Yep, but if someone says "switching to FTTN will only save $2-3bn" then Turnbull's job is easy. Better imo to say "ok so you save $19bn now, but it will cost you $25bn when the copper is past its use-by date and you have to switch to FTTP". Then quote Tony Windsor at them.
'May' yes 'May'. Cool. Show us the maths and we'll look into it.
That's what I've been saying. Normally when you have a costed and approved project anyone trying to change the project would have to put up the same information used to approve it. In this case an equivalent of the NBNCo's business case. Unfortunately, this has all gone political.
Brilliant. You're affecting MORE delays for regional and rural users to get better broadband.
What a wonderful, thoughtful person you are. Remind me not to vote for you if you ever get into a position like "Mr Turnbull"
Thankfully NBNCo don't listen to that drivel either. In the Upper Hunter and New England Regions they are starting to ramp up for Wireless and instal it over the next couple of years. Well before those of us in the "urban" areas get Fibre.
Whilst it irks me that I am not in 1Y3, I am more than happy that those who will be able to access the Wireless 12/1 are getting it pretty smartly.
And as a dig @ rr, that IS thanks to the Independents.
So, thanks Tony, Rob and Andrew.
The NBN is offering ubiquitous 12/1. That can be done with FTTN. Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN
Very well, lets not confuse terms.
- Scalability
- Long term cost
- Benefit
- Variability
- Effeciency
All can be used as arguments against FTTN.
The NBN is offering ubiquitous 12/1. That can be done with FTTN. Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN.
But FTTn can't provide 100/40 ubiquitously (almost) across 93% of the population
with spare fibres for future use (see uses in chattanooga).
But again, you know this.
The NBN is offering ubiquitous 12/1. That can be done with FTTN. Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN.
Eh? How so? Unless you are suggesting FTTN will rollout to 93% of the population? The Coalition aren't. Cause they keep talking about "subsidies for HFC expansion and wireless." HFC MIGHT be able to provide ubiquity of 12/1, with enough node-splitting (MORE FTTN!), but there's no guarantee their "wireless" can.
Also, would you get off the 12/1? This speed is ridiculous. It will be the LEAST used in 5 years time if the NBN continues. Why WOULDN'T you use 25/5, when it's all of $5 more??
That's what I've been saying. Normally when you have a costed and approved project anyone trying to change the project would have to put up the same information used to approve it. In this case an equivalent of the NBNCo's business case. Unfortunately, this has all gone political.
Exactly. They don't HAVE a business case like NBNco. for FTTN. Because you can't MAKE a business case for FTTN. So they've just started a smear campaign on the NBN instead. It's the 6 year old equivalent of KNOWING you pulled your sisters hair, but whinging loudly enough that she was being mean, that your parent gives you a lolly just to shutup.
Whilst it irks me that I am not in 1Y3, I am more than happy that those who will be able to access the Wireless 12/1 are getting it pretty smartly.
Agreed. At least I can (sometimes...maybe) get 8mbps. Some people are lucky to get dialup. And satellites and wireless are HIDEOUSLY overpriced compared to ADSL at the moment- hence the NBN.
So, thanks Tony, Rob and Andrew.
Hear hear! We salute your efforts in getting your constituents proper broadband access....and giving the rest of us a huge boost too!
It's the 6 year old equivalent of KNOWING you pulled your sisters hair, but whinging loudly enough that she was being mean, that your parent gives you a lolly just to shutup.
Another seven_tech golden metahor.
Now how to make this post on topic so it doesn't get moderated....
EDIT: NBN is bad... As suggested... lol
Faster Cheaper, Crawww Crawwww
Some people are lucky to get dialup.
Actually, is this still true anymore?
Does anyone know?
Or have the wireless rollouts covered them?
Now how to make this post on topic so it doesn't get moderated....
Lol....hmmm....NBN IS BAD!
Well, that's on topic. That's the "Coalition NBN position".....
Ubiquity is coverage
Nope, According to my Compact Oxford English Dictionary "ubiquity" means present, appearing, or found everywhere
"coverage" is the extent to which something is covered. An entirely different thing
FTTN could provide ubiquitous 12/1 coverage
But you and I know it wont, be honest, at least on this forum. I reckon Malcolm thinks the "node" is the same as those Telstra Pillars scattered around everywhere. Once he finds out what they actually you will see more fancy footwork (and lies) than you see at the average Irish Dancing class.
Whilst it irks me that I am not in 1Y3, I am more than happy that those who will be able to access the Wireless 12/1 are getting it pretty smartly.
I feel exactly the same way.
I reckon Malcolm think the "node" is the same as those Telstra Pillars scattered around everywhere
More to the point, the argument goes 'that's where the nodes will go..'
Actually, is this still true anymore?
Does anyone know?
Or have the wireless rollouts covered them?
In most cases, yes. But when I say dial up, I don't necessarily mean people ACTUALLY using a dial up modem.
Several tens of thousands are on Pair Gain still, which gives dial up speeds over ISDN. Alot won't know they can apply for wireless subsidies. Not that they're guaranteed better service on wireless, depending on area. But it might get Telstra upgrading the last of the pair gain if they did apply.
Some RIM also doesn't allow much more than dialup speeds over ADSL (128 or 256kbps), but again, these people may not know they're eligible for wireless subsidy. Again, if it's available.
The ABG guarantees 1.5Mbps....but I don't think it stipulates a timeframe once the customer has complained. I could be wrong.
300 000 people apparently still use dial up according to the ABS though.....I've NO idea why.....
FTTN is not ubiquitous broadband, because of the copper.
FTTN is not consistent broadband because of the copper. It can be ubiquitous.
Wrong. Distance to the exchange changes the number of nodes put in.
Nope. Demography and the speed you want to deliver changes the number of nodes put in. Exchanges are not relevant in an FTTN network (unless used for POIs).
Don't patronise me.
Sorry you took it that way. That wasn't my intention.
That's TWICE what the Coalition put it at. And yet we should just believe them that they CAN be more "cost-effective"
We shouldn't just believe them on anything. Let's see the evidence.
It is more "cost-effective" only in the fact that, in the short term it is CHEAPER.
Where is the evidence?
If Turnbull provides as evidence the cost of rolling out FTTN now without the cost of FTTH later (we'll argue about how much later later) then I won't accept it as proof. If people here don't provide any evidence then I won't accept that as proof either.
You go from loving the Coalition plan to hating it.
If you get bored and want a challenge, find one of my posts where I love the Coalition plan.
I know you use your "critical eye" on policy, but you have to choose a side.
I have chosen a side. I think we should build the NBN, for more reasons than just the NBN.
There are things I don't like about the NBN. I've posted on them.
If we ever get to see a coalition policy, I will comment on that. In the mean time, I'll discuss with an open mind anything that comes up.
In the mean time, I'll discuss with an open mind anything that comes up.
You must have one cooked noodle :-)
What I have observed though is you cover some of the same bases and I think that's why you get visciously debated.
In today's dollars, it makes sence to roll FTTh out all at once, but granted, no-one can know for sure what a fibre roll out will cost tomorrow.
Even a coalition CBA can't know for sure.
But one of the main problems of going with FTTn is the hinderance it will put onto the growth of the economy.
And this is a big one.
Mining won't save our skins forever and we should be looking at the next global stage.
I dare say that if the NLP win the next election, most of the roll out will continue as planned, but some will convert to FTTn in some outer suburbs. But this will be minimal.
EDIT: This can still happen under a labor government if something went wrong and they had to make adjustments..
But again, this is still hardly a level playing field.
All these points are moot and this explains why it is such a heated debate.
Who can say for sure what wireless will do?
Who can say for sure what HFC will do?
Who can say for sure what FTTn wil do?
What we do know is at all these have significant higher running costs as it stands.
But again, who can know for sure if energy savings can't be made into the future?
At the end of the day, every man has to make a decision based on the information of the day, and the prospects for the future.
This is the course of life.
As it stands, FTTh is the obvious choice.
But in 5 years time if a major break through was to eventuate, I'm sure we can adapt that plan to suit the then current needs....
aarq and cmot, there is a real big asssumption of the gov the average line from node will be the max 2.4km/1mi from the node (dreamstate) reality the node can have an average of 2-5mi/4.8-12 km radius in line length..
I can't know what an FTTN builder under the Coalition will do. I can only go on what I've seen about FTTN from the G9 and Telstra. In both cases the minimum access speed was 12Mbps (upload speed unknown).
I'll keep an open mind on the policy debate (though not on my vote). I've seen one NBNCo corporate plan and (hopefully) I'll soon see another. Unless someone can rationally challenge that plan or come up with a better plan then the NBN project wins imo. Unfortunately, I doubt Turnbull will do either.
These sat customers will lose money thus the cross subsidy delaying should be considered.
The cross subsidy should come from general revenue or a levy like the USO. There's no need to wait.
I think that's why you get visciously debated.
Freudian slip, eh ;-)
"viscous" � thick
By the way this is how insurance works.
Everyone puts in for the one person who actually claims.
Good one.
The NBN is offering ubiquitous 12/1. That can be done with FTTN. Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN.
Actually no, FTTN will not deliver 12/1 to those who will be using satellites, and may not deliver to the 4% of those would would be using WiFi. To do the 4% with FTTN would be VERY expensive as in many cases there would be only a few properties to each node.
If you remove those sections...
FTTN � 93+% Possible 12/1, but not guaranteed. Back-haul capacity unknown.
FTTH � 93% can get 1 gig, upgradable into the future. 2TB of back-haul per user.
FTTN is not consistent broadband because of the copper. It can be ubiquitous.
No it cannot be ubiquitous,
Being or seeming to be everywhere at the same time; omnipresent: "
To be ubiquitous, it all has to be the same distance, same topology, same design, same equipment, same costs, same regulation.
The NBN provides this, FTTN does not.
If a Node to the premises is connected ~1km away, and another premises is connected at 1.5 km � that is not ubiquitous.
Freudian slip, eh ;-)
"viscous" � thick
lol. I've been scaled back to dial up so can't google quick enough and the dictionary isn't any quicker... :-) Oh well...
No it cannot be ubiquitous,
They do have a point here CMOT, you have to acknowledge that.
Though, FTTN can be ubiquitous at 12/1 if:
1) they place the nodes accordingly
2) they ensure all copper is up to scratch
3) they ensure all fixed wireless can handle it
4) they ensure all satellite services can handle it
It's getting rather expensive isn't it....
And very similar to the ALP's plan might I add...
EDIT: Clarity
Come on CMOT. Ubiquity is a synonym of availability AND consistency in this argument.
Oh.
They're not the same though. Ubiquity is arguable. Consistency is not. It is impossible to lose a debate about consistency.
Also, the ubiquity of VERY HIGH speed is what makes the NBN worthwhile. Not the ubiquity of "some high speed."
I don't agree. Ubiquity is what makes the NBN worthwhile. Bring some to those who have none rather than better/more to those who have some. Dangerously pinko I know, but there you have it. The NBN is the first policy that's done that.
I think the NBN is more important for the future than for the speed now. Even Turnbull has admitted we we are going to need FTTP. We have an FTTP project with a viable business case (corporate plan). Let's go. If Turnbull was acting as a businessman rather than as a politician I think he'd go for the NBN.
If Turnbull was acting as a businessman rather than as a politician I think he'd go for the NBN.
They are going to quote you on this till the cows come home.....
Consistency is not. It is impossible to lose a debate about consistency.
Completely fallacy.
Constinstancy is part of Ubiquity, Constinstancy in Technology, Network Design, Speeds, Access, Price, Regulation and so on.
Bring some to those who have none rather than better/more to those who have some.
This is where you fail the quality post count, it's not bringing "SOME" it's bringing EVERYONE BETTER/MORE.
93% Fibre
4% LTE
3% SAT
COUNT = 100% COVERAGE.
Even Turnbull has admitted we we are going to need FTTP. We have an FTTP project with a viable business case (corporate plan). Let's go. If Turnbull was acting as a businessman rather than as a politician I think he'd go for the NBN.
Turnbull says alot of things, but what he says and do is entirely different, between now and then?
Turnbull is not kingmaker, the decision maker, Tony Abbott and the rest of the front bench is.
Eh? ... etc
Please read what I wrote.
Also, would you get off the 12/1? This speed is ridiculous.
I'm sure the 7% will be thrilled to hear it.
Turnbull has said 12Mbps within 12 months and 24Mbps within 24 months (how?). FTTN, satellite and wireless can do the first. That is "ubiquitous".
Whether that is fast enough is a question of performance not ubiquity.
This is not just 'word games'. If the argument against the Coalition is going to stick then, if you mean "consistency" say "consistency", if you mean "speed" say "speed". Make the argument unambiguous.
Murdoch (ours) wants this thread to change the minds of people who are voting Coalition because of their broadband policy. I think we should aim wider.
Turnbull has said 12Mbps within 12 months and 24Mbps within 24 months (how?). FTTN
Again, Turnbull said alot of things, but what he does and accomplish, is entirely different matter
A couple of issues.
1. To renegotiate anything would require Telstra/ACCC Agreement along with Shareholder agreement, since most of Telstra shareholders were happy with the Telstra/NBN Agreement, it would require more in depth (including! Telstra AGM Meeting)..
2. The Telstra Wholesale Agreement with ACCC Agreement.
3. Senate delay: can be possible.
But you and I know it wont, be honest, at least on this forum.
I honestly don't know what the Coalition is offering.
If the argument is FTTN vs FTTP then that's what I'll talk about. If the argument is Coalition 'policy' (?) vs Labor policy then that's what I'll talk about. In both cases I think the argument should be accurate. It's harder to refute that way.
Once he finds out what they actually you will see more fancy footwork (and lies) than you see at the average Irish Dancing class.
His options for FTTN are the government-owned NBNCo, which is anathema to the Liberals, or Telstra, which will send the industry ape-spit and drive prices up. Riverdance anyone?
I honestly don't know what the Coalition is offering.
You seem to know what they are offering, because you keep repeating it!
It's getting rather expensive isn't it....
Telstra reckoned (NBN mkI) they could do FTTN to 80-90% with $5bn of their own money and $4.7bn of the government's money. That was 25-50Mbps in about two thirds of that area and 12-20Mbps elsewhere. Dunno what it would cost to get that to 93%.
That just gives an indication of build cost.
If a Node to the premises is connected ~1km away, and another premises is connected at 1.5 km � that is not ubiquitous.
This is spot on!
And whilst ever the laws of physics, specifically, electrical resistance, apply to this universe, distance will always be detrimental to telecommunication networks that rely on copper.
This is not the case for fibre where, in the NBN's case, consistently high speeds are experienced whether you are at the end of a 1 metre fibre cable or a 15 kilometre fibre cable.
I'm keen to see any FTTH opposers raise their hand if they would prefer to be on the end of a 15 Km copper cable... go on... I'm patient...
Telstra reckoned (NBN mkI) they could do FTTN to 80-90% with $5bn of their own money and $4.7bn of the government's money. That was 25-50Mbps in about two thirds of that area and 12-20Mbps elsewhere
Link?
Telstra's policy was 5 cities, so not even the top 20 cities in Australia.
Again with the "could do, might be" etc....
They are going to quote you on this till the cows come home.....
No worries. The only material question I have with the NBNCo's corporate plan is their ARPU forecast. Other than that, we have a project with a viable business plan. If Turnbull was acting as a businessman, what else would he need?
This is spot on!
If both get the target 12Mbps then ... no it's not.
Consistency is not the same as ubiquity.
This is not the case for fibre where, in the NBN's case, consistently high speeds are experienced whether you are at the end of a 1 metre fibre cable or a 15 kilometre fibre cable.
See the word you've used?
Link?
I can't link. You can find it here ...
Announcements ... TLS ... 2008
Consistency is not the same as ubiquity.
No, it's not. They do, however, go hand-in-hand when discussing telecommunication services though.
Under the NBN all Australians will be able to access a ubiquitous Internet service that is consistent across the country for those using the same type of tech. That is, the 93% using fibre will be consistent with each other, the 4% using Fixed Wireless will be consistent with each other and the 3% using satellite will be consistent with each other.
This harmony does not exist in a telecommunications network reliant on copper because, though the majority of Australians have access to the copper network, it isn't ubiquitous and it sure as hell isn't consistent across everyone using the same technology.
On the NBN, no longer will there be cases of "My cable is shorter than yours so my Internet is significantly faster/better than yours".
I can't link. You can find it here ...
Then that would be:
http://www.telstra.com.au
Which is what we've been talking about previously about how Telstra and Coalition disguised these solutions.
Page 23/34,
Wireless access is attractive from cost perspective,
? can meet the main RFP requirements of 12 Mbps downstream peak access speed
? But does not provide full equivalent capacity, performance & service capabilities
compared to FTTN
Telstra chose not to include these in its RFP response as wireless
broadband is already available commercially to 99% of the population
and satellite to 100% of the population
You forgot to mention that Telstra agrees that:
The cost of deploying FTTN increases rapidly as the service density
decreases
The NBN is offering ubiquitous 12/1. That can be done with FTTN. Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN.
Really CMOT they tried FTTN in New Zealand and couldn't come up with anything better than an average 10Mbps.
And they only have a fraction of the geographic footprint that Australia has!
FTTN didn't work in New Zealand and this is why they have ditched it into the drink and are now rolling out FTTH at I might add even greater expense to the New Zealand Taxpayer.
As for the NBN offering ubiquitous 12/1 � you forgot to add that can be ramped up continuously over the next 50 years.
Matter of fact the majority of Telstra's and Optus current NBN plans already start at 25Mbps/5Mbps � with I might add 38 percent of people electing to go to the 100Mbps plans straight away.
And your completely wrong with respect to your misleading statement eg Ubiquity is not a valid argument against FTTN. eg
Where in the Coalitions plan is :- NBN's base level speed at 12Mbps available nationally?
Let alone being able to provision 100Mbps to 93 percent of the population!
To achieve that you would have to have a FTTN Node cablinet on the corner of every street in the country and the cost would be more than what it would cost to provide Fibre to pretty much everyone including a portion of those on Satellite.
And guess what having pissed your hard earned down the gurgler on redundant tech that's going to cost more than the current FTTH program � you would then have to move to FTTH anyway at and wait for it � yes even more expense!
The only place where FTTN is becoming Ubiquiteous � is on the worlds technological scrap heaps of redundant idea's from last century!
Still waiting on that link that provides the Coalition's FTTN plan running at 93 percent btw.
*Hint last time I looked it Turnbull was suggesting that it only be rolled out in Metropolitan Australia, � with Outer Metropolitan areas and Regional and Remote Australia being provided with ADSL where possible and where not then privatised wireless whatever that means.
PS Interesting to note that prior to the last election in 2010 � Paul Fletcher Liberal was stating that should they win Government they would cancel the NBN � when asked what their policy was he stated that they were putting a policy response together that would specifically address that question.
Seems nothings changed from the Opposition with respect to Communications Policy just hot air mired with misleading statements and fluff!
Better imo to say "ok so you save $19bn now, but it will cost you $25bn when the copper is past its use-by date and you have to switch to FTTP".
Hello knock knock � Copper is well past its used by date already CMOT. Sort of makes a complete mockery of Malcolm Turnbull's FTTN proposal.
And there's no saving here at all the $19 billion you refer to would have to offered to Telstra as a carrot to get them to allow others to use their FTTN infrastructure to provision services across it.
Turnbull has said 12Mbps within 12 months and 24Mbps within 24 months (how?). FTTN, satellite and wireless can do the first. That is "ubiquitous".
May I ask where he said this? I'm not disputing it, but I'd like a reference if you have one.
I find it incredible he would say this, because, for example, in my area, that would be impossible. It would require replacement of the copper and/or nodes put in. That is a YEARS long process. AND that doesn't take into account the legislature required AND the contracts to be renegotiated.
Telstra reckoned (NBN mkI) they could do FTTN to 80-90% with $5bn of their own money and $4.7bn of the government's money. That was 25-50Mbps in about two thirds of that area and 12-20Mbps elsewhere. Dunno what it would cost to get that to 93%.
+ $15 Billion for the copper.....
They've said now, they'll take less. But it'll still be in the ballpark of the $11 Billion paid by NBN in total for migration and duct leasing. Otherwise, they'd lose out overall. And Telstra DON'T do that.
So that's $5 Billion from them, plus $10 billion for the copper, plus $5 billion from the government. And that is to 60%. NOT 80-90%. Read the submission.
So $20 Billion for 60% FTTN....or $27 Billion (government money) for 93% FTTH, 4% wireless and 3% satellite.
Hmmmm.......yes, very cost-effective FTTN is. Build it we must.
I suspect if FTTN was to forward from its current position fttn cabs would replace the existing pillar box d/a's servicing most with pstn and xsdl services...
you have answer the line density question from the d/a to get 12/1-48/2...
I saw a line degredation when they replaced between the pillar to the pit..
so going from exchange to actual node with adsl/vdsl cards off a fibre tail doesn't guarantee you will see 12/1 or even 24/1 as the copper doesn't have enough dense in de cable to cover enough for signal loss....
I see 4/1 now i may see 6-8/1 if i'm lucky...
this is going to be the comon case from now on until copper is fazed out..
the d/a i'm on has min of 2-4 mile radius from the actual node..
making anyone past my home with weak xdsl connection, fttn>xdsl a piss poor iternet connection..
Wrong. Distance to the exchange changes the number of nodes put in.
Nope. Demography and the speed you want to deliver changes the number of nodes put in. Exchanges are not relevant in an FTTN network (unless used for POIs).
I'm sorry, you're wrong CMOT. A FTTN network does not EXIST without exchanges.
The exchanges, in some instances, house the FSA's- point where the current NBN pulls new fibre from to the FSAM's, the FDN and then to the premises. NBN hardware is housed in these exchanges in many of them, making up the FSA. That's why NBNCo quite regularly liken FSA's to exchanges; they do the same job and in some cases, their geography can overlap. But otherwise, they're entirely separate BECAUSE they do they same job and NBNCo is building new architecture.
However, in an FTTN, the exchange is the ONLY point where the fibre to the node is pulled from. You can't just ignore the exchanges. They make up one of the largest parts of the "fibre" in the FIBRE-to-the-node system, because unlike in the FTTH system, where FSA's are used (sometimes housed in exchanges) the FTTN system uses ALL the exchanges, because those are the cheapest and quickest points to enter the fibre network backhaul- ALL backhaul goes to exchanges, via fibre.
This is the biggest difference between the NBN and FTTN- NBNCo. are building entirely NEW architecture, that connects to existing networks. FTTN uses EXISTING architecture to connect to existing networks. The exchanges are an integral part of the FTTN system. They are only inconsequential for geographical and existing fibre purposes in the NBN.
I repeat, an FTTN system would NOT exist without exchanges. The exchanges, as I've explained over in the FUD thread, are the aggregation point OF FTTN. You cannot ignore them and they DOMINATE the planning surrounding the FTTN.
EDITED for Clarity
RR is Mr TurnBull!
He comes out with a lot Bull as well.
Turnbull has said 12Mbps within 12 months and 24Mbps within 24 months (how?). FTTN, satellite and wireless can do the first. That is "ubiquitous".
I'd be interested to see where this was said as well (link?)
But, does anyone suspect that if it was said it would have wiggle room?
Turnbull has said that it may, might, could, would be a target etc to have 12Mbps within 12 months and 24Mbps within 24 months.
Every "announcement" he makes is the same, nothing more then a wishlist.
FTTN is not consistent broadband because of the copper. It can be ubiquitous.
But it wont be. If FttN will be rolled out as per the LNP's "thinking" it certainly wont be "ubiquitous". As it will be mixed with FttP/H, Cable and god knows what else bubbles to the surface of those febrile minds.
To my mind, the more we discuss the possibility of FttN, the more entrenched it will become in the minds of those politicians pushing it. Whilst the LNP and their supporters don't appear to have the intellectual wherewithal to look to Australia's future, they certainly have the rat cunning to garner opinion and information from all sources and given certain exceptions, WP is a good source of free, quality technical advice and informal polling.
If the coalition wins the next election they have these options
1/ Buy the copper network form Telstra for $25 Billions.
2/ Give Telstra $25 Billion to build a FTTN/FTTH network.
3/ Continue on the NBN FTTH.
4/ Give Telstra a small amount say $1 to $2 billion to fix black spots.
5/ Do nothing.
As they don�t like the NBN so I do think it�s going to be do nothing with maybe a small black spot programme.
Mr.Wizzard
Dangerously pinko I know, but there you have it.
Only if they use the Multi Wave format. I believe, initially NBNCo are using only white light signals, so your honour has not been compromised :-P
I honestly don't know what the Coalition is offering.
Then don't be generous, assume the worst. If they run true to form, you wont be disappointed. If they have a brain fart and actually produce the goodies by keeping what we have currently being rolled out, we can all be pleasantly surprised.
Those who believe that the markets will provide all the answers are as deluded as those who believe that Govts will do the same. There are some things Govts do better than Private Enterprise and there are other things that PE do better than Govt. Nation building is the Govt's bailiwick; resource development and consumer items belong with PE and so on. A Nation's Communications are best left to the nation.
However, don't assume the outcome of Elections 2013 is a foregone conclusion. 1993 was Keating's to lose.
Mr Turnbull has mentioned the capital that is spent in the tens of billions means higher prices.
That's not strictly true, since pricing is a function of capex, opex, rate of return, etc. Higher capex but lower opex and rate of return can mean lower prices.
And, of course, that statement is vague.
Which prices? How much higher? Higher than what? When? etc.
Entry level pricing, or average pricing? If the pricing is the average pricing, and it is above the entry level, have the reasons for consumers choosing higher plans been considered? The comparison would otherwise be meaningless.
Are we talking 0.1% higher, or 200% higher? The significance of the statement would be much lower towards one end of that scale.
If higher means "higher than 2020 ADSL pricing with zero upgrades between now and then", then the comparison would be stupid because that would be a horrible outcome. It is well understood by members of the general public that it would be cheaper to never bother upgrading roads or rail lines or electricity infrastructure, but no developed country would seriously consider stopping all infrastructure upgrades to try and keep hypothetical future costs down.
If higher means "higher than what would happen under the Coalition", then that statement is invalid because nobody knows what would happen under the Coalition. Capex is undefined. Opex is undefined. Rate of return is undefined. Everything is undefined.
Theoretical policies may exist where pricing is lower, but such policies would have to make sacrifices in some area, if not every area other than pricing.
Going with the opposition's statements so far, they want the private sector to be involved, and they want to re-use existing infrastructure. That means commercial rates of return and maintaining the copper network. Both of those are inputs to the pricing function mentioned above. It is impossible to predict the outcome with any degree of accuracy, but to blindly believe that pricing will be lower purely because of lower capex is just wishful thinking.
Of course, it also contains the built in assumption that whatever the Coalition does will be "enough" for whatever time period is being considered. (Which is often conveniently shortened to roughly the useful life of FTTN...)
It may be normal for an opposition to not bother releasing policies until a week before the election, but that doesn't make it right. People who continuously point that out seem not to realise that they are highlighting a flaw in our democracy.
The Coalition doesn't want to release policies until the last possible moment, so they can maximise criticism of Julia while deflecting all criticism of themselves with "herp derp, we don't need policies yet!".
This is not the action of an organisation that genuinely wants better outcomes for the general public.
Labor isn't that much better, but our current opposition is the worst offender in this department in living memory.
I am prepared to pay $5000 for fibre from premise to Node if need be. Can it be done?
I am prepared to pay $5000 for fibre from premise to Node if need be. Can it be done?
Telstra at present charges $1,000 per metre for customers who want fibre, so a 1km of fibre will cost you $1,000,000.
Properly under the NBN they won�t charge that much, but will be in excess of $50,000.
Mr.Wizzard
but will be in excess of $50,000.
Ouch!
Im only 500mtrs from Exchange too.. and i guess by the time i pay for the Ftth i will also be paying a premium for a Broadband package as well. No doubt Telstra will be wanting their slice and will be way above the 7% rio..
grr..
I can see Greenfields developments popping up all over place..
From a consumer end user perspective, its impossible for fttn to be 'Cheaper or Faster"
May I ask where he said this? I'm not disputing it, but I'd like a reference if you have one.
First a correction. It was 24Mbps in 48 months not 24 months. I still don't know how this 'upgrade' happens.
It was said in his Press Club speech last year ...
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.
http://www.malcolmturnbull
Telstra reckoned (NBN mkI) they could do FTTN to 80-90% with $5bn of their own money and $4.7bn of the government's money. That was 25-50Mbps in about two thirds of that area and 12-20Mbps elsewhere. Dunno what it would cost to get that to 93%.
That just gives an indication of build cost.
Yes, and Citibank (or citylink or whatever they're called) said it is likely to cost $16 odd billion. And the coalition? How much are they saying it is to build?
The point is that to cover 93% of the population with FTTn it is going to be expensive. There isn't a doubt. Where the argument lies is in the definition of expensive. What dollar figure is expensive?
Either way it's going to be billions. And 10s of Billions once we factor in the population en masse.
And then the billions later down the track to upgrade to whatever we need in the future.
So I agree, the devil is in the detail. Detail we don't yet have. And detail that is still likely to illustrate that FTTn is 'cheaper' for the time being, but more expensive for the long term. But again, we cant know for sure. But all signs point to this being the case.
Now:
Ubiquity vs Uniformity or Consistancy
CMOT is right in saying that ubiquity doesn't necessarily mean consistant.
However it really depends on how the statement is formed:
'All Australians will have access to fast internet' � ubiquitious and consistant
'Some Australians will have 12mbps and some will have none' � Not ubiquitious and not consistant
'Some Australians will have 12mbps, some will have 40mbps and some will have 80mbps' � The 'coverage' of 'internet' is ubiquitious, but the 'bandwidth or speeds' aren't ubiquitious and the 'bandwidth' isn't consistant.
It's a total play on words and THIS IS WHAT POLITITIONS (AND CAR SALESMEN) DO so it's good to be aware of this.
So I agree with CMOT in what he is trying to do as I think by being overly analytical and specific you help to form very valid arguments against the opposing party and cover all bases.
In that, I'm assuming this what he is trying to do. Otherwise he's just being a douche who gets a thrill out of wasting peoples time by creating disunity where otherwise there would be none.
And in that case I would ususally just smile and agree, fart, and casually leave the room...
Those who believe that the markets will provide all the answers are as deluded as those who believe that Govts will do the same.
Hear hear!
There are some things Govts do better than Private Enterprise and there are other things that PE do better than Govt.
+1 trillion bazillion
A Nation's Communications are best left to the nation.
DenisPC9 For PM!!!
I can see Greenfields developments popping up all over place..
True but given the Coalition's policy with respect to doing it cheaper! �
This doesn't mean they will get FTTH more likely where Fibre isn't readily available you will see them provisioned with Privatised Wireless.
Its a lot cheaper!
First a correction. It was 24Mbps in 48 months not 24 months. I still don't know how this 'upgrade' happens.
Turnbull will pass new laws of physics in which the effective channel capacity is doubled, and all lines will run twice as fast!
Of course, the legislation could get blocked in the senate, or the universe could refuse to follow it...
I am prepared to pay $5000 for fibre from premise to Node if need be. Can it be done?
Theoretically, it would become cost effective if you got your whole street connected.
Telstra would need to implement a process for small scale copper->fibre, but they won't do that unless the demand is very high or they are forced to by legislation.
Turnbull might talk about FTTN->FTTH upgrades overseas, but discussing it at a theoretical level is a long way from legislating to make it happen.
+ $15 Billion for the copper.....
That's if someone other than Telstra builds FTTN and they buy the copper. If they lease the copper (as mentioned by Thodey) then it will be opex and shouldn't be added to the build cost.
And that is to 60%. NOT 80-90%. Read the submission.
This?
However, if the government is able to commit the full $4.7B as a loan at concessional interest rates, the full NBN footprint will be between 80% and 90% of the Australian population.
That's if someone other than Telstra builds FTTN a
Well there would no longer be an NBNco in that case, because Telstra will own it all.
Deja Vu..
Here we go again..sigh..
May I ask where he said this? I'm not disputing it, but I'd like a reference if you have one.
I've asked twice already no response!
I find it incredible he would say this, because, for example, in my area, that would be impossible. It would require replacement of the copper and/or nodes put in.
Quite True CMOT selectively ignores Mike Quigley's advice to Malcolm Turnbull that he simply can't transpose what New Zealand did with their FTTN network (now being decomissioned) as the two redundant copper networks are entirely different- In Australia you first have to reconfigure all of the copper here to allow it to run FTTN!.
And what's the point of doing that when FTTH is cheaper than copper!
Further in New Zealand (Malcolm's favourite FTTN model that he used to refer to before they saw the light and ditched it) � their FTTN network couldn't even average 10Mbps across the network.
The speeds Malcolm refers to with respect to FTTN are in high density Metropolitan suburbs where you have a Node out the front of every apartment block!
The problem Malcolm has is that the majority of Australians live in "suburbia" and the cost of provisioning that service to the majority of Australian's exceeds the cost of providing FTTH.
So Malcolm's mantra of doing it "Cheaper" is nothing more than simply lying to the Australian public!
His solution will on average � only marginally improve the existing ADSL2+ speeds in Metropolitan area's � that's his version of what he considers cheaper which of course then has to be dug up like they are doing in NZ and be replaced with FTTH not to mention the lost revenue to GDP by installing redundant technology that adds nothing to the national economy.
Or if he is going to provision faster FTTN eg 50Mbps then that is going to cost substantially more than FTTH in which case its more expensive so he's lying and further it still will have to be dug up and replaced with FTTH anyway � noting of course that 38 percent of Australians connecting to the NBN now are already electing to use the 100Mbps service.
So much for his misleading misinformed statement that No one in Australia needs anything more than 12mbps.
Shadow communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has claimed a 12 megabits per second (Mbps) connection to the home is enough for anybody, with no applications existing today that require additional bandwidth.
Obviously he forgot about the next day when making that statment and of course simply cannot project into the future!
and his statement here!
�People in the industry will tell you that they cannot get people to pay a significant premium for an increase in speed. That is partly because, that for a residential user, there isn�t much, if anything, you can do with 100 [Mbps] that you can�t do with 12 [Mbps
Well the 38 percent of people connecting to the NBN have simply made a mockery of Malcolm misleading misinformation haven't they@!
But, does anyone suspect that if it was said it would have wiggle room?
He'll need it. There's not a snowball's chance in hell the first bit can be achieved. What magic trick is going to make the speed go from 12Mbps to 24Mbps? Maybe he can do 12Mbps in 48 months.
�People in the industry will tell you that they cannot get people to pay a significant premium for an increase in speed. That is partly because, that for a residential user, there isn�t much, if anything, you can do with 100 [Mbps] that you can�t do with 12 [Mbps
HD skype anyone?
Nah, never use that.
"Seriously who would ever sext? Who would ever text?"
Ahemmmm....
Maybe he can do 12Mbps in 48 months.
Well thats easy enough to do, its already ADSL speeds..
In any case, its not just about downloads.. Uploads are very important as well..
This?
No link there CMOT.~!
That's if someone other than Telstra builds FTTN and they buy the copper. If they lease the copper (as mentioned by Thodey) then it will be opex and shouldn't be added to the build cost.
But this isn't Coalition Policy CMOT is it! its Telstra's dictating to Government!
And you fail to mention the fact that its the Australian Taxpayer that provides the capital write down costs on Telstra's infrastructure rollout!
That is simply misleading the debate entirely with respect to costs!
The fact is and I quote!
�Malcolm Turnbull has today revealed that he plans for NBN Co to buy Telstra�s copper loops from nodes to customer premises to deliver his broadband plan and structural separation
And the reason the Coalition are steering clear of this is yet again they have put their foot in their mouth and growing budget black hole � and the simple reason is that if the Commonwealth acquire an Asset then under the legislation they are required to pay reasonable compensation!
The ACCC have set the framework for that in which Telstra has in various regulatory proceedings valued the copper network asset at $20 billion and $33 billion dependant with the latter dependant on future earnings rulings as I understand it.
So down to tin tacks here.
Its going to cost the Australian Taxpayer approximately $20 billion to roll out redundant FTTN which at best will deliver maybe 10Mbps to 60 percent of Australia.
Coupled with an additional payment of 20 billion to buy the Copper network off Telstra!
So we are up to how much now $40 billion in expense at the minimum however it could be $53 billion and then some � (noting costs of gone up since the original build estimate so lets add another several percent and make it $60 billion given that we have probably at least 3 years of pissing about with the legislation and additional costs and legal arguments being launched left right and centre to deal with before it even gets off the ground.
So much for the Liberals lying about their network being cheaper and faster to roll out!
The fact is its going to cost the Australian Taxpayer considerably more than the current FTTH not to mention substantially more in telecommunication costs as the opex on FTTN is also � substantially more than FTTH just to start with and then there is � the at least 27 percent return that Telstra wants on their investment!
Its no surprise that New Zealand under their privatised model were are and will continue to pay some of the highest costs per MB downloaded off the internet in the world.
And we will also get to join them in that only at an average of 10Mbps for those on FTTN.
That's if someone other than Telstra builds FTTN and they buy the copper. If they lease the copper (as mentioned by Thodey) then it will be opex and shouldn't be added to the build cost.
Either which way its unnecessarily costly to the end user.
Maybe he can do 12Mbps in 48 months.
Really CMOT on what basis is this statement made!
Do you have a developed business plan aligned with a detailed project with milestones put in place that detail the rollout.
Do you have the legislative instruments that have passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate that enable the Coalitions pie in the sky proposal to proceed.
Has Malcolms plan to conduct a full and frank Cost Benefit analysis been completed and what are the time lines to achieve that.
Have Telstra signed the relevant Agreements with the Coalition as to the compensation that they will get for the copper network and structurally separating.
Have all the other Private Telco's agreed to this and have all their legal actions been resolved with respect to that
Has the Productivity Commission approved all the necessary legislation and provisioned it with respect to all the High court challenges projected.
Have the ACCC provided their oversight and agreement with respect to the above.
Mmmmm
Maybe he can do 12Mbps in 48 months.
Really I don't see how?
You obviously do perhaps you would like to share that!
That's if someone other than Telstra builds FTTN and they buy the copper. If they lease the copper (as mentioned by Thodey) then it will be opex and shouldn't be added to the build cost.
No....it'll just be a constant subsidy on budget instead. How is this better??
This?
I was actually referring to the Citigroup submission, but I made that unclear.
See what I find interesting is the original Telstra/government FTTN was going to be $4.7 billion (plus copper, but we won't go into that) to 98% at 12/1. And yet Citigroup's analysis gives 40% FTTN (not 60- I was getting my numbers mixed) plus subsidies and wireless at $16.7 billion.....that's an AWFULLY big gap. $5 billion to 98% or $17 billion to 40%.....somebody is lying. And seeing as Citigroup are PAID to analyse the situation for stock purposes....they're not likely to lie....
This is the problem. The Coalition have given no details. Does their '$6.7 billion' include 40% or 60% or 98% FTTN? Will it guarantee 12/1, or 24/1 or 50/1?? We don't know and I'm sorry but I literally give absolute ZERO thought or credit to these 'alternatives' until I see details.
Are you willing to defend a submission that is from 6 years ago and seems to contradict current analysis and costings?
It was said in his Press Club speech last year ...
See, I don't buy this for 1 minute. I get (sometimes) 8mbps. To solve this, you'd have to shorten my copper. And everyone else's in the same position. That is a MUCH bigger job, putting in nodes, than 12 months. Note he doesn't say its a guaranteed 12/1. So, because my exchange is ADSL2+ enabled, and therefore I COULD get 12/1 (or 24/1 for that matter) does that mean I get nothing??
This is the ridiculous nature of EVERYTHING Turnbull says without details. He says '12/1 within 12 month's (which rings very well in the ears by the way- soundbite anyone?) and yet gives NO details on how he'd achieve this.
And I'm sorry, but 4 YEARS for 24/1??? Almost half of Australia would have 100/40 by then??! That's just useless. I bet he's regretting saying that now.
Whirlpool Forum Rules
REPLYING TO
CMOTDibbler...
That's if someone other than Telstra builds FTTN and they buy the copper. If they lease the copper (as mentioned by Thodey) then it will be opex and shouldn't be added to the build cost.
Yes, but how much will it add to the users costs? Personally I care nothing for the cost to build, only on how much it will cost myself as a user. Saying it's opex and therefore cheaper is only true from a single point of view, the person providing the capital.
The end user has to pay for a return on both the capital and the operating costs.
Say its $15 billion to build and Telstra's leased assets are valued at $15 billion. The (LNP) gov says ... we saved 20 billion dollars...
Lets assume 7 million connections. As the liberal gov believe everything should receive a commercial rate of return... Lets pick 15% (yes, that's very low)
$2.25 billion ($15 Billion to build, at 15% a year)
$2.25 billion (Telstra wants 15% of the value (15 billion) of their leased infrastructure) per year
$1 Billion (operating costs)
$1.5 billion based on 10 years (to repay the 15 billion build before its expected to be replaced by FTTH)
Total cost $7 Billion a year
Cost per user $1000 a year or $83 a month
And that's before the delivery of any data, the cost to cancel the NBN and the addition of the GST.
Suddenly $100 for a basic connection is looking possible...
Welcome to New Zealand prices.
The NBNs lack of a "commercial rate of return" doesn't seem like such a handicap...
http://www.itnews.com.au/New
Can anyone make heads or tails of this article? Are they saying that in addition to payments for the ducts, dark fibre and USO obligations ($11bn) a Coalition government would need to pay $8bn for the copper network, making it ~$19bn?
Telstra stands to gain $8.2 billion in compensation for selling its copper network to a future coalition-led Federal Government, according to Deutsche Bank analysts
It cannot be instead of the current deal of $11bn NPV considering that it does not make logical sense to pay less for the use of the copper network in addition to ducts/dark fibre etc so basically the case that FTTN is cheaper is on shaky ground. Furthermore it is entirely in effecient in its design.
http://www.itnews.com.au/Ne
Can anyone make heads or tails of this article?
They got one part right:
The analysts suggested that even accounting for an expected cost-benefit analysis of the current NBN in the event of a coalition win, a FTTN rollout could begin by the 2015 financial year and be completed within four years.
A hypothetical FTTN rollout won't be finished before 2019, at which point the NBN is projected to have passed over 9 million premises.
A hypothetical FTTN rollout won't be finished before 2019.
At best, assuming no delays. So at best a completion time of two years difference?
So at best a completion time of two years difference?
Pretty much.
A few million premises get connected faster, but to an inferior service.
Can anyone make heads or tails of this article? Are they saying that in addition to payments for the ducts, dark fibre and USO obligations ($11bn) a Coalition government would need to pay $8bn for the copper network, making it ~$19bn?
Yes and no I think. It depends if they buy the copper outright or lease it. Leasing it would fulfil the goal of the Coalition of it being 'cheaper' on budget. But it'd cost WAY more in the long run.
They'd be stupid NOT to buy it....but then again with the myriad of analyses around, they'd be stupid not to do FTTH....and they're not....
Can anyone make heads or tails of this article? Are they saying that in addition to payments for the ducts, dark fibre and USO obligations ($11bn) a Coalition government would need to pay $8bn for the copper network, making it ~$19bn?
Ugh, I just read this:
'The project also had a 23 percent chance of continuing with delays of up to two years, according to the analysis, while the coalition plan had a 30 percent likelihood.
The notion of the NBN being suspended as-is was also marked higher than the project moving forward, at a 25 percent chance.'
This is really annoying me now. Why oh WHY would Labor CANCEL the NBN if they got re-elected???? It costs them ZERO dollars from the budget!!
I hate economic analyses like this. They tell less than half the story and that half biased. THESE sorts of analyses are what give the Coalition such crappy ideas.
Can anyone make heads or tails of this article?
It looks like they're expecting the CAN Co (NBNCo?) to buy the copper for $11.4bn. That would be instead of the decommissioning payments in the current NBNCo-Telstra deal. Somehow they get that to be a $8.2bn gain to Telstra. afaik the decommissioning payments are ~$4bn so that's close. There must be some other unexplained number in there.
Telstra gets an extra $8.2bn and the CAN Co gets instant revenue from ~9.5 million ULL services. Dunno if that's a win or a loss for either of them.
CMOT,
upon reflection I think you are right, a total payment of $11.4bn take the unneeded $4bn from decommissioning the which comes to $7.4 and obviously some other assumptions are made in regards to the balance. So with FTTN I think it is safe to assume Raoul was wrong with assuming that the outright purchase of the copper would amount to the same as the decommissioning payments.
So with FTTN I think it is safe to assume Raoul was wrong with assuming that the outright purchase of the copper would amount to the same as the decommissioning payments.
I don't know. As soon as the copper was sold Telstra would have to pay to use it. The money Telstra and everyone else paid to use the copper would go to the CAN Co (NBNCo). That would then have to be offset against the sale price for both CAN Co and Telstra. I don't have enough information to know how that works out in comparison to the current deal.
As soon as the copper was sold Telstra would have to pay to use it.
Then watch them roll out competitive FTTH .. alongside canco..
Then watch them roll out competitive FTTH .. alongside canco..
Exactly, it'll be Cable wars all over again with us the consumers losing just like last time!
http://www.itnews.com.au/New
So an $8billion (that is going to be ONBUDGET MONEY) to be given to Telstra as Compensation (where no compensation given to DSLAM Providers at all) so that Coalition version of the BB Plan can run a FTTN style network.
It's all becoming too expensive.
Then watch them roll out competitive FTTH .. alongside canco..
BINGO! We have a winner!
The Coalition and supports are kidding themselves if they think Telstra will just sit back after they've sold on the copper and NOT put in FTTH by cherrypicking.
And yet they STILL want FTTN....actually, that's probably because they don't understand ANY of this we just talked about. The supporters that is.....I think the Coalition know EXACTLY what they're doing...
I don't know. As soon as the copper was sold Telstra would have to pay to use it
I N F R U S T R U C T U R E C O M P E T I T I O N!
Haven't you been listening CMOT!
Telstra won't pay to use FTTN they will cherry pick areas and roll out their own FTTH network leaving Malcolm and the Liberal Party wallowing in their wake!
Just a complete nonsense of an idea and moreover your assumption that Australia's biggest Telco would be paying the Government to use "Redundant" Technology when they can provide a better faster service using FTTH.
Not to mention dropping the price of their existing redundant HFC Fibre with its already sunk costs to sink the boot in even further.
There would be no money in the Can Co NBNCo under the Liberal Government it would be the biggest white elephant in Australia's history!
I don't have enough information to know how that works out in comparison to the current deal.
Nor obviously the understanding of the strategic game that Telstra is playing whilst making completely unsubstantiated claims as to the outcomes under a Liberal Conservative Government!
Telstra won't pay to use FTTN they will cherry pick areas and roll out their own FTTH network leaving Malcolm and the Liberal Party wallowing in their wake!
And Telstra will have billions of dollars in the bank to get the ball rolling.....
Telstra won't pay to use FTTN they will cherry pick areas and roll out their own FTTH network
precisely..
And they will have a Taxpayer Warchest of at least $8-20billion or more to do it with..
As soon as the copper was sold Telstra would have to pay to use it.
Then watch them roll out competitive FTTH .. alongside canco..
The Coalition and supports are kidding themselves if they think Telstra will just sit back after they've sold on the copper and NOT put in FTTH by cherrypicking.
And Telstra will have billions of dollars in the bank to get the ball rolling.....
Oh my! what a pickle the Coalition will have put themselves in if they choose FTTN using Telstra's separated infrastructure...
BINGO! We have a winner!
The Coalition and supporters are kidding themselves if they think Telstra will just sit back after they've sold on the copper and NOT put in FTTH by cherrypicking.
I agree entirely and am quite bemused at the complete ignorance of some people with respect to the musings on the future impact of the Coalition's policy.
At best you could say that they are simply supporting the Coaltion's line in providing completely misleading information without an ounce of supporting evidence!
And yet they STILL want FTTN....actually, that's probably because they don't understand ANY of this we just talked about.
No its their intention not to discuss the specifics but rather make unsubstantiated misleading statements that provide pie in the sky alternatives without any qualification whatsoever.
I think the Coalition know EXACTLY what they're doing...
To quantify this the term Outright lying to the Australian Public' is an apt description given the overwhelming evidence of the numerous failed public statements from Wireless is a suitable alternative to No one needs more than 12Mbps.
Cheers
Telstra won't pay to use FTTN they will cherry pick areas and roll out their own FTTH network leaving Malcolm and the Liberal Party wallowing in their wake!
Just to add emphasis, cause everyone else sees this as the most likely outcome....
Maybe if we say this often enough it'll get through.....maybe not too....
And Telstra will have billions of dollars in the bank to get the ball rolling.....
Its pretty simple to see the end game from Telsta CEO should a Liberal Coalition Government be elected in fact he is quite up front in terms of its impact to his shareholders and the companies future profit base!@
But you won't see Malcolm Turnbull or Tony Abbott discussing those particular outcomes in public
You wouldn't to advertise the fact that their policies will see every Australian paying substantially more and then some especially those in Outer Metropolitan, Regional and Remote Australia than they will under Labor's current NBN program!
precisely..
And they will have a Taxpayer Warchest of at least $8-20billion or more to do it with..
You have to wonder why CMOTdibber continues to provide misleading unsubstantiated claims with respect to Coaltion Policy � and when asked for supporting links � he simply refuses to provide them or refers to redundant links.
With respect to their WarChest � The ACCC valued the copper network at $20 billion as a going concern and up to $33 billion if you were to account for future earnings so the "Warchest" essentially could be as large as what the Government is spending on the current NBN Co program.
Then you have to add additional price increases between the original estimate and at best a start date possibly in 3 years after they manage to deal with several other issues eg
A cost benefit analysis as proposed by Malcolm Turnbull
Legislative amendments
Negotiating an Agreement with Telstra that Telstra are happy with
High court challenges lodged by other interested parties who may be effected by the Liberals legislation
Another complete review of the legislative changes by the Productivity Commission
And of course further oversight by the ACCC
Etc
Ad nauseum
Oh I forgot the Greens will control the Senate so I guess we can throw in the time taken for a double dissolution as well
That essentially could take the spend to plus $60 billion for the Coaltion's alternative.
Compared to the existing program which is currently being rolled out eg
93 plus percent of Australia with FTTH a couple of percent with 4G LTE Wireless and the rest with 3rd Generation Ka-Band Satellite.
And what have the majority got to look forward to under the Coalition's noodle network
10Mbps average on their FTTN Network
Highly contented Privatised Wireless
Expensive and much reduced caps using the existing Satellite's
Oh and all those Cost Benefits identified in the Swedish Study on FTTH @ about $4 billion per year � down the proverbial gurgler.
Forgot to mention as soon as they rollout the FTTN network we will then have to reinvest in a FTTH network as FTTN will edit sorry is now redunant anyway!
Cheers
With respect to their WarChest -
Its actually possible for Telstra to use that money and start rolling out their own FTTH network, even before the FTTN build gets off the ground?
And whilst ever the laws of physics, specifically, electrical resistance, apply to this universe, distance will always be detrimental to telecommunication networks that rely on copper
And even if the physicists were to come up with a new process for making copper super-conductive tomorrow, they would still need build superconductive copper factories, to pull up the old copper and relay the new copper and replace all the nodes to handle the huge bitrates and currents.
Any suggestion they could change the properties of copper in the ground without pulling it up is just too magical.
With respect to their WarChest � The ACCC valued the copper network at $20 billion as a going concern and up to $33 billion if you were to account for future earnings so the "Warchest" essentially could be as large as what the Government is spending on the current NBN Co program.
Actually, I think it's been valued at around $8-11 Billion now by the ACCC- it's how they set wholesale prices. That $20 Billion was back when Telstra was suggesting FTTN in 2006.
I could be wrong though.
I know this is more fighting the FUD but it's in direct responce to The Coalition Position:
Does anyone have a media contact?
These questions/facts need to be brought in front of Turnbull so that the public can see it. It's that important. How can the coalition justify what they are promising?
Someone needs to ask it in front of a huge media room!
"Then watch them roll out competitive FTTH .. alongside canco.."
These questions/facts need to be brought in front of Turnbull so that the public can see it. It's that important. How can the coalition justify what they are promising?
They are. Nick Ross over at the ABC does it all the time. He just gets called a Labor Patsy because he approves of the NBN....
He just gets called a Labor Patsy because he approves of the NBN....
Anyone else....?
Someone needs to ask it in front of a huge media room!
Before we get too carried away with this you might want to read this first:
The NBN Access Act also introduces Parts 7 and 8 into the Telecommunications Act. These new Parts apply to fixed-line local access networks, or parts of such networks, that are built, upgraded, altered or extended after 1 January 2011 so that they are capable of providing a carriage service where the download transmission speed is normally more than 25 megabits per second to residential or small business owners. The effect of the new Parts is that such networks must be wholesale-only and operators of such networks must offer a layer 2 bitstream service on a non-discriminatory basis.
Unless the Coalition repeal these provision of the Act (and get the repeal through the Senate) then any FTTH overbuild of a FTTN network would have to be wholesale-only and offer a layer 2 bitstream service like the NBN.
The Act provides overbuild protection for the NBN by removing any competitive advantage that could be gained by overbuilding it and the Act would provide the same protection to any alternative FTTN build undertaken by a Coalition Government. As there would be no advantage to removing overbuild protection for a FTTN build I cannot see a reason why the Coalition would try to repeal these provision.
"The NBN Access Act also introduces Parts 7 and 8 into the Telecommunications Act. These new Parts apply to fixed-line local access networks, or parts of such networks, that are built, upgraded, altered or extended after 1 January 2011 so that they are capable of providing a carriage service where the download transmission speed is normally more than 25 megabits per second to residential or small business owners. The effect of the new Parts is that such networks must be wholesale-only and operators of such networks must offer a layer 2 bitstream service on a non-discriminatory basis."
I'm usure exactly how that prevents someone from building a 2nd network..
If Telstra provides a 'wholesale only' FTTh right down the street past any FTTn...
Is there somethingin there I'm misinterpreting?
then any FTTH overbuild of a FTTN network would have to be wholesale-only
Well i dont see how half this stuff will apply after intensive renegotiations with Telstra.. NBNco wont exist, but will become CanCo. Even if Telstra was required to Wholesale, i doubt if it would make any difference to their opportunity to overbuild. It wont be compatible with CanCo, so it could still be a lucrative opportunity for Telstra..Imagine if Competitors decided to dump CanCo and buy Wholesale Access from Telstra FTTH instead?
Even a 50% loss to Canco would be disastrous for them.
Will become Can'tCo
Well i dont see how half this stuff will apply after intensive renegotiations with Telstra..
Because it's legislated. A deal with Telstra doesn't change law. That's what he's saying.
However, I don't see this as good enough protection for an FTTN network overbuild. The FTTH has a specific clause that doesn't allow ANY competitor to over-build in the next 10 years....why would that be necessary if the legislation was airtight?....
The FTTH has a specific clause that doesn't allow ANY competitor to over-build in the next 10 years...
Telstra will just retail where NBNco has already laid Ftth, and wont overbuild in those areas when Canco takes over, but whats to stop them overbuilding FTTN only areas?
but whats to stop them overbuilding FTTN only areas?
Legislation requiring it to be open-access and wholesale. But again, the clause is in the agreement with Telstra. WHY, when it's already in legislation, would they bother....unless they see the legislation as not enough protection, as I believe they do.
Hence, the legislation is not likely to completely stop any threat of a FTTH overbuild by Telstra with FTTN. Only mitigate it. Telstra have shown to be VERY shrewd- I'm sure they can figure out a way around it....
Media Alert Media Alert...
Media Alert Media Alert...
It's been mentioned in the media several times. That won't stop the Coalition or their supporters. It's ideology driving them....not ideas.
It's ideology driving them....not ideas.
Yes but it the electorate can see it and realise what it'll mean, the coalition have no choice but to respond...
Actually, I think it's been valued at around $8-11 Billion now by the ACCC- it's how they set wholesale prices. That $20 Billion was back when Telstra was suggesting FTTN in 2006.
In response!
Abbott should ask Mr Turnbull how much he proposes to pay Telstra for its copper.
�Valuing assets is always tricky. In this case it comes down to either what price Telstra is prepared to accept or what price a court would consider �just terms� for the acquisition of property,� Senator Conroy said.
The ACCC considered the question of valuing the copper network in its report to the Expert Panel in January 2009. The full report, rather than the redacted report, was accidently tabled. That report noted there are two ways to value an asset, saying �cost-based approaches relate the value of the asset to the cost of purchasing or building the asset, whilst value-based approaches determine the value of an asset from its future net income earning capacity."3
The report went on to note that Telstra had in various regulatory proceedings valued the copper network asset at $20 billion and $33 billion.
http://www.minister.dbcde.go
Obviously in 2009 they were suggesting a price of $33 billion for the network which when you consider CMOT's completely misleading unsubstantiated statement provided here eg
Citigroup estimated Turnbull's 'plan' would cost $16.7bn. That's less than half the cost of the NBN. That saves a bit more than $2 or $3 billion. whrl.pl/Rdfvbx
Where he hasn't included the costs to reach that point entirely! aka up to an additonal $33 billion on top of that!
Not to mention inflationary costs beween 2009 and obviously 2015 which is the earliest that the redundant FTTN rollout could occur!
Cheers
Obviously in 2009 they were suggesting a price of $33 billion for the network which when you consider CMOT's completely misleading unsubstantiated statement provided here eg
Hmmm, interesting. I was sure I saw an article that listed the ACCC valuing the CAN at, as I said, between $8 and $11 Billion.
Time for a reference hunt!
33bn down to 8bn is some serious asset value degradation.
is the valuation now significantly less because the government is building ftth?
if the government switched to building fttn instead shouldnt the valuation go up?
if the government switched to building fttn instead shouldnt the valuation go up?
Nope.
Valuations are based on cashflows.
You could spend $20 Billion on an asset but if cashflow does not meet expectations then market valuations of that asset would substantially drop.
The NBN could spend $40 Billion on FTTH but if cash receipts is below expectations a future buyer will not pay $40 Billion for the asset.
is the valuation now significantly less because the government is building ftth?
Yes
if the government switched to building fttn instead shouldnt the valuation go up?
Yes and then a whole heap more on top because your effectively also extending the life of the coppernetwork as well!@
Go straight to the $33 billion mark as previously mentioned (just as a starting point)
CHeers
Nope.
Your own unsupported misleading opinion entirely here RaoulRules!
Valuations are based on cashflows.
True and the ACCC ruled in 2009 that if you included future earnings into the mix then the value of the Copper network would be $33 billion! See previous link provided.
Of course if NBN Co built their FTTH network in competition with Telstra's redundant copper network then obviously its asset value would drop substantially, they knew that entirely! Hence Telstra's agreement with NBN Co for the use of their pits, ducts and dark Fibre Network.
They get nothing for their redundant copper which will be decommissioned as Fibre is rolled out.
The Copper Networks future earnings capacity is ZERO zilch nothing in fact the Government have to pay them to keep it running in the 7 percent section at this point in time as it is a simply unsustainable service at a commercial level.
FTTN is not consistent broadband because of the copper. It can be ubiquitous.
It can only be considered ubiquitous in the roughly 50% of premises that will have it. 7% will have fixed wireless or sat. 30% will be in the HFC footprint,and then there will be some FTTH. They all provide ubquitous coverage in their areas only. Hardly ubiquity when compared to 93% FTTH.
It can only be considered ubiquitous in the roughly 50% of premises that will have it.
50%!!!??!!?!?!?
*laughs uproariously and then slips over*
You're kidding yourself if you think the Coalition will rollout FTTN to 50%. Not even Citigroup think that (they reckon 40%) and that's for $17 Billion.
But yes, it WON'T be ubiquitous.
33bn down to 8bn is some serious asset value degradation.
I don't think the Copper in situ is in exactly pristine condition ;-)
I'm sure the 7% will be thrilled to hear it.
The 7% need to keep in mind that 12mbps is only a starting point. After my discussions with reps on the NBN Discovery truck, its clear that NBN has a road map for increasing the speed for fixed wireless to 24mbps in the next 12 months, and higher in the following years. When their satellite comes online, the 3% will enjoy better services too.
This is not just 'word games'. HA! Semantics be damned hey? LOL :)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét