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 :)
50%!!!??!!?!?!?
You will find I said roughly 50%, and that was because I have had a few bourbons and couldnt be stuffed doing the math to be more precise. ;) You will find its probably not too far off � but on the high side.
I just found this little gem:
"104. Whilst a fibre to the node network will not provide the same service quality as fibre to the premise, there have been strong indications from parties of willingness to invest large amounts of capital. For example, Telstra originally proposed to Government a $5.7 billion fibre to the node network deployment (made up of $3.1 billion from Telstra and $2.6 billion from Government) to deploy a network capable of 6 Mbps. Telstra indicated that an additional contribution from Government of $2.1 billion would allow services of around 12 Mbps for 98% of the population.
27.Assuming Telstra would not make any further contribution, the total incremental capital cost would have been $7.8 billion. "
So THAT's where Turnbull get's his $6.7 Billion FTTN from. Obviously the government would have to pay MORE now as compared to then in respect to what Telstra pays, because of the FTTH.
Yeah.....so, how many people reckon 12Mbps for 98% of the population is likely???
Wow, have a read of that ACCC report. There's some GREAT numbers for FUD busting in there:
"Adjusting our new entrant fibre asset valuation
above, we reduce the copper network valuation to between $22.9 billion and $17.9
billion"
This was in 2009, when FTTH was getting going. They calculated a FTTH would add $10-$15 Billion to the value (so $27-$38 Billion total) of the whole country's network. So a full FTTH network would be worth say $32 Billion, while the copper would be worth $20 Billion.....yeah, I can see it's MUCH better to keep the copper network....
You will find I said roughly 50%, and that was because I have had a few bourbons and couldnt be stuffed doing the math to be more precise. ;) You will find its probably not too far off � but on the high side.
True. When you add in the extra backhaul already run for the FTTH beforehand, it'll probably increase the amount of FTTN overall. Not that that is a good thing. It just need to be all FTTH.
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.
Turnbull needs to come out and say how close to premises nodes will be. 1500mtr? 1000mtr? 500mtr? The numbers of nodes involved for each shortening of the copper increases dramatically. If he is planning on guaranteeing speeds of 24-48mbps then he will at least have to look at nodes within 500mtrs.
And I'm sorry, but 4 YEARS for 24/1??? Almost half of Australia would have 100/40 by then??! Which is why FTTN cant be considered ubiquitous.
Turnbull needs to come out and say how close to premises nodes will be. 1500mtr? 1000mtr? 500mtr?
He won't. Cause he doesn't know. They haven't done any studies or planning. They're going off what Telstra is telling them behind their hands, while publicly Telstra are lauding the NBN, or sitting on the fence.
VDSL1 can give 50Mbps from 800m, otherwise....screwed...
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.
WOuld nearly have to be a loss for Can Co (looks like the name is changing yet again), because they would also then acquire the maintenance costs of an aging copper network with a customer base that is going to be reduced by FTTH and HFC, leaving the longest copper runs and poorest maintained areas to be serviced with less revenue.
He won't. Cause he doesn't know. They haven't done any studies or planning. They're going off what Telstra is telling them behind their hands, while publicly Telstra are lauding the NBN, or sitting on the fence.
This is where journalists let us down badly. Its simple questions like that that Turnbull should be pressed on,and all too often they are more interested in how he lost weight than comms policy.
VDSL1 can give 50Mbps from 800m, otherwise....screwed... Yep. And given that the average speed requirement in a few years (2015 I think) was forecast to be 39mbps, Turnbulls "solution" will be running at the upper end of capacity as soon as it is built.
Yep. And given that the average speed requirement in a few years (2015 I think) was forecast to be 39mbps, Turnbulls "solution" will be running at the upper end of capacity as soon as it is built.
Yes and when he's asked about that future capacity....he changes the subject to "Have you seen how much work I can get done on my iPad!?"
I REALLY wish Turnbull wasn't a Liberal at the moment...
I REALLY wish Turnbull wasn't a Liberal at the moment...
Given Abbott and Hockeys regular foot in mouth episodes, I suspect Turnbull wishes he wasnt a Liberal a lot of the time either ;)
It wouldnt be the first time.
http://www.dailytelegra
It wouldnt be the first time.
http://www.dailyteleg
Interesting.
I'd say from what I've seen he's a VERY left wing Liberal.....
Nope.
Valuations are based on cashflows.
That is wrong.
If you had said:
Yep.
Valuations are based on cashflows.
Then you would have been correct.
Valuations are based on cashflows.
how do you explain such a massive drop from copper when im fairly sure telstra havent reported any such massive drop in their cashflows?
Continues in Part 7
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét